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 Ealdgyth—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  • a nomination is unprepared, after at least one reviewer has suggested it be withdrawn.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. Graphics such as  Done and Not done slow down the page load time, and complex templates can lead to errors in the FAC archives. The only templates that are acceptable are {{xt}}, {{!xt}}, and {{tq}}; templates such as {{green}} that apply colours to text and are used to highlight examples; and {{collapse top}} and {{collapse bottom}}, used to hide offtopic discussions.

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:

Featured article candidates (FAC)

Featured article review (FAR)

Today's featured article (TFA):

Featured article tools:

Nomination procedure

  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.


Kids See Ghosts (album)[edit]

Nominator(s): K. Peake 16:29, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

I am nominating this article for review against the FA criteria because it is a notable collaborative project between the two famous rappers Kanye West and Kid Cudi as Kids See Ghosts, which was highly successful critically and charted in numerous countries too. The article was heavily worked on by me when I brought it to GA status less than a year ago and I have since continuously expanding it, while put it through a peer review recently that I responded to. I have helped well-researched during all of this definitely and made sure that the writing has no errors, while citations have been fixed by me and I provided an appropriate amount of illustration. However, feel free to comment if my hard work has not covered certain areas! --K. Peake 16:29, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Elizabeth Willing Powel[edit]

Nominator(s): GreenMeansGo and Coffeeandcrumbs. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 18:46, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Elizabeth Willing Powel has been called a forgotten "Founding Mother" of the United States. An apt moniker for a woman perhaps forgotten by history but whose influence on early American History is evident in her communiques with the notables of her period, including many of the Founding Fathers of the United States who she entertained at her home at Powel House (now a museum in Philadelphia). She is most often remembered for a light exchange with Benjamin Franklin which became an often quoted statement about the Constitution of the United States. The story goes as such: a "lady" asked Franklin "What have we got, a republic or a monarchy?", to which he responded, "A republic ... if you can keep it". Who this "lady" was is often glossed over. This article attempts to answer that question with the best sources available today. Powel was a kingmaker and power broker of her time who counseled Supreme Court justices, presidents, senators, and mayors. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 18:46, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

  • Just noting that I'm more-or-less around and will attempt to help address any issues as best I can. GMGtalk 18:50, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Comments from Eddie891[edit]

  • Will comment here shortly. Please ping me if I forget. Eddie891 Talk Work 16:01, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Everett, Washington[edit]

Nominator(s): SounderBruce 04:23, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

One of my early pandemic projects that grew into a long article about a blue-collar city with a long history of labor movements and strife. Everett is home to the world's largest building by volume, a base for aircraft carriers, and some of the worst traffic in the United States, among other honors. This article was rewritten a few months ago from the ground up with the intention of being an FA, complete with new offline sources that I have acquired to keep permanently. SounderBruce 04:23, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Dali (goddess)[edit]

Nominator(s): ♠PMC(talk) 21:47, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Right! This was my first GA, way back in early 2018. It's come a long way since the GA version, and I think at this point I have to stop being a coward and just do the FA nom. I've scoured the internet for every available source, and I'm pretty sure this is as comprehensive as I can make it without actually learning Georgian (and even then, the most important Georgian source, Elene Virsaladze's Georgian hunting myths and poetry, is available online in a high-quality English translation published by the Georgian National Academy). For sources which are not freely/immediately available online, I have access to PDFs of most and can email copies to anyone who wants to do a source check.

The evolution of Dali is an incredible testimony to the plasticity and transformation of myth. To some authors, she represents evidence that classical Georgia borrowed mythemes from classical Greece. To others, she is an example of the mistress of the hunt, an archetype found in stories across Europe. After Christianity came to Georgia, she was sometimes regarded as a demoness. No matter the interpretation, she remains uniquely herself: haughty, demanding, and seductive. To quote John Mulaney: Dali is a bitch, and I like her so much. ♠PMC(talk) 21:47, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Image review[edit]

Copyright issues
  • Swapped. ♠PMC(talk) 00:25, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
  • The statue of Prometheus is protected by copyright as there is no freedom of panorama in Georgia.
  • Swapped for a Russian postage stamp. ♠PMC(talk) 00:25, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
Display issues
  • Image captioned "Horns of the Bezoar ibex" would look better moved up, as it currently breaks the next heading
  • It doesn't do that on both my work PC (IE Explorer) and home laptop (Chrome), not sure why it's doing it to you. ♠PMC(talk) 00:25, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
  • I think the Ishtar and Circe statues would look better side-to-side, which would allow easier direct comparison and avoid the sandwiching/breaking of the "Western European" heading that I am seeing in the current setup. This can be done with {{multiple images}} (t · c) buidhe 00:04, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
  • As with the horns picture thing, I'm not getting any sandwiching issues, and Ishtar doesn't break the Western European figures header for me. I can take screenshots to show you what I see if you want? As for using the multiple images template, I'm not sure it makes sense to put the two together since they're from different sections (but I'm open to suggestions). ♠PMC(talk) 00:25, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
Comments on sources (not a source review)
  • Some are broken: Khidasheli 1982, Kveselava 2002, Camuri 1993, Virsaladze 2007 (t · c) buidhe 00:04, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Weird, let me have a look at what I've done there. ♠PMC(talk) 00:25, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Okay, those should all work now. ♠PMC(talk) 00:57, 2 August 2020 (UTC)


Nominator(s): LittleJerry (talk) 17:40, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

This article is about zebras, African equines with one of the most recognizable patterns in nature. This article has been brought to GA status and had a copyedit. I now feel it is ready. LittleJerry (talk) 17:40, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Image review
It says its from 1895
There isn't any source for the date. Also, it's unclear if that's the creation or publication date.
this shows that it was taken by 1902 which means it would be in the public domain now. LittleJerry (talk) 01:18, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
  • I am seeing some sandwiching in Ecology and behaviour, Social structure (2nd + 3rd pics), Reproduction and parenting, Conservation sections.
I'm don't see a problem, as long as the words are not completely sandwiched. LittleJerry (talk) 20:31, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
Err, that's not what MOS:IMAGELOC says. Also, I am not convinced that all the images are adding encyclopedic value. Images should not be added just for decoration.
IMAGELOC states How­ever, a­void sand­wich­ing text be­tween two im­ages that face each oth­er;. none of the images in the article are facing each other. LittleJerry (talk) 01:36, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Also I think you could find a better pic for the Communication section, however not required. (t · c) buidhe 19:27, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
Replaced. LittleJerry (talk) 20:31, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

1993 Football League First Division play-off Final[edit]

Nominator(s): The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 07:05, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Another classic play-off final. Swindon scored three goals in eleven minutes to go 3–0 up, just for Leicester to score three in twelve to make it three apiece. Then a penalty in the last few minutes decided it. Wonderful. As always, I'll work my rear end off to make sure I address any and all comments, thanks in advance for your time. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 07:05, 30 July 2020 (UTC)


Hmm, when I said feel free to open a new nom I wasn't expecting a co-om as well since with your open co-nom for Iwan Roberts that kinda adds up to two noms simultaneously. That said, I can see Roberts is pretty close to finishing so go ahead but let's leave it at these two for a bit... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:01, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Sure, if things weren't quite so glacial around here it would help. In actuality, the co-noms are simply me helping out the main contributors in each case, it would be very unfair to deny them a run at FAC through bureaucracy. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 07:23, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
In fact, it's best if you delete this nomination if it's going to prevent Kosack co-nominating 2010 Football League Championship play-off Final with me. It's not fair at all on them. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 07:37, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
No need to cancel this on my account TRM, you were here first. I'm happy to wait until you have a free slot for a co-nom. Kosack (talk) 09:06, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
Okeydokes. Perhaps you could have a look at it?! Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 09:47, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
Will do, I'll take a look as soon as I can. Kosack (talk) 14:03, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Comments by WA8MTWAYC[edit]

Another great article, TRM. I've some points.

  • In the lead, "Premiership" is quickly followed by "Premier League". I would stick to either "Premiership" or to "PL" for consistency.
  • "...four minutes later, with goals from Steve Walsh and Steve Thompson, the..." reads a bit odd. Maybe "and with further goals from..." will do (or whatever you come up with).
  • "...remaining, the referee David Elleray awarded..." I think "the" can be dropped.
  • "...for the first time in their club's 73-year history." Surely the club's 73-year history in the English professional divisions?
  • "...having conceded a record-100 goals." > a record 100 goals.
  • Maybe it's better to link Header (association football) in "...Summerbee was headed past..." instead of "...from a George Lawrence header.".
  • "...which was played over two legs had ended 2–2." some words are missing here.
  • "...for the first time in the 73-year history..." see above.
  • "The Leicester City manager Brian Little was..." I think you mean Hoddle here.
  • " of 2019..." Maybe you can update this (if there's a reliable source available).
WA8MTWAYC all addressed except for "the" referee which I use to avoid attributing a false title. Cheers for the review, much appreciated! The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 18:11, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
Thanks TRM, I'll give the article my support. WA8MTWAYC (talk) 18:34, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Comments by Kosack[edit]

  • There's some inconsistency in the making of the Premiership/Premier League throughout, the opening paragraph of the lead has both for example. I'm not sure it was ever known by both at the same time?
  • "while the teams placed from third to sixth place", a little repetitive with placed/place perhaps? Could simply do away with the second usage.
  • After the first paragraph of the lead, you drop Town for Swindon but maintain City for Leicester. Is there a reason for that?
  • Worth linking Kick-off (association football)?
  • "whose shot was curled past Kevin Poole", is the "was" necessary here?

A couple of minor points I picked out. I've omitted any duplicates that WA8MTWAYC also brought up. A great article. Kosack (talk) 15:54, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Kosack many thanks, all addressed (hopefully to your satisfaction), cheers for the review, much appreciated. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 18:15, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

1988 Football League Second Division play-off Final[edit]

Nominator(s): The Rambling Man, Harrias talk 20:49, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

The 1988 Football League Second Division play-off Final was a rather dull pair of football matches which promoted Middlesbrough to the top tier of English football, then known as the First Division. What livened things up somewhat was the hooliganism after the second leg: a few hundred Chelsea fans invaded the pitch and attacked the Middlesbrough fans, who were still penned in. The police were criticised for being slow to react, but mopped everything up. There were 45 injuries and over 100 arrests. English football, which was suffering from a poor reputation for this sort of thing, took another hit. It was the final nail in the coffin for English clubs chances of being readmitted to European club competition early, and they had to wait another two seasons. A joint nomination with the playoff wizard himself, TRM. As always, all thoughts, criticisms and comments will be greatly appreciated. Harrias talk 20:49, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Comments by Lee Vilenski[edit]

I'll take a look at this article, and give some comments on how it meets the FA criteria in a little while. If you fancy doing some QPQ, I have a list of items that can be looked at here. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 07:09, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Comments by Kosack[edit]

A handful of very minor points, but this is a polished effort and I have little to complain about. Nice work. Kosack (talk) 09:20, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Kosack thanks for you comments, all addressed. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 09:36, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Single skating[edit]

Nominator(s): Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 04:16, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

This article is about the figure skating disciple. If passed to FA, this will be the third figure skating FA. It has been thoroughly researched; I believe that it is ready for FA. I look forward to any and all feedback. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 04:16, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Sonja Morgenstern skates a compulsory figure (1971)
Image review—pass
  • All images appear to be freely licensed.
  • Image placement could be improved. In the Compulsory figures section, there is narrow sandwiching of text between two images, which looks bad and should be avoided if possible (see the collapsed screenshot); you could fix it by moving the Morgenstern image to the right.
  • Most of the upright images would look better if rescaled with the |upright parameter as recommended in MOS:IMAGELOC. See the uncollapsed image for an example.
  • MOS:IMAGELOC states, "Most images should be on the right side of the page, which is the default placement." The article has several left aligned images which break up section headings, which is undesirable. The Nobunari Oda and Artur Gachinski pics should definitely be moved to the right because they are breaking into the next section without actually facing into the text to a significant degree. (t · c) buidhe 00:44, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
I believed that I solved the above issues by: removing the Morgenstern image, since the Compulsory figures section is so short, removing the Gachinski image because it really didn't really illustrate the section's content anyway, and changing the image size of the Oda image to fit within the section. MOS:IMAGELOC also states, "It is often preferable to place images of people so that they "look" toward the text." Everyone on the left is looking at the text to the right; that's why they're there. Hopefully, my changes have helped with image placement. Thanks, Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 04:08, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
Works for me. (t · c) buidhe 04:52, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
Comments by Spicy

Interesting read. Just a few comments on prose... I know nothing about figure skating so do correct me if anything is off base.

  • "Single skating has required elements that skaters must perform during a competition - is "required elements" a technical term in figure skating, or is "required" redundant since we are told that they must perform them?
Yes, it is; there are elements that skaters can perform that aren't required
  • Compulsory figures, from which the sport of figure skating gets its name, was a crucial part of the sport for most of its history until the ISU voted to remove them in 1990.- is "compulsory figures" singular or plural? It is first referred to with "was", but later with "them".
No, it's plural. Thanks for catching the typo.
  • Free skating, also called the free skate or long program, is the second segment in single skating, pair skating, and synchronized skating in international competitions... - is it necessary to repeat the list of international competitions in this section when it is already in the "Short program" section?
I noticed that the last copyedit go-over I made. I think it's necessary if someone were to read the sections separately, but I can see it as being repetitive, too. What do you think? I'll go with your opinion, since I'm probably too close. Should we say in the "Free skating" section: "Free skating, also called the free skate or long program, is the second segment in single skating, pair skating, and synchronized skating, in the same international competitions as the short program"?
I think that would be a good idea - it communicates the same information without being repetitive. Spicy (talk) 14:01, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
Done. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:36, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Championships and festivals focusing on compulsory figures has occurred since 2015 - have occurred
Got it.
  • Also according to the ISU, jumps must have the following characteristics to earn the most points: - is "also" necessary here? To vary the sentence structure you could change this to something like "Jumps must have the following characteristics to earn the most points, according to the ISU:"
Got it also, har-har.
  • "International Skating Magazine called this regulation the "Zagitova Rule", named for Russian skater Alina Zagitova, who won the gold medal at the 2018 Winter Olympics by "backloading" her free skating program, or placing all her jumps in the second half of the program in order to take advantage of the rule in place at the time that awarded a 10% bonus to jumps performed during the second half of the program" - very long sentence, suggest splitting
Done, broken up after the first "program".
  • "Single skaters must include the following in order to earn the highest points possible during choreographic sequences:" - "choreographic sequences" is plural here but the rest of the sentence refers to the sequence in singular - change to "during a choreographic sequence"?
Good catch.
  • "The first time a senior singles skater used music with vocals and lyrics during a major international competition was Artur Gachinski from Russia" - Gachinski is a person, not an event; could this be changed to something like "The first senior singles skater to use (etc)..." or "The first time... was Arthur Gachinski's performance at Skate America in 2014."?
Wow, that was a dumb mistake; good job being the first person to notice! Fixed.
  • Since 2003, women single skaters have been able to wear skirts, trousers, tights, and unitards, which was a change since the ISU requirement in 1988 that women skaters wear skirts during competition, a rule dubbed "the Katarina Rule", after East German skater Katarina Witt, who "skated her tapdance-based short program in a showgirl-style light blue sequined leotard with high-cut legs, low-cut chest, and similarly colored feathers on her headdress and sleeves and around the hips as the only perfunctionary gesture in the way of a skirt". - suggest splitting this sentence as well
Done, separated after first use of "unitard".

That's all - thanks for putting this up for FAC. Spicy (talk) 01:50, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

You're welcome, Spicy. Thanks so much for the review; it was very helpful. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 03:41, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
No problem and happy editing :) Spicy (talk) 14:01, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
Awesome, thanks again and same to you. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:36, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

First Battle of Newtonia[edit]

Nominator(s): Hog Farm Bacon 02:01, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Here goes my first FA nomination, with many thanks to a pre-nomination FAC mentorship by User:Gog the Mild. This was a smallish scrap on the fringes of the American Civil War, mainly noted for the role Native Americans played on either side. In the end, this battle had no real lasting effect of any sort, as the victors abandoned Missouri without a real fight less that a month later, restoring the status quo. Hog Farm Bacon 02:01, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Image review—pass

All images are free (t · c) buidhe 18:10, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Source review
  • PM's suggestions about improving the number of sources cited to clarify that a statement is more widely supported are good ones and should be followed. I think you should cite the Tucker source as well.
  • All the sources look reliable enough for what they are cited for.
  • Could you cite another source to verify the occurrence of Second Battle of Newtonia?
    • Yeah, I'll sling in Kennedy.
  • Who wrote the summary in the National Register of Historic Places Inventory Nomination Form? US government employee or someone else?
    • I found the four preparers in the back of the document, hidden amongst some lists and maps. I've added their names.
  • I checked some of the online sources. The only issue I found was:
    • "The Civil War Trust has acquired and preserved 8 acres (3.2 ha) of the battlefield" -> source says "The Newtonia Battlefields Protection Association preserves and interprets the Matthew H. Ritchey home and 25 acres of surrounding 1862 and 1864 battlefields." The website does mention "saving" 8 acres in the heading, which is more clearly explained at the link, although not mentioning the Civil War Trust. Also, what do they mean by "saving"? To improve verifiability, it would help to cite a different page(s) of the website where these issues are explained. (t · c) buidhe 00:01, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
      • @Buidhe: - I've replaced the previous citation with a citation to the saved land page and accompanied that with a citation to one of the "About us" pages on the group's website that kinda explains what "saved land" means. Is the current setup sufficient there? Hog Farm Bacon 03:58, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
        • The added page helps explain, but it doesn't support the text because it states that land is sometimes acquired by the trust and sometimes made into a conservation easement. So we would need another source to verify that the eight acres were acquired. (t · c) buidhe 19:05, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
          • How about "The American Battlefield Trust has participated in the preservation of 8 acres (3.2 ha) of the battlefield" for the phrasing? I'm not finding information on the exact details of the group's actions here. After looking in the article history, I think that sentence was added by an apparent SPA that likely had an undisclosed COI with the organization, as that user's contributions consist of adding information about the organization's work in various battlefield articles.
            • Yes, or alternately "organized the preservation", that is supported by the source. (t · c) buidhe 03:58, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
              • Done

Is the second infobox necessary, given that we already have a separate article on the historical district? I think the article would be improved by its removal, keeping in mind summary style. (t · c) buidhe 19:07, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

I concur. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:20, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
@Buidhe and Gog the Mild: - Removed as no longer necessary. It's a relic of the previous state of the article, as the historical district was a redirect until I expanded it in March or April

CommentsSupport by PM[edit]

Lead and infobox
  • The First Battle of Newtonia was battle fought on September 30, 1862
    • Done
  • for advance force link Vanguard
    • Done
  • suggest moving the NRHP template to the last section, and add a Missouri location map to the military conflict template with a pog for the location of the battle
    • Done, although the NRHP template does break into the references section now.
  • is Edward Lynde not notable?
    • Probably not. Never made it above colonel, and this was one of his most influential moments.
  • is there a name for "A large Union force"
    • Blunt's division. Added.
  • add the casualty figures to the lead
    • Done
  • None of the "Units involved" in the infobox are mentioned in the body by those names, if not proper formations, then decap brigade
    • All were pretty ephemeral except for Shelby's. I decapped the other two and referred to Shelby's brigade by it's common name at first mention

More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:45, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

  • Bearss is not an adequate source for the high-level first para of the Background section. Find academic sources and use them to summarise the period from Lincoln's election to the beginning of the ACW.
    • I found a source that I think'll work, and I should have access to this journal full-text through my university, but the log-in part of the website is down. [1] is a link to the source. I have no idea when my university's library system site will be functional enough for me to access this.
      • Because my knowledge of the origins of the ACW is sketchy, I pulled out my copy of The Oxford Companion to Military History (2001) p. 35, and while it is a generalist WP:TERTIARY source, is is reliable, and the ACW entry is written by British ACW specialist Brian Holden-Reid. It is very clear from the entry that the ACW resulted from disagreement between North (anti-slavery) and South (pro-slavery) over slavery, that "states' rights" is really just Confederate "code" for their defence of slavery, and the war was precipitated by the election of Lincoln without a single electoral vote from the South and the Southern states rejection of the result. Also that the idea that slavery was a positive good was popular in the South by 1860 and many there considered that it was an integral aspect of a unique Southern culture which could only be protected by independence. I don't think the current wording is sufficiently clear on these points to meet Featured Article expectations. I think it is entirely acceptable to use Holden-Reid as a source for this high-level material, and am happy to email you a scan. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:21, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
        • Please do. As a southerner, I'm aware that the causes of the war are very controversial (the Lost Cause is still alive and kicking; I was actually taught a form of it in school growing up). I really think the idea of having a non-American source for this background is an extremely good idea, as having a source more aloof from remaining scars of the war is probably more neutral. Hog Farm Bacon 02:37, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
  • say that Lyon was the commander of the federal St. Louis Arsenal
    • Done
  • "This claim was soon disproved." doesn't sit right. It may have been true, as the Confederates were in Arkansas, perhaps "Even if true, this state of affairs was short-lived."
    • Done
  • for "spearheaded" link Vanguard
    • Done
  • "Colonel James Totten's division was expected to leave Springfield on September 29" to join the two brigades?
    • Not explicitly stated. Should I just remove this?
      • If it doesn't have any bearing on the battle or its aftermath, yes. But what was the "a much larger Union force" mentioned in the Aftermath? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:38, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
        • Nvm. It was part of the larger force. I've tried to clarify that in the aftermath now. Wood doesn't have an index, so it's hard to find things.

Down to Opposing forces. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:06, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

  • "Union cavalry consisted of the 6th and 9th Kansas, the 2nd Ohio, and 3rd Wisconsin Cavalry Regiments. Infantry regiments present at the battle were the 10th and 13th Kansas, and 9th Wisconsin Infantry Regiments. Artillery came from the 1st and 2nd Kansas Light Artillery Batteries and the 25th Ohio Battery,[22] fielding total of 12 cannons.[23]"
    • Done
  • "Three of the cannons were 3-inch rifles and two were mountain howitzers." do we know what sort of guns the rest were fielding?
    • This came up in the ACR. Not that I've seen, I can give Wood another perusal.

Down to Battle. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:25, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

  • @Peacemaker67: - It may take me awhile to find an article in a good, scholarly journal for replacing Bearss with that one paragraph. Most of the military history journals I can access through my university are absolute garbage, a lot aren't even peer reviewed. *:( Hog Farm Bacon 01:58, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
  • just to maintain the sequencing of the previous sentence, I would go with "The patrol to Neosho participated in a small action, but the men sent to Granby saw no Confederate soldiers."
    • Done
  • "two regiments of Shelby's cavalry" which regiments?
    • Clarified
      • "5th Missouri Cavlary" has a typo. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:51, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
        • Oops. Fixed.
      • @Peacemaker67: - I need to do some more research here. Bearss indicates that the 5th Missouri Cavalry was sent to Newtonia on the 29th and remained in Newtonia. However, Bearss later states on page 304 that the unit was not at Newtonia initially on the 30th, and had to be sent to Newtonia later. Wood has the same ambiguity, which may be because Wood uses Bearss 1966 as a source. Hog Farm Bacon 23:42, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
  • do we know which gunners went with Lynde? presumably not the howitzers?
    • On the 29, the howitzers. Bearss was vague, but Tucker was clearer there
  • suggest "the regimentTexans occupied the abandoned town"
    • Done
  • do we know how many companies Salomon sent to Lynde?
    • The 150 men, no. I've tried to make Jacobi's strength clearer. Which specific point are you asking about
      • when you introduce Lynde's force in the Prelim action subsection, can you add that it included the two mountain howitzers of Company F? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:51, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
  • So, Company F of the 9th Kansas also had guns? These should be noted alongside the guns listed in the Opposing forces section. Also, in the note, just use "Company F", not "Company "F"", Company F (and F Company) are commonly used in military articles.
    • Done
      • Can you note when they are introduced, that the Company F guns were also mountain howitzers? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:51, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
        • @Peacemaker67: - The third sentence of the prelim section is "The force headed for Newtonia consisted of 150 men commanded by Colonel Edward Lynde of the 9th Kansas Cavalry and two mountain howitzers.", with a note mentioning Company F of the 9th Kansas Cavalry. Is this not satisfactory? I'm not sure what would need to be done otherwise.
  • The details of the battle need more sources, it is almost completely Bearss' version of events (however eminent he may be within the NPS) which isn't enough to ensure we have a neutral and academically-consensus description of what went on. There must be other reliable sources on this battle.
    • @Peacemaker67: I may wind up having to withdraw this. Of the sourcing I have available to me, Gerteis gives only a brief overview, Kennedy gives only a couple paragraphs, and Wood is published by the History Press, which specializes in hyperlocal history and isn't the most scholarly source. Foote only gives a brief overview. O'Flaherty has a strong pro-Shelby bias, and uses John Newman Edwards for a lot of his battle description, so I don't want to draw on him much. The Official Records are primary source battle reports, and one side's "pickets were driven in" is the other side's "drove the enemy a sizable distance", so that isn't very helpful for piecing together what happened. I'll probably withdraw this tomorrow, since I don't think I can do a whole lot with the available sourcing beyond what's been done, except for some chronological materials or relying on Wood heavily. As far as I'm aware, Wood is the only full book-length treatment of this battle. Hog Farm Bacon 03:33, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
      • I wouldn't do that. It is fine to use Bearss, but not just Bearss. We need corroboration of the details of the battle from other reliable sources. There is an entry covering details of the battle in Spencer C. Tucker's American Civil War: The Definitive Encyclopedia and Document Collection on pages 1400–1401, so that should be used to bolster Bearss. If you can't access both pages via Google Books preview, ask for copies at WP:RSX. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:53, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
        • I'd add that you can (and should) use Wood to corroborate details from Bearss where they agree on a detail. It would be better if sentences (or every few sentences) were individually cited to two sources at least, particularly anything that might be challenged, like the success of a charge, who routed and when etc. This isn't needed with every fact, (like the presence of a regiment), but in the case of possibly controversial information it would give reviewers the assurance that this is not just a reflection of Bearss' views, and that other sources had been accessed and relevant details included from them. Where sources differ, compare and contrast what they say, don't pick winners unless one source is clearly far more reliable than the others that vary. This is very important at FA, to ensure that criteria 1b. (comprehensiveness) is met. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:05, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
          • Does this still apply if Wood uses Bearss as a source fairly faithfully, even to the extent of perpetuating apparent contradictions in Bearss? Hog Farm Bacon 00:28, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
            • Well, I wouldn't use Wood to perpetuate contradictions, and if Bearss contradicts himself, you need to highlight this using notes, if they are contradictions between the reliable sources, you should compare and contrast them in the article, but if Wood is clearly relying on Bearss for something and the material in Wood is identical, there is little point in including Wood. However, Tucker needs to be used where possible to add detail and reinforce Bearss. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:29, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
              • I also found out that Gerteis' battle description is largely based off of O'Flaherty. So essentially, the print sources are a bunch mainly using the same two.
                • Tucker? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:43, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
                  • Working.
                    • IMHO the Battle section is now adequately supported by sources in addition to Bearss now, so I'm happy with this one. Just suggest that you put the cites in numerical order, ie [23][27][32] rather than [23][32][27]. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:42, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
  • "Salomon sent the 6th Kansas Cavalry" but the last we heard of them, they were attempting to cut off the Confederate skirmish line, so surely they were already committed?
    • Clarified that the morning bit was only 45 men, and that it was the rest of the regiment in the later action
  • weren't the 3rd Indian Home Guard already part of Jacobi's force?
    • I've clarified that only 50 men were in the morning, and that the rest was sent.
  • "The Confederates were aware that additional Union soldiers were coming" I was under the impression the Union troops were retreating?
    • Rephrased
  • the September 30 subsection is a bit confusing, with units being part of Jacobi's force earlier in the day and being recommitted later by Salomon. In general, we need a bit more granular information about the movements of the various units, particularly the Union ones, their retreat and return to the fray.
  • "3:30 in the afternoonp.m."
    • Went with 24-hour clock time
  • Jeans' Rregiment
    • Done
  • for night battle link Night combat
    • Done

Down to Aftermath. More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:42, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

  • say where the Battle of Clark's Mill was
    • Done
  • I would change the piping to "battles of Westport in Missouri, and Mine Creek in Kansas.
    • Done
  • "much as he did in the 1862 battle" doesn't follow what is in the article. A couple of Shelby's regiments are mentioned in the Prelim subsection, he isn't mentioned at all in the September 30 subsection, and he led the rearguard of the retreat after the battle ended. From the article it appears that Cooper was directing things, allocating resources etc. Was Shelby commanding the two regiments sent to Newtonia on the 29th?
    • Nixed. A leftover from an earlier version of the article where O'Flaherty was used heavily, and his excessive focus on Shelby included
  • The Mathew H. Ritchey house→Mathew H. Ritchey House, if that is its formal name as when first mentioned?
    • Done
  • there is no need for the {{rp|34}} citation formatting, as cite web supports the |page= parameter. This and the one in the NPS template are different from the rest of the article.
    • The two rp instances were to the same reference, so that wouldn't work. What I did was to move that PDF to the sources, and then use sfns to deal with it.
  • move the author-link parameter to the first Bearss source.
    • Done

As this is your first FAC, I'll take a look at the images and sources formatting as well. More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:36, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

  • in Note a, add Regiment
    • Done
  • not for this article, but could you add a field for leaders to the Missouri in the American Civil War navbox?
    • Done. Picked three of the more prominent from each side, although other editors may think other selections could have been better. Went with Ewing Jr, Lyon, and Curtis for the Union, and Price, Shelby, and Marmaduke for the Confederates
  • are there any useable pics of Salomon, Cooper, Lynde or Jacobi?
    • @Peacemaker67: - There's images of Salomon and Cooper on Commons, but they aren't really useable, as the date of original publication is unknown, so PD can't be proven. I can find images for all four on the internet, but the issue is that with all of the period images, the date of publication isn't recorded, so using the images would result in failing the image review since PD can't be proven. I also looked for Hawpe with the same results.
      • Best I can find is [2], which indicates a date of likely taking, but doesn't have a publication date.
        • Ok, I couldn't find any of them in the Brady-Handy Collection, and I had a look for regimental histories published pre-1925, but no dice. If they aren't available, they aren't available. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:24, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
  • given my observation about Shelby's involvement, is he really a priority for an image?
    • He's mostly in there because I can't find an image of any of the other primary commanders that can be proven is PD.
  • what would be really useful would be a map of the battle itself, showing the movement of forces.
    • There's not a free one in existence that I've seen, and I don't have the expertise to create one
      • In that case, what would be really useful would be some indications of which directions troops were approaching from etc. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:24, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
        • I wound up finding an NPS map searching in a NPS PDF for corroborating details to support Bearss. I'm uploading it on Commons to add to the article.

That is all I could find. This article is in great shape, just a few changes needed to bring it up to FA level. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:02, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

  • I'm gonna call it a night on this one now. I've gleaned some stuff from Tucker and I found a NPS report with a couple pages for it. It's gonna be a bit tricky here, as Bearss is the only source I've seen that gives more than 2.5 pages to this battle, so he has by far the most detail. Hog Farm Bacon 03:26, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
    • This one has needed so much work already during this FAC ... Hog Farm Bacon 03:29, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
      • I've determined that I'm just gonna have to indicate that Bearss says the 5th and Jeans' stayed in Newtonia on the 29, but other sources (Tucker and McGhee's regimental histories) indicate the two units were not at Newtonia at the beginning of the 30. I'll add that tomorrow. My writing skills aren't quite up to fac grade yet, so this'll be a slow process. Hog Farm Bacon 04:08, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
        • @Peacemaker67: - I'm trying to glean as much as I can to support Bearss from the sources that don't cite Bearss. Is this becoming an improvement? This FAC has felt like a giant mess to me. Hog Farm Bacon 03:48, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
          • Definitely improving. This is often the case as new FAC nominees adjust to the higher expectations, particularly of sourcing and comprehensiveness. Don't worry about it, doing doing great. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:34, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
            • @Peacemaker67: - I made a breakthrough and found an old 1922 source online that had a good description of this battle that was able to back up Bearss in several places. I also added a couple more cites to McGhee. I'm worrying I'm starting to run out of additional possible sources I can find to add, though. I've looked through just about every print source I can find, and almost none even mention this scrap. I'm getting deep into the bowels of Google scholar and Google books, too. Hog Farm Bacon 03:21, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
              • @Peacemaker67: - I've cited a peer-reviewed, well-respected (IMO) journal for the causes stuff. Personally, I think Bearss is a good enough source for the secession dates and order, but I can find another source for that if desired. Is this satisfactory? Hog Farm Bacon 01:32, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
                • All good for me now and I consider it meets the FA criteria. I appreciate this has been a bit of an ordeal, but it takes a bit to adjust to FAC. Well done. Gog the Mild, all yours, mate. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:31, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
Cheers Peacemaker. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:44, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Support from Gog the Mild[edit]

Placeholder. I will wait for Peacemaker67 to finish, or get close to that, before reading this, so we are not both picking up the same issues.

Nb. It is my intention to claim points in the WikiCup for this review.

"I'm getting deep into the bowels of Google scholar and Google books." :-) Tell me about it. It can sometimes feel like trying to make bricks without straw can't it? Gog the Mild (talk) 18:16, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

  • @Buidhe, Gog the Mild, and Peacemaker67: - How does the source diversification look now? I think I've diversified sources about as much as I can, except for Wood, which heavily uses Bearss and thus isn't great for supporting Bearss; O'Flaherty, who is very pro-Shelby biased; and John Newman Edwards, who is utterly unreliable. I've gone through Google books and Google scholar to the point that all of the results were no longer about this battle, and I've gone through all of the pages of Google search results Google brings up. I've checked just about every print book I have access to. I'm not sure there's too much more I can add. For using a source other than Bearss for the high-level first paragraph of the background section, I'm still waiting for my university's JSTOR login page to decide to function. Hog Farm Bacon 03:40, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
I'm gonna pass on this and leave it to Peacemaker, who seems to have looked at this aspect in some detail. and Buidhe, who did the source review. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:07, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

I had a look at this prior to nomination, and Peacemaker seems to have given it a thorough going over, so I am not sure how much I will find. If I flag up an issue which you have already sorted with PM, just say so.

  • Might it be worth red linking "Salomon's brigade"?
    • I'm gonna say this unit probably isn't notable. It was a bit ad hoc and sort of ephemeral.
  • "The First Battle of Newtonia was fought on September 30, 1862, near Newtonia, Missouri during the American Civil War. It was fought between ..." Could we avoid "was fought" twice in successive sentences?
    • I've combined the two
  • "Union militia commanded by Colonel George Hall covered the Union retreat". Suggest deleting the first "Union"; I think that I reader will understand that without being told.
    • Done
  • "although the Confederate artillery fire struck". Delete "the".
    • Done
  • "In the United States during the early 19th century, a large cultural divide began to grow between"> Optional: not sure that "began to grow" is encyclopedic. Maybe 'developed'?
    • Done
  • "Many southerners decided to reject the legitimacy"> I am not enthusiastic about this phraseology; maybe 'Many southerners rejected the legitimacy'?
    • Done
  • "and began promoting secession". "began" - it wasn't being promoted before then? Perhaps 'and promoted secession'?
    • Done
  • "formed the Confederate States of America; Jefferson Davis became the first President of the Confederate States of America." " of the Confederate States of America" is redundant.
    • Rephrased
  • "Lincoln requested that the states remaining in the Union provide 75,000 volunteers for the war effort." "war effort" - possibly a mention somewhere that war broke out/was declared?
  • "the Missouri State Guard, a militia organization" Link militia.
    • Linked
  • "was plagued by guerrilla attacks from prominent bushwhacker". Does it matter that the bushwackers were prominent. (And don't you mean that their leeaders were?) Suggest deleting "prominent" - "including William Quantrill" makes the point.
    • Removed
  • "Estimation of Confederate strength vary." I'm not sure that this is a grammatical sentence. Maybe 'Estimates of the Confederate strength vary'?
    • It's not. I went with your suggestion
  • "Historian Daniel O'Flaherty provides a similar range". Start the sentence with "The" to avoid false title and "provides a similar range" suggests that Foote has provided a range, which they haven't.
    • Done. First time I'd heard of false titles, it's something I need to be aware of from now on.
I was taught it last year on about my third FAC. I like the good morning test.
  • "The force headed for Newtonia consisted of 150 men, in four companies, commanded by Colonel Edward Lynde of the 9th Kansas Cavalry" Were the 150 men from the 9th Kansas Cavalry, or only the commander?
    • From the regiment. Clarified
  • "the Union artillery advanced nearer to the Confederate lines". Either 'advanced nearer the Confederate lines' or 'advanced closer to the Confederate lines'.
    • Went with closer to
  • "Some of the infantrymen of the 9th Wisconsin Infantry". Optional: "infantrymen" → 'men'. It may be considered that the "Infantry" in their unit's title gives away what their role was.
    • Done. Makes sense.
  • "sent the 34th Texas Cavalry there to reinforce Hawpe. The Texans had been taking shelter behind a stone wall" I realise that there is a paragraph break, but a reader is likely to assume that "The Texans" were from the 34th.
    • Fixed. It was the 31st
  • "Union artillery again shelled the Confederate position". I assume that the source confirms that they were firing shells, as opposed to eg round shot?
    • Good catch. Replaced shelled with "fired at"
  • "Confederate reinforcements in the form of the 1st Choctaw and Chickasaw Mounted Rifles and the 5th Missouri Cavalry arrived" → 'Confederate reinforcements in the form of the 1st Choctaw, the Chickasaw Mounted Rifles and the 5th Missouri Cavalry arrived' or "The 1st Choctaw and the Chickasaw Mounted Rifles also counterattacked" → 'The 1st Choctaw and Chickasaw Mounted Rifles also counterattacked'.
    • Fixed. The official title of the regiment is the 1st Choctaw and Chickasaw Mounted Rifles
  • "Four companies of the 9th Wisconsin Infantry were stated to have suffered particularly high losses." Would that be the same four companies which contributed 150 men to the morning's probe?
    • Yes. Specified and cited to Bearss
  • "Salomon's command had represented only the advance guard of Blunt's command." Would it be possible to avoid using "command" twice?
    • Changed
  • "his line of retreat was in danger of being cut off by the Union advance". Delete "off".
    • Done
  • "after a brief shelling of the town". Again checking that it was exclusively shell fire?
    • Changed to bombardment. I have a bad habit of using "shelling" as a euphemism for any artillery fire.
  • "The Confederate Native American troops retreated back to Indian Territory; others retreated into northwestern Arkansas." Do you mean 'the others retreated'? If so, perhaps 'the other units retreated into northwestern Arkansas'?
    • Done

That's it from me. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:48, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

A fine little article. Supporting. Gog the Mild (talk) 09:35, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Ilomilo (song)[edit]

Nominator(s): The Ultimate Boss (talk) 00:49, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

This article is about a song by Billie Eilish. It was released as the final single from Eilish's debut album When We All Fall Asleep, Where Do We Go?. The song is about the fear of being separated from a loved one. The article was brought up to GA class thanks to Cartoon network freak. It has received a copy-edit and been improved since it was created. Any advice would be truly appreciated! The Ultimate Boss (talk) 00:49, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Procedural exchange

Ian Rose, I would like to withdraw this nomination because it’s been over three days and no comments have been made. The Ultimate Boss (talk) 22:16, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi, sorry I missed this earlier. It now seems you'd like this to remain as a nom. That's fine, I wouldn't necessarily be discouraged by lack of commentary after only a few days. If it's still the case in a week or more then maybe. A Peer Review before FAC can also be helpful but now we're here let's give it a bit longer... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:13, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
Ian Rose, Sorry to bother you again, it's been over a week and I would like to withdraw this nom and probably renominate it tomorrow to see if any comments are made. Thanks a lot. The Ultimate Boss (talk) 19:50, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Burnley F.C.[edit]

Nominator(s): WA8MTWAYC (talk) 08:02, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

This article is about English football club Burnley, which competes in the Premier League, the first tier. It's a club from a small town but with a rather interesting and large history. The article was passed as GA at the beginning of the year, and received a peer review (thanks Kosack, Paul W and No Great Shaker) and a copy edit (thank you Twofingered Typist) since. I also want to thank my mentor, Casliber, for making the article better. I look forward to any comments! WA8MTWAYC (talk) 08:02, 24 July 2020 (UTC)


I haven't taken part in an FAC discussion before, though I have a lot of experience at GAR and, as WA8MTWAYC kindly points out, I've tried to help out at peer review too. Please bear with me while I gain some idea of how FAR works but I will make a few initial comments about the nomination.

The content is well within scope and I think the coverage is both extensive and useful. While there is considerable detail, it is sufficient for the purpose of completing scope. As far as I can tell, the information is accurate and is adequately sourced. Overall, it is an interesting read (however, I concede that as a football supporter myself from a neighbouring town, I would find it interesting, especially as I've visited Turf Moor many times). I believe, based on past reviews, that the images are all acceptable – they are certainly relevant. The narrative is written well enough for GA purposes but I will be interested to see if FA requires a higher standard, though I would hope no one expects something that might contend for the Booker Prize or whatever.

I will see what more experienced FAR contributors say before committing myself but I would think this article is certainly in with a chance of success. Well done, WA8MTWAYC, and good luck. No Great Shaker (talk) 11:07, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your very kind words, No Great Shaker! Glad you enjoyed the article. I'll kindly await your eventual follow-up. Cheers, WA8MTWAYC (talk) 12:58, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Comments by Lee Vilenski[edit]

I may end up claiming points towards the wikicup. Hope you don't mind! :P

I'll take a look at this article, and give some comments on how it meets the FA criteria in a little while. If you fancy doing some QPQ, I have a list of items that can be looked at here. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 21:07, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, Lee Vilenski. I'm looking forward to your feedback, and I'll gladly take a look at your work sometime this weekend. WA8MTWAYC (talk) 21:40, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
  • The Football Association to - surely a lowercase "the"? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 16:15, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
  • "since February 1883" - the month seems a bit irrelevant. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 16:15, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Link Calder Vale? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 16:15, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
    • I'd love to write an article about "our" first home ground, but there's so little information available that there isn't one (or even a suitable link). WA8MTWAYC (talk) 18:16, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
  • The club colours of claret and blue were adopted before the 1910–11 season in tribute to the then Football League champions, Aston Villa; they are nicknamed "the Clarets", because of the dominant colour of the home shirts. - feels a little follow on to me. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 16:15, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Infobox has "Website Club website", maybe change to the url? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 16:15, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
    • It reads a bit odd, I agree. However, every (English) club (yeah, it's against the MOS to point) lists it this way. I don't see how it can be massively improved. WA8MTWAYC (talk) 18:16, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
  • playmaker Jimmy McIlroy - reword to avoid WP:SEAOFBLUE. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 16:15, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
  • he introduced Total Football to English football.[according to whom?] Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 16:15, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
  • and non-league Football Conference Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 16:15, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Manager Sean Dyche has guided Burnley to two promotions to the Premier League. - Maybe say "current manager". Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 16:15, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Player of the Year award - I think you'll need to convince me more that this is a notable award, and not just a fan vote. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 16:15, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
    • (I'm pointing again) It's included in most (English) football club articles (see e.g. Liverpool F.C.). It's an important honour to Burnley players as the winners receive an official trophy presented at a prestigious gala. The winners are indeed chosen by the fans, but club's POTY awards are often included in player's honours sections (see e.g. Harry Kane). It can also receive nationwide media attention, such as when Trippier won Burnley's award in 2012 (see WA8MTWAYC (talk) 18:16, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Not sure if we usually have a "Kit suppliers and shirt sponsors" section, but feels super crufty to me. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 16:15, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
    • We have, whether described in the prose (e.g. Chelsea F.C.) or given in a table (e.g. Arsenal F.C.). Because Burnley have had a lot of sponsors and kit suppliers, a table was preferred. WA8MTWAYC (talk) 18:16, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

(I hope you don't mind I made some amends here regarding readability) Thanks very much for your comments, Lee Vilenski. It's all resolved now and I left comments under your points. If there's anything further I need to change, please let me know. Thanks, WA8MTWAYC (talk) 18:16, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Comments by Kosack[edit]

  • twelve > 12
  • "allowing professionals" > allowing professionalism?
  • "Burnley made their initial appearance", initial reads a bit odd why not simply first?
  • "Burnley became the initial club to defeat five top tier sides", again I'm not sure initial is required here or really works. First would work better.
  • "Burnley gained promotion through second place and reached the FA Cup Final", I'd add the year for the final here to cement the time line a bit more. Otherwise we don't have a year appearing until the second paragraph.
  • "squad capable of aiming for honours", I'd possibly swap aiming for competing here. I get what you're saying, but everybody surely aims for honours.
  • "players were picked by the fans via an online vote", can probably drop "the" from this sentence.
  • I would include the award name in the Wade Elliott photo to make it clearer what award he won. Images are generally considered standalone items and, even though it's positioned alongside, it would make it clearer I feel.
  • Unlink Blackburn Rovers in the "supporters" section.

These are some points I picked out, but I'm not seeing a huge amount that would really stop me from supporting. This is a good, thorough piece of work. Kosack (talk) 12:25, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your comments, Kosack. I've addressed them all and left comments under your points. If there's anything further I need to amend, please let me know. Thanks, WA8MTWAYC (talk) 19:41, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

2020 Tour Championship[edit]

Nominator(s): Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 16:22, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

This article is about the second professional snooker event after the lockdown. The event features the best 8 players on the single season list. Stephen Maguire was indeed "on fire" after winning his first ranking event in years. Both Shaun Murphy and Maguire created new records for most century breaks in best-of-17 frames matches. Not bad, considering Magiure had not qualified to play, and only recieved a spot after Ding Junhui pulled out. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 16:22, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Image review

  • Suggest adding alt text
  • File:Coral_Tour_Championship_Logo.png: I see the URL links to this image, but where is that actually from? What site?
    • Nikkimaria Looks like the actual uploader is now dead. I've changed with a specific image for the individual event. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 10:44, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Nikkimaria (talk) 16:13, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Comments Support by Kosack[edit]

  • I'm assuming the tournament was moved from Wales to England because Wales was under a stricter lockdown? This could be worth mentioning as the venue change isn't really explained.
    • No actual information other than it being more suitable. I did hear David Hendon suggest the move was actually more for TV (due to ITV being based in London), but I have no sources suggesting either way. The big reason is because the previous event was played there, and there's an onsite hotel for the players. - [3] - not sure how I'd word that? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 11:03, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
  • "were checked for Covid-19", checked reads a little oddly and overly casual for the situation. Perhaps tested?
  • Was it a one-off test for COVID or a rolling test programme like some other sports?
    • They were tested when they arrived, and then not allowed to leave! Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 11:03, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
  • "Prize money at this stage do not count towards prize" > does not count?
  • The quarter final stage uses "best of 17 frames" while other uses include the hyphens?
  • "The first match was held between Neil Robertson and Stephen Maguire", this sentence reads a little oddly I feel. If you're using held, I would suggest "The first match held was between..." Thoughts?
    • I don't really see the difference, but I've changed. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 11:03, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
  • "for Ding Junhui who could not travel to the event from China", probably worth adding why he couldn't travel from China, especially as the lead does and this doesn't.
  • "performance was the "greatest performance", a little repetitive with performance here.
  • "surpas", typo here.
  • "Trump won the next two frames, and led 5–3 after the first session.[20] Trump won the first three frames", two successive sentences beginning with Trump. As the subject doesn't change, you could drop the second for "He".
  • There appears to be some variation in the use of digits or words when listing frame numbers under ten. For example, both frame 8 and frame eight and frame 9 and frame nine are used. Is there a reason for the difference?
    • nope, should all be eight/nine, I think I got them all. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 11:03, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
  • "final quarter-final", the double use of final is a little jarring. Perhaps last quarter-final?
    • Agreed 11:03, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
  • "three-time world champion Mark Selby", it seems a little strange to include the three-time world champion part when he's already been mentioned in the previous round. I would of thought this would be better placed at his first entry into the competition?
    • Hmm, I usually add these for colour. But I've removed this instance. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 11:03, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

A few points I picked up from a run through. Nothing particularly troublesome, this is a nice article overall. Kosack (talk) 08:19, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Comments by WA8MTWAYC[edit]

Great article, Lee. I've some points.

