Wikipedia:Featured article candidates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia:FAC)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Page too long and unwieldy? Try adding nominations viewer to your scripts page.
This star, with one point broken, indicates that an article is a candidate on this page.

Here, we determine which articles are to be featured articles (FAs). FAs exemplify Wikipedia's very best work and satisfy the FA criteria. All editors are welcome to review nominations; please see the review FAQ.

Before nominating an article, nominators may wish to receive feedback by listing it at Peer review. 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, Laser brain and Sarastro1—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  • a nomination is unprepared, after at least one reviewer has suggested it be withdrawn.

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.

Please do not use graphics or templates on FAC nomination pages, including graphics such as {{done}}, {{not done}} and {{xt}}: they slow down the page load time and lead to errors in the FAC archives.

An editor is allowed to be the sole nominator of only one article at a time; but two nominations may be 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.

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 ContentsThis page: Purge cache, Checklinks, Check redirects, Dablinks

Featured content:

Today's featured article (TFA):

Featured article tools:


Nomination procedure

Toolbox
  1. Before nominating an article, ensure that it meets all of the FA criteria and that peer reviews are closed and archived. The featured article toolbox (at right) can help you check some of the criteria.
  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.

Supporting and opposing

  • To respond to a nomination, click the "Edit" link to the right of the article nomination (not the "Edit this page" link for the whole FAC page). All editors are welcome to review nominations; see the review FAQ for an overview of the review process.
  • To support a nomination, write *'''Support''', followed by your reason(s), which should be based on a full reading of the text. If you have been a significant contributor to the article before its nomination, please indicate this. A reviewer who specializes in certain areas of the FA criteria should indicate whether the support is applicable to all of the criteria.
  • To oppose a nomination, write *'''Object''' or *'''Oppose''', followed by your reason(s). Each objection must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed. If nothing can be done in principle to address the objection, a coordinator may disregard it. References on style and grammar do not always agree; if a contributor cites support for a certain style in a standard reference work or other authoritative source, reviewers should consider accepting it. Reviewers who object are strongly encouraged to return after a few days to check whether their objection has been addressed. To withdraw the objection, strike it out (with <s> ... </s>) rather than removing it. Alternatively, reviewers may transfer lengthy, resolved commentary to the FAC archive talk page, leaving a link in a note on the FAC archive.
  • To provide constructive input on a nomination without specifically supporting or objecting, write *'''Comment''' followed by your advice.
  • For ease of editing, a reviewer who enters lengthy commentary may create a neutral fourth-level subsection, named either ==== Review by EditorX ==== or ==== Comments by EditorX ==== (do not use third-level or higher section headers). Please do not create subsections for short statements of support or opposition—for these a simple *'''Support''',*'''Oppose''', or *'''Comment''' followed by your statement of opinion, is sufficient. Please do not use a semicolon to bold a subheading; this creates accessibility problems.
  • 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.

Contents

Nominations[edit]

1982 Formula One World Championship[edit]

Nominator(s): Zwerg Nase (talk) 13:34, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

This article is about the 36th running of the Formula One World Championship during the 1982 season. Commonly known as one of the best, but also most tragic, season of F1, it saw highly competitive racing in very dangerous cars. Two drivers were killed during the year, another sustained career-ending injuries. On the competitive side of things, eleven different drivers won races, none more than two. The article passed through GA review a little while ago. Since then, I have added alt-texts to the images (please check if they are OK, this is not my strong suit!). Other than that, feel free to suggest any chances to bring this to FA level. I could imagine that some attention must be given to the Background section. A layman's view would be welcome here, since I am not sure how understandable the text is right now to people not familiar with F1. Zwerg Nase (talk) 13:34, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Tony1[edit]

1a: Lead ...

  • "The season commenced on ..."—We have "start", "begin", and "commence". The last is rather formal, but English is at its most elegant when plain.
  • Why is it a contradiction or a suprise that a powerful car is dangerous? "In powerful, yet dangerous cars, two drivers lost their lives". And what about making the point of departure (the grammatical theme) thus: "Two drivers lost their lives in powerful, dangerous cars." I hope they were unusually powerful and dangerous ... danger seems to arise from the driving situation, not the car itself.
  • "Later on in the season, championship favourite Didier Pironi suffered a career-ending accident during qualifying for the German Grand Prix." Why "on"? Can we get around ing ing? "while qualifying"?
  • "led to regulation changes aimed at increasing driver security for the following season."—that's what you'd write if there'd been some doubt about their efficacy. More neutral would "changes to increase".
  • This is a winding snake: "Rosberg won only one race during the season, at the Swiss Grand Prix – the first World Champion to do so since Mike Hawthorn in 1958 – but consistency gave him the title, sealed at the last race of the season ahead of Pironi and John Watson."
  • "two times" ... why not simplify?

Table: why is the text in one column bolded?

The next two sentences:

  • "Brabham had entered a deal for engine supply with German car manufacturer BMW for the use of their L4 turbo engines." Replace four words with two, to simplify the grammar.
  • "The team announced in January that they would only be using the new BMW engine,[3] however, after experiencing reliability problems with the BMW engine, they reverted to using the Cosworth DFV engine several times during the season." -> "... engine; but after ...". Isn't it simpler?

The prose is not good enough for an FA.

Hate the effect of hundreds of flags. Thank god they're small (could they be even a little smaller?). But when it comes to the purply yuck filling the table cells, I need shades and a vomit bucket. I wonder whether some of those colours could be less saturated (esp. the purple). I understand the efficiency of conveying an extra dimension of meanings by colour—don't get me wrong. But it turns out so gaudy. Tony (talk) 13:00, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Killdeer[edit]

Nominator(s): RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 21:01, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

This article is about a (primarily) North American shorebird. It is found both inland and on the coast. I became interested in it after I saw a few at school last spring. Recently, I tried to bring it to FA status, but failed. I have improved the article and gotten a GA review, so I hope it is better now. RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 21:01, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

From FunkMonk[edit]

  • Seems many issues were fixed by the GA review, so definitely the way to go before FAC. I'll review this soon. FunkMonk (talk) 21:19, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
  • I wonder if this is a clearer, or at least more dramatic, photo of the injury faking:[1]
It definitely displays the "broken-wing" better; added. RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 00:53, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
  • I think it's always good to show how a bird looks in flight (can aid birders, for example), how about one of these?[2][3] Perhaps under habitat?
Added the first one, as it more clearly shows the underparts and underside of the wing. RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 23:54, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
Ah, looking again, maybe th Cuban image should be moved under distribution then? Since the point of it is to show a local population. Now it is kind of crammed under the taxobox. FunkMonk (talk) 00:29, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
  • You made a point of adding location to image captions at the GAN, why not in the taxobox caption?
Added. RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 23:54, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "This binomial has not been changed" I don't think this needs to be its own sentence, it could be better tacked onto the former sentence as ", a name which has not changed since" or some such.
Used a semi-colon to connect the two sentences. RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 23:54, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "an account of it" Give year.
Done. RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 23:54, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Introduce people mentioned.
Done. RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 23:54, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "in the fourth-century Vulgate" Add "bible".
done. RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 23:54, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "The specific vociferus" Spell out specific name.
Done. RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 23:54, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "C. v. peruvianus (Chapman, 1920)" If the parenthesis is because it was originally described as a separate species, this should be mentioned.
It seems that it described by Chapman under the genus name Oxyechus, at least according to AviBase. RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 23:54, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
In that case it needs a mention. FunkMonk (talk) 00:29, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Added as a footnote. RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 00:53, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "The killdeer's name" Common name.
Done. RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 23:54, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Seems some of those external links are redundant. If the article contains all the same info, we don't need extra links.
Removed 3 external links. RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 00:53, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
  • No word on most closely related species and evolution?
Nope; I can't find anything on it. RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 12:41, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
A quick Google search gave me these[4][5], sure there is more. FunkMonk (talk) 12:46, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
Oh, I didn't see that first one. Thanks; added. RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 23:54, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
  • The description is a bit of a wall of text. Perhaps split it at "The female's mask"?
Sounds good. RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 00:53, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "and very locally south to Panama" What does this mean?
It's basically what HBW said; I assume, though, that it means while it does breed to Panama, it only does so on an irregular basis. RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 00:53, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "and those with cattle"? Why?
Added in parentheses. RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 00:53, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "Behaviour" This section is usually called behaviour and ecology in bird FAs, with predators as a subsection.

Tony1[edit]

1a: I reviewed this not long ago, right? Hmmm ... the lead is still faulty.

  • "there are two black breast bands on the breast"—do we really need "breast" twice? And there's a third two seconds later, awkwardly making est est.
Done. RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 21:28, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
  • This is not a good sentence: "It is seen year-round in the southern half of its breeding range, and the subspecies C. v. ternominatus is likely resident to the West Indies and C. v. peruvianus inhabits Peru and areas of the surrounding countries throughout the year." and and and trips us up. Have you thought of creating two sort-of sentences using a semicolon? I can't digest it. And "likely" (meaning "probably"), an Americanism I've never been happy with in formal prose. Why? Because it creates a grammatical fork ("is likely to?") that has to be disambiguating shortly after.
Done. I don't really understand your reasoning for not liking "likely", but I've changed it anyways. RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 21:28, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Can you ditch the "However-comma" and replace with simple "But ..."?
I've done that for its first occurrence in the lead, but not for the second, as "but" occurs shortly after. RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 21:28, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Any chance of avoiding our need to hit the link to "nominate"? ... by (glossing) it?
Done. RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 00:53, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

So, looking through, it's much better than it was. Probably good enough for FA this time, in prose. Possible to use range dashes for numerals? "2 to 6 °C (36 to 43 °F)" -> "2–6 °C (36–43 °F)" ... simpler to read. Tony (talk) 06:09, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

I personally prefer using "to" for consistency. RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 00:53, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
I agree that one of the "breast" is redundant in the forth sentence. --Boothsift (talk) 05:33, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Ludwigsburg Palace[edit]

Nominator(s): ♠Vami_IV†♠ 23:08, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Welcome (back) to the "Versailles of Swabia," one of the largest palace complexes in Germany. After a detailed GAN, I nominated Ludwigsburg Palace for FAC at the start of August. The nomination ended in failure, so I let a month of time elapse before re-nominating and incorporating editor commentary on the previous FAC. Here's to progress! –♠Vami_IV†♠ 23:08, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Tony1[edit]

1a, opening two sentences:

  • "Ludwigsburg Palace (German: Residenzschloss Ludwigsburg), also known as the "Versailles of Swabia", is a 452-room palace complex of 18 buildings located in Ludwigsburg, Germany. Together W[w]ith the added gardens around the palace, its Ludwigsburg Palace's total area is amounts to 32 ha (3,400,000 sq ft), making it—the largest palatial estate in the country Germany." ... Does it get better? And why not a conversion to acres to save us the millions and millions. Does "German" (language) really need to be linked? "Germany" certainly doesn't need to be—unless the reader is Trump or a five-year-old kid. The country-link will be in the Ludwigsberg article, anyway. Later, I see the garden alone is "3,400,000 sq ft": how can that be?

Tony (talk) 10:32, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

  • I couldn't find a source claiming it was the biggest palace in Germany - just one of. Even though, but total area, it definitely is (eat it, Würzburg!). I've added all your suggestions, also. –Vami
  • "In 2016, the Ludwigsburg Palace attracted some 330,000 visitors." Now it's "the"; but that's missing from the very opening. Which is it to be in a grammaticalised sentence (as opposed to the article title)? And why not "the Palace"?
    • Oh man, good catch! Fixed now. –Vami
  • Vami, I was indicating that you need to do far, far more than just fix what I pointed out in the opening two sentences. Have you printed out the text and struck through all the woolly wording throughout? Tony (talk) 02:13, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Jmar67 (JM)[edit]

  • I was asked by Gerda and Vami to do another copy edit (first one several weeks ago). I have finished an initial pass and welcome feedback. Jmar67 (talk) 22:05, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
  • See also article talk page. --JM
  • @Vami IV: Should be "Alter Hauptbau" and "Neuer Hauptbau". --JM

Comments from Gerda[edit]

Thank you for the invitation to an impressive article about an impressive building! I'll read the lead, but will comment on it last, and do little steps, commenting as I read.

  • I don't need such a long hatnote. The other palace, fine, but both the socalled "city" (town?) and the porcelain will be linked in the article, - let's get to the topic ;)
  • I formatted the infobox a bit. I don't see any advantage in having it collapsed, just more white space. The "alt" text shouldn't be a repetition of the caption, but explain to a blind person what you see on the image. Please, generally, avoid fixed image sizes, - upright factors (from 0.7 to 1.3) respect users' preferences.

TOC

  • The table of contents looks clear, but I wonder if "Hauptbau" is a good a idea, once we started with "palace", and readers may be unfamiliar with the term. Perhaps better use "main building" and introduce the German in the text?
    • Changed Old and New Hauptbau headers back to North and South wings and introduced translated text in parentheses. –Vami
  • Do we really need 5 headers for the references. (I normally have only 3: (foot)notes, references, and cited sources.)

History

  • What do you think of having the plan in the architecture section, where (hopefully) the German terms get explained?
    • Done. –Vami
  • How about the name of the builder in German, which would make the explanation of Ludwigsburg much easier? I strongly believe that his name should be at least mentioned in his article ;)
    • First paragraph: "Eberhard Louis renamed the estate after himself (German: Ludwigsburg, lit. 'Louis's Castle') in 1705" –Vami
      • That's what I mean. His name was "Eberhard Ludwig", or the place would be Louisburg or what. Really too bad that so many noble people travel in the English Wikipedia only by translated names. Common name is fine, but real name should also show, if you ask me. (Not your fault, but we could start adding a real name in an article like this.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:27, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
        • Done. I've added a clipped image of the duke's portrait with his German name. –Vami
  • Can we link to the palaces of Munich, instead of the present-day city? (like you do for Versailles)
    • Done. Moved link to the same sentence I linked Versailles in and replaced the first mention with "Nymphenburg Palace." –Vami
  • How about linking "architectural trends ..." to Baroque architecture?
    • Done. –Vami
  • "city"? - Project Germany defines a city as something with at least 100,000 inhabitants. I'd prefer "town". See Town privileges
But later granted city status. --JM
I'd call it town status, or say that it receive town privileges. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:09, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
Fixed --JM
  • Perhaps it's just too late, but I don't get the meaning of the run-on sentence beginning "E L decided ...". Split in two, or three? And what does overture mean here?
Not a run-on sentence, just somewhat lengthy and awkward. I have changed. "Overture" = proposal, offer. --JM
  • No need to say "Duke E L" once he's introduced. Just name, or "the duke".
    • Fixed. –Vami
  • In an article about something German, I don't think you have to say "German:" everytime something is translated, - it should be default.
    • Done. –Vami

Need sleep. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:36, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Construction

  • I am no friend of squeezed text between images left and right, in general. In particular, the Courtyard image looks finished, not like construction ;) (actually: nor do the others) - Any other location for that? Better English names in the caption.
Unsandwiched a lot of the article. Did I go too far? –Vami
Done. –Vami
  • I am no friend of mixing English and German, as Old Hauptbau. At least Old Hauptbau. And a translation of the German part?
"Hauptbau" would produce "Main building," thus "Old Main building," which is thoroughly unsexy. –Vami
Don't get me wrong, I don't want you to use the thoroughly unsexy name throughout the article, but once explain please what Hauptbau means. Or: use Alter Hauptbau, after explaining once what that means. Or: say old Hauptbau. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:53, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Changed my mind: keep the courtyard image, but in the caption use the terms from the text. Move the 19th century thing below.
  • explain "absorbing"?
Changed to "incorporating" --JM
please don't use the fixed template in FACs, - some of the FA people are allergic to templates ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:55, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
Appears to be WP:OR from poor translating from Swiss German (Bieri), corrected. –Vami
  • Donato Giuseppe Frisoni - he was introduced before, but I didn't make the connection that Donato Frisoni was the same person. How about same name, or just last name, which would tell people that they should know him?
Fixed; abbreviated to "Frisoni". –Vami
Thank you for the fixes. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:53, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

More later. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:09, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

History of the Nashville Sounds[edit]

Nominator(s): NatureBoyMD (talk) 19:57, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

This article is about the Nashville Sounds Minor League Baseball team that has played in Nashville, Tennessee, since 1978. It is currently listed as a Good Article, and I believe it meets the criteria to become a Featured Article. I have put a lot of work into this article and am prepared to quickly address any issues. NatureBoyMD (talk) 19:57, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

  • A quick look shows that the prose is good. I was expecting to trash it. Tony (talk) 05:07, 15 October 2018 (UTC) PS I'd insert a comma after "logo" in the upppermost caption. Tony (talk) 05:08, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support – I reviewed this article and copy-edited it during the first FAC, and I'm glad to see that the prose has received some praise. Having checked the additions to the article since the first FAC, everything added appears to be at the same level as the content present when I last saw the article; I only made one minor change in the new material. Overall, I think that all aspects of this article are now up to FA standards. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:12, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

John/Eleanor Rykener[edit]

Nominator(s): ——SerialNumber54129 09:15, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Of John "also known as Eleanor" Rykener almost nothing is known; yet, in some ways, they are a relevant, if not modern, figure. Arrested by the City Watch for doing some curious business (in their eyes) with another man in a London backstreet on a Sunday evening in Winter 1394, Rykener's case is an important source for modern-day historians and sociologists studying late the medieval English understanding of, and approach to, sex and gender. I think they would be a worthy—if somewhat niche!—addition to the FA stable, and to that end I am very grateful for the support it has already received. Big shouts, particularly, must go out to the one like Usernameunique, for an extremely thorough GA review, and also to those stalwarts at Peer Review: picking up Brianboulton, Ceoil, J Milburn, Tim riley, et SchroCat. Looking forward also to hearing from others: all input and suggestions welcome. Cheers! ——SerialNumber54129 09:15, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Forgot to mention this article's previous doomed candidacy, having been advised that it was ready to go, it subsequently turned out that about as ready as Æthelred. Still, that was then, this is now, and I think my closing remark then is still relevant also:

The irony that medieval London appears more sympathetic to transvestite sex-workers than Britain throughout most of the twentieth century will not, I imagine, be lost on anyone. ——SerialNumber54129 09:25, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Support from Usernameunique[edit]

Support: I had my say at GA, and this article has only gotten better since then. It's well researched, well written, and comprehensive. The article was already in good shape when nominated the first time. It's failure, I think, was due primarily to minor errors (e.g., typos, and commas that should have been periods) that jumped out at a reader, but that were cosmetic rather than substantive. These are happily corrected this time around, meaning there is nothing to detract from the core of the article, which remains extremely strong. Can't wait to see this with a gold star and at TFA. --Usernameunique (talk) 18:51, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment, Usernameunique and also for your excellent GA review! ——SerialNumber54129 17:58, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Cursory look from JC[edit]

  • I was surprised that the article title has not been the topic of any significant discussion in the past. It seems to me that "John Rykener" is the WP:COMMONNAME by all measures, including incoming searches, usage in scholarly sources, and Google hits, which produce about twice as many results for "John Rykener" as "Eleanor Rykener." The naming criteria, specially as they relate to conciseness, dictate that a title should be no longer or more convoluted than is absolutely necessary to clearly distinguish the subject, so do you think we really need both names in the title? I'll note that the slash is quite indistinct to my eyes on the Monobook skin, and nearly disappears unless I focus with somewhat unreasonable effort.
Just to say, I have no actual preference: this seemed a valid compromise. I believe it was discussed (at some point!) on the talk page.
  • Though historians have tentatively linked Rykener to a prisoner - "tentatively" connotes that confirmation is forthcoming, which seems unlikely given how long it's been since this all transpired. Do you anticipate that historians will have a more conclusive answer in the future?
Well; I wouldn't really bet against it—it's only been around 20 years, so plenty of time for more stuff to be (re-)found (as this was!). But happy to discuss, as it's not fundamental to either the sentence or the point, I know.
  • Rykener told his interrogators that he was introduced to sexual contact with men by Elizabeth Brouderer - this uses a lot of words to say relatively little. There must be a way to state Brouderer's role more clearly and concisely. Was she really the first to break the news to Rykener that sex with a man was possible? Did she arrange his first such encounters?
I'll look at tweaking the wording. As to your specific questions, the first of course can't be known, but, yes, according to his later statement, she did—in her house.
  • "Slept with" seems at odds with the MoS's attitude toward euphemisms, but it isn't an issue I've had to contend with, so I'm not sure whether it's customary in biographies.
That's an absolutely fair point: I'm not particularly keen on it myself, but of course one both wants to avoid repetition and unnecessary mentions of anal sex. Or even sex in general; after all (one of the scholars points out later), we don't know what the encounters meant to Rykener, so I suppose we needn't limit ourselves to considering it solely sexual behaviour. Thoughts? Basically, if I could've thought of a better wording, I would have used it!
  • where he both prostituted himself and worked as an embroideress - no need for "both."
  • Three consecutive sentences use the same construction "...<city>, where he..." – it becomes jarring.
    • How about "Rykener spent some time in summer 1394 in Oxford, continuing to prostitute himself and working as an embroideress; he also stayed in Beaconsfield for a while. He later told how he had had a sexual relationship with a woman there. Rykener returned to London via Burford, where he worked as a barmaid

"—completely rejigged the structure.

  • He was also in Beaconsfield for a while, where he said he had a sexual relationship with a woman. - dangling modifier. Also, was it in Beaconsfield where he had the relationship or where he said he had it?
Ah!—see above
  • However, no charges were ever brought against him. - this is somewhat more definitive than the "no evidence" statement in the opening paragraph. Which is more precise?
Ah, point. The latter is too strong. I've adjusted it to "However, it appears that no charges were ever brought against him; or at least, no records have been found suggesting so", which is more accurate.
  • because of what it tells us about medieval preconceptions of sex and gender issues. - avoid breaking the fourth wall.
I always think of Billy Ray Valentine! How about, "Historians of social, sexual and gender history...tells them"?
  • Numerous positions have been taken on Rykener. - Double entendre aside, you could probably eliminate that segue and simply delve into the contrasting views. At the very least, it's an example (one of several I've noticed) of uncomfortable passive voice.
Ah, the Iri-tps! :) It's an accidental DE, to be sure; but I've got rid of it. Although, how about adding something to the previous sentence, so it reads along the lines of "...preconceptions of sex and gender issues, and have identified various themes in the case"?
  • In its portrayal of medieval sexuality, one historian, J. A. Schultz - surely "his" instead of "its"? You could also tighten this slightly by simply saying "historian J. A. Shultz", and then removing "Another," from the following sentence.
Ah, right: "its" was referring to the case itself, rather than to the man himself? But have tightened Schulz and lost the another.
  • viewed the affair as of - this is one of the rare cases where I'd advocate for adding a word ("as being of").
Done
  • sees it as illustrating the difficulties the law has in addressing things it cannot describe. - this is really nebulous and somewhat tangential, especially for the lead. "Addressing," "things," "describe" are all imprecise, almost meaningless word choices.
I'm certainly happy to reword if you can suggest a means to strengthen it; the problem is, I think, that the entire case is vague, and almost nothing is known. Even that which is believed to be known is mostly extrapolated!

My impression from the lead is that the prose flows poorly and suffers from ambiguity. That said, I've always found the lead to be the most difficult section to write, so it may not be representative of the article's substantial and apparently well-researched body. I'll take a closer look as time allows. – Juliancolton | Talk 23:12, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Just so. Thanks very much for your review, Juliancolton, it's certainly provided food for thought, and I expect I'll be able to address most of the points you raise (on top of those already dealt with here). Hope all's well—cheers! ——SerialNumber54129 17:06, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Support. Fascinating article on a fascinating subject. I made a few edits to tidy up a little, mostly around formatting. The important ones of these are:

  • You may want to see if you can find a replacement link for "Corpus Christi plays", which was linked to Corpus Christi (play), a 1998 work that depicts Jesus and the Apostles as gay men living in modern-day Texas;
  • I've taken out the curly quotes around the boxed quotes: these should only ever be used for pull-quotes, and you'll face nothing but grief from the MoS people for having them as such. You may face some future opposition from them anyway for having five such boxed quotes in there (trust me, I've been there and still bear the scars), so you should look at each of the five boxed quotes and see whether it needs to be outside the run of text, or whether it can be smoothly incorporated as a quote or blockquote instead. If you think it's better as a box, keep it as such, but make sure you have good reasons for doing so;
  • I've also de-italicised the source names on the boxed quotes. We don't tend to italicise names, except under certain conditions, and using any pre-formatted template should mean that you should be able to use it without additional formatting.

That's it - very minor formatting aside, this is another very interesting piece. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 19:57, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your tweaks, SchroCat, and for your notes at PR! ——SerialNumber54129 17:58, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Comment by Carabinieri[edit]

I've only skimmed the article, but I have one question. The article consistently uses male pronouns to refer to Rykener. However, it also uses female versions of gender-specific nouns such as barmaid or embroideress. Isn't that a little confusing or is there something I'm missing?--Carabinieri (talk) 03:30, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

  • What I mean is that those should probably be changed to embroiderer and bartender. Don't you think?--Carabinieri (talk) 00:50, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Ah, apologies, Carabinieri, I thought you were making a passing comment. It's a good point, though, and it did cross my mind while writing it; the reason I stuck with it was primarily that the sources gender the work themselves. Now, this is only my interpretation, of course, but I suspect they do so in order to emphasise that—in their assessment—Rykener was not just "doing X job dressed as a woman", but "living as a woman while doing a woman's work"; the footnote, I think, points out that both jobs were predominantly women's' jobs (if that's the way to put it). Do you see what I mean? ——SerialNumber54129 08:48, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Tony1[edit]

Lead: 1a

  • "all that is known about his life comes from his interrogation by the Mayor and aldermen of London"—consider "all that is known of his life", but either way is OK. "Mayor" would be more comfortable as "mayor", especially in the vicinity of "aldermen". Smirk: those men are among the first you'd suspect of buying sex from Rykener ... they'd certainly have the cash. The irony.
Indeed! And verging on tragic that no RS makes the connection. I've pre-emptively gone through the article changing Mayor to mayor, except in cases where it's prefixed by Lord; and as for Mayoral; tsk.
  • The scan is horribly small and indecipherable. Did you experiment with a larger size?
Point. So I have, for examples, doubled it in size, and also just by 50%. I think the first is rather massive; the 50% increase is better, no?
  • "thus" could be ditched—the causality is obvious.
Lost.
  • "He had sex with various men in Brouderer's house and is also known to have slept with women, priests and nuns." What does "various" do here? There's no various for the women et al. "Men" already means two or more.
True; gone.
  • "some time in summer"—unfortunate jingle.
Changed to "Rykener spent part of summer 1394"?
  • "continuing to prostitute himself"—hmmm ... in that grammatical form it's become very pejorative (and broadly scoped, far beyond the original meaning).
I agree, Tony; it's a reflection of my trying to avoid euphemisms while avoiding repetition. How bout "...working both as a prostitute and as an embroideress"?
  • "However, it appears that"—Much simpler and more engaging is "But it appears that". Forget what you were told in front of a blackboard.
Ah, WP:MISSSNODGRASS, of course! Cheers, changed.
  • "Nothing definite is known of Rykener after his interrogation, although he has been tentatively identified as a John Rykener imprisoned by and escaping from the Bishop of London in 1399."—Isn't this contradictory? 1395 ... 1399 ... after?
Ah—this is trying to say that, since we cannot be sure that the later JR is the same as the 1394 JR, we, therefore, cannot be definitive as to the latter's later life. Does that make sense?
It's unclear. You could remove "although" and replace by a semicolon. Tony (talk) 08:18, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
Makes sense; done.
  • "because of what it reveals about medieval preconceptions of sex and gender issues"—"issues" is a very recent expression and concept. Do we need it? How does "preconceptions" differ from "conceptions" here? Why not "medieval attitudes/views"?
OK—going with views.
  • "J. A. Schultz has viewed the affair as being of greater significance to historians than other, more famous medieval love stories"—oh, was this a love story? Why "other"?
That makes a lot of sense, and as such, I've removed both other and love, which tightens the sentence a bit too.
  • "Modern interest in John/Eleanor Rykener has not been confined to academia. Rykener has appeared as a character in at least one best-selling work of popular historical fiction, and his story has been adapted for the stage."—I'm wondering whether ditching the first sentence will lose anything useful. Up to you.
Well: I don't particularly mind, but its (intended, if not achieved!) purpose was to act as a bridge between the heavy, academic works and a more popular use in puppetry and detective stories. Without it, I thought it would sound as though we were suggesting they were all comparable.

Needs work. I hope this rises to FA standard. Tony (talk) 13:59, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

@Tony1: as of course do, and as long as your assistance doesn't waste your own time, I 'm sure it will...this edit addressed your points above; the question as to how well—is up to you! Either way, I really appreciate you looking in and putting some meat on the bone. Cheers, ——SerialNumber54129 16:24, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Image review

  • How come in both maps the red dot is labelled on the map itself as well as the caption, when none of the others are? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:37, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
Heh—well spotted, NM, I've removed them. They look much simpler now, I have to say. ——SerialNumber54129 12:51, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Halo Wars 2[edit]

Nominator(s): The1337gamer (talk) 14:00, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

This article is about Halo Wars 2, a military science faction RTS video game, part of the Halo franchise. I created the article and rewrote it entirely following the game's release last year to get it to GA-status. Recently David Fuchs suggested that it was in a good place to improve for FAC. After working on it some more, I would like to nominate it for FA-status. --The1337gamer (talk) 14:00, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Tony1[edit]

1a: not bad, but needs work. Comma usage, redundant wording, etc.

  • "On the Ark, the UNSC crew encounters a mercenary alien faction known as the Banished and a war ensues." Comma after "the Banished" would help the reader to apprehend the sequence of events.
  • Opposite issue, in a way: "In Halo Wars 2, players construct a base of operations, accumulate resources to deploy infantry and vehicle units, and then command their armies from a bird's-eye view of the battlefield." The sequencing is obvious; can we do without "then"?
  • The listing technique here suggests there are three equal components. But I think you intend the first to be primary, from which the next two are causal spinoffs: "This led them to set the game 28 years after the events of the original Halo Wars to fit it in with the current timeline of series' main story arc, and to set the game on a familiar location featured previously in the series." To to to is the problem. So ... "... Wars, fitting it in with ... , and setting the game ..."? "synchroniz/sing" might be better for the first one.
  • Unnecessary Latinism, and awkard ellipsis of "was": "and was showcased at a number of video gaming conventions prior to before release"
  • There are 61 occurrences of "that". Can you get rid of, say, a third? Like this one: "Two open betas ran during the final year of the game's production so that the development team could make". Use the finder box.
  • "Reviewers found the game to be very approachable to beginners but felt that it was in need of more strategic depth to gain popularity amongst experienced RTS players."—dump three words and dump one word, and add a comma. AmongST?
  • "Several nuisances present in the game's keyboard and mouse controls left some critics disappointed."—dump one word. "However, enhancements made to the gamepad control scheme from the first Halo Wars were praised." -> "... disappointed; but ...". Then dump yet another word.
  • "The game was supported with additional content and updates such as support for cross-platform play and a campaign expansion, Awakening the Nightmare." So is the "such as" additional content or updates? Comma needed after the appropriate item.

That's just the lead. The rest needs going through by you and your collaborators. Tony (talk) 07:54, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

@Tony1: Thanks for the feedback. I think I've addressed these issues. I've done copyedit on the whole article. Tried to remove a lot of the the repetitive language and unnecessary wording. Hopefully it reads better now. --The1337gamer (talk) 17:05, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Albert Pierrepoint[edit]

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

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

Comments Support from Moise[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Support Comments from Graham Beards[edit]

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

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

Comments from SN54129[edit]

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

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

Tony1[edit]

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

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

Image and source reviews[edit]

Image review

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

Source review - spotchecks not done

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

Ceoil[edit]

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

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

Support from Tim riley[edit]

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

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

Coord note[edit]

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

Hi Ian, No problems - there is no rush on this. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:13, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Packers sweep[edit]

Nominator(s): « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:19, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

The Green Bay Packers of the 1960s were one of the most dominant teams in the history of professional football. Under coach Vince Lombardi the Packers won five NFL Championships in seven years–including the first two Super Bowls. Thirteen Packers who played for Lombardi were later elected to the Pro Football Hall of Fame, with Lombardi entering shortly after his death in 1970. Much of this success can be traced to the philosophy of Vince Lombardi: teamwork, hard work, and the pursuit of excellence. Nothing better exemplifies these traits than the Packers sweep: a power running play that Lombardi's Packers perfected.

As this is my first WP:FAC, I was cautious to make sure this article was properly reviewed before the nomination. The article was first reviewed during its DYK nomination and time on the Main Page. It was then reviewed by The Guild of Copyeditors before its subsequent GA review. Finally, it was reviewed by a WP:FAC mentor to make sure nothing else had been missed. Thank you to Sportsfan77777, Casliber, Twofingered Typist, The Rambling Man, and others for their assistance.

Thank you for taking the time to review the article at WP:FAC. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:19, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Clikity[edit]

  • "The basic tenets of the Packers sweep are derived from the power sweep, a play developed before its use by the Packers" Tenet means a belief or principle. I also think it needs to be reworded." How about "The Packers sweep is based on the sweep, a football play that involves a back taking a handoff and running parallel to the line of scrimmage before turning upfield behind lead blockers."
  • Thanks Clikity, I made the suggested change here. Note I changed the "Packers sweep" that starts the next sentence to "The play" to avoid repeating "the Packers sweep" three times in a row. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 13:35, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Support Tony seems to have fixed the little issues with the prose. The citations and sources look good, so I think you're good to go when the image review ends. A good read. Clikity (talk) 19:00, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Vince_lombardi_bart_starr.jpg: looks like the source link is dead - when and where was this image first published? Same with File:Jim_Taylor_1967.JPG
  • File:Packers_sweep_diagram.svg: can you say more about the source for this image and what makes it reliable? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:25, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
  • I have uploaded a new version of File:Vince_lombardi_bart_starr.jpg using this version as the source. Note I archived it here and included that link on the Commons description page so that this issue does not happen again. Let me know if this satisfies your concerns.
  • I replaced File:Jim_Taylor_1967.JPG with File:Taylor 1961 Topps.jpg. Let me know if this is satisfactory to you.
  • File:Packers_sweep_diagram.svg was created by me using Method Draw. Although I based the graphic on an image I found online, I have change the source on the description page to one that is more reliable and is included in the article that still is consistent with the diagram I created. I also believe that the article and numerous sources support the reliability of the diagram. Let me know if this satisfies your concerns. Thanks for the review Nikkimaria. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 05:00, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Fine with the latter two - for the first, would still like to know publication date, don't see that at given source. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:41, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Nikkimaria, I will continue to search for said publication date, but as of now I have been unable to locate it. It appears to be from the same series of photos from other Packers (see File:Bart starr bw.jpg, for example). Not an expert on photos by any means, so any advice would be appreciated. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 13:51, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Looks like it has been published elsewhere (eg) - these may have more details. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:28, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Nikkimaria, the book you linked was published in 2017 and uses that picture as the e-book cover. My guess is that the author pulled that photo from the web, and most likely does not own a copyright on the photo. Have you found it anywhere else? All of my searching has come up empty. My best guess is that is was taken by Vernon Biever or a similar Packers photographer, but that is just a guess. Lombardi coached the Packers from 1959 to 1967, and he passed away in 1970. So we can reliably conclude that the range listed on the description page is correct. If we are unable to get the exact date or year, will the range suffice? « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 21:37, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
  • The issue is not when the image was created, but when it was published, as that's what is typically used to determine copyright in the US. If you haven't yet, you could try a reverse image search? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:42, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
  • I did try a reverse image search, among other things. Still no luck. Let me know how best to proceed. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 03:28, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
  • In that case you may need to remove the image. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:49, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Tony1[edit]

1a Support: well-written indeed.

  • "He played football at Fordham University, on a football scholarship,[5] and was part of the "Seven Blocks of Granite", a nickname for the team's offensive line." Bumpy commas. Do we need the one after "University"?
  • "where he continued to develop a better understanding of the sweep, especially pulling offensive linemen and having the ball carriers cut-back towards openings in the line". Just a suggestion: "especially the techniques of"?
  • I'd dump the comma after "seasons", but wouldn't complain if you wanted to retain it. But the one after "West Point"? "Blaik's emphasis on players executing their job and the military discipline of West Point, greatly influenced Lombardi's future coaching style." Looks like an error that crept in when the -ing grammar was changed.
  • Rather long sentence: "He positioned his lineman with greater space between each other,[9] had offensive tackles pull from the line and implemented an early variant of zone blocking (blockers are expected to block a "zone" instead of an individual defender), which required the ball carrier to run the football wherever there was space.[8]" Again, only a suggestion: "... defender); this required".
  • "Under his offensive leadership, assisted by his defensive counterpart Tom Landry, Lombardi helped guide the Giants to an NFL Championship in 1956." Consider this: "Under his offensive leadership and assisted by his defensive counterpart Tom Landry, Lombardi helped guide the Giants to an NFL Championship in 1956."
  • "Even though the Packers had not been successful for years, Lombardi inherited a team with five future Pro Football Hall of Famers." Query: this only unfolded later, right? It was not easy to predict at the time. If so, you might imply that in the wording: "inherited a team in which five players would go on to be", or something like that.
  • Here, you use a serial comma, which I very much like: "He immediately instituted a rigorous training routine, implemented a strict code of conduct, and demanded the team continually strive for perfection in everything they did." Why not in the sentence I quote in the fourth point, above?
  • I'd hyphenate just here to avoid the meaning of "primary ball". Non-experts will wonder. "primary ball-carrier"
  • Why the hyphen? "The center had to cut-off the defensive tackle".
  • Slipped in. A "cut-off block" is usually hyphenated, but in this use it definitely shouldn't be. Fixed. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 03:15, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
  • You do need a comma here: "This was due to the right guard (when the play was run to the right side of the field) who would vacate this space while pulling to lead the ball carrier."
  • "whether to push the play to the outside or to the inside of the tight end"
  • Removed. I also reordered because "inside or outside" sounds better than "outside or inside". « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 03:15, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Perfect use of marked theme (unusual initial positioning): "For nine seasons Lombardi ran the Packers sweep with great success." Unmarked would have "for nine seasons" at the end. Nice.
  • Same issue as two up: "Lombardi would either attack other weaknesses, or would run variations of the sweep" -> "Lombardi would either attack other weaknesses or run variations of the sweep"
  • Why the first comma, when the rest is a nest of seething commas? "At times, he would change the play to go to the left side, have various blockers not pull, switch the ball carrier or direction of the run, or have option pass plays, each of which could be run out the sweep formation." You don't use interrupting dashes—why not??? "plays—each of which" would be an improvement. The formulaic comma after short initial time/adverbial/prepositional phrase ... please question each use: "Throughout his tenure Lombardi ...". And you do need a comma before "who" (several of these I've commented on).
  • Removed the first comma. Not good comma usage. Added a dash per your recommendation (I have to admit, I am a dash noob). I checked all the remaining instances of "who" and I believe they all are fixed. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 03:15, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Bumpy and awkward: "Starr, who as the quarterback orchestrated the play, and Taylor, were essential to variations of the sweep that called for different runners or option pass plays." -> "Both Starr (who as the quarterback orchestrated the play) and Taylor were essential to variations of the sweep that called for different runners or option pass plays."
  • Just for comparison, the first comma here is good. Why? "In addition to the Hall of Famers, Lombardi's teams included"
  • In response Lombardi would ...
  • Serial comma missing in one place, not in the other: "The team won three straight championships in 1965, 1966 and 1967—only the second team to accomplish this feat (the other being the 1929, 1930, and 1931 Packers)." See the dash I've used instead of your comma? It marks an afterthought here.
  • Never love the noun-plus-ing: "This dominance and continued success has led to the Packers sweep being called one of the most famous football plays in history." -> "This dominance and continued success has led to the Packers sweep's reputation as one of the most famous football plays in history."?

Good. Minor adjustments to writing style, and please write more articles! Love the technical depth. And memo to FAC more generally: my comments concern the whole article text, not just the lead and a bit more. Tony (talk) 02:37, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind words and review Tony1! I believe I have addressed all of your comments above (diff). Sorry, for, all, of, my, comma-related, issues. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 03:15, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
I hope to write my first writing tutorial page since the year dot, entitled Comma workshop. It's the biggest issue I'm finding at FAC more broadly—more than in the academic text I edit. I don't know why. Best. Tony (talk) 06:44, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support on prose and (tentatively) comprehensiveness (I am no expert on American football so will leave that to the experts. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:01, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Comments – While the article is on the short side for an FAC candidate, it does appear to comprehensively cover the subject. I didn't review the sourcing in detail, but it appears high-quality at a glance. I just have a handful of comments, with only a couple that I would call significant.

  • I don't see much support for the final sentence of the lead in the body of the article. There's nothing that I can see about Lombardi, or coaches/commentators, identifying this as an element of success. The content in the relevant section is actually more direct than the lead in making this point. Since the sentence isn't supported at the moment, either relevant content should be added to that section backing the sentence or it should be rewritten to better reflect the body.
  • The sweep: I was under the impression that we usually used one word for "half back", not two. That's how our article presents it, at least.
  • Lombardi era: Minor point, but the links for guard and center could be moved up to the previous section, since the terms both appear there.
  • The second link to Pro Football Hall of Fame in this section is a duplicate and therefore not necessary.
  • Legacy: "Lombardi and his sweep led the Packers to five NFL championships (including Super Bowls I and II)." This is somewhat misleading because the first several Super Bowls were held after the NFL Championship Game (indeed, the Baltimore Colts and Minnesota Vikings won the next two NFL championships, but each lost in the Super Bowl). A rewording here and the lead is in order, because it sounds like the Super Bowls were the NFL championship games back then when that isn't the case.Giants2008 (Talk) 00:35, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Reworded using "as well as". Thanks for the review Giants2008. I believe I have responded to and addressed all of your comments. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 02:35, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support – That does it for my comments. A nice little article which deserves the star, assuming the source review turns up no problems. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:09, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Coord notes[edit]

This is a very impressive FAC debut so far, testament to the value of good preparation...

  • As it is your first, Gonzo, we'll want a spotcheck of sources for accurate use and avoidance of plagiarism and close paraphrasing -- you can request at the top of WT:FAC, unless any of the reviewers above would like to have a go.
  • Also we'll need a regular source review for reliability and formatting, unless Clikity did it based on their comment at the top?

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:03, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Phillip Davey[edit]

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:18, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

This article is the third on a South Australian Victoria Cross recipient I've brought to FAC, part of an ongoing slow-burn project to get them all to FA. Davey was first awarded the Military Medal for bravery after rescuing a wounded man, and a few months later he killed an eight-man German machine-gun crew, saving his platoon from annihilation, for which he was awarded the VC. This article went through GAN in 2017, and was expanded considerably prior to and during its Milhist A-Class review in March this year. While relatively brief, it contains all that I have been able to find on him in reliable sources, and I believe it is comprehensive. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:18, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Tony1[edit]

You've missed the 100-year anniversary. The prose is ... ok. But needs a proper copy-edit. I've looked through a third to half of this rather short article (which uses "involved" three times ... one could be "participated in"?):

  • "Davey enlisted in the Australian Imperial Force in December 1914, and joined his unit, the 10th Battalion, before it landed at Anzac Cove, Gallipoli, on 25 April 1915." It's very bumpy with five commas. Why not ", and joined the 10th Battalion on 25 April 1915, before it landed at Anzac Cove, Gallipoli."?
  • Because he didn't join the battalion on 25 April, that was the date of the landing. I'm open to re-working the prose. Perhaps ending the sentence at December 1914 and starting a new sentence?
  • "Because"? I don't see that reasoning. My suggestion changes nothing in that respect, so there must have already been a problem with your rendering. Tony (talk) 05:35, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
  • I've added detail about what date he joined his battalion and where, hopefully that clears it up. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:04, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "and re-joined to his battalion"—what happened there?
  • "In January 1918 he was awarded the Military Medal for bravery in the field, which involved rescuing a wounded man under fire."—wouldn't it be simpler to write: "In January 1918 he was awarded the Military Medal for bravery in rescuing a wounded man under fire."?
  • Done.
  • "Phillip Davey was born on 10 October 1896 at Unley, South Australia, to William George Davey and his wife Elizabeth née O'Neill, one of at least five sons of the couple. His father was a carpenter. He attended the Flinders Street Model School and the Goodwood Public School. After his schooling ended, Davey was involved in well boring and opal mining in Central Australia, and at the outbreak of war he was a horse-driver." "he" is his father? Looks like it.

    Phillip Davey was born on 10 October 1896 at Unley, South Australia, to William George Davey, a carpenter, and his wife Elizabeth née O'Neill; he one of at least five sons of the couple. He attended the Flinders Street Model School and the Goodwood Public School. After his schooling ended, Davey was involved in well boring and opal mining in Central Australia, and at the outbreak of war he was a horse driver."

  • Done.
  • "On 22 December 1914, aged 18 years, Davey enlisted as a private in the Australian Imperial Force (AIF), and was posted to the 2nd reinforcements to the 10th Battalion."—Do you need the comma after (AIF)? It's not a long sentence and there are no other ands. Check you do need to ... to. I guess you do. Also check "embarked in" (rather than "from"). I don't know the standard wording.
  • removed "years" and the comma. I think the to ... to is needed. Changed to "embarked at".
  • Unless "the 10th Battalion's 2nd reinforcement" is possible in standard wording for this topic. Tony (talk) 05:35, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "... was the first brigade ashore about 4:30 am.[5] Davey was involved in the heavy fighting at the landing and subsequent trench warfare defending the beachhead until, after several bouts of illness, he was evacuated to Egypt with enteric fever in early November." "at" 4:30am. Tendency to write over-long and complex sentences. Why not: "and subsequent trench warfare defending the beachhead; after several bouts of illness, he was evacuated to Egypt with enteric fever in early November." Tony (talk) 12:54, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Split sentence. Thanks for your comments so far Tony1, it is always good to have someone run a critical eye over my prose. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:18, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

OK, the rest of it needs running over. Can you find someone? Tony (talk) 05:35, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Sometimes Dank takes a look at the prose of articles at FAC, but I generally find GOCE c/e's at FAC to be less than useful, and sometimes counter-productive. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:04, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
I'm working on a new project, PM, that's why I haven't had time for FAC lately ... I don't see that changing in the near future. - Dank (push to talk) 13:17, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
@Peacemaker67: I'll take a look. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clikity (talkcontribs) 07:25, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
The review has been canceled due to time restraints, Peacemaker67. Sorry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clikity (talkcontribs) 00:49, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

───────────────────────── I reviewed and supported at MilHist ACR and was planning to recuse and review here, just wanted to give others a chance to comment first. Will see how I go this week. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:35, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Image review[edit]

  • File:Phillip_Davey_VC_MM.jpg: given the info provided by AWM, why do we believe this is AustraliaGov? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:27, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
  • The specific description page for the image identifies that it is in the public domain, but doesn't identify why - I'm not certain we can assume it's AustraliaGov (rather than PD for another reason). Nikkimaria (talk) 12:43, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
  • OK Nikkimaria, if I use PD-Australia I need a date of publication for PD-1996, which I don't have. Do I need to move it to Wikipedia and use it under a NFUR? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:49, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Is any more specific information about its provenance available? Do the contextual details support a tag of AustraliaGov or UKGov? Would AWM have any more info about the image? We know it's PD, let's see if we can figure out why before jumping to fair use. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:33, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Getting that information from AWM could take a while and they may not have much to add, but I have emailed them anyway. From what I know, after VC investitures at Buckingham Palace, photos were often taken back in the garden at AIF Headquarters, London, following the ceremony. In this case, it was eight days after the ceremony, which may explain why he is only wearing the ribbon of the VC (and MM), not the actual medal. I assume that was taken by an AIF photographer. Will report back once I receive an answer, but if it looks like being promoted, I may have to go to fair use. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:12, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Support Comments by JennyOz[edit]

Hi Peacemaker67, only a few minor comments

  • fatigue duties - wlink?
  • was employed by the South Australian Railways - is 'the' correct?
  • Bullecourt - wlink?
  • to the Battle of Menin Road - pipe?
  • but returned to his unit of his own accord - does that mean he proactively requested to go back, or was he presented with the choice to stay/go?
  • I'm assuming that he didn't think much of training recruits and wanted to get back to fighting, but the sources don't say. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:24, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
  • during a "peaceful penetration" - pipe?
  • Les Carlyon - authorlink
  • All online refs are working
  • NAA ref - Bot just created red error

Thanks PM, JennyOz (talk) 05:03, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

G'day JennyOz. All done, except I'm not sure what you mean regarding the two "pipe" comments? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:24, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Hi PM, I meant pipes to avoid the redirects (I'm not always 100% sure when/when not to.) Also, the last edit accidentally pasted brackets into British War Medal. Thanks for telling this fellow's story which I am happy to support. Regards, JennyOz (talk) 06:55, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I think we're allowed to have redirects, just not dab pages. Fixed the brackets. Thanks for the review, Jenny! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:12, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Die Zeit, die Tag und Jahre macht, BWV 134a[edit]

Nominator(s): Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:09, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

This article is about a secular cantata by J. S. Bach, about time, past and present. We looked at several church cantatas before, - this is different. It has in common with some church cantatas that it will soon be 300 years old, on 1 January 2019, to be precise. A main contributor to the article was Thoughtfortheday. It had a recent GA review by Ritchie. - The cantata was writen for a specific day, but then reused for Easter purpuses. The derived cantata gets more attention, performances and recordings, but this one is at times taken for festivities such as the 80th birthday of Bach scholar Alfred Dürr who enlightened us about the timing of Bach's cantatas. A choir in which I sing used the "light" finale for its 25th anniversary. I just hope to make this article as good as possible for the anniversary, with you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:09, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

A question we discussed during the GA review was the introduction sentence. In the version made GA it follows the MoS. My concern is that readers are fed long German, + long translation, + two BWV numbers (because a change was made in 2018), before Bach is even mentioned, and that all this is a cantata. I'd prefer to say it bit more freely, to help those readers who won't look at an infobox:

Johann Sebastian Bach composed the secular cantata Die Zeit, die Tag und Jahre macht (Time, which day and year doth make), BWV 134.1, BWV 134a, in Köthen. He wrote the Serenata for the court of Leopold, Prince of Anhalt-Köthen, as a congratulatory cantata for the New Year's Day 1719, the day of its first performance.

Thoughts welcome. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:16, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Tony1[edit]

Disclosure: I know the nominator.

Tony, thank you for taking a look, and offering your language skills, which is needed by some non-native speaker like me. I am aware that I often construct as I would in German, but less aware where that happens. Thank you also for your interest in Bach's music that we share!

1a:

  • "New Year's Day of 1719"—you could drop the "of".
my pleasure, done --GA
  • "representing past and future"—do you mean "..., respectively."?
yes, I do, but is it unclear without that clumsy word? Would a comma after past work? --GA
  • Who's being congratulated?
Leopold. How would that be said best? --GA
  • "Bach sets the words in eight movements consisting of alternating recitatives and arias, mostly for two solo voices, an alto as Divine Providence and a tenor as Time." It's not segmented well. "Bach sets the words in eight movements consisting of alternating recitatives and arias, mostly for two solo voices: an alto as Divine Providence and a tenor as Time."
Should that better be split, perhaps?
  • "Bach used the cantata as the basis for a church cantata for the Third Day of Easter in Leipzig in 1724, Ein Herz, das seinen Jesum lebend weiß, BWV 134. In its early version, he only omitted two movements and replaced the text by words for the occasion."—"early" is a bit confusing. Not 1719 early, I presume. We don't know yet that there was an early and later version of BWV 134. "initial"? And ... why "only"? Whatever your reasons, it's unclear to readers. Tony (talk) 07:13, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
taking "initial" for a start. Should we mention (not in the lead but in the body) that Bach may have had extra little time for the three days of Easter because he had premiered the St John Passion? "Only" - this is the minimum adaptation imaginable: don't change a bit of the music, just put a new text underneath. Do you have a way to say that better? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:35, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
adding to "only": Bach didn't even add a closing chorale, about the least one might have expected, - but I guess it's a bit too far away from the topic of New Year ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:03, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Bachsaal_Schloss_Koethen.jpg: what is the copyright status of the interior?
  • File:Leopold_von_Anhalt-Köthen.jpg needs a US PD tag. Same with File:Christian_Friedrich_Hunold.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:33, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Support from Vami_IV[edit]

Disclosure: I am the Coordinator of WikiProject Germany, and am personally on good terms with the nominator. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 00:22, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Resolved comments
  • Bach sets the words in eight movements consisting of alternating recitatives and arias, [...] Shouldn't this be in past-tense?
    Fixed Jmar67 (talk) 00:44, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Is there no date for when Bach wrote this piece? Thumbing through my library turned up no results, except that Bach once wrote a birthday cantata for a neighboring Saxon court in 1722.
    Bach usually composed shortly before performance. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:51, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
    ... but we don't know when exactly. --GA
  • I recommend rewriting paragraphs 1 and 2 of "History and words" into a single paragraph. They deal with the same context.
    The picture, which is appropriate at this point, interrupts the text. I do not know how to make the text flow around it. Possibly move it to follow heading or the second paragraph. Any other ideas? I have put pic after heading for now. Jmar67 (talk) 08:27, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
    I moved the image back because I dislike images directly below the heading. The paragraph about Köthen will probably grow. --GA
    It looked good on the page after the heading. Have to investigate why it is deprecated. --JM
    Once upon a time, the MoS said to avoid a left image below a heading, because the eyes of the reader expect text, and hhave to search on the right. I am old-fashioned and still try to adhere to it, although it was dropped some years ago. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:35, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
    The "Movements" section leads off with an image. --JM
It's right image. Sorry I didn't mention it. I try to avoid left images, period. Only, this person has to be left, to look in. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:35, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
  • There are two instances of Citation 6 in paragraph 2 of the same section, with no citation between (edit scar?). Consolidate. —Vami
Thank you for thorough reading. Will respond (probably much) later today. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:51, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
done --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:22, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
  • While he had served as concert master in Weimar before, he became Kapellmeister in Köthen, directing a qualified musical ensemble.[5] The prince was enthusiastic about music and was a good bass singer and player of violin, viola da gamba and harpsichord.[5] "While he" refers to Bach, but reads currently like it refers to the Prince, and "while" forms a clause that sounds like Bach was somehow unqualified to be Kapellmeister because of his time as a concert master. Move the sentence "The prince was enthusiastic..." to just after the first sentence, or condense it into that sentence. With that done, you can now perhaps simplify the following sentences for flow (and consolidate the uses of Citation 5). –Vami
    Can you word better that Kapellmeister was an "upgrade" from the subordinate "concert master"? Shoud the ensemble come in a new sentence? --GA
    Reworded. --JM
    I would not separate the ensemble clause into another sentence. Try "Bach had served as concert master in Weimar from [dates], but now was Kapellmeister in Köthen, directing a qualified musical ensemble." –Vami
    reworded more --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:35, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
  • librettist Link. –Vami
    done --GA
  • a dialogue of two allegorical figures, Time, Interesting. A colon would be most fitting here, just after "figures" ("figures: Time"). –Vami
    done --GA
    I find sentence OK as is. Commas would interrupt flow and are not necessary. Jmar67 (talk) 20:40, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
    This comment applies to the following edit suggestion. Gerda made the change. --JM
  • The music remained in manuscript form and like nearly all of Bach´s cantatas was not printed in his lifetime. Change "in manuscript form" to "a manuscript" and add a comma before "like" and after "cantatas". –Vami
    done --GA
  • For another performance of the Easter cantata on 27 March 1731, Bach revised it, Revised what? The words or sheet music? –Vami
    The cantata. - The first time (1724) he had not revised it, other than putting new text to the music. Do you think how exactly should be mentioned here? The words stayed, but he composed new recitatives, among other changes. Or should that rather go to the Easter cantata article? --GA
    Add a tiny bit of clarity, like what you said just above me here, and save the whole context for the Easter cantata's article –Vami
    tried --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:47, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
  • (a line from the first tenor aria) Un-parentheses and include in the sentence with a comma or dash. –Vami
    done --GA
  • The cantata was published in the Neue Bach-Ausgabe (NBA), the second complete edition of Bach's works, in 1963, edited by Alfred Dürr, with a critical report the following year. Move "in 1963" after "Neue Bach-Ausgabe (NBA)" to get rid of a comma. –Vami
    no because "the second ..." explains NBA, should not be separated. --GA
    The sentence has too many commas. There is no reason to retain the date where it is. I agree with Vami. --JM
    year moved to the beginning, then - we cant separate a thing and its explanation --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:47, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Neue Bach-Ausgabe (New Bach Edition) Unitalicize the English in parentheses. –Vami
    Why? It's a book title, not only a translation, as "New Bach edition" would be. --GA
    A- Astute point, my bad. –Vami
  • The tenor as Time looks at the past: "Es streiten, es prangen die vorigen Zeiten im Segen für dieses durchlauchtigste Haus." (The past times struggle, they glory in blessings for this illustrious house.) Well here's a punctuation riddle. I recommend removing the periods in the German text and the parentheses, then ending the sentence with one. –Vami
    Not convinced, because this incipit is a full sentence, unlike the others. I think that as long as the full stop is within the quotation marks, that should be clear. --GA
    I wrestled with this during CE. Would prefer to delete the periods. They look strange. --JM
  • The competition of the times is illustrated by figurations in the first violins. What does this refer to? I'd assume (as a dabbling Baroque enthusiast) this means music and the arts. –Vami
    No, "the times" are still past and future. How can that be clearer? I tried combining two sentences. --GA
    Reworded for clarity. --JM
    Ah. JM did exactly what I would sad to do (capitalize "Times"), so all's well. –Vami
  • Bach's instrumentation complements the text well NPOV? –Vami
    How would you word that he chose strings when strings are mentioned in the text? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:22, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Movements 5 and 7 have two instances of Citation 1, and only Citation 1. Movement 8 has three instances of Citation 1 with no citation dividing them. –Vami
    Quotations need a citation right after them. --GA
  • Herz und Mund und Tat und Leben, BWV 147 Link. –Vami
    done (no idea how I lost it, was there before ...) --GA
  • Schloss Köthen Change to Köthen Castle, link. –Vami
    No. It's not a castle. In a different Schloss (Weilburg, DYK), we realized that Palace is a better translation but not perfect, because it seems to mean only the building while Schloss is the complex, gardens and all. Better original than loss in translation. - I linked it now, though, as already in the first image caption. --GA
  • [...] for which it was written. I recall the piece being written for a man, not a castle. –Vami
    Sorry for that hasty wording ;) - short for: the location where the first performance probably took place, which is too clumsy, so I dropped it altogether. --GA
  • Bach's cantata Durchlauchtster Leopold, BWV 173a, his Brandenburg Concerto No. 4, and finally Die Zeit, die Tag und Jahre macht Remove "his"; the pieces before and after Brandenburg Concerto No. 4 in the sentence have been established as being Bach's. –Vami
    Not sure, because it doesn't come with a BWV number, and readers perhaps don't know. I added a link. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:22, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
    That works. –Vami
  • It was titled: Replace the colon with a comma. –Vami
    Colon removed. Comma would not be correct. No punctuation needed here. Please indicate section name in comments. Thanks. Jmar67 (talk) 20:32, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
    There's no colon after "titled", and I can't change the colon in the title because it's part of the quote.
Again, thank you for specific and helpful comments! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:22, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
I replied a few time, with thanks to both. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:35, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
Supporting. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 21:03, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Support from Jenhawk777[edit]

Full disclosure: I consider myself a friend and admirer of Gerda, however, if admiring Gerda and her work is a disqualifier, it will probably disqualify everyone she's ever come in contact with, so, I will do my best to be as fair--and as critical--as possible. This is a good article and I am inclined to support it, but I will go through the prose and do a reference check of anything in English.

Thank you for taking the time to look. This article, as pointed out in the beginning, was written by several people, I am only the nominator ;) --GA
  • The music remained a manuscript and, like nearly all of Bach's cantatas, was not printed in his lifetime. Does that mean handwritten manuscript?
    Teach me English, isn't manuscript defined as handwritten? --GA
That is one of its common uses. It can also refer to any unpublished work, handwritten or not. Author's today still refer to their computer printed documents as manuscripts. It's a minor point. Jenhawk777 (talk) 15:28, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
  • I am through Movements where I am trying to decide if it wouldn't be appropriate to include just a little more detail.
    I'd love to add, but unfortunately this piece wasn't discussed much in detail, as a one-day-piece, and not even the derived Easter cantata was discussed much, as a derived work. Anybody: give me more sources, and I'll happily add. --GA
  • For example It reflects that Anhalt was given many hours of blessing in the past. Who is Anhalt? What blessings? I'd kind of like to have a few examples.
    Please see History of Saxony-Anhalt. Leopold was a prince of Anhalt-Köthen. I am a copy editor and using initials JM. Jmar67 (talk) 07:33, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
    Added link to Anhalt-Köthen. –Vami
    Changed link, text refers to Anhalt. --JM
    Thank you, all! --GA
Yes! Thank you, that's perfect. As someone who knows nothing of Bach's music, I thought this might be a question other ignoramouses (ignoramice??) would ask. Jenhawk777 (talk) 15:28, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
  • 5, gives some details about Leopold's qualities like what?
    Will look. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:34, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Sorry I can't do more tonight--it's already after midnight here. I'll be back tomorrow. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:09, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Finished with prose review. It's an excellent article. Now spot checking references. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:38, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
  • The refs I looked at were good. This article has my support for featured article. Jenhawk777 (talk) 02:55, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Rwandan Civil War[edit]

Nominator(s):  — Amakuru (talk) 11:19, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

So I've had this parked for a while, since its GA nomination last year, but I personally believe it's FA ready so I'm putting it up here to see what you guys think of it. Lemurbaby and Aircorn both had a good look at this during the GAN, and the principle objections were over (a) accessibility for a layman, particularly regarding the information in the lede and acronyms, and (b) possible neutrality concerns. Regarding (a), I have rewritten the lede in the past couple of weeks, making it shorter and more concise, as well as replacing acronyms such as "FAR" with "Rwandan army" throughout the article to make it clear. On (b), neutrality, I made a comment on this at the bottom of the GA page, which never really got answered so I don't know if it's a valid defence or not. Fundamentally, although the article may appear to give Habyarimana and the Hutu a "harder time" than the other side, that's only because all the sources I used had a similar tone. Ultimately, this war was the precursor to one of the worst mass genocides of the 20th century and I don't think it's necessarily an NPOV violation to use the language from sources that describes that. However, I am very open to suggestions for improvement in that area or any other, so over to you guys and looking forward to any feedback positive or negative. And @Aircorn: if you have any further thoughts since your comments last year I'd really like to hear them too.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:19, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Comments Support by Indy beetle[edit]

Glad to see this event of critical importance in Africa make it to FAC. Initial comments:

  • The economic crisis forced Habyarimana to heavily reduce the national budget; to quell civil unrest, he declared a commitment to multi-party politics, but did not take any action to bring this about. Is the semi colon suggesting that budget cuts incited the unrest?
    I've checked the source, and not really. There was a political crisis (which I've mentioned), but the multiparty move itself was on the advice of François Mitterrand.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:55, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
  • The organisation which was to become the Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF) was founded in 1979. In Uganda?
    Yes. Added that.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:56, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Rwandan President Juvénal Habyarimana was aware of the increasing number of Tutsi exiles in the Ugandan army As Habyarimana has already been introduced, and introducing him as "President" deals with any ambiguity, there's no need to restate his first name.
    Removed.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:57, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
  • The Belgian presence was short-lived, its troops withdrawing within two weeks because of laws preventing the army from intervening in a civil war. This begs the question why they were ever sent in the first place. Were they serving some other purpose (like training the Rwandan Army), or was there a debate in the Belgian government about the legality of their deployment that led to their withdrawal?
    Strange one that... the Prunier source gives quite a lot of detail on the Belgian issue, but doesn't directly mention the legality or otherwise. I think I must have got it from another source that it was illegal in Belgian law. I have therefore reworded to explain a bit more - the troops were sent to defend citizens, but that threat didn't materialise.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:17, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Where are the statistics for 5,000 killed on each side coming from?
    I don't know. It looks like they were added by an IP in 2013. Since they're uncited, and I'm not aware of any sources giving death tolls for the civil war itself (as opposed to the genocide), I've removed them.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:23, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
  • The strength of each belligerent force should be integrated into the body of the article.
    I have included this in the Arusha Accords section, as that's when the figures were relevant. Also included detail from the same source regarding the proposed reduction in numbers to 19,000.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:31, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
  • A number of UNAMIR personnel such as Mbaye Diagne were killed during the fighting. Any official statistics on this should be included.
    Given that we now don't have any overall death figures for the war, do you think it's still worth including this, and if so where? The actual UNAMIR death toll up to July 1994, based on figures in Dallaire's book, is 15.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:47, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
    That figure works. This UN source discusses UNAMIR and Operation Turquoise at length, and talks about how UNAMIR was effected by the fighting (mostly during the genocide stages), including its HQ getting hit by stray fire. Perhaps a small paragraph on the latter and then the death toll could be included in the "Military operations during the 1994 genocide" subsection. -Indy beetle (talk) 15:24, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
    OK. Done that. Thanks for your comments here by the way, Indy beetle, very useful and insightful.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:51, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

-Indy beetle (talk) 14:17, 2 October 2018 (UTC) Additional comments:

  • colonization and modernised...one English dialect needs to be adhered to throughout the entire article.
    Fixed.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:27, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
  • The Rwandan king welcomed the Germans, using their military strength to widen his rule. "Widen his rule" is an unusual phrase.
    Changed to "reinforce his rule and expand the kingdom"  — Amakuru (talk) 11:27, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
  • The king and Tutsi politicians attempted a fightback. Fightback seems to be a more colloquial term, perhaps "counterattack" instead?
    Done  — Amakuru (talk) 11:27, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Seeing as the possibility of a coup is discussed, and the fact that Colonel Bagosora took over the Rwandan government following Habyarimana's death, it should also probably be mentioned that Prime Minister Agathe Uwilingiyimana was shot by Rwandan soldiers.
    I have added more detail on this point.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:51, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Operation Turqoise is worth a little more discussion, particularly its aims (both declared and undeclared), its effects, and when it ended.
    Done  — Amakuru (talk) 21:50, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
  • UNAMIR's termination in 1996 should also be mentioned.
    Done  — Amakuru (talk) 21:50, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

-Indy beetle (talk) 22:46, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

All of my comments have been addressed. This is an excellent article, and I support its promotion to featured status. -Indy beetle (talk) 03:27, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
@Amakuru: One additional fact I've found that should be incorporated into the article: David E. Cunningham claims "an estimated 7,500 combatants were killed in direct fighting in the Rwandan civil war" (Cunningham, David E. (2011). Barriers to Peace in Civil War. Cambridge University Press. p. 137. ISBN 9781139499408.). -Indy beetle (talk) 05:28, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Fitzcarmalan[edit]

That was a very interesting read. A few observations though:
Lead

Background

  • "possibly of Cushitic origin" - This links to Cushitic languages, which doesn't seem right to me. Is there an alternative article covering the ethnicity/peoples?
    It seems like there is no such article, and none of the entries at Cushite seem to quite fit. I've modified it to say "originating from the Horn of Africa", because that's something the source mentions to clarify what it means by Cushitic.  — Amakuru (talk) 08:52, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "administrative reforms which caused a rift to grow" - What was it about them that created this tension? Would it be possible to (briefly) integrate this sort of information into the text?
    I have added a sentence on uburetwa and ubuhake, the main reforms, with detail.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:10, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "Belgians modernised the Rwandan economy, but Tutsi supremacy remained" - Are they supposed to be mutually exclusive? Suggest rewording to something like "..modernised the Rwandan economy. Tutsi supremacy remained, leaving the Hutu disenfranchised", or anything to your liking.
    OK I have expanded this a little bit, to include mention of Catholic clerics, increased tax and forced labour. And also separated the two elements you mention. Let me know what you think.  — Amakuru (talk) 08:52, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "death of a Hutu sub-chief by Tutsi activists" - "Death by someone" doesn't seem right to me. Suggest rewording to "in an assault by Tutsi activists", per the source.
    Done  — Amakuru (talk) 08:52, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "alongside Obote to defeat Amin in 1979" - Suggest linking to Uganda–Tanzania War.
    Done  — Amakuru (talk) 08:52, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "needed a break following the years fighting" - Apostrophe missing? (I may be wrong, so you can simply disregard)
    I've reworded it to "Rwigyema persuaded Museveni that following years of army duty he needed a break"  — Amakuru (talk) 08:52, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Course of the war

  • "killing a customs guard" - Suggest mentioning the guard's nationality, if available in sources (obviously Rwandan, but still).
    Done  — Amakuru (talk) 09:37, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "perception of intervening in a civil war created a domestic political storm in Brussels" - Can't access the source. I assume it's related to the Congo Crisis and the role in Lumumba's assassination? If so, could either of those be briefly mentioned? If you somehow managed to incorporate a simple piped link to Congo Crisis, that would be sufficient IMO.
    @Fitzcarmalan: I actually can see an online version of the source at [6] (it's a bit weird - initially it says the page can't be viewed, but after scrolling up and down a few times, the text appears). So if you can manage to see that perhaps you'll be able to comment further? It doesn't directly mention the history around Lumumba, just that there were concerns over the humanitarian aspects of what the Rwandan government was doing.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:37, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Thanks for letting me know. And that's fine, we can leave it be if the source makes no mention of that. But I'd suggest describing the civil war as "controversial" or anything similar, which is what Prunier was implying. They didn't back away just because it was "a [regular] civil war". Fitzcarmalan (talk) 11:27, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
    OK, I've added "controversial".  — Amakuru (talk) 21:06, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "Saleh ordered Bayingana and Bunyenyezi's arrest and eventual execution" - Were the sentences carried out eventually? Never mind, actually. I probably misread that. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 11:30, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "He later described the experience of meeting and taking charge of this demoralised and wounded group as one of the worst experiences of his life." - This could use some extra detail, if available in your sources. What I'm particularly curious about, as a reader, is how Kagame managed to reorganize his troops during the Virunga phase, given the extreme conditions they were exposed to in the mountains.
    @Fitzcarmalan: I'm just wondering if there is anything in particular about this? The most detailed source I have is the Kinzer book, from which most of the "Conditions in the Virungas were very harsh for the RPF..." paragraph is taken. It starts by describing the hardship, people getting frostbite, guards dying on watch because of the cold and inadequate clothing etc. Then the main points about the reorganisation are the fundraising abroad, which enabled the RPF to buy more supplies, and the training that Kagame gave to the soldiers, and discipline, which made them battle ready. The paragraph summarises these points, but please let me know what other detail is required. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 16:24, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
  • What I had initially gathered upon reading this sentence, for some reason, was that Kagame might have have faced some kind of insubordination, given the sudden change of leadership and how low his troops' morale was. This often tends to happen in armed conflicts. Does Kinzer mention anything of the sort? If not, then you can simply disregard that. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 17:13, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
    No, I haven't seen anything like that. In fact, the text in Kinzer suggests that the demoralised troops welcomed Kagame's arrival. I've added a sentence to that effect.  — Amakuru (talk) 17:59, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "remained behind as a decoy" - Suggest linking to Decoy#Military_decoy.
    Done  — Amakuru (talk) 08:08, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "morning of the 23rd" - Suggest "23 January", per MOS:DATE.
    Done  — Amakuru (talk) 08:08, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "the prisoners were saved" - Suggest using "liberated" instead.
    Done  — Amakuru (talk) 08:08, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "RPF raided the city every night" - Until...?
    I've clarified it (per the source) to say "almost every night for several months"  — Amakuru (talk) 18:05, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "until June 1991, when a deal was reached" - A deal involving whom?
    Hmm... seems it wasn't actually a deal, more of a government measure. I've reworded to clarify that.  — Amakuru (talk) 18:19, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "a set of "rules", published in the Kangura" - Suggest linking to Kangura.
    Done  — Amakuru (talk) 08:08, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "as well as extremists within the president's own MRND party" - Suggest writing the party's full name and linking to National Republican Movement for Democracy and Development, since it is a first occurrence in the article. It would be preferable to do that early on in the 'Background' section, though.
    Done  — Amakuru (talk) 08:08, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "delay change to the status quo" - Suggest italicizing, per MOS:FOREIGNITALIC.
    Not done Smiley.png - "status quo" may have originated in another language, but it's perfectly valid English now.  — Amakuru (talk) 08:08, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "although the RPF soldiers were guilty in some areas" - Suggest using an alternative to "guilty" (not sure which).
    Done  — Amakuru (talk) 08:08, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "Kagame told Stephen Kinzer that such a victory" - Suggest linking to Stephen Kinzer (while presenting him as a journalist) and de-linking from the 'Domestic situation' section.
    Done  — Amakuru (talk) 08:08, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "concluded that it was most likely a coup d'État" - Suggest italicizing coup d'état.
    I've shortened it to just "coup", which is an English word, as that's the usage throughout the rest of the article.  — Amakuru (talk) 08:08, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "served as the catalyst for the Rwandan genocide" - Suggest de-linking, per MOS:DUPLINK. Or, better yet, de-link in the first occurrence at "were actively beginning plans for what would become the 1994 Rwandan genocide" and rewrite as "were actively preparing plans for a genocide" instead.
    Done  — Amakuru (talk) 08:08, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "seeking to link up quickly with the isolated troops in Kigali" - I assume they were successful? Suggest saying whether they were fully or partially successful, depending on the amount of detail in the sources.
    I've rewritten this a bit so you may want to look at it again. The actual three pronged attack didn't result in an immediate link up, per the source, but there was a unit sent across enemy territory.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:06, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "recruits included Tutsi survivors of the genocide and refugees from Burundi" - Suggest pipe linking to Burundian Civil War, if that is implied in the source of course.
    Actually this isn't really to do with events in Burundi, it means the Tutsi refugees from Rwanda who happened to have been based in Burundi, unlike Uganda where the original RPF people came from. I have clarified this.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:06, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Aftermath

  • "and as of 2017 remain the dominant political force" - Consider updating the year, unless I'm missing something.
    Done  — Amakuru (talk) 08:08, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "The long-term effects of war rape in Rwanda" - Suggest linking to Rape during the Rwandan Genocide.
    Done  — Amakuru (talk) 08:08, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "A period of reconciliation and justice began" - Would it be okay if we replaced "justice" with "judicial reforms" or anything similar? I'm not entirely comfortable with "a period of justice" as it stands.
    I've reworded this bit. Let me know what you think.  — Amakuru (talk) 08:08, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "By 1999,[230] a programme" - Suggest moving the ref to the end of that sentence.
    Done  — Amakuru (talk) 08:08, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

That'll be all from me. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 23:14, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

@Fitzcarmalan: thanks, I think I may have answered all of them for now. Let me know if you have any more comments or I've missed anything.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:06, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
Not really, everything looks great and you have a nicely written article here. Happy to support. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 04:18, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Tony1[edit]

Lead, 1a: This is pretty good.

  • "An uneasy peace followed, as the terms of the accords were gradually implemented." Could be a "because" as: so it's because they were gradually implemented that peace was uneasy? I think you don't mean that.
    I've changed it to "while" instead of "as" to avoid this confusion.  — Amakuru (talk) 08:19, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "RPF troops were deployed to a compound in Kigali and the peace-keeping United Nations Assistance Mission for Rwanda (UNAMIR), was sent to the country." I don't understand it. Is the comma meant to be after "Kigali" rather than where it is now?
    Yes I think so. It seems I have a bad habit of putting commas after brackets, somebody complained about it at WP:ERRORS a couple of weeks ago. I've moved it to be after Kigali as you suggest.  — Amakuru (talk) 08:19, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
  • So much better to start with "But": "The Hutu Power movement was steadily gaining influence, however, and began planning a "final solution" to exterminate all Tutsi." -> "But the Hutu Power movement was steadily gaining influence, and began planning a "final solution" to exterminate all Tutsi."
    Done. I think I was taught at school not to start a sentence with a conjunction, but apparently that's a junk rule that doesn't really exist...  — Amakuru (talk) 08:19, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
    'Tis junk. But not too many sentence-initial buts, or they'll stick out. Same league as "don't finish a sentence with a preposition", and "don't split infinitives", etc. Tony (talk) 08:20, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "Over the course of approximately 100 days,"—English can be ugly. "some" or "about". I'd zap the comma after "killed" ... and after "mid-June".
    Done  — Amakuru (talk) 21:45, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Further down:

  • "After 1945, a Hutu counter-elite developed,[27] calling for the transfer of power from Tutsi to Hutu." Two things: you're using a comma after a sentence-initial time phrase as a formula. I would examine each case. It's not helping here. Second, "calling for" is ambiguous. Means "making necessary", or that the elite called publicly for ...?
    I've been through and removed a lot of commas of the type you mention so hopefully it's better now. Also changed "calling for" to "demanding".  — Amakuru (talk) 21:45, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "but found the Belgians were no longer supporting them" ... I think the marked present-in-present tense here is a bit much. "no longer supported them" is fine.
    Done  — Amakuru (talk) 21:45, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Commas are the thing I'm commenting on in your prose, mostly: "Logiest re-established law and order, and began a programme of overt promotion and protection of the Hutu elite,[37] replacing many Tutsi chiefs with Hutu, and forcing King Kigeli V into exile." How long is the sentence? How many other commas are there? Does the rhythm work? Is comma/no comma ambiguous? They are the four questions for each instance. Here I'd zap the last one. Better, no?
    I've split the sentence into two and removed some commas.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:45, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
  • inyenzi ... the reader knows which language that is, do they?
    I've clarified.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:45, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "ruling in a top down manner" ... needs an en dash or a hyphen. But better "autocratic"? "hardline"? "brutal"? Manner I've never liked much: "imposing a [whatever] rule"?
    Done  — Amakuru (talk) 21:45, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "but did not take any action to bring"—"took no action to". How typical of Mitterand.
    Done  — Amakuru (talk) 21:45, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

There's still a LOT to read through. If you could re-examine the comma usage and look for possible ambiguities, that would be good. I support, provided the prose is sifted through and improved here and there. Starts from a good base. Tony (talk) 12:15, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

I've done one pass through of the commas today. Will have another comb through tomorrow!  — Amakuru (talk) 21:45, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
@Tony1: I've done the things you suggested above, and had a couple of read throughs, adjusting for comma overuse and possible poor sentence structure. If you spot any other examples of things that need improving, please let me know. THanks  — Amakuru (talk) 18:45, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Image review

  • Suggest scaling up the maps
  • Don't use fixed px sizes
  • File:RwandaTerritoryAfterFeb1993.png: what is the source of the data in this map? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:45, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
    @Nikkimaria: thanks, I've changed the article to reflect these three points.  — Amakuru (talk) 19:13, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Cas Liber[edit]

Kudos for getting stuck into this one....