  • " spectators would be permitted at the event when it took place." "when it took place" can be removed.
  • "Maguire won the final, 10–6 to..." the comma can be dropped.
  • "...penultimate ranking event of the 2019–20 snooker season and..." link ranking.
  • Frames is overlinked in " the best-of-17 frames.".
  • As is sessions in "...two sessions in the same..."
  • Better to link break in "...prize for the highest break." instead of in "...Robertson made breaks of 100...".
    • As it's part of the columns, I've linked as well, rather than replace. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 13:53, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
  • "Maguire lead 2–1..." lead > led.
  • I also noted that the Eurosport refs miss their article dates.

Source Review - BennyOnTheLoose[edit]

  • 0. Infobox and Lead
  • To be checked after other sections.
  • 1 Overview
  • "16th and penultimate ranking event" - source does not indicate which are ranking events, and includes some "possible" events, so does not verify this.
  • "organised by the World Professional Billiards and Snooker Association" - I think it's more accurate to say "organised by World Snooker" (or ".. World Snooker Tour"). The WPBSA owns 26% of World Snooker, against 51% controlled by Hearn. Alternatively, reword to reflect the WPBSA's role as the governing (rather than organising) body.
  • "In the Tour Championship, every match was played over multiple sessions" needs a source. (Looks like the SnookerHQ source has probably been updated, and no archive link.)
      • The article says "Every encounter will be multi-session affairs, with the quarter-finals the first to nine, the semi-finals the first to ten, and the final taking place over a whopping 25 frames." - I think this covers the above? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 16:24, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
  • "The final was played as a best-of-19 frames match" the archive of the source used wrongly states "best-of-27 frames final"
      • good point! A COVID change that one! I've recited. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 16:24, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
  • "The draw for the event was made on 15 March 2020." - not confirmed by source cited.
  • "It was the second professional tournament to be played after the season was halted due to the pandemic after the 2020 Championship League. " - archived source says "the first ranking event" not "the second professional tournament"
  • 1.1 Prize fund
  • "The only difference from the money awarded in 2019 was a slightly increased prize for the highest break" needs a source.
  • "Highest break: £10,000" needs a source
  • "Total: £380,000" may need a source, I'll check whether simply adding the amounts is WP:OR or not.
  • 2.1 Quarter-finals
  • Each match was played over two sessions in the same day." is not verified by the cited source.
  • "Ding Junhui who could not travel to the event from China due to the COVID-19 pandemic" - reason not stated in the cited source.
  • "The pair had met previously in the season at the Masters, where Maguire trailed 1–5, but won the match 6–5" - not in source, which has probably subsequently been updated.
  • "Both amounts were new records for centuries in a best-of-17 frames match." - not verified by source cited. ( could be used.)
  • "The pair had met in the final of the 2019 World Snooker Championship." needs a source.
  • 2.2 Semi-finals
  • "The semi-finals were also played as the best-of-17-frames matches over two sessions on 24 and 25 June." needs a source
  • 2.3 Final
  • "The final was played as the best-of-19-frames on 26 June 2020 over two sessions." needs a source
  • 3 Seeding list
  • Linked archive copy, and live link, both have different amounts per player to what's shown in the table. Hopefully there is an archived version from a suitable date.
  • 4 Coral Cup
  • Source needed for winners of the World Grand Prix and Players Championship.
  • 5 Main draw
  • All info in the draw bracket is covered elsewhere in the article.
  • 5.1 Final
  • "Referee: Rob Spencer" needs a source.
  • Frame scores and breaks need a source.
  • 6 Century breaks
  • No issues.
  • Criteria (assessment pending)
    • (1c): well-researched: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature; claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported by inline citations where appropriate; -TBC
    • (2c): consistent citations: where required by criterion 1c, consistently formatted inline citations using either footnotes -TBC
Lee Vilenski please have a look at my comments so far when you have an opportunity. Thanks for all your good work on the article. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 11:41, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Spanish battleship Alfonso XIII[edit]

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk) 11:08, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

The Spanish Navy joined the dreadnought building frenzy in the late 1900s, ordering the three smallest ships of the type, one of which was Alfonso XIII. All three ships met unfortunate ends; Alfonso XIII, by then renamed España and part of the Nationalist fleet during the Spanish Civil War, sank after striking a mine laid by another Nationalist vessel. Thanks for reviewing the article! Parsecboy (talk) 11:08, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Image review
  • File:Acorazado España, ex-Alfonso XIII (en 1937).svg lacks reliable source for info.
    • I've asked the creator on Commons, hopefully they can answer (but they haven't edited in over a month, so we'll see).
      • Actually, he's already responded, the source has been added. Parsecboy (talk) 10:13, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Sandwiching is occurring between the infobox and left-aligned diagram
    • I'm not seeing it on my laptop - probably depends on the display you're using. I don't know that it's possible to prevent sandwiching across all display sizes.
      • On my display it looks similar to the screenshot image. No, it may not be entirely possible to prevent any sandwiching regardless of display, however, this particular case looks like the "do not do this" examples in MOS:IMAGELOC. (t · c) buidhe 01:24, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
        • I'm not interested in playing whack-a-mole with every person whose resolution doesn't work perfectly with a given arrangement; if I move the image down a paragraph, it will likely cause a sandwich with Parkes' sketch for somebody else. Parsecboy (talk) 01:30, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
  • All images are free (t · c) buidhe 18:57, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
Thanks Buidhe. Parsecboy (talk) 00:29, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Note to coords that this article has not passed its image review as it does not meet MOS:IMAGELOC, which is part of the WP:FA criteria. (t · c) buidhe 18:11, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

As a point of fact, it does not meet IMAGELOC for you. There is simply no feasible way to ensure that image locations work equally well across all device sizes and resolutions. That you fail to understand that is your problem, not mine or this article's. Parsecboy (talk) 00:17, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
It violates imageloc on my laptop, but with mobile presentation on my device, the infobox is above the prose. Imageloc is kinda iffy considering the sheer number of layouts users see pages on. Hog Farm Bacon 04:02, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
It's worth pointing out that more than half of readers are using tablets and phones. My view on IMAGELOC is that something like
with no intervening text should be avoided, since that will always sandwich text. But given the wide range of devices, and the trend toward small mobile devices, image placement should be treated generously. Parsecboy (talk) 14:21, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
Query by WerespielChequers
  • Hi, nice read thanks but I have a query and a suggestion, "that blocked the advance of Republican forces" - surely that should be "that blocked the advance of Nationalist forces"?
    • Good catch, yes
  • There are a lot of references to mines, including one that is linked to naval mines but I suspect the sentence "The ship's landing party went ashore to guard a rail line and several mines" refers to a different sort of mine. Given the amount of discussion of the other sort of mine in this article, it would make sense to add the type of mine in that case - coal or otherwise. ϢereSpielChequers 12:36, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
    • The source doesn't say what the mines were for, but I can link to Mining, which should clear up confusion, I think? Parsecboy (talk) 00:21, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Comments Support by Hog Farm[edit]

This may be claimed for WikiCup points.

  • This currently lacks a short description. I'm not a Wikidata expert, but I think it's possible to add one either on here or at Wikidata.
    • Added
  • Since this ship was known as España, I can see a case for making a hatnote pointing to Spanish battleship España
    • Good idea
  • "At the end of the year, Alfonso XIII's crew won the Spanish Christmas Lottery" - I'm not convinced this is completely relevant. I'm willing to be convinced otherwise, though.
    • My sense is, the lottery is a bigger deal in Spain than we might think (according to the source, "the winning ball from the tombola has been preserved for posterity in the naval museum at Ferrol.") This was a significant event of the ship's early career.
      • Yeah, it's probably significant if they preserved the tombola ball.
  • "The ship's landing party went ashore to guard a rail line and several mines" - All previous uses of mines are in reference to naval mines, so it takes some thinking to realize this is a reference to mineral mines. Is there a way to rephrase this?
    • It'd be nice if the source told us what kind of mines we're talking (I'd assume coal, but you never know)
  • "World War I on the side of the Entente" - Link Entente to Allies of World War I.
  • "which was at that time ruled by the dictator Miguel Primo de Rivera." - I'm not too familiar with Spanish history, so this may be a dumb question. Who was top dog: the king or the prime minister? The earlier part of the article makes it sound like Alfonso XIII was in charge, but now Primo de Rivera is given as the leader. Who was head of state?
  • "The plan ultimately came to nothing" - Can it be briefly stated why?
    • Good idea, added a bit on this
  • "Some army detachments, including some coastal artillery units around the harbor, sided with Franco. The destroyer Velasco also defected to the Nationalist side" - This, and a later sentence, give the impression that the batteries and Velasco were Nationalists. But it earlier states that Franco was a Republican. There looks to be a contradiction here.
    • Ah, I see the issue - the earlier sentence was malformed - Franco led the coup, not the government
  • SS Kostan is redlinked, but aren't a lot of freighters non-notable? If that's the case with this one, the redlink should be removed. There's several other of these
    • You'd be surprised at the articles that can be written about seemingly nondescript freighters, particularly those that sank for one reason or another - SS Helsingfors (1903) is an example of a relatively small and obscure vessel
  • Link Dry dock at the first applicable point
    • Done
  • "Nuestra Señora del Carmen" - Is redlinked. A lot of merchant ships aren't notable. Consider unlinking.
    • As above, it probably is at a basic level
  • I don't remember the exact guideline, but all sections of the article should be summarized in the lead. The Wreck section isn't.
    • Added a line

Willing to discuss any of these comments, as usual. Hog Farm Bacon 20:18, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Hog Farm!. Parsecboy (talk) 13:56, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Minor comments from The ed17[edit]

  • I tried to copyedit the awkward opening sentence, but I'm not sure that I'm totally happy with it. What is/are the most important thing(s) a reader needs to know straight from the opening sentence? (I don't think it is links to its classmates.)
    • How does this work for you?
  • "The class was ordered as part of a naval construction program to rebuild the fleet after the losses of the Spanish–American War in the context of closer Spanish relations with Britain and France. – this is a really confusing sentence. How does the conflict segue into diplomatic relations with different countries? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:16, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
    • It doesn't, exactly, but the improved relations with France and the UK played a major role in the ship being built. See if how I tweaked it makes it any clearer. Parsecboy (talk) 14:30, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Bernard A. Maguire[edit]

Nominator(s): Ergo Sum 18:02, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

This article is about a Jesuit who headed Georgetown University before and after the American Civil War, and opened Georgetown Law School. Ergo Sum 18:02, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Image review

  • Don't use fixed px size
    • Fixed. Ergo Sum 21:44, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
  • File:Bernard_Maguire_-_oval.jpg: when/where was this first published, and if the author is unknown how do we know they died over 100 years ago? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:23, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
    • Added a better license tag. Ergo Sum 21:46, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

1986 enlargement of the European Communities[edit]

Nominator(s): Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 19:59, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

This article is about Spain and Portugal joining the European Communities, now the European Union, in 1986. Their accessions were hugely consequential for both countries; both had just come out of dictatorships and were fledgling democracies, and being within the Communities had huge consequences in terms of solidifying their development into the states that they are today. When I came across the article in May, it looked like this, which I didn't think did the subject justice, so I decided to research it more thoroughly and write up a proper article - and I'm very pleased to have ended up here, with my first FA nomination!

As this is my first nomination, I popped a message over to Vanamonde93 about it, who pointed out that there was quite a strong reliance on primary sources in some parts of the article. In some places, that's unavoidable, by sheer virtue of the nature of the article - specific legal and political technicalities are often best sourced, for instance, to a parliamentary transcript. However, I've added other sources to what I can, and I'd love to get other people's feedback too, especially if there's anything I've missed! Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 19:59, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

I should note as well my huge thanks and appreciation to Lee Vilenski, who completed the GA review of the article, and made some really helpful suggestions for improvements! :) Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 20:02, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
Image review

All images are free. (t · c) buidhe 01:47, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

R8R review[edit]

I'll start the review tonight.--R8R (talk) 11:46, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

I'll write a couple now and try to add more tonight.
  • Spain first applied for association with the European Economic Community (EEC) -- as a rule of thumb, I try to write texts in such a manner that don't raise questions, and while reading this article, I needed to reread on the difference between the EC and the EEC. It would be great to explain this somehow in the text. This could even be done relatively simply here: "Spain first applied for association with the European Economic Community (EEC), the principal institute within the European Communites (EC)"
    • Slightly rephrased this, but the same sentiment should be there - hope the revised text looks okay! Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 22:57, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
  • it would not have been able to apply for full membership as a consequence of being under the dictatorship of Francisco Franco. -- this is another fundamental matter that requires clarification. Why was this a requirement in the first place? What was the point of not allowing Franco's dictatorship to join if it was primarily an economic union? Also, I think this could be reworded: "being a dictatorship, Spain was ineligible for full membership."
    • Added a lot more detail to this - you're right, it was fairly ambiguous. Thanks! Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 22:57, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
      Looks much better now. I apologize in advance for that this review isn't likely to progress quickly. I want to say, "I'll write more tonight," but I'm not sure whether I'll actually be able to do so.--R8R (talk) 08:18, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
  • However, the application was of some controversy -- this strikes me as possible but unnecessarily pompous. You could say, "However, the application caused some controversy";
    Unnecessarily pompous is my speciality! Change made :) Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 19:29, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
  • members of the European Parliament questioned -- without any further qualifiers, I consider we're talking about a majority of those MEPs. Are we?
    I don't have any evidence to claim that it was the majority - personally, I suspect it was, but I've qualified it with "a number of" (my intuition is probably not a WP:RS!) Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 19:29, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
  • given the dictatorship Spain was under -- I should say that my advice on prose quality shouldn't be taken as the highest possible standard, but this, too, looks clumsy. How about simply "given the Spanish dictatorship"?
    I've changed it to "given Spain's dictatorship", which is just a slightly snappier version of the same change, methinks. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 19:29, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
  • EEC-Spain -- this should be an en dash: –
    Done. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 19:29, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Francisco Franco -- Franco hasn't been introduced so far. How about "Spanish dictator Francisco Franco"? More importantly, the previous header also mentions Franco so presumably he could be introduced there. I'd personally write something like "Spain asked for association with the EEC in 1962. At the time, Spain was a dictatorship led by general Francisco Franco; the EEC said a Spanish association was impossible unless the country becomes more democratic."
    Franco is introduced in the lead, along with the Estado Novo dictatorship. Do you still think it merits a separate introduction in the article text? Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 19:29, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
    • Yes, of course it does. Readers may be directed to a specific section and you shouldn't assume they've read the lead. (t · c) buidhe 23:05, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
      My assumption has been that you treat the lead section and the body of an article separately. Most people who read the lead section won't read the article as a whole and often people who want to read the article as a whole will skip the lead section because for a sufficiently long article, it's only meant to summarize what's in the rest of the article. (By the way, did you notice how I started this review not with the lead section, but with the first section of the body of the article?) I am not aware of there are MOS guidelines on this and I know there are writers who expect a reader to read an article as a whole and thus think that acronyms, people, etc. should only be introduced once. It's fine in a written encyclopedia, but this thinking doesn't reflect very well the nature of our online encyclopedia and how its readership is different, etc., so that's why I'm opting to introduce things separately in the lead section and in the body of an article. I hope it makes sense to you.--R8R (talk) 10:53, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
      That was also why I suggested you introduce the EC acronym one more time.--R8R (talk) 15:15, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
      That's entirely reasonable; this is my first FAC, so still learning the ropes on some of this! I've added a separate introduction. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 13:43, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
  • a "green veto" being used by France and Italy against its accession -- what's a green veto?
    This is a really good question. I'm a native English speaker, not a native Spanish speaker, and I'm genuinely not sure - "green" in Spanish has all sorts of connotations, ranging from success to sexuality to jealousy... I'm checking with a native speaker friend of mine, and will add it to the article when I have a more authoritative translation! Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 19:29, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
    Interesting; I thought it was something from the European bureaucratic slang :) I'll wait for clarifications then.--R8R (talk) 15:05, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
    Turns out, I'm trying to read far too far into things - in the context of the article, it's a reference to the veto being based on agricultural concerns. Clarification done! Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 13:43, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
  • negotiations were opened between the European Council and Spain -- it would be nice to introduce the European Council, too
    I've added a brief introduction, and reworded the rest of the sentence to fit it - let me know if you think it works. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 19:29, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
    I've got one observation, which is that you can't use a hyphen, either a comma or a dash of your choice, and one question: why are Member States always capitalized? I suppose this must be the European bureaucratic slang, but you don't have to write Wikipedia like that. Also, from what I found in the corresponding article, it appears the council is formed not by heads of state but by heads of governments.--R8R (talk) 15:09, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
    Fixed the hyphen. Re (M/m)ember (S/s)tate - the capitalised version is specifically what's used in the European treaties, and is used by the EU Publications Office as a consequence. There's mixed existing usage across Wikipedia - some articles use member state, some use Member State, some use a combination of both. I don't see any particular reason to change it here, as we're talking about affairs related to the treaties specifically. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 13:43, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
    I still think these capital letters are unnecessarily pompous, but I won't insist on it. The comment on heads of state vs. heads of government, however, still stands.--R8R (talk) 20:38, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
  • The February 1981 Spanish coup d'état attempt -- this sentence could use some re-writing. For example, at the beginning of the sentence I hear about a coup attempt, about which I knew next to nothing, and I was anxious about it until I heard an explanation later on. The text could go like this: "The February 1981 Spanish coup d'état attempt, in which the Spanish Civil Guard to remove the democratically-elected government from office but failed, brought a lot of attention to Spain from abroad; particularly, from the EEC. The official statement from the Community during the coup expressed "concern" about the unfolding events; soon after the coup failed, the EEC expressed its 'great satisfaction at the reaction of the King, the government, and the Spanish people, faced by recent attacks against the democratic system of their country'."
    I've done some fiddling about and rephrasing there, and added in more of an initial introduction - what do you think? Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 19:29, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
    Yes, it looks very well now!--R8R (talk) 15:05, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
  • an urgent acceleration of the negotiations did not immediately come to pass -- this, too, sounds overly complicated: "this did not drastically change the intensity of the negotiations" or "this did not significantly boost the negotiations."
    I've gone for a change to In spite of this, the speed of the negotiations was not significantly boosted by the events - let me know if you think that works. I think it's important to specify that it is about speed, not necessarily about intensity, as those two can be different things. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 19:29, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
    I'm uneasy about it because I think that you can either boost something or you can increase its speed, but you can't boost the speed of anything. Or can you?--R8R (talk) 15:05, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
    "Boosted its speed" sounds fine to me, but I'll change it to "increased" - makes no odds to my mind. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 13:43, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
  • The Spanish Act of Accession eventually devoted fifty of its pages to fisheries-related matters. -- I'm wondering if this remark is needed. To begin with, is this a lot? I would expect the eventual act to be long by any means.
    I've clarified that this is significant, in that it's just over 10% of the entire treaty. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 19:29, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
  • By the end of 1983, the French government was pressing -- rather confusing. How about "In late 1983, the French government pressed"
    That's a change in meaning, though - it's a subtle one, but it is a change all the same. The French government were lobbying over a period of time for the closure of the negotiations, not just at one point in late 1983, so the continuous tense is apt here. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 19:29, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
    Yeah, I got this vibe, too, I just wasn't entirely sure if that was what you meant. Could you rephrase it somehow to make it clearer for people like me? Maybe something like "throughout the early 1980s, the French gov't pressed for a successful conclusion of the negotiations, with their effort reaching its peak in 1983"?--R8R (talk) 15:05, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
    I've gone back to the original source, and done some wordsmithing with it, which clarifies that it was an ongoing issue, but also better states the specific point at which the deadline was requested. How's it sounding now? Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 13:43, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
    Looks good!--R8R (talk) 20:38, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
  • closure of the negotiations -- I may be wrong about this, but I think "conclusion" would be better
    Done. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 19:29, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
  • more negotiations scheduled -- "were scheduled"?
    In this case, the version without "where" is grammatically correct; the "more negotiations" clause is part of a list in "with" - with questions [...remaining...], and more negotiations scheduled beyond the deadline. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 19:29, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
    Indeed; that one is on me, I'll try to be a bit more attentive the next time :)--R8R (talk) 10:53, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

To be continued.--R8R (talk) 16:45, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

@R8R: Thanks very much - I've followed up on all the ones above, I think! :) Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 19:29, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

I am sorry but I probably won't be able to write any more or write back to your responses today; my forecast about how this review won't be quick is unfortunately coming true. To make it up for you for the time being, I'll mention one big thing about this article before I would normally come to it: The article reads rather strange given how it's about an EC enlargement but the body of the article does not mention the enlargement itself, only the events before and after it. There clearly should be a section about the process of the enlargement itself. You said in the lead section that the event itself wasn't very pompous and I'll take your word for it; I don't expect this section to be longer than a couple of paragraphs anyway, but there should be one. Something like "The documents were finally signed in 1985... On January 1, 1986, the Spanish and Portuguese flags were raised at the headquarters of all three Communities. Articles in Portuguese and Spanish press in January 1986 indicated that local citizens thought their country entered a new phase of their histories (or not)." I'm entirely making this up but it should give you the idea what kind of material I mean.--R8R (talk) 17:27, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Hrm, I get what you're saying; to some extent, the problem is that I've looked for that with little success. When it says in the lead there wasn't much pomp about the whole affair, it really does seem to mean it; I can't find anything in particular to write about in a section about the actual event of the accession beyond "it happened and the flags went up". I'll have another look around, though. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 13:43, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
  • the government of Portugal published a report decrying the decision taken by members of the Organisation for European Economic Cooperation to establish the EEC -- it would help a lot if you said that they decried in 1961 the decision that was taken back in 1957. This paragraph is rather confusing because it's hard to keep track of the dates. I'd suggest rewriting the paragraph to produce something like this:
"The EEC was created in 1957. Sensing that the EEC was here to stay, the Portuguese sent in 1959 their first diplomatic mission to the EEC. However, Portugal didn't join for whatever reason they had; instead, they opted in 1960 to be a co-founder of the EFTA, which was meant to counterbalance the EEC.
The chronological order of events helps keep track of the events that are unfolding.
  • Done some fixing-upping on this - how's it looking now? :) Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 13:43, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
    Oh yeah, this looks much better! I presume you left the bit on the Treaty of Rome to a future background section as suggested by Brigade Piron below?--R8R (talk) 14:05, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
  • seeking entry as a member of the EEC would have been unlikely to end in success -- just in the last paragraph, the Portuguese opted for the EFTA; what changed?
    The fixes I've applied above clarify this - EFTA is a much looser arrangement than the EEC was. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 13:43, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
    Looks much better, thank you.--~~
  • there was no clarity established by the Portuguese government as to-- "the Portuguese government did not clarify"?
    Done! Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 13:43, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
  • There was also significant opposition to any meaningful agreement being made, as a consequence of the Portuguese authoritarian regime -- confusing. Please clarify that this opposition didn't come from Portugal
    Done. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 13:43, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
    I think it would be just perfect if you changed "There was also significant international opposition" to "There was also significant international opposition within the EEC".sorry, I missed the word "international"--R8R (talk) 20:40, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Portugal once again looked to open negotiations with the EEC in 1969, having had the prior negotiations in 1962 postponed indefinitely. -- one more call for the chronological order. That 1962 postponement could rather fit the previous para;
    Done. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 13:43, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
    I'll note once more that such a change has improved the text :)--R8R (talk) 14:05, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
  • now under Marcelo Caetano -- and previously it was who..? Also, what is so special about Caetano?
    Clarified this above - António de Oliveira Salazar was the previous dictator. Caetano is "special" in that he was one of only two leaders to lead the country during its dictatorship. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 13:43, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
  • units of account -- first of all, what is this? it is wikilinked later (why not here?) but that wikilink gives merely an explanation of the general term, not these units
    It's wikilinked in both places as far as I can see, but I've explained it further in this context nonetheless. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 13:43, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
  • bore their first fruits -- sounds nice but not very fitting for an encyclopedia
    Why? That reads formally to me; indeed, other articles use it a fair bit. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 13:43, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
    There is nothing wrong with this language in a great number of contexts; it's not frivolous or anything. I think it's absolutely understandable if the chief negotiator of the EEC or the chief historian of the EEC (let's suppose for a second that was an actual position) wanted to write "bear fruit": it's not perfectly neutral language, but the EEC itself is not expected not to have any emotion for its development. We in Wikipedia, however, are in a different position: we are supposed to be neutral, to write in simple and concise language, straight to the point. It is perfectly fine for many people to write that, but it's not for us: that's one limitation of the format of a neutral encyclopedia, which is that we write in simple language, not idioms.--R8R (talk) 20:38, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Furthermore, at the end of 1979, after the government collapsed several times, Parliament was dissolved and fresh elections were called, leading to the election of a new Prime Minister, Francisco de Sá Carneiro. However, after having been in office for only a year, Carneiro died in the 1980 Camarate air crash. -- that's interesting but how exactly does this relate to the story at hand? what was Sá Carneiro's stance on the topic of integration into the EEC? was he maybe too busy to really consider it at all?
    Sá Carneiro has time to do very little prior to his death, but the governmental turbulence is hugely relevant - it's a significant factor in a reader's understanding of the context around the delay in the accession. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 13:43, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
    That could in fact very well be the case, the problem is simply that it's not very clear from the text right now.--R8R (talk) 20:38, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Portuguese Democratic Movement -- presumably most readers are not very familiar with Portuguese political parties. So some context would be nice. Was this movement important in Portugal back in the day? same for the Portuguese Communist Party
    Done some rewording around this and added a brief bit of context. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 13:43, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

I will continue later from "Greek veto."--R8R (talk) 15:48, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Comments by RetiredDuke[edit]

Some minor issues I spotted on a read-through:

  • "Estado Novo" - be consistent with the use of italics
    Done. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 19:29, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Shouldn't Le Monde in the text be in italics?
    Not in this case; per MOS:BADITALICS, Names of organizations and institutions should be in roman, rather than italics. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 19:29, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
    According to the linked guideline, "Italics should be used for the following types of names and titles, or abbreviations thereof: Major works of art and artifice, such as albums, books, video games, films, musicals, operas, symphonies, paintings, sculptures, newspapers, journals, magazines, epic poems, plays, television programs, radio shows, comics and comic strips." — Le Monde is a newspaper. (t · c) buidhe 23:04, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
    Fair enough, changed - thanks! Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 13:43, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Refs 76 and 80 - it's actually "Arquivo Histórico da República Portuguesa" not "Arquivo Historico..."
    Thanks, I don't know how I missed that! Missing accents irritate me. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 19:29, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Ref 72 - Isn't the author Marcel Niedergang? Honest question.
    Looking at it now, I suspect this was a Citoid error that I lazily didn't check. That's on me, fixed - thanks for pointing it out! Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 19:29, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
  • I can't access the Barreto pdf (ref 86). Might be a problem on my end, though.
    Looks like that was an expiring link to CloudFront. Sigh. I've changed it to a different link, which should work :) Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 19:29, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Ref 122 - "Severiano.," - either the period or the comma has to go.
    Argh - the authors were all in |others rather than being in |last and |first form. Fixed! Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 19:29, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

I'll continue later. RetiredDuke (talk) 17:56, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

@RetiredDuke: Thanks for having a look, these have all been really helpful comments so far! I've responded to the ones you've left above. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 19:29, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Brigade Piron comments[edit]

I came to this article from its listing in ITN. It's an impressive piece of work, and an important article in the scope of EU integration history. However, I would like to make three comments/observations for the review:

  1. I'm a little concerned by the structure, however. I understand that it makes sense to keep the Spanish and Portuguese negotiations separate, but I would strongly suggest merging the pre-negotiation "background" into a single (perhaps separated) section at the front. There are obvious similarities between the two countries' pre-entry histories and at the moment one has almost forgotten of Portugal's existence by the time one arrives at the relevant sections!
  2. The current article takes quite a bit for granted from the reader. I was particularly taken by the first reference to Franco which reads: "Following the death of Spanish dictator Francisco Franco, who had ruled over the country for 35 years, and the beginnings of the Spanish transition to democracy [...]" I think this must be padded out more. There will need to be a brief discussion of the Spanish Civil War, Falangism, the 28 May 1926 coup d'état, WWII neutrality, Spanish and Portuguese economic underdevelopment in the mid-20th century, Portuguese Colonial Wars, Spanish miracle, Spanish Question (United Nations), Spanish accession to NATO etc. These are all important subjects in explaining the motivations and concerns of the parties involved in the 1980s and could be addressed with a "Background" section similar to the one addressed above. I don't think they can be glossed over or taken for granted.
  3. The same is also true for the background history of the European Communities which is not really addressed at all. The Treaty of Rome is not even mentioned until the last third of the article. There is also little mention of previous enlargements, aims, tensions etc.

Would be interested to hear thoughts on these! —Brigade Piron (talk) 14:56, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Brigade Piron! With regard to merging backgrounds, I actually started writing the article initially with a single "background" section like that, split into subsections for the countries, but it quickly got far too unwieldy. The nature of the two countries' accessions is too different to make that viable, in my view; whilst the dictatorships are clearly an incredibly important factor, there are many others that seriously affect the both of them, and that are fundamentally different between the two. The Portuguese empire, the nature of Portugal's association to EFTA, and the relative isolationism of Spain at the time compared to the significantly more open economy of Portugal, even with a similarly-repressive state, I think makes doing that a very difficult task - which is why, realising that, I changed to the current way of doing it quite early on in writing the article.
As to the background histories, I'm all for giving the reader more information, but that's a lot of stuff for any brief discussion, in my view. I worry that the inclusion of such a comprehensive history would compromise the summary style of the article, as well as the on-topic nature of it, per FA criteria 4; I'd argue that it's better to direct readers to other appropriate articles for that information for both of those reasons. The Treaty of Rome is actually referenced in the first paragraph of the first section of the article, but it's not hugely relevant to the majority of the rest of the article, precisely because of what is observed there - there was no specific provision in the treaty establishing the EEC requiring that Member States be democracies. The Treaty itself contains little restriction on what countries could or could not be members of the EEC, and as a consequence, where the majority of the article talks about the challenges to the states joining, there's little opportunity for it to be mentioned further than to say "nope, not relevant here".
I'd love to know your thoughts on these points - and anyone else's thoughts too! Thanks for leaving a comment, it's nice to know that someone's reading the article from DYK :D Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 15:22, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
Naypta, thanks for your comments. I really do think some kind of background on pre-entry Spain/Portugal and the EC is essential for the article to "summarise the topic comprehensively" (see WP:ARTICLE), especially at FA level. The "topic" in question here is "how", "why" and "in what circumstances" Spain and Portugal joined the EC in 1986 and the link cannot be avoided. At the moment, there is a big chunk of content missing. I certainly accept it isn't straightforward to fit so much in, but I'm happy to help. It really can be brief, especially if it makes full use of wikilinks to other articles on the topic.—Brigade Piron (talk) 15:32, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Further to my earlier comment, here's an example I wrote up for Spain:

Francisco Franco took power at the head of a coalition of fascist, monarchist, and conservative political factions in the Spanish Civil War (1936–39) against the left-leaning Spanish government supported by communist and anarchist factions, installing a totalitarian regime which would last until 1975. The conflict resulted in the deaths of more than 300,000 people and lasting damage to the country's economy. His regime was sympathetic to Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy, though it remained neutral during World War II (1939–45). In its aftermath, Francoist Spain was considered a pariah state. It was not admitted to the United Nations until 1955. It also remained economically backward and largely agrarian despite a period of rapid economic growth from 1959 to 1974. An application to join the European Economic Community in 1962 was rejected on the grounds of the country's regime.

Does that give you any ideas? —Brigade Piron (talk) 15:56, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

@Brigade Piron: Thanks, that's really useful as a starting point. Do you think that would be best to go at the start of the country sections, or in the lead of the article? It naturally feels like lead material, but then it also feels quite long for the lead. Thoughts appreciated :) Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 22:13, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
You're welcome. I'd suggest the following as structure:
  • "Background"
    • "Portugal and Spain" - 3-4 paragraphs introducing the pre-1980s history of Spain and Portugual together
    • "European Communities" - 2-3 paragraphs on the history and values of the EC
  • Negotiations with Spain - current text under "Spain" heading
  • Negotiations with Portugal - current text under "Portugal" heading

Does this seem sensible? —Brigade Piron (talk) 18:29, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I think it's a wonderful idea. I was feeling, too, that the introduction could be better made differently, but I couldn't quite put my finger on it. To me, your suggestion seems great and I'd take it if I were writing this article.--R8R (talk) 20:20, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

History of the Jews in Dęblin and Irena during World War II[edit]

Nominator(s): (t · c) buidhe 14:50, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Dęblin–Irena was an anomaly in the history of the Holocaust in Poland. While 99% of the Jews in surrounding areas were murdered, in Dęblin–Irena the chance of surviving was as high as ten percent. The article explains why. I would like to thank @Harrias, CPA-5, Peacemaker67, Piotrus, and Gog the Mild: for their reviews of the article at GAN and A-class review, which have got the article in the shape it is now. (t · c) buidhe 14:50, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

  • Comment. The article is overall well written and throughout researched. I do have one relatively minor concern regarding the possibly WP:UNDUE level of detail in the 'Aftermath' section. Some of the content there about Poles killing/chasing Jews away after the war was added by a user who also tried to remove information about other Poles rescuing Jews and who was inconclusively discussed during Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Icewhiz case that let do this entire topic area getting 500/30 protection a while ago. The sources are reliable, but I have concerns whether the level of detail given there is not excessive and therefore violates NPOV. I think this should be discussed further, as in whether this level of coverage is due and balanced, particularly given that the information about the rescue of Jews was shortened to a single sentence, but all minute details about post-war persecution are still present (I think it is fine to mention that several people were murdered but are it really due to mention details that one survivor had trouble reclaiming a bakery, and some other people received threatening letters?). We provide the name of the survivor who failed to reclaim their bakery after the war, but not the name of survivors who were sheltered on a nearby farm (their names are given here: [4]). Again, it's a minor issue, but related stuff was still controversial important to get an editor site-banned - I think we should be very careful with due balance in such issues. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:18, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
    • @Piotrus: Thanks for your comment. After reviewing this again, it still seems to me that both aspects are covered proportionately to their coverage in RS. There are actually two sentences about rescues, but for the one you are referring to, the rescue was only partly of Jews from Deblin-Irena and the source does not say which of the rescued people had been in Deblin-Irena, so their names cannot be added. The postwar incident added by the other editor was shortened to a one-sentence mention by myself, even though it gets multiple paragraphs of coverage in "What! Still Alive?!": Jewish Survivors in Poland and Israel Remember Homecoming, which received a positive critical reception. (t · c) buidhe 01:20, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
Full quote—three paragraphs

The YV testimonies recall physical violence in a variety of ways. Attackers often persisted through a longer period of time and employed means of harassing Jews that were straight out of wartime practices. Ester Kaminska (AYV O3/3029) returned to Dęblin after the liberation, where, she says, “I again had a fuss because the Poles thought that they would get all this. When they saw those few Jews, they carried out a fresh massacre. They did not want the Jews to return at all.”
A Pole who had been given the Kaminska family bakery by the Nazis was unhappy that Ester had returned and tried to get a group of Soviet soldiers (who resided in the town) drunk to incite them to kill her. These drunks caused a scandal one night, bringing Kaminska to the verge of despair: “There were no doors, no key, nothing to lock with. We were crying all night; there was nobody to turn to and nowhere to go. It was worse than the camp.”
Finally, Kaminskaʼs distressed daughter intervened, notifying the Soviet Peopleʼs Commissariat for Internal Affairs (NKVD), which arrested the soldiers and forced the Poles to move out. Although Kaminska managed to recover part of her apartment, she continued to be harassed by extortionists (referred to as “Poles” or “bands” in the testimony), who, in a gruesome repetition of wartime actions, demanded a “ransom” to leave her alone. She did not have enough money to pay it, so she departed for Palestine through Lower Silesia.

        • Thank you for the quote. Given the recent discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Is_this_PRIMARY_or_unreliable? I am a bit confused why you think an interview of a historian is PRIMARY but the interview / document quoted here is not. Also, "Ester Kaminska suffered repeated harassment and extortion from local Poles," - why aren't the Soviets mentioned? And she did manage to recover part of her property, while the article does not mention this and suggests no property was recovered. Likewise, the support she did receive from the Soviet authorities is not mentioned. I am sorry but it seems to me like only facts to support a particular narrative were included. I still think this particular incident is too trivial to be mentioned at all; removing it entirely per UNDUE is my recommended solution. When we are talking about thousands of people, many of whom died, the story about a single bakery and resulting harassment, in which part of the property was recovered, some harassment occurred but nobody was wounded or injured seems out of scope, if not to say trivial. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:55, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
          • This is a secondary source because it doesn't primarily quote what Kaminska says, but instead offers summary and original analysis. A one sentence summary (which is factually correct and not misleading, imo) cannot convey all the details. I would not strongly object to removing this, if others agree that it should be removed. However, Rice does cite this case in some detail as one which illuminates certain aspects of Polish-Jewish relations as reflected in personal testimonies. (t · c) buidhe 05:59, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
            • I stand by my view that this particular incident is too trivial to be mentioned there, through this also got me thinking that we could use an article about the phenomena of property rights post-WWII or such, of which the issue of Jewish property would surely be significant, and in turn, in a section/subarticle about Poland, this incident could be more irrelevant. But as I said, in the current article, IMHO it stands out as a trivial side-story, compared to much more serious issues discussed everywhere else. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:01, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Image review

  • Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods
    • Fixed
  • The airfield bombing image is missing alt text
    • Added
  • File:Dęblin–Irena_Ghetto.jpg should have its FUR expanded, and suggest using the generic fair-use tag rather than "unique historic images"
    • OK, after looking at this again, I ended up removing it and linking it and two other images as external images. It's hard to justify this as fair use when at the recommended resolution it's hard to make out any details.
  • File:Zbombardowane_lotnisko_w_Deblinie.jpg: when/where was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:05, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
    • The source website is run by the government of Poland and states that all images are public domain / free use:[5] Also stated to be PD here
      • I don't doubt it's in the public domain in Poland, but my question is with regards to US status. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:54, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
        • In Poland, any photograph that was published without copyright notice before May 23, 1994 (this is the vast majority of PD photographs from Poland) were never copyrighted at all. So these photographs were all PD on the URAA date, as stated in the template. It's highly unlikely that anyone tried to claim copyright on this photograph, especially since it is a reconnaissance photograph taken by military aircraft and no human author is known. It's also likely {{PD-ineligible}} as WWII aerial reconaissance photographs did not involve independent authorship by a human being. (t · c) buidhe 18:45, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Can't Get You Out of My Head[edit]

Nominator(s): — Tom(T2ME) 20:29, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

This article is about... a 2001 monster hit-single by Australian singer Kylie Minogue. First of all, I would like to thank WonderBoy1998 (unfortunately, retired now) who made an amazing job with the article and brought it to GA status. Seeing the FA potential in it, I trimmed it and re-organized a bit and I believe with some additional tweaking it can get the bronze star it deserves. Also, much thanks to Twofingered Typist who copy-edited it and gave the prose a better flow! — Tom(T2ME) 20:29, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Media review
  • Fair use rationale for the sound sample might be improved. Does it demonstrate any musical elements other than the "la-la-la hook"?
  • Improved it. — Tom(T2ME) 15:00, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
  • There is no contextual significance of the single cover, unless any reliable sources actually discuss the cover. Any of the images of her performing the song would make suitable header image.
  • If there's not any commentary on the cover, it's hard to see how it meets "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." Again, if it is significant, why have no sources discussed it? NFCC is a policy and supersedes any guidelines on covers being beneficial to have in the infobox, if they are free. (t · c) buidhe 15:11, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
  • As I pointed before, there doesn't need to be any commentary/review of the cover. You can check any single/album article on Wikipedia. They all have covers, whenever they are a C, B, GA, FA status, because there is a license and it's possible to have them here in lower quality and not bigger than 300x300. Even when you upload the image, there is a license you can choose and by which they are allowed to be used freely in the infobox. — Tom(T2ME) 15:16, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Fair use rationale for File:Kylie Minogue Can't Get You Out of My Head white dress screenshot.jpg is adequate.
  • Other images are free. (t · c) buidhe 14:31, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • I think the claim in the lead that the song is famous for its hook goes a bit beyond what's supported in the text - source for this?
  • "one of the best-selling singles of all time" - source?
  • M Magazine is a work title. Ditto, check for others
  • Still some issues of this type, eg MusicOMH. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:09, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
  • FN11: what's the end of the page range? Ditto FN12, check for others
  • Be consistent in whether authors are listed first or last name first
  • Be consistent in when/if you include publication locations
  • FN13: you've listed the publisher that corresponds to the sheet music linked, but the website name provided should be listed under |via= or left out. Ditto FN71, check for others
  • Be consistent in when you include publishers
  • Still not consistent here - usually they're left out but eg FN59 still has it. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:09, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Allmusic or AllMusic?
  • What makes Acclaimed Music a high-quality reliable source? IMVDb? Petrolicious? Psycho on Tyres?
  • FN64 is missing page
  • Fn24: the website is simply Pitchfork, Pitchfork Media is the publisher
  • Check for consistency in wikilinking - for example GfK is linked in FN40 not FN39
  • Fn49 is missing retrieval date
  • FNs 51 through 55 should specify chart
  • Fn57 is incomplete

Stopping there and oppose pending significant citation cleanup. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:25, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Hey Nikkimaria! Thanks for the reference review. I fixed most of the issues, but I am still working on some of them. I should be done by the end of the week. — Tom(T2ME) 11:57, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
Nikkimaria, I believe I resolved all of the above reference issues. Please feel free to double check when you have time. Thanks! — Tom(T2ME) 21:48, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
  • FN45: URL shouldn't be part of title. Ditto FN47, check for others
  • Unfortunately, there is nothing I can do there. The title is automatically generated from singles chart template. Those are preferred in music articles over manually cited chart references. — Tom(T2ME) 09:24, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Retrieval dates aren't needed for GBooks links
  • What makes Swide a high-quality reliable source?
  • Fn68: why not cite the book directly?
  • FN72 is missing work title and has the incorrect publisher name, but also what makes this a high-quality reliable source?
  • Now FN71, doesn't seem to have changed. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:21, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
  • FN86: listed work title is the author
  • FN94: RSP indicates that AllMusic is questionable for biographical details
  • What makes Hectic but Eclectic a high-quality reliable source?
  • FN97 is missing date
  • FN169 is misformatted, but why not cite the original source? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:09, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

1986 World Snooker Championship[edit]

Nominator(s): BennyOnTheLoose and Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 15:54, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

This article is about the 1986 edition of the World Snooker Championship. After Steve Davis lost the previous year's final on the final ball, the world number one reached the final in 1986 where hee played 500-1 outsider Joe Johnson. Johnson played some of the best snooker of his career to take Davis apart 18–12 and win his sole world championship. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 15:54, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Comments Support by WA8MTWAYC[edit]

Great work, Benny and Lee. As someone who knows virtually nothing about this sport, I found it rather interesting and I've learned a lot of new things, such as a small bit of snooker history given in the "Overview" section. I've got a few comments, mostly to do with the links. WA8MTWAYC (talk) 11:37, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

  • Thanks for your review, WA8MTWAYC. I've responded below, let us know if there is anything else. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 13:22, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
    • +1 thanks from me. Let me know if there is more to look at. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 13:48, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
      • Cheers, I'm happy to support now. Great job both of you. WA8MTWAYC (talk) 14:00, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Can be just me but "of the World Snooker Championship first held in 1927" reads a bit odd. Maybe better to include a punctuation mark between "Championship" and "first held" or to rewrite it to something like "Championship, which was first held in 1927".
  • "The 1986 championship" > The 1986 Championship.
  • Link "world snooker rankings" in "the top players in the world snooker rankings and a pre-tournament".
  • Link "century break" in "Joe O'Boye recorded the first century break".
  • Better to link "black balls" in "despite the brown to black balls" instead of in "Higgins missed a black ball from".
  • Maybe also link "brown [ball]" in that part?
  • Link seed (sports) in "was one of three top-32 seeds" instead of in "Third seed Thorburn".
  • And "deciding frame" in "the final black in the deciding frame of their contest" rather than in "The match went to a deciding frame".
  • Link "The Times" in "The Times report of the match said that Thorne".
  • "took place between 1–3 May" > took place between 1 and 3 May.
  • Wogan > Wogan.
  • "than became dominant in the 1990s" > that became dominant in the 1990s.
  • Preston Guild Hall is overlinked in "Four rounds of qualification were played at the Preston Guild Hall in Preston".

Image review

  • Captions that are complete sentences should end in periods. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:27, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Electrical telegraphy in the United Kingdom[edit]

Nominator(s): SpinningSpark 17:21, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

This article is about the development and growth of telegraphy in the UK. Much of the early technical work occured in the UK, the country was the first to have commercial telegraph companies, and the country was central to the creation of the first worldwide telecommunications networks. The page was long overdue for creation on Wikipedia.