  • The RPF began a classic hit-and-run style guerrilla war - is the word "classid" important here?
    No. It's already removed.  — Amakuru (talk) 18:50, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
  • In the lead you have more than 100,000 Tutsi leaving in 1959-62, but this is 336,000 in the body of the article...?
    Corrected in the lede. The source confirms it as 336,000.  — Amakuru (talk) 18:50, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
  • The word "crisis" is mentioned 3 times in 4 sentences at the end of the Revolution, exile of Tutsi, and the Hutu republic section - might be able to be streamlined.
    Reworded.  — Amakuru (talk) 18:50, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
  • The city was the [best choice from a practical point of view, being] the only provincial capital that could be attacked quickly from the Virungas while maintaining an element of surprise. - could remove bracketed bit and let facts speak fr themselves
    Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 18:50, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Overall a good read and fascinating subject. The RPF come out looking better...but maybe they were. I dunno. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:22, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Ceoil[edit]

Thank you for bring this here. Still reading through, but the opening lead para doesn't give any dates. Ceoil (talk) 10:23, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Added dates in the second sentence.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:17, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

These are minor suggestions only for a what seems like a most impressive article that I expect to support after I've read the whole thing and gone through the sources:

Lead

  • hurried back to take command - why "hurried" without context, maybe just "returned"
    Already done.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:17, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
  • He withdrew the RPF troops - you have established that they are RPF, so just "withdrew troops"
    Done  — Amakuru (talk) 22:17, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
  • a classic hit-and-run style guerrilla war - classic is too much for lead, esp as guerrilla war isnt linked
    Already done. I've removed it from the body too, as it's not adding much.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:17, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
  • RPF troops were deployed to a compound in Kigali and the peace-keeping United Nations Assistance Mission for Rwanda (UNAMIR) was sent to the country cant put my finger on this, but the "were" / "was" thing seems odd
    Yes, it's always a bit tricky when talking about a team or body of people, whether to use singular or plural. I think I'm going to leave this one maybe, since the first bit talks about "troops" while the second bit is about a "mission". If you have better wording, do let me know though.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:17, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
  • They captured territory slowly and methodically - they steadily and loose "slowly and methodically"?
    Done  — Amakuru (talk) 22:17, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
  • The war ended later that month with an RPF victory when the interim government and the genocidaires were forced into Zaire - "and" rather than "when". I'm not sure forced is the best word. Maybe retreated or pushed backed into.
    I've split into two sentences to avoid a double and. Also changed to "fled over the border into Zaire"  — Amakuru (talk) 22:17, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Pre-independence

  • a group of aboriginal pygmy hunter-gatherers - a population of
    Done  — Amakuru (talk) 22:17, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Between 700 BC and 1500 AD a number of Bantu groups migrated into Rwanda - "into the region"- as you have said, wasn't Rwanda then
    Done  — Amakuru (talk) 22:17, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
  • under this theory the Hutu and Tutsi distinction arose later and was a class distinction rather than a racial one - distinction x 2. Maybe "division" in the second instance
    Done  — Amakuru (talk) 22:17, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
  • and then, by 1700 - "and by 1700"
    Done  — Amakuru (talk) 22:17, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
  • The Kingdom of Rwanda, ruled by the Tutsi Nyiginya clan, became the dominant kingdom from the mid-eighteenth century - for flow, drop the second 'Kingdom', and just say "became dominant"
    Done  — Amakuru (talk) 22:17, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
  • modernised the Rwandan economy - usually something like this is phrased as "the local"; also it reduces the number of instances of the word "Rwanda" in the para. Yes, picky I know
    Done  — Amakuru (talk) 22:17, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
  • labelling each individual as either Tutsi, Hutu, Twa or Naturalised - identifying or classifying; labelling is a bit 90s.
    Done  — Amakuru (talk) 22:17, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
  • employed Rwandans in forced labour - forced labour isn't "employed".
    Reworded  — Amakuru (talk) 22:17, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Kagame's reorganisation

  • in the high-altitude cold climate -can you link the specific climate type
    The best link I've found for that is Alpine climate, which seems to cover high mountain climates in both temperate and tropical areas. We probably need something like a Tropical highland climate article, but it doesn't exist yet.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:17, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
  • as well as from some businessmen within Rwanda - drop "some", obviously not all
    Done  — Amakuru (talk) 22:17, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Ugandan associates drove Kagame to the border and he crossed into Rwanda early on 15 October - where he crossed
    I think I prefer it as is...  — Amakuru (talk) 22:17, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
  • He spent the following weeks with the senior officers gathering intelligence - with senior officers
    Done  — Amakuru (talk) 22:17, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Some soldiers remained behind as a decoy - remained as a
    Done  — Amakuru (talk) 22:17, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
  • The trek west took almost a week and the soldiers crossed the border into Uganda several times - trek inst a great word, is there a better military term; "during which the soldiers" rather than "and the soldiers"
    I've changed it to "march", matching the usage at Long March.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:17, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
  • from an office in Kampala - from Kampala
    Done  — Amakuru (talk) 22:17, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Sources

  • Balance: the word "Prunier" appears 117 times in the article. This is a worry, not re bias, but in breath of opinion - I found the concern re bias at the GA completely unfounded and unconvincing. (resolved see below Ceoil (talk) 22:36, 13 October 2018 (UTC))
  • Kinzer is cited 46 times (resolved see below Ceoil (talk) 22:36, 13 October 2018 (UTC))
  • Some newspapers used - The Guardian and LA Times, so ok fine, as long as they are used for establishing timelines and basic facts, rather than deeper historical analysis
  • Some of the sources are inconsistently formatted, eg 1990-10-04 vs 7 September 1994
    Fixed  — Amakuru (talk) 23:03, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
  • London and New York, NY - I would'nt bother with the NY after New York (there are a few of these)
    Done  — Amakuru (talk) 23:03, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
  • These need publication dates
  • Shyaka, Anastase
  • United Nations. "Rwanda-UNAMIR Background"
  • "Official holidays". Government of Rwanda (as opposed to archive date)
  • United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. "Rwanda". Holocaust Encyclopedia
  • Some web sources lack retrieval dates, eg Radio France International (RFI) (10 April 2014) Ceoil (talk) 12:59, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
    @Ceoil: and @Casliber: many thanks for your detailed comments. I will try go through them in the next few days as time permits. Quickly though, regarding Prunier, it's a somewhat annoying fact that the 1990-94 civil war is not covered in that much depth by very many sources. And of all those I've seen, Prunier goes into by far the most detail on the precise goings on. And in many cases other books, such as those by Linda Melvern, and even Kinzer to some extent, are effectively using Prunier or Dallaire as their main source. I suppose it might be possible to corroborate some of the individual facts in other places (for example I did find detail in some online documents on the Belgian withdrawal of support for Habyarimana in October 1990 when I searched for it). Let me know to what extent you think that's necessary. THanks  — Amakuru (talk) 22:14, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
Hi Amakuru, no rush, and re Prunier, I suspected that was the case after using a few search terms on amazon. This reply seems satisfactory to me.Ceoil (talk) 22:20, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
OK, I think I'm done with everything now, including the sourcing points mentioned above. I've rechecked other web cites too, and updated access dates for those (plus used archives for a couple of dead links).  — Amakuru (talk) 23:03, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Demetrius III Eucaerus[edit]

Nominator(s): Attar-Aram syria (talk) 12:43, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

This article is about a little known late Seleucid king of Syria, whose successes were surprising considering how weak the dynasty was in its last days. His appearance in Judea and defeat of it king, which practically opened the road to Jerusalem for him, left enough impact that he appeared in one of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Demetrius III is an interesting king and one of the last Seleucids of any military reputation.Attar-Aram syria (talk) 12:43, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Very interesting subject, Attar-Aram syria, many thanks! I made a couple of tweaks of minor things that jumped out at me. Tell me, has this gone through any other review processes? I see it's start-class at the moment, and it's a helluva jump to FA! Although you've also put a helluva lot of work into it! Nice one :) —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 12:58, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for your nice words. Actually it did not go through GA... etc. It can take 8 months sometimes in GA and I am sure that this article is over qualified for GA. It is not a requirment for an article to go through other processes I believe, and I already brought Cleopatra Selene of Syria, Antiochus X Eusebes, Philip I Philadelphus and Antiochus XII Dionysus from start class to FA. So, do I get your support for this ?.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 13:29, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Tony1[edit]

Lead and Background, 1a:

  • "who reigned as King of Syria"—why not simpler? "who was King of Syria"
  • Be aware that most readers will be flummoxed by the quick succession of names in the first para and the start of the second para. For example, "his brother Seleucus VI" is the father's brother or Demetrius III's brother? There are two more brothers mentioned later (the twins). My head is spinning. Perhaps it's hard to avoid, but most of the lead seems to focus not on the subject but his relatives.
  • "With the long civil war, Syria fell to pieces"—are you talking about right now? No, but history is repeated. Now, why "the"? Do we know about it already? Are you likening it to the feuds and foreign interference in the previous sentence? If so, it's unclear. Repetition: "fell to pieces" and "tearing ... apart".
I changed some of the wording to make it easier. Demetrius III never reigned alone; he always had a competitor. Therefore, his biography is the story of his struggle with his relatives. If I will delete the information about those other characters, then the lede will not summarize the article.
  • "when Antiochus VIII provided a degree of stability which lasted for a decade.[5]" I hope the source has some authority in claiming this. How did he suddenly provide stability, the reader might wonder.
Sure, the source is based on historic facts. The last pretender, Alexander II Zabinas, was defeated by Antiochus VIII in 123 BC. This made Antiochus VIII the sole ruler of the country for the next ten years until his brother Antiochus IX decided to usurp the throne. I tried not to go into much detail than necessary for the life of Demetrius III. Do you want me to explain how Antiochus VIII provided the stability?
  • You cite (second-hand) Josephus. Who was this person? Is it from private correspondence? Public documents? The surge of names is upon us again at the end of Background. Any chance of a diagrammatic family tree, which you could refer to so we can keep it under control visually, as readers?
I clarified who Josephus is

A hard read. Tony (talk) 07:09, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

I understand this; in less than ten years, Syria had five kings named Antiochus, one Seleucus, one Demetrius, and one Philip. All of them fought for the throne. The late Seleucid era is a very complicated period even for specialists, and Im afraid that we can not make it simpler.

I'm sure it can be made easier for readers. Tony (talk) 06:55, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

@@Attar-Aram syria: Well, you might have just done it. How about a summary sentence before you get into the detail saying more or less ^^^that, and then when the barrage of names is upon us, etc., you can just use their first names to distinguish them. That would immediately eliminate any confusion from the repeated names. ——SerialNumber54129 07:45, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
How so Tony? I have done my best. If you think you can make it easier, then go ahead, if not and you are not satesfied with my work, then feel free to oppose the nomination. Im not gonna lower the quality of the article and make it less informative to make it simpler.
Serial Number 54129: Sounds reasonable. I will see what I can do

Support Comments from Tim riley[edit]

This is an impressive piece of work, but I have a few comments on the prose. It's rather a pity the article wasn't peer reviewed before being brought to FAC: some of the infelicities could have been weeded out. It will take me more than one go to deal with them; here is the first batch of comments, down to the end of the "Manner of succession" section:

Thanks for reviewing this Tim. Point taken, next time I will probably get a peer review. I always take an article to the copy-edit guild before nominating. I guess this was not enough in this case
  • Background, family and early life
    • "foreign Egyptian interference" – perhaps tautological: isn't anything Egyptian ipso facto foreign in this context?
fixed
    • "destabilize" – the article appears to be in BrE, in which everyone but the Oxford University Press seems to favour "–ise" endings, which, I see, are favoured elsewhere in this article. We have "sympathizers" and "synchronization", true, but "emphasise" (twice), "synchronised" and "synchronisation". Consistency would be desirable.
I converted the article to full BrE
    • "Antiochus IX killed Tryphaena, while Antiochus VIII was assassinated" – this use of "while" for "and" or "although" or "whereas" or "but" is always perilous, and can take you into the "Miss X sang Bach while Mr Y played Beethoven" territory, not quite avoided here, I think, or in the two later uses of the word in the "Name and royal titulary" section. As Fowler says, "The temporal sense that lurks in 'while' may lead those who use it into the absurdity of seeming to say that two events occurred or will occur simultaneously which cannot possibly do so." When I find myself falling into the trap I often find a semicolon works better than any alternative conjunction.
fixed
  • Name and royal titulary
    • Is the absence of italics for "The Jewish War" and "Antiquities of the Jews" deliberate?
fixed. I thought that I dont have to used italics for english titles
    • "neither Eucaerus or Akairos were used" – oughtn't this to be "was used"?
fixed
  • Manner of succession
    • "several arguments justify the existence of a collaboration" – the arguments may corroborate the existence, or justify the theory of a collaboration, but they don't justify its existence, surely?
fixed
    • "viewed the ascendance of Demetrius III through the context" – does one view things through a context rather than in it?
    • "Josephus' account" and "Josephus' synchronisation" – but elsewhere, with one exception, the possessive form of Josephus is in the usual BrE ess-apostrophe-ess.
fixed. Though Im confused here. According to this guide, names ending with an S should have a possessive S unless the possessive form is not pronounced with an extra S. So, where do "Josepgus" fit?
The guide you quote is not entirely reliable – in the second example, Saint-Saëns, it misspells the name and is wrong about the pronunciation: one does in fact pronounce the s: "Sonsiz" – but is correct in its broad precepts. People speaking the phrase "Josephus's hat" would give it five syllables, i.e. saying "Josephussiz", so ess-apostrophe-ess" is right. I see from Google that there is a book with the title Josephus's Interpretation of the Bible Tim riley talk 09:09, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
fair enough
    • "of numismatist Arthur Houghton" – you have avoided clunky false titles elsewhere and it would be easy to avoid one here.
I've never used those titles until I was asked to in several FACs. Some editors were just confused when they read the name of a modern scholar and asked who he/she is. Many reviewers made it clear that I need to introduce those scholars.
It's right to introduce your experts at first mention, to put them into context for the reader, but the false title is an inelegant, not to say lumpen, way of doing it, fit only for tabloid newspapers, and is easily avoided. Instead of writing, say, "In 2010 art expert Fred Smith wrote…", just add a definite article: "In 2010 the art expert Fred Smith wrote…", or turn the phrase round: "In 2010 Fred Smith, an art expert, wrote…". The New York Times, which holds out against the widespread use of the false title in American prose, recommends the "Good morning" test: if you can't imagine yourself saying "Good morning, art expert Smith", don't turn his job description into a title. Tim riley talk 09:09, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
Ah okay, now I get it. I thought you wanted the word numismatist removed. I added "the" to avoid titles

More shortly. Tim riley talk 11:21, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Concluding batch
  • The struggle against Antiochus X
    • "Demetrius III and Philip I waged a fierce war against Antiochus X … the latter was…" – "latter" should not be used when there are more than two people or things in question (cf "former").
fixed
  • Judaean campaign
    • "convinced Demetrius III to invade Judaea" – if, as it appears, we are in BrE it would be as well to avoid the AmE construction "convince to". Ditto for "convince to defect" later. And I know the AmE use of "due to" as though it were a compound preposition is gradually infecting BrE, but I still think "it would be conquered easily due to the civil war" would be better as "owing to" or "because of".
fixed
    • Another incidence – two in fact – of Antiquities of the Jews unitalicised.
fixed
    • "6000 Judaean rebels" – elsewhere you use a comma in thousands – "3,000 cavalry" etc.
fixed
    • "would have likely conquered Judaea" – unexpected word order. I think the natural BrE form would be "would probably have conquered".
fixed
  • Notes
    • Note 6 – is there a word missing towards the end of the second sentence?
wording changed
    • Note 7 – I'm struggling with "terminus post quem". If I correctly read the text, the defeat was by 93 BC at the latest, which would make that year the terminus ante quem. Or am I misremembering the terms? Whichever terminus you alight at, I think I'd put it in italics. A quick dip in Google books suggests that this is standard in archaeological publications.
fixed

That concludes my comments on the prose. Tim riley talk 12:35, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

One more read-through and then I shall be back here to – I hope and expect – add my support. Tim riley talk 09:13, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
Now happy to support promotion to FA. Clearly meets the criteria, in my view. It’s a fascinating read, though one has to concentrate: the kaleidoscope of names is slightly dizzying, but plainly unavoidable given the large cast of leading players. The article is balanced and evidently comprehensive, the sourcing is wide and well cited (review below), and the illustrations are judiciously chosen. A fine addition to Wikipedia. – Tim riley talk 10:24, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks tim. Im glad you enjoyed the reading

Source review[edit]

The sources appear to be authoritative, are by a wide range of authors and come from a representative spread of dates, mostly quite recent. No authority is cited disproportionately often, and I see from JSTOR that the most frequently cited authors (Ehling, Leveson et al) are cited regularly there also.

The citation style is consistently applied. One small point: I notice that some references to contiguous pages have the page numbers separated by an en-dash and others by a comma. I'm guessing that the former refer to sentences that start on one page and end on the next, and the latter to two unconnected sentences on successive pages, which is fine. Just checking that it's deliberate. I have no other comments on the sourcing. – Tim riley talk 10:24, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for this. Indeed, it is deliberate. A dash indicates a sentence starting in one page and ending in the next. A comma insicate two senteces in different pages

Western Australian emergency of March 1944[edit]

Nominator(s): Nick-D (talk) 08:13, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

This article covers a little-remembered, but significant, incident during World War II. In March 1944 the Australian and US military leadership in the South West Pacific became concerned that a powerful Japanese naval force was headed for the important Western Australian port of Fremantle. In response, reinforcements were rushed to the area, several American and Dutch submarines put to sea and the city's air and coastal defences were placed on alert. The tension increased over several days, and on 10 March air raid sirens were sounded when what appeared to be an enemy aircraft was detected. However, it all soon proved to a false alarm. The only Japanese force at sea was a small group of warships which conducted an unsuccessful raid against Allied shipping in the Indian Ocean. Overall, the article provides an interesting insight into the strategic situation in early 1944, an example of the limitations of intelligence information, and a reminder that the war was not yet won.

I started this article in 2009, and greatly expanded it in 2016. It passed a GA review in early March this year, and an A-class review in April. It has since been expanded, and draws on all the relevant books I could locate at the National Library of Australia. I'm hopeful that the FA criteria are now met, and thank you in advance for your comments. Nick-D (talk) 08:13, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Ian[edit]

  • Recusing coord duties, I reviewed/supported at MilHist ACR but have gone through again top to bottom -- as always, don't be shy about questioning elements of my copyedit; outstanding points:
    • "During early- to mid-March 1944" -- I think we could afford to simply say "In March 1944"; the current opening is a little fussy I think.
    • "It was thought that the purpose of any such raid would be to divert Allied forces away from the offensives they were preparing to launch in the Pacific." -- For the sake of the uninitiated, is "they" the Japanese or the Allies? In the context it could really be either.
      • I've tweaked the sentence to make this a bit clearer - does this look OK? Nick-D (talk) 09:27, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
        • I tried to simplify/clarify further after reviewing Odgers, see what you think. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:00, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Source review
    • Links all work and formatting seems fine.
    • Generally no issues with reliability except re. Combinedfleet.com, I could see at least one of its contributors appeared to be a published author but I wouldn't mind getting your rationale for what makes it a reliable source.
      • Bio details of the site's contributors are at [7]. The site's managing editor is the author of two well-reviewed professionally published works on the Imperial Japanese Navy. One of the authors of the article cited (Bob Hackett) has served as an expert consultant on the IJN on multiple projects and written professionally-published articles on the topic. The website, including the records of ship histories such as that cited here, has also been used as a reference in multiple professionally-published works on the Pacific War [8]. Nick-D (talk) 09:27, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
        • Fair enough, tks. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:00, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Image review
    • Links all work.
    • Licences appear satisfactory.
  • Structure is straightforward and the level of detail is appropriate IMO. A caveat is that I'm fairly familiar with this event so may take for granted things that might not be so obvious to the lay reader.

Well done as usual Nick. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:34, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Thanks a lot Ian Nick-D (talk) 09:27, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Comment by Hahnchen[edit]

  • Do sources actually call this incident the "Western Australian Emergency"? I understand "emergency" as a conflict, or a response to conflict. In this case, nothing happened. We should not be declaring an emergency when it is a false alarm. - hahnchen 23:12, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
    • There isn't a consistent name for these events in the sources, with the main sources (the Australian official history of the war) not naming it at all. I picked this name as "emergency" is used in some sources and it seemed to best reflect what occurred. Some sources also use "scare", but this doesn't capture the fact that the highest levels of the Australian and US militaries regarded it as a genuine emergency at the time, with the response reflecting this (Gill notes that Rear-Admiral Christie referred to it as having been a "threat" in a letter written soon after the events). Remember that intelligence information is often partial and governments need to take precautionary action. Nick-D (talk) 09:55, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
      • The point I'm making is that is a false alarm. There may be an emergency response to a false alarm, but that in itself is not an emergency. I think "scare" would be a better term. If the main sources do not name it at all, then I don't think the event is significant enough for Wikipedia to term it an emergency. - hahnchen 11:38, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
        • "Scare" implies some kind of panic, which none of the sources support. Nick-D (talk) 22:36, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
          • I think an emergency can be as much about perception as reality, and in this case the urgent measures taken seem consistent with describing it as an emergency, even though those measures ultimately proved unnecessary. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:50, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
            • Then just call it a false alarm. I don't think "scare" implies panic any more so than "emergency", and does not imply some formal state of emergency. The article title should reflect reality, not perception. If I call the fire brigade with a hoax call, the response is exactly consistent with an emergency, only it isn't an emergency at all. - hahnchen 00:23, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
              • No sources use that term. There was in fact a formal emergency, with the Australian and US militaries activating pre-prepared plans to reinforce WA and activate its defences (as described in the article). Nick-D (talk) 00:26, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
                • "The article title should reflect reality, not perception" -- sorry, I find that comment a bit simplistic. The perception relates to how authorities saw the situation at the time; as Nick notes, they took emergency measures based on that perception, and those measures were certainly real. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:13, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
                  • The emergency services would respond to a hoax call as if it were an emergency, that does not make it an emergency. Considering an emergency in the context of military history, the first thing that comes to mind is the Mau Mau Uprising which is on a completely different scale, with the government declaring a formal state of emergency. Nick notes the events are not significant enough to be named in the main sources. Using the term "alert" or "mobilisation" instead of emergency would be more in line with NPOV and OR policies. - hahnchen 13:52, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
                    • The events are significant - they are covered by several pages in the official histories and discussed in a number of other works. There just isn't a dominant name. No sources use "alert" or "mobilisation". Nick-D (talk) 22:02, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
                      • Alert was taken from The Western Australian (who also use "scare"), and the official history preceding the threat quote. The current article title confuses an emergency response (such as the emergency response to a hoax call) with an actual emergency. There isn't a dominant name, so pick one that doesn't. - hahnchen 12:19, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Comment by Hawkeye7[edit]

Looks pretty good. Some comments:

  • 154 submarines made 341 combat patrols from the port The reader might infer from the foregoing that these were all US submarines, but some were British and Dutch.
    • Good point - I've noted when the Dutch and British arrived. This makes sense of why Dutch subs were lurking of Rottnest island later in the article. Nick-D (talk) 01:19, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Volunteer Defence Corps (VDC) militia personnel The reader might infer that the VDC was part of the Militia. Suggest changing "militia" to "part-time"
  • General Headquarters directed General George Kenney should be Lieutenant General George Kenney
  • The two US Navy submarine tenders based at Fremantle were sailed to Albany Suggest deleting "were"
  • The commander of the raiding force and Tone's captain were convicted of this crime after the war and imprisoned. Not sure what's going on here. The commander of the raiding force was Rear Admiral Naomasa Sakonju. He wasn't imprisoned; he was hanged.[9] (Tone's captain, already mentioned in the article, was Haruo Mayuzumi (ja). He was sentenced to seven years' imprisonment in 1947 but was released in 1951.)
    • Given that I did most of the work on the GA on the raid, I shouldn't have got that wrong! I've removed the penalty as it's not really relevant to this article. Nick-D (talk) 01:19, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
  • fn 29 should be pp. 388-390
  • Link Stanley Kirby in the references.
  • Link Indian Ocean (since you've linked the Pacific)
    • Linked in the lead Nick-D (talk) 01:19, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Fighter aircraft is linked in "Japanese redeployments" but is first used in the previous section
  • Just a suggestion: I would move the ships over to the right and the map to the left, so the ships were sailing into the article.
    • I take your point, but that would mean that all the images are on the right-hand side. Moving the map to the LHS to offset this looks a bit odd to me (especially as it uses portrait dimensions, so is long). Nick-D (talk) 01:19, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:35, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
    • Thanks a lot for these comments Nick-D (talk) 01:19, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support No worries. This is a great article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:50, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Comments by JennyOz[edit]

Hi Nick, some minor suggestions/questions...

  • Infobox pic caption "One of the anti-aircraft guns assigned to the defence of Fremantle during a training exercise in November 1943" - possibly add comma after Fremantle?
  • augmented the Australian forces, and conducted - is that comma necessary?
    • Nope: fixed Nick-D (talk) 10:39, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
  • conduct raids into the Indian Ocean - south into?
    • There was concern that they could have headed west and attacked Ceylon or the Bay of Bengal. Nick-D (talk) 10:39, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
  • east towards Surabaya.[18][13][19] - ref order
  • improve the area's defences.[18][13] - ref order
  • East Indies on 16 March.[17][16] - ref order
    • All three fixed Nick-D (talk) 10:39, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Perth - no dab needed?
    • No, the result of the large Perth RM a few years ago was that the Australian city ended up as Perth. Nick-D (talk) 10:39, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
  • in which he stated while - insert 'that' after 'stated'?
    • Thanks, that reads better Nick-D (talk) 10:39, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Perth–Fremantle v Fremantle–Perth - intentional?
    • Not at all - I've standardised on "Perth–Fremantle" Nick-D (talk) 10:39, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
  • No. 452 and 457 Squadrons - Nos?
  • Blair book, Silent Victory : - is space before colon intentional?
    • No - fixed Nick-D (talk) 10:39, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, JennyOz (talk) 05:18, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Thanks for these comments Jenny. As a note, I'm going to be out of town until the weekend and won't be able to monitor this review until then I'm afraid. Nick-D (talk) 10:39, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Mensa (constellation)[edit]

Nominator(s): Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:40, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

This article is hopefully on a par with the 30 Featured Articles on constellations to date. Short and sweet, any issues should be quickly fixed as I believe it is within striking distance of FA-hood. NB: It got a good going-over at GAN by AhmadLX. His one outstanding issue is (hopefully) addressed by this change. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:40, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Tony1[edit]

1a, lead and infobox:

  • First para was way overlinked. I've zapped them and lightly edited the para.
thx Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:51, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Second sentence: "Its name is Latin for table, though it originally depicted Table Mountain and was known as Mons Mensae." What is "it"? Whatever "it" is, it's depicting and was known as something. Has the constellation's appearance changed so suddenly?
my quandary is how to address this without sounding repetitive - such as if I say "Mensa's name.." or "The constellation's name...". Is it obvious what I am referring to if I say "Its name" or "The name"? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:51, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
If I knew what the intended meaning was, I'd suggest a fix. Table Mountain as in ... South Africa? "it originally depicted", I presume, should be "it was originally likened to". Is that correct? Tony (talk) 06:45, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
yes, that is the idea. verb substituted accordingly Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:54, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Infobox: is that a hyphen in the declination range?? Where there's an adjacent minus sign, MOSNUM says to write "to". "Best visible" -> "Visibility best". "the month of January"—kill the first three words.
these involve the template - will try to get a rough consensus for thes. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:51, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "Stars with planets: 2". Just checking: we know for a fact that none of the other star systems has exoplanets, do we? That's what the infobox seems to imply. If not, it's misleading.
the infoboxes cover all the constellations. a bigger issue than here. Should raise it on the wikiproject page. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:51, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
Please do. Tony (talk) 06:45, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Nowhere in the lead or infobox are we told how far away it is. I guess a constellation is just a pattern in the sky, not a physically cohesive entity. But when you write "part of the Large Magellanic Cloud lies within the constellation's borders", many punters will think the LMC (which is pretty close to the Milky Way) is physically part of the entity. But it's just in the way, visually, right?
correct - it is an artificial construct to map the sky, with close and far objects in it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:51, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
I hope readers get it. Tony (talk) 06:45, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
most readers with any knowledge of the area will understand Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:55, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Tony (talk) 09:41, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Still on the lead:

  • "Mensa is one of the faintest constellations in the night sky and contains no apparently bright stars. Its brightest star, Alpha Mensae is barely visible in suburban skies. Two of its star systems have been found to have exoplanets, and part of the Large Magellanic Cloud lies within the constellation's borders. Several star clusters and a quasar lie in the area covered by the constellation." What's the difference between and apparently bright star and a bright star? -->

    "Mensa is one of the faintest constellations in the night sky and contains no bright stars (the brightest, Alpha Mensae, is barely visible in suburban skies). At least two of its star systems have exoplanets, and part of the Large Magellanic Cloud, several star clusters, and a quasar lie in the area covered by the constellation."

    Have I wrongly assumed that the LMC has no star clusters? Tony (talk) 06:52, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

good points both and tweaked. The LMC does, but they are much fainter than the ones in our own galaxy Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:01, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Image review[edit]

All good. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:49, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Source review[edit]

  • Ridpath, Ian; Tirion, Wil (2017), Stars and Planets Guide is not used as a reference by the article.
removed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:51, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Why are some books in the citations section and others (fn 9, 12 and 37) not?
I only put books there if I am referencing different bits to different pages. If only a single page or page range then it sits in the upper section. I have been doing it this way for over ten years (unless someone else has done different) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:51, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
  • author-link John Herschell (and shouldn't he be Sir John in the text?)
done x 2 Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:51, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Spot check: fn 3, 10, 29, 38: ok
  • fn 17: an orange giant of spectral type K2III. I can't find that in the reference.
okay, many articles have data on many many stars and are tabulated online. This article is here, from where one clicks on online data to get here. From here one enters the stars HIP designation (in Gamma Mensae's case it is 25918) to get the information. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:57, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
  • fn 21: Zeta Mensae is an ageing white giant of spectral type A5 III around 414 ± 9 light-years from Earth. I can't find that in the reference.
same method as preceding but using the star's Henry Draper (HD) number... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:59, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
  • fn 24: Source says 37.7 ± 0.9 parsecs. I make that 123 ± 3 LY. (Consider using the {{convert}} template?)
aah, the 2011 paper uses a 1997 paper for the distance. This was updated in the 2007 paper by van Leeuwen. Sourcing sorted now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:03, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:22, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Support on sourcery and imagery. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:09, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Jolielegal[edit]

  • It may be useful to update the distances to the new Gaia Data Release 2[10], which should be more precise than the Hipparcos measurements.
  • Alpha Mensae: clarify that the disk properties (radius and temperature) are just a model based on the assumption that the dust emits as a single-temperature blackbody. Also, the dust detection has been contested[11].
added subsequent study. pondering how to word assumption Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:44, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Beta Mensae/Gamma Mensae: citing the parameters of the stars with such precision ("1.04 times as massive") gives the wrong impression that these values are known to such precision.
The paper for Gamma's mass and age does not give a margin of error. I used the word "around" to signify it's not exact... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:44, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Pi Mensae: the article needs to mention the recently discovered transiting planet around this star, the first discovery by the TESS spacecraft [12]
  • HD 38283: "a gas giant around a third as massive as Jupiter" clarify that this is just a minimum mass
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:17, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
  • What is the criterium for including stars in this list? A quick search in List of stars in Mensa and Template:Stars of Mensa reveals other stars that might be notable to be included here: Tu Mensae[13], TY Mensae[14], UX Mensae[15], YY Mensae[16], AH Mensae[17], HD 39194[18] (has 3 planets, but is not mentioned at all). If AO Mensae is notable for inclusion, then some of these stars certainly are too.
  • WISE 0535−7500:
    • "either sub-brown dwarfs or free planets", aren't these the same thing? In fact the page free planet is a redirect to sub-brown dwarf.
yes, not sure how that happened. trimmed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:17, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
    • "of spectral class ≥Y1" maybe clarify to cooler than Y1?
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:17, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
    • Maybe the article should clarify that the binarity of this object is not confirmed with resolved images, but just estimated from photometry (the object is overluminous for its color). The mass is also just an estimative assuming both components have the same mass.
  • Shouldn't Large Magellanic Cloud be linked in the beggining of the "Deep-sky objects" section?
yes/linked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:37, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
  • PKS 0637-752: the source says "we see it as it was 6 billion years ago", but this does not mean it is located at a distance of 6 billion light-years (see Comoving and proper distances). "The resulting images revealed a gas jet approximately 326,000 light-years long." this was converted from 100 kpc, so the precision is misleading. Jolielegal (talk) 21:12, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Praemonitus[edit]

I have a few concerns:

  • The article uses the following terminology without explanation: "dwarf", "gas giant", "eclipsing binary", "main sequence", "binary system", "orbital period", "sunspot", "light-year", "arcsecond", and "substellar". In some cases a clarification is appropriate; in others a wikilink.
linked now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:52, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
  • The article switches from "AU" to "astronomical unit". I'd use the full term on the first instance with AU in parentheses.
  • "...labelling them Alpha through to Lambda Mensae...": not every reader is going to be familiar with the Greek alphabet, so it should clarify the source.
  • "...would have been considerably brighter back then": the Jim Kaler article specifies that it was a 2nd magnitude star.

The references seem to be in good shape. Thanks. Praemonitus (talk) 15:08, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

California Pacific International Exposition half dollar[edit]

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 19:42, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

This article is about... a coin whose high mintage proved to be its undoing as relatively few sold. Unusually, the sponsors went back to Congress and got a second year of striking, but again, most wound up melted. Still, it's a beautiful design.Wehwalt (talk) 19:42, 30 September 2018 (UTC) Note: this will be transcluded tomorrow morning.

  • Support

Nice article in an impressive series. Two very minor points to consider, neither of which affect my support:

Lead
  • "the reverse buildings": I stumbled over this slightly; perhaps "the reverse shows buildings"?
Production
  • I was slightly confused by what the "1935–S half dollar" is and it took a little time and searching before it became clear. Maybe just a word or two to introduce the term (possibly when describing the mint mark)?

Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 15:12, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I've done those things. Thank you for the review and support.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:37, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Tony1[edit]

1a, lead and first bit.

  • Comma splice: "Its obverse depicts Minerva and other elements of the Seal of California, the reverse shows buildings from the California Pacific International Exposition (held 1935–1936) which the coin was issued to honor." A semicolon would fix it.
Fixed.
  • "Left with over 180,000 pieces unsold as sales ground to a halt, the Exposition Commission went back to Congress for additional legislation so it could return the unsold pieces and have new coins, dated 1936, struck to sell in the second year of the fair's run."—"as sales ground to a halt" is dramatic and appears to mark something that isn't explained. If that's explained later, why not avoid raising a big question-mark in the lead? The sentence is quite long enough without. "Melting" is mentioned only for the second, 1936 tranche; but I presume the unsold 1935 version was melted too. I had to read it several times to work it out. If "many pieces of both dates were melted" in the final sentence were earlier in the paragraph, it would be much easier to apprehend. It begs the question of why there was such overestimation, twice. That's what is surprising historically ... but I had to think too hard to extract that. Also, you might think it's obvious, but the mint needed the excess metal to make the 1936 version. Can it be easier for readers?
There was often such overestimation, especially when the coin was proposed to be sold at a fair. The physical metal from the first coins were not necessarily used to make the second, indeed probably not because of the delay while the metal went through the processes. It was probably used to make other coins, but we wouldn't know what.
  • "One of the largest expositions of its kind, it was situated on 1,400 acres (570 ha), and cost $20 million. The fair attracted some 3.75 million people during its two-year run"—it was held? 3.75 million visitors?
I'm not sure what you're saying here.
I'm suggesting situated -> held, and people -> visitors. Tony (talk) 11:36, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
That's done.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:20, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

The prose generally looks ok from a very quick look through. I'm sure I'd find more niggles, though. Tony (talk) 08:08, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Possibly so. Thanks for reviewing.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:55, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Support from Tim riley[edit]

Well up to the unflagging standard of Wehwalt's coin articles. Clear, comprehensive, well and widely sourced and well illustrated. Clearly of FA standard in my view. I have tried to find something to quibble about and the best I can come up with is "a number of medieval gold coins" – which is a bit vague, but if that's what the source says, so be it. I should like to put it on record that the sentence "A grizzly bear is to the left of Minerva" has made my day. We don't get that sort of thing on our coins in Britain. Tim riley talk 12:55, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Fôrça Bruta[edit]

Nominator(s): Dan56 (talk) 03:58, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

This article is about a 1970 album by the Brazilian singer-songwriter Jorge Ben, accompanied by the Trio Mocotó band. It was a musical and thematic departure from Ben's previous work, a successful work in the contemporaneous Tropicália artistic movement, and pioneering of what later became known as samba-rock. It received retrospective critical acclaim and attention from North American publications after a re-release in 2007. I exhausted both English and Portuguese-language sources online, including GoogleBooks and searches with alternate spellings of the album title ("o" and "c" with and without the accents), so I am confident the article is comprehensive of its topic. Dan56 (talk) 03:58, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Support from Aoba47[edit]

  • The following is more of a clarification question, rather than a suggestion. Is there any information on the exact release date (i.e. day) or is the month and the year the only things that can be sourced? Just want to make sure.
    • Yes, only the month and year were able to be located in what is available online.
      • Understandable. Thank you for the clarification. Aoba47 (talk) 06:30, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
  • For this sentence (His lyrics for the songs explored themes of romantic passion, melancholy, sensuality, and to a lesser extent postmodern and political values, also a departure from the carefree sensibility of past releases.), I do not think that “for the songs” part is needed.
  • Please use Ben’s full name when you mention him for the first time in the body of the article, and wikilink him, as the lead and the body of the article are treated separately from one another.
  • For the audio sample, I would expand the caption to justify its inclusion. I have been repeatedly told to keep the use of non-free media to a minimum in article, so please clarify how the audio sample represent the album beyond the prose.
    • Thank you for expanding this part. A source may be necessary for the caption, but I will leave that up to other reviewers. Aoba47 (talk) 06:30, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
  • For this sentence (The singer's busy schedule surrounding the success of his previous record led music critic John Bush to believe it may have led to a mellower recording of samba soul for this album.), I think that either “following” or “during” would be better word choices than “surrounding”, which sounds somewhat odd to me in this context.
  • I am a little confused by this sentence (During the session, Trio Mocotó improvised with Ben on acoustic guitar; he played the viola caipira for the songs "Aparece Aparecida" and "Mulher Brasileira”.). What do you mean by “the session”? Was the entire album completed in one recording session? If not, then I would say “During a recording session”?
    • According to Parahybe, they recorded the songs in one nighttime session (1st paragraph)
      • That is what I get for doing a FA review very late at night/early in the morning lol. Thank you for the clarification. That addresses my point. Aoba47 (talk) 06:30, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
  • I would a “Release history” section, as I believe it is a required section for album articles.
    • The language of MOS:ALBUM#Release history ("can be included in a table") appears not to make it a requirement. Personally, I would like to, but reliable sources do not have any more information than what is in the body about its release history, and I don't believe it would be enough to fill out a consistent table, for "different dates, on different labels, and on different formats in different regions". I placed a link to Discogs at the bottom of the article, which is unreliable here but offers a possible overview to readers of the release history. Dan56 (talk) 06:11, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
      • Thank you for the explanation and the link to the style guide. That makes perfect sense to me. I honestly was not aware of the style guide in the WikiProject, so I will definitely read it in the near future as I semi-regularly work on articles about albums (though none of them are nearly as influential or remembered as this one lol). Aoba47 (talk) 06:30, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Wonderful work with the article. Once this is addressed, I will be more than happy to support. If you have time, I would greatly appreciate any comments for my current FAC. Either way, good luck with the nomination. Aoba47 (talk) 05:02, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you @Aoba47:. I responded to the more complicated points and edited the article to address the rest. Dan56 (talk) 06:12, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Thank you for responding to everything. This was an interesting read, and I hope that it receives more attention from reviewers in the future. I support this for promotion based on the prose (I have not looked at anything regarding sources or images). If possible, again, I would greatly appreciate any help with my FAC, but it is not required. Have a great rest of your day and/or night! Aoba47 (talk) 06:30, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Image review[edit]

  • File:Jorge_Ben_e_o_Trio_Mocotó_no_Teatro_da_Lagoa,_1971.tif: why is this believed to be a government work?
    • I imagine because it is from The Brazilian National Archives, which is an agency of the government.
      • Is anything more known about its provenance? Just because the archives holds the image doesn't in itself make the image a government work. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:52, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
        • I could not find anything. I don't see anything saying it is a government work; just that it has been released into the public domain by the government. I'll invite the original uploader here; perhaps he can elucidate its origin. Dan56 (talk) 15:31, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Length of File:Oba,_Lá_Vem_Ela.ogg exceeds 10% of the original
    • I've reduced it by a second, making it 10%.
  • File:Almeida_Júnior_-_O_Negrinho.jpg needs a US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:27, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
    • Added. Dan56 (talk) 14:44, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Comments from magiciandude[edit]

First let me say, thank you very much for putting so much effort into this article. I can tell a lot of thought was put into this and it's not very often a Latin album will be nominated for FA. I'm not an expert on prose, but there's nothing that stands out that needs major copy editing to me. There are only a few things I want to point out: The first one, , to echo on Aoba47, is that the sample could use a source. At least, I would use a critical commentary on the sample to help justify its usage (see Romance (Luis Miguel album), an article I worked on as an example). The second being that one of the links is dead. This is a more suggestion, but for the durations, there's a {{duration}} template. Erick (talk) 16:51, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Thank you for the comments and the kind words; this article was an impulsive labor of love for me. I have found an archive of the dead link. The caption for the audio sample is based on what is verified within the article already, specifically commentary attributed to McKean and Sanches in the musical style section; similar to citations in the lead, a summary in the caption would not require citations in this case, unless the statements are contentious. I made note of this in the file description, too. Also, I do not want to distract readers too much with supplementary pieces like samples and images; rather the caption be concise and suggestive of what can be found in the body of the article. Dan56 (talk) 19:24, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Gotcha, that makes sense to me. I'll go ahead and support this article. Good luck with the nomination! Erick (talk) 19:36, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Thank you :) Dan56 (talk) 19:43, 17 October 2018 (UTC)


Older nominations[edit]

The Princesse de Broglie[edit]

Nominator(s): Ceoil (talk) 13:53, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Painting by Jean-Auguste-Dominique Ingres completed in 1853. Joséphine-Éléonore-Marie-Pauline de Galard de Brassac de Béar, known as Pauline, was highly intelligent and a noted beauty, but was extremely shy, and died young. The portrait is one of the artist's finest, and contains elements of both high fashion and deep pathos. Ceoil (talk) 13:53, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Image review[edit]

  • File:Louis_XIII_style_Ovolo_frame_(for_Ingres's_Portrait_of_the_Princesse_de_Broglie)_MET_86AG_288R4_p.jpg needs a tag for the original work. Same with File:Ingres_Portrait_of_the_Princesse_de_Broglie_Coat_of_Arms.jpg
  • File:Duc_Albert_de_Broglie_par_E.Appert.JPEG needs a US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:08, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
PD tag added, but not sure what "a tag for the original work" means. Ceoil (talk) 22:02, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
The current tag reflects the copyright of the photographer; I'm looking for a tag reflecting the copyright of the artist in each case. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:24, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Moise[edit]

Hi Ceoil. I really enjoyed this article. I'm close to supporting. Here are a few comments.

  • "He approached Ingres around 1850 to undertake on the portrait." Not sure if this wording is due to regional differences, but I would say "to undertake the portrait".
  • "The painting's central motif was established in the earliest studies, when her oval face, arched eyebrows, and habit of folding her arms with one stuffed into the opposing sleeve was already established." Should this be "were already established" as it is three things? Also, it's a minor point, but if there is a way to avoid repeating "established", that would be preferable.
  • "Her left wrist contains a bracelet of roped pearls, the bracelet on her right is made of red enameled and diamond set gold links." Two independent clauses separated by a comma.
  • "Her neck is unusually elongated, and her arms seem boneless or dislocated, especially her left forearm appears to be under modeled and lacking in musculature." I think "especially" doesn't act as a subordinating conjunction, so in this sentence as well, there are two independent clauses separated by a comma.
  • "It contains a number of pentimenti, including the laying of the contours for her hair and yellow chair." I think "it" refers to the painting, but these are separated by a sentence about her facial features, so it's less clear than would be ideal.
  • "The horizontal bands are about 2.5 cm wide, and are composed from yellow paint on either side of her head near the earrings, and seem to have been used to plot the positioning of the moldings." After the first clause, there are two clauses of the same type beginning with "and", making the sentence feel run-on. Moisejp (talk) 07:52, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Thanks Moise, these are very helpful. Will work through. Ceoil (talk) 12:55, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
Moise, have these done, but can you check as I am not very technical re prose. Ceoil (talk) 21:44, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi Ceoil. Thank you, my concerns above are all addressed. Your prose is very readable and has an especially nice flow to it. I hesitate to mention another issue I noticed while rereading the article just now, as it may require you to rework prose in the lead that personally I think is a quite nice, interesting opening to the article, but I'm concerned it may not satisfy WP:Lead. Some of the facts in the lead are not mentioned in the main narrative, and some of the main points in the article are not in the lead, including mention of the preparatory studies, extended details about the description of the painting, and a brief summary of the painting's reception. One idea is perhaps you could restate or move some of the lead's interesting details (such as Pauline's extended name, Albert's liking of the Comtesse d'Haussonville portrait, and most of the details in the lead's second and third paragraphs) into the main text, and add to the lead a sentence or two summarizing each of the sections in the article? Moisejp (talk) 05:58, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

ok, will do. Ceoil (talk) 12:43, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
Update is that have worked on the lead to better reflect the article body. Now need to do the reverse. Ceoil (talk) 23:00, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Comment from Ewulp[edit]

Also close to supporting. I think there's a problem with citation #21 for the date of the frame; the Met page description is apparently for a replacement frame created in the US ca.1950-1960. Ewulp (talk) 23:54, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Ewulp, have clarified this, but may expand somewhat on this interesting point during the week. I do like that frame, I have to say. Ceoil (talk) 00:10, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
Tinterow was under the impression that the current frame "seems to be the original", but the Met must have dug deeper since 1999, and they now give the provenance as "Robert Lehman (made 1950-60 for Ingres's Portrait of the Princesse de Broglie (1975.1.186), around the time the painting was purchased by Robert Lehman (1958))." Ewulp (talk) 01:21, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
This seems woth adding, will look into it. Ceoil (talk) 12:43, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
Ewulp, have updated a few areas, and hoping to add a sect on the frame itself. Researching. Ceoil (talk) 23:04, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
Given that its very unusual that, on wiki, we are allowed to show the frame for something like this, we should have a section and have been gathering sources. Bear with me. Ceoil (talk) 07:32, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
Ewulp, section on the frame now developed. Ceoil (talk) 20:31, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
Looks good! Ewulp (talk) 04:03, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
  • The bit about Albert considering himself too ugly for a double portrait puzzles me & should be sourced. Was this just banter, or had Ingres seriously proposed to paint his portrait and Albert demurred? That would seem uncharacteristic; after 1845 Ingres' only male portraits were self-portraits and the little monochrome profile of Jérôme Napoléon Bonaparte. Ewulp (talk) 03:58, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Gerda[edit]

Thank you for a highly attractive topic, with "high fashion and deep pathos" ;) - As usual, I'll comment while reading. I confess that I find the title unusual, with it's mix of English and I-don't-know-what-else, and no open connection to her name? Curious. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:24, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Lead

  • "As with all of Ingres' female portraits, her body seems to lack a solid bone structure." This comes as a surprise when still talking about the sitter and her relationships.
    Ok, have repositioned, but mindful that the lead/body balance needs workl see also above...working. Ceoil (talk) 02:37, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
    will keep looking, thank you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:54, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "Pauline was aged 28 at the time of its completion." Can we please also know for how long she was married, or at least the date of the wedding, to do the math?
    Done Ceoil (talk) 02:37, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
  • How about first saying that she was intelligent, then shy?
    o dear. Done Ceoil (talk) 02:37, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
  • How about first letting her have sons, then get sick and die, rather than the sons suddenly mentioned after her death?
    Think I will move the 5 sons bit to the commission section. Ceoil (talk) 10:37, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Can we avoid "different poses" and "various poses" in close succession?
    Done Ceoil (talk) 02:37, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

I will say later if I miss things in the lead. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:37, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Commission

  • I think I'd expect the details about her bio and character here, and only a summary of that in the lead.
  • Chronology? (first they dine in 1850, then they get married in 1845, for example.)
  • "Albert" - should be speak about a prime minister by first name only?
    Not sure; I commonly use first names when discussing people with the same family name. Ceoil (talk) 02:37, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
    Also not sure, just asking, - different names in a family often mean father and sons, and I see no problem with the sons, when young. A prime minister seems a bit different, to me. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:54, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
  • I think the sketches would be better a para below, and think the lead might clarify that the "nude" means professional models.
    Switches to a gallery for different reasons Ceoil (talk) 02:37, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Do we have any photo of Pauline? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:48, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
    No. Ceoil (talk) 02:37, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

... studies

  • "the princess" vs. "the Princess"? vs. "the Princesse" - still curious, and no answer yet. Was Princess her title? (I seriously have no idea about such matters.)
    Princess is the French title of the painting, and all sources add the "e" at the end. "the princess" needs to be fixed. Ceoil (talk) 02:37, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
    Note she wasnt a princess, but he styled himself as a prince. Ceoil (talk) 08:48, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
    Just looking at the online sources, the Met Museum has the long title (which should probably appear somewhere, but not as the article title), and another has Portrait of the Princesse de Broglie, which we can shorten, but why not to Princesse de Broglie, - this "the" only makes sense in the context "of the", no? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:54, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
  • quote: that he was "killing [my] eyes on the ...
For my taste, the [my] is hard to understand, - and the later [his second wife] even harder, because it's not clear that it's the painter's (wasn't he speaking in the first person?), not the prime minister's.
  • Yes, good spot - Have gone with [his] in the first instance. Ceoil (talk) 02:37, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
  • I'd like to see a bit of this attitude ("make me suffer") in the lead. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:00, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
    Dont understand this Ceoil (talk) 02:37, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
    I'd like to read in the lead that it seems not to have been his favourite project, rather a burden ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:54, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
ok. Ceoil (talk) 08:49, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Description

  • I miss that she is standing behind the chair. - Yes, I see it, but a blind reader wouldn't.
    Dont understand this Ceoil (talk) 02:37, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
    Someone blind would not know from the description that she stands behind a chair, leaning on it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:54, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
    I looked again: yes, we read it, in the quote in reception, "... armchair placed in front of her", but that's late. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:59, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
  • hair colour? and is that really "tightly"?
    Obv black and yes Ceoil (talk) 02:37, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Rue de l’Université, Paris (fr)?
    ok fine, but its a 404 for me Ceoil (talk) 02:37, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
    my bad: Rue de l’Université, Paris (fr) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:54, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
  • For me, a nightdress is something to go to bed with, the other evening gown or evening dress. Learning.
    ok grand. Ceoil (talk) 02:37, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Reception

  • Fine, but again: a bit to the lead please.

General: I am no friend of section header displaced by left images (twice right now), but things may change by rearranged text. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:25, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Ok thanks Gerda, these are nearly all very good suggestions. A few will take me time. Ceoil (talk) 02:51, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for the changes. Will look again, but not right now, - some things have to come before, and it's very nice weather. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:54, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
Was a beautiful day out. Two general comments: "alt" texts for all images are desirable, and no fixed image sizes, to make user preferences work. I like the changes so far! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:35, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
Well, I'm glad you had a nice day, its been drissly here, but its been a lovely October as October's go. The feedback so far has been great from all, am almost there....Ceoil (talk) 21:37, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Cas Liber[edit]

A nice read - queries below...

  • The latter part of the Provenance section would go better in the Reception - actually it might make sense to combine the two sections and thread material chronologically.
  • Err "acute" means short term - which doesn't follow with "throughout her life"....
Hi Cas, to me acute means short-term in medical rather than common usage, but see the gap and have rephrased. My hunch came from spending the first 15 years of my adult life listening to the Smiths:) [19] re Provenance, yes right and have re-giged. Ceoil (talk) 02:29, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
ok all good now, support on comprehensiveness and prose...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:51, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
Thank you. Ceoil (talk) 08:07, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Mullum Malarum[edit]

Nominator(s): Kailash29792 (talk) 17:04, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Kettavan kettidil kittidum rajayogam... When the bad is weak and devoid of strength, it results in good fortune. Fall twice, stand up thrice. Last time the FAC failed not because of article content, but because of slow progress and me not actively pursuing reviewers, something I hope not to repeat this time. Kailash29792 (talk) 17:04, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Tony1[edit]

Lead, 1a:

  • I'm seeing a formula repeated from other articles on films—a formula that involves poor sentence formation right at the top. This systemic, almost industrial reproduction of format and content—in a few places right down to sentence level—is a problem in articles on popular culture. Here is the sentence at issue:

    "The film, starring Rajinikanth, Sarath Babu, Fatafat Jayalaxmi and Shoba, was Mahendran's directorial debut and is loosely based on Umachandran's novel of the same name. [It tells the story of ...]"

    Two quite different propositions are jammed into one sentence. The personnel (the starring actors and the director) are one thing; the fact that the film is loosely based on a novel is quite different. Even if segmented by a comma or something more marked, it would still be problematic. So we explore re-aligning the propositions: "The film starred Rajinikanth, Sarath Babu, Fatafat Jayalaxmi and Shoba, and was Mahendran's directorial debut. Loosely based on Umachandran's novel of the same name, Mullum Malarum tells the story of ...". More logical thematic flow?

    For FA candidates I'd like to some of these systemic issues questioned, so the topic might benefit more broadly by example.

I've split the sentence. See how it is now. --Kailash29792 (talk) 11:16, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
  • "Production was tumultuous as Chettiar opposed casting Rajinikanth as the protagonist because of his dark skin and typecasting as a villain at the time, but Mahendran refused to direct the film without the actor and Chettiar reluctantly agreed."

    "tumultuous" normally refers to physical chaos, like the noise made by a crowd. But you're using it metaphorically here. What you mean is "tricky", but that's a little informal. "troublesome" isn't quite right. "problematic", perhaps. Or "complicated by Chettiar's opposition to casting ..."?

    Second, there's "as" (a because "as"), then "as" (in a different sense), then another "because" word. It doesn't read smoothly. Consider a semicolon before "but", and a comma after "actor".

Reworded with complicated. You've left some open-ended <p>s, please close them since I can see the broken syntax through syntax highlighting. --Kailash29792 (talk) 11:16, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
  • "The film substantially deviates from the novel, with Mahendran having read only part of the book."—You've already told us it's based "loosely" on the book ... a few seconds ago. Perhaps that needs to be down here instead. What's the logical relation between before and after the comma here? Is it only where M. didn't read the book that it deviates? This is a messy implication, and I'm not sure it's what the sources say.
In his autobiography, Mahendran admitted to not having read the whole book, and this appears necessary to mention. So I've removed "loosely". --Kailash29792 (talk) 11:16, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
  • "was released on 15 August 1978, during India's Independence Day."—So 15 August is that Day? Why is "on" clashing with "during"?
15 August is India's Independence Day. I've removed "during". --Kailash29792 (talk) 11:16, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
  • "Although it opened to tepid box-office earnings"—it opened to earnings? Weird. But very nice to use a metaphor: "Although it opened to a tepid box-office earnings"
If you are confused by the wording, I'll tell you what happened: the film's commercial performance during its first few weeks was poor, but it improved in the third or fourth week due to positive word of mouth. Now how do I write this without bloating the sentence? Or can I replace "earnings" with performance"? --Kailash29792 (talk) 11:16, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
  • "Rajinikanth's performance as Kali received unanimous praise"—you've just mentioned word of mouth. How do you know every viewer was praising? Surely its "critical praise".
Done: wrote critical praise. --Kailash29792 (talk) 13:17, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "The film won ... the Tamil Nadu State Film Award Special Prize for Rajinikanth." Sounds like the film leapt out of the camera and nominated the actor. Not possible. Reword ... the actor won the award for his performance, surely?
Done: wrote "Rajinikanth won the Tamil Nadu State Film Award Special Prize for his performance". Kailash29792 (talk) 07:05, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "a milestone of Tamil cinema"—I presume this will be justified in the body of the article.
  • "Mullum Malarum, a breakthrough for Rajinikanth as an actor and a milestone of Tamil cinema, focused more on visuals without excessive melodrama and other Tamil cinema conventions that Mahendran disliked."

    (1) More than what? (2) So there was melodrama; just not excessive melodrama, right? And to support the post-qualifier (that M. disliked), you need a "the" before "excessive".

  • Is "also" doing anything?
I think it was a milestone because it focused more on visuals than excessive melodrama and other things the director disliked. --Kailash29792 (talk) 13:17, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Not promising so far. Tony (talk) 08:16, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47[edit]

Resolved comments
  • I am uncertain about the structure of the first sentence of the lead. I would put a period after “J. Mahendran” and just have it be about the director/screenplay writer. I would either make the producers part into its own sentence and add in the production company, or remove it altogether as I uncertain if they need to be listed in the lead.
Split the sentence. See how it is now. --Kailash29792 (talk) 05:05, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Seems better to me. Aoba47 (talk) 19:08, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
  • I would move the third sentence of the lead’s first paragraph to the second sentence to help with the flow.
  • For this sentence (It tells the story of Kali, a winch operator who dotes on his sister Valli and clashes with Kumaran (his superior) at a power plant.), I would see if there is a way to present this information without the parenthesis as I am not sure if it helps the sentence curretly.
Removed the parenthesis. It was GOCE editor Miniapolis who added it, and I did not want to argue. --Kailash29792 (talk) 05:05, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
  • I am not sure if this part (Chettiar reluctantly agreed) is necessary as we already know that Rajinianth was cast according to information presented in the first paragraph.
Agreed. I removed it and wrote, "who he felt was perfect as the character". Kailash29792 (talk) 05:05, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
  • I do not think "who he felt was perfect as the character" is needed. Aoba47 (talk) 19:08, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
  • For this part (cinematographer Balu Mahendra (also a director) assisted him with the screenplay), I would remove the (also a director) part as it is not relevant to this article.
I think Mahendra assisted Mahendran since he was already an established director. --Kailash29792 (talk) 05:05, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
  • If that is true, then that needs to be present in the body of the article with a reference supporting. Otherwise, it seems like a tangent. Aoba47 (talk) 19:08, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
  • I would revise the following sentence (The film substantially deviates from the novel, with Mahendran having read only part of the book.), as the “with…” sentence contrsuction is discouraged on an FA level.
  • Something about this sentence (Filming lasted for about 30 days, primarily in Sringeri, and also took place in Ooty.) sounds off to me, specifically the last portion. Maybe something like the following would be better (Filming lasted for about 30 days, taking place primarily in Sringeri and also in Ooty.).
Done accordingly. --Kailash29792 (talk) 05:05, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
  • For this part (make it a success, with a 100-day theatrical run), perhaps replace (, with a 100-day theatrical run) to (over a 100-day theatrical run)?
I've written "with a theatrical run of over 100 days". That good? Kailash29792 (talk) 05:05, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Seems fine to me. Aoba47 (talk) 19:08, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
  • I think for the following phrase (were orphaned in childhood), it should be “during childhood”.
Done accordingly. Kailash29792 (talk) 05:05, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Should the “Cast” section have a reference?
All the cast members and their character names are sourced under "Casting". Kailash29792 (talk) 05:05, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
  • I would avoid the repetition of the word “impressed” in the following two sentences (Screenplay and dialogue writer J. Mahendran read only part of Umachandran's novel, but was particularly impressed by the winch operator Kali's affection for his sister and the loss of his arm. He outlined Mullum Malarum to producer Venu Chettiar, who was also impressed.)
What do I write then? Kailash29792 (talk) 05:05, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Use a different word choice to avoid unnecessary repetition. Aoba47 (talk) 19:08, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
  • I would see if you could revise the following sentence (A significant difference between the novel and the film is that in the novel, Kali loses his arm to a tiger; in the film, he loses it when he is run over by a lorry.) as it is somewhat awkwardly constructed (i.e. the repetition of “the novel” and “the film”).
See what I've written now. Kailash29792 (talk) 05:05, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
  • For this part (Mahendran initially wanted Ramachandra Babu to be the cinematographer, but he did not accept the offer; he instead suggested Ashok Kumar, who could not accept the offer either.), I would avoid the repetition of “accept the offer”.
Now I've written Mahendran initially wanted Ramachandra Babu to be the cinematographer, but he did not accept the offer; he instead suggested Ashok Kumar, who could not accept either. --Kailash29792 (talk) 05:05, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
  • For this part (Mahendra accepted to work on the film), I think “agreed to work” would be better.
Done accordingly. --Kailash29792 (talk) 05:05, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
  • I would change this part (The film features no duets,) to the following (The film does not include any duets,) as the current wording sounds off to me.
I've done accordingly. But now it reads, "The film does not include any duets, which was considered a rarity for Tamil cinema at that time". What do you suggest now? Kailash29792 (talk) 05:05, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Seems fine to me. Aoba47 (talk) 19:08, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
  • For this sentence (In 2006, director S. Shankar said that he entered the film industry "with dreams of directing films such as Mullum Malarum" but never got to make such films.), I could cut down on the repetition of the word “film”.
I've written, "but never got to make any". But doesn't it create the impression that he never got to make any film at all? In the source he says "I entered with dreams of directing films such as `Mullum Malarum.' I had such a script — `Azhagiya Kuyilae' — ready. But nobody wanted to produce it. And after my first film, `Gentleman,' my well-wishers advised me against going in for small-scale projects. Now it's become almost impossible. Even as producer I could make only a mega `Mudhalvan.' I'm caught in the grip of the image my ventures have created for me". Kailash29792 (talk) 05:05, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
  • It seems understandable in the context, but my original comment was advising you not to use the same word repeatedly in the same sentence, and it could have been solved just by using different words. Aoba47 (talk) 19:08, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

I hope you find the above comments to be helpful, and good luck with the nomination! Aoba47 (talk) 22:18, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

  • I will provide further comments by the end of the week. If I have not commented anything by Saturday, then please ping me about it. I enjoy reading this article, as I love learning about different films. Aoba47 (talk) 19:49, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
I seem to have solved the majority of your comments. Please strike out those that have been solved. Besides, is this info about the cinematographer correct as per the source? Mahendran initially wanted Ramachandra Babu to be the cinematographer, but he did not accept the offer; he instead suggested Ashok Kumar, who could not accept either. Source 1 reads, "Ashok Kumar came recommended to me from Ramachandrababu, an established cinematographer, who I wanted to work with for Mullum Malarum. Meanwhile, Kamal Haasan introduced me to Balu Mahendra, and we ended up working on that film together" and source 2 reads, "Ashok Kumar was called to shoot Mullum Malarum, but he could not accept it then." Kailash29792 (talk) 17:28, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
  • The sentence appears correct to me according to the two sources, though I would revise it to the following (Mahendran initially wanted Ramachandra Babu to be the cinematography, but he did not accept the offer; he then suggested Ashok Kumar, who was unable to work on the film.) to avoid the repetition of the word "accept". Aoba47 (talk) 20:46, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
Done exactly as asked. --Kailash29792 (talk) 06:27, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
  • What kind of poster is the infobox image? Was it a theatrical poster (i.e. released around the same time as the film) or was it something created later? I would clarify this in the caption.
Honestly, I have no idea. Earlier I wrote "theatrical release poster" but removed since I could not confirm it. But I do know the poster is official, since it was obtained from the NFAI archives. Do I write "NFAI poster" with the term linked? Kailash29792 (talk) 06:27, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the clarification. I would add that just to make it absolutely clear. Aoba47 (talk) 08:05, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

That is my only remaining comment for the article. Once this is addressed, I will be more than happy to support. If you have time, I would greatly appreciate any comments for my current FAC. Either way, good luck with the nomination this time around. Aoba47 (talk) 20:51, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Done: Written NFAI poster in the caption. A message to the co-ordinators: I'll be travelling till Saturday, and I hope someone will address any other issues in my absence. Ssven2 has said he will try, but can't promise. Kailash29792 (talk) 17:16, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Thank you for addressing everything. I support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 19:13, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Veera Narayana[edit]

Most of my concerns were covered satisfyingly in the previous FAC. Still, to ensure that i should be sure before voicing out my opinion loud and clear, i went through the article again. And these are what i am having issues with.

  • "It tells the story of Kali, a winch operator who dotes on his sister Valli and clashes with Kumaran, his superior, at a power plant." -- what exactly is clashing here with Kumaran?
  • "Production was complicated by Chettiar's opposition to casting Rajinikanth" -- cast might be a better choice, no?
Done, used "cast" as a verb. --Kailash29792 (talk) 17:14, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "He outlined Mullum Malarum to producer Venu Chettiar, who was also impressed." -- Sorry to say this, but should. A director would pitch an idea to a producer only if he /she likes it in the first place. Why to say "also impressed"?
Veera Narayana, now I've rewritten using this translation of content from Mahendran's book. Please proof-read and tell me if I made a mistake or missed something essential to solve the dilemma. Kailash29792 (talk) 12:08, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "In one scene, after he violently berates her during the day he puts henna on her feet at night while she sleeps." -- a comma is missing.
Added. --Kailash29792 (talk) 17:14, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "Baradwaj Rangan said in 2004 that Mahendran "proved himself a sublime storyteller" -- Was that comment a general one or exclusively related to this film? Please be clear.
The source reads, "With poems on celluloid that include Mullum Malarum, Metti, Poottaadha Poottukkal and, especially, Udhiri Pookkal, Mahendran proved himself a sublime storyteller almost a decade before Rathnam". But now I feel it doesn't add much; it is best removed, isn't it? --Kailash29792 (talk) 04:15, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
Well, if that is the case, then yes. Let me know when you address the remaining comments as well. Veera Narayana 08:27, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
I've rewritten to be clearer. --Kailash29792 (talk) 17:14, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

If these are cleared, i don't have any objection to give it a pass. Veera Narayana 16:05, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Wōdejebato[edit]

Nominator(s): Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:19, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

This article is about a guyot in the Marshall Islands close to the Pikinni Atoll (better known as "Bikini") of nuclear tests and controversy fame. It was discovered in 1944 and is among the best researched seamounts of this type. These seamounts are believed to form when volcanic islands become atolls and these then move through waters which for whatever reason do not support the persistence of coral reefs (and their Mesozoic precursors), causing the atoll to drown. Currently Lōʻihi Seamount seamount is the only FA we have on submarine mountains. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:19, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

From FunkMonk[edit]

  • Looks interesting, will have a look soon. FunkMonk (talk) 14:50, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Seems like there are a lot of duplinks, try this script to highlight them:[20]
  • An intro this short should probably not have more than three paragraphs.
  • Since the Bathymetry image is the only one that actually shows Wōdejebato, I wonder if it could be placed in the infobox?
  • "Wōdejebato was formerly called Sylvania" So when was the name changed, and by who?
  • "a ship which was involved in its first mapping." When?
  • "Later, rocks were dredged" When?
  • You should state in what ocean this is located, also in the intro.
  • How is the word pronounced?
Took action on these. Did read through sources for reason of the rename and didn't find anything explicit. The GEBCO gazetteer doesn't even know about this seamount. Not sure how to get a pronunciation here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:59, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
  • "until 2,500 metres (8,200 ft) depth" Until at?
  • Is this suppsoed to be UK or US English? The location would indicate US, but you have metres and kilometres.
  • "Aptian and Albian 115-94 million years ago" Add these are ages, and probably that they were during the early Cretaceous period.
  • "only forbrief" Seems space is needed.
Um, not sure if I understand what "until at" means. I mostly write in UK English and did here as well (Wōdejebato is not really strongly tied to the US). Got the other issues. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:29, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
Instead of "until 2,500 metres (8,200 ft) depth", I'd expect it to say "until at 2,500 metres (8,200 ft) depth". Also, seems "early Cretaceous" wasn't added. FunkMonk (talk) 11:17, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
  • "Based on fossil data" Of what kind? Drilled microfossils?
  • "when the most recent lavas were erupted." Is "were" really needed here?
  • "contemporaneously to Wōdejebato" With?
  • There are a lot of technical terms here, in other articles, equivalent terms would be asked to be explained in text.
  • "Vegetation[89] including ferns and fungi[90] grew on the exposed island," When?
  • "Skeletal shapes have been recognized in the limestones as well" What is meant by this? Actual skeletons? Fossils?
Got these as well as the ones I missed yesterday. Regarding technical terms, I don't think the article is too bad with them, although the problem is that many of them don't lend themselves to short explanations. Are there specific terms you are concerned about? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:45, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
Terms like phreatomagmatic, diagenetically, parasitic cone. FunkMonk (talk) 14:01, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Cretaceous, crust, and foraminifera are overlinked.
Got the overlinks and some technical terms. I'll see to make a pass through the article for technical terms, unless someone wants to make a laundry list of terms in need of explanation. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:42, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "unlike Wōdejebato Pikinni" I think a comma is needed here.
  • "rudist reefs covered formed an atoll or atoll-like structure, covering" Seems there is some verb weirdness here.
  • I think the intro could mentioned it was named for a god.
Indeed; got these. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:01, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - looks good to me now, could still be nice to find out the circumstance around the namimg, of course. FunkMonk (talk) 19:43, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Image review[edit]

  • Suggest scaling up the bathymetric and hotspots maps
  • File:Pacific_Basin_Island_Geography_Hotspots.jpg: what is the source of the data in this map?
  • File:Marine-microfossils-major_hg.jpg: is a link available to confirm that licensing? Not seeing it at given source. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:19, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
Increased the size of the bathymetric map. The hotspot map has no source and upon looking closely it seems wrong too: It attributes Tuvalu neé Ellice Islands to the Macdonald hotspot but as discussed in Arago hotspot it's actually that hotspot which is most likely responsible for the birth of Tuvalu; I've thus removed it. Re the foraminifera image it looks like the uploader is one of the authors of the book (c.f commons:User:Hgrobe) that is the source and that they licensed it during the upload to Commons. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:29, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

From Cas Liber[edit]

Reading now, notes to follow.....

  • It would be helpful to include some base stats in the lead - how big/high/wide it is, how far beneath sea level and how far it is from Bikini atoll. Also maybe specifying it is in the northern Marshall Islands
  • I'd not leave "guyot" without a more accessible explanation in the first sentence of the lead (tablemount is easier to understand from the get-go as its components instantly give an idea what it is.
  • Article would be more accessible if it had date ranges rather than (or even as well as) epochs I suspect.
  • Have there been no sea probes exploring it at all? i.e. what about current fauna and flora on it? If we don't know, then some discussion would be good.
  • ...many of these seamounts were formerly atolls, which today still exist, for example at Pikinni. some of which still exist? Or split and "some still exist"? as one would think "formerly" implies a category that excludes still extant atolls....?

More later...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:49, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

I'll action these and any follow up comments this evening. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:13, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
I got most of these things. Re sea probes: One of the most interesting facts about the seafloor is that we know less about it than about the surface of the Moon, and of the seamount series I've been writing (Wōdejebato, Limalok, Allison Guyot, Horizon Guyot and Resolution Guyot, plus Lo-En, MIT Guyot, Ruwitūn̄tūn̄ and Takuyo-Daisan) only Horizon has been investigated for its present-day life. Hence why Wōdejebato has nothing to say about it. Re epochs I've done some clarification, would the other epoch names merit similar editing? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:28, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

John Adams[edit]

Nominator(s): Display name 99 (talk) 17:05, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

John Adams was an American Founding Father who served as the second President of the United States. When I previously nominated this article in July, most people seemed concerned about the length of the article. The article was failed after only five days, so I didn’t have much time to address these concerns. I now believe I have done so. The article has gone from 190,336 characters at the beginning of the last review to 172,937 now, a decrease of 9.14%. The total size of the article is 99 kB, which is considered within the guidelines of “readable prose size” according to WP:SIZERULE. Especially considering how important Adams is, I do not see how any further reasonable objections can be made to the size of the article, and hope that it will pass this time, as there do not seem to be any other major issues. Display name 99 (talk) 17:05, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Comment. I'm not yet expressing an opinion on whether the article is too long (I haven't read it), but I thought a comparison with some other very large FAs might be useful. For the top five on this page, the page size script gives word counts of 12K, 16K, 13K, 10K, and 11K. The largest is Hillary Clinton, with 16,016 words, but the promoted version was only 12,411 words. John Adams clocks in at 16,160 words. It seems probable that this would be the largest FA at promotion by word count. The next five on the list were (at promotion) also much smaller, though a couple have ballooned since then. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:33, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

That may be true, but there are a few points I would like to make. The Clinton article became an FA in 2014. She's done plenty of notable things since then, which inevitably caused the article to grow in size. Adams is long dead, and with no major biographies or other studies of him in the works, it seems unlikely that there will be any major attempt to balloon the size of his biography at all. I would also like to point out that Ulysses S. Grant currently has 16,504 words, more than this article by more than a few hundred, although it was only 13,541 at the time of promotion in 2015. Byzantine Empire is even larger at 16,637 words. It became an FA in 2004, when the ideal word count was obviously nowhere near our current standards, but it's survived two FARs, most recently in 2012. My central point is that while this might set a new record for longest article at the time of promotion, it would not be the longest featured article overall. Display name 99 (talk) 19:54, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
Mike Christie, just a quick update: The article is now down to 97 kB and has less than 16,000 words. Display name 99 (talk) 20:03, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Tony1[edit]

Lead, 1a:

  • I'm being picky. Pity to go along with this fiction that leaders "serve" the population. Um ... too much of a stretch for me. So I'd personally prefer "who became the first". You know that the Queen is described as having a lifetime of "public service". Don't make me laugh.
"Public service, "served in office," etc. are all common phrases that everyone understands. I don't see how there are any reasonable grouns for this objection. Display name 99 (talk) 20:22, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
  • "He was also a dedicated diarist and correspondent, particularly with his wife and closest advisor, Abigail." Also picky: makes it sound like he was a diarist with his wife, whereas you mean just "correspondent" with her, right?
I think the meaning is pretty clear. Display name 99 (talk) 20:22, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
It's not working, unless you mean they sat together and wrote his diary. Tony (talk) 15:17, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
Another user just changed this. Is it any better? Display name 99 (talk) 22:33, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
  • "Adams collaborated with his cousin"—what, in writing his diary?
This part is rather vague and isn't closely supported by the main text. Replaced. Display name 99 (talk) 20:22, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
  • "and successfully defended the accused British soldiers of the Boston Massacre in court"—"and successfully defended in court the British soldiers accused of the Boston Massacre"? Over to you. Rest of that paragraph: good.
Done. Added "perpetrating" after of. Display name 99 (talk) 20:22, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
  • You need to trim out "also" from your writing. (Audit MAFIA ... moreover, also, furthermore, in addition). "Adams' credentials as a revolutionary secured him two terms as George Washington's vice president and also his own election in 1796 as president." Consider comma before "and" ... I'm not sure. Then: "During his single term, he encountered"—can the single term be relocated into the previous proposition? I had to pause and think momentarily, having seen three terms flash past.
I could only find one instance of any of these worth trimming out. Commas are only necessary before and if three or more things are being listed, and sometimes not even then. I don't know what three terms you're thinking of and I think it's pretty clear that the article means his single term as president. Display name 99 (talk) 20:22, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
"Commas are only necessary before and if three or more things are being listed, and sometimes not even then."—I don't know where that idea came from. Please revise your take on comma usage—it's more complicated and nuanced than that. On "also" (there are 21 of them, and only a few are needed): what is it adding to this: "He was also a dedicated diarist and correspondent, particularly with his wife and closest advisor, Abigail." And here: "Ferling also surmises that ...". And here: "In 1771, Adams moved his family to Braintree, but kept his office in Boston. He also noted on the day of the family's move, ...". If you like, I'll add "also" to almost every sentence. Let me know and I'll do it. Tony (talk) 15:27, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
Tony1, this article here says that commas should be used to separate two INDEPENDENT clauses. The second clause in the sentence you quoted is a dependent clause. A comma would not be needed there. I removed 11 more instances of also. Display name 99 (talk) 20:59, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
I'm afraid I must inform you that that's an amateurish writing guide. Full of simplistic advice. Tony (talk) 01:36, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
  • CMOS says "that" unless there's a comma before it: "a correspondence which lasted fourteen years".
Fixed. Display name 99 (talk) 20:22, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
  • "Modern historians have favorably ranked his administration."—sounds very numerical/tabular. Do they all indulge in this?
Changed to show that the rankings do not include all historians. Display name 99 (talk) 20:22, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Looks promising. Tony (talk) 07:06, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Tony1, thank you for your review. Please see my above comments. Display name 99 (talk) 20:22, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Tony1, I don't think we're going to agree on the comma. Are there any other comments you wish to make about this article? Display name 99 (talk) 00:38, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

You need to go beyond that amateurish online guide for comma usage.