The page has been through an extensive peer review here as well as a very thorough GA review here. Pinging all the editors who took part in those reviews and talk page discussions in the hope they can support the FA too. @Scope creep, TedColes, Andy Dingley, and Binksternet: SpinningSpark 17:21, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

@Catslash: who got missed off the ping list. SpinningSpark 17:23, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
@Serial Number 54129: and another. SpinningSpark 17:25, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support I have replaced my previous "drive-by" nomination. I would like to nominate for FA status. I undertook the original GA review. It was what I would consider a fairly rigorous review. I wanted to examine every aspect of the article, to ensure it was as close to perfection as possible, which it was. It also underwent a fairly comprehensive peer review, which found some minor fixes.scope_creepTalk 15:29, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
Binksternet comments
  • Kieve's recently released PDF highlights a social aspect of telegraphy that may or may not be appropriate for this article about the UK system: remote representatives in distant locations "were never again to be free from central control and direction." The telegraph in general reduced the autonomy of local officers and agents who were now expected to deliver more frequent reports and to follow instructions emanating from London or other headquarters. Of course, that is a characteristic of telegraphy in general, but its effects would have been felt first and most strongly in the pioneering UK system. Is it worth talking about this aspect? Kieve says, "The telegraph became the nervous system of industry and commerce, and influenced every aspect of life of the nation." Binksternet (talk) 03:17, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
    • The "Public take-up" section is perhaps the place where an expansion of this sort could occur. The section's heading is rather opaque to an international audience. You might replace it with "Social effects", "Public reaction", "Public realisation", etc. Binksternet (talk) 05:15, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
      • The quotes you provided are from the publisher's blurb, not the book itself, so should not be used as a source. Nevertheless, the desire to exert central control over the empire was undoubtedly a driver for the British Government. I will look into adding something if sources are available and it's not there already. But, the "Public take up" section is not the right place to do that. It's more connected with the All Red Line or the desperate need to connect to India. Edit: I've now added a couple of sentences, and a new source, to the "Ocean cables" section.
      • I've retitled "Public take up" to "Spread of public use". Is take up not understood in this sense in the US? It's not marked as specifically British in wikt:take-up sense #3. I've added a sentence to the section.
      • Sweeping, inflated claims like "influenced every aspect of life of the nation" are to be avoided, or at least treated with caution (and remember, this is publisher's blurb). Although this is long after Kieve, ever since the publication of The Victorian Internet there has been a tendency to exaggerate the telegraph with the Internet's characteristics. That analogy only goes so far. The telegraph brought important changes for business and government, but its social use by the public never reached the level of daily social chit-chat as seen on the internet. It was just too expensive for that. Somewhere in Kieve he gives booking opera tickets as an example of the spread of "everyday" use of the telegraph. That pretty much tells you that casual use of the telegraph did not penetrate down to the lower tiers of society. Ordinary people did use it, but only occassionally, for instance for special occassion greetings or to arrange visits. SpinningSpark 09:54, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Image review

  • Suggest scaling up the All Red Line map
    • I don't agree that this needs scaling up. The representation is a crude simplification and the Red Line is heavily bolded. It is perfectly clear at the current size, and expanding will not reveal any further information.SpinningSpark 10:36, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
  • The current alt texts are not useful
    • One of the purposes of the alt text is to prevent screenreaders reading out the filename. If the image caption is sufficiently descriptive, then according to WP:ALT One solution is to provide something at least minimally useful such as |alt=photograph , |alt=painting, or |alt=sculpture. Please be specific on which images are deficient, if any. SpinningSpark 10:51, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
      • That guidance is specifically for purely decorative images; I don't think any of the images here fall into that category. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:05, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
        • In that case we have a difference of opinion on what constitutes "purely decorative". For instance, the Childers image could be removed from the article without losing any relevant information. The caption already says who it is and when. There is no real need to add anything else. SpinningSpark 14:21, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
  • File:PSM_V03_D418_Single_needle_instrument.jpg needs a US PD tag. Same with File:Foster_magneto-electric_telegraph.png, File:John_Watkins_Brett.jpg, File:Jacob_Brett.jpg, File:All_Red_Line_(retouched).jpg, File:Rex_Whistler_-_St_Valentines_Day_Greetings_Telegram_1935.jpg
    • Done, although I'm not entirely sure why this is necessary. SpinningSpark 11:19, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
      • Both Commons and en.wp require images hosted as free to be free in the US; Commons additionally requires they be free in their country of origin. When and where was File:John_Watkins_Brett.jpg first published? Same with File:Jacob_Brett.jpg. Why is File:Rex_Whistler_-_St_Valentines_Day_Greetings_Telegram_1935.jpg believed to be free in the US? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:05, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
        • I can't say when these were first published, but an image of Jacob Brett that appears to be a head and shoulders crop of this image was published in Bright, The Life Story of the late Sir Charles Tilston Bright, 1899,[6] and in Bright, The Story of the Atlantic Cable, 1903,[7]. These were not my uploads, so the best I can do is write to the site the images were taken from. SpinningSpark 15:56, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
          • Both images were donated to the IET archive by Latimer Clark in 1898 and I've added that information on their pages. SpinningSpark 22:41, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
        • On the telegram form is it not automatically PD in US if it has gone out of copyright in the country of origin through PD-70? By what mechanism could it still be in copyright? For this date, to be protected by copyright in the US the first place it would have to have been registered, renewed 28 years later, and (I think) marked as copyright (which this form isn't. In all probability it was never copyright in the US. SpinningSpark 15:56, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
          • See WP:NUSC. Had it gone out of copyright before the URAA date it most likely would be PD in the US, but 1944+70 would be after that. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:59, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
            • It's a ridiculous situation when an obsolete, out of copyright, British telegram form from the 1930s is still in copyright in a country where it was never used. So what's to be done about this one? SpinningSpark 22:41, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
            • I've replaced the image. SpinningSpark 13:25, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
  • File:Lord_Kelvin_photograph.jpg: an image taken in the 1900s could very well have been taken by a photographer who died less than 70 years ago, plus this also needs a US PD tag
    • According to the Smithsonian information page for the image (now linked on the image page) it is copyright free. That page also says it was first published in Berlin, so I really don't see why PD-US is needed here. SpinningSpark 12:08, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
      • As above, Commons requires images be free in both the US and their country of origin. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:05, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
        • Ok, I've added it, but I still don't really get the point. Yes, it has to be PD in the US, but for images of this age that is already covered by PD-Old. SpinningSpark 14:28, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
          • When/where was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:59, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
            • As I said above, the Smithsonian say it was first published in Berlin. They don't give a date, but they do declare it "No Copyright - United States". I've added that information in a PD-Because template. If a declaration from the Smithsonian isn't good enough, I don't see how I can be expected to do any better. SpinningSpark 21:37, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
  • File:William_Henry_Preece_-_Page's_Magazine.png: as previous, the photographer could well have died less than 70 years ago
    • The photographer was Ernest Walter Histed, died 1947, so out of copyright 2017 (assuming copyright wasn't assigned to the magazine, in which case it out of copyright 1972). SpinningSpark 12:25, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
  • File:Hugh_Childers,_Lock_%26_Whitfield_woodburytype,_1876-83_crop.jpg: when/where was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:37, 26 July 2020 (UTC)


Nominator(s): Noswall59 (talk) 10:52, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

There won't be many British editors here who haven't heard of Skegness. It is one of the country's most popular seaside destinations. As one local historian put it, "Skeggy" is the "summertime Mecca ... for the toiling thousands of Nottingham, Leicester and Derby". The season isn't so rigidly defined these days, but when industry was still the heartbeat of the East Midland's factory towns, in six short weeks each summer Skegness became host to hundreds of thousands of workers seeking cheap fun, knobbly knee contests and sandy beaches.

This article marks my return to article improvement after several years focusing on creation. I've tried to capture the fascinating development and largely forgotten earlier history of this town, from its medieval port to its early modern slump following a disastrous flood, and from its burgeoning status as a high-end bathing place for the gentry, to its later reputation as a tacky resort for the masses. Today, the tourism industry and the town's dependence on it are at once a boon and a curse; it makes a lot of money, but there's a lot of deprivation and the town has earned the nickname "Brexit-on-Sea" in recent years. So read on to find out about this fascinating part of England's past and its present. I think this piece meets all the criteria for a Featured Article and I look forward to any feedback. Thanks, —Noswall59 (talk) 10:52, 18 July 2020 (UTC).

Image review

  • Suggest scaling up the railway line
    • Done. Is that better?
      • The size is fine, but this should be done using |upright= rather than a fixed px size - see MOS:IMGSIZE. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:27, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Suggest adding alt text
    • Will look into it -- it's not something I have done before.
  • File:PLmap.png: is just the background from OSM, or the line data as well?
    • I don't know and cannot see any indication either way. What effect does this have on licensing/use if it is?
      • If the line data is not from OSM, the image description should include a source for that data. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:27, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
  • File:Derbyshire_Miners'_Holiday_Camp,_Skegness,_1940s.jpg: title gives a date of 1940s, image description page says 2000 - suggesting uploader is not original photographer
    • That is a shame but I think you're right. Should I bin it?
  • File:Lifeboat_crew,_Skegness,_Lincolnshire_RMG_G02795.tiff: when/where was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:37, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
    • I have found no evidence of it being published. If it was not, how does that effect it.
      • The current tagging specifies that the image was published before 1925. If that's not the case, it will need a different tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:27, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
    • Thanks Nikkimaria for doing that so promptly. I've addressed each point above, though mostly with queries (sorry) -- I'd be grateful of your input on them. As a note, I'm not overly attached to any of the pictures and will drop them if the their copyright tags can't be put in order. Cheers, —Noswall59 (talk) 16:02, 19 July 2020 (UTC).
      • Thanks again Nikkimaria. I have removed the coastguard pic and replaced it with another from Geograph, which looks fine to me. I have binned the holiday camp image altogether. I have also remade the Poacher Line image from scratch and inserted it in place of the old one. I used Inkscape to draw over a screenshot of OpenStreetMap for the coastline and current railways, then drew on lines for the disused railways based on a drawing in a 1982 book. Is that okay and have I used the right licence? Cheers, —Noswall59 (talk) 10:42, 20 July 2020 (UTC).
        • Yep, looks fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:40, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
          • Excellent, thanks. That looks like everything. —Noswall59 (talk) 16:28, 20 July 2020 (UTC).

Laguna del Maule (volcano)[edit]

Nominator(s): Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:27, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

This article is about a volcanic field that surrounds a lake in Chile, close to the border of Argentina. It has had eruptions over the past few million years and several during the last 10,000 years, and left a number of lava flows and craters which dot and cover the landscape around Laguna del Maule. The last eruption was 2000-1000 years ago but there is still magma underneath the volcano.

Recently (as in, during the 21st century) there has been an intense uplift of the volcanic field, which has attracted interest among the volcanology community and has raised concerns that another eruption may be imminent. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:27, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Image review by Lee Vilenski[edit]

May or may not claim wikicup points - maybe?

Comment by Buidhe
  • The image in Geology section is not very helpful to reader understanding. The Nazca plate is not labeled, nor is the location of the volcano marked. I know enough about plate tectonics to guess from the caption that the fault in question is a subduction fault (west?—should be explicitly stated in the article) of the volcano, but it would likely be excessively confusing to a non-expert reader. (t · c) buidhe 16:04, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
    I wouldn't be averse towards ditching it completely. Most of the context there isn't relevant, anyhow. File:Subduction-en.svg might be a touch better. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:12, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Comments from Ceranthor[edit]

  • Looks tight! A few comments.
  • "Volcanic rocks in the field vary from basalt over andesite and dacite to rhyolite" - little vague what you mean here; basalt physically overlying andesite, as well as dacite and rhyolite? Could you clarify?
    Rewrote this; I can see why it would be ambiguous. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:15, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
  • "The field was a source of obsidian with regional importance." - "regional importance" is super vague; historical, economic... what type of importance?
    I don't think one can specify much farther from the archeological record. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:15, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
Geography and structure
  • "straddles the Chilean–Argentine frontier" - why trade border for frontier?
    Mostly to avoid repetition. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:15, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
  • " Highway 115 passes through" - links to a disambiguation page
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:15, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
  • "Highway 115 passes through the northern part of the volcanic field,[6] and the Paso Pehuenche mountain pass is a few kilometres northeast of the lake;[7] the region is otherwise sparsely inhabited[8]" - wait, why would highways/mountain passes indicate that the region is densely populated?
    Not really certain but the point is that besides this road there is not much human activity. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:15, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
  • " The lake has a depth of 50 metres (160 ft),[15] a surface area of 54 square kilometres (21 sq mi),[16] and the surface is at an altitude of 2,160 metres (7,090 ft).[6][17]" - run-on sentence
    Split it up a little. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:15, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
  • " Terraces around the lake indicate that water levels have fluctuated in the past;[20] it is regulated by a dam at the outlet[5] that was built in 1950.[21]" - I assume "it" refers to the lake, but you should avoid using it there. I suggest just replacing it with "the lake"
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:15, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
  • " Volcanic ash and pumice produced by the eruptions has been found in Argentina.[7]" - does the ref mention how far away?
    No, but another ref does; done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:15, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
  • "Among the various structures in the volcanic field, Domo del Maule lava dome is of rhyolitic composition and generated a lava flow to the north that dammed the Laguna del Maule." - nitpicky, but no reason for "the" before Laguna imo
    Removed. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:15, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
  • This section could use some copyediting for flow.
    Whittled a bit. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:15, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
  • "Probably due to increased convergence rates of the Nazca and South America plates for the past 28 million years, a phase of strong volcanic activity began in the Andes 25 million years ago." - can you switch the clauses here? I think it would flow better
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:15, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Could you use parentheticals to briefly describe fault types and the terms mafic and pluton for a lay reader? Linking is fine, but I think a very basic explanation in a few words would be helpful too
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:15, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Any reason for the long subtitle "Composition of erupted lavas and pyroclasts" rather than just composition or composition of eruptive products?
    Shortened. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:15, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
  • "The andesites and basaltic andesites having medium K contents[48] and in the Loma de Los Espejos rocks a SiO

2 content of 75.6–76.7% per weight has been noted.[49]" - very wordy; could shorten and make sharper and more clear

Climate and vegetation
  • "During this time a 80 kilometres (50 mi) wide ice cap" - make sure the adjective matches the measurement (ie. should be kilometer-wide)
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:15, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
Eruptive history
  • From my display, there's a formatting error where "The 36" is to the left squeezed out by the table.
    Not on my end ... I dunno what is happening there. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:15, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
  • "The Cerro Barrancas[g] centre started being active" - became active
    Corrected. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:15, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
  • "fumarolic activity in general is small.[25]" - not sure I understand; do you mean it's limited / not widespread?
    Reworded this. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:15, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
Present-day threat
  • "with deformation slowing through to mid-2014.[103]" - should be slowing "through mid-2014"
    No; the source does not say that slowing did not last past mid-2014. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:15, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
  • "This uplift is one of the largest in all volcanoes which are not in eruption" - do you mean actively erupting? Confused
    Replaced this. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:15, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
  • "Some shallow earthquakes have been interpreted as reflecting diking and faulting on the magma chamber" - is "on" correct here or should it be "in?"
    On; magma chambers do not generally containdykes or faults. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:15, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
Reference formatting notes
reference info for Laguna del Maule (volcano)
unnamed refs 0
named refs 131
self closed 326
cs1 refs 44
cs1 templates 66
cs1-like refs 1
cs1-like templates 1
cs2 refs 1
cs2 templates 1
uses ldr yes
use xxx dates dmy
cs1|2 dmy dates 22
cs1|2 last/first 64
List of cs1 templates

  • Cite conference (1)
  • cite conference (1)
  • cite dictionary (1)
  • cite encyclopedia (1)
  • Cite journal (12)
  • cite journal (40)
  • cite news (1)
  • cite web (9)
List of cs2 templates

  • Citation (1)
List of cs1-like templates

  • Cite GVP (1)
  • Some footnotes have a space between p. and the page number; some don't. This should be consistent throughout.
    Tried to remedy that, but I am not sure what other text may have been changed in the process. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:15, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
    You broke several |bibcode= parameter values and set author initials P. → p. I have fixed the bibcodes and one of the initials. I'll leave the author initials to you. Search and replace: it works great except when it doesn't. For FACs, editors should ensure that cs1|2 error messaging is enabled. The bibcode problems were clearly marked with Check |bibcode= length error messages.
    Trappist the monk (talk) 14:31, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Likewise, some footnotes have just initials; some have full author names - should be consistent
    Yeah, not all sources provide that information. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:15, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

As usual, a well-researched article. Prose could use some fine-tuning. Will post more comments after these are fixed up/responded to accordingly. ceranthor 01:46, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Older nominations[edit]

Cardiff City F.C. 2–1 Leeds United F.C.[edit]

Nominator(s): Kosack (talk) 12:31, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

This article is about a rather notorious football match that took place in 2002. I was there myself to watch Cardiff cause one of the biggest FA Cup upsets of the modern age. The win, along with the chaos that erupted at the end of the game, make this one of the most memorable moments in the club's recent history. I had this on my to do list for sometime before getting round to creating it and quickly moved it up to GA. I think it's in good shape for a run at FAC now, so I look forward to any comments. Kosack (talk) 12:31, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Comments Support by WA8MTWAYC[edit]

Great article about an interesting affair, Kosack. Your former chairman was certainly a nutter. As the GA Review concluded, the prose and article were already of high quality, so I've got a few minor comments. WA8MTWAYC (talk) 14:26, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

  • I think the latter part in "He found teammate Mark Viduka who scored from 20 yards after shooting past Cardiff goalkeeper Neil Alexander." is redundant.
  • Ninian Park is linked in "...on fences surrounding the home fan enclosures at Ninian Park so..." but should be linked in "The match was switched to Cardiff's Ninian Park over safety concerns..."
  • Robert Earnshaw is overlinked in "...opponents quickly and Robert Earnshaw made several early..."
  • Neil Alexander too in "...after shooting past Cardiff goalkeeper Neil Alexander."
  • And Andy Legg in "Alan Smith fouled Andy Legg 22 yards from the Leeds goal."
  • BBC Sport should be linked in the first ref and not in the second.
  • The Independent in ref 10 and not in 24.
  • Reach plc (ref 26) has a wiki page.
  • As do TeessideLive (ref 31), Evening Standard (36), ESPN (37) and Yorkshire Post (48).
@WA8MTWAYC: Thanks very much for taking a look, I've amended the points above. Kosack (talk) 12:42, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
Cheers. Good work, Kosack. WA8MTWAYC (talk) 14:36, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Support by Lee Vilenski[edit]

I may end up claiming points towards the wikicup. Hope you don't mind! :P

I'll take a look at this article, and give some comments on how it meets the FA criteria in a little while. If you fancy doing some QPQ, I have a list of items that can be looked at here . Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 20:45, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

  • Leeds were leading the Premier League at the time while Cardiff were placed 10th in the Second Division, two tiers below their opposition. - perhaps mention that the second division was in fact the third tier. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 20:57, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
  • FA Cup - maybe worth a link? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 20:57, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Perhaps mention Leeds had a bye Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 20:57, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
  • 22,009 spectators - is the exact amount relevant? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 20:57, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Dropped the exact amount and included a generalisation. Kosack (talk) 12:42, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
  • confidently predict that his side "will start and end our FA Cup run in Cardiff" in reference to the final being held at the Millennium Stadium in Cardiff. - quite ironic! Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 20:57, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Certainly set himself up for a fall there! Kosack (talk) 12:42, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Woodgate was eventually found guilty of affray - not familiar with this term. Maybe link? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 20:57, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Hammam had become renowned in English football for his eccentric style. - whom? Cite? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 20:57, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Reworded slightly to avoid the opinion side of it. The ref included makes reference to the eccentricity but I've added another that actually uses the term to be doubly sure. Kosack (talk) 12:42, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

That's all I saw from a first pass. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 20:57, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

@Lee Vilenski: Thanks very much Lee, I've amended the points above. Let me know what you think. Kosack (talk) 12:42, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
I just have three more:
  • Is there a lede image we could use? Presumably there was a match programme, which is pretty clear fair use. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 13:56, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
  • There is a programme, but the only image I can find of it is obscured by other material. I've added a token "ground image" to the infobox to provide some sort of image. Kosack (talk) 14:36, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Is it worth mentioning that there was a similar match with the same scoreline in 2015? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 13:56, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
  • I realise there is an outstanding RM, but considering the above, I do think a year disambiguator would make sense in this case. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 13:56, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
  • I'm leaning towards a year disambiguation myself for the title. The RM seems to be fading somewhat with no real outcome, so I may propose moving it along and adding the year. Kosack (talk) 14:36, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
  • @Lee Vilenski: Hi Lee, the RM has closed as no consensus but I'm planning on adding the "(2002)" to the article anyway. I've asked Ian Rose about the best course of action and he has advised that it would be better to do this once the FAC has reached a conclusion. I hope this doesn't affect any potential support from yourself. Kosack (talk) 14:04, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
        • No that's fine. Names aren't really covered by the MOS really, I just thought it be worth mentioning. I realise this would be the primary topic even if the other match was notable, but I think a disambiguator would help. I'll leave it to you. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 14:10, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Lost in Translation (film)[edit]

Nominator(s): NTox · talk 23:42, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Lost in Translation is a 2003 film written and directed by Sofia Coppola. It stars Bill Murray and Scarlett Johansson. This article has just undergone a peer review. Thanks to all for any feedback offered. NTox · talk 23:42, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Comments by MaranoFan[edit]

Resolved comments from MaranoFan
  • "befriends another estranged American named Charlotte" - It might be beneficial to readers to mention here that Charlotte is a woman.
Done. NTox · talk
Done. NTox · talk
  • "After 10 weeks of editing, the production sold distribution rights for the United States and Canada to Focus Features" - "the production" seems a bit vague, does this mean a production house, Ross Katz or Coppola? Mention them instead.
Clarified. NTox · talk
  • "Lost in Translation was nominated for four Academy Awards, including" - Not sure if the word "including" is necessary considering all four nominations have been listed. "Lost in Translation was nominated for four Academy Awards, Best Picture, Best Actor for Murray, and Best Director and Best Original Screenplay for Coppola; it won the latter." sounds right as well.
Good catch. I went ahead and removed "including" and used a colon in this case. NTox · talk
  • The opening sentence of the "Themes" section is a description of it given by Coppola, after that it's a bit unclear whose opinion is being expressed. Are these critics or Coppola? This should be clarified like you've done for Professor Geoff King's comments.
Good point. For this material, anything not attributed in text are widespread views of critics and scholars. To bridge the gap between them and Coppola, I specified that the director's description is a perspective shared by commentators. NTox · talk
  • The words "the shot" are repeated four times in the Narrative section, could be substituted with "the scene", etc. to decrease repetition.
Thanks for pointing that out. I alternated this a bit with "image" to reinforce the visual focus of the commentary by sources. NTox · talk
  • "She described the story as "very personal" from the beginning" - "the beginning" could be clarified, did she give this description before she finished writing the story?
Good catch. For clarification, I removed the "very personal" piece and reworked that sentence a bit, especially since the later parts of the section already discuss the personal components of the film for the director. NTox · talk
  • "Among the first images included was her friend Fumihiro Hayashi's karaoke rendition of the Sex Pistols' "God Save the Queen" - This should probably be rephrased, something to the effect of "Among the first images she included was of her friend Fumihiro Hayashi performing a karaoke rendition of the Sex Pistols' "God Save the Queen".
Done. NTox · talk
  • The first sentence of the Development section seems to reiterate information better presented in the prior section.
Removed reiterated content. NTox · talk
  • Is there a reason Murray refused to sign a contract?
Good question. No reason has been definitively given in the literature. In all, it's not so much that he 'refused', but the impression is that he is simply reticent to sign contracts. He has been reported to have not signed for roles in other films as well. NTox · talk
  • "Johansson accepted the role without an audition" - I think what's noteworthy is that she was given the role without an audition, there's no reason Johansson would want to audition when she could get it without one. Might be more effective if changed to "Coppola offered Johansson the role without an audition, which she accepted".
Done. NTox · talk

--NØ 11:56, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

@MaranoFan: Thanks very much for taking the time to read the article. I appreciate your comments and have made improvements based on your suggestions. I hope you're having an excellent week. NTox · talk 06:31, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Support - With all of my comments being addressed and other improvements. I don't have access to any of the book sources used but I will assume good faith about them; A source review will probably take care of any concerns there. I would like to invite you to my current FAC if you feel like commenting there later. Good luck!--NØ 07:41, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Comments from JM[edit]

I saw this film for the first time recently (and then went on to take a look through this article!) so I am pleased to see this here, and hope to be able to find time for a proper look through. Right now (as when I first looked at the article a few weeks ago) I am pleased to see some good engagement with scholarly work. I note that it is not standard to include chapter titles in references unless you are citing an edited collection of some kind (as is, for example, your Acord source). The Lucy Bolton source, for example, seems to be a monograph, so you should just cite the book as a whole in the bibliography, noting the pages in the individual citations. The chapter title isn't needed anywhere. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:16, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

@J Milburn: Thanks so much for your comments about the article. I appreciate your attention to the scholarly dimensions of the content and greatly look forward to your feedback after another read-through. I also appreciate your advice about the book chapters; I have just removed a couple of those that are not part of collections. Thanks again and I hope to see further of your thoughts soon. NTox · talk 00:58, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
  • "tried to recruit him for up to a year," Why "up to a year"?
Good question. Coppola has given conflicting numbers in interviews. She has said it took her five months, eight months, and also a year to recruit him. Let me know if you recommend a better way to tackle this. NTox · talk
Ok, understood. Let's see if other reviewers pick up on it. Josh Milburn (talk) 12:42, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
  • I note a few quotes in the lead. Quotes without citations always make my eyes twitch, but WP:REFLEAD is perhaps not completely clear on this. I leave it to you.
Thanks for pointing that out. Since WP:REFLEAD seems to indicate that there is no clear rule and the use of citations here should rely on consensus, I'll leave those quotations as is for now but am not opposed to adding the references in if others feel it would be better. NTox · talk
That's fair. Josh Milburn (talk) 12:42, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
  • "many actual places of business" Odd phrase. I was initially just going to remove "actual", but I realised this might not work for you. I wonder if it should be rephrased?
Deleted 'actual'. NTox · talk
I reworded this sentence a bit. Feel free to let me know if you think any further copyedits are necessary. NTox · talk
I made some tweaks.
  • Perhaps the plot section could make a bit clearer the age difference between the two of them. Is it worth mentioning Charlotte's husband's friend?
I added a bit more context to the plot section, especially about Kelly. I agree it is best to mention her there. In terms of Bob and Charlotte's age difference, I did try to communicate that by referring to Bob's 25-year marriage and to Charlotte as a young college graduate, but let me know if you think there is a stronger way to say this. NTox · talk
  • "Like her performance on screen, Coppola saw" Coppola is like her performance on screen? This needs rephrasing.
Good catch. Rephrased. NTox · talk
  • "the identity of which he is already defined" Do you mean by which? I'm not sure this makes sense. A couple of lines later there is "as a frenetic environment of which he is overwhelmed". Can you be overwhelmed of an environment?
'By which', yes. Fixed. Thanks for catching that. NTox · talk
  • " In the short days they have between them" What does this mean?
Changed to "In the little time they have together". NTox · talk
Better! Josh Milburn (talk) 12:42, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
  • "Professor Geoff King of Brunel University London" I'd say we're probably more interested in his expertise than the university he currently works in/worked in when he published the book. Do we use titles? WP:CREDENTIAL seems to suggest not.
Good call. I removed the university reference and briefly described him as a film scholar who wrote a book about the film. Let me know if you think this works. NTox · talk
  • "University of Vermont professor Todd McGowan" Ditto. "Lucy Bolton of Queen Mary University of London" (no job title); "Professor Steve Vineberg" (no university). "Wendy Haslem of the University of Melbourne"; "professor Maria San Filippo"; "Todd Kennedy of Nicholls State University"; "feminist Laura Mulvey" (she's a famous scholar of film studies and a professor -- but here she's only "feminist"!); "Nicholas Y.B. Wong of The Education University of Hong Kong"
Thanks for pointing to WP:CREDENTIAL above. I went ahead and removed the 'professor' titles and the references to universities and colleges. I gave more description to Mulvey and Luce Irigaray, as well as Geoff King, as stated above. For the remaining academics who don't have quite as much prominence in this context, would you recommend adding descriptions for them in text, or do you believe their names alone are acceptable, combined with the existing footnotes of their work? NTox · talk
I would lean towards introducing them. "the film historian", "the literary critic", whatever. Josh Milburn (talk) 12:42, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
  • "its slightness of plot action" What does this mean?
Rephrased. NTox · talk
  • "evoke [their] impressions" I assume the "their" refers to Bob and Charlotte, but I initially assumed you were talking about the obstacles.
Clarified. NTox · talk
  • We don't say "panties" this side of the Atlantic -- is it not a little informal? If not, no objection.
That does seem to be the standard term in the U.S. (I note that Wikipedia's article also refers to them as 'panties'). However, I can understand how it may sound informal. Let me know if you have further thoughts here. NTox · talk
  • "has often been compared to" Says who? It isn't obvious what your source is for this claim.
I added a note with citations of commentators who have made this point. NTox · talk

Ok, that's all for now. Please double-check my edits; you had a few commas that worried me a little! Josh Milburn (talk) 16:13, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

@J Milburn: Thanks again for taking the time to read the article; I greatly appreciate your comments. I made some edits based on your suggestions and responded to a few points above. Thanks also for the copyedits you made to the page itself. I want to note that I did tweak [8] slightly as to emphasize the connection between the short script and the improvisation Coppola allowed [9]. Also, I modified [10] a bit to reinforce that Coppola saw the karaoke performance of her friend in real life previously [11]. Don't hesitate to report if you believe there is a still a stronger way to communicate these. One question about [12]: since the period is in the original text of the source, should it not be inside the quotation marks? Let me know if I'm misunderstanding the MOS. Thanks again for your feedback and I hope you are having an excellent start of the weekend. NTox · talk 07:54, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
I was going to post that that part of the MOS is widely misunderstood, but I now see that it's been updated since last time I read it. Nonetheless (looking for the first time at the updated version) I think it still calls for punctuation inside quotemarks much less than lots of people think. Here's a crucial sentence: "If the quotation is a single word or a sentence fragment, place the terminal punctuation outside the closing quotation mark. When quoting a full sentence, the end of which coincides with the end of the sentence containing it, place terminal punctuation inside the closing quotation mark." So it's not just a matter of whether the punctuation is in the original source; it needs to be in the original source and you need to be quoting "a full sentence" rather than a "sentence fragment" or "single word". So If I am quoting my own comment above, it would be I said "that's all for now". or I said "Thanks, that's all for now." Josh Milburn (talk) 07:48, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

I've finished reading through the article now, and I think it reads really well. I did make some more changes which I invite you to review. I had a very quick look at Google Scholar, are there seem to be a good few articles that are 1) Primarily about LIT; 2) Widely cited and/or in journals from major publishers; 3) Not cited in this article. As such, I wonder if there may be a few more things to pull in. Josh Milburn (talk) 07:48, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

@J Milburn: Thanks again for your comments about the article and your copyedits to it. I also appreciate your advice about punctuation around quotations. In relation to your comment about Google Scholar, I did conduct a reasonably exhaustive review of the literature about the film before writing the article, during which I read the academic articles you are referring to. It is my evaluation that the points being made in those articles (which were excluded from the Wikipedia page), while in my personal view are very interesting and valid, are generally not representative of the broader focus and discussion about the film in the total literature. While Google lists a fair number of cites for a couple of them, those cites seem to appear in articles that are primarily about such topics as general film theory rather than about LIT itself (the excluded pieces are broadly uncited in the articles that explore the film directly, or they were published later). Overall, there was therefore a concern about giving them undue weight. In relation to the other points you brought above, I think I have addressed everything you mentioned, including now adding descriptions for the commentators cited throughout the article. Thank you for your advice and feel free to let me know about any further thoughts you have about the article's current state. NTox · talk 00:25, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, that's great. Josh Milburn (talk) 05:54, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Support. I think this is a very compelling article. I'm watching the page to see if other reviewers identify any problems I may have missed. Josh Milburn (talk) 05:54, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Manilal Dwivedi[edit]

Nominator(s): Gazal world (talk) 13:26, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Manilal Dwivedi was a writer, poet, and philosopher from British India famous for his works on Indian philosophy, particularly on Advaita Vedanta philosophy. He was, along with Swami Vivekananda, invited to the first Parliament of the World's Religions to represent Hinduism. In the short span of his life (40 years), he left a long lasting impression on Gujarati literature. I am nominating this for featured article. It had a GA review by Yashthepunisher, and several people were active in its Peer Review. All constructive criticism and advice is welcome, no matter how minor, as I'm only interested in improving the representation of such an important Indian writer. I'll endeavour to answer comments as quickly as possible. Bringing this article up to this stage would not be possible without help and collaboration. Thanks to all the editors who have helped along the way, including Gog the Mild, Tim riley, Peacemaker67, Nishidani, and Nizil Shah. This is my first attempt for FA. --Gazal world (talk) 13:26, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Image review—pass
  • All images look good. (t · c) buidhe 16:24, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Comments by Mike Christie[edit]

I'll copyedit as I read through; please revert anything you disagree with. It might take me two or three days to complete the review.

  • Pandit Yuga, an era of Gujarati literature during which scholarly writing evolved: is "scholarly" the right word here? Our (linked) article seems to say that the change during this era was more general than that. Perhaps "Pandit Yuga, an era in which Gujarati literature expanded beyond religious forms to address ..." and perhaps take something from the list in our linked article: "social welfare, criticism, plays, new-age thinking, worship of the country, the values of life, etc.". I gather "Pandit Yuga" is literally "Age of Scholars" but it doesn't sound like that's the right way to define the literature of that era.
Rephrased: Pandit Yuga, an era in which Gujarati literature expanded beyond religious forms to address social welfare, Western literary genres, and new-age thinking.
That's an improvement, but now I look at it "new-age thinking" is probably not the right term - in English the phrase refers to "New Age", which I'm sure is not what is meant. You're citing this to Desai 2011; how does he define it Pandit Yuga? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:35, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
Desai's book don't say anything about the defination of Pandita Yuga. We will have to use another source for the definition. Perhaps, this source would be best for the definition. Please check.
The distinct characteristics of this age was : all the writers received western education at newly founded university, and all of them were proficient in Sanskrit language.
I would suggest this:Pandit Yuga, an era in which Gujarati literature expanded beyond religious forms to address social welfare, Western literary genres, and new ideas and concepts brought by the colonial rule. -Nizil (talk) 14:39, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
Alternatively: Pandit Yuga, an era in which Gujarati literature expanded beyond religious forms to address the literary genres, ideals, ideas and concepts from the West brought by the colonial rule. -Nizil (talk) 14:39, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
I can't see the linked source, but the second sentence suggested seems fine to me, so long as it's supported by the source. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:10, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
The definition proposed by Nizil is not supported by the source. So I am working on a new definition supported by the source.
  • The lead says both He was one of several ... who campaigned for reforms ... and he resisted the influence of Western civilisation and social reform; these appear to contradict each other.
In colonial India, the process of reform was two fold. One coming from the West, and the other indigenous. Also there were reformers who felt the need for reform but did not want to look upto the West. Manilal was one of them.
That's a helpful distinction but it's not apparent in the lead; can you make it clearer that the two uses of "reform" are different in this way? And in the "Social reform and educational writings" section can we get some examples of what he believed were needed reforms? That also might help with the distinction -- i.e. if we can see what he campaigned for, which is relevant information for this article anyway, we can contrast that with Western reform ideas he disagreed with. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:35, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
Lead already includes As he held Eastern civilisation in high esteem, he resisted the influence of Western civilisation and social reform. In section, Gazal world may add needful info.-Nizil (talk) 15:09, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
What's missing from the lead is the background information that social reformers were divided by the question of Western influence. Details in the body would help flesh out the ways in which the groups differ, but I don't think that's needed in the lead. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:17, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Manilal appeared to be contradictory in his professions and performance. In his private life, he indulged in unrestrained eroticism and promiscuous relationships. Suggest "Manilal's private life was inconsistent with his professions: he indulged in unrestrained eroticism and promiscuous relationships."
  • to a Sathodara Nagar family. What does "Sathodara" mean?
Nagar Brahmin is a Hindu caste and 'Sathodara' is a sub-caste of it. Should we include a footnote for it?-Nizil (talk) 06:22, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
done, added a footnote.-Nizil (talk) 06:33, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
They are known as Sathodara because their ancestor belongs to a village named 'Sathod' (near Dabhoi). Added this fact into footnote.
  • It took me a while to figure out what "standard" means; I think a footnote explaining that it's equivalent to "grade" or "year" would be helpful to non-Indian readers.
done, added a footnote: An educational stage equivalent to grade or year.-Nizil (talk) 06:42, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
  • He returned to Nadiad and in July 1880, becoming an assistant teacher at the government high school: something wrong here: either "returned to Nadiad in July 1880, becoming" or "returned to Nadiad, and in July 1880 became" depending on what the timing was.
My bad. You are right. He returned to Nadiad, and in July 1880, became an assistant teacher. Corrected.
  • Given that there appears to be a book-length biography of Manilal, the biography section is fairly short -- is there no more detail that would be worth adding?
Ok. I am going to add some important biographical details. Will add some two paragraphs.
I'll take a look when you add the additional material. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:17, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
Hello Mike. I have added one paragraph in "Biography" section. Unfortunately, I could not find more details suitable for this section. As he lives only for 40 years, very less details about his biography is know. Most details about his biography come from his autobiography Atmavrittanta which he left in manuscript from; it was published 80 years later after his death. Still I am trying to find more detail, and if I will succeed, I will let you know.
Looks good; I copyedited it slightly. If the bio has no more details then that's fine, so I'm striking this point. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:05, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Manilal's first literary attempt was the play Kanta (1882): I'd consider his 1876 poem, Shiksha Shatak, a literary effort, so I would think this needs to be rephrased.
Ok. Changed to In 1882, Manilal published his play Kanta
  • He believed that the root of all activities of human life can be traced to the principle of Advaita Vedanta: I don't understand this.
He believed that 'all human activities were informed by the philosophy/principle of Advaita Vedanta'. What would you suggest. Please guide.
I can't because I still don't understand what it's telling me. Can you give me an example of what this belief might mean in practice? E.g. if someone believes this, what sort of thing would they say, or argue for? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:50, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
I am simplifying the sentence: Manilal believed that Advaita Vedanta philosophy can guide all human activities.-Nizil (talk) 14:56, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
Simple explanation: Advaita Vedanta teaches that self-liberation (moksha) can be achieved by understanding oneself and the ultimate reality. It teaches the person and the ultimate reality are one thing, not two things. As Rambachan says: this state of liberating self-knowledge includes and leads to the understanding that "the self is the self of all, the knower of self sees the self in all beings and all beings in the self." For example, a person believing in Advaita would not harm other person because it recognises him as a part of himself. It is oversimplification but I hope that it is good enough to understand.-Nizil (talk) 14:56, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
Yes, that's helpful; thanks. So to say that "all human activities are informed by the philosophy/principle of Advaita Vedanta" means that he thinks that all activities should be conducted with this awareness the self is part of all and vice versa? Or that all human activities are in fact conducted in a way consonant with the principle, whether the person involved is aware of it? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:21, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
Yes. The first one. He thinks that all activities should be conducted with this awareness the self is part of all and vice versa? Note that the source does not say anything about this. But, as I am closely connected with the subject, I know this background details. If this sentence is problematic, then we will remove it.
Explaining "the philosophy/principle of Advaita Vedanta" as "awareness the self is part of all and vice versa" is presumably sourceable, right? So the only thing we need to source is the "should"; is there anything in the source that indicates this? If not I don't see how to include it, but in that case, if you're confident this is the right reading, how are you confident? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:05, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
I talked with my scholar-friend Babu Suthar, and came to this conclusion that we should not use "should" here as Manilal doesn't prescribe this as an idea. He says that the roots of all the activities are in non-dualism (Advaita). This is a descriptive statement which describes his position. We can not support such claims by giving empirical proof. It is, in fact, a theoretical position. I would prefer Nizil's rephrasing: Manilal believed that Advaita Vedanta philosophy can guide all human activities.
To say that Manilal believed Advaita Vedanta philosophy should be used in a certain way is not supporting the claim; it's just stating Manilal's belief. However, I think the rephrasing is OK too. I'd like to copyedit it slightly, and explain it inline; how about "Manilal believed that the philosophy of Advaita Vedanta, that the self is part of all and vice versa, can guide all human activities."? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:37, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
OK. Rephrased: He believed that the philosophy of Advaita Vedanta, that the self is part of all and vice versa, can guide all human activities.
  • He was recognised both in India and more widely as a staunch protagonist of ancient Indian religion: "protagonist" isn't the right word; do you mean "proponent"? And should "Indian religion" be more specific -- Hinduism, perhaps? As it stands it could mean he was a proponent of Jainism too. And "more widely" is a fairly strong claim, given that he was writing in Gujarati; what does the source actually say here?
Rephrased He was recognised both in India and in abroad as a staunch proponent of ancient Hindu tradition. Further, he also wrote several books and articles into English, which were well received in abroad. According to sources, he was known as a 'learned Indian philosopher' in abroad.
  • Did he attend the 8th or 9th Oriental Congress, for which he wrote articles?
No. He didn't attend it. He only sent his articles to be read at the 8th & 9th Congress.
  • He was awarded a certificate of merit for the second article: who by?
Obviously by the Congress. No more information is available.
  • Manilal wrote two books in Gujarati: I was surprised by this, as I'd assumed everything above not specifically described as being in English was in Gujarati. I assume you're not including Gulabsinh since it was a translation, but I had assumed Raja Yoga was in Gujarati except for the parts you describe as being in English. Given that Manilal is famous as a Gujarati literary figure it would probably be good to be clearer about what's in Gujarati and what's in English as we go through, and I'd change "two books" to something like "two books in addition to Gulabsinh". Reading further, what about Panchashati? And looking at Works of Manilal Dwivedi I see several other Gujarati titles.
Sorry for confusion. You are right. No need to mention: Manilal wrote two books in Gujarati. All his books were written in Gujarati. For the English books, I have described them as being in English. The entire book Raja Yoga was written in English. Panchashati is the Gujarati version of Manilal's English book The Imitation of Shankara. Can I replace Manilal wrote two books in Gujarati, with In order to response the so-called reformist movement of his age, Manilal planned to write two books. (Thaker, p. 29) ? What you think ?
It would be "In order to respond to the so-called reformist movement of his age, Manilal planned to write two books"; but what do you mean by "so-called"? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:41, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
The "so-called" reform movements are "other" reform movements inspired by the West. Manilal's reforms were rooted in Eastern philosophy. I suggest: In order to respond to the reformist movement of his age inspired by the West, Manilal planned to write two books.-Nizil (talk) 15:09, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
It looks like the distinction between the two branches of reform, Western-inspired and indigenous, is a key point. Are there names for these two approaches, or were there names then? Would it make sense to add a paragraph at the start of the "Works" section explaining the history of the reform movement and the distinctions drawn between the brances, and placing Manilal's works within that context? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:24, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
Rephrased. In order to respond to the Westernised reformist movement of his age, Manilal planned to write two books. To clear the distinction between the two branches, I have prepared some two paragraphs in my sandbox. Waiting for your reply.
I'll comment there. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:40, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
  • By design, the first contained practical expressions of spiritualism according to Hindu philosophy and is titled Pranavinimaya. Do we need "by design"? Suggest "The first, Pranavinimaya, contained practical expressions of spiritualism according to Hindu philosophy."
Done as you suggested.
  • started a Prarthana Samaj movement in Nadiad: I think "movement" is probably the wrong word here; the movement was started by Dadoba Pandurang and Atmaram Pandurang, according to our article on it, so Manilal and his friends would have started a local group, or a society, or a meeting, or something like that.
done, changed to started a local group of Prarthana Samaj in Nadiad. -Nizil (talk) 06:17, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Also, given that the Prarthana Samaj movement is relevant to the controversies section, a parenthetical explanation of the movement would be helpful to the reader -- just "(a movement for social and religious reform)" would be enough.
done, added footnote: a movement for social and religious reform started in Bombay in 1867. -Nizil (talk) 06:33, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Priyamvada and Sudarshan are mentioned twice; I'd suggest finding a way to combine the mentions, and it would also be good to explain why he switched from one to the other -- the linked articles say it was because he realized an article on women's issues would never be successful, so if you can source it that would be worth adding.
Fixing twice mention... Done See, what you think?
Explained the reason why the magazine was switched to other.
Now it says he found that it was difficult and premature to run an exclusive women's magazine, which is not very specific. Are the sources clear on this? E.g. was it because he realized the magazine would never gain much circulation since men would not buy it? Or perhaps because it was premature, in that women's issues were not of interest to many reformers, so there was not much of an audience for it? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:35, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
I think, the current explanation is enough. Also there are separate articles for both magazines. Manilal realised that the would not flourish so long as it addressed only women readers. So he expanded the scope of the magazine. At that time, Gujarat was very backward, and most women were uneducated. So he didn't received desired response from women community. But, I am happy to do whatever you would suggest.
That's a much clearer explanation than what is in the article. Assuming you have a source for what you say, I'd suggest "In 1885, Manilal founded and edited a magazine called Priyamvada to discuss the problems faced by Indian womanhood. At the time, most Gujarati women were uneducated, and the magazine did not draw the response he had hoped for from the women's community, so in 1890 he renamed it Sudarshan, and made it wider in scope." Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:04, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
  • As Jhaveri noted in History of Gujarati Literature, through his writing in Priyamvada and Sudarshan, Manilal emerged as the acknowledged master of Gujarati prose: Again quite a strong claim; is Jhaveri enough of an authority to make this claim as fact? "Noted" implies that what follows is clearly factual, so it would probably be better to weaken this to "according to Jhaveri", or something similar.
Changed to According to Jhaveri. Jhaveri is considered an authority in Gujarati literature. His book History of Gujarati Literature was one of the earliest literary history of Gujarati literature. The book was published by Sahitya Akademi, India's national academy of letters.
OK; I copyedited it a little. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:35, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Not necessarily a problem for this article, but I see some inconsistencies between this article and Works of Manilal Dwivedi. For example, I don't see Charitrya listed in the works article, and Malati Madhava is listed as Malatimadhavam.
Charitrya is listed in the works article; in 'Translation and Adaptation' section (from English). Regarding Malatimadhavam, both spelling are OK. For consistency, I have changed it to Malatimadhava in both article. P.S. Sorry. The correct spelling is 'Charitra'. Corrected now.
  • It seems there are many more works by Manilal that you don't mention; of course you can't list them all, but what's the basis for selecting which ones you do mention in this article?
I have included only those works which were widely discussed and studied. I can write one or two paragraph about his minor works, if you suggest.
No need; I just wanted to understand the basis for what was mentioned. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:35, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Their public debates are considered unparalleled in Gujarat's history of reflective literature. Does this refer to actual debates at public meetings? Or to the back-and-forth articles they wrote? I think it must be the latter but "public debates" implies the former.
The 'public debates' refer to the articles they wrote to each other and published in their own magazines. (Neelkanth's magazine was Jnanasudha; Manilal's magazine was Sudarashan).
How about making it "Their public debates, carried on in the pages of Manilal's Sudarashan and Neelkanth's Jnanasudha, are considered unparalleled in Gujarat's history of reflective literature"? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:35, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
Done As you suggested.
Struck. Does Jnanasudha deserve a redlink? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:09, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
Hello Mike. Don't worry. I am going to create a blue-link for Jnanasudha.
  • Is Advocate of India worth a redlink?
  • (the one who steadily fixed in the consciousness of the Supreme Brahman, the ultimate reality): I don't follow the syntax here. Should be just "(one who steadily fixed in his consciousness the..."?
This sentences is the explanation for the Sanskrit term Brahmanishtha. Brahmanishtha means 'the one who continuously keep his mind attached with Brahman'. Brahman is the Advaita vedanta terminology for 'ultimate reality' (God). What would be the right explanation. Please guide me.
I think ""(one who always keeps his mind fixed on the Supreme Brahman, the ultimate reality)" would do it. Looking elsewhere on the web for definitions of this makes it clear it's not a term with a simple definition. Is the term itself worth a red link, do you think? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:47, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
Done As you suggested. If you talk about Brahmanishtha, I don't think it deserves red link.
OK. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:25, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure Arnold's comments at the end are a good way to conclude the article. This is the opinion of a Western orientalist, talking about one of Manilal's earlier works. It might be more suitable to mention this (perhaps in a footnote) when you talk about Raja Yoga earlier in the article; you do already mention Arnold's admiration for the book at that point.
Done Moved that quote in a footnote.
  • Any reason there are no citations to Purani's biography?
Purani's biography is very old and outdated, So I haven't used. Thaker's biography is the most reliable source.