You have yet to provide any justification for how the guide is "amateurish." And as you haven't produced a supposedly better guide which supports your own position instead of mine, I feel no urgency to change the article here. Display name 99 (talk) 15:06, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

"Career before the Revolution":

  • "rights to only be taxed by consent"—"only by" would be less clunky.
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 15:06, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Causality needs to be clearer (IF I'm understanding it correctly): "Many colonists, including Adams, believed these courts, which operated without a jury, were corrupt and unfair." Do you mean: "Many colonists, including Adams, believed these courts were corrupt and unfair because they operated without a jury."? Whether causal or not, it should be clear.
Your version is better. Done. Display name 99 (talk) 15:06, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "relations with Britain temporarily eased"—can a relationship ease? Or "tensions ... eased"?
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 15:06, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "known locally as the "White House.""—tsk: MOS breach.
I'm not sure what you mean here. Can you explain? Display name 99 (talk) 15:06, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "the family" ... "They" ... "He and Abigail and the children" ... "they". Check there's not a more efficient way—unsure.
I've changed this around a bit. Please take a look. Display name 99 (talk) 15:06, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "a lone British sentry was accosted by American men and boys."—sounds vaguely sexual. Do we need to make the distinction? And since in those days women hardly ever accosted anyone, can they be characterised as "civilians", without gendering them?
Changed to "mob of citizens." Display name 99 (talk) 15:06, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "The following day, Adams was asked to defend them after others had refused, and he immediately agreed to do so." Simpler and shorter? "The following day, after others had refused to defend them, Adams agreed to do so." Tony (talk) 03:15, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 15:06, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
Tony1, the review is still incomplete. Do you want to finish it? Display name 99 (talk) 17:01, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak Support – There have been few structural changes made recently, but the fact that there have been any at all may cause the article to fail the Stable criteria. The article is definitely well researched as is and well written, and it already is a GA, so I could see this nom successfully going through. Redditaddict69 (talk) (contribs) 22:38, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
Redditaddict69, I fail to see how the structural changes can be seen as the result of anything but the standard process of getting this article reading for featured article candidacy. There's no ongoing edit war, and the stability criteria only mandates that "its content...not change significantly from day to day." You even admit that the changes are not significant, so I have to wonder if you even read the FA criteria and if so, how closely. If you have misgivings about this article because some changes were recently made in order to get it ready for the FA process, I don't see how you would not have the same objections for virtually every article that comes on here. I do however thank you for your support. Display name 99 (talk) 00:29, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Some of the details in the infobox do not appear to be cited, such as the exact end date of his ambassadorships
These are largely discussed in the main text. I've encountered other FAs in which the EXACT dates in the infobox aren't directly cited. Display name 99 (talk) 00:44, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
In this case, the text says eg. just "1788" for the ambassadorship end, rather than giving the exact date. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:45, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
Source added for ambassadorship dates. Display name 99 (talk) 00:38, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Fn14 is incomplete
Fixed. Display name 99 (talk) 00:44, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
Now FN15, looking at the original there appears to be a publication name not currently included. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:40, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
Fixed. Display name 99 (talk) 15:06, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Don't mix templated and untemplated citations
Right now, the only untemplated citation under References is 286. There is no author (it was written by an organization), so I wasn't sure how to put it in the Bibliography. Display name 99 (talk) 00:44, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
Looking at the GBooks link, there appears to be an author named on the title page? It also looks like some citations are partially templated and partially not, eg. 28, or not at all, eg. 27. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:40, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
Not sure how I missed that. Added. I also properly templated those two citations. Display name 99 (talk) 15:06, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
  • FN34 and 27 are the same
Fixed. Display name 99 (talk) 00:44, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
  • FN39 is incomplete
Fixed. Display name 99 (talk) 00:44, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
  • FN43 is broken
Fixed. Display name 99 (talk) 00:44, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Be consistent in whether page ranges are abbreviated
Fixed. Display name 99 (talk) 00:44, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
Might've missed a couple, eg. FN157. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:40, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. I took care of one. I looked through again and haven't found any others. Display name 99 (talk) 15:06, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Be consistent in when you include publisher locations
Fixed. Display name 99 (talk) 00:44, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
Still seeing some inconsistencies here. For example, 126 has a location, 227 does not, 310 does not but other books do, etc. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:40, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
Fixed. Display name 99 (talk) 15:06, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
  • FN147 date format doesn't match other sources
Fixed. Display name 99 (talk) 00:44, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
  • What makes Leip a high-quality reliable source?
Replaced chart with electoral map. Display name 99 (talk) 00:44, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
  • FN225 should cite the NHHC
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 00:44, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Forbes is a publication, Library of Congress is a publisher - check italics throughout
I'm a little bit confused about what you mean here. Can you explain? Display name 99 (talk) 00:44, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
This is typically to do with which parameter is used for which data, although it appears in some cases you've actually added italics to an instance of |publisher=. Organizations like LOC should use |publisher= and shouldn't be displayed in italics, whereas publications like Forbes should use |work= or a related parameter (|website=, |newspaper=, etc). Nikkimaria (talk) 01:45, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
I added italics for Forbes and removed it from Library of Congress, as well as from publishers in a few other sources where it didn't seem needed. Display name 99 (talk) 00:38, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
Still some inconsistencies here - channels are not publications (though programs are), website names should be italicized, etc. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:40, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
Nikkimaria, I added italics to a website but I'm still a bit confused here. PBS is a channel but isn't it technically a program as well? Should it be italicized? Display name 99 (talk) 15:06, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
There is a program called PBS NewsHour, but I don't see one just called "PBS" at List_of_programs_broadcast_by_PBS? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:30, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
Thank you. Italics removed. Display name 99 (talk) 02:34, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
  • FN276 seems to indicate Reagan was 89 at the time, not over 90
Replaced source. Display name 99 (talk) 00:44, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
The new source supports that Reagan reached age 90, but not that he surpassed 90 years 247 days. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:40, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
Removed that part of the text. Display name 99 (talk) 15:06, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
  • FN320 doesn't link to anything
Fixed. Display name 99 (talk) 00:44, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Be consistent in how book editors are formatted
I think I've fixed this. Display name 99 (talk) 00:44, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
Compare Foot and Hogan. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:40, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
I've taken care of this. Display name 99 (talk) 15:06, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Be consistent in whether state names are abbreviated
Fixed. Display name 99 (talk) 00:44, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
Seems to be a few unabbreviated under References. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:40, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
Fixed. Display name 99 (talk) 15:06, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Why the double publisher in McDonald 1974?
This was a mistake. Fixed. Display name 99 (talk) 00:44, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Several of the entries under Primary sources appear incomplete. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:09, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
I've done a little work on this. Will continue. Display name 99 (talk) 00:44, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
I think this is taken care of now. Display name 99 (talk) 00:38, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
Looks like a few still incomplete, eg. Richardson. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:40, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
Sorry about that. I think it's finished now. Display name 99 (talk) 15:06, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Nikkimaria, thank you for your thorough review. I have addressed most of your concerns thus far. Display name 99 (talk) 00:44, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Nikkimaria, I've responded further to your comments. Display name 99 (talk) 00:38, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Given how many changes have been made by both the nominator and others in the last week, I think that exemplifies the fact that this article isn't done. It needs further review by WP's best editors before becoming a featured article. I still support the nomination, as stated in my previous vote, but the nom needs to be extended. Redditaddict69 (talk) (contribs) 21:45, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
Redditaddict69, forgive me if I'm misinterpreting you, but I already explained that your objection to how frequently the article has been edited recently did not make sense. You didn't defend it. Instead, you seem to have just reiterated it. And for what purpose? It doesn't add anything to the review process and the criticisms are completely illegitimate. Most of the changes in the past week were made in response to the FA review. I'm not sure how much experience you have here, but the way the review process works is, editors suggest changes. Then, the changes are discussed and made. Of course the article isn't done; it's still on review, and it won't be done until one of the coordinators either promotes it or closes the nomination. I welcome any further constructive suggestions that you may have, but I also don't understand what comments like this are meant to accomplish. Display name 99 (talk) 00:38, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
Which means Redditaddict69 thinks it was a premature nomination. I agree. You've asked me to go through the rest; but I've done far more than FAC should have to in sifting through prose issues. Please find one or two other editors to assist. Tony (talk) 05:38, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
Tony1, I disagree with that assessment. I've seen and been involved with FACs that have undergone prose evaluations similar to this one. I've also seen and been involved with reviews where a considerable amount of content was either added or subtracted from the article during the review itself. That hasn't happened yet. Like Redditaddict69, you express misgivings but haven't quite clearly stated what the remaining problems are in the article. If it's about the comma, I suggest you either get over it or find a guide better than the one I cited to prove me wrong. Otherwise I simply want to know what the outstanding issues are. I remind you that I have implemented the vast majority of your suggestions. I think the prose in the article were good to begin with and that most of your suggestions simply made them better and more concise. I can't see why you can't continue to do that. Display name 99 (talk) 15:46, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose—prose quality is inadequate. Tony (talk) 02:09, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
Redditaddict69, Can you provide any specific suggestions to help in the continued review? As they say, the devil is in the details. Hoppyh (talk) 02:33, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Comment: Is there a good way to reduce whitespace on the right side of the Notes section? Perhaps you could merge it and References into one section. Tonystewart14 (talk) 06:07, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Tonystewart14, sorry for the late response. I think it depends on your computer view because on mine I don't see any white space. I'm against merging it with the References section just because I feel that having a separate notes section makes the notes easier to find than if they're mixed up in a bunch of citations. I don't know that much about formatting so I'm afraid there don't seem to be any remaining options as far as I can tell. Display name 99 (talk) 15:51, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Redditaddict69[edit]

  • After reading several times... here are my initial observations:
Many sentences could be split into two to help with the flow. Equally as many sentences can be combined into one. This will help the article meet the requirements of being a very-well written article.
Can you give a few examples? Right now it's hard to know which sentences you think should be combined or stay together or which ones you think should be split. Display name 99 (talk) 18:25, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
Subsections with further information pages could be shortened, others can be expanded. Someone coming to read about John Adams probably doesn't want 7 paragraphs on his election when they can just click on the separate article for it. Furthermore, they may want more than 3 paragraphs of info on his later years, after the presidency.
The section on the election of 1796 has four paragraphs. The section on the election of 1800 (one of the most turbulent presidential elections in history) has five paragraphs. Furthermore, there are a total of 11 paragraphs discussing Adams' post-presidency, including his correspondence with Jefferson, political commentary, family life, etc. Display name 99 (talk) 18:25, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
@Display name 99: While it was a very highly contested election, not everyone wanting to read about Adams will want to see that. They may only want to see a brief summary, or only the info that he was directly involved in. Redditaddict69 (talk) (contribs) 21:35, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
Redditaddict69, I'm checking this review page every couple of hours so you don't have to ping me. And you certainly don't have to do so four times. Anyway, to the point, biographies have to include a certain amount of context and background or else nothing will make sense. Insisting that everything not relating directly to Adams be taken out would be in extremely poor judgment. All FA biographies have context and background information. They have to. Display name 99 (talk) 22:04, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
I notice that some sections are out of order. Last years and death should probably come before Legacy. This is just an opinion, and if people disagree, that's fine.
It does come before Legacy. You may have glanced at the article several times but it's clear from this comment and the one before it that you didn't look too closely. Display name 99 (talk) 18:25, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
@Display name 99: I meant as in the section directly after should be where it is located. I'm busy now so I'll reply to your other replies later, but I do think that Legacy should come directly after later years and death. That would look much more organized. Redditaddict69 (talk) (contribs) 21:35, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
The Legacy section is meant to sum up how the individual has been viewed after they died. Therefore, it would make sense to discuss that only after discussing all of the things they did and said before they died. It's done that way in literally every biography I've seen. Display name 99 (talk) 22:04, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
People said that this was a premature nomination but I think it can be saved. After the changes are made and they slow down to just a few dozen or so a week (at most), then would be a good time for a close.
I'm glad you think that the article can pass, but this is now the third time you've advanced the idea that frequent changes in themselves are enough to derail a nomination. I've refuted it twice. You haven't bothered to defend it. You just keep repeating it. Display name 99 (talk) 18:25, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
@Display name 99: I only reiterated it once I saw that not many changes were being made anymore. If changes are still being made, that is usually a good sign (from what I understand) that the article is still undergoing edits before becoming a featured article. A successful candidate for FA does not have many changes being made (as it was about a week ago), but it's slowed down – because of that, I am arguing for the article being passed. Few editors seem to be requesting and/or making more changes as of now. I don't think I made that clear before. Even though it's not a requirement for FA, that's a consensus I've seen that many may agree with. Redditaddict69 (talk) (contribs) 21:41, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
You reiterated it twice. Frequent edits are generally only a problem if there's an edit war. This is never an issue that I've seen come up at FA nominations and I don't see why you're so worry about it. FA nominations aren't determined based on how many editors request or make changes but whether the changes that are recommended are made and whether there is consensus for the nomination. Display name 99 (talk) 22:04, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
This article is good (that's why it's a good article), but I don't think it's great (hence, why it isn't featured).
Last thing: While this is on the "readable" size guidelines at 99kb, that's still a bit much when so much content can be merged to separate articles that already exist. Anything that isn't crucial info should likely be moved.
I've made a little more progress today. It's down to 98 kB. I've gotten rid of so much content already since the last time this was nominated that future cuts will be difficult. But I'll try. Display name 99 (talk) 18:25, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
@Display name 99: And I think, to make it shorter, anything that doesn't directly relate to him that can also be moved to an existing article could be done. As I stated before, the election section is quite long. Redditaddict69 (talk) (contribs) 21:41, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Redditaddict69 (talk) (contribs) 17:15, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

I addressed your concern about material not directly relating to Adams above. The article is now down to 97 kB. There are fewer than 16,000 words. I'm tired of shortening just for the sake of shortening and I don't think it's necessary any more. Display name 99 (talk) 22:04, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
Thanks–looks much better now. Redditaddict69 (talk) (contribs) 20:50, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for providing more specific details about what you want to see fixed. This is a step up. Display name 99 (talk) 18:25, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Comment. Humphrey Ploughjogger’s initial seven essays could use a brief description of the topic raised, as well as the reason for the use of the pen name. Hoppyh (talk) 20:18, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Hoppyh, I briefly expanded on their discussion in the article. They're discussed in two places: one for 1763, when they first started, and again after 1765, when Adams started them up again to oppose the Stamp Act. We have a handful of sentences in there about them right now which I think is enough. Thanks for the suggestion. Display name 99 (talk) 13:37, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Proposed split of "Later years and death" (see Jefferson Davis for example) – Move the paragraph on death to a section directly before Legacy. Later years will remain where it is. This will help the timeline of the article and address one of my previous concerns. Redditaddict69 (talk) (contribs) 21:47, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Or, as an alternative, move the entirety of the Retirement section to directly before Legacy. Why should political writings come after retirement? Redditaddict69 (talk) (contribs) 21:49, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Neither of these suggestions work for me. For biographies of individuals who have done extensive writing on politics, philosophy, etc., it's common practice (and I think a good practice) to cover their chronological life first, which of course includes death, before discussing their theories. Analysis of writings interrupt the chronological flow of the articles and so it's good to save those from last. The chronological events in Adams' life should remain together. This is how the vast majority of Wikipedia articles are written. Display name 99 (talk) 22:33, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Yes, that is true. I gave the Jefferson Davis article as an example because that is a Featured Article already, but nothing there applies here. I guess that makes me satisfied with the way it currently is. Redditaddict69 (talk) (contribs) 23:52, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Redditaddict69, yes, I'd consider the Davis article more of an anomaly. I looked at other FAs on US Presidents (Jackson-written by me-, Polk, Johnson, and Grant) and they all do it the same way as this article. I'm glad to know you're satisfied with everything. That said, do you still consider your support "weak" or is it stronger now? If any other concerns come up please let me know. Display name 99 (talk) 23:59, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Definitely stronger. Seems that almost all problems have been taken care of (I don't see any more, nor does anyone else, because none have really come up). Redditaddict69 (talk) (contribs) 00:04, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Wehwalt[edit]

  • "Adams was a Massachusetts delegate to the Continental Congress, and became a principal in the decision for independence." I might say "leader" for "principal"
I added leader after principle. Typo. Display name 99 (talk) 13:25, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
  • " As a diplomat in Europe, he helped negotiate the peace treaty with Great Britain and acquired vital governmental loans." I might say "secured" rather than "acquired".
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 13:25, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "Adams' early education included incidences of truancy, a dislike for his master, and a desire to become a farmer." Should "incidences" be "incidents"?
Yes. Fixed. Display name 99 (talk) 13:25, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "Deacon Adams hired a new school master" I would render the end "schoolmaster" or perhaps better, "teacher".
Substituted "schoolmaster." Display name 99 (talk) 13:25, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "as his contemporaries largely spectated or joined the war for money. " I would avoid "spectated" and would simplify "as many of his contemporaries joined the war to earn money" (if the source supports this). It's not necessary to state the converse. The reader gets that not everyone went to war.
Removed "spectated." The source says that many people signed up for large cash or land bounties, so I kept the part about money. Display name 99 (talk) 13:25, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
  • " recognizing that he was the first of his family to "[degenerate] from the virtues of the house so far as not to have been an officer in the militia."[13]" maybe the first word "regretting" instead of what you have.
I have to differ here. While Adams does seem a bit troubled by the fact that he never served in the military, he did not, to my knowledge, ever state that he would do things over again if he could, which is sort of what's implied by the word "regret." Display name 99 (talk) 13:25, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "and was soon admitted to the Massachusetts bar," Was there such a thing at that time, or was he admitted to practice by his local court that would be accepted by other courts? If the latter, I would strike "Massachusetts".
Removed "Massachusetts." Display name 99 (talk) 13:25, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "Susanna died after about a year,[24] " I think better to say "Susanna died at about age 1"
Replaced by saying that she died at one year old. Display name 99 (talk) 13:25, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
More soon.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:19, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
Wehwalt, thank you for your review. Please see my comments above. Display name 99 (talk) 13:25, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

SM U-1 (Austria-Hungary)[edit]

Nominator(s): White Shadows Let’s Talk 02:55, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Back at it with another submarine article. This time, it's the lead ship of the U-1 class, U-1. The main article dealing with her class was just promoted to FA-status about a day ago, and this article recently passed an A-class review late last month. I've incorporated some of the recommendations I received during the U-1-class FAC into this article since the ACR closed, and I think it's now ready to be taken to FAC.

Now, about the submarine itself. U-1 was the first U-boat build for and commissioned into the Austro-Hungarian Navy. Her design included several unique features mechanics that you don't often see on many other submarines, such as a diving chamber to enter and exit the submarine while it was underwater. Perhaps most bizarrely, she was also equipped with wheels (yes, you read that right...wheels) to "travel" along the seafloor. This was largely because she was an experimental design intended to evaluate competing proposals from three different foreign firms.

Throughout her career, U-1 was used mostly for training purposes, though she was briefly mobilized during the First Balkan War, and she was occasionally assigned recon missions out of Trieste and Pola during World War I. However, she never sank or damaged any enemy vessels during the war. Declared obsolete in January 1918, she was again relegated to training missions before being put up at Pola near the end of the war. After a brief period of chaos regarding who owned the submarine following the collapse of the Austro-Hungarian Empire (as was the case with literally every single ship in the Austro-Hungarian fleet at the end of the war), U-1 was seized by, and later granted to, Italy. The Italians decided to ultimately scrap the submarine in Pola in 1920.--White Shadows Let’s Talk 02:55, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Tony1[edit]

Lead, 1a:

  • "as part of a competitive evaluation of foreign submarine designs after domestic proposals were rejected by the Navy"—why not active voice? "as part of a competitive evaluation of foreign submarine designs after the Navy had rejected domestic proposals" (I added "had" ... please check)
  • This is historically accurate. The Navy did not reach out to foreign firms until after rejecting the domestic proposals presented to them.
"after domestic proposals were rejected by the Navy"—"the Navy" is still well and truly the actor; active/passive makes utterly no difference to that. But passive is unnecessarily complex grammar. This is nothing to do with historical accuracy. Tony (talk) 04:43, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
  • I hiccup every time I see "she" and "her". If you must use sexist language—as the MilHist males have successfully fought tooth and nail to be allowed to persist with—could we not at least ration it a little? Many of them are redundant, anyway: why two "she"s in one sentence? "She was 30.48 meters (100 ft 0 in) long and, depending on whether she was surfaced or submerged, displaced between 229.7 and 248.9 metric tons (226–245 long tons; 253–274 short tons)." Note that range typography is not permitted after "between" or "from". In the end, it's not easy to know exactly what you mean: so surfaced, the tests were lower in that range, and submerged they were toward 248.9? Are those averages?
  • I took this article to FAC to expect serious inquires regarding the quality of the article's content, research, and coverage, not to have to address petty politics and flimsy accusations of latent sexism in my writing. If your objection is word repetition in a sentence (one of my personal pet peeves), I'm with you. However, I am not here to re-litigate conventional naming practices, and this FAC has nothing to do with such a thing.
There's nothing "latent" about your sexist language, and if you want to refer to it in terms of "petty politics", it makes you look worse. If you'd read my comment properly, you'd understand that I know better than to ask for it to be eradicated. All I'm asking is for references to the submarine to be rotated with more skill, to avoid, for example, two shes in one sentence. That's like avoiding words such as "this" too often. The bonus is that it's less offensive to female readers, and to male readers who care. The article is not for you and your mates: it's for our readers. Tony (talk) 04:51, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
  • You know better than to ask for it to be eradicated...you just don't know better than to insult someone for no reason at all.
  • If the unsigned preceding comment makes its author feel better, sure, he can ventilate all he likes. If he regards what I said as a personal "insult", he's the one with the problem. Now, let's see if we can get the whole article up to scratch. Tony (talk) 07:41, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Grammar and fluff problems:

    "Originally powered by gasoline engines for surface running, it was discovered during her sea trials throughout 1909 and 1910 that these engines were found to be incapable of reaching the submarine's contracted speed and posed a risk of poisoning the ship's crew." ->

    "Originally powered by gasoline engines for surface running, sea trials throughout 1909 and 1910 showed these engines to be incapable of reaching the submarine's contracted speed and to pose a risk of poisoning the crew."

  • Done
  • "Despite these criticisms, tests of her design provided information which the Navy used to construct subsequent submarines." -> "Despite these criticisms, design tests provided information the Navy used to improve submarine construction." (That's some guesswork by me.)
  • Done
  • "in order to". No.
  • Fixed
  • "but was at Pola at the end of the war"—the "but" means the training role was no longer at Pola? Bit hard to work it out.
  • Sources are uncertain if she was still in a training role after her re-location to Pola. Austria-Hungary was already starting to collapse by October, so while she may officially have been listed as a training vessel, it's probable that she was no longer actually conducting training operations. I'd prefer to avoid pure speculation however. All we know for certain is that she was relocated to Pola in the final months of the war.
  • "to avoid having to hand its ships over"—why not "to avoid handing its ships over"?
  • Done
  • "Following the Armistice of Villa Giusti in November 1918 however, U-1 was seized by Italian forces and subsequently granted to the Kingdom of Italy under the Treaty of Saint-Germain-en-Laye in 1920. Italy chose to scrap the submarine, and she was broken up at Pola later that same year without ever having sunk or damaged any vessels during her career."—The "however" needs a prior comma, but using it in afterthought position is very unusual. Why do we need it at all? "... which was broken up at Pola ...".
  • Change made

Glancing further down, I see lots of things to fix. Needs a thorough audit. Tony (talk) 06:35, 24 September 2018 (UTC) Later comment: I think the practice of nominating and then vanishing should be discouraged. This has occupied a place on the list for five days without nominator activity. Could it be removed, please? Tony (talk) 02:10, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

If you took a look at the article activity, you’d see I am addressing your points. I’d appreciate it if you’d operate a bit more in good faith.—White Shadows Let’s Talk 12:58, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
Ah, like your good faith, on disply above? I hope I do better than that. Tony (talk) 04:51, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
  • You failed unfortunately. Perhaps you should stop calling fellow editors sexist? Doesn't exactly scream WP:AGF now, does it?--White Shadows Let’s Talk 06:24, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Image review

  • Suggest scaling the lead image rather than used fixed pixel size
  • File:SM_U-1_(Austria-Hungary).jpg: suggest expanding purpose of use. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:21, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

John Doubleday (restorer)[edit]

Nominator(s): Usernameunique (talk) 04:22, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Talented as he was, the British Museum's first restorer owes his renown to the actions of a drunkard. John Doubleday is best remembered as the man who restored the Portland Vase after it was smashed by a young man at the end of a week-long bender; along the way, he also testified in criminal trials, traveled internationally, and sold Shakespearean artifacts. Or at least so he said.

In its previous nomination this article attracted the support of three reviewers (thanks, Casliber, J Milburn, and KJP1); the decision to archive it was both surprising and, I believe, poorly considered. This article is thoroughly researched, well written, and by far the most comprehensive take on Doubleday available anywhere. It is featured article material. Usernameunique (talk) 04:22, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

From FunkMonk[edit]

  • I'll have a look soon, hopefully some of the earlier reviewers will return first. I ran the citation bot, and though it may seem like a screw up that it removed the publishers, it is apparently discouraged to include those when citing journal articles. Of course, feel free to revert that, but the bot did some other useful things too that could be kept. FunkMonk (talk) 06:22, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
  • I wonder if the placement of the lithograph and the shards should be swapped, so that it fits the order they are mentioned in the article?
  • Done. Ideally the watercolor of the shards would go a section earlier (Portland Vase), but there isn't enough room as it stands. --Usernameunique (talk) 19:38, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
  • "The vase was next restored by J. W. R. Axtell in 1948–1949, and then by Nigel Williams" What is meant by this? Why did it need to be restored again?
  • Added a bit more info. The adhesive used by Doubleday grew increasingly visible over time, while Axtell's grew both discolored and weak. --Usernameunique (talk) 03:55, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
  • "John Doubleday with his restoration" Could mention date of photo in caption.
  • Reworded to "around 1845," since that's probably the date, but isn't known for certain. --Usernameunique (talk) 03:55, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
  • " making it "an unusual bequest"" According to who?
  • It seems a bit unusual that his personal information is featured last rather than first, but I guess there is good reason.
  • Normally I'd do a section on his early years and then personal life later on (example), but this seemed like a better approach since almost nothing is known of the first 30-odd years of his life. --Usernameunique (talk) 03:55, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
  • "To the memory

of" Does "of" really have its own line on the stone?

  • Yes, although it's centered and has a line on either side of it (————of————). You can make it out if you squint a bit at the full resolution photograph. --Usernameunique (talk) 03:55, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - looks good to me now, I can't imagine further commentary would make me change my mind. Little is known about this man, so we can't be less ambiguous than the sources. FunkMonk (talk) 05:48, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Support by Wehwalt[edit]

Just a few comments:

  • "By taking casts in sulphur and white metal " Is this somehow a combination of sulphur and white metal, or are they separate items, or is something else meant? I understand white metal, in British speak, to mean either a non-silver alloy or silver alloy that has not been tested at an assay office and found to be sterling.
  • Some in sulphur, and other in white metal. I've added some clarifying language ("casts in coloured sulphur and in white metal" ... "He sold sulphur and white metal casts, the former which he coloured in different hues"), and linked white metal. If you're interested, there's a description on pages 74–75. In part: "He also copies silver coins in white metal, but although the copies are as accurate as those in sulphur, the metal has the color rather of tin than of silver, and I did not like them so well; still they are very fair imitations of the originals. It is his custom, when copying silver and gold coins in sulphur, to distinguish them by different colors, making the gold a deep red, &c.—he also labels them."
  • "had been introduced to Charles Newton (later Sir) by a friend," maybe the parenthetical (later Sir Charles)?
  • Done.
  • "and the 1851 census as a New York-born "artist" who was nonetheless a British subject, " I might make clearer this is a British census, rather than US.
  • Changed the wording in the lead to reflect that; from the context and the piped link, I don't think the the second mention needs the explanation.
  • I don't see anything in my likely numismatic references about Doubleday (I have not conducted an extensive search, simply glanced at the indexes of some of my British numismatic references. In the archives of The Numismatist, I see a an American die engraver named John Doubleday Lovett (1819-1886} who is buried in Green-Wood Cemetery in Brooklyn, if it's of any help.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:24, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the comments and support, Wehwalt. Responses are above. John Doubleday Lovett looks to be someone else; by the time he was eleven years old the British Museum John Doubleday was in his thirties and in London. You don't happen to have a copy of Biographical Dictionary of British and Irish Numismatics (2009) by Harrington Manville, do you? I don't know if Doubleday is mentioned in it, but Vlasto is supposed to be, and I haven't yet got my hands on a copy of it. --Usernameunique (talk) 02:21, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
  • No I don't, sorry. I checked my two volumes (Craig and Dyer) on the history of the Royal Mint. I didn't think Lovett was the same person, I was just wondering if there could be a family connection.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:26, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Support from KJP1[edit]

Personally, I was happy first-time around, hence my support then. I didn't myself see significant prose issues and as others, including the nominator, have remarked, I think we have to accept that gaps in the record will inevitably lead to gaps in the article. I think it is as comprehensive as it can be, and am pleased to Support again. KJP1 (talk) 15:09, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks KJP1, I appreciate your support both then and now. --Usernameunique (talk) 15:27, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Support by Ceoil[edit]

With a few minor quibbles

  • but was primarily their specialist restorer - Specialist in what sense; restorer of a particular type of object, or specialist in restoring
  • I read it as the latter, but the source doesn't specify. I should be able to check the source that it cites (Oddy 1993), however, on Monday. (Thanks for that, by the way—couldn't remember why I had Oddy 1993 pulled up on WorldCat until your comment.)
  • maybe first dedicated, or something. 05:26, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
  • The very realism for which he was lauded - drop "very "
  • Done.
  • Thousands of his copies filled out the collections - drop "out"
  • I think "filled out" means something slightly different from "filled." The former to me means that individual holes in collections were filled with copies, while the latter means the copies formed the backbone of the collections.
Reworded as "gaps in" Ceoil (talk) 05:46, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Ok Ceoil (talk) 05:22, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
  • He also appears to have been - no need for "also"
  • Changed to "he seems" (there's an earlier sentence in the paragraph that begins "He appears").
  • "a masterpiece of Roman cameo glass" that is "probably the most famous glass object in the world" - this could probably be paraphrased so its not quotes
  • Done.
  • The British Museum awarded Doubleday an additional £25 (equivalent to £2,500 in 2016) for his labours: "for his labours" sounds a bit dated, maybe just "for his work"
  • Done.
  • onetime keeper of Egyptian and Assyrian antiquities at the museum - "former"
  • Done.
  • forever destroying the inscriptions - do we need "forever"
  • Nope, removed.
  • Doubleday first attempted to fire the unbaked tablets to make them hard - this could be more scientifically put, with blue links for fired, baked and hard
  • Linked fire to Pottery#Firing. Any suggestions for links for baked and hard?
  • Doubleday twice served as a witness in criminal matters - for the British Museum
  • The first one doesn't appear to have been for the BM—rather, from what I can tell he seems to simply be testifying as an expert.
  • ..Why does Early in February, Timolean Vlasto, a fashionable twenty-four-year-old from Vienna whose late father, Count Vlasto, had been a diplomat need 5 refs
  • Removed two.
  • Charles Newton (later Sir Charles) - don't need later Sir Charles?
  • I think it says something about the social status of the people Vlasto was dealing with. Interestingly, both Sir Henry Ellis of the BM, and General Charles Richard Fox from whom Vlasto stole, were permitted to sit on the bench and confer with the judge regarding sentencing. This seems like an unlikely privilege had the victims been considered less respectable.
  • Then just Sir Charles Ceoil (talk) 05:20, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Vlasto was henceforth given unfettered access - drop henceforth, maybe "unrestricted" rather than "unfettered"
  • Removed "henceforth".
  • I'm confused by "Upon inspection many more coins could not be found, some of which were recovered when a search warrant for Vlasto's lodgings was obtained on Thursday" - how could coins that could not be found, be recovered
  • They couldn't be found in the museum's collection on Monday; on Thursday, some were discovered in Vlasto's lodgings when a search warrant was executed.
Fine, and reworded but dont like this Monday/Thursday business. Too specific and bordering on padding. Ceoil (talk) 07:37, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
  • In private life Doubleday was a dealer, and a copyist of coins, medals, and ancient seals - Not sure "private life" is correct here as private life usually indicated personal life. Maybe just "apart from his work for the BM"
  • Reworded.

A most enjoyable look at a fascinating area of art history (19c restoration). Ceoil (talk) 00:44, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments and support, Ceoil. I've adopted most of your suggestions; full responses are above. --Usernameunique (talk) 04:28, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
I can see how the last candidacy alas, did not get through, but unreservedly support the current nom. Ceoil (talk) 06:27, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Support by Cas Liber[edit]

Looks more polished than last time. Well done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:00, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Support from SN54129[edit]

I was intending to support this on its previous outing, but my tardiness + archiving stymied the effort. My only potential query was to have been regarding the use of all available sourcing (as part of which, I provided one). This was clearly satisfied then—and, if anything, has only been augmented since—and so I default, without hesitation or guilt, to my original position, which is that whatever occurred before, that was then, this is now, and now Featured Article material stands before us. Cheers, —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 15:46, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Brachiosaurus[edit]

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

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

Tony1[edit]

1a lead:

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

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

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

My glitch. Size and general build subsections:

  • "Brachiosaurus was a quadrupedal animal with a small skull, a long neck, a large trunk with a high-ellipsoid cross section, a long, muscular tail and slender, columnar limbs."—Is it just the large trucnk that had that cross-section, or the whole body. The former is indicated at the moment. And a serial comma after "tail" would clarify the list-item boundaries here.
It is the trunk that is meant. Fixed the comma. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:08, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
  • The estimates of size: they're surprisingly exact at one decimal point. Are they meant to be averages? The last estimate has a different precision ...
Not averages; these are single estimates as given in the sources, usually of the most complete specimen. The precision does not reflect the level of confidence (as the estimates range between 20 and 60 tonnes), and even rounding them up to get rid of the decimal point would suggest a higher precision than there actually is. We usually give decimal points when the sources do so (we also had that discussion in the German Wikipedia – same result). --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:08, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
So, would it be possible to convey this to non-expert readers, perhaps for the first list of mass (and we hope the reader will assume it's the same for the subsequent list), by adding "has been estimated on the basis of individual fossils at 35.0 ...."? (Italics mark the possible insert.) You have one ISO symbol "m" in that list, against the expanded forms. These lists are still cluttered, though. Why do we need the old British empire unit conversions in a scientific article? Our rules say: "Where English-speaking countries use different units for the same quantity, provide a conversion in parentheses: the Mississippi River is 2,320 miles (3,734 km) long; the Murray River is 2,508 kilometres (1,558 mi) long. But in science-related articles, supplying such conversion is not required unless there is some special reason to do so." It would be so much easier to read, even for American grade-school students (who do, after all, have learn about the metric system). Tony (talk) 02:40, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
The issue of conversions in science articles is a bit contentious, there was a long discussion about it here[21] (started by me), don't remember what the conclusion was, but it seems there was general agreement that "some special reason to do so" was too vague wording... FunkMonk (talk) 04:07, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
Hehe, looking through that discussion again, it seems it was you, Tony, who created that guideline in the first place. I thought the issue had been solved after the long discussion and multiple proposals, but seems they were never implemented. FunkMonk (talk) 04:12, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
Who told you Americans learn the metric system?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  14:32, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
  • "In studies including estimates for both Brachiosaurus and Giraffatitan, the latter was estimated at 31.5 metric tons"—"estimates/d" twice. And is there a reason to clutter up the proposition with "both x and y"? It's just about Giraffatitan. Why not just: "Giraffatitan's [average?] mass was estimated at ...". Were these estimates based on computational results using the sizes of fossilised bone samples? How many, about? Half a dozen, or scores? Just trying to get an idea of the reliability.
See also answer above. The reason for the clutter is that we can only compare estimates made in the same study, since the methodology for obtaining the estimates varies too much between studies. So these values must be compared to those for Brachiosaurus given in the previous paragraph, which is not ideal. I'm not sure how to make this clear, maybe we should either repeat the Brachiosaurus estimates or remove the sentence altogether. Pinging MWAK if he has an idea. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:08, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
A solution might be to explain for each estimate which method was used. This would make the entire subchapter less repetitive and highlight the rôle the genus had historically played in the development of such methods.--MWAK (talk) 17:10, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
Thanks MWAK, I will see what is possible shortly. Fixed the inconsistency "m" vs "meters". --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:01, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
  • "This lead to the trunk being inclined, with the front much higher than the hips, and the neck exiting the trunk at a steep angle."—Lead is on the periodic table. There's only one "and", so do we need the comma before it in a sentence that's not too long?
fixed. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:08, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
  • "These bony rods were attached to neck muscles at their ends, allowing these muscles to operate distal portions of the neck while themselves being located closer to the body, thus lightening the neck."—The neck is part of the body. Do you mean closer to the trunk? And does it make the neck lighter, or just lower its centre of gravity? Try to remove "thus" if it doesn't damage the meaning.
yes, corrected. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:08, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
  • "The ribcage was unusually deep."—What, for a dinosaur or for a subclass?
added "deep compared to other sauropods". --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:08, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
  • "the elongated forearm and metacarpus known from other brachiosaurids"—from ... moving away. Why not "... metacarpus of other ..."?
yes, changed accordingly. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:08, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
  • This ... this. It's repetition-sensitive. Second one "the"?
changed. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:08, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
  • "show" -> had? Since your model has mostly been to look at them metaphorically as if on a movie, rather than scientifically via fossils. There's another one, too.
replaced throughout the article. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:08, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
  • "given its more elongated dorsal vertebrae"—which of the two does "its" back-refer to?
fixed. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:08, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
  • "the broadened neural spine" ... "a"? Since you haven't talked about this aspect before, unless I've overlooked it.
changed. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:08, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
  • "Although Paul, in 1988, suggested that the neck was shorter in Brachiosaurus than in Giraffatitan, two cervical vertebrae likely belonging to Brachiosaurus suggest identical proportions.[2][3]" So we get a year for Paul's suggestion, but no time-anchor for the update. And "suggest/ed" twice. "Paul had suggested the neck ..., more recent work points to ..."? Tony (talk) 08:33, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
Many thanks for the detailed suggestions! Will remember these things. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:08, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comments by Lusotitan[edit]

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

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

Drive-by comment[edit]

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

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

Cas Liber[edit]

Reading now.....

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

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

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

Comments Support by IJReid[edit]

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

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

Coord note[edit]

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

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

Comments by Cwmhiraeth[edit]

  • I was so impressed by finding an error in the very first sentence (dinosaur should be plural) that I thought I had better read on!
Thanks for the review! Not sure about that being an error though, it is the same as saying "the hoatzin is a species of bird", if that is the part you are referring to. That is how pretty much all dinosaur FAs are written, as well as those of many other animals. I found a discussion of this issue here:[22] FunkMonk (talk) 10:04, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
Here are some scientific sources using the phrase "genus of dinosaur"[23][24], and one that uses both versions in the same abstract:[25] FunkMonk (talk) 11:03, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
I would follow "species of" with a singular and "genus of" with a plural. That seems right to me, and is what I use in the genus and species articles I write, but I am not going to make a big issue of it. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:40, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
It's not something I feel strongly about, but I'll see if some of my co-nominators have any thoughts on this first. FunkMonk (talk) 14:30, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
I would tend to keep the current wording, as in dinosaur paleontology, the genus (and not the species) is the unit one usually works with (and in this specific case, we only have a single species within this genus). I do not mind changing it though, but also would like to see other peoples opinions first as we would have to adjust almost all other dinosaur articles as well. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:30, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
  • " ... more recent research suggest it was warm-blooded." - Suggests
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 18:42, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "The length of Brachiosaurus has been estimated at 20–21 meters (66–69 ft), 18 meters (59 ft), and its height at 9.4 meters (31 ft) and 12–13 meters (39–43 ft)." - In this and similar sentences, you need an "and" between the first two factoids instead of a comma.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 14:54, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "Giraffatitan specimen MB.R.2181 does likely not reflect " - I think "likely" should be before rather than after "does".
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 14:54, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "even for sauropod standards" - should be "by".
Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 20:00, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "with bended lower and upper sections" - Suggest "with the lower and upper sections bent".
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 14:54, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "Brachiosaurus likely shared the very elongated neck ribs with Giraffatitan," - suggest "Brachiosaurus likely shared with Giraffatitan the very elongated neck ribs.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 14:54, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "Its overall build resembles a giraffe" - You should not be using "It" here because Brachiosaurus was not the subject of the previous few sentences.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:06, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "In 1988, Paul" - You need to state who Paul is the first time he is mentioned.
  • ... and Taylor.
Fixed. both. LittleJerry (talk) 22:05, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "vertebral column preserved by an unnamed brachiosaurid" - "by" is probably not the best word here.
Changed to "in". FunkMonk (talk) 20:00, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "Differences to Giraffatitan are related" - I think "differences from".
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 18:42, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
  • In the "Skull" section, the conversion is to feet rather than inches as it was in "Postcranial skeleton" section. Feet might be better all round seeing that the image of femur and humerus has a foot rule scale.
Changed to inches. FunkMonk (talk) 18:32, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "continuing thereafter as a shallow through" - I think you mean "trough".
Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 20:00, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "ended just before and below the fenestra" - Suggest "ended just in front of and below the fenestra"
Good idea, changed. FunkMonk (talk) 14:30, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "these animals were inaccurately" - Suggest incorrectly or erroneously.
Changed. FunkMonk (talk) 14:30, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
  • We have "In the spring of 1899" and later "Arriving on 20 June" and "on 4 July 1900". From the prose, these events seem to refer to the same year but the dates given seem to indicate a longer time span.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:11, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "Additional discoveries of Brachiosaurus material in North America have been uncommon and consist of a handful of bones" - I object to the use of a "handful" in this casual fashion.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:11, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "In 1998, Carpenter and Tidwell described the Felch Quarry skull, and formally assigned it to B. sp." - I assume that B. here refers to Brachiosaurus?
Yes, spelled out here to avoid confusion. FunkMonk (talk) 14:46, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "the latter renamed Ultrasauros shortly thereafter because another sauropod already received the name." - I think "had" is missing from this sentence.
Said "had already received". FunkMonk (talk) 14:46, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "therefore suggested to separate them not at genus, but only at subgenus level," - Suggest " therefore suggested they be separated not at genus, but only at subgenus level,"
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:21, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "Atalaia" - Needs disambiguation.
Seems we don't have an article for the exact place, so removed link. FunkMonk (talk) 14:46, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "Cladistic analyses also allow to determine which new traits the members of a group have in common" - Missing word?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:22, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "The idea of near-vertical postures in sauropods in general was popular for until 1999," - Extra word?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:22, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
  • The sentence starting "The paleontologists Olivier Rieppel and Christopher Brochu .." is too long and complex.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:22, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "Brachiosaurus, with its shorter arms" - This statement surprised me because I thought that Brachiosaurus had particularly long arms.
But Giraffatitan had even longer arms! Hence the name, it was even more giraffe-like... FunkMonk (talk) 14:46, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "which would have helped smell proper vegeteation in a terrestrial setting" - ?
Removed "in a terrestrial setting", goes without say8ing, as we have already established it wasn't aquatic. FunkMonk (talk) 14:46, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "Instead the air was from the trachea sucked into an abdominal air sac" - Suggest "Instead the air was sucked from the trachea into an abdominal air sac"
Changed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:13, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "at the meantime" - suggest "same time"
Changed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:22, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "Its dorsal vertebrae still completely lack such pleurocoels." - The subject of the previous sentence is the pleurocoels.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:23, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "Its bone structure indicates that Brachiosaurus was able to reproduce when it reached 40% of its maximal size." - That's a bold claim, all from a handful of old bones!
Cwmhiraeth, done. LittleJerry (talk) 15:22, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
  • I am happy with the responses and actions taken and now Support this candidacy. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:07, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Ceoil[edit]

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

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

Size

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

Postcranial skeleton

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

General build

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

Feeding and diet

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

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

For the record I'm leaning support. Ceoil (talk) 21:27, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
Ceoil, all done. LittleJerry (talk) 02:05, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

PaleoGeekSquared[edit]

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

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

▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 17:13, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

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

William Matthews (priest)[edit]

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

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

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

Image review

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

Tony1[edit]

1a: It's not bad.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Death and legacy:

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

And:

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

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

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

Comments from Display name 99[edit]

Priesthood

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

St. Patrick's Church

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

St. Peter's Church

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

Recovery of Ann Mattingly

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

Georgetown College

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

Comments from Ceranthor[edit]

  • Planning to post some notes here soon, with the disclosure that I am an alumnus of Georgetown. ceranthor 16:34, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "became influential in the formation of Catholicism in Washington, D.C" - not entirely sure "formation of Catholicism" actually means anything; maybe establishment?
    • Done. Ergo Sum 00:06, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "and oversaw the continuity of the school during suppression and financial insecurity." - religious suppression I assume - implied but still probably worth adding that adjective
    • Done. Ergo Sum 00:05, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "Matthews received from his parents a sizable inheritance that he drew from throughout his life for the advancement of the Church.[5]" - not a fan of this sort of pretentious phrasing... why not just avoid the inversion and say "From his parents, Matthews received a sizable..."
    • Done. Ergo Sum 00:07, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "This made him one of the last young Americans to be sent to the English school at Liége.[5] " - presumably the students there were all relatively young? why is that detail worth mentioning?
    • Done. Ergo Sum 00:07, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "While a student at Georgetown in 1796, he was chosen to be the first to greet President George Washington upon his visit to the college.[8] " - "the first" among whom? Among the student body? Any idea why?
    • Done. The source doesn't specify how/why he was chosen. Ergo Sum 00:09, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "He was not an especially successful professor, as his lectures were described as monotonous.[12] " - that doesn't necessarily mean he wasn't a "successful" professor IMO... rephrase? What does the source actually describe?
    • The source does describe him as "not successful." However, in context, it seems to be a bit of editorializing by the author, since the only evidence provided is the monotony. So, I've removed the successful part. Ergo Sum 20:25, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "Matthews became a subdeacon on August 22, 1799, and was ordained as a transitional deacon on March 26, 1800.[13]" - don't need a comma before "and was"
    • Done. Ergo Sum 00:09, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "This new St. Patrick's was consecrated by Archbishop John Carroll and the mass was concelebrated by Leonard Neale.[8]" - I'd add a comma before "and the mass"
    • Done. Ergo Sum 00:10, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "and served as a liaison between the bishop and Catholic institutions and priests in Washington." - I'd add "he" between "and" and "served", or I'd lose the comma before "and served"
    • Second part done. I think "he" might be redundant there. Ergo Sum 00:12, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "This would have provided some weightiness to Maréchal's petitions but it is unclear whether he ever made use of this arrangement.[34]" - comma before "but it is unclear"
    • Done. Ergo Sum 00:13, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "Matthews responded by criticizing the priests who exaggerated the story, but described the event to the National Intelligencer as a miracle.[35]" - same note as above; I'd add "he" or lose the comma
    • I would reiterate my previous comment. The comma is unnecessary because it separates an independent clause, but I think "he" would be redundant here. Ergo Sum 00:15, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "Matthews' relationship with Anthony Kohlmann, a subsequent president of Georgetown, was particularly difficult.[39]" - elaborate... how so?
    • The source doesn't elaborate on this. However, it may have been related to the disagreements between the two described under Recovery of Ann Mattingly. Ergo Sum 00:18, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "The wedding took place on November 29, 1832 at the White House,[77] and signified the first Catholic ceremony in the history of the White House.[78] " - I would remove the comma before "and signified"
    • Done. Ergo Sum 00:19, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Stylistically, I think any instance where the refs are not in ascending order (ie. [81][26] instead of [26][81]) should be fixed
    • Done. Ergo Sum 00:26, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

Coord note[edit]

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

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

Question about citation format[edit]

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

After I quick spotcheck I this looks pretty good. I'm not sure how moving the long form citations should be done but the citations sections of my FAs have always been a mix of mostly Harvard citations and a few citations in the cite web form to different webpages. Yours is basically the same. So like I said, after a quick spot check it definitely looks to be FA quality. Display name 99 (talk) 15:33, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
@Display name 99: The only reason I ask is because if there are some long-form citations in the Citations section, then technically the Bibliography doesn't list ALL the works cited. I'm not sure if the norm on Wikipedia is to consider a bibliography a listing of all printed works cited (the traditional way) or all works cited no matter their medium (the more modern way). Ergo Sum 05:06, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
Like I said, I've always done it the same way as you on my nominees and it was fine. Display name 99 (talk) 17:54, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
Okay. Sounds good. Ergo Sum 18:58, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Michelle Williams (actress)[edit]

Nominator(s): Krimuk2.0 (talk) 11:12, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

This article's first nomination had two supports on prose, successful source and image reviews, but did not attract much attention afterward. Hopefully, there are more eyeballs this time around. As directed, I'm pinging the reviewers from the previous nomination: Moisejp, Aoba47, and Jo-Jo Eumerus. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 11:12, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Nothing has changed in terms of images since my last review of them. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:51, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Support from Aoba[edit]

  • I support this nomination for promotion as all of my concerns were addressed in the first FAC. Good luck with it this time around! Aoba47 (talk) 16:23, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Tony1[edit]

Lead, 1a:

  • "Williams. Williams"—perhaps ", and was"?
Sorry, I'm having trouble understanding this comment. --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:50, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
Sry, I used shorthand: Her surname is repeated, divided only by a point. Tony (talk) 07:22, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Commas are sometimes a personal choice, but: "At 15, she gained emancipation from her parents, and she soon achieved"—it could read more smoothly as: "At 15 she gained emancipation from her parents, and soon achieved".
  • It's often a challenge to avoid too much of the subject's name in the lead. I've bolded the possible issues:

    "... her leading role in the television teen drama series Dawson's Creek (1998–2003). Williams followed this by featuring in low-budget films that were not widely seen, before achieving her breakthrough with the romantic drama Brokeback Mountain (2005), in which her performance as the wife of a gay man earned Williams her first Oscar nomination." ->

    "... her leading role in the television teen drama series Dawson's Creek (1998–2003). This was followed by [appearances in a number of? give number if easy to do, or just leave it as plural "films"? unsure] low-budget, low-profile films, before her breakthrough role in the romantic drama Brokeback Mountain (2005), in which her performance as the wife of a gay man earned her an Oscar nomination." Now, I've removed "first", which indicated more Oscar noms were to come. You might think it's important to flag this here. If not, we'll get to it later. Unsure.

Well, it was the first of her four Oscar nominations (and the only one I have highlighted in the lead). Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:50, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
OK, what about something like: "This was followed by appearances in ?three low-budget, low-profile films; these led to a breakthrough role in the romantic drama Brokeback Mountain (2005), in which her performance as the wife of a gay man earned her the first of four Oscar nominations she would receive."
I've already mentioned the fact that she has four Academy Award nominations in the first paragraph, so we shouldn't repeat that information in the lead. I've changed "Oscar" to "Academy Award" to avoid any confusion. --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 18:48, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
  • "the latter"—look for nicer-sounding alternatives. It's a one-word title, so why not repeat it instead.
  • Next section: "a close bond with her father, who taught her fishing and shooting, and encouraged her to form a reading habit". Be aware of each sentence length, and the rhythm, when distributing commas (or not). Bumpiness versus avoidance of amibuity and easier parsing ... needs continual juggling. Fishing and shooting sound like university modules, and habit sounds like opiates. What about: "a close bond with her father, who taught her to fish and shoot, and encouraged her to become a keen reader." (or "encouraged her to read", unsure)

So, I wouldn't dismiss this in terms of cr. 1a, but it does need auditing throughout. I look at random and see things like: "Also that year, Williams played a small part ..."—why not "In the same year Williams played a small part ...". (Again, I balanced the subsequent, unavoidable comma in making that suggestion.) What made me think right here? I don't much like "also". Tony (talk) 03:07, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for these excellent suggestions, Tony1. I'd appreciate any further help in tightening the prose. Cheers! --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:50, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
Well ... I see FAC as sampling, critiquing, encouraging, judging—rather than a full copy-editing service. Any fellow editors you might ask? And try printing it out and marking it up with a pen. Tony (talk) 13:18, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
Tony1 I'm sorry if I wasn't clear before, but I wasn't asking for a "copy-editing service". I've written the article to the best of my abilities, having learnt tremendously from my past FACs on some of Williams' contemporaries. So if you or other kind reviewers could highlight problems, if any, in the prose that would prevent it from meeting our FA criteria ("critiquing" and "judging", as you perfectly put it), then that would be an ideal use of the FAC process. Cheers! Krimuk2.0 (talk) 18:48, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Comment in the references, the point of the retrieval dates is so that readers can look up the webpage on archive.org when the link goes dead. Since you already include archive links in the cites, the retrieved-on dates serve no purpose and can be removed. Further they make the refs look extremely bulky and inelegant, as they now each have three (!) dates in them.—indopug (talk) 18:28, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Indopug ok, I have removed them. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 07:17, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Support from Moise[edit]

My support on prose from the previous nomination stands. Reading through the article again now, one minor point I noticed is about “On set, she and Gosling practiced method acting by largely avoiding the script and improvising several scenes.” If they were “largely avoiding” the script, that sounds like they improvised most of the movie, but then it says they only improvised “several scenes”. Moisejp (talk) 03:49, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Moisejp, I've removed the “largely avoiding” the script" bit to avoid confusion. --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 18:35, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

In the next couple of days when I have time, I'll revisit my source review from the last nomination. Moisejp (talk) 13:47, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Source review[edit]

For the first nomination, I did a lengthy source review including spot-checking about 50 sources. Looking at the edit history now, there are no changes that reduce my confidence in the sources. I was going to mention the points that Ealdgyth brought up here [[26]], but I see they have already been dealt with. Cheers, Moisejp (talk) 08:46, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you once again, Moisejp. :) --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 09:02, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Support by Bilorv[edit]

  • "To comply with their guidelines, she completed her high school education" – Her parents' guidelines, or legal emancipation requirements?
  • "After learning to trade under her father's guidance" – This sounds like it was happening at the time but the source indicates that Williams learned to trade while she was being homeschooled years prior. I suggest "Having learned to trade from her father" as a replacement.
  • "slasher film Halloween H20: 20 Years Later" – Per WP:SEAOFBLUE, either rephrasing or de-linking slasher film might be necessary.
  • "a parody about the Watergate scandal" – This sounds unnatural to me. Perhaps "a parody of the Watergate scandal" is better.
  • Would it be worth mentioning a bit more context to Dick? For instance, its WP page indicates to me that it received positive critical reception despite failing to be a financial success.
  • "a part that came closest to her personality" – Closer than what? Would "came close" suffice?
  • No reception to Williams' part specifically in The Station Agent is mentioned – did any critics single her out for praise or criticism?
  • For Land of Plenty, what character does Williams play and (as above) did any critics mention her specifically in reviews?
  • A Hole in One seems skimmed over, but Williams looks to have been in the main role from the WP page. Is there anything to say about the film's success (or lack thereof), or reception to Williams' performance?
  • Similar to above, is there anything more to say about The Hawk Is Dying?
Right, so in response to these comments, I'd like to say that it's quite common, in most FAs, to not detail all of the actor/actress's roles, especially the ones that haven't received much attention. As for these three films in particular, I haven't come across any unique or interesting factoids to warrant inclusion. Having said that, I have included a line about the commercial failure of Dick. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 07:57, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
Yep, that makes sense. I highlighted these three films as it seemed Williams played a major part, but if there's not been much focus on them in reliable sources then the current level of detail is appropriate. Bilorv(c)(talk) 09:46, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
  • "which centers on a poor and lonesome young woman traveling with her dog and looking for employment" – This is Williams' character, right? This is a little bit ambiguous.
  • I found a source saying that Williams first saw a script for Blue Valentine when she was 21. This article begins at the point where she has had a daughter, so there are some gaps that need to be filled in here.
Yes, there's a ton of material there. The project, as with many other independent films, stayed in development hell for many years before getting made. I've highlighted the major aspects of the film's production, but I believe that in order to prevent Williams' biography from being excessively bloated, a lot of the additional information would be better suited in the film's article. What do you think? Krimuk2.0 (talk) 07:57, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
Hmm, I understand this, but I think it would be good to have just a sentence at the start to let the reader know that Blue Valentine had been conceived of several years before, or that Williams had seen a script several years prior. If something else needs to be cut to make room for this, I think this is excessive detail for the pre-production stage, and the second sentence could be cut or shortened: "Before production began, Cianfrance had Williams and Gosling live together for a month on a stipend that matched their character's income. This exercise led to conflicts between them, which proved conducive for filming their character's deteriorating marriage." Bilorv(c)(talk) 09:46, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
Bilorv, you're right. I've added a sentence. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 10:01, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
  • "tells the story of a free-spirited cabaret performer" – Is this the character that Williams played?
  • "wish to use her celebrity" – Should this not be "wish to use her celebrity status"?
  • "opened up about her relationship with Phil Elverum" – What exactly about her relationship did she talk about?

An excellent article overall; in particular, the prose flows really well, turning it into much more than just a chronological list of acting credits. I'll be happy to support once the points above have been fixed or addressed. Bilorv(c)(talk) 20:57, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind words and for your excellent suggestions, Bilorv. I hope my explanations to some of them make sense. :) Krimuk2.0 (talk) 07:57, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the speedy response, and there's just one point above left to be resolved. Bilorv(c)(talk) 09:46, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support: all my comments have been addressed and I believe the article meets the FA criteria. Bilorv(c)(talk) 10:24, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

History of aluminium[edit]

Nominator(s): R8R (talk) 19:19, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

This article is small yet hopefully interesting spin-off from its mother article, aluminium. I've made my best to make it a decent read so I hope you'll find it good, too!--R8R (talk) 19:19, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Tony1[edit]

To what extent do "history of ..." articles normally define the thing they're historicising? We seem to jump in at the start without (for a grade-school reader, for example) giving a short, orienting definition ... perhaps shorter than in the Aluminium article, but something more like it—at least that it's an element, with abbrev. Al, and now a major blah blah. What you think?

I wasn't thinking at all about context since this article was started as a spin-off from aluminium, but now that you've brought that up, I'll try to add up a para to lead during this weekend.--R8R (talk) 17:00, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Maybe we need "greatly", maybe not. "whose work" is more than just the "discovery", is it?
    I'd say we do need that "greatly", Woehler did really lots of early work and that partially was why everyone was so keen to keep him as the discoverer in the 19th century. "Whose work" is indeed just discovery; but what do I do?--R8R (talk) 17:00, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
    To greatly extend. It's not smoothly idiomatic. What is wrong with "whose work was extended"? Tony (talk) 09:25, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
    Well, since you insist, I'll rely on your judgment. It's not like I can make a good case for "greatly extended," anyway.--R8R (talk) 13:37, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "Pure aluminium metal was difficult to refine and thus rare."—"rare" we'd normally ascribe to the raw material, wouldn't we? But here it's causally connected with the refined product.
    Good point. Changed to "uncommon."
  • Probably comma after "process". Jointly developed, or independently? The second "developed" might be possible as "devised" ... unsure.
    It seems to me we'd do fine without that comma though if you disagree, I'll modestly recognize your authority over myself on that. Independently; added that. I don't see the need to differentiate these two, so since you're unsure, I'm, too, inclined to keep it as it currently is.
  • Remove "day".
    Okay.--R8R (talk) 17:00, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
  • These methods ... these methods.
    I've changed the former to "these processes."
  • Is it a because since or a ever-since since?
    In this particular sentence, it's an ever-since since, but both would be correct, actually. Why?
    Because your text should avoid double meanings, even if both are correct. It's unclear to the readers. Tony (talk) 09:25, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
    I've reworded the sentence to avoid that "since."--R8R (talk) 13:37, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
  • 57.5 million?
    I'd rather not. I want this long number from 2015 (57,500,000) to serve as an antipode to the short number from 1900 (6,800), so that the difference strikes the reader.--R8R (talk) 17:00, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
  • "... and as astringents for dressing wounds; alum was also used in medicine, ...". Is dressing wounds medical?
    You're right.--R8R (talk) 17:00, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
  • "a fire-resistant coating for wood (which protected fortresses from enemy arson attempts),"—simpler as "a fire-resistant coating for wood to protect fortresses from enemy arson,"
    Agree.--R8R (talk) 17:00, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
  • "Aluminium metal was unknown to them." Remove last two words as contextually redundant?
    Well spotted.--R8R (talk) 17:00, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
  • in order to. Please: to.
    But it does say, "in order to"?
    What do you mean? Remove the two redundant words. Tony (talk) 09:25, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "Some sources suggest a possibility that this metal was aluminium;[b] this claim has been disputed.[5]"—"Some sources suggest that this metal was aluminium[b], a claim that has been disputed.[5]"
    I'll blindly follow but could you explain to me (this is a genuine question) why this is an improvement as it requires more words?--R8R (talk) 17:00, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
    Grammar is smoother and simpler, and it's about the same number of words. Tony (talk) 09:25, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "It is possible that the Chinese were able to produce aluminium-containing alloys" -> "It is possible that the Chinese produced aluminium-containing alloys" ... glad I zapped that first "possibility".
    Agree.--R8R (talk) 17:00, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Needs a good audit throughout for grammatical and contextual redundancy (see my tutorials). Repetition-sensitive repetitions. Perhaps logic, but a lesser problem. Tony (talk) 07:52, 10 September 2018 (UTC) PS You're a native-speaker of Russian? Then your English is mighty good. Tony (talk) 07:53, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

I'll try to find someone whose English would be better than mine to get this done.
P.S. Thanks for the compliment!--R8R (talk) 17:00, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Would be good for the nominator to hang around in the days after launching it. Tony (talk) 13:25, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

@Tony1: John and I have made some improvements; please would you take a look? I've mostly been busy lately so the changes didn't occur as fast as they should have but nonetheless, here we are. Most of the changes have been made by myself, so someone definitely needs to check the result, but I still think the text flow actually has gotten better. If you say it is good enough now, great! If you tell me otherwise, I will invest more time into getting some help with prose quality.--R8R (talk) 20:32, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

  • "who had the discoverer killed so that the metal would not diminish the value of"—kill one word. And please put that word in the finder box and check that all 56 of them are necessary (in the subsequent sentence, you've got two of them closetogether ... so ... "Some sources suggest that this metal could be aluminium,[b] but this has been disputed."). Get John to check your diff of excisions. Unfortunately there are a lot of "demonstrated that" and "determined that", which is hard to get around. It's not easy to get the hang of this, but try to remove a third of them. Always check for ambiguity if removing.
    I've tried my best and I'm waiting for John's response.--R8R (talk) 13:59, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
  • It's not usual to use "source(s)" so often, explicitly. Usually making a proposition at the right certainty level and inserting a ref tag is enough. Perhaps once or twice explicitly mention "source(s)", but ... ration it.
    I agree we should avoid mentioning sources explicitly but I genuinely don't understand, do we do that once?--R8R (talk) 13:37, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "Beginning"—why not simpler: "start"? It's English. Simple and plain are elegant.
    Why not.--R8R (talk) 13:37, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "another half a century"—remove one word.
    Done.--R8R (talk) 13:37, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "In 1728, French chemist Étienne Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire claimed"—is the clause really long enough to require a comma there?
    I can't claim I know the right way but I've seen lots of texts in English and the comma appears natural to me. I suspect it may be a BrE vs. AmE thing as I have seen British texts omit this comma more often and I try to write in AmE so that makes another reason for me to want this comma to stay.
    Also, here's what I found online: "Use a comma after phrases or clauses of more than three words that begin a sentence (unless it is the subject of the sentence). If the phrase has fewer than three words, the comma is optional." This does allow for the comma as well.--R8R (talk) 13:37, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Clunky: "and attempted to reduce it to its metal with no success". Can you relocate and change the grammar of "success"?
    I feel like this is a test that I'm about to fail :( I wrote "attempted to reduce it to its metal, but with no success"; I hope this is any better.--R8R (talk) 13:37, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Awkward: "His methods were not reported but he claimed he had tried every method of reduction known at the time." Smoother to reverse? "he claimed he had tried every method of reduction known at the time, though his methods were not documented/published ... do not survive"? Reported is a bit vague ...
    Good one, thank you.--R8R (talk) 13:37, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "a metal which" -> that, where there's no comma before. Or avoid that urchin: "a metal with an affinity ..."/
    I used the latter.--R8R (talk) 13:37, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "In 1790, Austrian chemists Anton Leopold Ruprecht and Matteo Tondi repeated Baron's experiments, significantly increasing the temperatures; they found small metallic particles, which they believed to be the sought-after metal, but later experiments by other chemists showed these were iron phosphide from impurities in charcoal and bone ash." Better:

    "In 1790, Austrian chemists Anton Leopold Ruprecht and Matteo Tondi repeated Baron's experiments, significantly increasing the temperatures. They found small metallic particles they believed were the sought-after metal; but later experiments by other chemists showed these were iron phosphide from impurities in charcoal and bone ash."

  • "He then tried to heat alumina with potassium; potassium oxide was formed, but he was unable to find the sought-after metal." He tried to heat or he did heat? The stove wouldn't work? "He then heated alumina with potassium, forming potassium oxide, but was unable to find the sought-after metal." Sometimes "produce" could be used instead of your "find". The next, similar sentence needs similar editing.
    Good comment re "tried to heat." Changed the wordings in those two sentences.--R8R (talk) 13:37, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
  • There's a one-sentence paragraph.
    I'm not particularly hot about it, either, but I don't see what can be done about it. The article goes chronologically, and this one-sentence experiment falls between the series of Davy's experiments (which are numerous and make a paragraph of its own) and Oersted's discovery (which also makes a paragraph of its own).--R8R (talk) 13:37, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
  • he he he. "Berzelius attempted to isolate the metal in 1825; he carefully washed by carefully washing the potassium analog of the base salt in cryolite in a crucible. Prior to the experiment he had correctly identified the formula of this salt prior to the experiment as K3AlF6. He found no metal, but his ..."
    Good one, thank you.--R8R (talk) 13:37, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
  • More he he: "He continued his research and in 1845, he was able ..." -> "He continued his research, and in 1845 was able ..."
    Done.--R8R (talk) 13:37, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm tired. Tony (talk) 09:25, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

SupportComments from Chiswick Chap[edit]

I reviewed this at GAN and have accordingly little to add, beyond the fact that I think it a fine article.

  • Footnote C should mention that the Al-Cu alloys are alluded to in Needham's Science and Civilisation in China (Vol. 5, issue 2, p. 193), wikilinking Joseph Needham.
    I don't like the idea of including a cite for the sake of including a cite; the rest of the text does not explicitly mention any specific sources and I'd like to keep it that way. I would, however, gladly use the book as a reference to back some fact from it, but what could I back? Here's the book itself.--R8R (talk) 12:43, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
I don't understand your comment about "for the sake of". The footnote uses another ref already. Needham's opinion is highly relevant as both a sinologist and a chemist, and probably the most respected of all sources on such matters. If that isn't sufficient for you, then consider that the question of what alloys and chemistry the Chinese actually had is a matter for scholarly debate; and that editors must not rely on their personal knowledge or opinion. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:47, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
My question as of now, is the following: which exact claim could we support with this book? I am absolutely not opposed to the idea of backing some statement with this book, just to make that clear. My point is that as of right now, the statements that we make are a little more bold than those contained in the book: for instance, the book claims that aluminium alloys could have been made in "medieval" China, whereas the article claims this could have been the case even earlier, in China of the first Jin dynasty (265--420). I don't see the reason to call the existing source unworthy and thus the stronger claim not supported, but maybe you do? Then the note briefly describes how that idea is possible and I'd be glad to reference the book on that but unfortunately, it doesn't describe how that could be possible. It doesn't seem that there is something in the book that we don't have yet in the article but that we could add to reference the book on that (please feel free to prove me wrong here; maybe I did miss something?)
I have prepared a citation in advance in case we do find a claim to back with the book: Needham, Joseph (1974). Science and Civilisation in China. Volume 5: Chemistry and Chemical Technology, Part 2: Spagyrical Discovery and Invention: Magisteries of Gold and Immortality. Cambridge University Press. p. 193. ISBN 978-0-521-08571-7.--R8R (talk) 22:11, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
Nothing like that at all. All that needs to be said is that Needham took an interest in the matter and suggested the Al-Cu alloys as the explanation. Needham is himself a major figure and his historically stated opinion is itself of interest. That's all. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:39, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
Finally I came up with something that adds to the content we already have. Please take a look.--R8R (talk) 20:42, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
Many thanks. 21:28, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
  • I somewhat concur with Tony that a brief bit of context on the metal would be useful.
    Just as I told Tony, I'll try to get a para on that this weekend--R8R (talk) 19:10, 20 September 2018 (UTC) or maybe even tomorrow if I'm lucky.--R8R (talk) 17:57, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
    John has added a paragraph and I've touched it as well; please see what came out.
    Thanks. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:59, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Similarly, "The nature of alum remained unknown." is rather a bald lead in to 'Establishing the nature of alum'. Perhaps add something like 'until the nineteenth century'.
    Well, the story follows the chronological order and I kind of hoped that would be apparent to a reader. "Until the 19th century" wouldn't be correct; I've mentioned the chronologically consistent time mark of the beginning of the Renaissance. I think this should be fine as the next sentence already tells us about how this nature of alum was slowly revealed by later scientists.--R8R (talk) 17:57, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
    I still think we should have a few words about the time period intended in the section. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:00, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
    I tried to start the section with "Around 1500"; does it do the trick or am I missing something?--R8R (talk) 18:10, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
    Much better, thank you. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:06, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Similarly, too, the lead sentence in 'Rare metal' says simply "the metal remained rare; its cost exceeded that of gold." Again, some description of the period of time (i.e. not just a single date, but a range) during which this remained true would be helpful. I know it's defined in more detail below, but the lead sentence needs to give at least a valid clue to the content. Something like 'for much of the nineteenth century' would do, or you might prefer to name some dates.
    I see what you're pointing at but I can only tell this: a kilogram of gold cost about $665 in 1852 [27] while a kilogram of aluminum cost $1,200 that year [28] (I doubt either is a Wiki-reliable source, by the way). So to be fair to the reader, we can tell him that this was true before Deville's method was implemented (which is correct), and then in the next sentence, we say this method was announced in 1854. How does that sound?--R8R (talk) 17:57, 13 September 2018 (UTC)#
    It sounds just the sort of thing needed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:00, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
  • I suggest we should add the discovery date to the caption under the image of Wöhler, though given the earlier date of Ørsted's claim, we should either have an image of Ørsted with his date, or a mention of Ørsted's possibly-prior claim in the Wöhler caption. Personally I'd think an image of Ørsted would be more appropriate: the section is easily long enough for a second image.
    I agree; done.--R8R (talk) 17:57, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
    Thanks. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:00, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Recycling is said to be "extensive" but no figures for recycling tonnage or percentage (of total Al scrap, or compared to new Al production: both might be helpful) are given. We might go further and use a recent image of Aluminium recycling (e.g. File:DillingenAluminiumSchrott.jpg), or indeed create a subsection for 'Recycling'. Currently recycling is covered in parts of both paragraphs of 'Mass usage', which is not ideal. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:16, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
    This is a very worthy comment. I'll try to look into this weekend.--R8R (talk) 17:57, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
    I've expanded on the history of aluminium recycling in both sections relating to the 20th century. As for figures of secondary aluminum vs. primary aluminum, as far as I know, figures for secondary aluminium are only available for the United States (from 1913) and China (from 1950) rather than the whole world. I've referenced the United States data once; I don't want to reference more, though, so that the article does not appear too U.S.-centric.--R8R (talk) 19:10, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
    Msny thanks. Chiswick Chap (talk) 03:41, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
    I've briefly included your picture of aluminum scrap instead of the can picture (there is not enough room to just add a picture without removing one) but then I looked at the article and it didn't seem right that we had two scrap-related pictures in a row. After replacing the can picture with the scrap picture, I expanded a little on recycling in the 1970s and beyond and it turned out that cans were actually important for recycling, so I hope that the re-added can picture still sort of counts in a way as scrap-related :) --R8R (talk) 20:34, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
    Sounds reasonable. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:37, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Image review[edit]

  • File:Tovarna_glinice_in_aluminija_Kidričevo_-_kupi_aluminija_1968.jpg: when/where was this first published?
    From what I get from the file description, the picture was published in Yugoslav/Slovene newspaper Večer on March 21, 1968.--R8R (talk) 12:43, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
  • File:Hans_Christian_Ørsted_daguerreotype.jpg needs a US PD tag
    Done.--R8R (talk) 12:43, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
  • File:50_Pfennig_1920.jpg: what is the copyright status of the coin itself? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:17, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
    I genuinely don't get this one. This is not a work of art which you may be not allowed to make copies of; it is a coin, that is, money. How can it have a copyright status?--R8R (talk) 12:43, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
    It is a coin, but it's not just a blank piece of metal - it has a design that is potentially copyrightable. See commons:Commons:Currency. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:05, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
    I see; thank you for the link, the read was very enlightening. Germany's coins are not usually copyright-free; however, I suspect this is the case with our picture as the coin's emission ended in 1922. commons:Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/Germany tells us that the copyright term in Germany is the author's lifespan + 70 years; but I cannot figure what rules do you apply when there is no particular author to attribute the design to?--R8R (talk) 14:36, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
    If there is no identified engraver for this particular coin, then it would be either PD-EU-no author disclosure or Template:PD-GermanGov - I'm not sure whether coins fall under the latter. And then with a 1920 date the pre-1923 tag would cover the US status. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:22, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
    Okay, thank you for your help! I've updated the licenses.--R8R (talk) 20:17, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Double sharp[edit]

I'll review this soon... ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 10:04, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

The first thing I notice is that the first paragraph of the lede seems to be more about aluminium itself than about its history. While some understanding of what aluminium is and the scale of its production is of course necessary to comprehend its history, I think it would be better if we made the links of these properties to aluminium's history explicit rather than just seguing into it in the second paragraph. Double sharp (talk) 14:18, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

The first paragraph of the lead section was added during this very FAC after two editors had suggested giving some general context and the beginning of the lead section was the most logical place to add the context to. I have no strong opinion on whether we should have this paragraph at all; perhaps leaning against it if anything, but since other editors disagree, I'll comply to them as I have no strong objections. I absolutely agree that it is better to link properties to various moments of history to explain why this and that even happened for this element and I tried to do so throughout the text; this is perhaps most easily seen in the sections on the 20th century as more properties became important and led to mass usage of the metal.--R8R (talk) 15:59, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
I agree that the link is shown throughout the text, but I think it would be better to make it a bit clearer in the lede, even if it's just to mention that there was a link without explaining it yet. This is of course a small matter indeed and the rest of the article looks fine so far; I'll try to give it a good read through ASAP... Double sharp (talk) 16:02, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
Ah, I see what you mean now. Yes, that's a good idea. I wanted to come up with something simple to take away; please see how I did.--R8R (talk) 14:49, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Support from Векочел[edit]

It looks like a good coverage of the history of aluminium. Векочел (talk) 14:03, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

UtopianPoyzin[edit]

Albeit, I do not have all that much experience reviewing featured article candidates on Wikipedia, I have done many similar reviews in the past, so I'll do my best to give my take on the candidate. I have read through the criteria for FAC, and now all I need to do is analyze what's there at History of aluminium.UtopianPoyzin (talk) 14:23, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

I have now read through the article. For starters, you did take out most of the kinks in the article, for I do agree with most of the previous reviews and the changes they suggested. However, there are a few problems that still jump out to me after a basic read-through. I will add more to this list when I thoroughly go back through here. One read isn't enough for a review, but here are the things that I would constantly notice even if I were to read the article again.