That's it for a first pass. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:46, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

@Mike Christie: My honest 'thanks' to you for your time and your detailed comments. I will address all the issues very soon. --Gazal world (talk) 12:24, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
I am helping in this FA. -Nizil (talk) 06:17, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
Replies without signature are mine. --Gazal world (talk) 15:05, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
I've struck or replied to everything above, except for the note about adding more biographical material; I'll read through when you add that. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:50, 31 July 2020 (UTC)


Nominator(s): HaEr48 (talk) 19:52, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Muslims face the Ka'bah in Mecca during prayers; this direction is called the qibla. Aside from the religious usage, the article includes discussions such as theoretical and practical methods to find this direction from places far from Mecca, and how the determination was done before astronomy and with the early astronomy of the medieval period, and how historical qiblas can differ from each other and from the modern calculated direction. I find it a very interesting topic, and included references that covers its religious, technical, and historical aspects. I hope it is ready for FA review. HaEr48 (talk) 19:52, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Note: I have an existing open FA nomination, but a coord gave me permission to start this one concurrently. HaEr48 (talk) 20:05, 12 July 2020 (UTC) The other review has completed. HaEr48 (talk) 03:07, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

  • Support Not at all my subject, but I like the prose - the article is understandable for this general reader. I have made a few tweaks, hope they are OK. I was a little surprised at the use of an 18th century illustration of Mecca to illustrate an event of several centuries earlier. ϢereSpielChequers 08:29, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
    Thank you WereSpielChequers (nice username, by the way!) for taking a look and for your support. Your tweaks look fine to me, thank you for those as well. May I know which 18th century illustration of Mecca you are talking about? HaEr48 (talk) 15:31, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
    Whoops, that was on a linked page, I have struck the comment. ϢereSpielChequers 15:45, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
Image review—pass
  • Images are free—I'm assuming the prayer rug is not copyrightable.
  • Image captioned "A modern city map of a section of Cairo" I am struggling to understand the relevance of the image, and it causes sandwiching above and a broken section below—probably should be removed.
    It seemed obvious to me that the map showed three mosques each with a different alignment, however perhaps the caption could spell this out more clearly? ϢereSpielChequers 15:37, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
    (edit conflict) It illustrates the slightly different orientation of mosques (probably I should have mention it in the caption). I removed it because based on the reviewer's feedback that it causes layout problems. HaEr48 (talk) 15:48, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
  • "Calculating the qibla from Yogyakarta, Indonesia (see text)" looks really weird stuck in the middle of the screen, wouldn't it make more sense to float left or right?
    The reason I put it in the center is because it guides the reading of the text, e.g. the mathematical notations used in the text refer to the notations in the picture. Usually when I see such an illustration in a text book, it would appear inline in the prose rather than floating right or left as a decoration, so the reader wouldn't miss it. What do you think? HaEr48 (talk) 15:48, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
    I think it works best floated to the right, so it doesn't break up the text. Images are not supposed to be decoration, they should only be added if they increase reader understanding. MOS:IMAGELOC says that the purpose of centered images is, "To present images larger than the guidelines above (e.g. panoramas)". (t · c) buidhe 16:19, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
    @Buidhe: Moved to the right, per MOS:IMAGELOC you cited. I do feel it makes it more likely for readers to miss the image, so please consider if it is worth making an exception of the MOS here. HaEr48 (talk) 00:40, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Religious aspects—image sandwiches the nav sidebar. This could be fixed by moving the sidebar up, to just below the lead images so its sits opposite the TOC. Or you could remove it. (t · c) buidhe 12:40, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
    Removed the sidebar to avoid the sandwiching and probably a sidebar so big does not add that much navigation value anyway. HaEr48 (talk) 15:48, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Comments Support by A. Parrot

Seems pretty thorough. I only have two large-scale comments about content, and the rest of my comments are about details of clarity, redundancy, and prose. A. Parrot (talk) 01:28, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Large-scale comments

  • The article on Mizrah seems to indicate that Jews pray in the cardinal direction closest to the direction of Jerusalem, and this article seems to indicate that Muhammad copied this practice until changing the qibla toward Mecca, nearly due south of his location in Medina. This seems to indicate that Muhammad used cardinal directions for the qibla, even though Jerusalem is not due north of Medina, and that only later did Muslims start focusing on the exact direction toward the Kaaba. I could be wrong, but if the sources indicate an evolution of the qibla like the one I'm inferring from the article text, it would be good to describe the process explicitly.
    I've tried to track it down in various sources, unfortunately can't find any more detail than just facing Jerusalem, without any mention about whether it was due north or slightly northwest, or how the exact direction was determined. HaEr48 (talk) 02:25, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
  • The final section has subsections for the qibla in the early Islamic world, North America, Indonesia, and space. There must be other parts of the world where the qibla has been a problem, and while not every one of them will have coverage in the sources, I can't help thinking that some of them must. South America may not have a substantial enough Muslim population to produce such coverage, but what about Africa, East Asia, or Australia?
Unfortunately couldn't find any significant material on Australia, East Asia, or Sub-Saharan Africa. Even this bibliography is silent on those regions. Found some interesting material on the Maghreb North Africa though, somewhat different than the ones we already have in the article because they're based on modern-day survey of the actual mosques, rather than using historical documents. Added it to the #Early Islamic world section. Let me know what you think. HaEr48 (talk) 16:52, 25 July 2020 (UTC)


  • The article uses "the qibla" and "qibla" inconsistently. If the former is used, it should be used everywhere, except when the word is being used as a modifier for another noun (e.g., in the phrase "qibla calculations"). Wikipedia's usage is generally based on that found in the sources; how do the English-language sources on the subject tend to treat it?
    I checked the sources and I think it's pretty clear that "the qibla" is the norm - it's just inconsistent because of my oversight. Fixed. HaEr48 (talk) 03:44, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
  • The Wikipedia article on the Kaaba uses that spelling, rather than Ka'bah; it's generally better to use the same spelling as the article title when writing Wikipedia text.
    Done. HaEr48 (talk) 02:18, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
  • "Other than for the ritual prayer, it is also…" Given the context, I think this could be shortened to "The qibla is also…"
    Done. HaEr48 (talk) 03:44, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
  • "the customs of the companions of the Prophet Muhammad in one's place"
    What is the suggestion? HaEr48 (talk) 03:44, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
    Sorry, forgot to finish writing this bullet point! The phrase feels a bit awkward, and in fact the whole sentence could be split and slightly reworked. My suggestion: "Before the development of astronomy in the Islamic world, Muslims used traditional methods to determine the qibla. These methods included facing the direction that the companions of Muhammad had used when in the same place; using the setting and rising points of celestial objects; using the direction of the wind; or using due south, which was Muhammad's qibla in Medina."
    Good point, applied a slightly modified version of your suggested. HaEr48 (talk) 14:20, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
  • The link to mizrah is an Easter egg link and should be made more visible, though I'm not sure how best to adjust that sentence.
    I just added (see mizrah) at the end of the sentence, how does that sound? HaEr48 (talk) 03:44, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
    Giving the reader parenthetical commands in the text "(see mizrah)", isn't ideal. You might just say "…the same direction used by the Jews of Medina for their prayers, the mizrah."
    Went with " the same direction as the prayer direction—the mizrah—used by the Jews of Medina", which also avoid parenthetical command. HaEr48 (talk) 14:20, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
  • There's some inconsistency in the treatment of Islamic religious terms. Most are given brief explanations, but some, such as tawaf, Hajj, and umrah, are not.
    Done for tawaf, ihram, and hadith. Hajj and umrah are mentioned as "pilgrimages", so I think they're already explained. Even if they are glossed, usually hajj is just "pilgrimage" or the "major pilgrimage" as opposed to umrah which is a the "minor pilgrimage". 03:44, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Note B seems to go into rather irrelevant detail. The key points for the purposes of this article are that most Muslims didn't accept the Qarmatians' attempt to change the qibla (or so I assume), the stone was eventually returned, and everything went back to normal, and those seem worth incorporating, albeit briefly, in the main text.
    Added "for a time" to the main text to note that it is temporary - otherwise removed the footnote per your feedback. HaEr48 (talk) 02:18, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
  • "Religious aspects" is a somewhat odd section title, as it implies that the other aspects of the qibla are non-religious. But it's really an inherently religious subject, although most of the article is taken up with the technical details of how it is determined. Might "religious significance" work?
    Good point. "Ritual aspects" might also work, but I like your suggestion, "religious significance". Done. HaEr48 (talk) 03:44, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
  • "Ayn al-ka'bah is facing the qibla…" This sounds a bit odd. Perhaps it could say "Ayn al-ka'bah is a position facing the qibla…"?
    Done. HaEr48 (talk) 02:18, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
  • The link to ijtihad is a bit of an Easter egg link as well; there may be a way to work the term into the sentence.
    Changed into this: one is to make one's own determination—to do an ijtihad—by the means at one's disposal. How is that? HaEr48 (talk) 03:44, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
    This depends on how the Arabic word tends to be used in English-language writing. The article on ijtihad seems to treat it as something a person uses (a mental faculty) rather than something a person does (a practice). Perhaps "to use ijtihad or "to use one's ijtihad"?
    I think "a mental faculty" is just the etymological origin, the actual definition is the "independent reasoning" or "exerting oneself" part, which are acions/practices. Anyway, I checked the Encyclopedia of Islam article on "Idjtihad" (the EoI has a slightly different transliteration) and it uses "to exercise idjtihad" (without an article), which seems reasonable so I change this article to use it too. HaEr48 (talk) 14:20, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
  • I wonder if the definition of a great circle should come immediately after the first sentence of that section.
    Done. HaEr48 (talk) 03:44, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Can something about the Craig retroazimuthal projection be incorporated into the text on "On the world map"?
    Added. Including some discussion about retroazimuthal projection in general and how it is relevant to the qibla. HaEr48 (talk) 16:52, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure how to address it, but the overlapping subject matter in "Traditional methods" and "Pre-astronomy" feels like it's created some redundant text in the article.
    I totally understand what you mean.. I've tried to reduce the overlap by focusing on different directions in each sections. I thought hard about it, that feels like the best that can be done. Deleting the "traditional methods" would deemphasize the fact that some of these directions are still used today , and deleting the "pre-astronomy part" will lose us some historical detail about how these methods develop and the "Development of methods" section will have some gaps in its timeline. Ideas welcome. HaEr48 (talk) 03:06, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
    I cut a small bit of redundant explanation out of the Pre-astronomy section, but with that done, I think the current amount of overlap is acceptable. A. Parrot (talk) 02:57, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
  • "The traditional directions were still in use when mathematical methods later developed and found different directions to Mecca…" feels awkward. I suggest "The traditional directions were still in use when methods were developed to calculate the qibla more accurately…"
    Done. HaEr48 (talk) 02:18, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
  • "…the concept of latitude and longitude introduced in Ptolemy's Geography…" I suggest saying "taken from Ptolemy's Geography", because the important point here is where the Islamic world got the idea, not where it was invented.
    Done. HaEr48 (talk) 02:18, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
  • David A. King should be linked and his qualifications briefly mentioned (e.g., his article calls him an "orientalist and historian of astronomy").
    Done. HaEr48 (talk) 03:44, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
  • The section on Indonesia talks first about general problems with finding the qibla there, then quotes recent opinions about it, then talks about qibla disputes in the Dutch East Indies. The resulting jump back in time is strange, though I'm not sure how exactly to rearrange the section, given that the sentences about general problems should come first.
    I split them into two paragraph to clarify that they are talking about different ideas. HaEr48 (talk) 02:18, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
  • The passage about the four options for prayer in space, "in order of priority", is unclear. I'm having difficulty thinking of a good way to word it. I gather that Muszaphar was told to use the first option if possible and fall back on the other options, successively, if it proved impossible.
    Your understanding is correct. Added another sentence to clarify that. HaEr48 (talk) 02:18, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
  • In the same passage, I'm not certain what "the projection of the Ka'bah into space" means.
    My understanding is that if you expand the spherical Earth into the location of the astronaut, the Ka'bah will be (imaginarily) projected into a location in the resulting imaginary sphere. The recommendation is to face that. I added a note, let me know what you think. HaEr48 (talk) 02:18, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
    I've been trying to work out how best to explain this whole subject, and I think it needs some significant rearrangement that's difficult to explain in text. So I made a revised version in the sandbox, in this revision. See what you think. A. Parrot (talk) 02:57, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
    Thank you for taking the time to write that down. I think it's very good, so I just copied it over with minor adjustments. HaEr48 (talk) 14:20, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
@A. Parrot: Thank you very much for your review Face-smile.svg all your points are good. I have responded to your comments. Most are done as suggested but some I have further queries and some can't be done due to unavailable sources. Sorry for the delay as I needed some research to address them. Let me know what you think, and if you have further comments. HaEr48 (talk) 16:55, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
@HaEr48: I've added my replies to five of your queries above. Aside from those, all the issues I raised look satisfactory, and I just have two last points. First, might Indonesia be listed before North America in the final section? The section seems arranged sort of chronologically, starting with the early Islamic world and ending with space, but Islam reached Indonesia before it reached North America. Second, the Wired article about the qibla in space mentioned that Muslims who pray while in motion, as on a train, use the direction that was the qibla when they started praying. Is there a good place to mention this? A. Parrot (talk) 02:57, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
@A. Parrot: thank you for your follow up. I've addressed them and made further edits to the article. I reordered Indonesia and North America as you suggested. As for praying in a vehicle, I understand there are multiple opinions on this (there are some who say you should wait until the trip ends so that you can find a stable place to pray, for example); what Abdali said may be applicable to just a certain group, so I hesitate to use it authoritatively. In the first #Religious significance section, where most of the religious practice is discussed, I try to only use "overview" sources which review and summarize the possible differences in practices, such as Wensinck and Hadi Bashori. Unfortunately they don't talk about praying in a moving vehicle, and I can't find a good overview RS elsewhere that does. HaEr48 (talk) 14:20, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support. It's good to see an article on a major religious topic rise to FA level. A. Parrot (talk) 16:34, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
    @A. Parrot: Thank you very much for your review and feedback, and very happy to have your support! HaEr48 (talk) 17:54, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Coord note[edit]

I've added this to the urgents list and the source review list. --Ealdgyth (talk) 15:45, 27 July 2020 (UTC)


  • Didn't have time to review the other FACs about ancient Islamic subjects before they got enough supports, so I'll get in on this one soon. FunkMonk (talk) 12:54, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
  • There are a couple of duplinks, you can find them with this tool:[13]
    Fixed. HaEr48 (talk) 15:41, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Not a huge deal, but in a couple of areas, your image alignment makes images clash with the section headers beneath them, which could be avoided by reversing the image alignment. The sections "Ayn al-ka'bah and jihat al-ka'bah" and "On the world map" are affected by this.
    Fixed. HaEr48 (talk) 15:41, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
Thank you, FunkMonk. Looking forward to your review. HaEr48 (talk) 15:41, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Any reason why Muhammad isn't linked in the intro, and why kaaba isn't linked at the first mention outside the intro? Ideally, all terms should be linked both at the first mention in the intro and first mention outside it, there may be more cases. I wonder if Mecca and Muslim should also be linked.
    Done for Muhammad, Kaaba and Mecca. Didn't do it for Muslim, it feels like a common enough word to not require wikilink. HaEr48 (talk) 23:00, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
  • "directly above the Ka'ba" Be consistent in how you spell kaaba.
    Fixed. HaEr48 (talk) 23:00, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
  • "Medina, and Jerusalem" Link these in caption of the map.
    Done. HaEr48 (talk) 23:00, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
  • "The qibla status of the Kaaba" why in italics here?
    Fixed. HaEr48 (talk) 23:00, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
  • "when defecating, urinating, and spitting" I wonder if these very common terms need links? I could understand it if they linked to articles about those things in a religious context, but it's just the basic articles.
    Fixed. HaEr48 (talk) 23:00, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
  • "A pilgrim makes a supplication" Link supplication?
    Done. HaEr48 (talk) 23:00, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
  • "Mecca, Medina, and Jerusalem" I wonder if this caption could be given more context?
    Done. HaEr48 (talk) 23:00, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
  • "Ayn al-ka'bah is a position" Give translation?
    Done. HaEr48 (talk) 23:00, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
  • "in Al-Andalus (historical Spain and Portugal)" That seems an odd way to define it? Wouldn't it be more clear to say Islamic Iberia or something like that?
    Done. HaEr48 (talk) 23:00, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
  • "for example Ibn Arabi—consider ayn al-ka'bah to be obligatory during the ritual prayer, while others consider it only obligatory when one is able. For locations further than Mecca, scholars such as Abu Hanifa and Al-Qurtubi argue that" This and other places read as though you are giving current opinions, when looking at the respective articles shows these are centuries old. Could be good to give approximate dates or something, especially since you use present tense.
    Added years that indicate these are past authors. These opinions are still influential/cited today in Islamic law/ritual. HaEr48 (talk) 23:00, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Likewise under for example Determination, it could be useful to know when these various theories were developed.
    The #Determination section is intended for the current status of these methods. The #Development section covers the historical aspects. Where appropriate, dates have been given when #Determination mentions past authors as contexts. HaEr48 (talk) 23:00, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
    @FunkMonk: Thanks for reviewing and for your feedback. I've answered above and done most of your suggestions. HaEr48 (talk) 23:03, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
  • "known to Muslim astronomers since the 9th century (3rd century AH), developed by various Muslim scholars" I'm not sure the second "Muslim" is needed if you already qualify you are talking about Muslims the first time?.
    Done. HaEr48 (talk) 19:33, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately I suck at math, so I can't evaluate the calculations!

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • "based on what is possible" - source for quote?
    Added in article body now (with citations). HaEr48 (talk) 23:00, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
  • What's the source for the variety of spellings in note a?
    Can't find a good source that list spelling variations. Removed the note. HaEr48 (talk) 23:00, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
  • FN65 is missing endash
    Done. HaEr48 (talk) 23:00, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Be consistent in whether you include locations for books
    Done (included all). HaEr48 (talk) 23:00, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
  • WIRED -> Wired
  • Be consistent in whether you include publishers for periodicals
    Done (omitted all). HaEr48 (talk) 23:00, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
  • What is Hadi Bashori's background?
    He's an expert in ilm al-falak (a discipline dealing with astronomical matters in Islamic practices, in which the qibla is a subject matter). Pengantar Ilmu Falak is a university textbook and is cited in journals, e.g. [14]. HaEr48 (talk) 23:00, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
  • King and Kuban have the same publisher but it's formatted differently. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:19, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
    Done. HaEr48 (talk) 23:00, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
    @Nikkimaria: thanks for reviewing. Answered above. HaEr48 (talk) 23:01, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

In the Aeroplane Over the Sea[edit]

Nominator(s): Famous Hobo (talk) 07:08, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Alright, this time for real. I nominated this article about a month ago but personal issues meant I couldn't put my full focus on Wikipedia. Anyway, In the Aeroplane Over the Sea is one of the quintessential indie rock albums. Loved by many, but incessantly mocked as well, In the Aeroplane Over the Sea is a weird album. The music goes all over the place with strange instruments like the singing saw and zanzithophone, and the lyrics are...well let's just say I don't think anyone really knows what the lyrics are about. This article has been a passion project of mine, and I think it's about ready to see an FAC nomination. Have at it.

Pinging @Aoba47: and @Casliber:. My apologies for not addressing your comments during the first FAC but I believe I have addressed both sets of comments now. Famous Hobo (talk) 07:08, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

  • Support thought it had only minor issues before and looks better now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:45, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Media review[edit]

  • "Illustrates Jeff Mangum's abstract lyricism, in particular the focus on the life of Anne Frank." is an inadequate fair use rationale. (That purpose would be served better with a quotation from the song.—short quotations are to some extent exempt from NFCC)
    • You expanded the NFCC rationale, which now reads "Additional:To demonstrate the abstract lyricism found with In the Aeroplane Over the Sea. The audio sample contains the lyrics "With sparks that ring and bullets fly / On empty rings around your heart / The world just screams and falls apart". The audio sample illustrates how songwriter Jeff Mangum forms a coherent narrative by stringing together surreal imagery and seemingly unrelated subject matter." However, this doesn't work. If the purpose of this non-free content is to show the lyrics, the audio sample does not meet NFCC criteria because it could be replaced in the article by a short quotation from the lyrics without a loss of reader understanding.
@Buidhe: Would something like this work? I still need to mess around with templates as it doesn't look good right now. Famous Hobo (talk) 19:57, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
I would say that seven lines is too long as it's a significant part of the original song. The point could be made by the first four lines which would be more suitable. Likewise, the audio clip "In the Aeroplane Over the Sea" could be trimmed as the point in the fair use claim is readily apparent from the first ten seconds, and the "Purpose of use" part of fair use rationale should be expanded. (t · c) buidhe 20:07, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
  • File:In the aeroplane over the sea album cover copy.jpg fair use would be stronger if moved to the part of the article where the cover is discussed.
  • Other media is free. (t · c) buidhe 10:03, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

"Frank's importance to the lyrics is the subject of debate however" is excessively vague. (t · c) buidhe 10:03, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

@Buidhe: I believe I have addressed the first and third issues you brought up. I am confused about what you mean regarding the In the aeroplane over the sea album cover copy.jpg. Do you want me to move the image from the infobox down to the artwork section? Or keep the image in the infobox and duplicate the image in the artwork section? Famous Hobo (talk) 18:07, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
Yes, it would be better for the cover to be moved to the part of the article where it is discussed in text. NFCC doesn't allow multiple copies of a non-free image on the page. (t · c) buidhe 22:37, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
@Buidhe: Unfortunately I don't think I should do that. It's common practice that every album article that has an album cover should put the album cover in the infobox. If you look at any of the featured articles under the albums section, you'll see that every article puts the album cover in the infobox. Famous Hobo (talk) 01:03, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Comments by Aoba47[edit]

  • This part, "Robert Schneider worked with Mangum", is the first time Jeff Mangum is mentioned in the lead so I would use his full name and clarify his relationship with Neutral Milk Hotel.
  • I am uncertain about the "unique" word choice in this part: "he developed a unique recording technique that involved heavy compression". I understand why it is used, but I could also see someone viewing it as a peacock term. I would remove it as the sentence already points out that he developed this technique.
  • Link Neutral Milk Hotel the first time the band is mentioned in the body of the article.
  • In the lead, I would add the year that On Avery Island was originally released to the prose.
  • In this sentence, (The single brought enough exposure to convince Mangum to record more material under this name.), I would say "music" rather than "material". I have received notes in my past FAC/GAN reviews to avoid using the word "material" in this context as it is unnecessarily vague.
  • Lo-fi music is linked twice in the body of the article. AllMusic and Entertainment Weekly is also linked twice.
  • A link for acid trip may be helpful.
  • For this sentence, "Love is another prominent lyrical theme, although the concept of love takes on different forms.", I would just say "the concept" as I do not think the repetition of love twice in the same sentence is necessary.
  • There is a slight repetition in these two parts "To give the disparate drawings a cohesive look, Bilheimer" and "To add onto this effect, Bilheimer splashed" since they both use a "to..." sentence structure and start with Bilheimer.
  • For this part, "In 2003 Creative Loafing writer", there should be a comma after "2003".
  • I have always been told to only use audio samples in album articles if they represent the album's overall sound. I would adjust the audio sample's caption to better convey how this audio sample does this.
I believe the new description does a good job at describing the album's overall sound.
  • I think this is much better. Thank you for revising it. Aoba47 (talk) 18:47, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Does Winkie explain how the album was the subject of revisionist history? It is not uncommon for albums to get a more positive reception years later, and revisionist history makes me think that critics either put out a false impression the album was better received upon release or something else.
I've seen some articles say that In the Aeroplane Over the Sea was a critical success immediately, but I can't find them right now. Instead I rephrased it.
  • That's actually what I thought when I rad the sentence, but since a source does not explicitly cover them, then I agree with the decision to rephrase this part. If you do find those articles again, feel free to add this part back in of course. Aoba47 (talk) 18:47, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Should Ferris Wheel on Fire be mentioned in the "Mangum's disappearance from the public eye" section as he did release more music with the band?
I don't believe so. The music from Ferris Wheel on Fire had already been recorded by the time the band broke up, so Mangum didn't work on it after his disappearance.
  • That makes sense to me. Thank you for the explanation, and I agree with you. Aoba47 (talk) 18:47, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
  • For this sentence, (Although Mangum was expecting a lot out of the newly expanded band, many outsiders noted how caring and nurturing Mangum was toward everyone involved.), I would replace the second instance of "Mangum" with "he" to avoid the repetition. Aoba47 (talk) 18:10, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
@Aoba47: Working on this. Also, what do you think of the quote box in the lyrics section? A reviewer suggested it would work as opposed to an audio sample. Famous Hobo (talk) 23:52, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
  • The quote box seems fine to me. I agree that it is better than an audio samples, as I have primarily seen audio samples used to convey information on a song's sound/composition not the lyrics. Since the lyrics are so bizarre, I would think including them is helpful to giving the reader a better feel for the album's content. Aoba47 (talk) 03:20, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
@Aoba47: Alright, I believe I have addressed your comments. I left individual notes for the comments that were of particular note. Famous Hobo (talk) 05:50, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for addressing everything. I'll look through the article again in the next day or two to make sure that I did not miss anything. Aoba47 (talk) 19:01, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

I support this for promotion. I will let another editor cover the source review, but all of the sources are reliable and high-quality for a featured article. Aoba47 (talk) 16:28, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Coord note[edit]

I'm adding this to the urgents list to hopefully get a few more reviews, and also to the source review list. --Ealdgyth (talk) 14:55, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Page ranges should consistently use pp. and endashes
  • What makes Dickinson a high-quality reliable source? Grantland? Tiny Mix Tapes?
  • The Smith link does provide a publication date. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:49, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Iwan Roberts[edit]

Nominator(s): Dweller (talk), The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 14:18, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Something of a journeyman Welsh footballer, and certainly held in high esteem, nay legend status, by Norwich City supporters, the push on this article has been a joint effort between the two nominators, one of whom is not a Norwich supporter so was able to introduce some balance. It's been a long time in the making, we first started expansion around nine years ago, but we're hoping to finish the job properly and push it over the FAC line. Both Dweller and I will do our utmost to address every comment and query raised here, and we both thank you in advance for your time and effort. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 14:18, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Support by Kosack[edit]

This is what stood out to me on a run through, nothing much for me to really complain about. Kosack (talk) 08:16, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you so much, Kosack. We'll get stuck into that. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 08:34, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
Yes, cheers Kosack. I've done the easy ones and left a few scraps for Dweller so he feels like he's still involved..... The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 09:16, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Kosack, I'm sorry it's taken so long to get back to you, I'm very busy IRL. All your comments should now be addressed. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:27, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

No worries, real life takes precedence. I've had another read through and picked out a few more things:
  • Link Liverpool in the early life section.
    Done. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 13:54, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Tom Walley is linked in the quote in the Norwich section but is mentioned before this, in the early life section.
    Done. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 13:54, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
  • I'd agree that the Watford section feels a little light. The club suffered relegation in a season he featured pretty prominently in, but his appearances dropped dramatically in the second tier. Even if we can't provide too much context, these are probably worth mentioning.
    I've added some more detail into the Watford section now if you'd like to check that it meets with your approval? The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 18:49, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
  • The Huddersfield section mentions his side suffered a defeat in the 1991-92 season play-offs, but the career statistics table indicates a promotion (Third Division (3) > Second Division (2))? I'm assuming the table is wrong for the Premier League breakaway?
    Yes, error in table tier due to Prem break. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 13:54, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Leciester > Leicester
    Done. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 13:54, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Was Roberts one of the substitutes brought on in the Midlands derby?
    No. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 13:54, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
  • with eleven goals > 11 goals?
    Done. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 13:54, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
  • "Roberts scored just four goals in most of a season", I'm not really understanding what's meant by this sentence.
    Reworded. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 13:54, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
  • "During the 2002–03 season, Roberts captained the Norwich City team", this paragraph goes back to including City in Norwich's name. Is that necessary by this point?
    Done. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 13:54, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
  • "Roberts scored twice as City won 3–1.[54] Roberts described..." Double use of Roberts in quick succession is a little repetitive.
    Done. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 13:54, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
  • "He failed to be selected for Wales again until 2000", failed to be selected sounds a little odd and reads a little like it was down to him playing badly. What about "He was not selected"?
    Done. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 13:54, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
  • "including a single appearance and a goal for the Wales B team" is the second "a" necessary here?
    I changed it to "one" goal. I think it reads ok. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 13:54, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
  • "Roberts scored 24 goals and Bellamy 17", I'm assuming this is a typo as the career statistics table has his best season for Norwich as 23 goals?
    Dweller need you to check the book. Probably Iwan mis-remembering. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 13:54, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
    I can confirm the book says 24. Could be one is disputed. Could be he got it wrong. Could be our other sources are wrong. I'm not sure what to add. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 16:13, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
  • "fellow Welsh former International legend Danny Gabbidon", legend?
    Done. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 13:54, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

That's probably about it for me. Kosack (talk) 09:18, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Kosack I got to your list, only two things remain, (1) Watford career - we're both still a bit perplexed, there was very little to write home about his time at Watford, is there anything critical missing? (2) Iwan's version of how many goals he thinks he scored, Dweller will need to check the book. Cheers for all your comments! The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 13:54, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
I've checked point 2 and posted about it above. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 16:13, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
Kosack and I've done point (1) with a little bit of helpful guidance from HornetMike on things that could be included. I think that's everything, please let me and Dweller know if there's anything else you'd like us to address. Cheers for all your helpful comments. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 18:49, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
That's it from me, happy to lend my support. Nice work both. Kosack (talk) 07:53, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Comments by HornetMike[edit]

  • It's definitely lore among Watford fans that Roberts lost his teeth at Vicarage Road. Sadly I can't find a cite! It's not even mentioned in this interview which you thought might have addressed it (might have a bit of useful Watford stuff - Colin Lee? Although is that also mentioned in his book?).
    Teeth added. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 14:15, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
  • In the Watford section there's a full-stop that goes straight into what looks like the second half of a sentence ("before moving...").
    Fixed. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 10:53, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure whether Midlands should be capped in "midlands derby" - the article about it on here caps it up.
    I'll fix that, thanks. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:05, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Is there a way you could combine the things Wolves fans spat at so you don't get repetition of the phrase within a sentence? Also maybe worth mentioning who Jack Hayward was?
     Done --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 21:01, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure what's going on with the paragraph that begins "He played eight games in Division One before finally breaking his league duck ..." - the first few sentences don't make much sense to me.
    Yeah, it's a direct quote but I would be tempted to re-write it into prose because it's mainly a statement of statistical facts, and perhaps only quote the "good heart" bit, what do you think Dweller? The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 11:55, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
    Phoo yuck, I really didn't do a good job there. I've tidied it up and hopefully it's far better for it, thank you. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 21:07, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
  • I would lose the quote about "the flourishing talent" of Craig Bellamy as it's unclear where it comes from. You could say he was 19-years-old (he's a July birthday, so was for all that season) to denote he was youthful.
    I've attributed the quote. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 12:05, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
  • I'd say "first four years" rather than "four years so far".
    Adjusted per your recommendation. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 10:56, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
  • "but misses by Phil Mulryne and Daryl Sutch proved costly" - given it was a penalty shoot-out they were immediately costly, I think "proved costly" better suits a scenario where a miss might be of no consequence (and possibly occurred some time prior to the conclusion), whereas in a shoot-out a miss almost always hurts you.
    Mild re-wording done. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 10:58, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Did Roberts formally give up the captaincy after 2002-03 or did he just gradually lose it by virtue of not playing much? If the former might be worth mentioning?
    I don't know of anyone who "formally" gives up being captain. Unless they do something particularly stupid. Perhaps Dweller has something on this, but I would just class it as business as usual to give the captaincy to the most appropriate person at the time. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 18:52, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
    I don't know. I've not seen anything in the sources. IIRC (which I may not!) in those days, the captaincy of NCFC was fairly informal, not like the ridiculous situation these days when Norwich have an official fifth captain or something similarly stupid. It's not like cricket captaincy that's actually important. Anyway, rant aside, I don't know of RS on this I'm afraid. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 08:27, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
  • In 2003-04 it says Roberts was no longer an automatic selection for the first-team, but then I noticed he only missed five league matches. Did he make most of his appearances from the bench? If so, would it be worth articulating that?
    Indeed, 2/3 of his appearances came in the last 20 minutes or so... The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 14:15, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
    I added some text around that. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 18:52, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Do we know how long he served as Gillingham caretaker manager/what the results were like?
    List of Gillingham F.C. managers (I know, not RS) says one game. Which they lost. The source in the article only mentions one game. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 14:04, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Is it worth mentioning the following: Graham Taylor's departure in 1987 (given he's mentioned as a reason for joining Watford), his breakthrough season in 1988-89 when Watford reached the second tier play-offs (so I suppose you'd have to mention in passing our relegation the previous year too!), that he dropped a division to join Huddersfield, that he moved up a tier when joining Leicester, that in moving to Wolves he missed out on a return to the Premier League, that he reached the play-offs with Wolves, maybe that he remained in the same tier in moving to Norwich/Gillingham/dropped two tiers when joining Cambridge (but I wouldn't want the prose to become too clunky).
    Expanded the Watford section... The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 14:54, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Similarly, any point in putting footnotes in the season stats to clarify that the Second Division became the First Division which became the Championship/the Third Division became the Second.
    No I think now we have the level in the table in parentheses, we don't need to try to cover the nuances of league nomenclature in this (and thus possibly tens of thousands of) BLPs. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 17:15, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
  • The prose switches between saying Premier League and Premiership, while the stats table uses the former. I think whenever he played in it, it was called the Premiership?
    Prose (other than direct quotations) uses Premiership now. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 12:08, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure what I think about the book section. Had it been published post-retirement I'd say it should be sub-section of his post-playing career, but it wasn't so I can see why you've felt the need to have it as a headline section. I don't really think it justifies a mention in the lead, but then I can see why you might feel it does given it has its own section. I suppose an alternative might be calling the post-playing section "media and post-playing career"? If you do keep a main book section, I think it would better titled as simply "autobiography", the praise is fairly standard review stuff and it may be semantics but I always think you need to hit a higher bar to cause "a controversy" (as opposed to something containing controversial comments) - hope that (and the rest of it) makes sense! HornetMike (talk) 08:54, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
    Yes, I dithered a bit about the placement of the section. It did attract headlines because of the ban and its perceived unfairness, both on Gillingham and in contrast to the treatment of more feted footballers. Agree about retitling the section, but it's not actually an "autobiography": although it includes significant autobiographical detail, it does so in the framework of a season diary, which is why we've found awkward gaps [pun intended]. I think I'll have to change it to the book's title. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:31, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
HornetMike I think we've addressed and/or responded to all of your comments above. Thanks once again for your very helpful and constructive review. Let us know if there's anything else you find. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 17:01, 30 July 2020 (UTC) (and Dweller)

Comments by Oldelpaso[edit]

Hello guys, its been a while. Lets see if I can remember how this place works.

  • Would expect to see his international career addressed in the lead.
    Added a sentence. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 23:41, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Losing his teeth - presumably occurred playing football?
  • Roberts went up and down divisions a few times in his career, and its not always clear what level he was playing at. For example his Watford debut was in the top flight, moving to Huddersfield was a step down to play more.
    That's a great comment. The Rambling Man, what do you think of adding a column in the table in the Legacy and career statistics section, that states what tier of English football each season was at that time? It's confusing even for English football cognoscenti, must be a minefield for anyone else. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 21:37, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
    I didn't add a column, but I added some information in parentheses in the table and a sectional footnote. Is that enough m'lord? The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 21:53, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
    I like it. What do you think, Oldelpaso? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 22:04, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
  • The section about Wales is a bit disjointed, perhaps because his international career itself was. It'd be good to have some passages that put it into context. Was there a run of form that prompted call-ups? Injuries to regulars?
    I'm not sure I'd call it disjointed, indeed if it was scattered through the domestic career it would be a nightmare to follow. I'll have a look to see if there's anything in the contemporaneous press about his form/selection. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 12:10, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Playing style is always bound by what's in the sources for a journeyman. That said, there's a reference to him being part of a "big man, litte man" partnership, but the only place his height is mentioned is the infobox. Oldelpaso (talk) 12:51, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
    Height is mentioned in the prose now, as part of another reviewer's comments to alleviate the use of citations in the infobox. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 12:10, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Support from Girth Summit[edit]

Sports articles are not my usual bag, so some of my comments below might well be out of step with our norms - feel free to disregard any that are tosh.

That's it from an initial read-through. GirthSummit (blether) 11:07, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Girth Summit I think we've covered your comments, could you let us know? Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 13:55, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
The Rambling Man Looking good. One more thought - do you think we should distance ourselves a bit further from Roberts's description of Wolves fans, perhaps with the insertion of a 'what he describes as' before the stuff about their arrogant etc behaviour? I realise we start the sentence with an attribution, but since the comments are so strong I wonder if we should be extra careful in our wording? I'll leave that to your discretion, I'm happy to support this for FA. GirthSummit (blether) 14:07, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
Girth Summit Thanks, I'll talk it over with Dweller as I share your concerns on that one quote. Would you be able to change your section heading to say support if possible? Cheers, The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 17:19, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
Yep, done. GirthSummit (blether) 18:17, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Support by Lee Vilenski[edit]

I may end up claiming points towards the wikicup. Hope you don't mind! :P

Of course! The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 11:04, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

I'll take a look at this article, and give some comments on how it meets the FA criteria in a little while. If you fancy doing some QPQ, I have a list of items that can be looked at here. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 20:03, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Not 100% familiar with BLPs at FAC, but I'd assume it's pretty much the same as the regular BLP policies, so if I see anything I'll bring it up. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 20:16, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
Lee Vilenski I believe we've addressed and/or responded to all of your comments. Thanks for your review! Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 17:17, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
I think so, I'm happy here, unless someone drags up something major I've missed. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 18:37, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Sleepless (comics)[edit]

Nominator(s): Argento Surfer (talk) 12:59, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

This article is about a fantasy romance comic released by Image Comics a few years ago. The story features a princess, a magical knight, and a conspiracy to replace the throne with democracy. The article was promoted to GA last October and has been stable since then. After some tweaks today and a search for new sources/commentary, I'm confident the article is as complete as it can be. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:59, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Image review
  • Pass acceptable use of a non-free image (t · c) buidhe 00:01, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • What makes Rogues Portal a high-quality reliable source? Smash Pages? Comicosity? Multiversity? Black Nerd Problems? ComicBook Round Up? Adventures in Poor Taste? Comic Bastards? Nerdspan?
  • Link in FN4 is a redirect
  • Barnes & Noble is a publisher, not a work. Ditto Image Comics, check for others. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:37, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47[edit]

  • I'd link colorist and letterer the first time they are mentioned in the lead. I am not familiar with comic books at all so I was slightly confused when I first saw these words.
  • I would add ALT text to the infobox image.
  • For the lead's second paragraph, I would combine the first sentences into something like the following: (Set in a medieval kingdom, the fantasy story is about Lady "Poppy" Pyppenia the illegitimate daughter of the king, who died just prior to the opening scene.) The current structure reads a little choppy to me.
  • I would say "before the opening scene" rather than "just prior to the opening scene" to be somewhat more concise.
  • I would link "fantasy" to the fantasy literature article on its first mention in the lead and the body of the article and in the infobox. It may seem obvious, but I think it would be useful for unfamiliar readers (similar to how science fiction is linked in the article for The Left Hand of Darkness).
  • I am not entirely sure what this phrase, "try to find their role", is referencing.
  • I am a little confused with the lead's second paragraph. Only Poppy and Cyrenic are named, while the other characters are referenced by titles (i.e. "the king" "the new king's daughter and nephew", "the mastermind). Is there a reason for it? Also, for this part, (the mastermind behind the assassination plot), it seemed weird to not directly identify the villain.
  • For this part, (Vaughn sent del Duca a short list of story pitches from which to choose), I do not think "from which to choose" is necessary as it can be assumed from the context of the sentence.
  • The "Development" subsection uses the word "idea" three times, with two of these instances being in back-to-back sentences, and since the subsection is so short, it comes across as repetitive. I would change at least one of the back-to-back ones.

These are my notes for the lead and the development subsection. I'll wait until the source review is completed as it would be better to get the sources cleared before getting into anything with the prose. Aoba47 (talk) 20:17, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

I believe I've addressed most of these. In the second paragraph, I went with titles over names because I thought it would be cumbersome to specify everyone's name and title. I can craft a version with names if you think it would be better. I didn't identify the villain by name because right up until the reveal, he's a very minor character. The summary is a bit deceptive because it reads like he has a big role, but he's really only present in the last chapter. Thanks for taking a look. Argento Surfer (talk) 21:07, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for clarification. I can see your point about the names being cumbersome. I will think on it further, and hopefully other editors/reviewers will look at it too. Aoba47 (talk) 21:24, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Yugoslav destroyer Beograd[edit]

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:07, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Beograd was the lead ship of her class of destroyers built for the Royal Yugoslav Navy in the late 1930s. During WWII, she saw action under the Yugoslav, Italian then German flags. This article went through Milhist ACR in 2017, and I have recently smartened it up in preparation for a run at FAC. This article is part of a Good Topic I am slowly moving towards Featured. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:07, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

SR + IR by Buidhe[edit]

Image review—pass

Only image is freely licensed. (t · c) buidhe 03:22, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:54, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
Source review—pass

Most of the sources are what you would expect to see on similar article. Voennyi Sbornik is a very sketchy journal (quite possibly predatory) but if the author has similar publications in legitimate outlets it can be allowed per SPS.

Yes, Freivogel has been widely published on naval matters in Jane's Fighting Ships, Weyers Flottentaschenbuch and Combat Fleets of the World among other reliable publications. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:07, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
  • No source checks done. (t · c) buidhe 04:35, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for taking a look, buidhe!

Comments by CPA-5[edit]

  • Per MOS:LEAD both the "Background" and the "Description and construction" sections are not included in the lead.
  • Italy and the Aegean and North Africa North Africa is too common to link.
  • increasing to 1,655 tonnes (1,629 long tons) at full load --> "increasing to 1,655 t (1,629 long tons) at full load"
  • bridgehead being established at Zara, an Italian enclave Pipe Italian to the Kingdom of Italy.
  • Link Dalmatian.
  • six motor torpedo boats were dispatched to Šibenik What's Šibenik?
  • She was commissioned in the Royal Italian Navy (Italian: Regia Marina) Italian is too common to link.
  • between Italy and the Aegean and North Africa Unlink North Africa.
  • in September 1943, the German Navy (German: Kriegsmarine) Like above German is too common to link.
  • According to Roger Chesneau, she was sunk at Trieste What's Trieste?
  • by Yugoslav Army artillery fire on 30 April 1945 Mention here that they weren't the royalists but were the communists. Officially Yugoslav Army was the in-exile-government in the UK.
  • Her standard displacement was 1,210 tonnes (1,190 long tons), increasing to 1,655 tonnes (1,629 long tons) at full load Link both standard and full load.
  • "1,210 t (1,190 long tons) (standard)" Link both tons and standard and full load bellow too.
  • Anti-aircraft guns in the body vs AA in the infobox. I know they're the same but you didn't mention that AA the abbreviated is of anti-aircraft.
  • "Bundesarchiv Bild 101I-185-0116-22A, Bucht von Kotor (-), jugoslawische Schiffe.jpg" When was this?
  • she was damaged by a near miss during an air attack --> "she was damaged by a near-miss during an air attack"?
  • Oh really? I have searched for the noun and it looks like by Ngram a lesser known term.
  • Despite the fact that three large destroyers were not going to be built --> "Although three large destroyers were not going to be built"
  • idea that Dubrovnik might operate with a number of smaller destroyers persisted --> "idea that Dubrovnik might operate with several smaller destroyers persisted"?

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 08:59, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look, CPA-5. All done I think. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:24, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Hey PM. all look good except for the lead. Personally I do not prefer adding a background in the body nor lead in warships' articles. But if it's in the article then we should also use it in the lead. An example of things that should be included in the lead are: was she and her class part of a modernisation plan (programme), strengthen the Navy or did Yougoslavia made (and/or buy) ships to protect itself for a future invasion by someone? Or was it because the new kingdom had no ships so it decided to make a navy and her class is part of the programme? The lead itself says "during the late 1930s, designed to be deployed as part of a division led by the flotilla leader Dubrovnik", does this mean her class was the reaction of the expansions by Italy and Germany before or even in the early stages of WWII and was part of the defence plan? Another comment here is to link WWII. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 11:59, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
  • G'day CPA-5. There is no standard structure for a ship article, I've used several different structures in FAs, as have Parsecboy and Sturm, tailored to the individual ship. Personally I don't think a ship article is complete without some Background, I think there is necessarily some repetition of what is in the class article to place the ship in its context. Others disagree, but there is no consensus as such. We can only include in the lead a summary of what is in the body. The main characteristics (main guns and speed) are often included in the lead of warship articles (Parsecboy does it, for example), and I've included the most important aspect of the background, which is the purpose for which the class was built (to work alongside Dubrovnik). That meets your suggestion that the lead needed to reflect the contents of those sections. None of the sources specify what threat the Yugoslav navy was considering at the time the class was built (otherwise I would have included it in the Background), although presumably given the contested nature of the Adriatic, they were built as a bulwark against Italian hegemony there. Realistically though, the Yugoslav navy was entirely defensive given the size of the Italian fleet. WWII added to body. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:23, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Support from Gog the Mild[edit]

Nb, it is my intention to use this review to claim points in the WikiCup.

For what it is worth, I have no issues with the choice and order of section headers; and it does not concern me that it is different from those adopted in some other warship articles.

  • It may just be me, but the opening sentence reads much more smoothly with a comma after "destroyers".
  • "Re-armed" means to me to be equipped with armament once again after a period of having none. Do you not want 'up-armed', or a more felicitous variant thereof?
Good points, these done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:55, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
  • "which gave her a range of 1,000 nautical miles" Is it known at what speed?
No, the sources don't say, which is mildly annoying. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:55, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
  • "Yugoslavia's gold reserve, 7,344 ingots". Is it known what weight the ingots were? 12.4 kg?
Not in sources, I checked some other possible refs, but no dice on the ingot or total weight. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:55, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
  • "and 20 mm (0.79 in) L/65 Breda Model 35 guns were added to her armament" Is it known how many?
Not in sources. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:55, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
  • "in order to augment her anti-aircraft armament". Do they mention with what?
Tweaked this. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:55, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Should Preston et al not have an ISBN? (978-1844860036).
Very remiss of me, added. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:55, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Gog the Mild (talk) 21:50, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

All done, I reckon, Gog.

Well up to your usual standards. A nice, readable little article. Supporting. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:05, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt[edit]

Very readable. Just a few things.

  • " completing over 100 convoy escort missions in the Mediterranean under the name Sebenico, mainly as a convoy escort on routes" can we merge the "convoy escort"s?
  • "The endurance requirement reflected Yugoslav plans to deploy the ships to the central Mediterranean, where they would be able to operate alongside French and British warships." This strikes me as a bit obscure. Does "operate alongside" imply cooperation or combat?
  • "Although three large destroyers were not going to be built, the idea that Dubrovnik might operate with several smaller destroyers persisted. In 1934, the KM decided to acquire three such destroyers to operate in a division led by Dubrovnik.[3]" I might change "such" to "smaller".
  • "with a large part of Yugoslavia's gold reserve, 7,344 ingots," that's a fairly meaningless figure as an ingot can be of any size.
  • ". According to Roger Chesneau, she was sunk at the port of Trieste by Yugoslav People's Army artillery fire on 30 April 1945, and was raised in June 1946, probably to remove her as a navigation hazard, only to be scuttled a month later.[22] " I might cut the "only", after all, if she is only being raised so she will not be a hazard, it is not surprising that she would be scuttled or scrapped (I'd also remove the parallel language in the lede).
That's it.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:19, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
All done(ish), thanks Wehwalt! Annoyingly, several sources mention the gold transfer but don't specify the size of the ingots. Thanks for taking a look! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:27, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
Good enough. Support.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:12, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Coord note[edit]

@CPA-5: How are things looking from your end? Have your concerns been dealt with? --Ealdgyth (talk) 14:52, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Battle of Cape Hermaeum[edit]

Nominator(s): Gog the Mild (talk) 12:09, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

When I nominated Battle of the Aegates I wrote "the third and final installment of my trio of naval battles from the First Punic War". I was wrong. Missing was this, the Carthaginian's worst naval defeat of the 23-year-long war; which was swiftly followed by the Roman's worst disaster of the war - a storm sank most of their fleet, killing over 100,000. Strangely, the sources are thin, but I believe that there is enough to make it FA-worthy. I have written it from scratch, so its no doubt many blemishes are all down to me. See what you think. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:09, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Comments Support from Harrias[edit]

  • "What, if any, the Roman losses.." Sounds wrong to me.
That's PAW Patrol, not me. Nope, I'm really not seeing any problem. But there must be other ways to phrase it. How would 'It is not known what the Roman losses were ...' suit you?
  • "The modern galley expert John Coates.." This is probably something over nothing, but I was momentarily thrown about whether he was a modern galley expert or a modern galley expert. It could possibly be rephrased "John Coates, a modern expert on galleys, ..", but that might not be an improvement.
You are correct. ;-) I have tweaked it to "The modern expert on galleys John Coates"
It is indeed. You can tell, 'cus it is linked at first mention. :-)
  • The lang template for "Ras ed-Dar" should use "ar-latn" rather than just "ar".
Ah. Makes sense. Done. Cheers.
@Gog the Mild: you mean Ah-latn :) ——Serial # 12:15, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
Shouldn't you be busy with your next FA nom? Gog the Mild (talk) 12:24, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
@Gog the Mild: You mean, after my current one is archived having been near-trolled back to 1937?! I might be giving it a break for a while, as it goes. Maybe visit Barnard castle, see wot all the fuss is about :) ——Serial # 12:49, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
Anything I could do to assist the miscreant duke? Last time I looked it seemed that the thing it didn't need was more opinions. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:16, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
Ah. Well; if you've got a masochistic itch to scratch, Gog, you won't find better ): do us a favour, could you do so? But don't feel pressured to say anything you don't want to. But a pair of neutral eyes, at this stage, could probably achieve more than I could. Incidentally, I'm sorry for hijacking Harrias's review: add an L4 section header if you want. I could resist the Ah-latn though! ——Serial # 13:30, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
  • "Polybius is critical of what he considers the poor judgement and seamanship displayed immediately prior to the storm." This raises more questions than answers for me: is there anything more about what that poor judgement and seamanship was? They had just defeated the Carthaginians in a naval battle, the seamanship couldn't have been that poor?
*OR alert* It (almost certainly) wasn't. Which is why the next sentence includes "the subsequent tragedy was regarded as due to natural causes rather than to bad seamanship". You could found an entire department on explaining Polybius' point. There is really no end to it - one reason why I haven't gone there. See, the sea itself turned on the victorious Roman fleet and destroyed it. To the Romans these things didn't just happen - someone or something had to have angered the gods. Or, if you were a rational Greek, there had to be a hubristic human failing. Entire fleets don't sink for no reason, surely. Except even the incorrigibly religious/superstitious Romans didn't seem to buy that at the time. And perhaps Polybius expected the more worldly of his audience to nod knowingly at his fudging of the religious/philosophical implications. Und so weiter.
Just to complicate things, years later (still in the 1PW) a Roman consul lost 120 warships and 800 transports at the Battle of Phintias. Driven ashore by bad weather due to disregarding expert advice says Polybius; outfought by the Carthaginians says another source.
I really didn't feel that I could skip Polybius' opinion, but I have come as close as I dare to pointing out that the view of the consensus of Rome's military experts of the day was "Just one of those things old boy, could have happened to anyone".

That's it on a first pass; somewhat distracted by kids and PAW Patrol at the moment; will need to give it another read through later. Harrias talk 14:43, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Harrias for disturbing your domestic tranquility to delve into this. Your points addressed above. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:27, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
Hi Harrias, is there any more to come? Gog the Mild (talk) 19:06, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
Oh, sorry, I forgot I hadn't come back to this. I tend to be quieter Fri-Sun, but I'll have another look over as soon as I can. I can't see there being anything major, I did read through the entire thing before. Harrias talk 19:26, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
@Harrias: No rush. I suspected that it might have fallen down the back of your "to do" list - happens to me too. It was just a gentle nudge. What you think of the cricket? Gog the Mild (talk) 19:33, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Further comments

  • I'm not a fan of the single sentence paragraph that now closes out the lead. It feels like it has just been tacked on. I'm sure that with a little finesse, it could flow nicely on from the previous paragraph, either as part of that paragraph, or with a bit more context in a third paragraph.
  • Why do the Roman commanders' first names get omitted in the infobox?
The result of a discussion with T8612 in a previous FAC where it was agreed that infoboxes looked less crowded if, sometimes, Roman names were shortened. (RL calls - more to follow on this.) Apologies for the hiatus. So we agreed here that praenomina could be left out in infoboxes. I consider it similar to leaving out a more modern person's middle name or initial. Personally I would be happy to put them back in in this case.
I'm not fussed, it just seems a bit odd, and stands out in this case particularly, as they are red links. Whatever. Harrias talk 13:42, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Following on from above, could "What, if any, the Roman losses were is not known.." be changed to something like "What losses, if any, the Romans suffered is not known.."? To me, that sounds a far more natural construction.
You are right. But I have changed to " What losses the Romans suffered, if any, is not known", which seems even better.
  • I know that this has been in every single one, and I've never questioned it before, but is "His works include a now-lost manual on military tactics.." actually relevant to this article? I assume it is to establish his credentials for discussing military matters, but given the detail gone into in the second paragraph, it doesn't seem necessary. All that said, I'm not going to kick up a fuss about it either way.
It is; I can't find a source which says that if this captured commander managed t get a book published telling his captors how to fight wars he must know his stuff, but I am trying as hard as I can to let a reader draw their own conclusions. That said, I am not wedded to it, so if you really think it jars I'll take it out.
As I say, it's not a major issue. Harrias talk 13:42, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
  • I don't know whether I make these into an issue that they are not, but "..probably made it inevitable that it would eventually clash with Carthage over Sicily on some pretext." seems to me to be a POV statement that requires inline attribution.
Ah, that was me and T8612 again, but you have a reasonable point. I have softened it up, made it more immediate, and attributed it. See what you think. If you like it but T8612 doesn't, we can thrash out some suitable wording here.
  • I do wonder if the Invasion of Africa section is maybe a little over-detailed and long, throwing the balance of the article off a little. Also contributing to this is the shortness of the Aftermath section. The Battle of Panormus tells us that the Romans "rapidly rebuilt" their fleet; how about the Carthaginians? I think some more information about the naval dominance through the rest of the war would be useful for the reader.
I kinda see what you mean about Africa. I have trimmed it a bit. Enough?
Aftermath. Well, when a military event is over, I tend to consider it over, but I can see that approach can be overdone, "some more information about the naval dominance through the rest of the war" added. That do you?

That's it from me second time around. Harrias talk 18:11, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi Harrias, thanks for that. Your points, finally, addressed; see above. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:26, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
  • SUpport I'm happy with the changes made, and that it meets the Featured criteria. In case I didn't mention, I'm playing the WikiCup game, and will claim points for this review. Harrias talk 13:42, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Image review—pass[edit]

Per my review at the ACR (t · c) buidhe 19:02, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Comments by CPA-5[edit]

  • Per MOS:LEAD the lead doesn't mention the background and aftermath sections.

Will come later back after this is solved. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 14:10, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

@CPA-5: Good to see you again :-). "a battle of the First Punic War" and "The Romans were attempting to rescue the survivors of an invasion of the Carthaginian homeland (in what is now northeastern Tunisia) that had failed with their defeat in the Battle of Tunis, while the Carthaginians were attempting to intercept them." covers the "Background". I have added a sentence to cover the two-sentence "Aftermath". Gog the Mild (talk) 14:38, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Carthaginian homeland (in what is now northeastern Tunisia) American northeastern?
  • What, if any, the Roman losses were is not known; most modern historians assume there were none. The "what" makes it a question?
No. It is allowable, honest. Eg, see these 5 mn (!!) Google hits here.
  • 290,000 crew and marines[note 4][49][45][52] vs "when it differs with any of our other accounts".[11][note 2]" First notes or should citations be first?
IMO notes. Fixed. Thanks.
  • only 16 km (10 mi) from Carthage --> "only 16 kilometres (10 mi) from Carthage"
  • I think we better can remove "of Carthage" in the Xanthippus's article's title if sources don't say that.
Feel free to do so. I rarely mess with other articles'titles. I don't even mess with my own, even when they are wrong; as with Mercenary War or Battle of the Bagradas River.
  • more than 100,000 men were lost.[61][63][71][61] Double 61 citation?
Grr. I copied instead of cutting when I put them in order. Fixed.
  • was a battle of the First Punic War fought in 255 BC between Remove the extra space.

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 17:18, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Cheers CPA-5. You are letting me off lightly. Or else I am getting better :-) . Your points all addressed above. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:26, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
Hi CPA-5, is there any more to come? Gog the Mild (talk) 19:08, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Support Comments by JennyOz[edit]

Hi Gog, finally got back to this, sorry for delay. I've been back to my original comments and all changes since... Firstly I'll deal with the older comments

No worries Jenny. I only posted this one three days ago!
  • grapple - I had asked about this because I searched "corvus grapple" and found many sources linking the two ie end of corvus was a spike/grappling hook... but also the corvus enabled grappling. No bother, pls ignore.
  • ship handling skills - hyphen was added then lost?
D'oh! Re-added.
  • This comment of mine "The Romans sent a fleet of 350 quinqueremes and - need to mention year 254 BC somewhere in this para to match map?" - since then you have amended the year 254 to 255 elsewhere... the map has "6: Romans retreat to Aspis and leave Africa. (254 BC)" but retreat was 255BC? Tweak caption date?
That is embarrassing. Corrected.
  • per same comment ... in text "Later in 355 BC the Romans sent a fleet of 350 quinqueremes and more than 300 transports to evacuate their survivors" - 355 BC should be 255?
Groan. I think that I was confusing the year with the number of ships. Clearly I need putting out to grass. Done.
  • author link for Scullard didn't happen?
That is very odd. Done.
  • author link for Peter Jones (classicist) happened but didn't work - needs a "2" (ie second author)
It does? I guess that makes sense. Done.
  • You've added to lede "... more generous than those proposed by Regulus." - add consul and pipe wlink Regulus here?
Actually, re-reading, the last bit of that sentence relates to nothing, and isn't that relevant. Shortened. What do you think?
  • ref orders (yeah, yeah... humour me) 290,000 crew and marines[note 4][49][45][52]
For you, anything.
  • more than 100,000 men were lost.[61][63][71][61] - 2 times 61
Already deleted with prejudice. I copied when I wanted to cut while ordering them.
  • Category 254 BC - 255

That's it for now, JennyOz (talk) 17:56, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Jenny, you are a star. I don't know what I would do without you. All done and, this time, checked. Awaiting the next installment. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:09, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
@JennyOz: I seem to have repeatedly messed my ping up. Fourth time lucky. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:06, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
Sorry but there is no "next installment". I reckon I'm ready and happy to add my support. JennyOz (talk) 13:41, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
PS can you pls add a </small> to your chat with SN?

Support Comments by T8612[edit]

  • "More broadly both sides wished to control Syracuse, the most powerful city-state on Sicily", can you replace this with what you wrote in Battle of the Bagradas?
  • The figure of 350 ships, as given by Polybius, has been doubted by many historians. Your citation of Goldsworthy also mentions that figures are unreliable (p. 115). Scullard supports the long-established view that the number was inflated by 100 ships, possibly by Fabius Pictor, from whom Polybius got his numbers. So, there would have been 250 Roman ships present at Hermaeum; they captured 114 ships (total 364), and lost 284 of them in the storm (=80 surviving ships). Walbank says that Fabius' number comes from the inclusion of the transport ships. Refs are Walbank, Commentary on Polybius, vol. I, pp. 82-83. Scullard, CAH, vol. 7-2, pp. 554-557. Tipps also summarises Julius Beloch's argument that Fabius deliberately increased numbers in order to impress his Greek audience. Tipps himself supports Polybius' numbers.

    I would expect to see this discussions here, because the figures you have used only represent one side of the academic debate, for which there is apparently no consensus. I would even say that Tipps' article actually challenged the consensus (that the Roman navy had 100 less ships). This discussion would also expand the Battle section, which is currently only a small portion of the entire article.

    You would have to mention the alternative numbers in the infobox and the lede too.

Very good point(s). I'll do a quick survey of the secondary sources and get back you.
I'm not seeing that from Scullard in the Cambridge Ancient History; he just gives "some 210 vessels" with no explanation of where it comes from.
DeSantis, most unusually, gives a whole chapter to this battle. He simply gives 350, with some explanation as why it is a reasonable total.
Bagnall simply gives 350.
Goldsworthy is specifically doubting the "80 survivors from 364" and not the 350 Roman warships he gives earlier.
Lazenby gives the best summary of the sources I have found, and I have no great objection to briefly summarising this, but ends up more or less supporting Polybius.
Tipps, as you say, argues strongly for 350.
Bleckmann simply gives 350.
I have not cherry picked these, they are the sources I have to hand. Hence my understanding that the strong modern consensus was for 350.
Note that a simple 250 plus 114 = 334 doesn't work because, as Lazenby and Tipps discuss, it omits the 40 galleys left in Africa.
You are seem to be suggesting that the consensus among scholars is for 250, or 210 as Scullard (who I assume is allowing for the 40 galleys at Aspis, although he doesn't say). Any chance that you could give the sources who support this, other than Walbank? Thanks. Pending this I have added a note flagging up that their is a minority view. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:04, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Walbank also tells that the "bad seamanship" given by Polybius was a criticism elaborated later. He says that the Roman navy had no choice but to go on the (dangerous) eastern route around Sicily, since the Carthaginians still held Drepana and Lilybaeum and prevented them from passing there. (vol. I, p. 96). It would fit well after "the subsequent tragedy was regarded as due to natural causes rather than to bad seamanship".
I feel that modern sources speculation as to why a particular route was chosen is getting off topic. Is Walbank arguing with Polybius from beyond the grave really worth including. I give Polybius's opinion; the implied contradiction of the triumphs; and then quote Scullard more or less saying that Polybius is talking nonsense. That seems to me a reasonable summary.

T8612 (talk) 19:33, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Working on it. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:47, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
Hi again T8612 and thanks again for your insightful comments. I have responded above and look forward to your response(s). Cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:04, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
Hi, sorry for the late answer, I was away. So I've read a bit more on this. Tipps' article summarises all the historiography on the matter since the 19th century. It apparently all started with Julius Beloch in 1886, then W. W. Tarn in 1907, De Sanctis in 1916, Johannes Hendrik Thiel in 1946 and 1954, Walbank in 1958, who also cites Tenney Frank from the 1st edition of the Cambridge Ancient History (with different numbers though), and finally Scullard in 1989. All the authors you listed apparently wrote after Tipps article in 1985. Scullard died in 1983, so he wrote his chapter for the CAH before Tipps too. Therefore, it seems that Tipps was convincing and shifted the consensus back to Polybius' numbers. I see you have added a note, but I would expand a bit in there, saying something along the line of "For most of the 20th century, many prominent historians [perhaps giving some names: such as Beloch, De Sanctis, or Walbank] doubted the numbers given by Polybius, but in 1985 G. K. Tipps published an influential article favouring Polybius' number of 350 ships. His conclusions have been generally followed since." I personally like when Wikipedia tells about historiographical shifts and I feel that the importance of Tipps' article ought to highlighted here. T8612 (talk) 19:41, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Hi again T8612, thanks for doing the research; that's pretty much how I see it too. I am also with you re including a bit of histography, but as I have a tendency to ramble on I perhaps overcompensate at times. However, now that you have "given me permission" I will get it in. (Reading the Tipps article inspired me to work on my first Punic Wars article - Battle of Ecnomus.)
My footnote has ended up as

Polybius gives the figure of 350 warships and this is accepted by most modern scholars. For most of the 20th century, prominent historians argued that this was based on an error or a miscalculation and gave figures of 210 or 250.[1][2] In 1985 the classical historian G. K. Tipps published an influential article favouring Polybius' figure, and his conclusions have been generally followed since.[3]

I couldn't see a way to get names into the "most of the 20th C" bit without making it clunky. What do you think? Gog the Mild (talk) 20:37, 27 July 2020 (UTC)


  1. ^ Scullard 2006, p. 557.
  2. ^ Walbank 1990, pp. 82–83.
  3. ^ Tipps 1985, pp. 432–465.
I wouldn't add the refs to Scullard and Walbank there as they are all listed in Tipps' article. I've tried this: The figure of 350 warships comes from Polybius. However, for most of the 20th century prominent historians—such as Karl Julius Beloch, Gaetano De Sanctis, and F. W. Walbank—argued for lower figures of 210 or 250, saying that Polybius' figure was based on an error, a miscalculation, or even Roman propaganda. In 1985 the classical historian G. K. Tipps published an influential article favouring Polybius' figure, and his conclusions have been generally followed since by modern scholars.[Tipps' ref]. Do as you like, I think it's good either way. T8612 (talk) 21:22, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
@T8612: Yes, I like it. I have gone with a slightly tweaked version of your suggestion. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:43, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Me butting in again; normally in my experience, "classical historian" is used to mean a historian from the classical period, such as Polybius. Referring to Tipps as a "classical historian", meaning a modern historian who writes about the classical period is (to me at least) a little confusing. Harrias talk 21:59, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Harrias: That's what you're supposed to do :-) . Point taken. Changed to plain "historian". Gog the Mild (talk) 22:03, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi T8612: I wonder if you feel ready to either support or oppose yet, or if you have any further comments or queries. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:14, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

  • I'll make new comments tomorrow. T8612 (talk) 02:07, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
  • On the consuls' triumph, the exact dates are 13 (Fulvius) and 12 (Paullus) ante diem 1 February 254. John Briscoe (Commentary on Livy, books 41-45, p. 221). The Romans counted days backwards from the beginning of the next month. Since January had 29 days before the introduction of Julian Calendar, it means the dates are 16 and 17 January (Fulvius and Paullus respectively). Not sure it counts as original research because Briscoe only gives the Roman dates though.
Great. Thank you. I have ducked the OR issue by just referring to January, with which I feel we are safe enough.
  • After the part on the consuls' triumph, or perhaps in the aftermath section, you can add that Paullus built on the Capitol Hill a column celebrating his victory (mentioned by Livy). John Briscoe (ibid., p. 221) says that Paullus wanted to imitate Gaius Duilius who built a column with public money after his triumph (Paullus used his own money though). He adorned it with captured Punic prows. Paullus' column was destroyed by lightning in 172 BC.
  • You have the portion of the Fasti Triumphales that mentions their triumph here (I think this picture can be used in other articles on the First Punic War as all the triumphs there are dated 263-241; the first line mentions the triumph of Valerius Messalla, the last line tells about Lutatius' triumph). If you want I can do something like that to highlight their names on the stone.
I think that the main picture is too big for this article, where the triumphs are a bit peripheral. But if you could cut an extract down to four lines or so and highlight the two consuls' names that would be excellent.

T8612 (talk) 00:54, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks T8612, responded to. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:15, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
I tried to reduce the picture of triumphs to the two names here, but the quality of the image is not good and the names are a bit blurry as a result, so I won't add it. I still think that this picture could be used for the articles on the Punic Wars. Anyway, supporting now. T8612 (talk) 19:20, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Source review—pass[edit]

  • Sources all look acceptable to me.
  • It would be preferable to harmonize the use of Google Books links. Personally, I don't think they are helpful unless they link to a specific section or page where information can be verified.
All removed.
  • Checked Tusa & Royal 2012. The only relevant content that I could find on page 14 sort of supported "secured with bronze spikes", but not any of the other content (which is in the other source.) It would be preferable to move the citations to make clear which content is supported by which source.
  • Furthermore, the sources are only discussing one set of archaeological finds. Perhaps this should be attributed further as it's not clear to me that the sources are fully generalizing as you do here.
I have added "All of the rams recovered by modern archeologists" to the start of the sentence.
  • The image captioned "Romans land and capture Aspis..." breaks the next section heading. So does "Territory controlled by Rome and Carthage".
True. Is there some issue with this?
  • The article seems unbalanced since only 3 body paragraphs actually deal with the battle.
Very true. The primary material on the battle as such is very thin, despite it being Carthage's worst maritime defeat of the war and the storm which followed destroying more Roman ships than any other event of the war. So much so that despite this war being well picked over by Wikipedia editors that I was able to create the article from an incorrect redirect three months ago. What is in the "Battle and storm" section is pretty much all that has been milked from the primary sources by more recent scholars. I could "balance" the article by reducing the other sections, but this seems a bit "cart before horse". I have cut the "Invasion of Africa" section a little - and expanded the "Aftermath" - at Harrias's request since you read the article.

(t · c) buidhe 00:25, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi Buidhe, much appreciated. Your comments all addressed above. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:06, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

HaEr48 (support if renamed)[edit]

  • The article is well-written, and well-referenced. The prose is pleasant, easy to follow and in conformance with Wikipedia's styles. Historical backgrounds and necessary concepts are explained clearly.
  • Small suggestion: In the passage "The immediate cause of the war was the issue of control of the Sicilian town of Messana (modern Messina)", it would be useful to mention who controlled it before the war.
Oof. It was an independent city state. It was "in the news" because several years earlier a gang of unemployed mercenaries had killed all of the town's men and taken the place over, including their families[!] I have changed it to "control of the independent Sicilian city state of Messana (modern Messina)"; I think that the rest would be getting off topic. What do you think? (I could put a bit more detail in a footnote?)
I think mentioning it as an independent city state is already good. The original wording made me wonder if it's one of them trying to grab the other's territory, but if the city is independent that's enough to clarify the sentence. HaEr48 (talk) 21:43, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
  • My main concern is the lack of details about the course of the battle. For example, it would be nice to know how the fleets were organized, how they engaged each others, if any tactics or maneuvers were used (other than the Carthaginians vaguely sailing close to the coast), or what was the reason for the lopsided result. Any notable small-scale event/engagement during the battle could add more colour to the article. The article has great details on the background, prelude and aftermath, but that cannot make up for the sparsity of the details on the battle itself (I think only the first paragraph of the battle section is directly about the actual battle). Probably this is due to limited RSes, but in my opinion there should be a minimum standard on comprehensiveness before we can call an article Wikipedia's "very best work".
Buidhe had much the same issue, and it is probably best for you to read what I responded to them. Despite it being Carthage's worst naval defeat ever, and the storm Rome's worst disaster of the war, very little primary material has survived. Which means that the secondary sources all mention it, but all have little to say about it, and that mostly repeats the same bare facts. It is highly notable, so it seemed to me that it deserved an article; and I believe that I have included all of the material in the RS secondary sources, so it seemed reasonable to nominate it for FAC. Brevity comes up occasionally at FAC-talk, but it is not, so far as I am aware one of the FAC criteria. They require other things, such as "it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context" and "Length. It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail and uses summary style." I think that part of the problem may be around the title: what I would like to call the article is something like The Romans' fighting withdrawal from Africa, and the misfortune which befell them during it. That is the topic of the article, but as a title, that wouldn't be allowed. Suggestions for a better title would be welcomed. You say that "there should be a minimum standard on comprehensiveness"; could you explain in a little more detail please, because the article seems wikt:comprehensive to me.
My interpretation is that by being comprehensive it has to encompass a broad enough aspects of the battle. To make it less subjective, I imagine a reasonable person asking me, "how did the battle of Cape Hermaeum go?", which is one of the main aspects to ask about this battle, I expect the material from this article should be enough for them to think that my explanation is comprehensive. If I just explain so-and-so sailed closed to the coast, then got outmaneuvered, pinned, and lost 114 ships, I really doubt it would be considered comprehensive. This is my interpretation, but unfortunately the FAC is too brief to tell whether this is an appropriate one, and I understand if you object to it. I hope this makes my objection more specific, hehe. HaEr48 (talk) 21:43, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
PS Actually, thinking on't, how would "Roman withdrawal from Africa, 255 BC" sound to you as a more appropriate title?
That's an interesting idea. I think in that case the breadth of the article would be more appropriate. The article can answer the question "how did the Roman withdrawal in Africa 225 BC go?" more comprehensively, and the background and the aftermath article still works as well (if not better). I don't know how this would go with the other reviewers though. HaEr48 (talk) 21:43, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
@HaEr48: Thanks for making me think about the title, I normally pay it no attention at all. (I once had a FAC where the title was changed twice during the process. I just kept out of it, but I don't think that the coordinators were best pleased.) I don't see why the other reviewers should be too bothered, but I will ping them anyway. I just need to check with @WP:FAC coordinators: that changing the article's title now won't mess up the process, or would they prefer it to happen after the FAC has concluded - one way or another? Gog the Mild (talk) 11:42, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
I would have no objection to the title (and therefore scope) being changed, but feel that it should happen during the FAC: such a change in the title would necessitate a change in certainly the lead, and possibly a slight change in focus for the whole article. Harrias talk 12:12, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
And PPS, if I were writing a history article I could write an extensive and detailed account of the battle - the crash of corvuses, the rush of boarding legionaries, Carthaginian ships crowded against the shore where they can't use there superior manoeuvrability, etc. And be 99% sure that it was accurate - but that is the job of the secondary sources and for some reason they haven't got to these events yet. As it is an encyclopedia article all I can do is put all of that stuff in the "context" and hope that I write engagingly enough for a reader to mentally fill the gaps. Any hoo, well off topic now.

That's my feedback for now. Don't get me wrong, despite my concern above, it is a well-written and informative article, and I enjoyed reading it. HaEr48 (talk) 19:29, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi HaEr48 and no problem, this is Wikipedia - we are supposed to disagree! I have responded as best I can. If you are still concerned, perhaps you could narrow down what your concern is, and I will do my best address it, or, who knows, perhaps agree with you. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:28, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
Post retitling proposal

As commented in the other sections, I support the retitling proposal. Further comments regarding the structure of this article if it is retitled:

  • Result secion in the infobox is no longer an unequivocal Roman victory because the fleet was lost in the storm. Suggest updating result and casualties to reflect that
I meant to do that, but somehow overlooked it. Thanks for the reminder. Done.
  • "the subsequent tragedy was regarded as due to natural causes rather than to bad seamanship": probably we no longer need the "subsequent" here.
1) It is a quote: while I could truncate it, it would smack a little of twisting the words to fit how we are trying to present events. 2) 'each was awarded a triumph in January 254 for their victory at Cape Hermaeum ... "the subsequent tragedy was regarded as due to natural causes rather than to bad seamanship"': this seems a perfectly natural construction to me. Looked at on its own it doesn't seem to be presupposing what the scope of the article it is a part of is; just noting that the storm happened after - subsequent to - the battle. So I am inclined to leave it. Not insisting, but it doesn't seem an issue to me.
  • Suggest adding another top level section "Roman reversal and withdrawal" that covers the fourth paragraph of #Invasion of Africa downwards.

Overall I am leaning conditional support assuming the remaming and suggestions (especially the first point above) are done, and I have sufficient trust that the nominator will carry it out properly. HaEr48 (talk) 17:46, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks HaEr48, your points addressed. And the renaming will be happening, whichever way this nomination goes. (Bar some sudden and not expected rush of consensus not to.) Gog the Mild (talk) 18:09, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
Support with the renaming. HaEr48 (talk) 15:27, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Proposed change of title[edit]

Pinging previous commentators on this article @HaEr48, Harrias, CPA-5, Buidhe, JennyOz, and T8612:

  • It was noted by Buihde that "The article seems unbalanced since only 3 body paragraphs actually deal with the battle" and subsequently by HaEr48 that "The article has great details on the background, prelude and aftermath, but that cannot make up for the sparsity of the details on the battle itself". Both I feel are good points. There is further discussion above.
  • I feel that the title was ill chosen: I picked it up as a redirect and never really thought about it. I am minded to change the title to "Roman withdrawal from Africa, 255 BC". This, I think, better describes the scope of the article. I don't think that it does it full justice, but it is the best short and encyclopediac title I have come up with.
  • If this change were made it would entail, as Harrias notes, a couple of obvious changes to the text in the lead and a couple of minor tweaks in the body of the article.
  • I would welcome any thoughts you may have on this.
  • @WP:FAC coordinators: to check that changing the title isn't going to break FAC.

Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:33, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

  • I would support this move. (t · c) buidhe 20:44, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
  • I would support too, as long as the necessary tweaks are made in the lead and probably in the body, as the nominator noted above. HaEr48 (talk) 22:03, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Speaking as a coord, it's always simpler if these things happen after the FAC has been closed. I'm sure if the move is agreed to here then it'll happen soon after closure. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:44, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Harrias earlier commented above "I would have no objection to the title (and therefore scope) being changed, but feel that it should happen during the FAC" Given that CPA-5 hasn't edited for two weeks, and that {{u|T8612 has only made 7 edits in the last 16 days (2 on this page, bless them) I am taking this as a consensus for the change of title.
  • I have modified the lead, except for the short opening paragraph (see below) and made a couple of very minor tweaks to the main article.
  • Given what Ian said above, I intend to wait until this nomination is closed, and then - whichever way it goes - I will change the title to "Roman withdrawal from Africa, 255 BC" and rewrite the opening paragraph of the lead as

    The Roman withdrawal from Africa was the attempt by the Roman Republic to rescue the survivors of their defeated expeditionary force to Carthaginian Africa in 255 BC during the First Punic War. A large fleet commanded by Servius Fulvius Paetinus Nobilior and Marcus Aemilius Paullus successfully evacuated the remnants of the expedition, defeating a Carthaginian fleet en route, but was struck by a storm while returning, losing most of its ships.

  • Hopefully there is sufficient trust to accept that this will happen, despite us all no doubt agreeing with Harrias's sentiment that "[I] feel that it should happen during the FAC".
  • Are there any comments, queries or objections regarding this? Pinging HaEr48, Buidhe and JennyOz.
Thanks Gog the Mild (talk) 10:11, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
  • I prefer to keep the current title, because the new one is less explicit, and not really supported in the sources. Although the battle only makes a small part of the article, it is still the main event of the whole operation. If the problem is that the battle § is too short compared to the rest, then a solution would be to remove some text in "background", since this is a repetition from previous articles. That said, I would not oppose the new name if there is a consensus for it. T8612 (talk) 02:06, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Hi T8612. Thanks for sorting out the Africanus image - appreciated. Feel free to look over the rest of it.
  • Re sources, I did a check when this first came up - not, admittedly, an exhaustive one - and couldn't find the phrase "Battle of Cape Hermaeum" anywhere in the RSs. I was surprised.
  • I think that consensus has pretty much been reached; I am even inclined that way myself, although I can very much see both sides. I have written a couple of FAs of campaigns, and titles can be a bit debatable, and rereading the whole of this article, it is, to my eye, more an account of the campaign than of the battle.
  • I was planning to leave it another day or so for any further comments by existing reviewers, and then start encouraging them to either support or oppose on the basis that it is going to be retitled.
Gog the Mild (talk) 13:58, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
  • OK. All actionable comments have been responded to.
  • Hopefully T8612's image of the Fasti Triumphales will be coming along at some stage, but I see that as a nice extra rather than a nomination breaker. At least I don't think that anyone has suggested that the article in its current state fails "It has images and other media, where appropriate, with succinct captions and acceptable copyright status."
  • I have changed the opening paragraph of the lead, as discussed above, so everything is in its final shape apart from the actual change of title; which, in accordance with the coordinators' preference, I won't do until immediately after the article is either archived or promoted.
  • So, I would be grateful if @CPA-5, T8612, Buidhe, and HaEr48: could – barring any further comments, queries or suggestions – indicate whether they oppose or support the nomination. And apologies to you all for not having got to grips with this issue prior to nomination and thank you for your patience and forbearance. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:06, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
    Added a declaration of support in my review section. HaEr48 (talk) 15:28, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Query for the coordinators[edit]

Ian @WP:FAC coordinators: in the light of the above, could I have permission to nominate my next one? Thanks.

And for information, CPA-5 hasn't edited Wikipedia since 16 July. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:49, 3 August 2020 (UTC) Gog the Mild (talk) 09:24, 4 August 2020 (UTC)


Nominator(s): R8R, Double sharp (talk) 14:04, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

We return once again to bring you another superheavy element, after dubnium and nihonium back in 2018, and tennessine (then ununseptium) back in 2015. After the first FAC, we did some more work on the article (chronicled on the talk page), and I think we're ready to try again now. Hopefully this is a pleasant enough read for the subject matter while we sit back and wait for element 119 to reveal itself! ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 14:04, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Image review
  • All images are free.
  • Sandwiching between infobox and first images. (t · c) buidhe 22:41, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Transcluding a significant prose section into a FAC seems questionable to me, and it prevents you from fixing the sandwiching problem. (t · c) buidhe 22:41, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
@Buidhe: This was discussed at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Elements#Introduction_into_superheavy_elements. The main reason is that this info is relevant to basically all the heaviest elements on the table (102 and up), but it's also basically necessary to explain how these elements are really made in practice. Unfortunately, it seems that if we change the images to float right, they float under the infobox inside the next section, which isn't really better.
@R8R: What do you think? Double sharp (talk) 15:35, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
@Double sharp: I agree that floating right isn't better. in fact, doing it so would necessitate completely rearranging all the images in the article. Maybe we could move it lower (two paragraphs or so down) in the section so that it starts after the infobox ends?
@Buidhe: +1 to Double sharp. In an earlier review, I did suggest including this introduction to provide context for more sophisticated terms, and the transfusion came about as the simplest solution to for including the same pertinent background in 17 element articles (as it is equally relevant and helpful in all of them). ComplexRational (talk) 17:29, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
My take on that unfortunately, we're stuck with this sandwiching because any other alternative is either not feasible or worse encyclopedically (if that's a word). We do need the transcluded section because we need an introduction into what people find a complicated topic; our introduction is, I believe, a great way to start reading. We also need this introduction in 16 more articles and possibly even more in the future, hence it would be great to keep it in one place which would host all edits made to it rather than let the bunch slowly get less and less synchronized. And there isn't really anywhere else to add the pictures, and they are important for illustrating the transcluded section. We do need the first picture in that section, it is of paramount encyclopedic importance there. Moving the picture down the text simply moves the problem down the text. At my screen resolution of 2560x1440 there is no cure to this sandwiching.
I'm sorry it comes out this way but the other options are worse.--R8R (talk) 18:04, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Good point. I also realize now that the infobox is even longer in some articles, sandwiching the entire section. I'd agree it's not ideal, but the alternatives would cost a useful illustration or more serious formatting issues, so I'm inclined to leave it as is now. ComplexRational (talk) 19:26, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Would it help if we put the image to the right, forcing it to follow any infobox? This could even be made optionally per article (using a parameter). -DePiep (talk) 12:11, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
It could exist as a parameter, but forcing these images below the infobox will (1) risk displaying the images outside their associated section (this would be even worse in articles such as rutherfordium with longer infoboxes) and (2) require rearranging all the images in the article to keep a left-right alteration. I'm not seeing a good way out. ComplexRational (talk) 13:40, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Support from ComplexRational[edit]

I have made a few substantive edits to the article myself, but as documented in the talk page chronicles, most of my work on this article has been as a reviewer; it has been a pleasure to read and review it. It has definitely come a long way since the first FAC; it is clear and complete, does not leave burning questions, and seems much more understandable to a layperson (compared to the time of the first FAC), as much of the jargon is explained. That said, I would like to highlight a few more things before offering my support.

  • The atomic number is the number of protons in an atomic nucleus. – anyone reading the article should know this; at most, a parenthesized definition such as "atomic number (number of protons)" is enough.
    Addendum: to avoid breaking the text flow (as pointed out by R8R, the next sentence should be shortened or cut as well; we don't need to define the more common terms in this article. ComplexRational (talk) 19:32, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
    Changed to a parenthesis. Double sharp (talk) 15:38, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
    I've given it more thought and I don't see what can be done to help this without removing important information, but I'd like to hear from you if you think otherwise. You see, I want to mention the following points:
    • The heaviest element in nature is uranium;
    • Elements can be referred to by their atomic numbers;
    • The first element heavier than uranium was synthesized in 1940;
    • Elements through 101 were discovered in Berkeley;
    • Starting with element 102, a new contender emerged in Moscow/Dubna;
    • and so on.
    The current text seems optimal to me to make those points. Note j could be remade to also differentiate elements through 101 from elements 102 onward by their synthesis method.--R8R (talk) 08:09, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
    It flows fairly well as is, but atomic number is mentioned earlier as well, and I don't believe a parenthetical definition would cost too much meaning or flow as opposed to the current standalone sentence for a basic definition. Either way could conceivably be workable; I agree with your points, but don't want to include an extra explanation if it is not necessary.
    This might turn out to be a matter of preference, but nothing is lacking either way, so I won't let this hold up my support. ComplexRational (talk) 21:53, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
    I've given it some more thought and I figured I could contract the text without compromising the ease of reading.--R8R (talk) 11:05, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
  • was discovered in 1940 at the University of California in Berkeley, California, United States. – I do not believe the detail in note [j] is necessary. Since this section does not provide background information on the topic, the exact details of how neptunium was discovered are not important to this topic.
    OK, I've removed note j. Double sharp (talk) 09:04, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
    Let's talk about it some more. The point of that note was that that reaction was different from what we've described so far ("combines two other nuclei of unequal size" -- a neutron is not a nucleus, and the reaction itself isn't precisely in the same category, as I have described in that note), and a note seems suitable to point out this small difference.--R8R (talk) 14:10, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
    I'd prefer appending the sentence Elements through 101 were discovered... and stating there that neutron capture and alpha irradiation were used in these discoveries, and that they are not nuclear fusion per se. I feel this would flow better than a note, and not drop this extra bit of context.
    Sounds good but alpha particles do qualify as nuclei, so technically that is nuclear fusion?--R8R (talk) 15:12, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
    Technically it is, this change is just to differentiate these techniques from light-ion bombardment. ComplexRational (talk) 16:41, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
    Now that I've thought more about it, I think the important distinction here is that elements through 100 were discovered by having uranium absorb neutrons, and then we hit a wall that prevented from more discoveries in that manner, and element 101 had to be discovered via bombardment by whole nuclei. In fact, even the first publication on synthesis of element 100 followed after a bombardment of uranium by oxygen, rather after endless absorption of neutrons. I think I'd rather highlight that; what do you think?--R8R (talk) 10:36, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
    @R8R: There are a couple of natural breaks. One is where the discovery became physics instead of chemistry (E102), another is after you hit the fermium wall (E101). The important thing IMHO is when it really became a one-atom-at-a-time thing, so I agree with you that this is the one to highlight. Double sharp (talk) 07:07, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
    I'm still pondering this. We indeed can say this, but should we? After all, the section is supposed to be about the discoverers, rather than discovery methods. It appears to me that what exactly the synthesis methods for all those elements were is quite off-topic for hassium.--R8R (talk) 17:03, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
    I have considered this and I think I was right to say we shouldn't say this just because we can because we go rather off-topic otherwise. Although if you disagree, I'll be eager to listen to you.--R8R (talk) 16:07, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
    It looks pretty good as is. I agree that this section should not detail discovery methods, for those are explained in detail elsewhere and would indeed stray off-topic. Since that note is no longer in this section, we can consider this adequately resolved. ComplexRational (talk) 21:53, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
  • The more nucleons there are in a nucleus, the more energy there is for binding the nucleons. – I'm unsure about this. To an uninformed reader, it would suggest that heavier nuclei are more stable, not less stable (after 62Ni). This could be removed together, a link to an article such as nuclear binding energy should be sufficient.
    I've copyedited a previous sentence to make it clear enough.--R8R (talk) 14:10, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
    That's better, though I'd also suggest changing this to "the more total energy" to make it obvious that more nucleons have more total energy, but are not more stable as a result. ComplexRational (talk) 14:46, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
    I did some more copyediting; please see the results.--R8R (talk) 15:12, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
    Clearer now. ComplexRational (talk) 20:29, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
  • hypothesized a different mechanismproposed or suggested would read better in my opinion, as these experiments were soon conducted, and hypothesized connotes greater uncertainty than I understand from the source.
  • More equal atomic numbers of the reacting nuclei – I suggest adding somewhere, perhaps in parentheses, that this refers to symmetric fusion, so that readers have a short and to-the-point connection.
    I have my doubts about that, though I'm eager to see what I could be missing. You see, "symmetric fusion" is also rather vague, and there's nothing to link that to, so I wonder if it's going to create even more confusion instead (it would need an explanation in the likes of what we already have: "more equal atomic numbers").--R8R (talk) 14:10, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
    True, we should keep it as simple and straight-to-the-point as possible. I think we can leave this one as is. ComplexRational (talk) 14:46, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
  • including one around Z = 108. – note [t] is definitely not needed; these symbols are introduced and used earlier in the article. I suggest removing it entirely.
    That the note was misplaced is clear enough, but have the terms really been introduced by the time we first use those letters? if so, where?--R8R (talk) 14:10, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
    They're not all consistent (Z is introduced in the infobox, the others are thrown around). To make it unambiguous, I suggest adding them to the transcluded short introduction if possible. ComplexRational (talk) 14:46, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
    My understanding has been that the infobox doesn't matter (it's more of a data sheet rather than article text). It appears to me that the note is best restored at the first occurrence of these letters in the text (currently "the vicinity of Z = 110–114"). I also think that there is no room for these symbols in our short introduction.--R8R (talk) 15:12, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
    Only thing is they're not all introduced in one place. Atomic number is introduced in the context of uranium (discovery section), mass number could be added in the note dealing with nuclide notation (note [k]), and I don't see neutron number anywhere before the isotopes section. Working with these is doable, it's just not as consistent as we'd like. ComplexRational (talk) 16:41, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
    Well, I guess we have to play with the cards we've been dealt. Since that appears to be okay with you, I have restored the notation note at the first occurrence of this notation in the text.--20:29, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
    Looks good now. ComplexRational (talk) 20:53, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
  • No results have been released. – citation needed, and date needed. Otherwise, some more definite statement should be made in the article (if necessary, about the fact that no results have been released, structured similarly to hassocene at the end).
    I have updated this paragraph.--R8R (talk) 12:14, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Atomic nuclei show additional stability...indicate closure of "sub-shells". (4 sentences) – since the sections have been rearranged, I suggest moving these sentences up to the isotopes section, and introducing the island of stability and the nature of 292Hs differently here.
    Good one; please see my edit. Comments are welcome.--R8R (talk) 14:49, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
    The flow is much better now. The island of stability is appropriately introduced, and the part about 292Hs in nature is both contextualized and focused. ComplexRational (talk) 20:29, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
  • This in turn increases the gravitational attraction – a {{dubious}} tag was added, and looking at it, I also am inclined to question because gravitational attraction isn't the dominating force at the atomic scale. This could perhaps be simplified as well, as a more thorough explanation would require more jargon and stray off topic. ComplexRational (talk) 19:32, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
    That's actually a very good tag, and I'll address it below.--R8R (talk) 14:10, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
    Responded there.--R8R (talk) 09:05, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Should we have alt text for the last two images? The diagrams are pretty straightforward, but the captions should at least be converted to alt if not supplemented by something else explanatory.
    But they do, don't they? What pictures are you referring to exactly?--R8R (talk) 14:10, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
    Never mind, I missed the way it was formatted. My mistake. ComplexRational (talk) 14:46, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

ComplexRational (talk) 01:22, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

  • As of 2011, only "more than 100 atoms" of hassium have been produced. – how come you re-added this? I removed it because it is outdated and inaccurate; a more recent source says that ~100 flerovium atoms have been synthesized in total, many of which decay to hassium, not including the many hassium atoms directly synthesized and/or used for chemical studies. I think we're better off without it unless a very recent (2019 or 2020) source gives a number; someone else will inevitably comment that this is outdated or note the inconsistency across articles. ComplexRational (talk) 20:53, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
    • I think this has to do with Hurricanehink's comments below about how much Hs has ever been produced. I personally think it makes some sense to make it clear to the reader what kinds of quantities we're talking about. (If you can count the atoms, you have basically nothing.) However maybe it's better to instead stress that you get only one atom at a time (as the events are surely widely spaced apart in time): it doesn't quite make sense to ask how much Hs has been produced because by the time you produce the second atom, the first is long gone. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 08:27, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
      • Indeed, this idea came to me after I saw the comment a comment by Hurricanehink below. It appears to me that it's a good idea to have a crude estimate to get some sense of how research there has been into the element. To me, it doesn't seem like 2011 is that long ago given that I don't find it reasonable to have a precise estimate in the first place, but if it helps, I've seen some similar estimates dated 2019: one, two.
I'm sorry, I genuinely don't remember us discussing this before.--R8R (talk) 14:33, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
The 2019 estimate might be a better place to start if you believe it's a good idea. I feel it's already emphasized that several experiments were performed, and it seems clear to me (but maybe not all readers) the contrast between the amount of research done on hassium vs. all heavier elements (as noted in their respective articles). And you're right, I don't think we discussed it. I removed it in this edit, which I surprisingly remember, and was genuinely convinced I did it much more recently than December 2018. I still feel the same way about it now, though, but I'm open to a less crude estimate to give a general idea if there is a recent source available. ComplexRational (talk) 14:57, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
I've put in the two references I mentioned above and modified the sentence somewhat. Does it look good for you?--R8R (talk) 21:05, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
This looks better. It leaves room to account for what I mentioned, and you're right that if there were over 1,000 atoms, the word choice would reflect that (rather than simply over 100). Also, for future reference, we say "on the order of" rather than "in the order of"; I made that correction. More English language peculiarities... anyway, I think we can consider this resolved. I'll review the rest of the comments hopefully tomorrow or over the weekend. ComplexRational (talk) 23:18, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the tip; I think you mentioned it to me some time before but evidently I may not always be the fastest learner.
I'll gladly wait for your upcoming responses.--R8R (talk) 20:53, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
@R8R: All done. RL has been quite a mess and mentally very taxing this week, so I apologize for not finishing sooner. I have one open comment still, and would like to resolve that, but this article has come a long way over the past year and with all the changes enacted, I'm happy to support now. ComplexRational (talk) 21:53, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
@ComplexRational: thank you very much! There's no problem with waiting whatsoever since I'm not active every day, too. I hope you're doing fine. I took another look at the last issue you raised and I think I found a good solution.--R8R (talk) 11:05, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Support from Hurricanehink[edit]

Support - I came here from an FAC I'm co-nomming, hoping you might be able to review it if you have the time. Alright, elements! Here we go.

  • The lightest isotopes, which usually have shorter half-lives, were synthesized by direct fusion between two lighter nuclei and as decay products. The heaviest isotope produced by direct fusion is 271Hs; heavier isotopes have only been observed as decay products of elements with larger atomic numbers. - source?
    That phrase is covered by the table in that section, and the table is well-referenced.
  • have shown greater than previously anticipated stability against spontaneous fission, showing the importance of shell effects on nuclei. - ditto
    This one is covered by the references earlier in that sentence. I put them there for the convenience of the reader who may want to check the sources so they could see which part of the sentence is covered by what.
  • and the fact that hassium (and its parents) decays very quickly. A few singular chemistry-related properties have been measured, such as enthalpy of adsorption of hassium tetroxide, but properties of hassium metal remain unknown and only predictions are available. - I'm guessing these refs are already elsewhere in the article.
    Yes. The decay part is covered by the table in the Isotopes section, and the chemistry part is covered by the Experimantal chemistry section.
  • Are you dealing with the dubious - discuss tag in the Relativistic effects section?
    Yes, I have responded to it below.

All in all, the article is pretty technical, but for an element that none of will ever touch or interact with, I'm glad that you were so thorough in your research, so I could read all about it. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:06, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I hope your read wasn't overwhelming; the topic is indeed quite technical but I generally strive to write in a manner that is as accessible to everyone as possible. I'll try to review your article during the next week; if I haven't done so by the end of it, please feel free to point that out to me.--R8R (talk) 09:19, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
Could you add those sources in then? If the sources are in the table, could you just re-add it to the prose? I always look out for any paragraph that doesn't end in a source. Also, one last thing I thought of. Is there any estimate for how much Hassium has ever been produced? You mention in the lead "minuscule quantities", but I don't see where in the article you specify that amount. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:48, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
Am I correct in understanding that you mean re-adding the reference for the first point you raise?
Correct. I notice a few sections that don't have any citations at the end: 2nd paragraph of "Cold fusion", 2nd and 3rd paragraph of "Isotopes", and the 5th paragraph of "natural occurrence", which... I noticed "No results have been released." IDK what's appropriate for chemistry articles, but maybe add a "As of {{currentyear}}" in this sentence? Tough to cite a negative though. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:40, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
As for lack of citations at the end of paragraphs: I have generally applied my common sense and the Wikipedia policy (luckily, the two coincide): I put citations wherever the information could actually be challenged by a curious reader. I generally doubt it that somebody is actually going to question the nomenclature (as in the 2nd paragraph of "Cold fusion") when the physics behind it is cited. Sometimes, paragraphs end on statements that I expand on in the following paragraphs (2nd paragraph of "Isotopes"). The sentence ending the 3rd paragraph of "Isotopes" is referenced, it's just the references for the convenience of a curious reader willing to check the sources are not at the end of the sentence. As for the 5th paragraph of "natural occurrence", it is indeed hard to cite a negative but luckily there's something coming our way, so I'll expand on this statement regardless of whether the report has actually been released.--R8R (talk) 20:34, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
I have reworked the 5th paragraph of "natural occurrence," so that's now out of the way too.--R8R (talk) 20:44, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
There is one vague estimate which has been reproduced a few times. I don't know the ultimate origin of the estimate (the book I found it in doesn't use in-line citations) but it's rather believable. Added it in the beginning of the Isotopes section.--R8R (talk) 20:19, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
I appreciate that bit, but could you improve the wording of the bolded part - "As of 2011, only "more than 100 atoms" of hassium have been produced" - grammatically it could be stronger. For instance, "As of 2011, the amount of Hassium atoms ever produced numbered in the hundreds." I hope that still implies the same meaning, and it could still be written stronger. It's a shame the source wasn't more specific, like giving a range, or giving some cap. More than 100 could be 1,000 or a million, which is different when it comes to microscopic quantities. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:40, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
I went for the time being for "As of 2019, the quantity of all hassium ever produced was in the order of hundreds of atoms." This seems good enough for me. I frankly rather doubt it that anyone would assume that if it there were a few thousands of atoms that anyone would mention merely "more than 100". That is mathematically correct but that's not how real language usually works :) but the combination of sources makes me even more confident in the statement as I gave it.--R8R (talk) 20:34, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
Readded the particular source citing the sentence.--R8R (talk) 20:35, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
Thanks! Your wording for "hundreds" works great.I'm picky, and for all of the hard work you've put into it, you should be proud of what you've written (with other writers, yea, Wikipedia is a collaborative platform, but I know what it's like doing the bulk of the work for a very niche subject, and as a fellow science nerd, I appreciate your work on such an elementary article). Happy to support. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:23, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Thank you very much! Most elements are not as niche, but it's good to branch out every once in a while. I should be able to start a review on your article on Sunday.--R8R (talk) 20:44, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Comments from profdc9[edit]

As atomic number increases, so does the electrostatic attraction between an electron and the nucleus. This causes the velocity of the electron to increase, which leads to an increase its mass. This in turn increases the gravitational attraction between the electron and the nucleus I do not believe the description of the change in the interaction due to the relativistic velocities of the inner shell electrons should be described as gravitational attraction. Gravity (in so far as is known) is a separate force from the electromagnetic interaction binding electrons to the nucleus. Gravity is many orders of magnitude smaller in strength than the electromagnetic force and so gravity plays essentially no significant role in determining the electronic structure of any atom. The effect being considered, the relativistic increase in mass-energy of the electron as it approaches light speed, is an effect known in special relativity and does not the require gravitational considerations of general relativity. That said, whether or not the relativistic trends of the lanthanide group persist or not in the actinide group, is outside of my expertise, with the increased screening of s and p orbitals resulting in higher electron affinities for actinides than lanthanides, as mentioned stabilizing the +8 oxidation further of hassium over osmium, though this summary seems to suggest such effects. [1]

Indeed. Thank you very much for taking your time to write this comment. As I was writing that, I was rather confused myself about why greater mass would play a role anyway. Your comment prompted me to look it up, and I got it now. Please see if it's good enough now.--R8R (talk) 09:01, 5 July 2020 (UTC)


Comments from DePiep[edit]

  • About section title "#Introduction". It is the first section, depth h2 (==). This is confusing since the lead (top) section performs this task already implicitly (see WP:LEAD for example: Introduction is a synonym even). Also, as it stands it suggests or states that it is an introduction to the article topic (i.e., hassium). This confusion can easily be removed by changing this section title into "Introduction to the heaviest elements", "Introduction to heavy elements", or something alike. A similar issue is likely to appear in all articles with this introduction transcluded. (Noted before [15]). -DePiep (talk) 12:25, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
    A heading such as Introduction to superheavy elements or similar would be fine with me, and avoid this ambiguity. ComplexRational (talk) 13:40, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
    That would be fine if we didn't use the same introduction for elements 102 and 103, too. Does Introduction to the heaviest elements work for you?--R8R (talk) 14:53, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
    Ah yes, there's that. Introduction to the heaviest elements works. ComplexRational (talk) 15:49, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
    OK for this appreciation. I note, just a note, that the reuse of the section now implies a sub-optimal outcome (compromises to keep the whole). For a TOC, these section titles are very long (trying to squeeze too much into it?).
About actual proposed section names: I understand you mention E102 and E103, nobelium and lawrencium, because they are not 'superheavy' (a definition not clarified nearby, that is: a reader might easily miss this detail—as I do. Doesn't this say the wording, trying to define it, is unfit for all 16 articles?).
I'd prefer a short, crisp sectiontitle, aimed at the TOC, not detailed; no need to put the excact definition of 'heavy' or 'superheavy' in this sectiontitle. I prefer like Introduction to [super]heavy elements. -DePiep (talk) 18:51, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
To clarify my preference: I prefer any of the two proposed here (not using [ ] brackets); actual choice should be short, but in no way incorrect or confusing (up to the specialists). Changing between the transcluding articles may occur AFAIK. -DePiep (talk) 10:51, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
  • I wouldn't worry about getting a sub-optimal outcome because I'm certain what we got isn't one. There is at the highest count one small part of the text which could in principle differ at all, and the difference would be very small anyway. And even at that, that's not a distinction I'd want to draw anyway.
    Note that the notion of "superheavy elements" is explained in a note. Regardless, the "heaviest" elements that we're talking about is not a well-defined term like "superheavy elements"; it's merely used for convenience for as many elements as it could reasonably take. In our case, the defining principle that highlighted the need of this introduction in the first place is the synthesis method. The introduction focuses on synthesis and the general principle used for elements 102+.
    To me, it seems like "Introduction" is just fine. I'll also note that we have articles like Introduction to quantum mechanics or Introduction to genetics, which go beyond their respective lead sections. If we are to make a longer title, then we should be accurate about it. "Introduction to heavy elements" would be plain confusing: when I think of heavy elements, I think of mercury or lead, not rutherfordium or hassium. "Introduction to superheavy elements" is better but again, we use the same text in nobelium and lawrencium. "Introduction to the heaviest elements" avoids this problem and is about as long anyway.--R8R (talk) 08:41, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
    Why do you think "Introduction" is fine, wrt my objections? The example "Introduction to quantum mechanics" is not applicable here, as the title is a higher level instead; sections titles do not conflict. -DePiep (talk) 09:50, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
    You see, I have never really thought of the lead section as of an introduction. From my (writer's) perspective, you first write an article and then you summarize it in no more than four paragraphs which is as much as most people will read. Hence to me, that's what it is: a summary.
    That being said, I do not want to dismiss your objections entirely, which is why I am trying to consider other possible section titles.--R8R (talk) 21:20, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
    FWIW, I like "Introduction to the heaviest elements". After all, it is not just about element 108. Double sharp (talk) 08:28, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
    @R8R:: OK for the writing process, but in this case the result has this flaw: an "==Introduction==" only can refer to the title (to mean: 'Introduction of hassium' then). Which does not cover the content of the section correctly. Secondary , the (possible, partial) overlap with the implicit concept of the lede is adding up to the confusion. -DePiep (talk) 10:58, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
    The "Introduction to hassium" meaning wouldn't at all be wrong. The whole point of this section is that it applies not only to the heaviest elements in general, but also to each element individually. It's only an introduction to the heaviest elements as much as it is an introduction to hassium, an introduction to copernicium, to flerovium, and so on. It's just that it's easier to take this introduction to hassium into context of that it applies also to many other elements, but the idea that this text is an introduction to hassium alone is also completely correct. This, come to think of it, is another thing I like about the shorter section title.
    "Introduction to the heaviest elements" is also fine by me. I still don't see the advantage "Introduction to superheavy elements" compared to it. It narrows the scope by including two elements (or even more, depending on how you count) for which this introduction also applies perfectly well, which goes against the very point of generalization which is why we can't have "Introduction" in the first place. That is because "superheavy elements" is a chemical concept, and the introduction is not about chemistry, so there's no reason to stick to it in its title. And "Introduction to superheavy elements" is not really shorter either, see for yourself:
 Introduction to the heaviest elements
 Introduction to superheavy elements
So since Double sharp also likes this idea, I'll change the title to "Introduction to the heaviest elements" for the time being, although if you have another reason to have a different title, I'll gladly consider it.--R8R (talk) 19:57, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
Now that I've made the change, the longer title seems rather clumsy but we can live with that if considering the lead section an introduction is actually a thing.--R8R (talk) 20:01, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
The lede, I suppose, is more of a summary than an introduction. OTOH, whenever you have some stuff before a bunch of level-3 sections, then I can see a sort of quasi-lede being used as an introduction. Anyway, I like what we have now ("Introduction to the heaviest elements") because it tells us what we're going to get in that section. Double sharp (talk) 05:46, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
Afternote: I find the notion that the original "Introduction" it can rightly be read as "Introduction to hassium" incorrect. That is not the content of the section. Also, the original source article title also so. -DePiep (talk) 17:56, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
I conclude consensus for the change. This also implies the same change for the other transcluding element articles. -DePiep (talk) 18:26, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
I'm fine with that. Double sharp (talk) 15:10, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
1. The introduction The chemical element with the highest atomic number ... by observation in nature (4 sentences) is only about the general Z=A+N description. I don't think this is needed. By now and by here in the article, concepts of "heavy" and "atomic number" should be clear. First suggestion: remove those [four senteces], and adjust next sentence.
Sorry to say this, that's not what those sentences are about. They are about what the heaviest element in the nature is (from what point discoveries by synthesis begin). There is no mention of N or A whatsoever. Another point is to introduce the "element XX" terminology which the general reader may be unfamiliar with. Removing those sentences would make the text less readable as per what I just mentioned.--R8R (talk) 09:31, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
2. Why this section at all? An old introduction to the transfermium wars that was kept? It has nothing to do with hassium, and does not even make an introduction to it (or its discoverers). Also, to me it occurred as an extension/protraction of sorts to the previous section. What would the article lack when we remove this section? -DePiep (talk) 19:57, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
There are two main stories to uncover in history of discovery of an element such as hassium: one is that there is a great amount of technological/scientific developments that are needed for the discovery, and the discovery is a scientific achievement regardless of who achieves it. The other story is that there are different scientific teams seeking to write themselves down in history as discoverers. This subsection is an introduction to the latter story (and the next one introduces the reader to the former). This section ends on the very important idea that there is this conflict and that other teams are a part of this. Even though the lab in Berkeley did not claim discovery of element 108, it is still important because its other claims clashed with the German claim to the displeasure of both the Americans and the Germans.--R8R (talk) 09:31, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
  • About section #Cold fusion, and #Reports, subsections of #Discovery.
1. Another pre-discovery section, and an overall generic introduction. It does not specifically lead to 108. My first idea is to merge relevant parts into the actual discovery-of-hassium section.
I beg to differ, it is very relevant and not generic. The cold fusion technology was only useful for discoveries of a limited number of elements (107 through 113). And it's important because even though you can figure out that 88 + 20 = 108 or 82 + 26 = 108 (those reactions are mentioned in the reports section), if you want to really understand the subject you need to know why those were the combinations used and not, say, 96 + 12 = 108.--R8R (talk) 09:31, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
2. The section Hassium#Reports does describe the actual discovery. For this, its title is a bit understating. Maybe the cold fusion + and reports (process of discovedry and claim) could make a strong centerpiece of #Discovery. -DePiep (talk) 19:57, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
I really do give a positive answer to at least something but I find myself unable to do so. I think "Reports" is a solid title. That you report a discovery and that you think you have made a discovery doesn't mean you have, and any discovery needs a confirmation. Arbitration is a fairly short section because it would otherwise be too technical. Naming is an important section, not scientifically but symbolically: as in any human endeavor, there are people whose feelings are an important part of the picture: in this case, the feelings in question are the desire to discover something new and be the first to do so and the desire to get recognized for it.
If you think there's anything important missing, I'm all ears. A comment like "maybe it could make a strong centerpiece" is hard to react to especially when I think it already is already satisfied.
There are important things about a discovery other than the experiment itself. I think I covered them all. If you think otherwise, again, I'll be glad to consider that.
Also, since you knew this article would be at a FAC, I would've appreciated it if you had made your big content comments before the process started. I hope we can make this a common practice in the future.--R8R (talk) 09:31, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
I'll try to respond tonight.--R8R (talk) 14:17, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
Ah, alas I can't do it today, but I have an answer in mind and I'll try to write it down tomorrow.--R8R (talk) 18:11, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Support from Naypta[edit]

I've not conducted a broad review of sources for the statements here, I'm mostly focusing on the prose and text.

  • Hassium has been made only in laboratories in minuscule quantities; its possible occurrence in nature has been hypothesized but no natural hassium has been found so far - this sentence feels a bit messy to me. Perhaps one way of improving it might be "Hassium has only been produced in a laboratory, in very small quantities. Natural occurrences of the element have been hypothesised, but none has ever been found"?
    I'm not sure about this one. I liked the rest of your copyediting suggestions, but I'm not sure about this one in particular. @Double sharp: would you provide a third opinion?--R8R (talk) 17:59, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
    Hmm, I actually do like Naypta's suggestion here. Double sharp (talk) 02:37, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
    Okay then! Copyedited as advised.--R8R (talk) 17:58, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
  • in Dubna, Moscow Oblast, Russian SFSR, Soviet Union, in 1978 - does this really need the full location spelled out like this? Just "in 1978 in Dubna, a town in the Soviet Union" I would think would suffice. Likewise, Darmstadt, Hesse, West Germany could just as well skip out Hesse.
    I have picked up the habit of writing longer location names from the Americans. You see, when they name a town, they normally add the name of the state it's in. It makes perfect sense to me: the United States is a big country, and getting a tiny bit of context is helpful to not feel completely adrift before an unfamiliar city name: you probably don't know what kind of a city "Jefferson City" is, but you know where Missouri is, so "Jefferson City, Missouri" won't sound quite as alien. Now, my understanding has been that English Wikipedia is a Wikipedia that is written in English rather than a Wikipedia oriented in all matters on native English speakers, and there is no preference with respect to toponyms. My understanding is that, say, "Wixhausen, Germany" is as understandable to an average German as "Jefferson City, United States" to an average American, that's why I opt to use the province/region/state name, too, if the country is big enough. With respect to Soviet places in particular, I also mention the name of the corresponding Soviet republic because those republics eventually became independent countries that exist to this day and that generally kept the Soviet subdivisions.
In the case of this particular article, these clarifications are also useful because they serve as a subtle hint to the names mentioned in note n.--R8R (talk) 17:59, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Hrm. MOS:GEO calls for the same name as the article title, but I think at least the state name should be incorporated here too, to clarify the political undertones involved. I'm still not convinced that this level of disambiguation is necessary, though; "Moscow Oblast" to a lot of people doesn't mean very much, either. It's like me saying Llanelli, Carmarthenshire, United Kingdom - I mean, yeah, that's a place in the UK, but most people outside the UK wouldn't be able to say where in the UK it is, with or without the intervening "Carmarthenshire"! Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 23:08, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
    To me, it seems fine that most people won't get it because some people will. There will always be people who won't get it. I think that, for example, in the Jefferson City example above, there are people from India, to name a country where English is the official language, that won't be helped by the addition of "Missouri." Having these subdivisions also makes a consistent format for places, and I think that consistency is a good thing (this text also has "Berkeley, California, United States"; we wouldn't want to lose "California," right?). And I must say I like how the article also mentions moscovium and ruthenium that are named after the Moscow Oblast and Russia, respectively, not to mention that this article is about an element that is named after Hesse, so there's another reason to have those names. It does genuinely seem better this way but this is most certainly not the hill I'm ready to die on, so I'll call for a third opinion. @Double sharp: would you lend us a hand?--R8R (talk) 19:53, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
    In this particular case, because of the connexion to note o, I favour keeping the full names as R8R suggests. Double sharp (talk) 12:25, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
    Fair enough. I'm still not sure it's the best way of putting it, but I won't object on that basis. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 13:49, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
  • have only been partly characterized but they compare well should probably be have only been partly characterized, but they compare well.
    You're right; after reading your comment, I checked the rules on punctuation, and from what I've read, you're completely right.--R8R (talk) 17:59, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Section heading Introduction to the heaviest elements should probably just be "Introduction" for consistency with other similar articles.
    I don't really know. I am with you on this one, but there have also been other opinions (see discussion on this page). Perhaps this will be discussed one more time at WT:ELEM when this FAC is over.--R8R (talk) 17:59, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
    Yeah, so I see. Perhaps a broader discussion at WT:ELEM is appropriate, although I still think ideally that discussion should be had separately to here, and here we should use the status quo until a change is made over there more broadly. DePiep and ComplexRational, any thoughts? Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 23:08, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
    I seriously understood that this matter was discussed & concluded at #Comments_from_DePiep. There, also the consistency was mentioned as in: these other articles should have the same change. Despite of this reopening of sorts, I claim established consensus. User:Naypta, did you see that sequence? -DePiep (talk) 23:19, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
    @DePiep: I don't think a consensus at one article's FAC is enough to change eighteen only loosely related articles, even if it were the case that a consensus in favour of that change were established here in particular. I am minded to suggest that such a decision should accept comments from a broader audience, including any interested contributors from those articles. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 23:23, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
    The Hassium article was discussed there, and concluded. Now you introduce WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS as an argument, which is not correct logic (and still: the arguments might well be valid in these other articles. IOW: your otherstuff argument flipped ;-) ). Now did you read the thread I mentioned, and how would you follow up on that one? -DePiep (talk) 23:30, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
    I most seriously think that the discussion has concluded, and if Naypta wants to reconsider the conclusion, the place to go is: there. (Not here, no two-place talks). -DePiep (talk) 19:04, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
    @DePiep: Au contraire, this is a textbook example of WP:Some stuff exists for a reason, which explicitly states arguing in favor of consistency among Wikipedia articles is not inherently wrong–it is to be preferred. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 16:30, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
    Sure, and such edit-for-consistency was concluded in the original thread. However, in this thread you argue that that is not correct. Anyway, no need to reopen that talk on a different place, since at least that does not use the existing discusison &* conclusion. -DePiep (talk) 17:07, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
If I may, can I suggest we leave it as it is and then re-negotiate this title problem at WT:ELEM when this FAC is over? This seems like such a small problem that is to be re-negotiated anyway--R8R (talk) 19:03, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
I've struck this point on these lines - not because I don't think it's an issue, but on the basis of venue. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 13:49, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
  • I broadly agree with DePiep that the section Discoverers of transuranium elements prior to element 108 doesn't really seem to be relevant here. Per FACRIT 4, an FA should "[stay] focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail and [use] summary style" - I reckon this probably ought to be a link to another article, with perhaps a much smaller introduction linking it in in terms of its relevance to this article.
    Again, you see, the title of that subsection doesn't sum up what the reader is meant to take away from this section (if they don't manage to learn all of it, that is). If I were to summarize the subsection in two sentences, it would be like this: "Elements have been discovered by synthesis since 1940. There was a race between different institutes to discover new elements." Neither is really about the institutions themselves as the title suggests, so maybe another title could be better (I haven't come up with such a title so far), but speaking about content rather than titles, the content is actually important as an introduction into the story of discovery of hassium.--R8R (talk) 17:59, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
    I read the content as well as just the heading, but I don't think that content necessarily belongs in this article. It's explicitly not talking about the actual subject of the article, but rather laying background for it; to comply with summary style, that background probably belongs somewhere else, with a brief mention given to it in either the lead or another section as appropriate. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 23:08, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
    I'll take a few days to think it over. Meanwhile, @Double sharp: I'd also appreciate an opinion from you here.--R8R (talk) 19:53, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
    I gave it some more thought and I figured you were right. I have yet to add the appropriate citations, but the text itself looks good.--R8R (talk) 10:58, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
    I have added the appropriate citations.--R8R (talk) 19:03, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Couple of bits on no then-known fissioning nucleus showed similar parameters of fission:
    • no then-known sounds a bit strange to my ear - "no fissioning nucleus known at the time" would perhaps be a less awkward way of phrasing that.
      Good one; rephrased as advised.--R8R (talk) 17:59, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
    • Is fissioning nucleus a common term for a nucleus undergoing fission? It sounds a bit strange to my ear - I've heard fissile before for one that's capable of "fissioning", but never "fissioning" to describe the actual action. Then again, I'm not a physicist!
      Looks like it; this is indeed a term that is limited to nuclear physics.--R8R (talk) 17:59, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
  • According to Mendeleev's nomenclature for unnamed and undiscovered elements, hassium should be known as - to a non-scientific reader (although I suppose they're unlikely to have read this far anyway!) the "should be known" here might be confusing, because obviously Mendeleev's nomenclature applies only prior to discovery. It might be worth giving it a rephrase to something along the lines of "Under Mendeleev's nomenclature for unnamed and undiscovered elements, hassium would be known as".
    Thank you; your suggestion is actually better. The original phrase has been with us since what feels like forever, and nobody really questioned it.--R8R (talk) 17:59, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Although these recommendations were widely followed in the chemical community, most scientists in the field ignored them - two problems:
    • scientists in the field is ambiguous - which field? Clearly chemists are also "scientists in the field", if "field" is not disambiguated.
      I rephrased this a little bit to match the source a bit more closely.--R8R (talk) 17:59, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
    • Somewhat more importantly, the attached inline citation does not appear to support this (quite controversial) statement.
      Luckily enough, the statement is supported. See specifically the part between "LÖ: Did the system work then, or were these names and symbols simply ignored?" and "and the name you proposed for your element."
      I assume you're referring to However, neither side was interested in the systematic naming scheme in their scientific articles - trouble is, this isn't just testimony of what another person said, it's a journal, quoting someone, quoting something someone else said, about something which yet another person did. That's... a long chain for that information to follow, and I'm not sure how reliable it is as a source for that claim as a result. It could probably use at least an additional reference somewhere else to confirm it. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 23:08, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
      @Naypta: I think the new source I added (Greenwood and Earnshaw, published 1997, so the year hassium got its final name officially) supports this: "A systematic naming scheme was approved by IUPAC in 1977 but is not widely used by researchers in the field". Double sharp (talk) 14:27, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
      In case we need any more sources, we could also use Wapstra 1991, p. 882.--R8R (talk) 19:53, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
  • well-established nuclear shells, and the existence of these nuclear shells is somewhat repetitive; the second "nuclear shells" could probably be just "shells".
    Indeed.--R8R (talk) 17:59, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
  • that 108 is a proton magic number for deformed nuclei—nuclei that are far from spherical—and 162 is a neutron magic number for deformed nuclei - there's repetition here, too; a rephrase to something like "that 108 is a proton magic number, and 162 is a neutron magic number, for deformed nuclei (nuclei that are far from spherical)" might be of use.
    I don't want to parenthesize the definition of deformed nuclei as I want to stress that this term is important in this text. Perhaps we could replace the second "deformed nuclei" with "such nuclei"; I hope that does the trick, but if not, please say so and I'll think more about it.--R8R (talk) 17:59, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
    I think a parenthetical would do the job nicely there, sure. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 23:08, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
  • further research is required, including more accurate measurements of - perhaps it might be worth clarifying here why the research is required; something like "there are currently insufficient[ly accurate] measurements of ... to be able to ascertain information about the interaction with silicon nitride" might work.
    Thank you very much for this comment. One of the things I like about Wikipedia editing the most is that it helps you train the art of writing. By writing texts, you learn to communicate with people more clearly so that they easily understand what you are writing to them and they don't have any questions you don't want them to have. I'll fix this one shortly.--R8R (talk) 17:59, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
    I have clarified this.--R8R (talk) 18:26, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Hopefully that makes some semblance of sense! Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 20:27, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi! Thank you for dropping by, I will try to respond today.--R8R (talk) 10:02, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
@Naypta: I have responded to most of your comments. Your comments have been great: I particularly like getting comments from people who are not very familiar with the subject at hand very well because such people tend to look at a text differently, and they can spot some things I can't. I hope your read wasn't too overwhelming, at least the first couple of sections. Thank you very much for your comments!--R8R (talk) 17:59, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
@R8R: Cheers! Some thoughts above where appropriate. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 23:08, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
@Naypta: may I ask you to strike those comments you consider resolved? It would help enormously to keep track of those comments that are yet to be resolved.--R8R (talk) 16:12, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
R8R Sorted, cheers! Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 16:30, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

@Naypta: I have responded to the rest of your comments. I did as advised with two exceptions: I kept the long location format after my co-nominator Double sharp has come along and said he was in favor of keeping them in this particular article, and suggested we leave the "Introduction" vs. Introduction to the heaviest elements" debate for a later discussion at WT:ELEM. Can I consider at this point I have resolved all issues you raised, or do you disagree or have any more comments?--R8R (talk) 09:11, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

@R8R: Looks good! Happy to support :) Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 13:49, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Groundhog Day (film)[edit]

Nominator(s): Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:34, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

No fancy intro, this is Groundhog Day, even if you've never seen it, you've heard the term. Classed as one of the greatest comedy films ever made, up along the likes of Some Like it Hot and Annie Hall, this article has had a major overhaul, a copy edit and has now passed GA. Please impart your wisdoms so it can be elevated to FA. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:34, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

  • Driveby comment: The Epoch Times has been deprecated as a source, so it should be removed, and any information sourced to it that cannot be sourced elsewhere should be removed with it. I am getting a lot of potentially useful hits on Google Scholar. Have these been dug through? Josh Milburn (talk) 06:12, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
Dug through for what? There is an extensive Themes section if that is what you mean. I've removed the Epoch source. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 12:49, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
I am not asking if there is an extensive themes section. I am asking if you have hunted down and read the scholarly analysis of and academic research about this film, and incorporated material from it where appropriate. If you have not, I advise you withdraw this nomination, and then renominate once you have. If you have, perhaps you could quickly explain why there is no (very little?) scholarly work cited in the article? Josh Milburn (talk) 17:53, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
Do you have an example of what is not already covered in the article? I can't respond if I don't know what you are talking about. There is no rule that I have to cite a student essay to say what I have found on a website elsewhere. There's a deep analytical themes section. Please advise on what is absent. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 18:04, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
I have asked what I take to be a straightforward question, but I can try to rephrase it if you do not understand. You are putting words in my mouth. I have no opinion on whether the Themes section is or is not extensive. I have not made any claim about what is or is not covered in the article. I have not asked you to cite a student essay. I have asked you whether you have delved into at the scholarly literature on this film. If you have not, I have advised you to withdraw the nomination. If you have, I have asked why the scholarly literature is not (as far as I can see) cited in the article. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:22, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
If you get the time to read the article, the term "groundhog day" is heavily abused and misused. I have gone through Google Scholar because of what happened at the Ghostbusters II FAC and have found nothing that was either relevant to the film itself or not already covered. That is why there is not an exhaustive referencing of google scholar links. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 19:35, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
A quick sample of sources that could be cited: [16][17][18][19][20]. While there are sources that use the term for unrelated things, there are definitely relevant ones out there as well. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:52, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
And which of these say something that is not already said in the article? When did it become a default that Featured Articles must cite these spurious essays by nobodies? This is the third(?) time now that J Milburn has drove by to derail an FA nomination, such that I preemptively prepared a thorough analysis of the themes in the film this time and yet still this is not enough because I have not cited *cough*
Life on a loop: The enduring appeal of groundhog day

Abstract: Few films have entered the cultural imagination as pervasively as Groundhog Day (Harold Ramis, 1993). The title itself has become a kind of linguistic shorthand, referring to the sense of being trapped in some kind of undesirable recurring situation. Yet while the central narrative conceit may seem overwhelmingly familiar by now, the film itself remains a tangled web of contradictions: a high-concept romantic comedy with a surprising amount of pathos and a genuinely dark undercurrent. In hindsight, it represents a career highlight for its stars, Bill Murray and Andie MacDowell, as well as for its director. It is also a work of rich thematic depth, and provides a useful entry point for considerations of altruism, happiness, and deeper existential and metaphysical concerns.

All of which is already present in the article. Or Mass Market Medieval: Essays on the Middle Ages in Popular Culture, the contents of which from searching through it, are funnily enough, already present in the article.
And the worst thing is that it's always paid material, like the months you give up to write the article are not sufficient toil. But DWB I hear you remark, you can ask on the Resource Exchange for these. I know, I reply. And you get the contents and for something like Memory and Movies the film is probably mentioned in passing once in the entire book like with the Ghostbusters and Ghostbusters II "scholarly" articles suggested by yourself or others. OR you're waiting 3 months on for a Variety article for Scrooged. BUT, there's still Revisiting Groundhog Day (1993): Cinematic depiction of mutative process; Its contents from that abstract are already covered in the article. Which is to say, I have pre-empted this argument because I expected the attempt at derailment again. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:48, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
You could have effectively pre-empted this argument by writing what WIAFA refers to as "a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature", which in this case includes scholarly literature. What leads you to believe that these materials are "spurious essays by nobodies" and the sources you have chosen to cite are not? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:43, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
I raised these concerns on your first Ghostbusters II FAC (or "drove by to derail an FA nomination", as you put it) purely because the first person to raise these concerns "declin[ed] further involvement/help" because they could not "work in the environment created by the nominator here". Had that oppose stood (i.e., had the editor in question, who is one of the FAC directors, not been forced out of the review), I would not have contributed. I don't think your badgering of opposers and your disdain for scholarly sources (and, I add, the "nobodies" who write them...) has any place at FAC. As I have said before: such apparent hostility towards the idea of incorporating academic analysis or seeking out scholarly sources is surprising for someone who chooses encyclopedia-writing as a hobby. Josh Milburn (talk) 07:52, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
Analysis is included and I've just laid out that the sources Nikkimaria invoked are already covered in the article by documents other people can actually check. The analysis is incorporated, you're just unhappy that it isn't from student essays. That is not a complaint, it's a preference. The sources I was forced to include for Ghostbusters and Ghostbusters 2, written by people who can't even get the names of the characters right, are not vital or enlightening articles, they are things I would have been asked to write for a 6th form media studies essay. And I wouldn't include my 6th form media studies essay here either. The analysis in this article is comprehensive and thorough, the entire article is thorough, it is MORE thorough than Ghostbusters II. If the pair of you cannot say what is missing from the article (because you have clearly not actually read it) then kindly stop involving yourselves in these nominations and/or attempting to bully me at every nomination into doing things that are not required. If you're unable to do a proper review, you shouldn't be here. When one of your first statement's is "If you have not, I advise you withdraw this nomination, and then renominate once you have." you are clearly not here for any purpose but to push your own agenda, an agenda that is not required to pass FA. It is It's not possible to say the article is not comprehensive and contains an academic analysis, because it does, it passes all FA metrics. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 09:45, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
I've written quick stubs about two of the nobodies students senior professors who authored some of the work Nikki referred to above: Jude Davies and John Seamon. As Nikki has said, criterion 1c is a part of the featured article criteria. In my view (and as Nikki said above), the "relevant literature" referred to in 1c (in cases like this) includes the the journalistic and academic literature. I don't think that this is in any way an unusual or unreasonable view: I do not think this is a mere eccentric "preference", I do not think there's some secret "agenda", and I do not think raising questions about it constitutes "bullying". If you don't want to engage with academic literature, that's your prerogative. But don't be surprised if you meet resistance at FAC. Josh Milburn (talk) 10:02, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) DWB, you're not doing yourself any favours here. You're free to disagree with reviewers' comments and ask them for specifics but pls do so in a collegial manner. I see no attempt at "derailment", no "agenda", and none of the condescension and arrogance in Josh or Nikki's points that I've seen in some of your responses. It's common for a coord to archive a nom when an experienced reviewer has recommended withdrawal but I haven't done so yet because I wanted to give you the chance to discuss it civilly -- I hope I won't have cause to regret that. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:09, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

What is there to discuss? I have said at least 5 times that the information they want included is ALREADY in the article. They have said, in essence "ok, but why aren't you citing that same information to Josh's friends?". Neither of them have said that they have read the article. If you have not read the article, and have ignored my comments that the information you want including in the article is already in the article, what am I meant to do here Ian? If you want to understand why your quality FA noms are going down and no one bothers, this right here is why. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 10:12, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
I had never heard of any of these people before you nominated the article here. With no disrespect meant, they are not my friends. Josh Milburn (talk) 10:40, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

There, I've included even more content specifically from academic sources including John Seamon. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 19:13, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you; I am pleased that you have done this. I'll leave reference formatting to the source reviewer, but two quick comments about the new additions: 1) The Pick is a student journal. It has roughly the shape of an academic journal, and its content is (apparently) peer-reviewed, but I do not think that it counts as a high-quality reliable source. 2) Mass Market Medieval is an edited collection. You should cite the particular chapter, not the book as a whole. See Template:Cite book#Examples for an example of how to use that template to do it. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:04, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
I have added the chapter. I can't say I am familiar with The Pick, the editorial process sounds pretty thorough but I am not familiar with the university to say if it can be relied on to uphold that standard. Would you recommend removing the reference and associated information then? Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 09:16, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
I would, but others may have a different view. It seems that this is the kind of "student paper" you were objecting to above; The Pick a journal for students to publish their coursework in, not an outlet for peer-reviewed research. (Proper peer-reviewed journals will sometimes publish students' coursework, of course, but only if it's gone through the usual review process.) Josh Milburn (talk) 09:50, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
Removed. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 19:27, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment - If you made the Ghostbusters II article worse by including bullshit academic texts to pander to FAC reviewers, you should remove them. I know how many people read the New Yorker and how reliable and influential it is. Whereas it looks like no-one read or cited "Immigrants as aliens in the Ghostbusters films". Including academic work just because it exists is WP:UNDUE. I trust your judgement here, as long as you've read the texts, you needn't include them. - hahnchen 13:31, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt[edit]

One of my favorite films, though I've always considered the ending a bit forced. I'll wait to do a full review until you've addressed the above comment, but preliminarily:

  • I think in the plot summary, some mention should be made of the homeless old man, whose recurring deaths teach Phil that he is not a god and that there are limits to what he can do, that man is going to die no matter what Phil does.
  • Many years ago, I leafed through one of the early scripts (I looked at it well after the movie came out) and it contained an explanation of why this happens to Phil, that he has been placed under a curse by a former girlfriend. You mention that having such a scene was considered. Does the source go further than merely considered?--Wehwalt (talk) 07:47, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
There is a line in the plot mentioning his failed attempts at helping the old man already. Did you mean to add more?/
Must have missed that.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:32, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
The only mention I can find on a website about the girlfriend being in the script is from someone who was not involved in the film but claims to have read the script. There is mention in the article that they would put something in if needed to satisfy the studio but that they were never going to include and/or film that scene because they did not want it in there. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 12:49, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
OK, thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:32, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
No problem Wehwalt Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 20:26, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Comments by Argento Surfer[edit]

I'll probably add more comments as I read and digest, but the line "It can be argued that the length of time is not important." strikes me as too vague. I assume at least one person actually made this argument? Argento Surfer (talk) 13:21, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm at work so I'd have to have a thorough read through of the source, but the quote that stands out to me is "It could be 10 years or a thousand, however long it takes him to memorise the personal histories of Punxsutawney's townsfolk, and to become, among other things, a pianist, an ice-sculptor and a doctor ("It's kind of an honorary title," he shrugs)." I could change "argued" to "said" if its a semantics issue. Thanks for taking the time to comment. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 14:01, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
I took a stab at re-framing the sentence. Feel free to tweak it. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:20, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
Looks good, thanks. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 15:46, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Comments by SNUGGUMS[edit]

Resolved comments from SNUGGUMS
  • First off, kudos for all of your work so far here! I've seen this movie many times and it still is something I love, so nice to see somebody took the time to improve its article. Now I'll kick this off with a media review.
  • Other aspects will come later. For now, this should help give you something to focus on regardless of what scholary sources the article does or doesn't have. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 04:36, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the time to add your review SNUGGUMS. I will have to take a look at some of these when I get home from work but a few responses. The Cherry Tree in image, I do understand your point, I think the Filming section just wasn't big enough to include it, but it seemed a shame to not have an image of that particular location so I put it where it was next most applicable. The Boddhisvasta image is somewhat decorative but I did add it to be informative as I wouldn't know what a Boddhisvasta was otherwise (I'm not even sure I'm spelling that right without checking). The decorative part is breaking up a big wall of text. The reversed images of Minchin and Warchus, on a previous FAC I was told that images of people should be facing into the article rather than away from it. The staggering of images means they fall on the right hand side, and at least in Minchin's case I believe that was the only image we have of him for free, hence the flipping. I will take a look at the Anne Rice image too. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 10:01, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
  • My pleasure. For the reversed images, you could re-flip those and then align them to the left instead of the right to face the text, and also move the 2008 MacDowell towards the right so it does the same instead of the left where it currently is. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 12:02, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
I fixed the Anne Rice image by adding the correct link. Clicking on an image on the site shows it marked as Public Domain. I guess Anne Rice is just really cool and not pointlessly possessive over photos. I also flipped the Warchus/Minchin photos. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:17, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
Looking better. Now the Warchus and Minchin photos can be aligned to the left instead of right in order to "face" the text, and for the same reason, you can align the MacDowell pic from 2008 holding a Groundhog to the right instead of the left. After that, I'll review the prose. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 21:40, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
Done. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 07:33, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
  • From the plot section:
  • Using a day within "The following day, February 2" is redundant when we've already established that the previous day is February 1st.
  • It looks like "He confides his situation to Rita who directs him to a psychologist and neurologist who cannot explain his experiences" is missing a comma after "Rita". Also, when telling Phil to get his head checked (or something along those lines), he goes to the neurologist, and that guy is actually the one who refers him to the psychologist.
  • I get what you mean with "better himself", but that doesn't seem like the best tone for (what's supposed to be) a neutral and professional encyclopedia. Using "change himself" would be more appropriate.
  • The semi-colons in "he saves people from deadly accidents and misfortunes; learns to play the piano, sculpt ice, and speak French; and reads poetry" should be replaced with commas, also I'd take out the poetry bit as that isn't a skill (even though Mr. Connors does offer to read French poetry to Rita at one point and recited some to her)
  • "so eloquently reports" feels like puffery regardless of what the intended point is
  • That's all I have time to assess for now aside from "cast", which is underreferenced and this only mentions a few of the roles. WP:FILMCAST doesn't say these sections are exempt from in-text citations regardless of what other sections contain. If you don't wish to provide individual sources for each role, then I'd be fine with one collective reference for as many as possible and having "Credits adapted from ______" or "Credits taken from _____" or something similar. See Saving Mr. Banks and Evita (1996 film) for examples of this. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 15:12, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
I've made all changes barring the "so eloquently reports" one. I don't think his reporting is eloquent and am puffing it up, in universe that is the case. I cannot think of a better way to say something, ironically so eloquently, in other words to convey what is happening in the film during that scene. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 20:15, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
I rearranged the sentence to make it seem less of an opinion and more matter-of-fact. Argento Surfer (talk) 20:32, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
Definitely an improvement. Looking through again, I'm not sure "manipulate" is the most accurate word choice within "so that he can manipulate her into sleeping with him" as that could give a misleading impression he tries to trick Rita into sex or make her do so against her will. I'd recommend "so he can sleep with her" instead. Now for other parts.....
  • Under "Development", the use of "flop" within "his last directorial effort, Club Paradise (1986), had been a flop" is subpar tone. You'd be better off saying "unsuccessful" or "failure", and I'd specify whether this was in terms of reviews, box office, or both.
  • From "Writing", it looks like the "studios" part of "the studios demand for a broad comedy" is missing an apostrophe (to read as "studio's"). Also, I'm not sure what "accessible" supposed to mean in "the changes made it more accessible to the audience", but it reads awkwardly regardless.
  • Within "Pre-production", maybe add "As" to "A Chicago native, Ramis enjoyed filming in Illionis"
  • For the third paragraph under "Filming", it feels monotonous to have three consecutive sentences start with "Murray"
  • "Critical reception" and "Accolades" shouldn't be in the same section as "Release" or anything pertaining to "Box office" (entirely separate matters).
  • In "Aftermath", I'd replace "misfortunes at the box office" with "box office failures", and "classic" from "had created classic films like" is puffery.
Have at it! SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 03:58, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
Done. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 15:30, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
You still didn't take out the misleading use of "manipulate" from "manipulate her into sleeping with him. Also, I'd say the script bits "voice over" and "thinking" under "writing" should be in parentheses instead of italics, and the use of "hit" isn't really professional tone when talking about success (found within lead, "release", and the latter's "box office" subsection). Thankfully the un-mirrored pics of Minchin and Warchus (respectively File:Tim Minchin singing (Cropped).jpg and File:Pride 02 (15085757719).jpg) are appropriately licensed. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 23:16, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
I didn't change manipulate because I'm not sure what is wrong with it? He's deliberately learning stuff about her so he can manipulate her into sleeping with him. He's very deliberately trying to manipulate her feelings to make her want him in a short time period. It's a malicious act. He upsets her multiple times over multiple loops and only cares about learning more information for next time. It's selfish, evil, and manipulative.
Done the rest. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 10:49, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
The problem with saying Phil manipulated Rita in that regard is it incorrectly suggests he forced her to have sex with him against her will or tricked her into the act. This doesn't mean I condone his actions, I just feel it gives the wrong idea of what he was doing. We're better off going with something like "so that he can sleep with her". SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 12:49, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
Done. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 13:16, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

You now have my support. Good work! SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 14:15, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

British nuclear tests at Maralinga[edit]

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:25, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

This article is about the British nuclear tests at Maralinga in the 1950s. I'm nominating this because there has been a spike in page views due to the TV series Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:25, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Source review—pass

Based on my review at ACR. (t · c) buidhe 03:37, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Comments by CPA-5[edit]

  • British or Australian English?

Will do this soon. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 14:03, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

  • Yeah I just realised that too. Cheers.
  • was released by a Royal Air Force (RAF) Vickers Valiant --> "was released by a British Royal Air Force (RAF) Vickers Valiant"
    Ian Rose hates that. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:41, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
    I agree (i.e. "British" should not be added as a prefix for Royal Air Force). Mark83 (talk) 11:08, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
  • "kilotons" --> "kilotonnes"?
    They're the same thing. Settled on "kilotons". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:41, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
  • "Australian government" --> "Australian Government"
    Changed everywhere. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:41, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
  • The British government expected that the United States would --> "The British Government expected that the United States would"
  • the British government restarted its own development Same as above.
  • were fighting together in the Korean War and the Malayan Emergency Maybe add years of their involvements?
    I guess we can. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:41, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
  • The creation of NATO in 1949 excluded Australia from the Western Alliance Don't think NATO should be linked.
    Why not? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:41, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
  • accessed only by sea, and Emu had problems Emu as in Emus the animal? Maybe link it.
    Changed to "Emu Field". Already linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:41, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
  • The British government's preferred permanent test site remained --> "The British Government's preferred permanent test site remained"
  • coordinate vs co-operation?
    Not sure what is being asked here. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:41, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
  • 2.5 million imperial gallons (10 megalitres) per annum What's megalitres? I mean I personally don't have an idea of how many litres that is heh.
    In metric we use the prefix mega- for a million. A litre of water weighs a kilogram; a megalitre of water weighs 1,000 tonnes. Normally magalitres is used for small dams. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:41, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
  • tests, except those to UK government personnel Maybe it's me but this sounds really odd to me?
    Could be. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:41, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
  • The British Government welcomed Australian financial assistance
  • established at Watson, about 40 kilometres (25 mi) --> "established at Watson, about 40 km (25 mi)"
    Abbreviated. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:41, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
  • grading of 310 kilometres (190 mi) of tracks --> "grading of 310 km (190 mi) of tracks"
    Abbreviated. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:41, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
  • dispersed over an area of 210 square kilometres (80 sq mi) --> "dispersed over an area of 210 km² (80 sq mi)"
    Abbreviated. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:41, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
  • nails to drafting gear and two 4-inch (10 cm) wagon drills Why has this sentence inches instead of cm?
    Flipped. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:41, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

The rest will follow soon. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 21:22, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Comments Support by Mark83[edit]

Extended content

Really solid article. A few comments on a first pass (Lead up to and including "Aboriginal affairs"). Items with questions mark are more probing questions/suggestions.

  • I am not a nuclear expert, but I am used to seeing kT, but not TJ. Is this standard? Or maybe too much info?
    TNT equivalent is what is universally used for nuclear weapons tests. WP:UNITS: the primary units chosen will be SI units, non-SI units officially accepted for use with the SI, or such other units as are conventional in reliable-source discussions of the article topic. Hence kilotons of TNT is the primary unit here, with a conversion to the SI unit for energy (the joule). A kiloton is 4.184 TJ by definition. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:52, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Consider changing Second World War > World War II for consistency with that article title?
    World War II is an Americanism. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:52, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
  • United States Atomic Energy Act of 1946 (McMahon Act) > The Atomic Energy Act of 1946 (McMahon Act). The former is not the title of the act, and the way it's linked suggests it is.
    In this article, the assumption would be an Australian act, so "United States" is used to make this clear. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:52, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
    Adjusted to "US Atomic Energy Act of 1946" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:47, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
  • "At the time Britain was still Australia's largest trading partner," - at what time? I assume ~1946. And how is this directly relevant?
    Changed to "in the 1950s". The relevance is in why the Australian government granted permission to the British government to conduct nuclear tests in Australia. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:52, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
  • "Robert Menzies, who came to office in 1949, was strongly pro-British" - I looked at his article and see he was PM from 1949 to 1966, this needs to be explained in this article to show the relevance.
    Changed to "Robert Menzies, the Prime Minister of Australia from 1949 to 1966". He was previously in office from 1939 to 1941. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:47, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
  • What do free passage and subsidised passage mean, specifically? Of course I can guess but I shouldn't have to. e.g. from where to where.
    Added "on ships from the UK to Australia" and inked to the article on Ten Pound Poms. This is before the era of air travel. The trip cost about £120 in 1945, but immigrants were charged only £10. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:52, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
  • "The 1948 Modus Vivendi" - no idea what this is even after clicking the link.
    I should write an article on it. Added "the nuclear agreement between the US and UK which superseded the wartime Quebec Agreement" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:52, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
  • How is Australia's exclusion from NATO relevant? "Western Alliance" is a bigger term than just NATO and Australia very much in that sphere of influence.
    You'll find "Western Alliance" links to "NATO". This left Australia without allies in an uncertain post-war world. Hence the desire to re-kindle ties with the UK, and to acquire nuclear weapons. Australia's exclusion had long-effects that are still being felt today. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:52, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
    Did signature of ANZUS in 1951 not secure Australia's place in the Western Alliance? Mark83 (talk) 21:50, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
    ANZUS secured Australia's agreement to the signing of a peace treaty with Japan. It is a non-binding co-operation agreement between Australia, New Zealand and and the United States. Unlike NATO, ANZUS has no integrated structure, no dedicated forces, no secretariat or formal structure, no mutual obligations, and does not involve any of the Western Alliance countries other than the US. Far more important was the US designating Australia a major non-NATO ally in 1989, which has some tangible benefits, but still falls a long way short of what NATO countries get. In the 21st century, long after the period cover by the article, there are some intelligence-sharing agreements in place with Western Alliance nations, and as a result of the debacle in Afghanistan, NATO entered into a series of partnership agreements with Australia. This is still a long way short of NATO membership, but it is hoped that it will at least head off a repeat of what happened in Afghanistan. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:47, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
  • When reading "Neither the Montebello Islands nor Emu Field were considered suitable as permanent test sites" it makes you think why not? The site selection criteria is further down (bulleted list) so perhaps this can be reorganised slightly?
    Added "Montebello could be accessed only by sea, and Emu had problems with its water supply and dust storms." Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:52, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
  • "the area north of Emu Field.... was on the axis of the Long Range Weapons Establishment" - leaves me questioning what the problem is?
    Added "which meant that there would be a competing claim on the use of the area." Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:52, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
  • "a temporary airstrip was created in two days by land rovers pulling a length of railway line" - I'm guessing this just means they dragged it along the surface to level and clear the site? But is this clear and/or relevant? Maybe just "a temporary airstrip was created in two days"?
    I think this gives the reader a clearer picture of the rough and ready nature of the strip. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:59, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
  • "10 megalitres.. per annum could be obtained boring" > 10 megalitres.. per annum could be obtained by boring". And are all the conversions necessary?
    Added. Removed additional conversions. We only need imperial gallons and litres. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:52, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
  • In line references should be after punctuation. Some examples where this is not the case.
    Found and fixed one. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:52, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
  • J. M. Wilson - not linked so are they relevant?
    Indicates the level of the mission. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:52, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
  • UKMOS doesn't seem like an accepted abbreviation? Should be UK MoS or just MoS after first instance
    Used in the sources. Changed to "MoS". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:52, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
  • although Cabinet did not give its assent until 4 May - when reading this I thought it meant British Cabinet. It's linked to Australian Cabinet so that needs to be clearer.
    Added "Australian". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:52, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
  • "The British government welcomed Australian financial assistance, and Australian participation avoided the embarrassment that would have come from building a UK base on Australian soil. On the other hand, it was recognised that Australian participation would likely mean that the Australians would demand access to even more information than in Operation Totem. This had implications for Britain's relationship with the United States." Is this all covered by the next reference? Sorry don't have immediate access to it to check. Seem like important points.
    Yes, it is a summary of what the reference says. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:52, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
  • "the wartime nuclear Special Relationship" - that article is about much more than just nuclear weapons, so not sure the way it's linked is appropriate?
    It has both a general and a specific meaning. In works about nuclear weapons it always specifically refers to the access to nuclear weapons technology. I've consistently qualified it with "nuclear". It is only meaningful in the narrow sense. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:52, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
  • bush track from Watson to Emu became the main line communications for the project. - main line of communications?
    Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:52, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
  • near the 42-kilometre (26 mi) peg?
    Hmmm? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:52, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
    Peg is just not a term I'm familiar with? Maybe just me. Mark83 (talk) 21:50, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
  • "just finished the construction of an oil refinery near Fremantle" when? The delay from this to cabinet approval is unclear. The reader is just asked to accept it.
    Yes. Changed to "The need to create a new work force caused a cascading series of delays." Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:52, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
  • In the whole Development section there are numerous dates without years. I found this confusing.
    Added "1956" in a couple of places to make it clearer. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:52, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
  • "Magee prepared Blomfield a list of stores and equipment" - A quibble, but "provided Bloomfield with a list" would be better.
    Changed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:52, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Bores > Boreholes?
    We always refer to them as "bores" in Australia.
  • WL "brackish" because I hadn't a clue what this is. User familiarity will vary massively on this based on geography.
    Oh. Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:52, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
  • "Two Army skid-mounted 11-kilolitre-per-day (3,000 US gal/d; 2,500 imp gal/d) Cleaver-Brooks thermocompression distillation units" - Could this be trimmed/simplified?
    Simplified. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:52, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
  • "towed by a Caterpillar D8 tractor." Relevant?
    Sure. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:52, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Geofex needs explanation/context.
    Changed to "plastic explosive". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:52, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Camp at 11 miles needs explanation/context.
    The 11-mile peg? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:52, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Remove red link to Arthur Gillespie Wilson?
    Generals are normally presumed notable. (WP:SOLDIER) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:52, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Range commander being sacked could benefit from a reference.
    The article is fully referenced. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:52, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
  • "one of less than five" is clunky.
    Changed to "such a small committee". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:52, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
  • generally in groups of about 25 or so - is not FA-standard language.
    Suggestions welcome. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:52, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
    I'd suggest just removing general & or so. Makes it more defintive while still clear it's an estimate.Mark83 (talk) 21:52, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
  • LRWE not explained.
    Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:52, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Why was the decision to establish the Giles Weather Station a "complicating factor"?
    Expanded in this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:52, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Mark83 (talk) 12:06, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

I continue to be impressed with the quality of this article. A few comments from review of Operation Buffalo - Operation Antler#Planning and purpose (inclusive):

  • "sitting as Mosex or Buffalex as appropriate." confused me. So Mos- and Buff- refer to Mosaic and Buffalo. And then -ex is for Executive? I just feel it should be explained a bit more?
    Yes. Expanded this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:40, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
  • In One Tree "Which was more important..." > What was more important..?
    Buffalo or Grapple . Clarified. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:40, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
  • "Conditions were suitable but "by no means ideal"." - for me this begged the question what are the factors that make it less than ideal? I can make assumptions (clear skies and no precipitation?) but a sentence setting ideal conditions would sit well here.
    Added a bit about this. The main defect was the winds. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:40, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
  • theoretical predictions group - just checking if this should be "Theoretical Predictions Group"? Not previously explained.
    Just the group responsible for the calculations. Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:40, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
  • The main cloud crossed the east coast about 18 hours at about > 18 hours later
    Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:40, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
  • No. 49 Squadron RAF > No. 49 Squadron - as it's clear in the sentence it's about the RAF
    Be that as it may, I would prefer to keep it this way, as the default in this article is RAAF. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:40, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Should TAA be spelt out? I had to click the link. If it was Trans Australia Airlines it may be better.
    Another one of those corporate abbreviations that is far better known than what it stands for. (Most people thought it stood for "Try Another Airline".) Added the name. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:40, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
  • The discussion of fallout travelling west to east made me wonder why an eastern seaboard option wasn't chosen to avoid this. (I note at least one northern option was discounted). Not a deal breaker in terms of FA, just thinking out loud.
    Because the eastern seaboard of Australia is where the major population centres are. So they wanted the test sites in the desert to the west. The same logic as location the US test sites in the west instead of on the east coast. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:40, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Suggestion that the AWTSC reconstituted - was it disbanded? Sorry if I've missed something here.
    It continued, but as a smaller committee, with fewer functions. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:40, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
  • "The failure of the first round of Operation Grapple tests" hasn't been previously explained in this article so should it say "The first round of Operation Grapple tests was unsuccessful in demonstrating a working hydrogen bomb design which left plans for Operation Antler in disarray."? (It's a quibble but it doesn't assume any knowledge of Grapple).
    Sure. Changed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:40, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
  • This section says use of barrage balloons was logistically simpler, but then says "six hours to set up a tower test and eight for a balloon test." - just seems like a contradiction?
    I think it just says that the barrage balloons had advantages. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:40, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Mark83 (talk) 20:21, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Last batch:

  • You replied above "the eastern seaboard of Australia is where the major population centres are. So they wanted the test sites in the desert to the west. The same logic as location the US test sites in the west instead of on the east coast." But I've looked up maps of population density for both Australia and USA and while the latter has populations spread down the majority of its eastern seaboard, there are areas of Australia comparatively uninhabited - for example North of Cairns. Just important to stress again (as I did above) I'm just thinking out loud and this will not get in the way of my supporting FA status for the article. Also it may not be in the references and of course I'm not asking you to introduce original research.
    The Cape York Peninsula is a jungle with monsoonal rains. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:42, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
  • The UK didn't tell Australia formally about the cobalt tests - did this cause any friction?
    The UK informed Titterton, as noted in the article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:42, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Minor trials - it's noted "Maralinga was ordered to suspend all testing, including minor trials." - I assume by Australia and not UK?
    No, by the UK. Added words to this effect. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:42, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Should curies be linked?
    Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:42, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
  • "The UK could conduct a series of Kittens as part of Operation Buffalo." - should this be "a series of Kittens tests"?
    Changed to "kitten trials" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:42, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Minor prose suggestion for your consideration - "Tim experiments were concerned with the measurement of how the core..." > "Tim experiments investigated how the core..."
    Not doing that. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:42, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
  • "TM100 and TM101 areas" isn't fully explained in the text - perhaps refer to the image by way of explanation?
    They can look at the map. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:42, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Vixens - "for a successful test subjects the core fuel to high explosives in the hope that it simply scatters" -- missing word(s) here?
    Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:42, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Fallout - "Although the 1958 Operation Grapple thermonuclear tests had a measurable effect in the UK, none was detected in Australia." -- I just wonder if it should say something like "had a measurable effect in servicemen returning to the UK"?
    Not talking about service personnel. Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:42, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
  • This augured poorly for the future of Maralinga, if there was a change of government, and the 1961 Australian federal election reduced Menzies' majority to just one seat. -- Slightly clunky. Maybe just remove the first comma?
    Re-worded without comma. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:42, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Legacy - I wonder why the Australian government rejected the recommendation that the British government should pay all the costs of a clean up? Foreign relations must have outweighed internal politics? I note "prolonged negotiations" are mentioned in the Media coverage section. Another example of just me thinking out loud.
    Perhaps Mexico should have paid for it. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:42, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
  • "Maralinga: Australia’s Nuclear Waste Cover-up is a book by Alan Parkinson about the clean-up following the British nuclear tests at Maralinga, published in 2007. Parkinson, a nuclear engineer, explained that the clean-up of Maralinga " feels a bit redundant.
    Maybe "Alan Parkinson's book, Maralinga: Australia’s Nuclear Waste Cover-up, explained that the clean-up of Maralinga..."
    Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:42, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Also he's introduced in this section (as a nuclear engineer). Should this not be at his first mention in the section above?
    Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:42, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Mark83 (talk) 09:08, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

  • Support from me. Mark83 (talk) 13:01, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Comments by Spinningspark[edit]

  • I think there is some inconsistency in the units used. The explosion yields are given in kT with the metric equivalent in brackets, but distances are given in metric with imperial conversions in brackets. WP:UNITS says UK engineering-related articles, including those on bridges and tunnels, generally use the system of units in which the subject project was drawn up. In this period, the imperial system of units would undoubtedly have been used to design up the project (and kT used for yields). Also jumping out at me, the height of the Vickers Valiant being given in metres first – aircraft flying heights are always in feet.

SpinningSpark 11:12, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

  • The article is not a UK engineering-related article. WP:METRIC: the primary units chosen will be SI units, non-SI units officially accepted for use with the SI, or such other units as are conventional in reliable-source discussions of the article topic. The use of kilotons of TNT for the nuclear explosion yields is conventional in reliable-source discussions of the article topic. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:20, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt[edit]

Support Only minor complaints.

  • "11-mile" If this just means 11 miles away, I might put a metric conversion.
  • " The inhabitants were moved to a new settlement at Yalata, but many ritual objects had been concealed and left behind, and the people preferred the landscape of the desert, and many people left Yalata to return to their traditional lands." possibly substitute a semicolon for the final comma, excluding the final "and"?
  • "The decision to establish the Giles Weather Station in the Rawlinson Ranges was a complicating factor because it was outside MacDougall's jurisdiction, being just across the border in Western Australia, where the legal environment was different, and the people there had little contact with white people." Possibly change "the people" to "the Aboriginal people"?--Wehwalt (talk) 12:42, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
  • "a Red Beard with a composite core of uranium-plutonium core" is the double use of core intended?--Wehwalt (talk) 14:37, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
"It was clear that the procedures for prevent balloon escapes had been inadequate and the self-destruction devices were unreliable.[143][144][145]" Should this be "procedures to"? Or is this Engvar?
That's it. Interesting read.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:28, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Bob Mann (American football)[edit]

Nominator(s): Gonzo_fan2007 and Cbl62 17:36, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Bob Mann was an American football player in the late 1940s and early 1950s. He was a star end (wide receiver in today's terminology) for the University of Michigan, where he teamed up with future Hall of Famer Len Ford to form a dynamic pass-catching duo. He entered the NFL with the Detroit Lions, where he played for two seasons. After a salary dispute, he was released and signed with the New York Yanks (not to be confused with the baseball team), although he never played for the team in the regular season. After being released by the Yanks, he claimed NFL owners blackballed him by all agreeing to not sign him. After a few months, the Green Bay Packers signed Mann, where he would play parts of five seasons until a knee injury ended his career. Mann would go on to become a lawyer in the Detroit area until he died in 2006.

The quick overview above would make it seem like Mann was just another college football star who played in the NFL for a few seasons before professional football became what it is today. However, Mann's legacy goes far and above his statistics and physical abilities. Mann was a black player in football during a time of great racial prejudices. He broke the color barrier for both the Lions and Packers, he was cut by the Lions for not taking a pay cut (and possibly for supporting a boycott by the black community of a beer that he was a spokesperson for), even though he led the NFL in receiving yards the prior season. He was (arguably) blackballed by the NFL for his race and for not agreeing to take the pay cut from the Lions. Then he played for Green Bay, a town at the time that had only a handful of black residents. He has been called a pioneer for the dignified way he handled himself is such difficult situations.

This article has a fun history. Cbl62, as a fan of the University of Michigan, expanded this article in 2010! For the next 8 years, it received only a handful of minor edits. Then Gonzo_fan2007 came across it in 2018 and as a Green Bay Packers fan, they decided to work on it. In 2019, we decided to collaborate on this article and bring it to GA-status, and then, hopefully, to FA-status. This is Gonzo_fan2007's second FAC (after Packers sweep) and Cbl62's 1st FAC. The article received a pre-FAC review and WP:NFL was given a chance to review it, with at least one editor reviewing it. Thanks to Eagles247, Casliber, and MWright96 for your help in developing this article. Thank you all for your time in reviewing this nomination. Cheers, « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) and Cbl62 (talk) 17:34, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Support by Nick-D[edit]

I know almost nothing about American football, so am coming at this with what could be optimistically termed fresh eyes. Here are my comments:

  • "Mann transferred to Michigan in 1944, with his father hoping that he would attend the school's medical program" - which school?
  • " Mann took a year off for military service" - this sounds rather odd. People volunteered or were drafted for the duration of the war, so didn't take time off from their civilian lives.
    • It is somewhat colloquial language in sports for the era. I reworded. No source mentioned whether he was drafted or volunteered. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 01:49, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
      • "Mann left the university for a year to serve" still is unlikely to be correct - I very much doubt that the US Navy was offering one year periods of enlistment. Nick-D (talk) 07:10, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
        • The key here is that his college "career" was delayed while he served in the military. Both sources for this statement just note that "he served" from 1944 until the end of the war. Nothing about volunteering or draft. I reworded a little bit more, let me know if this satisfies your concern. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:28, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Do we know what he did in the Navy?
White newspapers of the day tended to give minimal coverage to military service by African Americans. Some of the old African-American press is available online, but I've been unable to find details there of his military service. Cbl62 (talk) 21:13, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
  • "McMillin thought it would be best for everyone to not incite any further racial issues in the city." - this is euphemistic (e.g. what racial attitudes are being referred to and why did McMillan think this?). Can clearer language be used?
    • I deleted the sentence. It doesn't say much more than the previous sentence. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 01:49, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
  • " Despite a good training camp" - I'm not sure what this means. Should it be "Despite performing well during the team's training camp" or similar?
  • " John Rauch, a rookie quarterback, told Mann that he had been ordered not to throw to him." - do we know who issued this order, and why?
    • I think I addressed this. It was the Yanks coach, and Mann understood it to be racially motivated. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 19:40, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
  • "He claimed that, despite leading the NFL in receiving yards in 1949, the Lions had asked him to take a 20 percent pay cut." - is 'claimed' needed here given that this is stated as a fact earlier in this article?
    • I changed to "asserted". I am trying to make the point that these were Mann's claims, but I kind of see your point. Let me know if this makes sense or if it should be reworded still. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 01:49, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
      • I'm still not sure why this is being presented as anything other than a fact? Surely Mann was correct in stating this? Nick-D (talk) 07:10, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
        • I see what you mean. The pay cut part is fact, the claims after that were assertions. I revised it Nick-D. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:28, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
  • "He married in 1956" - the article earlier describes him as being married in 1949?
    • Welp, this may take a second. I have two sources, one saying "his wife Dorothy" in 1949, and one saying he he had a wife named Vera who he had been married to for 45 years in 2002. Let me do some digging. In the meantime, Nick-D, let me know if you are good with the other responses and if you have any other comments. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:05, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
    • I found a reference in Jet (magazine) saying that him and his first wife Dorothy were divorced. No clear timeframes on the marriage though. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:38, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Can anything more be said about his legal career?
    • Honestly, we have tried but the sources just aren't out there. You can see a little of this discussion on tha talk page in the various reviews. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 01:49, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
      • Just to check, but have you checked online archives of newspapers in Detroit? He might well have been the type of lawyer who doesn't get in the media though (e.g. by only handling routine matters) Nick-D (talk) 07:00, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
        • Yes, about 3/4 of our sources are articles from a fairly diverse number of newspapers. There just isn't much said about his later life and career. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 19:24, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
          • OK, fair enough. Nick-D (talk) 07:10, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Have sports historians and/or historians of desegregation in the US written much about Mann? Given his pioneering status and the barriers he faced despite being an elite player the amount of analysis and discussion in the article feels a little thin. Nick-D (talk) 00:40, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
    • I think this really speaks to the times. There just wasn't much written about him at the time (racially speaking). What was written is included in the article. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 19:24, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
Nick-D, I have resolved or responded to all your comments. Let me know what you think. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:38, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
Those changes all look good, and I'm very pleased to support this nomination on prose, noting again that I can't comment on comprehensiveness, etc, due to my near total ignorance of American football (and all other kinds of football other than Australian rugby league for that matter!). Nick-D (talk) 08:10, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
Appreciate the review, Nick-D. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:37, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Image review—pass[edit]

All images appear to be free and correctly licensed. buidhe 00:46, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Buidhe. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:07, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Support from TRM[edit]

WikiCup review

  • I don't know why "professional" is in the pipe to American football. There are lots of codes of football with professionals.
    • This came from a discussion at WP:NFL. Basically, MOS:OPENPARABIO says a person's nationality should be in the opening paragraph. NFL bios routinely say "Person was an American football player." In this case, "American" refers to the type of football, not nationality. And since non-Americans play in the NFL, the sentence would have to say "Person was an American American football player" or something similar. I am definitely open to suggestions, but this was my way of clarifying that "American" was his nationality". « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:24, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
  • "l football player in " why not "footballer who played in"?
  • As a non-expert, I'm mildly bemused by terms like "receiving yardage", "undrafted", "yards per reception" etc.
  • Surprised to see that List of National Football League annual receiving yards leaders isn't linked here in the prose.
  • "a lawyer and practiced law " repetitive, probably don't need "law".
  • The link in the infobox is dead.
    • Fixed. likes to change their url linking every few years for fun. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:24, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
  • "Hampton's final game" of the season or ever?
  • "with his father hoping" -> "where his father hoped"
  • "African-American players" that wasn't hyphenated in the lead.
  • "ended up being" not really encyclopedic in tone.
  • "he caught three passes for 74 yards and two touchdowns and als..." and and run-ons, presumably something like "he caught three passes for 74 yards, scored two touchdowns and als" would be marginally better?
  • Similar, following sentence follows a near-identical structure/wording so it's got the same problem and is repetitive.
  • "a nickname as the "fifth man" in Michigan's backfield" I suppose this is meaningful to those "in the know" but to me it's meaningless.
  • Is it "at left end" or "at the left end"?
  • East-West needs an en-dash in this context.
  • Any reason Associated Press isn't linked?
    • It is already linked in the first instance of its use "Mann was also selected by the Associated Press as a first-team end for its All-Big Nine team" and in each ref. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:24, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
  • "America, and Michigan coach " I would stop after America, new sentence then relating to his acclamation from coach and subsequent induction into that state's HoF.
  • " receive feelers " is that encyclopedic?!!
  • "(NFL).[25] In April 1948, Mann signed with the Detroit Lions of the NFL;[26] his first NFL " NFL overdose, perhaps mix it up a little to reduce reptition.
  • "He was also hired to a sales position..." curious, so this wasn't a fully professional football career at this stage?
    • It was very common back in the day for AmFootball players to have second jobs, especially ones related to the NFL (in this case, working for a beer company that was owned by the Lions' president. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:05, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
  • "became the first African American to play for the Lions" the source doesn't back that up. "one of the Detroit Lions’ first black players".
    • Reworded to match the source more closely (basically including Mel Groomes in the discussion). « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:05, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
  • "Although team owners denied the existence of a ban, no African American had played in the NFL between 1933 and 1945" very close paraphrasing to the source: "Although team owners denied the existence of a color ban, not one black player had played in the NFL between 1933 and 1945".
  • "African American players. Even after African American players" repetitive.
    • I reworded a bit, but not sure how I can get around not having "African Americans" in each sentence. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:05, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
  • "began appearing"-> "began to appear".
  • "Mann appeared in all 12 games for the Lions," + in the 1948 season...
  • It's worth noting how Detroit did that season, coming bottom of the Western Division.
  • "He had played two years of college basketball at Hampton" who? Mann? We know. Owens? Not clear.
  • "not be able to play in the game.[2]..." no reaction from Mann? Or any of his teammates?
    • The source just notes the event and says that Mann doesn't dwell on the racial issues that he faced in that era. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:35, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
  • "Mann objected and held out" and "Mann became a hold out when" repetitive use or are they different things?
  • Link quarterback, free agent etc.
  • "October 1950, Mann was jobless. At the end of October 1950," repetitive.
  • "Despite leading the NFL in receiving yards in 1949, the Lions had asked him to take a 20 percent pay cut." haven't you already said all this?
    • Reworded so that this sentence is more of a callback to the previous explanation of the pay cut. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:05, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
  • "colluded to avoid signing", "colluded to avoid signing" repetitive.
  • "ending his suit against the NFL" was it a condition or did he just decide that because he'd been signed the misdemeanours of the past were forgotten?
    • The couple sources that mention this just note that the suit ended. Speculating, since he was signed he no longer had claims against the NFL for blackballing, so it was dropped. Let me know if you think I need to reword this. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:35, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
  • "becoming the first African-American to play for the team.[7][53] It was later determined that Walt Jean, an offensive lineman for the Packers in the 1920s, was African American.." well, odd. I guess "what was thought to be" should be in there really, this is an encyclopedia so we shouldn't make an assertion to then immediately nullify it.
    • Reworded to clarify he was the first "known" African American to play for the team. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:05, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Can we link the 1950 and 1951 NFL seasons in the prose? And the subsequent ones?
  • "three or less " fewer.
  • "2–9–1" what does that mean to a non-expert?
  • " racial diversity, Mann's time with the Packers was largely free of overt racial incidents.[69] However, racial " racial x3 in quick succession, repetitive.
  • "Green Bay Gazette" this was called something different last time and already linked.

That's a first pass. As noted, I am certainly no expert, so I may have misunderstood some things. Having said that, if I have, maybe some of our other non-expert readers will too... Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 12:57, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks The Rambling Man, I believe I have either addressed or responded to all of your comments above. Cheers, « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:35, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
No worries, happy with the above and just removed one instance of overlinking. Good work, good luck. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 08:54, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
As always, thanks for your thorough review The Rambling Man. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:09, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
No problem, I'm just here for the cookies! The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 14:10, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Comments Support by Kosack[edit]

A few very minor points, the two very thorough reviews above have already covered pretty much everything for me. Kosack (talk) 14:29, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the review Kosack, all your comments were addressed or responded to. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 19:28, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
No further issues for me, happy to support. Kosack (talk) 12:56, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the review, Kosack. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:27, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Coord note[edit]

Adding this to the urgents list and also for a source review. --Ealdgyth (talk) 14:15, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Ealdgyth! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:17, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi, based on the reviews above we have consensus for promotion but when I looked over the lead I couldn't help feeling there's room for improvement. I realise articles on footballers have their challenges but "football player who played" in the first sentence, followed by "played" and "playing" in the next two sentences seemed a bit much -- is there no way to vary this? Also "After not being drafted in the 1948 NFL Draft" seems a bit clumsy to me. I haven't looked at the rest. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:20, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi Ian Rose, thanks for the comments. I removed/replaced two instances of "play" from the lead, but as you mentioned, it is a challenge because there isn't an easy synonym for "play". "Engage", "participate", etc all sound clumsy and abnormal for American football. I changed the second sentence to After not being selected in the 1948 NFL Draft, which seems to be on par with other FAC's (Scott Zolak, Tyrone Wheatley). Happy to address any other comments you have. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 13:56, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
Tks for your prompt response. I guess "not being selected" is better but still... Do we even need to know this in the lead, could we not just drop that clause? Further, last I looked MOS tends to frown on single-paragraph subsections and while some might be justified, there are quite a few in this article. At the very least I think you could safely make New York Yanks section just the two paras, without the Charges of blackballing subheader. Leave the rest for now, I'll try and take another look tomorrow. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:35, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
Ian Rose, I dropped a couple single-paragraph sub-sections, as recommended. Regarding the draft status, Wikipedia:WikiProject National Football League/Player pages format (which, admittedly is an info page) recommends having the player's draft status in the lead. Of the 5 NFL player WP:FAs from the draft era, four mention their draft status in the lead (Otto Graham being the exception, although he never played for the team that drafted him). At this point, I would prefer to keep it, as it provides a natural transition from college to professional career. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:23, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
Tks, how do you feel about "After missing [or even "missing out on"] selection in the 1948 NFL Draft"? I won't hold up promotion though, your call... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:50, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
Thanks Ian Rose. I think I will stay with the original text; it matches more closely with the standard language the NFL uses when discussing the draft.. I do want to point out that a source review hasn't been completed for this FAC. Is that something that needs to occur before promotion? « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:20, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
Well wouldn't you know, I'd overlooked that, even with Ealdgyth's reminder above -- I spent some time double-checking whether a spotcheck was required but not the source review in general. Nikkimaria, could I trouble you to have a look at this? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:28, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Which stats in the infobox are meant to be cited to which source?
    •, removed the other to clarify. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:15, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
      • It looks like that source doesn't include date of death, and the exact date is not present in the article body. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:28, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
        • Nikkimaria, when you said "stats" in your original comment, I thought you were referring to Mann's football statistics. I have added his full death date to the last section of the article and to the lead. Ref 74 supports the death date. All the other information in the infobox is supported by multiple sources in the article. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 13:30, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Quotes should be cited in the lead even if repeated later
  • Fn2: the title here doesn't match that in the source, unless there's a different title on the first page?
    • See comment below about Source 12 and 13. This is the same thing. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:17, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
      • Not sure what you mean, could you explain? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:28, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
        • Source #2 is another news article that is split on two pages, with the first part cited separately (source 29) from the second part, similar to source 12 and 13. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:33, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
          • I'm not objecting to them being split into two cites. But in this particular case it appears that the second part has a different title, so if you're going to split them into two cites the second part should have the title specific to that part. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:39, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
            • Nikkimaria, it is my understanding that a title on the second page of an article is considered a subhead and not the title of the article. Each article can only have one title, which is why I kept the article's title from the first page and added "Part 1" and "Part 2". Let me know if there is an MOS or guideline for this. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 22:22, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
              • Nikkimaria, does my explanation work for you? I have three sources in the article that are newspaper clippings where the article goes from one page to another. They are all set-up the same way, with two citations using the main title with Part 1 and Part 2 appended to the end of the title. I haven't been able to find any guideline on how this is usually handled, so I am hoping that this solution works. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 22:32, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
                • That's fine. Looks like we're still pending a source for date of death as per above. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:30, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
                  • Not sure I know what you are referring to Nikkimaria. His date of death is sourced and I don't see any comments above about his death date?? « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 04:33, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
                    • See my response on point 1 - it's not in the NFL source used for the infobox AFAICT, and the exact date is not in the article body. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:09, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
  • FN9 credits but is from a different source
  • Fns 12 and 13: when the in-source location is more than pages, |at= is more appropriate
    • I disagree, separating out each page of a newspaper article makes it easier to verify the information and is the only way that each page of the article can be easily archived. Let me know what you think. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:17, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
      • I don't understand your argument. You could easily present the information currently presented, just using a different parameter. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:28, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
        • Do you mind providing me an example of what it would look like. I guess I am not understanding how that parameter would be used in a way that would allow me to link directly to two separate links, plus two separate Wayback machine archive urls. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:33, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
          • Currently part one is
Smith, Wilfrid (December 22, 1946). "Colleges Have Greatest Year for Football: Part 1". Chicago Tribune (clipping). p. Part 2, Page 1. Archived from the original on February 11, 2020 – via
All I'm suggesting you change is
Smith, Wilfrid (December 22, 1946). "Colleges Have Greatest Year for Football: Part 1". Chicago Tribune (clipping). Part 2, Page 1. Archived from the original on February 11, 2020 – via
And then the same with the other, keeping them as separate refs. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:39, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, that was my bad. I was confused at what you were asking. I have made the change. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 22:22, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
Thanks Nikkimaria for the review. I have addressed or responded to all your comments. Let me know what you think. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:17, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Alfred Worden[edit]

Al Worden was the command module pilot of Apollo 15. That was only a small part of a life that included being a test pilot, scientist, engineer, businessman, and public speaker, promoting the space program and STEM education. His 88 years left us the richer; hopefully we do not squander what he has left us. This article has passed a MilHist A-Class review.

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 11:56, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
Image review—pass
  • Per my review at ACR. buidhe 12:15, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
Source review—pass

CommentsSupport by PM[edit]

I looked at this closely at the recent Milhist ACR, and all of my comments were addressed there. Just a couple of nitpicks on another read through:"Worden was a Boy Scout and earned the *rank of First Class Scout"

Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:22, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
  • suggest "F-86D Sabres" as the aircraft is better known as the Sabre, same for F-102 Delta Daggers
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:22, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Colonel Chuck Yeager
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:22, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
  • "raising the age limit from 34 to 36" could you add what age Worden was at the time as this had been previously noted as a possible issue for him?
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:05, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
  • suggest "After the pause, he remained on the support crew for the second Apollo mission, which involved the testing of the CM and Lunar Module (LM) in Earth orbit."
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:05, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
  • led by Pete Conrad
Not done. I tend to sometimes repeat first names (or in this case, nickname) when someone's last name is also a first name if that makes sense. Pete Conrad has possibly become obscure (at a pub quiz on a cruise ship, they asked us "Who was the third man to walk on the Moon?" Ours was the only team to get it right ...)--Wehwalt (talk) 20:01, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
  • suggest using Template:As of for the uses of "as of" to flag them as potentially dated statements
That's done. I suggest that this is one of those statements that if it became dated, it would be prominent enough to be changed immediately. Here's hoping they become dated, by the way.--17:22, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
  • ...He was 88.[11][98][108][109] seems citation overkill for some pretty basic facts about his death
Probably stems from the talk page discussion. Cut back to two.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:57, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
  • for "tweeted" link Twitter?
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:57, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Is Note [b] supposed to cite "Worden became the first astronaut to divorce during the program and thereafter fly in space"? The note is uncited, and I can't see material to fully support that sentence in the Telegraph obit. It says "He was also the first astronaut whose career survived a divorce" and "Worden was selected to fly on Apollo 15 in late 1969 just after his divorce"
Sorry, I think I dropped the cite somewhere along the way. It's not cited.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:09, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

That's all I could find this time around. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:01, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Peacemaker67. I've done or replied to all. Sorry about the delay.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:22, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
Nice work, supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:56, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Comments by Balon Greyjoy[edit]

Article looks pretty comprehensively done. Nice work!

  • "he elected to be commissioned in the Air Force, though he had no piloting experience" I would remove the part about piloting experience; it wasn't a prerequisite to join the Air Force and it wasn't/isn't an uncommon trait to learn to fly upon entering the military
Since Worden makes a point of it and he became very accomplished as a pilot in air and space, as opposed to, say, Scott, who flew from a young age, I'm thinking it's worth including since the lay reader might consider it noteworthy.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:00, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
  • I would combine the sentences about trying to get a scholarship and the University of Michigan, as the current version is pretty wordy. My take is, "Worden applied for scholarships to fund his college education, but was only able to secure a one-year scholarship to the University of Michigan."
If we are to keep the part about his family not being wealthy, then making it one sentence is a little bit more difficult.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:39, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
  • I don't think that quote is necessary about him saying that he wouldn't live the rest of his life on the farm. I think Worden's overall story makes it clear that he wasn't trying to become a farmer.
I think it's important to have his own statement regarding his motivation. Even if he hadn't stayed on a farm, there were a lot of jobs in Michigan he could have taken.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:39, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Could you elaborate more on "Worden came to like the demanding life at West Point." There are going to be ups and downs during any military training, let alone a four-year service academy, and while I'm sure that Worden was glad about his decision to attend West Point, it seems like a generalization to say that he liked the entire experience.
No, but it's hard to boil it down. I've added a bit.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:39, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
Military service[edit]
  • I don't think it's necessary to say that Worden had no piloting experience when he graduated from West Point; it's not uncommon to not have any military-related experience prior to entering the military, let alone flying experience in the 1950s.
    Comment: During the period from 1947 to 1955 when West Point was the main source of USAF officers, there was a program under which cadets were taken for rides in aircraft as part of their training. The idea was to give them some familiarity with aircraft. Since many officers washed out of flight training, Worden was taking a big risk with his career; if he could not hack it or did not like it, he would be really stuck. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:30, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
  • I would remove the portion about how Worden felt that promotions would be faster in the Air Force. It's not clear who he thinks they'll be faster than (I'm assuming it's his West Point peers who joined the Army). Additionally, it doesn't seem like he was ever denied promotion or had a slow-rolled career, so it doesn't make much sense to say that speedy promotions weren't the case for him (acknowledging that all of the military astronauts seemed to promote quickly).
    Comment: During World War II, promotion in the Air Corps was much faster than in the ground arms. (A Willie and Joe cartoon had Willie visit an air corps base, to be greeted by the colonel with "Uncle Willie!") But it left the USAF with a pronounced "hump" of officers promoted in this period that drove personnel policies until the 1960s, when they started to retire, a slowed promotions for those commissioned after the war. One of the side effects of this was that USAF officers had less education than their Army counterparts. The scheme of sending officers back to school, which Worden benefited from, arose from this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:30, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
  • What aircraft was Worden training on while at Tyndall AFB? I'm guessing it was F-86 training, but whatever airframe it was on should be mentioned in the sentence.
    Comment: It was the F-86D. The advent of jet bombers made it obsolescent, but it continued in service because the Soviets had not developed a long-range jet bomber capable of reaching the US. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:30, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
I've added that.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:32, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
  • The ARPS section is a little confusing. It reads like he was an instructor there, and then a graduate, while I'm assuming it was the other way around.
    Comment: No, it is correct. Worden: "It was odd, graduation with the students I taught, but it suited everyone." (p. 52)
  • I would remove the quote about only realizing that the US had a space program in the early 60s. The national attention about the Mercury 7 makes it unlikely that Worden was completely oblivious to the space program until the 1960s. Regard his statement that he decided in the early 1960s that it was "worth looking into," I think it's clear that he felt that way since he applied in 1963, and doesn't require a quote.
Worden tells an anecdote in his memoirs that he and fellow pilots were so busy with work related activities that he did not watch the coverage of Shepard's flight. Sometimes in this Apollo 15 coverage you can't take an autobiographical statement as entirely accurate because there's contradictory information. But here there isn't. So how do I not take him at his word?--Wehwalt (talk) 00:47, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
While I don't want to suggest what Worden was thinking or armchair quarterback his commentary, I struggle to believe that he was unaware of the space program until the 1960s, despite what he wrote. In a similar vein, I wouldn't believe it if he wrote that he was so busy in November 1963 that he was unaware of the Kennedy assassination. The Mercury program was national news, and there's no realistic way that an active test pilot in the US Air Force would be unaware of it until the flight portion was underway. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 12:19, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
Very well, I've removed all up to his application to be an astronaut in 1963.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:28, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Since Worden's biography as used as the reference, I would remove "he related in his biography" and just say that he "applied to NASA's third group of astronauts."
Very well.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:25, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
  • The two quotes about why he decided to apply are pretty generic and don't tell more about him. The "higher and faster" quote is just the reality of space travel, and it's clear that he felt that becoming an astronaut was a step-up from a test pilot; he wouldn't have applied if he wanted to remain a test pilot.
It definitely has the feel of NASA PR about it, doesn't it? I've cut 1 of the 2. Still, it's useful to have some discussion of Worden's motivation. He had done quite well in his Air Force career and probably would have continued. Plenty of pilots did not want to become astronauts due to the lack of flights that was already becoming apparent, or felt their existing work was more important, or preferred to stay within the Air Force at MOL or felt they should not be in Houston at a time of war.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:47, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Replace "cold shoulder" with something more specific, as that is a figure of speech. Were they completely ignored, or was it just more that senior astronauts hoped to beat them on getting flight assignments?
The text is as follows: “ It’s no wonder that some of the older astronauts didn’t warmly welcome us, and in fact resented us showing up. Once you were in the program, Deke often said, you were as qualified to fly into space as anyone else already there. More competition for seats meant fewer flights for the older guys, and for at least the first year they kept us a little isolated from the rest of the team.” Worden does talk about one of the Mercury 7 astronauts (unnamed) telling him he wasn't eligible for the Rathmann Corvette deal when in fact it was open to any astronaut, but that's a page or so earlier and really seems more due to Worden being a new kid in school than due to being competition for a limited number of seats. Is there language you'd prefer?--Wehwalt (talk) 17:39, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
The quote doesn't really illustrate that the previous astronauts disliked/ignored the new class. The only anecdote here is that a single Mercury 7 tried to keep him out of the Corvette deal. I understand that the previous astronauts would understandably dislike new competition, but there's not any hard evidence to tell about how about the new class was coldly received. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 12:15, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
I've now hewed closely to what Worden said, that he perceived resentment on their part.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:35, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
Early assignments[edit]
  • Was Worden's assignment to a support crew particularly rare? Not to downplay his accomplishment of getting the job, especially since Givens and Haise were also assigned lunar missions, but there's not much else to indicate that it was an measure of success to get the job.
You may mean Mitchell rather than Givens. I think for Group 5 astronauts, yes, being on a support crew on the early Apollo missions got you a good chance of being in the lineup.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:21, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
Wrong "Ed," typo on my part (facepalm). Balon Greyjoy (talk) 06:10, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
  • "He found it hard to accept that the three accomplished pilots who were to make up the first Apollo space crew died on the ground, rather than flying." I would rephrase this. It's a common theme that astronauts were upset that the Apollo I crew was killed on the ground and not in flight, but it's not like Worden couldn't accept the reality of the situation.
Since he plainly did move on, since he flew on Apollo 15, I think it's fairly implicit that he was able to move on sufficiently.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:41, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
My apologies if my point was confusing, as I think we have different interpretations on the point I was making. What I meant is that this should be rephrased, because it's not clear what it means when it says that he found it "hard to accept." I think it would make more sense to say that he was very upset by it; I think saying that he couldn't accept something means that he couldn't believe it, whereas I'm sure he had no doubts that they died. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 12:08, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
  • It's unnecessary to devote an entire sentence to Slayton describing Worden as a "logical choice." They needed astronauts for these mission billets, and while I'm sure there was a ton of consideration for different crew personalities, none of that is explained here. My take is that this should be removed; Slayton indicated that he thought Worden would be a good member of the crew by selecting him to be a part of it. If it's necessary to leave "logical choice" in, the logic behind the choice should be explained.
That's really all Deke had to say about why he selected Worden. I think it's worth including because a) Deke selected Worden and so his perspective is worth having and b) we don't have any other information on this subject. Worden didn't know and Scott didn't have much to say about Worden.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:06, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
My point is that Deke would be making a choice he would consider logical. If he had more to say about it regarding his decision, I would consider that his perspective, but just that he made what he felt was the correct choice is redundant. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 06:09, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
Deke meant it to say something or he wouldn't have written it. If it isn't as informative as we would like, well, that's Deke Slayton all over.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:32, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
I understand that Slayton felt this way and decided to put it in his autobiography, but I don't think it adds anything to the narrative about Worden. It's an extraneous detail. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 12:10, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
Well, then, look at it this way, Deke recognized Worden's work on Apollo 9, which is worth mentioning, and the rest should be included because it says that Worden was in the mainstream of Apollo crew selections. He didn't consider it exceptional.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:45, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
  • What's the significance of learning that he was a part of the crew in Scott's office? They would presumably receive work-related news at the workplace. If it's left in, the part about it being from Worden's biography is unnecessary, as the biography is cited.
I don't think it's essential. But I think it's worth including as some flavor of Worden's experience. Clearly it was a big moment for him.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:41, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
  • I would remove the quote about the Dick Gordon relationship, as it doesn't say anything beyond what you would expect from a close working relationship. They worked hard together and spent a lot of time together.
It seems an exceptional comment. Certainly Worden did not speak of either of his crewmates in such high terms. I'd rather leave it.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:17, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
  • What does it mean "Warden remembered..." It doesn't make sense at the time that he would be remembering it, as it was a current event. Is it just that he stated that in his book? The book itself is already cited, so the fact doesn't need to be attributed to Worden in text.
It's leading into a quote by him and so it's a variation on the usual "Worden wrote," etc. Just a different way of saying the same old thing that you're about to let the reader have a quote from the article subject.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:21, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
  • I think the Corvette part is interesting, but it's a stretch to say that the 3 Corvettes they drove made them less conspicuous by virtue of not matching. I would remove it.
The actual quote is: “The different cars seemed symbolic of the differences between our crews. The Apollo 12 guys went everywhere together. If you saw one gold-and-black car, you would see three. Eventually, this caused some problems, because astronauts don’t always want to be recognized. Sometimes, it was better to disappear into the woodwork. Our crew didn’t have that problem, as you would rarely see our three cars together.” As Hawkeye7 pointed out, if you saw a Corvette going like a bat out of hell near KSC it was almost certainly an astronaut, but I've added something to the effect that the three cars were rarely seen together.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:27, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
Preparations and launch[edit]
  • It's a little confusing to say that this was the first mission that lunar observation from orbit was a mission objective, but then state that the Apollo 13 and 14 CMPs were trained on it. Maybe clarify how Apollo 15 was different in this case?
I've added "formal" before mission objectives. The addition of all that equipment hopefully will help make it clear how 15 was different from earlier ones.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:30, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Where did Worden travel for field geology training? I'm assuming to places with igneous exposure. If possible, that sentence should be more specific than "many parts of the world."
I've added examples.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:12, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Clarify what Worden was doing at the Downey facilities, as it's vague to just say he spend much of his time there.
Clarified.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:16, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
  • What does it mean that he took the children's questions on the trip? Were they written down and given to him, or was he just remembering them?
He wrote them down, took them with him and gave them to Fred Rogers. I'll clarify.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:07, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
  • "Blasted off" seems like a figure of speech; maybe "launched" or "lifted off" instead?
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:13, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
  • It seems excessive to say that it launched "for the Moon" as it was really just headed for orbit, as the trans-lunar injection occurred later.
I've tweaked that.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:13, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
Lunar orbit[edit]
  • I would mention that the Falcon was able to separate after the loose umbilical was reconnected. Right now, it reads that the undocking couldn't occur, Worden reconnected a loose umbilical, and the next sentence jumps to the Falcon on its way down.
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:53, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
  • The entire paragraph starting with "Busy as he was, he still had time to savor the experience" comes across as WP:POETIC, and doesn't tell much more than that Worden spent some time looking out the window and thinking about things. While I certainly can't fault Worden for being amazed at what he is looking at, it doesn't appear that he had some epiphany or religious experience that changed him in later life beyond the celebrity and success of being an Apollo astronaut.
I think it's important to mention how he felt about it. He was, after all, moved enough to write a book of poetry about it.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:53, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
  • I'm not a fan of "and that he was used to being alone as a fighter pilot" as a multi-hour sortie by oneself and a three days in the CSM are very different experiences. It seems like an unnecessary comparison.
I would not include it if someone else made the comparison, but I think it's different that Worden said so.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:11, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Mention the docking of Falcon and Endeavour as the narrative jumps from him being alone to the entire crew headed back to Earth, and he would have had a role in the docking and preparation for the trans-Earth injection.
Inserted.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:54, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
  • I would remove the paragraph starting with "Apollo 15's achievements included..." as almost all of those occurred on the lunar surface, and the ones that didn't (the scientific instrument bay, the deep space EVA) are already mentioned earlier.
Removed.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:54, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
Covers incident[edit]

Hey, this reminds me of a GA review I did! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 13:14, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

I remember that :) ... I keep working on that article ... the new biography of George Low was a help ... if we weren't in a pandemic I'd go to New York State to look at his papers myself.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:01, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
  • "two covers were apparently destroyed, leading to a total of 398" What does "appparently destroyed" mean? Did someone claim to have destroyed them, or were they just unaccounted for later?
They were unaccounted for when they were processed after the mission. As detailed in the article you reviewed, Scott said he had never counted them.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:46, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
  • "an inquiry to NASA, tipping off Slayton, who warned..." Shouldn't it be "an inquiry by NASA"? Also, "tipping off" is a figure of speech; my take is to say that a NASA inquiry began, "and Slayton warned Worden to avoid..."
No, not at that time. Someone interested in buying a Herrick cover asked NASA if it was real. The letter was forwarded to Slayton. Slayton was on notice that Worden was bringing covers, since they were on his PPK list, so the only thing that concerned Slayton about it was that someone was commercializing a moon-flown object that had come from Worden. As for the tipping off, given my explanation, what would you suggest?==Wehwalt (talk) 16:46, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
Changed "tipping off:" to "alerting".--Wehwalt (talk) 07:39, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
  • "Worden related that the fact that Worden himself was a stamp collector..." This is confusing with the double "Worden." I'm assuming the "Worden related" is a reference to it being from Worden's book. My take it "Slayton, knowing that Worden was a stamp collector, became suspicious that he had arranged both deals,..."
Very well.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:27, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
  • I would remove the last sentence about Worden's feelings on disappointing Slayton. But if it's left in, the previous sentence should specifically mention the meeting between Slayton, Scott, and Worden, as it currently just states those are the individuals the Deke learned it from.
I've left it in but made it clearer as you suggest.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:08, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
  • There's a lot of redundant information about Worden trying to get a job at NASA. The section talks about how Worden was informed that he wouldn't be an astronaut anymore, wanted to continue working with NASA, and that he's unable to promote in the Air Force, and then two paragraphs later the situation is explained that all three astronauts couldn't promote, and that they would stay with NASA. My recommendation is that all of this goes after the section about the hearing.
I've cut the initial reference to the derogatory information. All this was going on from May to August or September 1972, as the covers incident gradually became public. Worden talked about it at the hearing. So now it is being dealt with in a chronological manner.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:42, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Combine the sentence "Slayton told a Senate committee in August 1972..." with the remaining info about the hearing in which Slayton testified that's in the next paragraph.
I've cut the reference to Slayton at the hearing, so now it is chronological.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:42, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
  • I would remove the quote about Slayton's feelings on the matter; that they told their story is already clear in stating that they testified, and the article about Worden doesn't need info about Deke's after-the-fact opinion.
It's a way of describing what Worden did at the hearing, which would otherwise be difficult, as it was a closed hearing. It's actually not that different than how we did it in the covers article, except there we used what Worden had to say about it. It's not to get in Deke's opinion. It's pretty clear that Deke permanently soured on Worden.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:01, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
Post-NASA activities[edit]
  • I would say that he founded Alfred M. Worden, Inc.; saying that he became president makes it sound like it was already an established company. Additionally, what the company did should be explained.
Multiple sources mention it but do not explain it. I'm not certain it's necessary for understanding of Worden.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:15, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
  • "Worden still believed that other former astronauts looked at him askance because of the postal covers incident." Did this manifest itself in any way? It should be explained what the other former astronauts did to exclude him.
He didn't get specific. "And I felt I was still considered tainted. My peers no longer shunned me, as they had when I left Houston. But behind the smiles and the handshakes I sensed a continuing unease. I was the guy who had been fired. Perhaps I always would be to them.”--Wehwalt (talk) 12:00, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
  • "Worden made many public appearances" Were there significant public appearances he made, such as a speaker at a major university or institution?
He spoke widely, I know he spoke at the Museum of Flight a few months before he died. But there's no particular one that is, for example, mentioned in all the obits.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:06, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
Were there any major events that could be listed? Balon Greyjoy (talk) 11:26, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
Define major. He certainly spoke when getting the award from NASA. But how I distinguish major events from Worden showing up because it's a paid gig is unclear to me.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:51, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
My subjective opinion on what constitutes a major event would be one where it's expected to have a high-profile speaker, such as a large museum opening, university graduation, Astronaut Hall of Fame, and the like. I just think it should be more clear that he wasn't just offering his paid appearance to whatever organization wanted good PR by having an astronaut speak there. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 12:12, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
Not that I see or that he mentions in the post-NASA part of his autobiography. He was still a ways down the former astronaut pecking order.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:09, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
  • "was one of the most approachable of the former astronauts" How is this quantified or objectively measured? I understand this is taken directly from his obituary, but it seems much more like the author was complimenting the late astronaut, as there's no explanation in either the article or the source material of how and to whom he was approachable.
I'm not sure I would go that far. For all the praise Armstrong got in his obits, I doubt anyone ever called him approachable.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:06, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
I would imagine that almost all astronauts would be considered approachable when compared to Armstrong, but that still doesn't qualify Worden to be referred to as one of the most approachable. A lot of the former astronauts had public appearances following their spaceflight careers; one line in an obituary doesn't seem sufficient to solidify his status. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 11:26, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
  • "ready to chat over a vodka on the rocks" This falls under WP:INFORMAL and is not encyclopedic. It should be removed.
I think it goes to how Worden conducted himself in his later years. I could I suppose make it a direct quote but that seems unnecessary.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:06, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
Direct quote or not, it's an unnecessary detail. It doesn't say much other than that was his (presumably) favorite drink. It's an editorialized comment from his obituary; it's not like he would only meet with people while drinking a vodka on the rocks, and I'm assuming he wasn't drinking constantly if he made it all the way to the age of 88. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 11:26, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
The above two are the same basic objection. I'd like to see what other reviewers think.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:51, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
Sounds good. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 12:12, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
Awards and honors[edit]
  • Did Worden receive any notable Air Force awards? If so, they should be mentioned.
I don't see any mention of it in places I would expect it to be mentioned, say in the Shayler/Burgess book, which has a post-NASA biographical entry for him.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:48, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
Okay, I would imagine that he had received some awards by virtue of being an O-6, but probably nothing too exciting since he started flying after the Korean War and join the Astronaut Corps prior to Vietnam. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 11:14, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
Personal life and popular culture[edit]
  • What does it mean that he was shunned by the astronauts' wives club? He wasn't in the club originally, so it's not like they kicked him out.
While The Telegraph does not give more details, his book says “A couple of the wives continued to disapprove of me for years. One of them was Deke’s wife, Marge, which was always a little frightening, because I imagined Deke hearing all about it when he was at home. And yet, over time, the wives came to understand that I was no threat to them, and in fact Marge eventually became one of my biggest advocates.” He also relates an anecdote whereby there was a party just after the divorce became final and he feared to go because of the wives' disapproval. Scott told him to go and he did.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:56, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
  • As a pianist, did he perform at major recitals or shows to make him accomplished? If not, I think that "playing piano" could be grouped together with his other recreational interests.
Merged.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:56, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
  • I would shorten the number of direct-quote tributes listed. My take is to limit it to quotes from very notable people (Bridenstine, Aldrin, and Pence). I'm not a fan of the Kallman quote, as it's quite long. I think the McLaughlin quote should definitely be removed, as the author isn't a notable individual, and there's no indication that the author had any interaction or first-hand knowledge about Worden.
I have removed the McLaughlin one, and cut back on the Kallman one. I think something from Kallman should remain as he knew Worden in recent years.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:39, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
Nice! I think it's better now! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 11:11, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

That's all I have! Please let me know if you have questions or further comments! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 14:48, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

OK. Thanks for the review. I've either implemented or commented on all your suggestions.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:16, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Comments by JennyOz[edit]

Review to come but in meantime Wehwalt can you rescue the "astronomy" ref just removed? JennyOz (talk) 06:55, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

The bot did it.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:45, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
Hi Jenny, could I ask you to crack on with this if have a chance? It's been open a fair while but I don't want to archive if you're ready to comment... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:48, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
Before you do so, let me see if the people who weighed in at the A-class review wish to do so here AustralianRupert and Hawkeye7.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:54, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
G'day, I am not really in the right frame of mind to review for FAC at the moment, sorry. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:09, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Support from Hawkeye7[edit]

"How was your EVA?" "It was ruff going."-EEng

I haven't much to say; I am very happy with the sate of the article. I was pleased to find the image of the ARPS class, but you trumped me with the pics of the corvettes. I would consider moving the Group five image down a paragraph and across to the left to maiantain the left-right sequence; and move the image of the postal cover down one paragraph. Suggest simplify the spacewalk caption to "Worden performing the first deep-space EVA during Apollo 15's homeward journey". (EEng would say that if any Soviet space dogs performed EVAs that would be really interesting.) But these are just suggestions.

  • Note b could use a reference
  • "Air Force" and "test pilot" are doubly linked in the lead
  • In the body, "Aerospace Research Pilot School", "Apollo Program" and "George Low" are double-linked.
Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:48, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
I've removed the double lead link for "test pilot", the other double links are due to one being a pipe, or, in the case of George Low, he is only introduced as a NASA official when he proposes Apollo 8 as lunar mission, and it is simpler to re-link him in the postal covers section than to remind the reader that he has been talked about before. Note b is now sourced. I was very pleased about the Corvettes, I need to follow up with the guy, he knows people at NASA and showed me other pix we might make use of. But good job on the ARPS class. As for the spacewalking pooch, I suppose there will be a need to walk the dog even in space ... thanks for the review and the support.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:39, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Support Comments from Jim[edit]

Just a few suggestions for you to consider, looks very comprehensive Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:36, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

  • spent his early years on farms— perhaps rephrase to make it clear that he was living on farms, rather than working
  • U.S.'s service academies U.S. service academies would be acceptable, at least to a Brit, and is less clunky
  • perhaps link "cheerleading" and "umbilical"
  • 47th in his class — out of 47? 500?
  • as it proved correctly— perhaps as proved correct?
  • Two cameras, a stellar camera and a metric camera, together comprised the mapping camera, which was complemented by a panoramic camera—five repeats og "camera" in one sentence
Down to four.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:16, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Worden founded Alfred M. Worden, Inc —which did what?
He doesn't say in his memoirs and the sources that mention it don't expand on it either.
  • In External links, IMDB and Medium are not considered reliable sources. I don't have a problem with the Medium link, but I don't thin IMBD adds anything.
I've done all those except as noted. Many thanks for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:16, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
All looks good, changed to support above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:44, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
Much obliged. Thank you.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:20, 1 August 2020 (UTC)


Nominator(s): Constantine 21:55, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Al-Hafiz was the eleventh Fatimid caliph, and the last to actually exercise any power. His accession was disputed, and his reign was tumultuous to say the least, with even his sons turning on him and one another in pursuit of power. This is my first Fatimid caliphal biography FAC, and hopefully not the last. I think it is as comprehensive as it can get, and have tried to present the complex circumstances of rise to the throne as well as I could, given that the modern sources are often themselves contradictory in their assertions. Any suggestions for further improvement are, as usual, welcome. Constantine 21:55, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Image review
  • All images are free and relevant. However, the "plan of Fatimid-era Cairo" and "Victory Gate in Cairo" break across sections. buidhe 01:18, 20 June 2020 (UTC)


Welcome back Constantine. My initial thoughts:--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 22:01, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

  • I would remove any citation from the lead, but thats just my personal taste
    • I put it in for the numbering, but I guess it is redundant. Removed.
  • I think a short section about the name should be added (maybe add it in the origin section which can be renamed name and origin). Readers need to understand what is the Kunya and what is the regnal name and what is the actual name...etc. I mean more about the naming traditions of those monarchs. A lead should not contain information not mentioned in the body of the article and right now this is the case as his full name and Kunya are mentioned only in the lead.
    • I added mention of the kunya in the initial section, but am wary of doing more: the full name given in the lede should be easy to understand from his parentage, and the regnal title is explained later on.
  • "As an adult, he is reported to have shown a strong interest in astronomy". By whom reported? a old or contemporary historian who wrote his biography for example? Obviously we may not know this so its not a must to include who reported this.
    • Walker just writes "One report credits al-Ḥāfiẓ with a strong interest in astronomy", and I haven't been able to find any more details on this.
  • "al-Amir had resumed the personal direction of government affairs". There should be a sentence about the background of this (like the caliphs formerly lost direct power and al-Amir restored it..etc)
    • Clarified.
  • "all-powerful Armenian viziers Badr al-Jamali and al-Afdal Shahanshah". Mention that they are related? Later we read that Kutayfat held the "titles of his father and grandfather" but we dont know that Badr is his grandfather as it is not mentioned before.
    • Duh, thanks, of course this should be mentioned
  • "the army, assembled at the Bayn al-Qasrayn square". Mention in which city (it is in the caption but should also be in the text)
    • I thought it was obvious from the "...carried through the streets of Cairo" that follows
  • "the appointment of Kutayfat, the only surviving son of al-Afdal Shahanshah". Maybe a note on how Kutayfat still had power in the army after his father's death (and the year of the latter's death should be mentioned in the text). Ofcourse if this information doesnt exist then there is nothing we can do.
    • I don't think it was personal influence, just the attachment of the army to the memory/legacy of Badr and al-Afdal. This is beyond the scope of this article, however.
  • "guarded by Ridwan ibn Walakhshi". Introduce Ridwan (the vizier, the leader...etc)
    • Done
  • "Fatimid claims to the imamate". Maybe a short note about the immamate concept and the Isma'ilism as the state religion and difference from Twelver Shi'ism. Most readers understand that a caliph is a monarch but Imam and other concepts are not really familiar. Maybe a small background in the origin section could be of help.
Seconded. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:56, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
    • @Attar-Aram syria and Gog the Mild: I sort of knew this would be asked, but dreaded it TBH. After several drafts, I have a version which I think conveys the essence without being an article in its own right. Have a look, and feel free to criticize it as much as necessary until I get it right.
Looks good.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 01:44, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
That works for me. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:06, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
  • "Mu'tamid al-Dawla as head of the bureau, and his brother as naqīb al-ashrāf". An explanation between two brackets of what that title means should be good here.
    • Done.
  • " just as the Seljuk rulers had been vis-à-vis the Abbasid caliphs since the time of Tughril", mention when he reigned.
    • Done.
  • "Ridwan also continued correspondence with the Burids," Its not clear who they are. Introduce the dynasty (like the Burids who ruled southern Syria).
    • Good point, done.
  • "In 1142/3, Fatimid envoys visited the court of Roger II of Sicily, whose fleet had captured the old Fatimid capital of al-Mahdiya on the coast of Ifriqiya" A note here is helpful mentioning that the Fatimids no longer controlled that city by that time since it was under the Zirid dynasty, which was only nominally under the authority of Cario (if at all). Otherwise its weird for readers to read that the Fatimids were Okay with the capture of their old capital (I know its in note "g" but many readers wont read it I believe).
    • Good point, rewritten.

Thats it for me, cant see anything else that can be improved. The article's weak point is the complicated nature of Islamic concepts: imamate, Ismailism as a state doctrine (many readers wont know this- they would know that the Fatimids were Shia but not much more, or maybe I dont give the general reader much credit and need to work on that), the divisions of Ismailism...etc. In the articles about the Seleucids, I tended to have long background sections that summarized the history of that dynasty so I dont have to introduce it bit by bit in the body of the article. Maybe this article can benefit from that approach. For example, we read: "As a result, al-Hafiz's accession produced a major schism in the Musta'li branch of Isma'ilism".... If I was a reader without a background in this, I would be totally lost. Few sentences later, we read about what the Musta'li schism was about... I think this article would benefit from summarizing or moving these paragraphs to a background section where the events are told chronologically. This is just a suggestion ofcourse.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 02:02, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

I've considered this, but I fear the result would be a huge intro section that would entirely put off anyone from reading the rest of the article (cf. my barely started work at rewriting Abdallah al-Mahdi Billah, where I've tried to keep things at a minimum). That is why I've deliberately chosen to deal with the concepts as they become relevant during the article. I fear the hurdle of unfamiliarity cannot really be overcome in such a way as to satisfy everyone. In the final analysis, we have to trust in our readers: if someone is interested, he/she will delve into the topic and the events and concepts presented here. For the casual reader, I can only recommend skipping the more troublesome sections during the first read and just try to get the gist (at least that's what I am doing in similar cases). On the specific example you gave, I admit I also was uncomfortable with name-dropping Musta'lism before explaining what it was. I've now reordered the section to introduce the 1094 schism first.
Thank you a lot for your input, Attar-Aram syria, I particularly value it because, as you say, you have to deal with similar niche topics. If you have any further suggestions (or remarks on where the article is most confusing) I would be very happy to have them. Constantine 16:04, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

I see. Sometimes its inevitable to treat the readers as if they have some kind of knowledge of what they are reading. Happy to support this article which greatly expand the knowledge about that part of the world. Thanks alot for these efforts.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 19:51, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, Attar. Again, if you have any further suggestions, beyond the confines of FAC, they are most welcome. Constantine 06:24, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Support from Gog the Mild[edit]

Nb, I intend to use this review to claim points in the WikiCup.

  • "and ultimately unable to halt the evolution" → 'and was ultimately unable to halt the evolution'.
    • Done
  • "Hasan's reign proved tyrannical". Did viziers "reign"?
    • For lack of a better word, yes. Viziers, especially by this time, were effectively viceroys, rather than simply chief executives.
It was an open question. I am aware of some of the nuances around this. I am happy for you to decide on the most appropriate phrasing. I note that viceroys of India, for example, were "appointed" and their 'reigns' were "terms" or "periods in office".
  • "caused a severe reaction by the Muslim public opinion". You can't phrase it like that in English. 'caused a severe reaction among the Muslim population'; 'caused a severe reaction in Muslim public opinion'? Or something else.
    • Thanks, done.
  • Some slightly long sentences, eg "Although largely accepted by the Isma'ili faithful in the Fatimid domains in Egypt, Nubia, and the Levant, al-Hafiz's highly irregular accession and claims to the imamate were rebuffed by some communities, chiefly in the only other major Isma'ili realm, Yemen: there the hitherto staunchly pro-Fatimid Sulayhid dynasty broke up, with the Sulayhid queen, Arwa, upholding the rights of al-Tayyib, whose birth had been announced to her in a letter by al-Amir, while the regional dynasties of the Hamdanids and the Zurayids recognized al-Hafiz's claims." Not the only possible example.
    • Went through the article a couple of times and tried to fix this.

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:56, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

  • "dismount when passing by a mosque, prohibiting them from riding horses" There seems to be a contradiction here.
    • They were still allowed to ride donkeys, mules, etc. Clarified.
  • "brought forth one of the Caliph's sons". "brought forth" seems stilted and archaic. Maybe recast in modern phraseology?
    • Done. In my defence, Tolkien's works were among the first English books I ever read :)
Ah. That explains a lot ;-) .
  • "but was repulsed before the city gates" Maybe 'in front of the city gates'?
    • Done.
  • "For the remainder of his reign, al-Hafiz no longer appointed any viziers" That's almost a triple negative. Maybe 'Al-Hafiz did not appoint another vizier for the remainder of his reign' or similar?
    • Done.
  • "whose fleet had subdued". What does "subdued" mean? Captured, sacked, blockaded?
    • Clarified.
  • "while mine and pestilence ravaged Egypt". "mine"?
    • Famine.
  • "which survived more thanks to inertia and the vested interests of large sections of society in keeping it running." Delete "more".
    • Replaced with "mostly".
  • "and the dynasty's very legitimacy was increasingly challenged". Optional: delete "very".
    • Done.
  • "Al-Hafiz was the last Fatimid caliph who rose to the throne as an adult; the last three Fatimid imam-caliphs until the end of the dynasty". "last twice in quick succession. Suggest changing the second to 'next'.
    • Done.
  • Note c: "His historicity is now considered as established by surviving reports of festivities ordered by al-Amir to celebrate his birth survive". This is not grammatical.
    • Rewritten.

Overall I found this heavy going. Much of this is of course due to the hopelessly tangled events you are trying to unpick. However, I feel that a reader is not helped by:

  1. Too many overlong sentences. Very few of which need to be so long; they usually have obvious break points.
  2. Your fondness for semi colons and colons in the middle of long sentences. Personally, I suspect that if every one were to be replaced by a full stop it would be a net gain.
  3. Some old fashioned language. Eg, brought forth the Caliph's son; defeated before the gate; water to the very gates. (These are from memory, not exact quotes.)
  4. Use of "he is reported to have" and similar. This causes a reader to doubt it. If it is in a RS, feel free to write it as a fact in Wikipedia's voice; if it's not. or you personally doubt it, miss it out - or name the reporter.

Finally, can I support Attar-Aram syria's request for a brief summary of "the immamate concept ... Isma'ilism as the state religion and difference from Twelver Shi'ism", ideally in line.

All of that said, I enjoyed my visit to the disintegrating dynasty and it is good to see you back. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:13, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, as usual, for your thoroughness, Gog the Mild. I've addressed most of the points you raised. The topic is indeed very complex, but there's no need to make it difficult to read as well, so any help and criticism with the prose is welcome. Please have another look and make more suggestions, or, if you feel like it, edit the text directly. As you know, comprehensibility is always a concern of mine for niche topics like this, so a critical eye here is also appreciated. Constantine 19:33, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
I will do so. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:22, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
  • "his legitimacy was repeatedly challenged for the duration of his reign" Er, when else might it be challenged? Suggest deleting "for the duration of his reign". (Insert ', and his reign was troubled by ...'
    • Good point, done.
  • "Given his lack of legitimation". Should it be "legitimation" → 'legitimacy'?
    • "legitimation" is deliberate here, as in he was not legitimate in the eyes of a large segment of the dynasty's subjects.
  • "He also did not receive the customary titles of the Fatimid viziers implying control over the Muslim religious establishment". I think that this may read better as 'He also did not receive those customary titles of the Fatimid viziers that implied control over the Muslim religious establishment'.
    • Good point, done.
  • "from the Cairene street". Maybe 'from the common people of Cairo'?
    • Altered to "from the Muslim public opinion in Cairo", because this was not only the common people.

I have also done a little copy editing. As usual, feel entirely free to revert any you disagree with, or to query any you don't understand. I will try to finish up tomorrow. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:03, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

  • Is "head of the bureau" the same thing as ""supervisor of the bureaus" (nāẓir fi'l-dawāwīn)"?
    • No, clarified.
  • "Roger's decision to abstain from the Second Crusade". Suggest 'Roger's decision to abstain from the Second Crusade of 1147–1150 ...'.**Done.
  • "but in the end the rebellion was ended when". Is it possible to avoid "end ... ended"?
    • Removed the first instance.

All done. Just awaiting your comments on the bits and bobs above. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:16, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Gog the Mild, your copyedits are, as usual, fine. Looking forward to any further suggestions, if there are any. Constantine 20:34, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
That all looks good, and it reads very nicely. IMO. Happy to support. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:48, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

HaEr48 (support)[edit]

The article is in good shape and certainly interesting. I have few comments and feedback:

  • Since you use diacritics in the lead name, I believe at least the z of Hafiz and the second s of al-Mustansir should also have one. Also, please make sure nothing else is missed.
    • Quite right. Done.
  • "(Roger II) ... adopted many of the practices of the Fatimid court for his own administration": this is not mentioned in the article body, but appears without reference in the lead. Can it be supported by the body?
    • It is stated that "the Sicilian court modelled much of its administration and titelature after Fatimid practices."
  • Rise to the throne and the Hafizi–Tayyibi schism: Would a diagram/tree help illustrating the Hafizi-Tayyibi and Nizari-Musta'li schisms? Seeing how it fits into the larger Ismaili grouping, or other Shia branches would be useful as well, but I'll defer to you whether it's within the scope.
    • Excellent point, done.
  • Reign: As background, is it possible to introduce why the vizier was so powerful, despite being appointed by the caliph and can even be filled by his own sons? What was the mechanics of it: does the office control something important like the command of the arm, the treasury, or something?
    • This is dealt with when Badr is introduced: "the vizier was now commander-in-chief of the army as well as supreme head of the civilian, judicial and religious administrations".
  • "This was a mistake" Similar to my comment in the other review, suggest rewording this, a little bit editorialized.
    • Changed, as in the other article
  • "against an amān" => "in exchange for an amān?
    • Changed, as in the other article
  • Other than the symbolic meaning, what does a secretary or a supervisor lack that a vizier has? Saying that the secretaries were " utterly dependent on the Caliph" seemed rather hand-wavy to me.
    • Rephrased slightly and explained: a) they were not viziers, hence institutionally much weaker (compare the powers of the Prime Minister of a country to those of a department permanent secretary), b) they were not military men, so had no ties to/influence in the army, c) they were "often non-Muslims", which made them still less of a potential threat to the caliph.
  • twisting his honorific al-akam (the Most Noble One): is this maybe al-akram?
    • Indeed, thanks for catching this.
  • Further embassies to Yemen in 1144 and to Damascus in 1147 are recorded: Which monarchs are meant by the two locations? Especially Damascus, because it was not mentioned elsewhere in the article.
    • Done, and expanded a bit on the relations with Yemen.
  • A map of the Levant is provided, how about a map of the Fatimid realm itself? Especially because several provinces/localities are pertinent to the discussion.
    • Well, at this point the Fatimid realm was essentially Egypt (plus the Cyrenaica, IIRC). There is no good map of Islamic Egypt in Commons, unfortunately. I will probably have to make one myself, when I find the time.
  • The Cairo map has the gate names in Arabic (e.g. Bab al-Nasr), but the article text has them in English (e.g. Victory Gate). Suggest adding the corresponding English name in the caption, or adding parenthesis containing the Arabic name when the English name is first mentioned, so that the reader can find the gates in the map.
    • Good point; switched to the Arabic name in the article, but added the English translation in parentheses
  • (in the footnote): "The imam is the supreme spiritual leader of the Islamic community … the Sunni mainstream ... attached minimal conditions to the imamate, which became little different from secular kingship" . I'm surprised that the Sunni was mentioned at all in this discussion, the term is rarely used in this context for the Sunnis, commonly just in the context of a scholarly authority figure or the leader of a mosque/religious service. The cited Daftary source does not mention any Sunni imamate at all, I wonder how widely accepted Madelung (the other citation)'s view on this is. Personally I would just not mention it unless you feel confident that the Madelung view reflects the scholarly consensus.
    • The term was quite common in the early centuries among Sunnis as well, while the exact distinctions of jurisdiction and authority were still fluid/being worked out. It was especially used by the Abbasid caliphs, who famously tried to claim the prerogative of interpreting the Quran. Madelung is probably the unquestioned authority on such matters, and I don't think his views have been much revised in the meantime, except in matters of detail. It is true, however, that the term is today almost exclusively associated with Shi'ism other than what you mention. So I am also thinking whether, to avoid confusion, I would not simply omit it.
    • I've rephrased it a bit, removing the explicit mention of the imamate from the Sunni part
  • Note: I intend to claim this review for Wikicup points.

In general the article is very well written, well-referenced. Not only the biography is thoroughly discussed, the context and the aftermath is sufficiently explained as well. Certainly a good FA candidate. HaEr48 (talk) 17:26, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi HaEr48, the last outstanding issues have been addressed/replied to. Anything else? Constantine 21:36, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
I have no more feedback. Support HaEr48 (talk) 00:00, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Coord note[edit]

I think we need a source review? --Ealdgyth (talk) 14:03, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Don't see a citation for the specific date of death
    • Added and corrected to 10 October
  • The article text says he was born in 1074 or 1075, but the infobox says 1075 or 1076 - which is correct?
    • Clarified, the confusion arises from the fact that the Hijri years do not correspond exactly to Julian ones.
  • Walker 2017 appears to be a different edition of the Canard work, but is quite differently formatted
    • It is not a different edition, it is an altogether new work, see below
  • Be consistent in whether you include publication locations
    • As far as I can see, all locations for books are included. For journals, it has been suggested to me that the location is not desired, and for EI3 (Walker 2017), it is an online resource.
  • Be consistent in how editions are formatted.
    • Can you be more specific please? If you mean the Encyclopaedia of Islam editions, the naming is deliberate: these are not new editions as you think of them, but entirely different works. EI2's articles are completely different to those of EI3, even if they are on the same subject. The names of these works follow the published titles/suggested naming guidelines.
      • This point was with regards to the "New Edition" versus the Daftary "Second Edition". With regards to Walker 2017, what kind of publication is this? Even if it's a new work and not an edition, the formatting is quite different to the other similar work. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:17, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
        • @Nikkimaria: As I said, this follows the actual naming of the works in question. Daftary's work is indeed the second edition of his book, whereas the Encyclopaedia of Islam is an entirely new edition (hence the naming in the work itself), although it is often abbreviated as EI2. Likewise, the third edition of the encyclopaedia calls itself Encyclopaedia of Islam, THREE. The works are only superficially 'similar'. Constantine 20:18, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Nikkimaria (talk) 19:50, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

          • Okay, but if they're both encyclopedia entries, I would expect them to be similarly formatted? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:39, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
            • Not necessarily. I mean, both use the cite encyclopedia template, but of course they are different works, with different parameters being relevant for each, since one is a print encyclopedia and one is an exclusively online one... Constantine 06:44, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
Hi Nikkimaria, thanks for having a look. I've answered your points above. Cheers, Constantine 21:19, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

University of Missouri School of Music[edit]

Nominator(s): Grey Wanderer (talk) 22:34, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

This article on the University of Missouri School of Music was nominated and failed about a year ago. Despite my improvements, it failed to garner a prose review. The School of Music is at the University of Missouri, a large public University in the Midwestern United States. Although the school is not particularly notable, it has played a significant role in the study of music in Missouri, generated a number of prominent alumni, and is one of the primary academic divisions of a major University. The school recently (2017) celebrated its centennial and the publication of a book by musicologist and historian Michael J. Budds provided enough high quality source material for an article. I have attempted to diversify sources as best as possible. Article has been stable for a year now, although I recently updated the new facilities. Thanks. Grey Wanderer (talk) 22:34, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

  • In 21 citations you reference the Budds book without providing a page number. This is not verifiable. I would also recommend using some form of short reference (such as WP:CITESHORT) to avoid duplication and inconsistency in how you are referring to this source (Is the publisher "MU School of Music" or "University of Missouri School of Music"?) buidhe 07:46, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
  • @Buidhe and @Therapyisgood. I have added page numbers to all 21 citations and have converted all Budds citations to short references. Grey Wanderer (talk) 03:35, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Support Comments from Hog Farm[edit]

(Will be claimed for the WikiCup)

There's 53 citations in the article. Including the Budds book, which was published by the Mizzou School of Music, I counted 33 citations being from the Mizzou School of Music (counting the 21 from Budds with no page number as 1). (I may have miscounted) Even more refs are affiliated with Mizzou and are of doubtful independence since they're from an organization that it the parent university of the article subject. Of the 53 refs, ref 5, 6, 7, 11, 21, 26, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, and 53 are the only ones not affiliated with Mizzou. That's 12 out of 53, and when you count the 21 as 21, not one, you get 61 of 73 refs, or over 83.5%, are affiliated with Mizzou. Mizzou's reliable, but it's not an independent source when it's talking about itself. Too much reliance on sources that lack independence for me to support this right now. (Ref numbers from this revision). Hog Farm (talk) 03:38, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

  • "which had become too popular for the Fraternity to manage" - not sure Fraternity needs capitalized here.
  • "In 1933 the Department of Music would become a member of the National Association of Schools of Music and in 1935 the University Concert Series would host pianist Sergei Rachmaninoff in front of a crowd of thousands" - Comma after 1933. Also, try to avoid use of the word "would" in contexts like this, it's just better to have "... the Department of Music became a member ... Concert Series hosted pianist ..." etc. There's a lot of usages of would in here, it's generally best to go ahead and state it in less passive voice.
    • Wow. That might be the best feed-back I've ever received. It was awful, I've parred it down to just one "would". Grey Wanderer (talk) 23:49, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
  • We really need page numbers for Budds for verification. For your sake, I hope Budds has an index. I used a book with no index at First Battle of Newtonia, not a fun time.
    • Haha yeah. Working on it. Lucky most the history section is sourced from a timeline near the beginning, that's most of the missing page numbers. Grey Wanderer (talk) 23:49, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
  • "In 1954, Bethune Bischooff became the first woman appointed to a full-time position" - I'm assuming full-time position is referring to teaching, but probably best to be explicit on that, you can also be a full-time janitor.
    • Yes that's clearly what Budds meant, but that's his wording in the book and I didn't want to stray from the sources claim. I would make the change, but would also like to stay true to the source. Any thoughts? Grey Wanderer (talk) 23:49, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
      • Probably best to stay loyal to the source. I tried looking on Google, but even searching for "Bethune Bischoof Missou" only brought up obscure German genealogies. Hopefully there's another source out there to clarify this.
  • "and a former Unitarian church adjacent to campus" - Link Unitarian to the article about the denomination
  • "The first Jazz ensemble sponsored by the Department" - Should Jazz really be capitalized? It's lowercase in other usages.
  • "In 2015, the Sinquefield's" - Not a possessive use, so drop the '
  • "In 2019 the Mizzou New Music Initiative announced a 2.5 million gift from the Sinquefield's" - Comma after 2019 and drop the ' in "Sinquefield's"
  • "The new Music Building opened in the Spring 2020 semester.[6]" - Is not supported by the source. The source is from 2019, so there is no way to demonstrate using that source that the opening actually happened.
    • Fixed. Reworked the last two paragraphs of the history section, new sources and updates. Grey Wanderer (talk) 01:43, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
  • In the big gallery in the facilities section, drop one of the images so they will fit all on one line (I'm assuming it gets split into two lines on more machines than just my laptop. The Marching Mizzou image is probably the least relevant for the facilities section.
    • My understanding is that we should let individual users setting determine how pics display. I tried it on several devices and got two lines of 4/4 on mobile and two line of 6/2 on my computer, so removing one may make it look nice on your device, but wouldn't do anything aesthetically for the two I use. Although if you think the gallery is too expansive for other reasons I'm open. Grey Wanderer (talk) 01:43, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
  • "who's large Skinner pipe organ" - Should be "whose", not "who's"
  • "Sinquefield Music Center North entrance" - I'm not entirely sure that North should be capitalized here
  • "Mini Mizzou performs at Missouri Tigers men's basketball events. Musical Theater opportunities are provided through the Department of Theater.[43]" - Mini Mizzou is not mentioned in the reference at all, and the musical theater opportunities are only mentioned obliquely in the sense that there's an announcement on the page that the Theater Department is having a musical.
    • The source for Mini Mizzou was in the prior sentence, easy fix. I found the best source I could quickly find on performance opportunities in musical theater for school of music students, does that work or should I find something less primary? Grey Wanderer (talk) 02:09, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
      • Looks acceptable to me.
  • Esterhazy Quarter is a duplink
    • Fixed. I'm curious is this a strict rule? It seems reasonable someone could take a interest in the "Ensembles" section without ever reading the "History" section and therefore miss the Esterhazy Quartet page entirely. Grey Wanderer (talk) 23:49, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Some of the references would be better off having the publisher instead of the website in the citation. For instance, for "Chapter Listing: Tau Beta Sigma", giving a publisher of Tau Beta Sigma is more meaningful than having as the website listed.
    • Fixed? The student groups were all cited like that, I've fixed those. Do you feel that way about citing the School of Music website (or any others) as well? Grey Wanderer (talk) 01:50, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

That's what I see from a quick run-through. I'm willing to discuss any of these, and a longer look may turn up more. Hog Farm (talk) 22:31, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

In regards to the independence of sources, if I can mange to pull it under 50% associated with the school, is that enough to garner support here? I totally understand the concern, it's quite difficult as all the most authoritative sources are published by the school itself. I'm sure I can dig up some news articles from the Columbia Daily Tribune to support some of the history independent of the Budds book. Grey Wanderer (talk) 23:54, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
I personally (not sure about other editors) wouldn't base it on a hard numerical line. I'd look more for balance, especially in the history section. For like the degrees offered and the specific bands the department supports, I think leaning heavy of Mizzou is acceptable, because Mizzou is probably going to be the most definitive and up-to-date source on the program's offerings. I think the history section could use having independent sources spliced in, for at least some of the facts. Maybe one of the newspapers in Columbia has done a write-up of the program's history.
@User:Hog Farm, I made a major effort to diversify sources further. I've doubled (+50 or so) the number of sources, most of which aren't affiliated with the University or School of Music. The Budds book makes up a much smaller chunk now. Grey Wanderer (talk) 23:48, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Further comments

Ref 43 (BNIM) - Drop, you don't need the website when it's identical to the organization's name.


Hunt's Black and White Justice needs a publisher

Both of these Hunt books might be self published. I went to the library and looked at physical copies, No publisher listed. Both are very good local history books. Should I find alternative sources or can they be made usable somehow?
Unless Hunt has really good credentials, I don't think they can be used in a FA.
Maybe Google preview will let you see the information you need in this book. McFarland & Company looks like a reliable publisher. Hog Farm (talk) 16:54, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
Unsure if it meets your credentials, but he is a Professor Emeritus of English at Mizzou, and looks to have won some national awards for writing including one for the the essay above. Take a look at his bio on Amazon and Mizzou. The book you found is awesome, but I hesitated to use it as much of the author's information came from Hunt. More importantly the author is the granddaughter of Hermann Almstedt, the dude I'm trying to find a source for, so might not be the most neutral source. This is anecdotal, but I do know Hunt is considered the authority on the historical event the book is about.
Just to be safe I've gone ahead and removed the two sources per your objection. Grey Wanderer (talk) 20:15, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm doubting the reliability of Hunt's The Lynching of James Scot. It looks rather self-published.

See comment above

Check on Worldcat for OCLCs for Switzler, Lockmiller, Howard, and Underwood. Olsen may be new enough it has an ISBN, but if there isn't one, check for an OCLC on that one, too.

Done, you were right Olsen was ISBN

For ref formatting consistency, add a publisher to ref 45 (another one of the Mizzou sites)


The reference balance is much improved. Hog Farm (talk) 01:43, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! Grey Wanderer (talk) 03:38, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Comments from Therapyisgood[edit]

Can give this a look. Therapyisgood (talk) 15:21, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

  • I would be interested in hearing more about the partnerships, what they entail, how they are established, etc.
    • I have added more on both counts with new sources. Grey Wanderer (talk) 19:52, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Lincoln Portrait needs to be in italics.
    • Fixed
  • America's Got Talent needs italics. Therapyisgood (talk) 12:56, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
    • Fixed. Question: Should Beethoven's 9th Symphony be treated similarly or is that different? Grey Wanderer (talk) 22:40, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
      • Based on my reading of MOS:ITALICS Major works of art and artifice, such as albums, books, video games, films, musicals, operas, symphonies should be italicized, so yes. Therapyisgood (talk) 03:52, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
        • Fixed
  • The students infobox label is for students, IMO not appropriate to list majors there. Therapyisgood (talk) 03:52, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
I can see a case for sticking with majors. At many universities, some sort of fine arts credit is required as a graduation requirement, so most students will take a class in the music school/department at some point. The number of music majors is probably a more relevant figure. Hog Farm Bacon 04:17, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Hog Farm, however, if it is the difference between your support or not I would gladly remove it. I originally added it I think because you said you thought it was odd nothing was in the field and I do agree that basic information is needed, but I don't think the University of NCES tracks anything but majors/minors. Grey Wanderer (talk) 22:58, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
@User:Therapyisgood, I have removed the stat per your objections. Grey Wanderer (talk) 19:52, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Coord note[edit]

I've added this to the urgents list to hopefully gather some more reviews. Also the image and source review list for same. --Ealdgyth (talk) 14:12, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Image review—pass[edit]

  • All images are free.
  • I've removed some images. There are now only three photos in the gallery, which perhaps could be distributed to the rest of the article (or not).
    • Thanks for the trimming, I did add back the picture of Faurot Field since it is mentioned in the lead; I also added a sentence in the relevant facilities section, does that address your concern? Grey Wanderer (talk) 19:54, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
  • File:Mizzou Jesse Thumb.jpg ideally should be replaced with something a bit higher resolution. (t · c) buidhe 15:22, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
    • I have done so, does this pic look ok? Grey Wanderer (talk) 19:57, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Hurricane Willa[edit]

Nominator(s): NoahTalk 12:37, 17 June 2020 (UTC), ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs}, and ♫ Hurricanehink (talk)

This article is about Hurricane Willa, the most impactful storm of the 2018 Pacific hurricane season. Gosh... what a long and difficult road it has been with this season, but well worth it. I would like to invite @Hurricanehink: to join the nomination if he so wishes. Thank you to everyone who has helped with improving the coverage of this season. That being said, let the nomination commence. NoahTalk 12:37, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Noah, I co-nom this. It's an impressive bit of collaboration among three users (and everyone else who worked on the article). I'm very proud of Noah's work on the 2018 PHS, which will make for an impressive FT soon. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:16, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Image review—pass[edit]

All images are free. buidhe 23:06, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Support by Jarodalien[edit]

why 13 hurricane at "Landfalling Pacific major hurricanes
Intensity is measured solely by wind speed"? Maybe cut off last three?--Jarodalien (talk) 03:39, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
@Jarodalien: The Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Scale is used to determine the Category of the storm based upon its wind speed. In this case, 14 storms at Category 3 intensity or higher have made landfall in the Pacific. Cutting off storms would made the entire the table inaccurate. NoahTalk 12:59, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
Yeah yeah you're right, don't know why I missed last one is Willa! Sorry.--Jarodalien (talk) 13:05, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Support: Only suggestion is add a note that "All damage values are in 2018...".--Jarodalien (talk) 07:04, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Jarodalien, I added that note. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:37, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Support Comments by Airborne84[edit]

Pending. Airborne84 (talk) 01:49, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

I can tell a lot of work went into this, thanks. I'm still working through the article, and don't see any showstoppers. I'm listing some comments so you can start working them now if you'd like.

  • In general, it has some technical language that’s hard to understand for the average reader. E.g., “the storm developed an intermittent pinhole eye in the center of its convection as outflow became well-established.” I’d aim for more approachable versions of these passages. I’ll point out those I think would be best adjusted vs. having you guess. But feel free to push back if I ask if something can be explained better and it would be problematic.
  • Please do point out these spots! It's a tricky balance between being thorough and relying too much on jargon. I rewrote that passage you mentioned. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 12:53, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
  • I’d break the first paragraph into two, both to better reflect the article and to align with MOS:BEGIN, Yours goes a bit beyond what the latter outlines for the first paragraph. I think just sketching out the context as per that guideline while shifting the Hurricane’s major muscle movements to a second paragraph will make it a bit more digestible for the average reader (like me) too.
  • I split it up, so the first one is more of a summary. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 12:53, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
  • “After the storm, many individuals did not receive direct help from the government until many months had passed.” Which govt? Mexican? U.S.? Both? Consider also replacing one of the uses of “many” with a synonym. Perhaps “multiple” for the second one.
  • “People mainly relied on help from charitable organizations to recover and rebuild their damaged property.” This again is a bit vague. People in Mexico? The United States? Both countries?
  • Fixed. NoahTalk 15:40, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Last sentence in the lede: “overall for the time it took to receive help” This is talking about the govt of Mexico. Should that be to provide help?
  • “the wave produced intermittent bursts of deep convection near a well-defined mid-level circulation center”. Deep convection is Wikilinked, but is there a way to translate "well-defined mid-level circulation center" for the layman? I know it might be a bit more wordy, but it would probably be worth it for someone who otherwise would just bleep over it, chalking it up as unintelligible jargon. Or perhaps a footnote would help if an explanation in the text would be too wordy.
Excellent, this version is much improved for the average reader. Thank you.
  • Consider how you might smooth the transition from preparation to impact. An FA should "tell a story" as much as possible. E.g., if there was a quote from a public official about finishing preparations right before impact, or something along those lines, that might make a good transition. This isn't a showstopper, and I wouldn't withhold support for this—just something to consider.
  • “a Hurricane Hunter aircraft was scheduled to survey the system for further development” From what country?
  • Clarified that it was a United States Air Force Reserve Hurricane Hunter aircraft. NoahTalk 15:56, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
  • “The tropical wave moved into the East Pacific early on October 17 and quickly organized” Although from a non-expert perspective I can kind of imagine that a storm system organizes into something stronger, I don’t understand the link between a wave and organization.
  • I removed the "quickly organized", because it didn't really at this point in time. That came latter in the narrative. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 13:01, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
  • “At this point, the NHC assigned it the name Willa from its rotating list of names.” Is there a reason it would be italicized here but not elsewhere?
  • This is the point at which NHC gave the name. For the rest of the article, we use "Willa" as a mononym (instead of writing out TS Willa or Hurricane Willa every time). ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 13:01, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Yes, I was just trying to find in the WP:MOS where it provided for italics for the first use of a name or term. Am I missing it?
  • The word “trough” is used twice. I recommend employing a very brief in-text aside to define that for the average reader, unless it will take more than a few words to do so, in which case perhaps a footnote is warranted.
  • Gave a brief explanation and a wikilink is there is they need more. NoahTalk 15:56, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
  • "Banding features" Is there a way to translate or explain this? "Bands of rainclouds" or the like? Again, you want this to be as readable as possible for the average person.
  • Let me know if that is better. NoahTalk 15:53, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Much, thank you. You could probably do without "significantly", but I leave that up to you.
  • “The storm developed an intermittent pinhole eye in the center of its convection as outflow became well-established.” I mentioned this above. Any way to translate this a bit for the average reader? Intermittent pinhole eye might be OK, but after that it gets tough to digest for the non-expert (at least in my non-expert opinion).
  • Was it the "outflow" or the wording? Is the current wording better? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 13:01, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
  • In footnote 1, “Operationally, Willa was reported a