@R8R: Sorry for not checking back in for a couple days. I'll now review your changes.
  • "Aluminium compound alum has been known since the 5th century BCE and was extensively used by ancients for dyeing and city defense; the former usage grew more important in medieval Europe." "Extensively used"? I personally would prefer if the wordage was "Used extensively". As far as I can research, the popular option for adverbs describing "used" is to place the adverb after, but I'm no grammatical expert myself. I could be wrong. And also, could you elaborate on "grew more important"? How did it?
    As for "used extensively": both seem fine to me. I checked online and according to a dictionary, "extensively used" is fine and used in the actual language (they provide this example sentence: "This instrument was for some years extensively used in the United States, until superseded by G.").
    As for "grew more important": thanks for noticing this, I'll elaborate on this soon.--R8R (talk) 17:45, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
    I tried a different sentence; what do you think of it?--R8R (talk) 12:34, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
    Yup, the issues were cleaned up here. I don't have problems with the rewording. UtopianPoyzin (talk) 14:46, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "Aluminium was difficult to refine and thus uncommon." I believe I know what you mean, but it would be helpful to elaborate on what "uncommon" really means in this context.
    I'd like to use a simple addition like "uncommon in actual usage," which I used. What do you think?--R8R (talk) 17:45, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
    Adding "in actual usage" is a big improvement, which is all I needed. UtopianPoyzin (talk) 14:46, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "Aluminium became much more available to the general public with the Hall–Héroult process independently developed by French engineer Paul Héroult and American engineer Charles Martin Hall in 1886 and the Bayer process developed by Austrian chemist Carl Joseph Bayer in 1889." If two people developed the Hall–Héroult, then it wasn't independent, simply put.
    Sorry, I didn't understand this one. The point is, both Heroult and Hall (two people who didn't know each other and weren't related in any other way) came up with the same principles that could be applied to aluminum production and both actually tested them at the same time, unaware of the other co-inventor's work. It is a mere coincidence that two different people in two different countries came up with this. There is no real priority between these two (after reading the book I most heavily relied on while writing this article, Aluminium: The Thirteenth Element, I got the impression that Heroult was the more innovative one, but then I've seen a few times Americans in the Internet claiming Hall was the more innovative one, and they, too, had their valid points), so the process is named after both.--R8R (talk) 17:45, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
    Yeah... sorry about that. This is one of many of my comments where I was unsure what you meant by "independently". See my later comment. UtopianPoyzin (talk) 14:46, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "Introduction of these methods to mass production of aluminium led to the extensive use of the metal in industry and everyday lives." This is the correct instance of "extensive use", and should be left as is. Could you clarify what other industries that aluminium is utilized in, for "everyday lives" is very much subjective.
    I will think about what exactly should be added here; in the meantime, I restored a sentence on this.--R8R (talk) 17:45, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
    I've altered it a bit further; please take a look.--R8R (talk) 16:07, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
    Adding the examples was a great help here. The lead looks pretty good so far! I wouldn't recommend anymore changes on that front. UtopianPoyzin (talk) 14:46, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "In 1813, American chemist Benjamin Silliman repeated Hare's experiment and obtained small granules of the sought-after metal, which almost immediately burned." I do not believe that this sentence elicits its own paragraph; I suggest a merger of this with the paragraph talking about Hare's experiment, suggesting that Hare's experiment would later be repeated by Silliman along with Silliman's results.
    Tony above made a similar comment but I really don't see what's wrong with this given the chronological order the events are listed in. I think that the chronological order is important and should be preserved as long as possible. It is only slightly corrupted in the last two sections which deal with overlapping continuous processes rather than single events.--R8R (talk) 17:45, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
    Okay fair, I can agree with you here. I have had a self-evaluation on the importance of chronology in wikipedia articles (such as my very much underwhelming conclusion of a GAR for Origin and use of the term metalloid), and decided that keeping small paragraph featuring different time stamps is actually important for the article's overall readability and the reader's understanding. UtopianPoyzin (talk) 14:46, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "At the next fair in Paris in 1867, the visitors were presented with aluminium wire and foil; by the time of the next fair in 1878, aluminium had become a symbol of the future." Saying that "aluminium had become the symbol for the future" is subjective and also not factually valid (even though it may hold true to a certain extent, but that's not the point).
    I agree, it is indeed overly vague and subjective, thanks for noticing this. I'll work on it.--R8R (talk) 17:45, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
    I've checked the source and it turned out I didn't paraphrase it accurately. I have corrected the sentence; please take a look.--R8R (talk) 16:07, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
    At the next fair in Paris in 1867, the visitors were presented with aluminium wire and foil; at the next fair in 1878, aluminium was considered the most important technological and scientific breakthrough. Considered by whom? Consideration is still subjective unless we are aware of the source of the considering. Even "considered by many" is slightly better, however then we wouldn't know who the "many" are. UtopianPoyzin (talk) 14:46, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
    Thank you for making me look into this; I would've probably not even given it a thought if it wasn't for you. The source I used didn't go into detail about this; they actually said something like "it was considered the top achievement, period." I grew suspicious and tried to google this; it doesn't appear that aluminum was so amazing (makes sense, it wasn't the metal first public appearance and it was still rare). I have found two possibly good sources but not only are they in French but also not available online and thus out of my reach. I doubt I'd find anything astonishing, though, and thus removed any mention of the 1878 fair (and relocated the mention of the 1867 fair).--R8R (talk) 15:29, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "Aluminium was first synthesized electrolytically in 1854, independently by Deville and the German chemist Robert Wilhelm Bunsen." Did you mean to include "developed?" And once again, not truly independently. I'd pick a different adjective.
    I don't see the problem with prose here but I'd like to. I didn't mean to include "developed." Consider this sentence: "Aluminium was first synthesized electrolytically in 1854 by Deville." Sounds fine, doesn't it? The phrase in the article is essentially this after you have removed "independently," which doesn't affect the grammar used here.
    I don't see what's so bad about "independently." They were working on their own without sharing their work with each other, after all. However, I don't insist on this particular word but I can't come up with a good replacement. Could you help me?--R8R (talk) 17:45, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
    Here we have another misinterpretation of the word "independently". I saw two names, so I figured it was wrong. After reading through your response to mine, I realized that I was wrong on my judgement of the word. See my comment below (I'll let you know which one).
    However, you asked me to consider "Aluminium was first synthesized electrolytically in 1854 by Deville." Sounds good. Why then is there a comma after "1854"? The comma is what made me think you meant to include "developed". If the sentence read "Aluminium was first synthesized electrolytically in 1854 independently by Deville," I wouldn't have a problem. Correct me if the new grammar is wrong, I'm no expert. UtopianPoyzin (talk) 14:46, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
    I actually don't know, English punctuation never was my specialty. I have read rules on it several times but little has imprinted in my brain. So... can't tell. Let's leave out the comma for now but have it back if anyone shows a rule that supports it.--R8R (talk) 15:29, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "The first large-scale production method was independently developed by French engineer Paul Héroult and American engineer Charles Martin Hall in 1886; it is now known as the Hall–Héroult process." All three instances of the word "independently" are all incorrect. Only use "independently" if the development was indeed by a sole person without any outside input from others.
    But what's wrong with it now? While they worked at the same time, both indeed did so without any outside input.--R8R (talk) 17:45, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
    You're right, it was never wrong in the first place. I just misinterpreted. See comment below (directly below) UtopianPoyzin (talk) 14:46, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "At the same time, Hall produced aluminium by the same process in his home at Oberlin, and successfully tested it at the smelter in Lockport." So what you are telling me is that Hall and Héroult produced aluminium by the SAME process at the SAME time? I personally would love to know more how the two came together to collaborate and create one singular "Hall–Héroult process", or how they happened to devise a method summary and perform the aluminium production simultaneously. Unless there was no input between the two and they truly created almost identical methods on their own, that they actually performed the process independently, and I was wrong the whole entire time about the "independent" debate. The creation of the Hall–Héroult process could use some more elaboration on the relationship between both Héroult's and Hall's processes and/or collaborations.
    Yes, exactly! They came up with the same process. However, they did not collaborate at all.
    Since it was unclear to you, I'd love to do something to make sure other readers won't make that mistake. I'll think about it; I'll also gladly listen to anything you have to say on this if there is anything.--R8R (talk) 17:45, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
    Here is the "comment below". Yeah, I couldn't tell that they were doing this separately at first. Every time you said "independently", there were always two names. I'm unsure how to clarify this, but perhaps some insight on the creation of the Hall–Héroult process would be appreciate. On the page dedicated to it, there is no history section. This article could be a good place to include such information, being it is called "HISTORY of aluminium". You could also use "separately" to show that they were not collaborating, or "at the same time" to show the simultaneity of their synthesis. Each of those wordings, if used at all, should fit the instance that "independently" is used, and I'm not forcing you to even change the wordings in the first place. Maybe its only me who didn't understand. Regardless, its up to you. UtopianPoyzin (talk) 14:46, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
    I didn't quite understand what kind of insight you want. Probably I could provide it, but what are you suggesting?
    "Separately" seems to carry the same meaning as "independently" but the latter word seems better suited for an encyclopedia, so I'd rather keep it.--R8R (talk) 15:29, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "Prices for aluminium declined, and the metal had become widely used in jewelry, many everyday items, eyeglass frames, and optical instruments by the early 1890s." I personally would introduce the year before you describe the development of aluminium usage in said year. Even if you don't, the first four words constitute a fragment, and require that "the" be placed at the beginning, even if it isn't usually spoken as such. If "the" is added, the sentence still requires a sentence rearrangement, for it is unknown when the prices for aluminium declined. Finally, it is viable to include a general term in a list, such as "many everyday items" as it is currently written. However, if you are going to do so, make sure that the general term concludes the list rather than sits in the middle of it. One possible suggestion that combines all of my own is as follows, "By the early 1890s, the prices for aluminium declined as the metal became widely used in jewelry, eyeglass frames, optical instruments, and many everyday items." In my opinion, even that simple fix makes a huge difference.
    In my understanding, prices for aluminum fell first (after the production costs fell) and then, since it was cheaper and therefore things made of it were also cheaper, it became used in more and more applications. Also, yes, I don't know when exactly prices for aluminum fell: there is little statistical data from the 19th century. So I'd love to keep the "prices declined" part separate from rest of the sentence. I tried some rewording; please see if it's okay with you.--R8R (talk) 17:45, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
    Yup, the wording is all good now! No problems there anymore. UtopianPoyzin (talk) 14:46, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "Without these shipments, the efficiency of the Soviet aircraft industry would have fallen by over a half." Over a half? Half of what? I believe I know what you mean, but simply stating "over a half" is not concise enough for an encyclopedia. Perhaps either a better worded clarification, or a hard quantity instead of "over a half".
    I have rephrased the sentence to "Without these shipments, the output of the Soviet aircraft industry would have fallen by over a half." This seems clearer to me. Unfortunately, hard quantities are not available.--R8R (talk) 17:45, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
    I have checked ru.wiki and they say that the U.S. aluminum aid from Lend-Lease was equal to 106% of the Soviet Union's own production. However, they suggest a different absolute quantity of this aid (301 thousand metric tons vs. 328 as stated in this article), so I guess we can't rely on exact percentages since data differs by source. The current wording seems fine to me anyway.--R8R (talk) 11:42, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
    Yeah, it's fine. I'll give it a pass if there isn't any quantities available. UtopianPoyzin (talk) 14:46, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "Production fell after the war but then rose again." Oh man, this sentence needs a whole lot of justification/clarification. Either that, or it can be deleted, since it doesn't truly add anything all too meaningful to the understandably of the section it is placed in. If it is kept, we will need to know when and by how much production fell, and why (perhaps due to the lack of previously warring countries' need for tanks and jets, and therefore lack of need for aluminium to build them). Moreover, we will also need to know when, how much, and why the production rose again at this alluded time and place.
    Hmm. This sentence comes exclusively from statistical data from United States Geological Survey (you can read the MS Excel document in the source if you want or look at the graph in the next section). I intended to make this section span over the period of time from immediately after the Hall--Heroult process was first used to 1950. (And the next section begins with an event in the 1950s.) I have no explanation supported by sources at the moment but the general idea seems obvious: production of aluminum was extremely intensified (the fact that a British minister pleaded to the nation to donate aluminum is very descriptive; I will easily believe that miners and workers at factories overworked: their country was at war; et cetera) and this intensification caused by the war could not last forever.
    Also, we don't go into such detail for other brief production anomalies, and there were other anomalies. For example, the cost of electricity has always been a factor and production even fell a few times when prices rose, even in the first half of the 20th century. But then prices fell back down and production rose again.--R8R (talk) 17:45, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
    Once again, I guess you're right. I'll give the Excel a view. UtopianPoyzin (talk) 14:46, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "In the second half of the 20th century, the Space Race began. Earth's first artificial satellite, launched in 1957, consisted of two joined aluminium hemispheres, and almost all subsequent spacecraft have been made of aluminium." First off, the second sentence's grammar is off. Second and more importantly, explicitly stating that the Space Race began is completely unnecessary information. IMPLYING that it began resulting in the need of aluminium for satellites and spacecraft is COMPLETELY necessary information. If you really feel the need to let the reader know that the Space Race is in progress in that moment in history, which I personally would, simply say something along the lines of, "Earth's first artificial satellite, which launched in 1957 for the Space Race, consisted of two joined aluminium hemispheres. Since then, almost all subsequent spacecraft have been created using aluminium parts." I personally would also include "which launched in 1957 for the Space Race beginning earlier that year" to set a time frame and to link the launching of Sputnik 1 with the beginning of the Space Race. But that's just me and my grain of salt.
    You have a good point in saying that we don't need to announce the Space Race. I see no need to mention the Space Race at all as this is not an article on the Cold War; the fact that could matter is that the humanity is making a new achievement by entering the space, but the geopolitical squabble around it is irrelevant in this story about aluminum (and not geopolitics).--R8R (talk) 17:45, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
    All good now. UtopianPoyzin (talk) 14:46, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Maybe a see also page as well, linking to Aluminium and any other "history of (Element X) articles (such as History of fluorine)?
    I see little point in linking to aluminium as linked Aluminium is literally the first word in this article. A list of other History of X articles could work but I can only think of history of fluorine (to which I contributed during back when the text was in the main fluorine article) and, obviously, this one. I'll have this list of one, though.--R8R (talk) 17:45, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
    You're right about the aluminium, my bad. UtopianPoyzin (talk) 14:46, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
  • That's practically my list. Once these get finished, I'll be sure to reread the article to look for anything else I could find to help. UtopianPoyzin (talk) 01:26, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
    Thank you very much for taking your time. I hope you enjoyed the article overall.--R8R (talk) 17:45, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
    No problem, I'm at about a 97% support! UtopianPoyzin (talk) 14:46, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Project E[edit]

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:42, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

This article is about the US supplying nuclear weapons to the UK forces during the Cold War. It was the first of a series of nuclear sharing agreements; subsequently weapons were supplied on similar terms to Belgium, Canada, Germany, Greece, Italy, the Netherlands and Turkey. The article faced deletion as a hoax back in 2008, but was saved, and is now presented at FAC. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:42, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Tony1[edit]

Lead 1a:

  • "prior to Britain's own nuclear weapons becoming available"—it's slightly clunky; but you may have reasons for not liking this suggestion: "before Britain independently developed its own nuclear weapons". Any problem in using "United Kingdom" and "Britain" in the same sentence? I could cope with the repetition of "Britain" to avoid processing the switch. Later, I see "United Kingdom" again, which after first usage I'd prefer to be abbreviated too ("UK")—if you decide to keep switching.
    Re-worked the lead slightly to get around this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:02, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
  • "The United States was approached"—passive ... so who did the approaching? Canada, on Britain's behalf? Full sentence: " The United States was approached to supply weapons for the strategic bombers of the V-bomber fleet until sufficient British ones became available. An agreement was reached in 1957." I wonder whether the medium-sized and stubby sentences could be unscrambled and merged to solve some problems (including the ungainly "ones").
    Mentioned the PM and President to escape from using the passive. Canada acquired nuclear weapons in 1963. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:02, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
  • "Under Project E, US personnel had custody of the weapons, and performed all the tasks related to their storage, maintenance and readiness. "US" here, so why not also on first appearance after you spell it out at the top? Commas: my preference is for serial commas in inline lists, but fine if it's not your cuppa. But could you dump the comma after "weapons", for flow? Can it be "all tasks"?
    Deleted "the" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:02, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
  • "Secure Storage Areas (SSAs)"—why capped in expanded form? Just because some source does it is not reason for modern publications to do it. Styleguides in the US and the UK say to minimise unnecessary capping. So does our MOS. Why Nuclear in the infobox?
    De-capped per WP:EXPABBR Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:02, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
  • "were also used on the sixty Thor Intermediate Range Ballistic Missiles which were operated by the RAF from 1959 to 1963 under Project Emily." First, without a comma before, "that" is preferred over "which", unless you're David Attenbrough. Second, I can cope with the first passive voice, but why a second? You don't even need that/which: "... Missiles the RAF operated from ...".
    Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:02, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Check you need both "also"s in the last para. Maaaybe.
    Removed one. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:02, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
  • "A maritime version of Project E known as Project N provided nuclear depth bombs used by the RAF Coastal Command." MOS discourages bolding like that. Can't it be italicised? And here's another passive. Is this possible? "provided nuclear depth bombs for the RAF Coastal Command". Unless you're going to tell us later that they did use them to bomb ... whom ... the Irish?
    MOS:BOLDTITLE: the first occurrence of the title and significant alternative titles (which should usually also redirect to the article) are placed in bold. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:02, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Checklist for auditing throughout: unnecessary commas in a few places; unnecessary passive constructions. Country abbreviations for simpler reading?

Nominator is a prominent, much-admired editor of MilHist articles ... that's my opinion, too. So I'm rudely suggesting we clean up a bit. :-) Tony (talk) 07:23, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Comments by JennyOz[edit]

Hi Hawkeye, as usual some gnomish suggestions...

  • in infobox image caption, my browser throws the E onto its own new line - need nbsp?
    Doesn't look anything like that on my screen, but added an nbsp for you. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:17, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Winston Churchill, approached approached the - remove dupe
    Removed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:17, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
  • September 1944 Hyde Park Agreement - should be Hyde Park Aide-Mémoire?
    Sure. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:17, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
  • which it considered to be a joint discovery - ambiguous, replace 'it' with 'Britain'?
    Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:17, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
  • On 16 November 1945, Truman and Attlee signed - introduce and wlink Truman and Attlee?
    Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:17, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
  • proposed limiting the British program - programme per elsewhere?
    Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:17, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
  • the 2 February 1950 arrest - detained January, charged Feb? (I can't tell from his article)
    No, he was arrested on 2 February 1950. Yes, I realise that was after he confessed to espionage in January. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:17, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
  • published in the Daily Telegraph and the New York Times - should have their 'the's included?
    Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:17, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Agreement on the provision on American bombs - of?
    Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:17, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Charles E. Wilson - wlink to Charles Erwin Wilson?
    Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:17, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
  • The crews practiced the - practised? (if Brit spelling)
    Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:17, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
  • The Air Ministry - wlink?
    Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:17, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Quick Reaction Alert - wlink?
    Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:17, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
  • RAE Farnborough - refine wlink pipe to Farnborough Airport, or 2 separate ie one to RAE
    Looks like it is going to the right place. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:17, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
  • sputnik crisis - cap S?
    Only if we are going to capitalise the C. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:17, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
  • With sufficient British bombs on hand, operational issues, and the concept of an independent nuclear deterrent came to the fore. - commas/and right here?
    Removed the second comma. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:17, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
  • The Air Council decided - wlink?
    Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:17, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
  • in the development Red Beard bomb - development of?, 'the' Red (or bombs plural)
    Added "of" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:17, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
  • for providing nuclear weapons the British Army of the Rhine - missing 'to' after weapons?
    Added "to". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:17, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
  • targets of opportunity - wlink
    There's an article on that? Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:17, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
  • 2 x References sections - 1st should be Notes?
    Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:17, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Cathcart, Brian - authorlink
    Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:17, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, JennyOz (talk) 09:02, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your review! Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:17, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Ian[edit]

Just a placeholder for now, will try to get to this by the w/e. Cheers, 11:50, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Okay, recusing from coord duties to review... I think Hawkeye could write these nuclear-themed articles in his sleep but they never cease to bring forth interesting technical, military, and political facts. Copyedited as I usually do, so let me know any issues; some outstanding points:

  • The offer was rejected by the British on the grounds that it was not "compatible with our status as a first class power to depend on others for weapons of this supreme importance". -- Sounds like it was a government release or representative speaking but can we clarify/attribute?
    Baylis doesn't say, but his footnote points me back to Gowing, who makes it clear that it was the British Chiefs of Staff considering the idea, and the quote comes from their written response. Changed to "by the British Chiefs of Staff", and switched the footnote to point to Gowing. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:11, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
  • This eventuality was foreseen. -- I don't think this sentence works as it stands, perhaps something like The shortage of British atomic bombs was foreseen? Of course it's still passive, can we be specific about who foresaw it (even if it's just "the British" or "the Americans" or both)?
    I've re-worked this bit: Once V-bomber production ramped up, their numbers soon exceeded that of the available atomic bombs. Production of atomic bombs was slow, and Britain had only ten on hand in 1955, and fourteen in 1956. At this rate, there would not be sufficient bombs to equip all the V-bombers until 1961. The planned number of V-bombers was a bit of a moving target due to regular budget cuts, dropping from 240 to 144. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:11, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
  • In June, the Chief of the Air Staff, Sir William Dickson, thanked the Chief of Staff of the United States Air Force, General Nathan Twining, for the generous offer. -- Not sure this sentence adds anything, the implication of the previous sentence is that the offer would be turned down so the thanking part seems like fluff unless we can add that Dickson formally rejected (or accepted) the offer when he saw Twining -- or were things still up in the air (pun unintended) at this stage?
    Changed to: In June, the Chief of the Air Staff, Sir William Dickson, informed the Chief of Staff of the United States Air Force, General Nathan Twining, that the RAF was declining the offer. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:11, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
  • The Americans then wanted to know how many bombs would be required. The Minister of Defence, Harold Macmillan, determined that the V-bomber force would reach a strength of 240 aircraft during 1958. -- Um, is that it? The Americans want to know how many bombs but all we know are how many aircraft? Or is the implication that each aircraft could only carry one bomb?
    Added: Each would carry one atomic bomb. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:11, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
  • it turned out that the doors only opened between 50.50 and 51.19 inches (1,283 and 1,300 mm), depending on the aircraft, which meant that the bombs would have to be individually matched with aircraft. After some thought, 0.5 inches (13 mm) was cut off each bomb fin. -- I love the way you've expressed this, it sounds like something out of Yes Prime Minister, when they talk about the nuclear warheads not fitting onto the missiles properly...
    You're the first person to notice, but the whole article was originally written in Sir Humphrey Appleby's voice, with bits like: Moreover, during test firings in the Outer Hebrides, although eight out of twelve missiles accurately hit their targets, four fell short, which is always bad but particularly so when nuclear weapons are involved. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:11, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
  • the operational restrictions imposed by Project E "effectively handed the US government a veto over the use of half of Britain's nuclear deterrent" -- can we attribute the quote inline?
    It was Bronk, so I have rewritten the paragraph. It now reads: The Treasury immediately inquired as to whether this meant that the British megaton bomb programme could be terminated. Project E was intended to be a stopgap measure, and while the RAF was impressed with the superior yield of US thermonuclear weapons, its Director of Plans noted that "by retaining Project E at its present strength the US may continue to underestimate the UK independent capability, so that the weight given to HM Government's influence on vital issues would be less than it might otherwise be." Both Sandys and the Chief of the Air Staff, Air Chief Marshal Sir Dermot Boyle argued that the UK needed the capacity to initiate a nuclear war unilaterally, but this was not possible if US permission was required for half of the force. With sufficient British bombs on hand, operational issues and the concept of an independent nuclear deterrent came to the fore. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:11, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Project E was used more widely to refer to similar arrangements for providing nuclear weapons to the British Army of the Rhine -- As the opening sentence of a new subsection, this needs context... "More widely" than what? "Similar" to what? "Project E" the term or the project?
    Yes. Changed to: Project E was expanded to encompass similar arrangements for providing nuclear weapons to the British Army of the Rhine (BAOR)
    All those changes look good to me, tks Hawkeye. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:14, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

A nice read overall, straightforward and succinct. No particular concerns re. structure or comprehensiveness. I'll hold off support until the above points are addressed, and source and image reviews are in. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:34, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Support pending source and image reviews. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:14, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Mark_28_Thermonuclear_Bomb.jpg: is an updated source link available?
    Updated the link. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:30, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Suggest adding alt text. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:09, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

SMS Wettin[edit]

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

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

Comments from Dank[edit]

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

CommentsSupport from PM[edit]

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

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

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

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

Source review[edit]

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

Image review[edit]

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

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

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

Tony1[edit]

Lead, criterion 1a:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Are you kidding me? I don't think further interaction here is going to be productive. Parsecboy (talk) 09:40, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
Can you take your staggering lack of self-awareness somewhere else? I'm rather unhappy that this FAC has gotten derailed by your seeming inability to interact in a collegial manner. Parsecboy (talk) 12:06, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

───────────────────────── Guys can we try and take things down a notch? Nate, I value Tony's recent re-engagement with the FAC process -- we've all probably become a little complacent in our writing because editors with his eye for detail haven't routinely been reviewing our noms, so the way he challenges us on prose can be a shock to the system. It's not meant to be personal -- I've talked to Tony at several meet-ups and it's not his way. I include myself when it comes to possible complacency, and I look forward (albeit with a certain trepidation!) to him giving my prose the once-over next time I nominate an article here. BTW Tony, I've worked with Parsecboy since forever at MilHist, and I've never seen him unduly throw his weight around as an admin. I hope we can just focus on article assessment and improvement, which is why we're here. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:36, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with my writing being challenged - what I do have a problem with is someone complaining about me being "continually rude" (when I haven't been) while at the same time being incredibly condescending and insulting. If Tony wants to collapse all this and start over, I'm fine with that. Parsecboy (talk) 09:59, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
The problem is you don't seem to realise how not to annoy (and insult) reviewers; some introspection would be helpful, but I don't want to know about it. To turn the tables, I don't like to see such a skilled Wikipedian who has worked so hard on a piece feeling upset—that is contrary to the purpose of the FAC process. Your contributions to milhist are admirable. Tony (talk) 07:11, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Clikity's support[edit]

Weak Support: The article meets the criteria. The prose is okay for FA right now, but it will need a bit of a cleanup later. The prose is okay for FA, but it's nothing excellent. Clikity (talk) 13:00, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

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

Comments by Sturmvogel_66[edit]

  • I was one of the reviewers at A class, so let's see what strikes me now.
  • Suggest deleting German in the opening sentence and adding Imperial German Navy in parentheses after Kaiserliche Marine
  • Not gonna get into comma usage here as I'm still not entirely sure what's what.
  • the ship was mobilized with her sisters as IV Battle Squadron Perhaps, "the Wittlesbach-class ships were mobilized and designated as IV Battle Squadron"
  • Link Baltic Sea, training ship on first use.
  • went on one major operation being the Awkward, perhaps simply "played a minor role in..."
  • Gotta run, more in a bit.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:03, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Russian battleship, Slava No comma here
  • Link Riga on first use--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:48, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

National Front (UK)[edit]

Nominator(s): Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:53, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

This article is about a fascist party that reached its apogee in Britain during the 1970s, at which point it gained the country's fourth-largest vote share and contributed to a broader shift to the political right under Margaret Thatcher's Conservative government in the 1980s. Over the past year I have brought other articles on British fascism (John Tyndall (politician)) and British politics more broadly (Referendum Party) to FA status and it would be nice if this article, currently a GA, could join them. With the issue of far-right resurgence a particular hot topic both in Europe and the United States, it is important that our coverage of the subject is improved here at Wikipedia, and hopefully this FAC shall contribute to that end. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:53, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Image review

  • Captions that are complete sentences should end in periods, and those that aren't shouldn't
  • I've gone through the article and ensured that those that require periods have got them and that those which don't, don't. Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:22, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
  • File:A._K._Chesterton.jpg: the historic images tag is intended for cases where the image itself, not just what is depicted, is historically significant - eg Tank Man. This needs a different tag and stronger FUR. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:20, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Looks like this needs fixing still. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:00, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Several bare URLs in the reference list
  • Those appear to have been added since I launched this FAC. I'll look into fixing that. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:29, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Formatting of FN127 doesn't match other sources
  • Fn128: don't repeat publisher as author
  • Per WP:LAYOUT Further reading is generally an independent section not a subsection
  • Jackson 2011 appears to have a second author not listed here
  • I double checked the source. Jackson is the only author of the report, although a Matthew Feldman has written a two-page "Introduction" (more a foreword); hence, Feldman is given as a co-author at the University of Northampton's website, but should not really be considered such. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:26, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
  • What makes Walker 1977 a high-quality reliable source? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:42, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
  • It is an in-depth journalistic account of the NF based on considerable fieldwork and interviews with members. Although Walker was not himself sympathetic to the NF, his book is actually far less sensationalistic and overtly biased than much of the journalism on far-right topics that we see today. Attesting to the book's reliability, it has repeatedly been cited in academic studies of the NF and far-right in Britain more widely. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:20, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Nikkimaria. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:44, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt[edit]

In general, seems in good shape, though quite long. Through the end of History, (so to speak)

  • "Ideologically positioned on the extreme or far-right of British politics, the NF has been characterised as fascist or neo-fascist by political scientists." Isn't this a repetition of your opening sentence?
  • This is true, but I think it is a point that warrants repetition. This sentence also offers the added information that some political scientists regard it as "neo-fascist" rather than simply "fascist", which is not something that I think could be fitted into the opening sentence without the result looking rather clunky. We have the same lede structure at articles like British National Party, English Defence League, and UK Independence Party. Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:59, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
  • The article and the lead are really long - I think the sentence can be left out of the lead. There is no mention of a distinction between far- and extreme-right in the body of text and aren't they automatically neo-fascist by virtue of their postwar status? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:42, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
  • "The NF generated much opposition from left-wing and anti-fascist groups throughout its history," Shouldn't this be "has generated" given it is still ongoing?
  • Again true, and I'll make the change accordingly. Part of the issue here is that the NF has really ceased to be a significant political player since the early 1980s and thus the vast majority of academic and journalistic material that discusses it focuses on the period before that date. Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:59, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Are the arguments over the location of the party headquarters necessary in such a long article?
  • Perhaps they aren't crucial, but they only take up three short sentences that are part of one paragraph, so I don't think that we're overdoing it here. Including mention of this argument helps to underscore the differences within the party at that time. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:33, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
  • "and in spring 1969 assaulted two Labour Party ministers at a public meeting, thus accruing a reputation for rowdiness.[48]" rowdiness seems a light term, but perhaps it's my American English.
  • I'm not able to double-check at present, but I have a feeling that "rowdiness" might have been the word used in the source given. I could perhaps go with "disruptive behaviour" or "disruptiveness" instead? Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:00, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
  • In the paragraph beginning "The NF capitalised", there are a number of sentences beginning "In the XXX election". I might vary the phrasing a bit.
  • Agreed. I've made various changes here to diversify the use of language a bit. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:14, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
  • "After a resurgence in fortunes for the party in London at the 1977 GLC election—where they improved on their October 1974 general election result—it planned further marches in the city.[87] " I might use commas, but also you seem to refer to the party with both "they" and "it".
  • I've added the commas in place of the dashes and have ensured that "it" is used consistently in place of "they". Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:02, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
  • "that had previously gone to the NF.[92] NF membership had also declined," back to back NFs.
  • I've changed the first instance of "NF" to "Front". Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:59, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
  • "This party then contested the general elections in 1997 and 2001, but made little impact in either.[119] " I might cut "then".

More later, I hope.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:52, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Wehwalt. Your comments are appreciated. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:33, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
  • "although previous fascist parties—including the British Union of Fascists, the German Nazi Party, and the Italian National Fascist Party—also took part in elections, rendering this argument obsolete.[135] " the last part seems a bit opiniony and may need to be sourced inline.
  • A very fair point. I've altered the prose to make it very clear that this is the political scientist Stan Taylor's opinion. This will therefore be the first mention of Taylor in the text, so I have also trimmed back what is now the second mention of him to avoid duplication. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:23, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
  • "and the sociologist Christopher T. Husbands cautioned against attempts to understand the National Front through comparisons with Italian Fascism or German Nazism as they existed when they were in power because it remained without political office.[142] " Possibly this whole sentence should be divided. I imagine "it" refers to the NF?
  • I've divided this sentence in two, as you suggest. I've also tinkered with the prose a little. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:46, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
  • "Over the course of the NF's history, it has contained various different factions, often with distinct ideological positions. From the party's early days until the Tyndall/Webster split in 1980, the NF's ideology and propaganda output was dominated by the ex-GBM faction.[7] According to Wilkinson, theirs was a leadership "deeply imbued with Nazi ideas"" Are you treating National Front as a plural noun in the British fashion that takes the plural form? This passage looks inconsistent on that point. Similarly, in the last paragraph of this subsection, "faction" seems to be referred to both as "it" and "they
  • I'll strip out the use of plural nouns here and stick with "it". Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:46, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
  • "and argued that different races can be ranked on a hierarchy based on their differing abilities.[163]" I might cut the word "their" to avoid having it look like we're saying different races have different abilities.
  • ""negroes... are not fitted to go to white schools or to live in white society".[109] " shouldn't there be a non-breaking space before the ellipsis?
  • "and that black workers prevents unemployed whites getting jobs.[211] " Doesn't seem grammatical. And shouldn't it be past tense?
  • I've changed this sentence to the following: "and that the employment of black workers left many white workers unemployed." Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:30, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
More later.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:46, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Anti-semitism: this section is expressed in the past tense, unlike earlier sections on the NF's views, but there's nothing that says they've changed their position, so I don't see why this is in the past tense.
  • I've switched most of the sentences to present tense. This is a recurring issue with this article, I fear, due to the fact that the vast majority of published sources discuss the NF as it existed in the 1970s and 1980s rather than dealing with its present day, much denuded form. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:41, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
  • The word "claim" and its forms are overused in the first few sentences of "Government and the State"
  • I've replaced two of the three instances in which it is used at that juncture. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:37, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
  • "that the British Army should replace rubber bullets with lead ones," I might say "real" instead of "lead". Just preference.
  • I'm not sure "real" is the right term here (after all, "rubber bullets" are still "real", as opposed to imaginary), but I'll change this to "metal" instead. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:37, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
  • " In 1978 it issued a leaflet, How to Spot a Red Teacher, to school pupils.[307]" I don't like the way the title is in the middle, with "to school pupils" at the end.
  • I've changed this to: "In 1978 it issued a leaflet to school pupils, How to Spot a Red Teacher." Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:31, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
  • "by ensuring that all those capable of working do so rather than subsiding on unemployment benefits.[277]" I think you mean subsisting, not subsiding.
  • "The NF was not eager to publicise how many branches active across the UK.[327] " I would suppose that something like "how many branches were active across the UK" or something similar but perhaps it is just my American English.
  • It's not your American English, it's a silly error! Corrected. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:31, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
Through Security section.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:12, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
I think that's the most I'm going to be able to do. Two bits of advice:
First, I think you do need to update the antisemitism section, you should have sources on the present position if you are going to detail the past position. I don't think you can source a statement that a party is antisemitic to a 1978 source.
There is virtually no academic or journalistic commentary on the NF as it has existed since the 1990s, hence the heavy focus on the party as it existed in the 1970s and 1980s. I can't find any commentary on the NF's position on Jewish people since that period; equally, I can find nothing suggesting that their position has changed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:17, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
I would say that you would have to express it in the past tense and make it clear it is from the 1970s. It's a long enough time and enough change of personnel.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:44, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
Second is a question of tone. Passages such as "During the 1970s, the NF's propaganda regularly presented black people in Britain as a source of crime.[217] This anti-immigrant discourse was similar to that employed against the recently arrived Ashkenazi Jewish community in the late nineteenth century and also echoed the response to gypsies and Huguenots in seventeenth-century England.[218]" There's an extent to which this lends itself to WP:SYNTH because you are equating with a known evil without your establishing a connection between the two--"similar to" is a slender reed. And there's a fair number of zingers that end paragraphs or section, for example, "This literature referred to areas with large African and Asian communities as being "immigrant-infested", a use of language comparing non-white migrants to vermin.[189]" What they say is fair game, but I think you're pounding it into the table there. The reader is as capable of you or I of deciding the NF are a nasty group without needing to be persuaded.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:23, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
In both of these cases, the comparisons were drawn my the authors of the cited text (rather than me personally) but I see your point. I'll amend the text to make it clear that it is the authors' opinions. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:11, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
I will try get back to this, but I don't have time right now to do a full review due to travel. If it closes before I finish, I'll add comments at the talk page.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:52, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, Wehwalt. I hope that your traveling goes smoothly. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:17, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
I'll see if I can get in a few more comments.
  • "The NF adopted a strong anti-permissive stance,[284] being concerned with what it perceived as the growing permissiveness of British society," permissive ... permissive. I'd find a synonym.
  • Maybe "decadence" or "extravagance" would do, but I think it is difficult to find a perfect match for "permissiveness", which is what the reliable sources use here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:38, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "endorsing Ulster loyalism it never shared the Ulster loyalists' " again a repetition.
  • I've changed this to "although it endorsed the Ulster loyalists' cause it never shared their emphasis on the defence of Protestantism." Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:30, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "Although in its first year the party largely ignored the recently passed 1967 Abortion Act that legalised abortion in Great Britain, " does the "its" prior to "first year" refer to the party or the act? If it refers to the act than "first year" and "recently passed" are redundant.
  • It's a reference to the party itself. I'll amend the prose to make that clearer. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:39, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "In the 1970s, the party stressed its belief that education should be suited to the varying academic abilities of different students although did not outright condemn the egalitarian comprehensive school system.[276] " I would cut "egalitarian". This goes to tone. Either the reader has a view regarding comprehensive schools or they do not; if they do not, I would let them form their own.
  • " It called for far greater emphasis on exams and sporting competitions in schools," I might say "examinations" rather than "exams".
To the start of Organization and structure.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:52, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Comments by slatersteven[edit]

I would rather sources that are 30 years (or more) old are not used to source current statements. They may not have changed their stance, but we also have nothing to say they have not, and a lot can happen in 30 years.Slatersteven (talk) 15:14, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

@Wehwalt: This is arising from my recent alteration of the "anti-Semitism" section", where I switched the past tense text to present tense on the basis of your suggestion. Slatersteven reverted my changes, and has provided this comment to explain their decision. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:46, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
I haven't read the sources. If the sources won't support my suggestions, that's an acceptable reason not to change the text. You've read the sources and I have not. My suggestions are editorial.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:09, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Tony1[edit]

Lead, 1a:

  • Do we need to be told that 1967 was "51 years ago", and do we need to have red, white, and blue colours displayed (and linked, for some reason)?
  • I don't really know why the red, white, and blue colour boxes are in there (certainly not my addition), and I would not really object to their removal however it does seem that the use of such colour boxes is very widespread in political party articles (Labour Party (UK), Conservative Party (UK), Liberal Democrats (UK), Republican Party (United States), Democratic Party (United States)) so any removal is likely to be met with re-addition at some point. As for the gadget we have that tells the reader how long ago the party was formed, I would personally favour its retention. Again, we see it widely used on political party articles, and I think that it likely saves readers a minute or so of their time should they wish to calculate how long the party has been in existence. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:14, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
This is where we judge article excellence, for possible promotion. Bad practice in a set of other articles isn't a strong argument. The infobox is more effective for readers if clutter by redundant info and gaudy colours is removed. Tony (talk) 03:13, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
Removed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:39, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Is it useful to link "London" in this context?
  • I thought the general rule of thumb was to not link countries but to link cities and anything smaller. However, on this count I don't really mind either way. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:14, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
The general rule is not to link when every eight-year-old on the planet knows what the word refers to. Tony (talk) 03:13, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
I've scrapped the mention of London at this juncture because there are some concerns (raised at the Talk Page) that it may be incorrect. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:52, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
  • "fourth largest party"—something is missing.
  • We currently have "the UK's fourth largest party in terms of vote share." I don't mind rewording it, but I'm not really sure how that could best be achieved. "the party with the UK's fourth largest vote share", perhaps? Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:14, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
Hyphens required in both. Tony (talk) 03:13, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
Oh I see what you mean. Added. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:40, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
  • "regarding"—would "about" be plainer, simpler?
  • "Many NF members defected to Tyndall's BNP, while the National Front's electoral support deteriorated heavily." It's uncertain from the wording whether these two propositions are causally connected. Unsure "heavily" is the best epithet.
  • How about "substantially" in place of "heavily"? Or "significantly"? As for reflecting the impact of causality, how about "Many NF members defected to Tyndall's BNP, contributing to a substantial decline in the Front's electoral support"? Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:14, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
Much better. Tony (talk) 03:13, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
Changed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:44, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Ambiguous: "Ideologically positioned on the extreme or far-right of British politics". Is it an equative "or"? (also known as the far-right)? Does it mean extreme right or just the extreme of Br politics? Why not drop "extreme or"?
  • Yes, it is an equative "or" in this case. I'm cautious about dropping "extreme or" because later in the article the NF gets described as "extreme right". I'll expand the prose at this juncture to refer to "the extreme-right or far-right of British politics"; do you think that this does the trick? Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:14, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
Or use commas: "on the extreme-, or far-right, of". You need the first, hanging comma, from what you say. Or: "on the extreme right (far-right) of". Tony (talk) 03:13, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
  • "only white people should be citizens of the United Kingdom"—isn't this central enough to the ideology to add "racist" to the opening sentence? Tony (talk) 08:20, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure on this point. They are racist, that's certain, but "racism" perhaps is not a fair description of their ideology in the way that "fascism" is. I'm cautious about the opening sentence getting too long with descriptive words; if we add "racist", then an equally valid case could be made for adding "anti-Semitic", "white supremacist", and so on. I also think that the term "racist" is perhaps a bit vague to be used at this point. The racism of the National Front is, for instance, very different from the racism of a white liberal or socialist who might act in a patronising but well-meaning manner to a person of colour; both can be construed as "racism", but they are referring to very different things. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:14, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look at the lede, Tony. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:14, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Cas Liber[edit]

Interesting topic. Notes below....

  • After the BNP, the NF has been the most successful extreme-right group in British politics since the Second World War. - isn't UKIP far right?

  • Not by the reckoning of political scientists (at least, not thus far - the party could always shift its ideology). UKIP has always been more closely akin to the right-wing end of the Conservatives than to the BUF, NF, or BNP; Thatcherite rather than fascist, basically. It spends a great deal of time calling for drastic cuts to the levels of immigration but does not oppose immigration (non-white or otherwise) on principle and certainly does not call for non-white Britons to have their citizenship revoked followed by deportation. Economically, it's all for free markets and privatisation rather than for the national-oriented economic protectionism that typifies the British far-right. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:16, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Contravening his earlier commitment to keep him out, Chesterton welcomed Tyndall into the party - he can't really contravene himself. i'd say "Going back on" or "Ignoring" or something
  • A leadership election produced a strong mandate for Chesterton and his challengers left the party - wasn't it just that he won? Or did they specfically vote on policies as well?
  • In the 1979 general election, the NF mounted the largest challenge of any insurgent party since Labour in 1918 - what does this mean?
  • It refers to the number of seats that they were contesting. I'll make that clearer in the prose: "In the 1979 general election, the NF contested the largest number of seats of any insurgent party since Labour in 1918." Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:16, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

This article is very large - having read through it, I get the impression some material is repeated, but I need to go back and check. It is an interesting read though. More tomorrow. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:18, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

  • The NF adopted a strong anti-permissive stance - I think this sentence can be removed or merged with the one following.
    • Side comment: Cas, I agree because as an exposed introductory proposition it raises the question of what "permissive" is (it's undefined in the text). Some readers might ask "what behaviour is permitted, and what isn't, in the eyes of the NF?" I do like the "what it perceived as" in the next sentence (the one you're suggesting might open the section). May I also suggest, along the same lines of NPOV, that "regeneration" be in quotes? Tony (talk) 10:03, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
      • I've placed "regeneration" in quote marks and I've also merged the opening sentence with the second sentence. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:20, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Vanamonde[edit]

Well-written work, as always. A few quibbles follow. Feel free to disagree with me on any of those points.

  • You describe Chesterton as a veteran of the Fascist movement in a caption, but not the body; also, it needs a source; also, is there a link we could use for the British fascist movement?
  • On the first point, I've added a sentence about Chesterton's BUF membership to the article (appropriately sourced). Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:04, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
  • I wonder if a short descriptor for the LEL would be useful.
  • I've added a sentence giving a little more detail on this group. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:51, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
  • This is nitpicky, but I'm not a fan of the term "extreme-right". While it may be accurate, the one-dimensional left-right spectrum misses nuance in many cases, and is particularly dodgy the further you get from mainstream politics. Are there other terms used by the sources?
  • Well, the terms "far-right" and "extreme-right" are pretty much synonyms in this context. I could replace examples of "extreme" with "far" (excepting, of course, where direct quotation is used)? Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:07, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes, I'd prefer that.
  • Captions should avoid acronyms, I would say.
  • I've gone through the article and removed all of the acronyms from the image captions. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:05, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
  • I wonder if "internment of the country's fascists" could be linked somewhere. The White-minority South African government should definitely be linked, I'd say.
  • Unfortunately we do not seem to have an article on this topic at present, although it would be a topic worthy of coverage so hopefully someone can produce one in future. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:04, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks for taking a look at this, Vanamonde! Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:04, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

No problem, apologies for the delay: I hope to go through the rest of it soon.
  • "propensity for chanting" chanting political slogans? Or chanting Buddhist prayer? "chanting" is ambiguous, is what I'm saying.
  • "It also stood six candidates" is "stood" in this context a colloquialism? It strikes me as such (nominated would be my choice) but I may be wrong.
  • I don't suppose there's an explanation for the NF's post-1975 decline in the sources?
  • Can you link "statism"?
  • You seem to suggest that the NF's ideology was different from that of classical fascist parties, but don't describe how. I think some detail might be worthwhile, but if it's not available, just drop that; the section is plenty detailed without it.
  • I've reworded a sentence I didn't like the flow of: please let me know if I've changed the meaning.
  • I wonder if we could link Ingroups and outgroups in the quote that refers to them: I suspect most readers may not know what these are, and while we don't usually link inside quotes, for a technical term we could bend the rules, I think.
  • The ideology section has been very carefully written for such a complex topic, and I can find very little to complain. Nice job!

Comments by Carabinieri[edit]

Hi, Thanks for this article. I haven't finished reading it yet. So far, I just have a few comments:

  • "growing concern about South Asian migration to Britain" That sounds like a euphemism to me. Wouldn't "wave of racism directed at South Asian immigrants" or something along those lines be more accurate?
  • Difficult one. I do see your point. However, I don't really want to get into the territory of claiming that all concern about immigration is intrinsically racist (which such a change perhaps does); partly because such a view is rather controversial and partly because I think it will readily open up this article to accusations of (left-wing) bias, which I want to avoid. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:04, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "an organ of National Socialist [i.e. Nazi] opinion in Britain". Is the explanation in brackets really necessary?
  • I can imagine that there might be readers not familiar with "National Socialism" as a term. You probably have to have a certain level of historical awareness to know that "Nazism" was an acronym for "National Socialism" and I suspect most people on the planet to not have it. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:04, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "Although contesting six times as many seats as in 1970, its average vote share was 3.2%, slightly less than in 1970" The "although" would appear to indicate a contradiction, but I don't see it. It makes sense that contesting more seats would lead to a lower average vote share, since the party would then also be running in a number of districts where it had fewer supporters.
  • I agree with you and will get rid of the "Although". Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:08, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "In the 1979 general election, the NF contested the largest number of seats of any insurgent party since Labour in 1918" What does "insurgent" mean here?
  • Its a reference to a party with no parliamentary representatives but which is challenging the existing status quo. I'm very happy to consider alternative terms here, but not quite sure what might be a better option. "Minor", perhaps? Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:04, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure about the Wilkinson quote at the start of the "Ideology" section. It says that the NF was the only other case, but it's not immediately clear what the first case is. Is it the MSI? And is this really true? I mean the French Front National certainly also had (and still has) a lot of influence. The same is true of the Republicans and the NPD in Germany and several fascist parties in Italy.
  • I think that the French Front National only really got going as an electoral force in the 1980s, after Wilkinson wrote, but I get your point about the problems with the opening of this quote. What I'll do is to trim out the first few sentences of the quotebox; the rest, I think, remains fairly problem free and offers the reader some interesting and pertinent information. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:29, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Does it really make sense to have a separate section for the NF's electoral performances? The history section already mentions a number of electoral results. I think it might make sense to merge those sections and would like to hear your thoughts on that.--Carabinieri (talk) 04:42, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
  • I can see your point but I think that there is a case for having two separate sections. Some readers might only be interested in psephology and would skip straight to that section; mixing electoral information in with other forms of history would inconvenience them. I also think that there is a thematic distinction between the "History", which deals largely with the interior workings of the party itself, whereas "Electoral performance" deals more with how they have been received by a far wider sector of the population. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:23, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughts, Carabinieri. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:36, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Green Park tube station[edit]

Nominator(s): DavidCane (talk) 00:56, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Green Park tube station is one of the most interesting stations on the London Underground system having gone through three stages of development which I think is well covered in the article. DavidCane (talk) 00:56, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Support from SN 54129[edit]

Nice article! Just a few points that jump out, nothing major of course.

Glad you like it. Responses below.--DavidCane (talk) 23:24, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
Rival schemes[edit]
  • "although it was re-presented in 1903, it was dropped in 1905": How about "although re-presented in 1903, it was dropped two years later"?
  • Perhaps "Due to failures in the application process, this scheme was also rejected", purely on account of the sheer number of schemes which you have listed as being individually rejected by then?
Construction etc[edit]
  • I see you use whilst twice and while once; any particular reason for the choice? I'm not a particularly pro- or anti-ster, but I suppose I'd prefer consistency. Or maybe it makes a change?
    • Drive-by comment (more considered comments from me will follow on the whole article shortly): "whilst" seems just a bit quaint to me, but Fowler only says that it is "less commonly" used than "while". The Guardian style guide says "while not whilst" but doesn't say why. In short, a matter of taste, I think. I don't know that I have a view on whether one should stick to one or other form rather than mix and match. More anon. Tim riley talk 15:27, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
      • I normally use whilst and amongst rather than while and among, so not sure while is here. When would be better, but, anyway, I've changed the wording to address one of the other comments below.--DavidCane (talk) 23:24, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Can "accent band", as a technical term, be linked to anything for clarity?
    • it just means the edges of the panels of tiling being in a different colour to the rest. I have changed it to margins.--DavidCane (talk) 23:24, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
Reconstruction[edit]
  • Did anything "happen" relating to the station between its opening and the 1930s? (Except the attempts at crowd control!).
    • Nothing exceptional. After the flurry of construction in the 1900s, the UERL was financially exhausted. There wasn't much going on in the central area during this period. Most of the new initiatives on the Underground were extensions: Northern line to Edgware and Morden, Central line to Ealing Broadway, Bakerloo line to Watford Junction, Metropolitan Railway to Watford and Stanmore. There were some new trains (the London Underground Standard Stock was introduced on the Northern line in 1923 and the Piccadilly line in 1929), but nothing important happened at Green Park as far as I can see.--DavidCane (talk) 23:24, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
  • "The new ticket hall was accessed from subway entrances in Devonshire House on the north side of Piccadilly on the corner with Stratton Street and a southern entrance on a piece of land taken from the park"—can this be broken up slightly? Preferably, I think into two sentences, but if not, at least some punctuation—perhaps a semi-colon somewhere?
  • "below ground passages"—"below-ground passages".
  • More out of curiosity, again, but why "teahouse or tea shop", rather than just one or the other? They do link, after all, to the same thing, which does rather suggest synonymity :)
    • Amended. That was another user's edit of a link. Possibly they weren't sure which of the options was relevant.--DavidCane (talk) 23:24, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
Vctoria Line[edit]
  • I notice, again, that you refer to the system itself as the underground rather than the tube; in fact, the only time the latter is used is in the title and the references. Perhaps it's a question of consistency again, but I think that, by the post-war period at least, you can probably start referring to it in the colloquial occasionally.
  • "variety of new routes and extensions of existing lines" > suggest either "the extension of existing lines" or "extensions to existing lines".
  • "A collapse...stabilised to enable work to continue"; can this be rephrased? Perhaps, In 1965 one of the tunnels collapsed during excavation, and it was necessary to chemically stabilise the earth to continue", or something?
    • Reworded. It wasn't so much the tunnel that collapsed as the ground through which it was being bored.--DavidCane (talk) 23:24, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Which leads on to the next sentence: remove repetition of the year, and use "the following year"?
    • Done
  • Is it possible to get a picture of Unger's Victoria Line tiling, and perhaps replace the image of 5-7 Dover St, which, frankly, is a little disconnected (although a picture of the original would be great!)
    • The reinstated versions of Unger's tiles can be seen in the first image in the Recent changes section in the recess of the seat. The penultimate image in the London Transport Museum set in External links shows the originals (which have a pale yellow-green background rather than the white background of the replacements - that might be a colour defect in the image or TfL may have decided that a white background went better with the new white wall tiles). There's another image in Commons that shows the tiles face-on which I have added a link to in the image caption.
    • The first of the London Transport Museum images shows the original building.--DavidCane (talk) 23:24, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
  • "when the third stage of the line opened" > "with the opening of the third stage of the line"?
    • Done.
  • "The official opening by the Queen" > "The same day, the Queen carried out the official opening at GP".
    • Reworded, slightly differently.--DavidCane (talk) 23:24, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
Jubilee[edit]
  • "The Fleet Line": perhaps something like, "What was then called the Fleet Line", or something, so as to prepare the reader for the later name change—particularly as, with the sub-heading being used, they will be expected that rather than this! Maybe condense the footnote into the text for this?
  • "Baker Street to Charing Cross via Bond Street and Green Park": how about just "Baker Street to Charing Cross", as it's quite a complex sentence otherwise. Although it's worth asking at this point whether we can use any of those old maps at all that show various lines in different stages of completion? I think I've got a couple myself, but are they still ©?
    • Reworded.--DavidCane (talk) 23:24, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
    • TfL is very assertive about copyright of its images. Arguably, the stuff produced when the organisation was government owned as the London Transport Executive or the London Transport Board (up to 1970) should be subject to Crown Copyright which expires after 50 years. Post-1970 when it became London Transport Executive under the GLC, standard copyright probably applies instead, though we haven't got to the point of testimg that yet.--DavidCane (talk) 23:24, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
  • The first couple of lines of the second para may want to be reworded? On the one hand, you say tunnelling finished in 1974, but on the other, construction was still going on in 1977? Do you mean of the stations, the fitting out, etc? If so, could this be clarified as it might be slightly confusing to the general reader who knows nothing of the planning of tube tunnels.
    • Yes construction of the stations. The tunnelling is often finished long before the line opens due to the time needed for the track and signalling to be installed and all of the works in the stations, just as we are seeing on Crossrail.--DavidCane (talk) 23:24, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
  • "was used for a substation" > "was used as a substation"? Although I'm uncertain myself.
    • The substation occupies space in the shaft, so I think "for" is more accurate. I've clarified its an electrical substation in case a reader thought it was a minor railway station.--DavidCane (talk) 23:24, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
  • "deep red with leaf pattern"; can we say what colour the leaves were in, for the contrast? Off the top of my head I can't remember, but from the image you use it might be black. True?
    • They are black, yes. Mentioned.--DavidCane (talk) 23:24, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
  • "in August 1978 and the Jubilee line opened on 1 May next year".
  • "Fleet line's stages 2 and 3": Suggest clarifying (perhaps earlier on, when discussing the proposed routes, on the assumption that that's what we're talking about here) precisely what these stages were (a footnote might do it). Also maybe refer to as the Jubilee, since that's what it was by now.
    • It was still the Fleet line when the approval was given. I've amended the existing note to give more information on the routings.--DavidCane (talk) 23:24, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Repetition of "passageway".
  • "The new extension opened in stages starting in the east": This needs clarification; I assume you mean Stratford, which should be named and linked. Also, in this para, you should link somewhere to Jubilee Line Extension.
    • Good idea. Stratford mentioned and a link to the JLE is added.--DavidCane (talk) 11:20, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Having said that—that whole last para is entirely about the line itself, not Green Park station specifically; although since GP was the junction between old and new, perhaps it's OK. I certainly don't insist on it either way.
    • I think most of this is necessary context to explain why the tunnels to Charing Cross were abandoned after only 20 years. It does discuss the improvements at Green Park as well.--DavidCane (talk) 11:20, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
Recent changes[edit]
  • Re. "the Hans Unger tiling in the seat recesses of the Victoria line platforms was replaced ": I seem to remember that there was a big (probably Evening standard-led) brouha over this at the time. Now that's completely my own theory, but perhaps see if you can find something out about it? It would add a little human interest. In any case, the final sentence re, the Unger restoration, currently needs a reference.
    • I've not been able to find anything regarding a brouhaha about the tiling, nor is there a citable source that specifically mentions their reinstatement. The photographs that we have of the station though show that they were reinstated as part of the late 2000s works:
      • this and this show the platforms with the original wall tiling in April 2007 and June 2008.
      • this shows the June Fraser replacement tiles in April 2007
      • this and this show the platforms in July and September 2008 with the wall tiling removed during the refurbishment and the walls rendered in preparation of new work.
      • this shows the wall tiling replaced, but not the recess tiling in 2009
      • this shows the completed work with the reinstated Unger pattern in 2015 - we know from ref 51 that this work was completed by 2011.--DavidCane (talk) 22:01, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
  • "The new ramped entrance from the park and the street level shelter "; I wonder if it's worth amalgamating this with the earlier sentence
    • I've reworded this to mention the ramp on first mention of the new park entrance.--DavidCane (talk) 22:01, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
  • "...with access directly from Green Park". "Which consisted of a new ramped entrance", etc. As it stands, you open a parage referring to a specific ramped entrance which hasn't actually been mentioned before, except perhaps by implication.
  • I don't really see a necessity in naming the architects; but then, perhaps I do too much anti-spam work around here :)
    • It's not vital to name check them. I suppose. They are mentioned in the sources so are not anonymous if someone is interested.--DavidCane (talk) 22:01, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Repetition of "cool"; perhaps "To help regulate the temperature, a system..."? (Annoyingly, our article on Temperature regulation, which would be a nice link, is basically about body heat!)
    • I've change the first "cool" to "moderate temperatures in"--DavidCane (talk) 22:01, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Again...Ove Arup and Partners?! But I'll go by whatever the general feeling is.
Proposal...[edit]
  • Ah-ha! A mention of the Fleet Line stage one—again! All the more reason to discuss these stages earlier?
    • Now mentioned earlier.--DavidCane (talk) 22:05, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Reference required for "No further work has been done...".
    • It's not possible to prove that nothing further has been done, but the sentence can be removed without changing the preceding.--DavidCane (talk) 22:05, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
Bombing[edit]
  • Now, this is purely my opinion, but I wonder whether this really requires its own section? As it's only one sentence, I imagine it could neatly into the prose, chronologically? But again, I'll go with the general view on this.
    • I don't think it fits in as part of the previous sections which all relate to developments to the stations. The bomb does not appear to have damaged the station, so there was no reconstruction required.--DavidCane (talk) 22:27, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
  • "On 9 October 1975, terrorists belonging to the..."—suggest, per WP:WORDSTOWATCH, "On 9 October 1975, the Provisional IRA...". Or perhaps, "On 9 October 1975, members of the Provisional IRA's Balcombe Street Gang..." which has its own article, and that lot are probably well-known enough to warrant a link.
IPC[edit]
  • Just curiosity, but is this the only thing it's been used in? I don't want to turn this section into a fancruft fest, but I thought it would be a backdrop in classic B&W films. Shame if not, an, as long as they're sensible additions, this is more human interest I suppose. Still, can't make it up, can we... 11:38, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
    • It does not seem to have had the glamorous life of Aldwych tube station, which has featured repeatedly as itself and, in disguise, as other stations. There may be some random street shots with the station in the passing background, but that does not really count for this sort of section. Certainly, fancruft is to be avoided and by providing a good source for this one instance that should stop the random unsourced crap that appears otherwise.--DavidCane (talk) 22:40, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
    • I hope this is of some use at least, DavidCane. Best of luck with it!

—SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 11:38, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

      • Thanks; it was all very helpful.--DavidCane (talk) 22:40, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
        • Just checking, SN, and no pressure to declare a position, but have you completed your review? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:57, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the poke, Ian Rose, this had slipped my mind. My review was more thorough than I intended, actually, and everything has been attended too nicely (including such anomalies as WP:WTW, etc.). Have now indicated my support for this article's promotion. Cheers, —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 09:50, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Nikkimaria[edit]

  • Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:41, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Support from Tim riley[edit]

I reviewed the article for GA and thought then it was of FA quality. Revisiting it, I remain of that opinion. Comprehensive, v. readable, logically laid out, well and widely referenced. – Tim riley talk 09:04, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Tim.--DavidCane (talk) 11:52, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Tony1[edit]

Prose looks good. Pity it fragments into higher-level sections at the bottom. Two of them are one sentence long. Tony (talk) 11:49, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Construction and opening

  • "Whilst the various rival schemes were unsuccessful in obtaining parliamentary approval, the B&PCR was similarly unsuccessful in raising the funds needed to construct its line."

—"While" is more modern. What was similar about their lack of success?

  • "As with most of the other GNP&BR stations, the station building, located on the east side of Dover Street, was designed by Leslie Green."
  • "at first floor level"—hyphen, please.
  • "Platform and passageway walls were decorated in glazed cream tiles in Green's standard arrangement with margins, patterning and the station names in mid-blue." Add a comma and remove a "the".
    • "the" removed, but I don't see anywhere that a comma is needed.--DavidCane (talk) 23:24, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "The station was provided with four Otis electric lifts paired in two 23-foot (7.0 m) diameter shafts and a spiral stair in a smaller shaft. The platforms are 27.4 metres (90 ft) below the level of Piccadilly." was ... are. I suppose it's OK, but the reader does have to make a slight shift. Do we need commas after "lifts" and "shafts"?
    • "Was" because the provision of the lifts is in the past (and they have been removed) and "are" because the platforms were and still are that far below the surface. I don't think commans are needed, it's not a parenthetical statement.--DavidCane (talk) 23:24, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Tony (talk) 09:47, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

  • Thank Tony. --DavidCane (talk) 23:24, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
    • Was the standard arrangement one with margins as a party? It's a little unclear whatever the fuzzy meaning. My editor would make me put two more commas in, but the serial comma is your choice: ""Platform and passageway walls were decorated in glazed cream tiles in Green's standard arrangement, with margins, patterning, and the station names in mid-blue." Tony (talk) 12:52, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Ritchie333[edit]

  • Regarding Tony's comment above, the IRA bomb could be more than a sentence (compare and contrast with Blackwall Tunnel#Provisional IRA bombing, for example), and most station articles have an "accidents / incidents" section (paging Mjroots who researches a lot of this stuff). With this information, the single line section could easily be expanded out to a paragraph or two.
  • Green Park tube was the meeting point for the People's Vote March this summer, attended by 100,000 people. Notwithstanding WP:NOTNEWS, this would be worth at least a sentence in order to meet criteria 1b.

More later.... Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:04, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

...and has got its own article @1975 Piccadilly bombing. —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 14:11, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
A search of the Railways Archive website doesn't reveal any accidents. RAIB website also draws a blank. A {{main}} would be useful in the section on the bombing. Mjroots (talk) 14:20, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
According to this Times citation, on 24 October 1936 it was reported that a man was fined £2 with £1 1s costs for allowing his dog to walk on one of Green Park's escalators. Shame this isn't DYK, isn't it? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:48, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
I saw the piece about the poor dog that got his leg mangled in the escalator, but didn't think it key to put it in. There were also a couple of people reported (separately) to have fallen under trains, but that's, unfortunately, not particularly uncommon. The only other thing that I found but didn't put in was a fire in one of the tunnel construction sites which meant that workman needed to evacuate the workings temporarily.
I've added a {{main}} tag.--DavidCane (talk) 21:48, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

───────────────────────── Hi Ritchie, been a couple of weeks since you began reviewing, did you still want to add something? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:55, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

San Junipero[edit]

Nominator(s): Bilorv(c)(talk) 19:31, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

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

Comments from Aoba47[edit]

Resolved comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comments from Gonnym[edit]

  • Whilst series one and two of Black Mirror were shown on Channel 4 in the UK, Netflix commissioned the series for 12 episodes (split into two series of six episodes) in September 2015,[1] and in March 2016, Netflix outbid Channel 4 for the rights to distributing series three with a bid of $40 million - I don't understand this. If Netflix commissioned the season 3 episodes in 15, why did it have to outbid Channel 4 in 16? I'm assuming Netflix didn't plan in 2015 on paying for a season to be shown on Channel 4 at the time.
    • Sorry about this—turns out I made some mistakes. The $40 million bid was in 15, not 16; and it's distribution in the UK under discussion. It is a confusing situation, but here's what happened: in 2015, Netflix commission the show for 12 eps. Now C4 could still get the right to distribute series 3 in the UK first, perhaps with it being released on Netflix later (not a rare deal—for instance, it's what happened with The End of the F***ing World). They bid on this and Netflix outbid them, the result being announced in 2016. Anyway, that's too much detail (and a bit of OR), particularly for a page about an episode and not the series/show itself. I've done a bit of rewording but let me know if you think there are still problems with it. Bilorv(c)(talk) 23:55, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Alongside "Nosedive", "San Junipero" was first shown in 2016 ahead of its Netflix release at the Toronto International Film Festival. - You should mention that Nosedive is another episode from the season, as without it, it's not different than the many other TV shows/films shown in that festival.
  • Authored by Charlie Brooker, it was a "conscious decision to change the series." - I have a problem with the word "Authored" as it isn't used in television and it's also not used by you in the article lead or infobox. "Written" should be good enough here. I've also have a problem with how the sentence is constructed. I don't know why but it just seems like it's cut short. Actually the whole paragraph seems off to me. See next point.
  • "San Junipero" was the first episode written for series three.[6] Authored by Charlie Brooker, it was a "conscious decision to change the series".[7] The show previously focused on technology's negative effects;[8] this episode served as proof that uplifting Black Mirror episodes are possible.[7] Brooker initially envisioned an episode in which technology is used to investigate whether an afterlife exists.[9] He later became inspired by nostalgia therapy for older people. Having repeatedly thought of writing an episode set in the past,[6]Brooker wrote "San Junipero" as a period episode.[10] - These short rapid sentences make the flow seem off to me. As an example change Brooker initially envisioned an episode in which technology is used to investigate whether an afterlife exists, but later became inspired by nostalgia therapy for older people..
    • I've used your example and linked the first two sentences. Let me know if you think it's any better. Bilorv(c)(talk) 23:55, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
  • this episode served as proof that uplifting Black Mirror episodes are possible - (maybe if the previous point is fixed this won't be an issue) - this seems like a response to someone saying it isn't possible, but all you have here is this statement which seems like we're reading half a conversation.
    • It's intended as a response to "The show previously focused on technology's negative effects". The full context of the quote is: "[Brooker:] Every show that I've done starts with a character in a trap, who stays in the trap. San Junipero was a nice trap. It proved to me that you can do an uplifting episode of Black Mirror." ([29]) How would you like this reworded? Bilorv(c)(talk) 23:55, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Brooker told The Daily Beast that in the rough treatment - I know you linked to the Daily Beast in the box on the right, but this is the first time in running text it's mentioned and could probably be linked here also. I didn't even notice the box while reading.
  • Director Owen Harris described the 1980s - could probably link to the director as that is the first mention of him since the lead.
  • Gugu Mbatha-Raw, who plays Kelly, had heard of the show but not seen it when she received the script, though she did watch "Be Right Back" before the shoot - similar to a previous comment. You should probably mention that Be Right Back is another episode from the series, as the context is missing.
    • It's mentioned in the paragraph below as "the series two episode "Be Right Back"" so I've just moved that description to this paragraph. Bilorv(c)(talk) 23:55, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
  • on a bus journey from Oxford Circus to Brixton - I'd link these two. I'm not from the UK and I had no idea where these two are so no idea how long that bus journey was and I actually did search these here to find out, linking would have been easier and faster.
  • Davis first saw the show with a friend - You should probably write her full name as you did with Gugu Mbatha-Raw and as its the first time she's mentioned since the plot. I had to re-read the previous section to see if I missed who Davis was.
  • Elfring described it as the only episode with "warmth to it, and Jeffery called it the "most upbeat and positive. Handlen believed that the previous episodes' sad tone heightens the effectiveness of "San Junipero",[41] and Stolworthy thought that it was consequently the show's most ambitious episode.[42] Saraiya notes that technology is portrayed as good in "San Junipero", a rarity in the show.[43] Sims noted that the episode follows the season's darkest episode, "Shut Up and Dance".[44]" - who are Elfring, Jeffery, Handlen, Stolworthy, Saraiya and Sims? (probably critics/reviewers, but you should give them their full name and website/newspapper)
  • Its Emmy Award wins were considered by some to mark a cultural shift in relation to portrayal of lesbianism - should link to the Emmy Award ceremony.
  • They are not the focus of exploration in the episode, but its plot raises many philosophical questions,[45] including the nature of consciousness and experience[37][45] and the consequences of digitally simulated existence. - I don't understand who "They" are. If "They" are the philosophical questions, then please consider revising as it is not clear.
    • Yep that's what was intended—I've essentially just moved the first clause to the end of the sentence. Bilorv(c)(talk) 23:55, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Reviewers have questioned what San Junipero would mean to believers in an afterlife - is the "San Junipero" here the episode title or a place in the episode? If it's the title then its missing the correct style.
    • Nope, it's the place in the episode. Bilorv(c)(talk) 23:55, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
  • I stopped at Critical reception as this took longer than I expected, but I'll add notes about the table.

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

  • Another table related issue - I don't see a reason why reference 87 should be using rowspan="2", as Category, Recipients and Result are all in one row, and it makes verifying more confusing compared to the other references.
    • I don't understand the issue here. Ref #87 has two links, one to Category/Recipients and one to Result, and each link applies to both rows. If I removed rowspan="2" then I would just have to cite ref #87 in both rows. Bilorv(c)(talk) 10:11, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
      • I didn't know each link applies for both rows as you wrote For the award nominations, see Beachum, Christ; Dixon, Marcus James [...] For the award winner, see Montgomery, Daniel [...] which implies that one ref is for the first row and the other ref is for the second row. --Gonnym (talk) 10:25, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
        • In fact I don't believe I was the one who wrote that but anyway, I've changed it to "For the list of nominees" and "For the list of winners". Is that any better? Bilorv(c)(talk) 10:29, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
          • I think it is better worded now, but I still don't think there really is a real reason for that. Just stick the nomination ref to the one that was only nominated and the winner video the other, or if the video does does both, you could just use that (but I'd say cite the nomination list for the non-winner one, as it's much reader-friendlier to skim a written list than to see the video). Also, I just checked [30] and the website doesn't actually say who the winner is, the video does [31] so I'm not sure if Template:Cite web is the correct ref template, or maybe Template:Cite AV media is a better choice here, as it will allow adding the specific timestamp of when they actually say who the winner is, although I've myself not cited something like this in the past, so not sure how to handle this. --Gonnym (talk) 10:46, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
            • There was a real reason: when we use {{nom}}, it means "nominated and didn't win". Otherwise we use {{won}} (or {{pending}}). So the award which didn't win still needs the source announcing the winners. But I've changed the winners source to a text source, and as it also mentions the other nominees, I've removed the nom source which is now redundant. Bilorv(c)(talk) 19:52, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
              • I'm not sure you need to find a source that proves a negative. You said it was nominated and sourced it as such. This isn't the article for the award which you need to also say who was the winner. Anyways, glad you found a source that makes this issue moot altogether. --Gonnym (talk) 22:09, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Comments from theJoebro64[edit]

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

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

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

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

Image review[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

Comments by FrB.TG[edit]

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

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

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

Source review - spotchecks not done

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

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

@Nikkimaria: any more comments? Bilorv(c)(talk) 12:36, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Sonic Heroes[edit]

Nominator(s): JOEBRO64 19:23, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Two years after Sonic Adventure 2 brought Sega's days as a first-party publisher to an end, a new era began in 2003. Unlike previous Sonic the Hedgehog games, Sonic Team USA's Sonic Heroes was released for a large number of non-Sega platforms. It features a drastically different gameplay style from its predecessors—one that focuses on linear platforming and teamwork. Overall, it's simpler and more streamlined than its predecessors. Sonic Heroes divided the gaming press: reviewers wrote that it didn't address the major problems of its predecessors, even if its gameplay was closer to the classic Sega Genesis titles than ever. And yet it was the kind of success Sega hadn't seen in years, selling millions of copies and earning numerous sales awards.

I decided to work on this in December but didn't put in serious effort until March (here's where it was before I rewrote it) and got it promoted to GA in April. Since this was a pretty popular game, I had to go through a lot of articles, interviews, etc. and I now think this is the internet's most complete resource on the game. After doing a bit of copyediting and expansion, I think this meets the FA standards. JOEBRO64 19:23, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47[edit]

  • For this part (Set six months after the events of Sonic Adventure 2, the story follows four individual groups of characters in their quests to find Doctor Eggman; meanwhile, Metal Sonic secretly manipulates these events.), I would avoid using “events” twice in such close proximity. I think you can just say (Set six months after Sonic Adventure 2) and convey the same meaning.
    • I should've caught this myself. Fixed. JOEBRO64 23:00, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
  • For this part (to complete levels, and collect the seven Chaos Emeralds in special stages.), I do not believe the comma is necessary.
    • Removed it. JOEBRO64 23:00, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
  • For this sentence (Sonic Team USA handled development, led by Yuji Naka and Takashi Iizuka.), something the placement seems off to me. Would it be better to revise it to the following (Sonic Team USA, led by Yuji Naka and Takashi Iizuka, handled the development).
    • I actually think your suggestion flows nicer. Implemented JOEBRO64 23:00, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
  • The image caption (Sonic, Tails, and Knuckles in the Seaside Hill stage.) should not be punctuation as it is not a full sentence.
    • Fixed JOEBRO64 23:00, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Something about the wording for this phrase (In the Sonic series platform game tradition) seems a little awkward to me. I would revise it to read better.
    • Revised to "Like prior Sonic platformers" JOEBRO64 23:00, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
  • For this part (There are four teams: Team Sonic (Sonic the Hedgehog, Miles "Tails" Prower, and Knuckles the Echidna); Team Dark (Shadow the Hedgehog, Rouge the Bat, and E-123 Omega); Team Rose (Amy Rose, Cream the Rabbit, and Big the Cat); and Team Chaotix (Espio the Chameleon, Charmy Bee, and Vector the Crocodile).), I think that the semicolons should be commas.
    • Actually, the semicolons are correct. Each item in these two lists is actually a complete sentence, so using commas would make the entire thing a run-on. JOEBRO64 23:00, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
  • For this part (Each team has its own campaign, called a story.), is the “called a story” part necessary? It seems rather standard for games to refer to a campaign mode as something along the lines of a story mode.
    • I think it's necessary because they're referred to as stories later in the section. JOEBRO64 23:00, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
  • For this sentence (With Shadow missing his memories and Omega seeking revenge against Eggman for sealing him away, Rouge, who wants to get a hold of Eggman's treasure, forms a team with them), do you think the last part would read better as this (Rouge forms a team with them to get a hold of Eggman’s treasure)?
    • Yeah, that's much better. Implemented JOEBRO64 23:00, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
  • For this part (someone is hiding behind the scenes, posing as Eggman and secretly obtaining data from his enemies), I think you can just simplify it as the following (someone is posing as Eggman and secretly obtaining data from his enemies).
    • Done JOEBRO64 23:00, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Please make it clear what references are used to support this bit of information (to commemorate the Sonic series' 12th anniversary.).
    • Done JOEBRO64 23:00, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
  • For this sentence (Critical reception to Sonic Heroes was "mixed or average", according to the review aggregator Metacritic.), please put the references in numeric order.
    • Huh? They already were JOEBRO64 23:00, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
      • They are not in order when I look at it. They are currently 27, 29, 28, and 26, which is not the correct numeric order. Aoba47 (talk) 23:13, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
        • @Aoba47: aahhh, I was looking at it in the Visual Editor and they were in order there and not the normal article for some reason. Fixed JOEBRO64 23:18, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
  • For this part (IGN thought rest of the sound was high quality,), I think you mean “the rest of the sound”.
    • Yep. Fixed JOEBRO64 23:00, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
  • I am not sure if this statement (The presentation was generally well-received.) is entirely accurate as there are criticisms about the presentation (i.e. the graphics were not much of an improvement from previous games—comparing them to "a glorified Dreamcast game” and disliked the shiny models).
    • I've changed it to "The aesthetics and sound were generally well-received", which I think is more accurate JOEBRO64 23:00, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
  • For this part (After working on a few more games, in 2008), the comma should be after “in 2008”.
    • Done, but I've rearranged the sentence a bit. JOEBRO64 23:00, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
  • The “G” in “AllGame” should be capitalized.
    • Done JOEBRO64 23:00, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
  • For reference 10, the word “interview” should not be in all caps. Make sure to avoid putting words in all caps for the reference titles. See references 37 and 38 for the same reasons.
    • Fixed 'em JOEBRO64 23:00, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Great job with the article. I will support this for promotion once my comments are addressed. I would greatly appreciate if you could provide comments on my current FAC. Either way, have a great rest of your day and/or night! Aoba47 (talk) 21:59, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

@Aoba47, thanks for the review! I've implemented most of your proposed changes, and if I didn't I explained why. I'll comment on your FAC sometime tomorrow. JOEBRO64 23:00, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Thank you for addressing everything! It was an interesting read. The only thing that needs to be addressed is the numerical order of the references in the first paragraph of the "Reception" section. However, since that is a minor issue that I am sure you will address, I will support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 23:13, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Thank you! I've responded above JOEBRO64 23:18, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Media review[edit]

Very good alt text for all. Might recommend adding there is a shark and a whale island in Sonic Heros.jpg, but it is fine if you do not. Kees08 (Talk) 06:07, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

@Kees08: thank you for reviewing! I believe I've addressed your point above. I also did add the island details to the alt text; I do think it's worth noting. JOEBRO64 11:34, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
Great, this article passes the media review. Kees08 (Talk) 22:57, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
This article does not pass the media review - File:Sonic Heros.jpg has an IGN watermark. It's also just an awful screenshot that shows a blur where the characters should be. The alt text says they're pushing a car? What? - hahnchen 07:31, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
@Kees08 and Hahnchen, I've replaced File:Sonic Heros.jpg with File:Sonic Heroes Grand Metropolis.png. I think it passes again now. JOEBRO64 13:10, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
Is the published date supposed to be the game release date, or the date the screenshot was published? I beefed up the alt text a bit, please modify if I got it wrong. Could mention that sprites of the characters are in the upper right corner as well, if you want. Kees08 (Talk) 22:55, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
@Kees08: the day the game was released, but I've added the screenshot date as well. JOEBRO64 23:04, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
Great, thanks. Passes media review from me, others may have further input. Kees08 (Talk) 23:08, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Comments from MX[edit]

Great article! I checked the lead to make sure the info there was cited elsewhere and everything checks out. Sources look strong and complete. Prose is good too. Like we brought up in the WikiProject, I'm wondering what to do with the infobox, particularly now with the release dates. The Gamecube (Japan) version is cited in the body, but there is an inconsistency with the NA version (January 5 in infobox; January 6 in text). Windows release has only the month-year in the prose, but not in the infobox. PAL region is unsourced entirely, as well as Windows JP release. Shiro Maekawa is also unsourced. MX () 15:02, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Also wanted to say that I don't think sources should be added to the infobox. Prose is fine. MX () 15:19, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
@MX thanks for the review! I've sourced the Windows release dates and corrected the inconsistencies. Removed the unsourced staff because they weren't really important (writer isn't important because this isn't a plot driven game, and Hoshino has been a main Sonic artist for a while). The PAL release dates aren't unsourced—the European release dates are the PAL ones JOEBRO64 19:44, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
Thank you! I support this nomination. Nice job again! MX () 19:49, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Comments by David Fuchs[edit]

Saw your bat-signal at WT:VG. Overall, the article is solid, but I think it needs some additional work. Thoughts as follows:

  • Images: File:Sonic Heros.jpg could use a beefed up rationale for its inclusion; as is it doesn't do a great job showing gameplay and I can't tell what teamwork aspects are being featured. There's also an IGN watermark. I think a different, clearer image with a stronger rationale would be best. (On a minor technical side, I'd also recommend uploading the gameplay images as PNG. Wikipedia's JPEG scaler is really not great and it tends to make gameplay screenshots not at full size look more jaggy and less clear than they could be. But that's just a preference.) Other images are fine.
    • Coincidentally, I just uploaded a new image that is not only a PNG, but removes the watermark and shows a much cleaner representation of the gameplay. If you think its rationale needs improvement, let me know.
      • The new image is better, but the FUR could use beefing up. I'd suggest using the image to demonstrate commentary on the graphics with specific points (such as the vibrant art style.)
  • Prose:
    • Six months after the battle aboard the Space Colony ARK—what is space colony ARK? Who is Doctor Eggman? In general there's spots throughout where I think a brief introduction is in order for some plot details. I don't know much about Sonic, but many readers might know even less. Other spots include no mention of who Metal Sonic is (the fact that he's apparently a robot Eggman created feels relevant) and a little more on what the Chaos Emeralds are.
      • I've gone and added some clarification. Axed the "battle aboard the Space Colony ARK" and replaced it with "the events of Sonic Adventure 2.
    • How many players can participate in multiplayer?
      • IGN says two to four.
    • all-powerful Metal Overlord I dunno what this means.
      • Clarified.
    • I went through and performed some minor copyedits as well as added nonbreaking spaces for the figures.
      • Yeah, thanks for that, really made the prose cleaner.
    • I'm not entirely sure about the legacy section. USgamer's retrospective alone doesn't feel like it deserves a paragraph, and the details about later appearances of the levels and subsequent games feel a little excessive for the scope of this article.
      • I've gone and entirely reshuffled the section. USgamer retrospective is now part of the first paragraph, and footnoted the level reappearances to better be digested by a general reader. However, I don't think it should be removed entirely—it is relevant to the game and shows it did have an impact on the series. And I know WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a terrible argument but many other FAs, like Super Mario World and Final Fantasy VII, have information like this.
    • IGN considered Sonic Heroes a major improvement from Sonic Adventure, writing "Sonic Heroes does an absolutely sensational job of re-creating the intensely fast and unpredictable looping, corkscrewing stages from the classic games in 3D".[4] 1UP.com and GameSpy agreed.[2][32]—It's not really clear what 1UP and Gamespy are agreeing to here. That it does a great job of recreating the old games in 3D? That it's a major improvement on Sonic Adventure?
      • That it was an improvement from Adventure. Clarified.
  • References:
    • I would suggest axing the notes section. Knowing how many reviews went into an aggregate is mildly interesting, but if we're not calling them out I don't think it's necessary. Likewise, the detail about an event taking place in the previous game is better placed in the text for context. Readers shouldn't need to scroll to figure out that piece of information. The Japanese translation stuff I know is contentious and I defer to whatever the heck the project has hammered together in terms of what the proper usage should be.
      • I've removed the notes. General vibe in recent months is that the Japanese translation is sorta unnecessary for the general reader, and I totally agree with your other concerns.
    • I did a spot check of sourcing and statements attributed to refs 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 12, 17, 24, and 40, and found some issues that need to be addressed. (Based on this revision)
      • Sonic Heroes is a 3D platformer similar to previous Sonic the Hedgehog games.[1] cited to 1, but the source doesn't mention Sonic as a 3D platform and doesn't directly compare it to previous Sonic games besides saying "it is a Sonic game".
        • This is the only one on my reread that still doesn't seem adequately sourced (the second half now works with the IGN link, but not the platform description.) I'm open to this being considered trivial enough it doesn't need a source, but if it's possible it'd be best to source it. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs