Wikipedia:Featured article candidates

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

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

Before nominating an article, nominators may wish to receive feedback by listing it at Peer review. Editors considering their first nomination, and any subsequent nomination before their first FA promotion, are strongly advised to seek the involvement of a mentor, to assist in the preparation and processing of the nomination. Nominators must be sufficiently familiar with the subject matter and sources to deal with objections during the featured article candidates (FAC) process. Nominators who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article before nominating it. Nominators are expected to respond positively to constructive criticism and to make efforts to address objections promptly. An article should not be on Featured article candidates and Peer review or Good article nominations at the same time.

The FAC coordinators—Ian Rose, Laser brain and Sarastro1—determine the timing of the process for each nomination. For a nomination to be promoted to FA status, consensus must be reached that it meets the criteria. Consensus is built among reviewers and nominators; the coordinators determine whether there is consensus. A nomination will be removed from the list and archived if, in the judgment of the coordinators:

  • actionable objections have not been resolved;
  • consensus for promotion has not been reached;
  • insufficient information has been provided by reviewers to judge whether the criteria have been met; or
  • a nomination is unprepared, after at least one reviewer has suggested it be withdrawn.

It is assumed that all nominations have good qualities; this is why the main thrust of the process is to generate and resolve critical comments in relation to the criteria, and why such resolution is given considerably more weight than declarations of support.

Please do not use graphics or templates on FAC nomination pages. 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:

Today's featured article (TFA):

Featured article tools:


Nomination procedure

Toolbox
  1. Before nominating an article, ensure that it meets all of the FA criteria and that peer reviews are closed and archived. The featured article toolbox (at right) can help you check some of the criteria.
  2. Place {{subst:FAC}} at the top of the talk page of the nominated article and save the page.
  3. From the FAC template, click on the red "initiate the nomination" link or the blue "leave comments" link. You will see pre-loaded information; leave that text. If you are unsure how to complete a nomination, please post to the FAC talk page for assistance.
  4. Below the preloaded title, complete the nomination page, sign with ~~~~, and save the page.
  5. Copy this text: {{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/name of nominated article/archiveNumber}} (substituting Number), and edit this page (i.e., the page you are reading at the moment), pasting the template at the top of the list of candidates. Replace "name of ..." with the name of your nomination. This will transclude the nomination into this page. In the event that the title of the nomination page differs from this format, use the page's title instead.

Supporting and opposing

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

Contents

Nominations[edit]

Chevauchée of Edward III (1346)[edit]

Nominator(s): Gog the Mild (talk) 10:12, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

An invading English army landed in Normandy in July 1346. During the next seven weeks it burnt and looted its way across France, coming within 2 miles of the walls of Paris. Every time it met French forces it defeated them, including at the battle of Crecy. It halted at Calais, which the English besieged and starved into submission over 11 months. Hopefully this is approaching FA quality, but I would be grateful to those who point out the no doubt multifarious ways in which it doesn't. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:12, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt[edit]

A few things.
  • The lede tells us all about the war, but not what they fought each other for. I gather the English put the French to rout, but you could tell us in the lede why they crossed the Channel in the first place.
  • "The Gascons preferred their relationship with a distant English king who left them alone, to one with a French king who would interfere in their affairs.[3][4]" I might cut the comma.
  • "Although Gascony was the cause of the war, Edward was able to spare few resources for it and whenever an English army campaigned on the continent it had operated in northern France.[6] " I would put a comma after the first "it" (and maybe one after "continent") and omit the "had". Should the second "it" be "they" in BritEng? (ditto other times "army" becomes "it")
  • "despatched" While I can see this is proper in BritEng, I read that it's not the preferred spelling. YMMV.
  • "Derby, now Lancaster," I would explain this in greater detail.
  • "Edward was not only morally obliged to succor his vassal, but contractually required to; his indenture with Lancaster stated that if Lancaster were attacked by overwhelming numbers, then Edward "shall rescue him in one way or another".[23]" Was the moral obligation simply the usual obligation of a sovereign, or something more? Which was considered more important? Whichever was, should come first.
  • "hoped for total" does this require a hyphen?
  • "Duke John of Normandy" we have not yet been introduced to this no doubt worthy individual.
  • "After his surprise landing in Normandy Edward was devastating some of the richest land in France and flaunting his ability to march at will through France." I would avoid the double use of "France".
  • "The English men-at-arms had dismounted for the battle, and by the time they received the French charges they had lost much of their impetus.[101] " You use "they" to mean different things five words apart.
  • "The two cardinals representing Pope Clement VI travelled between the armies, but neither king would speak to them.[114]" Starting the sentence with "The" means to me that we are supposed to have heard of these people before but I don't see that. Are these the envoys who Edward would not listen to earlier?
  • "Recriminations were rife: officials at all levels of the Chambre des Comptes (the French treasury) were dismissed; all financial affairs were put into the hands of a committee of three senior abbots; the King's council bent their efforts to blaming each other for the kingdom's misfortunes; Philip's heir, Duke John, fell out with his father and refused to attend court for several months; Joan of Navarre, daughter of a previous king of France (Louis X), declared neutrality and signed a private truce with Lancaster.[126]" I think this should be broken up into at least two sentences.
  • " it being all but impossible to land a significant force other than at a friendly port." Yet Edward just did so, as I understand it. A little less definite?
  • I might say a bit more about the terms of the Truce of Calais. I know there's a link, but given the level of detail you're going into, something might be said.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:54, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Sega[edit]

Nominator(s): Red Phoenix talk 14:55, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the house that Sonic built! Sega is the world's most prolific producer of arcade games, but is best known for its video game consoles and its creativity. In the modern day, Sega's not quite the same as it was, now being part of a corporate conglomerate since its acquisition through a takeover in 2004, but it has a legacy unique in video games as a company that was ahead of its time in its innovations, including modern online gaming.

This article is the culmination of years of work on Wikipedia, by myself and several other editors. Sega's video game consoles are already a featured topic, and this article serves to represent the work of all of the editors on Sega through the last decade or so. I want to extend to all of them my personal gratitude for their hard work. For the reviewers, I thank you ahead of time for your comments. Red Phoenix talk 14:55, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Comments by Eric Corbett[edit]

There are lots of problems with the prose, of which I'll give just a few examples here:

  • "By early 1992, production had ceased in North America, having sold between 1.5 million and 2 million units" So "production" had sold between 1.5 and 2 million units?
  • Inconsistent use of US vs. U.S. as in "US territories" and "U.S. bases".
  • "Sega was founded by Martin Bromley and Richard Stewart as Nihon Goraku Bussan[c] on June 3, 1960, which became known as Sega Enterprises, Ltd ..." So Sega has the power to rename dates?
  • There are too many paragraphs beginning "In/On XXX", and too many of them follow one another.
  • "The Sega Saturn was not as successful as its predecessor, the Genesis" As an image caption that is a complete sentence which should be terminated by a full stop. This issue occurs throughout the article.
  • "Dreamcast and continuing struggles (1999-2001)" In other headings the correct ndash has been used.
  • "... claimed would allow video games to convey unprecedented emotions" How can a game, as opposed to a character in a game, display any emotion at all?
  • "His sentiments were not unique" "Unique" is an unusual adjective to be applied to anyone's sentiments, "shared" would be a more idiomatic expression.
  • "Sega was forced to cut its profit forecast by 90%" Elsewhere percentages have been expressed as "80 percent and 12 percent of the market respectively"; ought to be consistent.
  • "... and having too many games being developed" Does this mean "having too many games under development?
  • "Sega's main headquarters is located in Shinagawa-ku, Tokyo, Japan." Why "located in" rather than just "in"?
  • "Previously, Sega has had offices in France, Germany, Spain, and Australia" The verb tense "has had" makes "Previously" redundant.
  • "... have been more negatively remembered." very awkward. Perhaps "remembered less fondly"?

I would stress that these are only examples of the work that needs to be done on the prose, not an exhaustive list. Eric Corbett 16:21, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi Eric, thanks for your quick comments. I understand your review and prose concerns; I would admit I'm not the best prose writer in Wikipedia. So far, I have addressed what you have posted, though I state that just to note that this has been done. I had a copyeditor go through this article a while ago, and I will ask him for a second pass. A couple of notes, whether for yourself or future reviewers, on what I did to address these concerns:
  • Split the "production" sentence into two separate sentences.
  • Using "U.S." unless otherwise contraindicated (i.e., the symbol for the U.S. dollar (US$) or website USgamer.
  • Hilarious, if Sega had the power to rename dates that would be surprising. Rephrased to remove ambiguity.
  • Reworded a number of in/on paragraph leads.
  • All images double-checked for where they need a period or not, and inserted/removed accordingly.
  • Put "unprecedented emotions" in quotes - this is actually what Ken Kutaragi said, in reference to the PlayStation2's "Emotion Engine" chip.
  • Changed wording to "shared" rather than "not unique".
  • All % signs changed to "percent".
  • Yes, too many games under development is the meaning, and fixed.
  • I've never known "located in" to be an issue, but a certain copyeditor I know has told me if I can cut a word, cut it, so it has been removed.
  • "Previously" removed.
  • Rephrased the last sentence entirely. "Less fondly" isn't really video game terminology, so I tried to use words consistent with other video game articles.
If you do have time to leave more comments, I will appreciate it. I'm a firm believer in taking feedback in stride to make articles the best they can be. Red Phoenix talk 22:51, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm surprised to discover that video gamers have invented a new form of English, although perhaps I shouldn't be. I think there could still be some tidying up of the prose, but I recognise the hard work that's been put into this article, so I won't oppose on that basis. Eric Corbett 23:43, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Grant Memorial coinage[edit]

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 22:12, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

This article is about... Two coins, the last commemoratives we have to deal with from the 1920s. The usual legacy of (relative) beauty and doubt about whether the money went to a good cause.Wehwalt (talk) 22:12, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Trachodon mummy[edit]

Nominator(s): Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:51, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Yet another dinosaur article, but this time not about a genus, but a unique specimen. This find, one of the most important dinosaur specimens ever found, had profound impact on the understanding of dinosaurs. The Trachodon mummy is one of a handfull of "dinosaur mummies", and is interpreted as the fossil of a natural mummy. The article combines history with cutting edge scientific research, and therefore is hopefully of interest for a broader audience. It just received a copy edit and GA review from user:Gog the Mild. I'm looking forward to comments. Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:51, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Image review - pass[edit]

All images are appropriately licensed.

Gog the Mild (talk) 18:57, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

FunkMonk[edit]

  • Must be the first time we have an article about a specific fossil (rather than a taxon) at FAC. Will have a look soon. FunkMonk (talk) 19:55, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
  • It looks like there is a duplink in "all referable to duck-billed dinosaurs" and later "Hadrosauridae ("duck-billed dinosaurs")". Seems a bit odd that you only gloss it at second mention, maybe you should stick to calling them hadrosaurids, and keep "duck-bill" in parenthesis.
Fixed. I used "duckbill" as this term was also used by some of the sources, but consequently sticking with hadrosaurid might be less confusing. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:07, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I wonder if this AMNH source[1] is of any use? It has some discussion of the mummy.
Thanks, but these are merely a collection of excerts from Osborn (1911), which is already cited. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:07, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Maybe move the image under Taphonomy to the left, it clashes a bit with the image above on my screen.
Done. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:07, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
  • There is also some coverage in this old book[2], maybe more contemporary commentary can be found.
Checked it; nothing useable inside but was worth a look at least! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:07, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Is the specimen also called "Trachodon mummy" in recent sources? Does the title reflect current usage?
Well, the article had this title before I started working on it, and I always thought this might be an edge case. But thinking about it (and reviewing the actual usage) I think you are right: It does not really reflect current usage, und it would be more prudent to move to a different lemma. What comes to mind is "Edmontosaurus mummy in the American Museum of Natural History" or just the specimen number "AMNH 5060". Thoughts? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:07, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I think this restoration[3] was informed by the mummy, as the integument paper also has a line drawing based on it, and it shows the fused hand.
Great, I was looking for that! You are right, and this fact is even clearly stated in Osborn 1911, where it was first published. Added. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:07, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Gog the Mild[edit]

  • Links, redirects, etc are fine.
  • An alt text is missing - for File:Pasta - mummified trachodon - AmMusNatHist.jpg.
Thanks, added missing alt text! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:07, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Gog the Mild (talk) 20:17, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Spinophorosaurus[edit]

Nominator(s): FunkMonk (talk), Jens Lallensack (talk) 14:39, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

This article is about a long-necked dinosaur which is notable for bearing spikes on its tail, and in being one of the most completely known members of its group from its time and place. We have summarised all available sources, including a German book about the expeditions that found the fossils, and the article therefore has a detailed and rather dramatic account of the discovery, which is otherwise rarely possible when relying only on scientific papers. It has been copy-edited, is a GA, and we have been lucky in getting many free images. FunkMonk (talk) 14:39, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

British subject[edit]

Nominator(s): Horserice (talk) 03:50, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Coming off of a successful FAC for British National (Overseas), I think I've updated this article to a similar level of quality as well (hopefully, heh). British subject is a term currently used to describe a residual nationality class left over from days when Britain was an empire. The article also covers earlier definitions, encompassing what would now be called British citizenship and Commonwealth citizenship. This article covers a pretty complex topic and I've worked on making it a much more digestible read. Looking forward to some feedback, Horserice (talk) 03:50, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Bank War[edit]

Nominator(s): Display name 99 (talk) 14:41, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

The Bank War was an important sequence of events during Andrew Jackson's presidency and a significant topic in American economic history. When Jackson became President of the United States in 1829, the Second Bank of the United States was an extremely powerful institution that had enormous influence over American economics and politics. It was more powerful than today's Federal Reserve. Jackson believed that the Bank was corrupt and unconstitutional. He wanted to either significantly diminish its power or destroy it entirely. When his political opponents turned his dislike for the Bank into a political issue with which to defeat him for reelection in 1832, Jackson launched an all-out war to decimate the Bank's influence and ensure its collapse. He was successful. The economy did very well during his presidency, but his war on the Bank is sometimes cited as a factor which led to the Panic of 1837 just as he was leaving office. Display name 99 (talk) 14:41, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Comments from Orser67[edit]

Just read through the article and have the following thoughts, hope you find them helpful Orser67 (talk) 16:58, 24 May 2019 (UTC):

  • The first paragraph "The Resurrection of a National Banking System" could use a couple sentences explaining why the first bank was established to begin with, what it did, and why/when it was abolished. I don't think we can assume that readers will understand the basic functions of a central bank in the early 19th century United States, or that they know that Hamilton was the driving force behind the bank and that Jefferson/Madison opposed it in the 1790s, so this would be a good place to quickly explain what the bank did while giving a little background.
  • The next three paragraphs in the section have sufficient information, but I think they could use a little reorganization. For example "Republican nationalists" and "Calhoun" are introduced in the third paragraph, but it's not explained what these terms mean until the fourth paragraph. I would also make it clear in some way that "Republican" is referring to the Democratic-Republican Party (making sure readers understand we aren't talking about the modern Republican Party), and explain why Hamilton is relevant (which could be done in the first paragraph).
  • "Federal Government" and "Federal" (outside of a proper name) should not be capitalized. Or at least, the capitalization should be consistent.
  • I think you need to make it clear that all four major candidates for president in 1824 were part of the Democratic-Republican Party, that the Democratic-Republican Party collapsed during Adams's presidency, and the various factions from 1824 coalesced into Jackson's Democratic Party and Adams's National Republican Party. As it stands, both of the latter parties appear for the first time in the article without any explanation.
  • Due to length considerations, I would separate ""Jackson and Reform": Implications for the B.U.S." into two sections or subsections, one covering 1817-1827, and the other covering the 1828 campaign.
  • For the 1828 campaign, I think that most of the necessary information is there, but I think some reorganization could help better explain why, if Jackson personally opposed the bank and if Jacksonian principles supposedly made a collision course with the bank inevitable, Jackson didn't campaign on the national bank and Biddle voted for him. I would also explain more about the hard money and paper money factions of Jackson's coalition.
  • Jumping ahead to "Jackson's Veto of the Bank Recharter Bill," I would change "veto power was no longer limited to suppressing clear violations of the Constitution – it could be asserted on social, political or economic grounds"; this sentence might lead readers to believe that the Constitution restricts veto power, when in fact the Presentment Clause doesn't say that the president needs a particular reason to veto bills. I would instead favor something like "While previous presidents had used their veto power, they had only done so when objecting to the constitutionality of bills. By vetoing the recharter bill on the grounds that he was acting in the best interests of the American people, Jackson claimed a major role for the president in the legislative process." You might also want to throw in a mention somewhere regarding Jackson's other major veto, the Maysville Road veto.
  • I think it's probably worth mentioning that the Nullification Crisis briefly took center stage in late 1832/early 1833, delaying the renewal of the Bank War and alienating many Southerners, who later joined the Whig Party.
  • I like the legacy section regarding historians views of the Bank War, but I think there needs to be some more coverage of the impact of the Bank War. I suggest reiterating the contributions the Bank War made to the rising importance of the presidential veto, as well as to the formation of the Whig Party. I'd also like to see some coverage of central banking in the decade or so after Jackson left office, because the Bank War had a huge impact on the politics of the late 1830s and early 1840s. The Panic of 1837 was the dominant theme of Van Buren's presidency, and his main response was to establish the Independent Treasury system, which was basically a vault for government funds. The Whigs abolished the Independent Treasury and attempted to restore the national bank in the early 1840s, but were thwarted by President Tyler, whom they promptly kicked out of the party. Polk re-established the Independent Treasury in 1846, and the country didn't have a central bank until the passage of the Federal Reserve Act in 1913.

1900 Galveston hurricane[edit]

Nominator(s): 12george1 (talk) 19:44, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

This article is about the deadliest natural disaster in United States history and one of the most well known historical hurricanes. Formerly, the article was a FA, passing FAC all the way back on August 31, 2004! It was the oldest tropical cyclone-related FA, before WikiProject Tropical cyclones even existed. The article appeared as TFA in April 2005, before losing FA status in January 2008. As you can see from the old TFA version, standards have changed a lot, which is why I strongly favored the change in policy to allow an article to reappear as TFA. Today, the article is more broad in coverage, as there is much more info both in Galveston and everywhere else. It covers the major aspects of this very important storm. I am hoping to have this appear as TFA for a second time on either September 8 or 9 in 2020, for the 120th anniversary of the storm's Texas landfall.--12george1 (talk) 23:46, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Oppose at this time - have found several different issues but the most significant is failed verifiability spotchecking

  • "equivalent to $1.066 billion in 2018, adjusted for inflation" - source?
  • Hardly any project articles use inflation anymore. I'm just going to delete that--12george1 (talk) 21:43, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
  • "with the remnants last observed near Iceland on September 15" - text and infobox says September 17, which is correct?
  • Text says September 17, lead and infobox September 15. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:57, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Oh, I missed the one in the Meteorological history--12george1 (talk) 17:56, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  • "After entering the Caribbean Sea, U.S. Weather Bureau observers reported a "storm of moderate intensity (not a hurricane)" southeast of Cuba on September 1. The cyclone made landfall near Baní, Dominican Republic, early the next day. Moving west-northwestward, the storm crossed the island of Hispaniola and entered into the Windward Passage near Saint-Marc, Haiti, several hours later. The cyclone then struck near Santiago de Cuba on September 3. The system moved slowly west-northward across the island, until emerging into Straits of Florida as a tropical storm or a weak hurricane on September 5. Favorable conditions – including seas "as warm as bathwater", according to one report – allowed for further strengthening in the Gulf of Mexico.[7]" - I'm having difficulty locating most of these details in footnote 7. In fact, that applies to many other statements cited to FN 7 as well.
  • A lot of things pertaining to the storm's movement and location should've been cited with FN 4. I fixed that. I could only find mirror sites for "unsettled weather", "storm of moderate intensity (not a hurricane)", and "as warm as bathwater". I think the best course of action would be for me to remove the quotations for the first, delete the second, and reword the third to simply say warm waters. I made the mistake of taking someone's word for it--12george1 (talk) 21:43, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Still having difficulties with this footnote (now FN8) - for example I do not see "Additionally, [Antigua] reported a severe thunderstorm passing over, followed by the hot, humid calmness that often occurs after the passage of a tropical cyclone" in that source. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:57, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  • The Ackerman source appears to be a general meteorology textbook - are no better sources available?
  • I found a few. Went with a source that's already used in the article--12george1 (talk) 21:43, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
  • "With this prosperity came a sense of complacency.[11]" - not really seeing this in given source
  • Added a substitute source--12george1 (talk) 21:43, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
  • The URL provided for FN32 is the one from FN30
  • "the number most cited in official reports is 8,000" - what source(s) are you using to support that assertion?
  • I did say official, so I guess I need an official source. I will use Blake et al.--12george1 (talk) 21:43, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
  • If you say "most cited in official reports", you need multiple official reports, or a single source that makes that claim. Citing Blake just demonstrates that that's the number used in that particular report. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:57, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Ok, I will also add Texas Hurricane History (Roth)--12george1 (talk) 18:04, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  • "10 roses and 90 others were placed around the monument" - 90 other what?
  • Check for MOS issues - am seeing repeated links, hyphenation problems, links in See also that already appear in the text, etc
  • How are you ordering the bibliography?
  • I ordered them based on when they appeared in the article. Does it need to be done in a different way, such as alphabetical order of last names?--12george1 (talk) 21:43, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
  • As we're demonstrating now with adding/moving sources, that system doesn't always stay up to date - Frank and Colby are now cited before Baird, which remains the first on the list. Alphabetical would be easier to maintain. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:57, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I went ahead and assumed you wanted me to do that. So it was already done before you responded--12george1 (talk) 18:04, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  • The page number given in FN65 does not cover all of the material cited to this source
  • "The last reported survivor of the Galveston hurricane" does not appear to be supported by given source
  • I accidentally deleted the source for that, but I found it again--12george1 (talk) 21:43, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
  • "The dredging of the Houston Ship Channel in 1909 and 1914 ended Galveston's hopes of regaining its former status as a major commercial center.[124]" - given source supports 1914 but not 1909
  • Upon viewing other sources, it would probably be better to say that the channel was being dredged by 1909 and opened in 1914, which I do have a source for--12george1 (talk) 21:43, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Suggest adding alt text
  • As it is quite possible for archives to include unpublished materials, make sure all media with the pre-1924 publication tag were actually published (not just created) before 1924
  • Are you just asking me to look or do you have examples? I did have Isaac Cline's report from 1900 published on a website in 2004. But then I realized that it was archived in the MWR for September 1900. I'm not seeing any problems related to this otherwise--12george1 (talk) 21:01, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
  • "80 bodies were found under the ruins after this photograph was made" - given what the image description states about unverified data, this should definitely be attributed
  • It was way easier to find a source than I thought it would be--12george1 (talk) 21:43, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Entries in the In popular culture section should include secondary sources identifying the significance of the entry to the topic, as per this RfC
  • I believe I have done that--12george1 (talk) 01:49, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Better, but something like a notice of a book signing doesn't really indicate significance. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:57, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  • FN7 is a chapter of a larger work, which should be reflected in the citation
  • Citation formatting generally needs work for consistency - similar sources should be cited similarly (eg. compare FNs 16 and 35), should be consistent about what information is provided when (eg. sometimes books include locations and other times not), etc. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:35, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I think I have done this--12george1 (talk) 04:01, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm not quite understanding what needs to be done. There are some irregularly and overlinked newspapers and organizations. I went ahead and fixed that. But the information I am using is based on what info the source chose to include. Some sources, even those hosted by the same website, don't give the same amount of information. Compare FN 75 and and FN 132, for example. They are both from Galveston County Daily News, but the source for the former does not provide an author's name, while the latter does. If you're wondering why some newspapers have locations and others don't, the reason is because when I did the FAC for Hurricane Andrew, somebody asked me to include the locations for newspapers with names that wouldn't make the location obvious. For example, most people wouldn't know that The Chelsea Herald is from Randolph, Vermont, but I wouldn't need say where NYT is from.--12george1 (talk) 03:58, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Sometimes sources omit information, that's fine. But compare for example FNs 79 and 139 - these are the same source, yet have different formatting. That shouldn't happen. Other issues are just errors - for example, FN125 has a link that doesn't link to anything. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:20, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I took care of these. But "more work needed" suggests possibly more problems--12george1 (talk) 21:01, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Comments by Jason Rees

  • I am surprised to see a gallery section since we generally do not include them in TC articles. I am also surprised to see an "In popular culture" section as it just seems to be a trivial and selective list of items based on nothing, but the author's judgement.Jason Rees (talk) 22:44, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
    • It may be unusual to have a gallery, but is there a good reason to not have one (e.g. violation or potential violation of some guideline)? As for the popular culture, a few of those are notable enough to have their own articles. If I were to get rid of that section, how would I integrate the song "Wasn't That a Mighty Storm" into the article, because I can't think of an appropriate context? Would that go in the See also section?--12george1 (talk) 03:25, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
      • See also sounds like an appropriate place for it, though I note that our article on the song, suggests that it is not clear whether the song dates to the hurricane. As for the gallery, WP:Gallery and WP:Not apply here.Jason Rees (talk) 13:36, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
        • I didn't know the specifics of that policy until now. I'm kinda surprised neither Hurricanehink nor Nikkimaria said anything to me about that. I moved one of the images somewhere else in the article but get rid of the rest. I've also moved the pop culture items into the See also section if they have their own articles--12george1 (talk) 19:37, 23 May 2019 (UTC)-
          • What makes the museum so notable for its own level 4 heading? I mean i realise that it contains a documentry about the storm but so does my local one if i take my laptop there and play some random film via youtube there.Jason Rees (talk) 20:54, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
            • So go to your local museum and do that? :P Just kidding. I fixed that--12george1 (talk) 01:32, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
              • Haha on further reflection - I wonder what makes the museum to be noted in the article full stop per my earlier comments.Jason Rees (talk) 21:50, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
  • It would be better if every single sentence was cited, at the end of the sentence as it would make it clearer as to what was being cited for what and lead to less failed verifications.
  • The MH needs a bit of love imo as it doesn't tell the story of the hurricane properly imo.Jason Rees (talk) 21:50, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
  • The storm's origins are unclear, because of the limited observational methods available to contemporary meteorologists. At the time, ship reports were the only reliable tool for observing hurricanes at sea, and because wireless telegraphy would not be invented until 1905, reports remained unavailable until the ships docked at harbor. I would like to see a source that specifically tells me that the origins for the 1900 Galverston are unknown, I would also like you to get rid of everything after the first sentence as it is just fluff imo.Jason Rees (talk) 21:50, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
  • The 1900 storm, as with many powerful Atlantic hurricanes, is believed to have begun as a Cape Verde hurricane – a tropical wave moving off the western coast of Africa. Source as it aint HURDAT.Jason Rees (talk) 21:50, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
  • The storm passed through the Leeward Islands on August 30, possibly as a tropical depression as indicated by barometric pressure reports from Antigua. - Needs revising as HURDAT says that it was a Tropical Storm on August 30.Jason Rees (talk) 21:50, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Tell the readers what happened between August 30 and September 2, did the storm weaken, strengthen, do a disappearing act or even the hokey cokey?Jason Rees (talk) 21:50, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
  • There's really not much. The storm entered the Caribbean and tracked westward to the south of Puerto Rico. That's about it. But ok--12george1 (talk) 04:33, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Upon becoming a Category 4 hurricane, the cyclone reached its maximum sustained wind speed of 145 mph (230 km/h) -> this would be better presented as Upon becoming a Category 4 hurricane, the cyclone was estimated to have reached its peak intensity with sustained wind speeds of 145 mph (230 km/h).Jason Rees (talk) 21:50, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

French battleship Jean Bart (1911)[edit]

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:42, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Jean Bart had a typical career for a French dreadnought of her generation. Her participation in World War I mostly consisted of swinging around a mooring buoy as she was tasked to prevent a breakout into the Mediterranean by the Austro-Hungarian fleet, aside from helping to sink a small Austro-Hungarian cruiser and getting torpedoed. Between the wars, she was extensively modernized, but would have been too expensive for another refit in the mid-1930s. Jean Bart instead briefly became a training ship before she was converted into an accommodation ship for the naval schools in Toulon and had to give up her name for a newly building battleship. She was captured when the Germans occupied Vichy France although they only made use of her as a target for the massive shaped-charge warheads that they were developing. The ship was sunk by Allied airstrikes in 1944 and was scrapped after the war. The article had a MilHist A-class review a few months ago and I believe that it meets the FA criteria. I'd like reviewers to look for any stray AmEng and unexplained or unlinked jargon as well as any unfelicitous prose.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:42, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Comments by CPA-5[edit]

Looks like your first reviewer is here already. Also it looks like this is your first nomination in a long time right?

  • France on 16 July for a state visit to Saint Petersburg, Russia Replace the Russian Federation's link with the Russian Empire's article.
  • on 25–26 July, but a planned visit to Copenhagen, Denmark, was cancelled Unlink Denmark.
  • split with the battleships headed for Otranto, Italy Replace the Italian Republic link with the Kingdom of Italy's article.
  • while the armoured cruisers patrolled off the Albanian coast Replace Republic of Albania's link with the Principality of Albania article.
  • supplemented by a pair of 75 mm (3.0 in) Mle 1891 G guns on anti-aircraft mounts uncessary nought.
  • the ship participated in the occupation of Constantinople Link occupation of Constantinople.
  • Jean Bart was transferred to the Black Sea to reinforce Link Black Sea.
  • made port visits to Bizerte, Crete, Egypt, French Lebanon, Corfu, and Greece Unlink both Egypt and Greece.
  • made port visits in French North Africa, Majorca, Spain and Casablanca, French Morocco Same as above unlink Spain.
  • Additional mle 1912 4.57-metre rangefinders were added By MOS:NUMNOTES "Adjacent quantities not comparable should usually be in different formats".

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 15:24, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Comments[edit]

Mostly nitpicks:

  • "part of the 1906 Naval Programme." - is that right?
  • Isn't "private ship" a specifically RN term?
  • "When France declared war on Austria-Hungary..." - this is the same format as the beginning of the previous paragraph, and is a bit repetitive
  • You can drop Boué de Lapeyrère's first name on the second mention of him
  • Jordan & Caresse go into some detail about the crippling effects the coal shortage (and the crew transfers) had on French morale and overall readiness in 1917/18 - might be worth mentioning here. I think they say at one point only a couple of ships could be considered fit for combat.
  • "all of the Courbets assigned to the 1st Battle Squadron" - missing word here, I think?
  • Link rear admiral
  • Sometimes you spell out "modele" and other times you abbreviate as "mle" - can you standardize one way or another?
  • I'm struggling to find a French admiral with Herve as a surname - is it perhaps Hervé de Penfentenyo instead? He'd have been a CA at the time
  • "the 360-millimetre (14.2 in) rear armour" - you don't need to convert this again

Nice work as usual. Parsecboy (talk) 16:36, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Image review

  • Suggest adding alt text
  • Use |upright= rather than fixed px size
  • File:Jean_Bart_Cuirasse_1913.png: why a life+70 tag if the author died in 1958? When/where was this first published?
  • File:Cuirassé_"Jean_Bart".jpg: why does this have an anonymous-EU tag if the author is credited? Nikkimaria (talk) 17:58, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Support from PM[edit]

I reviewed this article at A-Class and had very little to nitpick about then. Parsecboy has already picked up on a couple of things that I noticed on a further read through. The sources are what you would expect for a French battleship of this vintage, and are all of high quality and reliable. No spotchecks done due to the nominator's long history at FAC. Supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:07, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Amarte Es un Placer (album)[edit]

Nominator(s): Erick (talk) 22:27, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

On the last FAC, I was nearly close to getting the article being promoted to FA, but due to the problems with the rationales with the samples and some of the sources, I had to rework both to resolves those issues. This time I change some of the samples and detailed the rationales for both of them. If the samples still don't meet the criteria, I'll remove them. Other than that, I'm ready again for the FAC this time. Erick (talk) 22:27, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Orpheus in the Underworld[edit]

Nominator(s): Tim riley talk 20:01, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

More disgraceful goings-on, I'm afraid. Orpheus in the Underworld was Jacques Offenbach's first full-length comic opera, and caused something of a scandal because of its cheeky satire of the Second French Empire and the Graeco-Roman classics. But the music and zany plot carry all before them, and the opera is still produced here, there and everywhere. Offenbach wrote dozens more comic operas, but this is the locus classicus, and I hope the article does it justice. Over to you for comment, fellow editors. – Tim riley talk

  • Support I had my say at the peer review, and my comments were addressed. An enjoyable read.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:29, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I say! That was quick. Thank you, Wehwalt, for support here and your valuable input at PR. Before the PR I wasn't quite convinced the article was ready for FAC, but thanks to you and the other reviewers and the improvements you have suggested I am emboldened. Tim riley talk 20:37, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Thank you for that point. I thought hard about this when starting my overhaul. I agree that following WP:Commonname means leaving the article's title in English – a Google analysis shows the English title getting three times as many hits as the French. (Within the article I've followed the main sources written in English – Faris, Gammond, Gänzl, Lamb, Selenick, Traubner – and used the original title as they all do.) – Tim riley talk 09:39, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. Another happy camper from the peer review. A further read-through shows it has been improved further since. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:54, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Thank you, SchroCat, for your support here and your input at PR. I'm much obliged. Tim riley talk 13:40, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Support with Minor Brass Quibble: and I'm sorry I didn't get round to saying this at PR. Under "Music > Editions" we have this: The 1858 version of Orphée aux enfers is scored for [...] two trumpets/cornets. I'd love this to be clearer. Do you mean that it was really scored for one or the other instrument, or for both doubling, or four players non-doubling? (Fantastically unlikely, that last.) I don't have the score but on a quick look at the only credible-looking parts on IMSLP it seems to me that it is two cornets – these are labelled Pistons in the parts, as in "Cornet a Pistons". I'd like to claim that I have incredibly strong and reliable professional instincts telling me that it must be two cornets; unfortunately, I don't got those ... would you accept instead my weak and unreliable professional instincts telling me that it must be two cornets? Sorry, I know it sounds terribly nitpicky but it's just Reading Rong™ for me. Anyway, I'm supporting regardless so, whilst it would be nice to sort this out, it is not a showstopper. Thanks and best to all DBaK (talk) 12:16, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Nothing wrong with being nitpicky, especially at FAC. Yes, Offenbach (like Sullivan after him) wrote for two cornets, but the cornet parts are now almost always played on trumpets (not always an advantage as trumpets can be too dominating). I'll go and clarify this. Thank you very much for the support here. Tim riley talk 13:40, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Thank you! Yes, I am well aware of the modern substitutions, due to my misspent, ah, leesure time, but I am very happy that it is now correct here, and I love your explanatory footnote. Cheers DBaK (talk) 15:17, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley[edit]

  • The images are brilliant.
  • Thank you (and thanks to the Bibliothèque nationale de France, too). Tim riley talk 14:30, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  • "It continues to be revived in the 21st century and remains the most often produced of his operas." This sounds a bit awkward to me. How about "It is his most frequently performed opera and continues to be revived in the 21st century."
  • "In the last decade of the 19th century the Paris cabarets the Moulin Rouge and Folies Bergère adopted the "Galop infernal" from the culminating scene of the opera as the music to accompany the can-can, with which the tune became, and has remained, widely associated in the public mind in France and abroad." I found this difficult to follow at first. Maybe "In the last decade of the 19th century the Paris cabarets the Moulin Rouge and Folies Bergère adopted the music from the "Galop infernal" from the culminating scene of the opera to accompany the can-can and ever since then the tune has been popularly associated with the dance."
  • "because the actors, who could not tire the public, were themselves exhausted". You have given the French original, but should you not also spell out that it is your translation?
    Happy to do so, but I can't think how and where to add that fact. I don't fancy adding "Translation by Tim riley" – it would look big-headed and show-off, and still less do I fancy adding it nine times (there being that many of my translations during the article). Any thoughts? Throughout I have made a rule of footnoting the original French versions of all translations made by me; where I have quoted someone else's published translation I have not sought to quote the French originals. Tim riley talk 14:30, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I think this needs a ruling from a higher authority such as Ian. My view is that you need to be immodest and add a note "All translations from the French which are otherwise unattributed are by Tim Riley". Dudley Miles (talk) 15:20, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Good idea. This can't be the first time the question has come up, and there must surely be a precedent. Can't find anything in the MoS, but then one seldom can, I find. Tim riley talk 16:21, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I don't see that it's necessary. When we write a plot summary, we don't say "synopsis by so-and-so". Similarly, the translation could be modified by multiple editors over time. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:33, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  • But Tim has said synopsis by so-and-so by citing it to Crémieux etc. Translation should be similarly referenced. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:44, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I think plot summaries should have a cited source. Tim riley talk 19:11, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  • @Tim riley: Laying out @MOS:PLOTSOURCE, the plot summary for a work, on a page about that work, does not need to be sourced with in-line citations, as it is generally assumed that the work itself is the primary source for the plot summary; in full recognition of the fact that this is of no help whatsoever :) ——SerialNumber54129 07:04, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  • "However, editors are encouraged to add sourcing if possible, as this helps discourage original research" I try to follow this. Tim riley talk 08:12, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I don't remember this coming up before but I might check around for precedents if there's nothing in MOS... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:48, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Thank you, Ian. As I read the MoS (MOS:FOREIGNQUOTE} it doesn't specify that D-I-Y translations should be attributed – only that the original words should also be quoted – to make the translation verifiable, I assume – which is done here. But if you can throw any further light on the matter from your experience with earlier FACs it would be most helpful. Tim riley talk 08:12, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  • "Offenbach expanded it further, adding new ballets" Would not "ballet sequences" - as you describe them below - be clearer? Also you refer to "new" ballets but you have not previously said that there were any.
  • "Aristée enters. He is in reality Pluton (Pluto)" "Aristée enters disguised as a shepherd"?
  • I've fleshed this out a little bit. Tim riley talk 14:30, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Thank you for these, Dudley. Very useful indeed. I look forward to more. Tim riley talk 14:30, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  • "displaying, in Faris's analysis, many of his own hallmarks" I am not sure what "own" is doing here. It sounds as if it means Faris's hallmarks.
  • I've changed to "personal": I'm seeking to contrast them with the parodies of other composers' styles mentioned just before. Tim riley talk 19:09, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Schipperges, Thomas. "Jacques Offenbach's Galop infernal from Orphée aux enfers. A Musical Analysis" I see that you have also translated from German. (What a horribly talented person you are!) You have translated the title of the article but you did not translate French titles. You need to be consistent on this.
  • Happily – my German being even rustier than my French – I was only cribbing from the abstract at the top of the article, which is in English. I think I should leave the "in German" tag there though, as most of the article (16 pages of it) is in German, but I'll remove it if you think I ought. Tim riley talk 19:09, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  • If your source is an abstract in English then I think you should delete the 'in German' tag. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:58, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  • "Offenbach's music defies all musicological methods". I am not sure what this means - cannot be analysed?
  • I take it to mean can't be analysed by the normal academic methods of musicologists, but I shouldn't like to gloss the comment. Tim riley talk 19:09, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I would wikilink "dramaturgy"
  • Done. The MoS discourages links from quotations, but the rule is so widely flouted that I doubt it anyone will object. Tim riley talk 19:09, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  • "Orphée aux enfers was the first of Offenbach's major works to have a chorus." I thought you said that there were no earlier full scale operas due to licensing laws.
  • Indeed I did, but I, and more to the point the experts, would class some of his earlier one-acters as at least as major of some of his less convincing 2- or 3-acters. An English analogy: in the G&S canon I'd call Trial by Jury major, and possibly not The Grand Duke (not a word to any Savoyard). Tim riley talk 19:09, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  • "By the time of Offenbach's centenary, in 1919, it had become clear that predictions of the ephemerality of his works had been wrong" You cite for this the Times and NY Times 1880 obituaries and Hauger's article on the change in attitude towards Offenbach in English journals between 1880 and 1897. I think you should make clear that the predictions were by English speakers. Also your source says the change came before 1900, not by 1919. Are some of the comments in Hauger's article worth quoting?
  • I'll have a think about this and report back tomorrow. Tim riley talk 19:09, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I've revised the opening of this section to reflect critical hostility in France after Offenbach's death as well as sniffy comments from abroad. The opening sentence should, I suppose, strictly be in the previous section, but it seems to sit better where it is, and the narrative flows better, I think. There is much of interest in Hauger's article, but nothing that cries out to be quoted. Tim riley talk 21:16, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Section 'Continental Europe' - to be pedantic this should be 'Continental Europe outside France'.
  • True, but it's a bit of a mouthful, and unless you feel strongly about it I'd prefer the shorter, if less accurate, term: I think its import is clear enough. Tim riley talk 19:09, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Breslau - I would say in Poland.
  • I think it was in Germany, or rather Prussia, in 1859. I'd rather not add "now in Poland" or suchlike: a bit of a diversion, I think. Tim riley talk 19:09, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  • "(both given in French)". Were the producitons mentioned earlier translations? If so, you should says so.
  • "in a version by J. R. Planché titled Orpheus in the Haymarket" Presumably English language version?
  • "In 2019 ENO announced a new production with an English text by Tom Morris." I prefer ballet to opera but I will have to try to see this.
  • Hmm. In my experience operetta doesn't work well in the Coliseum. Just too huge a theatre, I think, and all the subtlety is lost. Still, one never knows. I shall certainly go, expecting the worst and hoping for the best, and the great Sir Willard is playing Jupiter, and that should be worth seeing and hearing. Tim riley talk 19:09, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  • "New World" This term does not include Australia. Maybe 'Outside Europe'
  • Well, I'm blest. I've learnt something today. As a wine drinker I certainly include Australia and NZ in "New World". But "Outside Europe" is fine, and done. Tim riley talk 19:09, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  • "Two more German productions were given: December 1863 with Fritze, Knorr, Klein and Frin von Hedemann and December 1866 with Brügmann, Knorr, Klein and Frin Steglich-Fuchs." Where? This is in the New World section.
  • It was in New York. There was an astonishing amount of foreign-language theatre in New York in those days. Melting pot and all that, I suppose. Tim riley talk 19:09, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Thank you, Dudley. I think I've addressed all your points with the one exception, which I'll mull over tonight and report back on. Tim riley talk 19:09, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  • And now done – satisfactorily, I hope. Tim riley talk 21:16, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Thank you, Dudley, both for the support and the very helpful suggestions, above. I shall not lose sight of the question of attributing D-I-Y translations. – Tim riley talk 09:07, 16 May 2019 (UTC)


  • Full support, infernally good. Now, what about raising the composer to the same level.....--Smerus (talk) 14:54, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Thank you very much Smerus. Your support is greatly appreciated. I am already on record as signed up to an ascent of Mount Offenbach with you when your other commitments allow. I look forward to it. Tim riley talk 15:01, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

SN54129[edit]

"Tasty Tasty Very Very Tasty. It's Very Tasty".

Forced to omit much of the technical stuff I'm afraid.

Lead and Background/first productions
  • "extensively revised and expanded in a..."—"into a" or "as a"? Tim riley talk 07:53, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Any of the three prepositions would work equally well here, I think. I'm inclined to leave this as drawn. Tim riley talk 07:53, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
  • "He is glad to be rid of his wife, Eurydice, and has to be bullied by Public Opinion into trying to rescue her from the underworld"—for those of us brought up on Quadrophenia ("These ain't blues! Let's do 'is motor!", etc), recast as "He is glad to be rid of his wife, Eurydice, who has been taken to the underworld, but is bullied by Public Opinion into trying to rescue her", perhaps; explaining where she's gone before telling us he has to follow her.
  • Oh, the can-can, I've heard of that. Any reason it's not linked? Unless you're worried that most people have heard of it also might immediately click away... :)
  • Linked. (It was linked earlier, but I must have lost the link when acting on an earlier reviewer's suggestions.) Tim riley talk 07:53, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Perhaps redlink Henri Tayau? Or are members of the Bouffes not equally notable? (Honest question—I found bugger all on him online, but you know your sources)
  • I'd write a brief article on Tayau myself, but there simply is nothing online or in reference books in English. No prospect of an article as far as I can see. Tim riley talk 07:53, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
  • "His shows were lavishly and expensively mounted"—does those mean his productions in general were, or that each individual showing of MitO were?
  • redrawn
  • You might want to open with a sentence briefly explaining exactly who Offenbach was; for example, you mention him having to keep his creditors at bay, but there's been no intimation until then that he had any reason to.
  • "irreverent public ripostes"—gorgeous. But the WP:READER will be slobbering at that; can we have some examples of how they (I imagine, in modern parlance) took the piss? Human interest and all that...and make sure Dank gets one or two of 'em in its TFA blurb :)
  • The English sources do not elaborate much. Offenbach wrote a letter to Le Figaro in macaronic prose, mixing German and French, but though this was possibly the height of cheek in 1859 I doubt if your putative slobberer will find the fact especially enlivening. Tim riley talk 07:53, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
  • "for that theatre"—I wonder if this is necessary? The theatre has been mentioned only a few words earlier, and there's no harm in removing a minor repetition.
  • I think the words are necessary to make it clear that it broke records for that theatre, and not the theatre in general. Tim riley talk 07:53, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

<interlude>

Editions / overture & galop
  • "The Offenbach Edition Keck"—is that the name, or could it be "Keck's edition"?
  • The name of Keck's edition is indeed the Offenbach Edition Keck. Tim riley talk 07:53, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Bizarre that the Orphée aux enfers doesn't have it's own article, considering it contains what must be one of the most famous pieces of music in the world (for a few minutes anyway).I do believe SchroCat used it as his Nokia ring tone. And finally, a link to the can-can! It might otherwise have encouragé les poilus, eh? :)
  • It is already linked in this section. Tim riley talk 07:53, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

<interlude>

  • "Thinly disguised satire of the régime of Napoleon III"—baldly, how? This could do with some context. Bearing in mind I above suggested a few lines on Offenbach himself under "Background", I now suggest a short opening paragraph to the section which describes Offenbach's life until now and the social/political context; viz, why only a decade after the 1848 revolutions was he the target of popular disdain. Probably only need to be a few lines to set the scene.
  • The sources do not really elaborate. I can well imagine why Jupiter was seen as a sly dig at Napoleon III – head of a régime noted more for show than for moral rectitude – but that would be OR. And as I have said in the text, the critics at the time either didn't think it was political satire or (more likely) prudently turned a blind eye to it, but I shouldn't like to go further than that. Tim riley talk 07:53, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
  • My recollection of the BBC production mentioned is that they were all dressed (or changed into) Third Empire clothes, I think Denis Quilley was made to look quite like Napoleon (III). PS, the Mellers book I mentioned below may help. Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 13:30, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Any reason Toko isn't linked?
  • No mention of the word anywhere in the article. Tim riley talk 07:53, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Note #2 is interesting and relevant enough to be inline, methinks.
  • I wondered about that, but eventually decided it wasn't central to the main narrative. It is so tempting to throw in interesting titbits like this, but the article already weighs in at 5,300+ words, and it is as well to keep to the essentials, I think. Tim riley talk 07:53, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
Hope this is helpful Tim riley, and that you are, as ever, keeping well. Take care! ——SerialNumber54129 17:28, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for these points. Addressed as outlined above. Hope reciprocally that you are flourishing. Tim riley talk 07:53, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

some final thoughts[edit]

I have checked on Wiki Commons media section and it seems that the cartoon of a garlanded Offenbach as Orpheus, and the Gustave Doré sketch of the finale of the opera (Keck's 'rave') are not available there, which is a shame as they would have been an addition... I wondered if, as the article mentions 'can-can' several times, that it needs a note at the bottom just to say that the only mention of cancan in the picee is when Jupiter speaks it in Olympus in the sense of 'bavardage malveillant'. Lastly, by accident I just discovered a book by Wilfrid Mellers entitled The masks of Orpheus - Seven stages in the story of the European music (Manchester University Press, 1987). I am only dipping in at present, but there is a very pertinent and perceptive section on pages 138 to 142 about the Offenbach work which I recommend and could provide good points for the article. If you are unable to track the book down I can try to add some of the better bits in.Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 13:24, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't know that one of Mellers's books and will order it at the British Library. He knows his stuff, though his prose is apt to be heavy going. Tim riley talk 15:51, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Payún Matrú[edit]

Nominator(s): Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:50, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

This article is about a volcano in Argentina. It was active starting from the Pleistocene until recent times, that is until 515 years ago, and consists of a shield volcano capped off by a caldera formed during an explosive eruption and a mass of monogenetic volcanoes. It is not particularly remarkable as far as volcanoes go, save for its giant lava flows which are among the longest of the Quaternary; one of these is known as Pampas Onduladas and is almost 200 kilometres (120 mi) long. If such an eruption were to occur today, though, it would not be much of a threat to anyone; the region is thinly inhabited. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:50, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Support from Hurricane Noah[edit]

  • Is it necessary to have a whole section dedicated to the name when it spans a single line? NoahTalk 01:01, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
    Not really, but there isn't any section where it would fit better. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:26, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Metric units need to be abbreviated throughout the entirety of the article. NoahTalk 01:01, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:26, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  • When giving ranges, it should be X-Y km (X-Y mi) instead of "7 kilometres (4.3 mi)-8 kilometres (5.0 mi)". NoahTalk 01:01, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
    I think I got this. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:26, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  • In the geology, why is the upper range of the subduction rate listed before the lower end? NoahTalk 01:01, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
    Reversed the numbers. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:26, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Same thing later on in the section with years. NoahTalk 01:01, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
    That was deliberate, in order to keep a chronological order. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:26, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Combination of the aforementioned issues in the climate, soils and vegetation section. NoahTalk 01:01, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
    Resolved. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:26, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Just a quick glance at sources... You have different combinations of dates. One is "1 October 2013" and another is "2009-01-01". NoahTalk 01:01, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
    Standardized onto the first format. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:26, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Quite an impressive article. Most of those issues should be easy to fix. NoahTalk 01:01, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

@Hurricane Noah:Thanks. I think I got all these issues. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:26, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
Looks fine now... Support NoahTalk 10:21, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Comments from Tim riley[edit]

A few spellings looked a bit odd to me, at first read-through, but it may an Engvar thing:

  • Aerodinamically – aerodynamically?
  • Sinouous – sinuous?
  • Abovelying – is there such a word in AmE? Looks very odd to an English eye.
  • Coulee – the OED prescribes an acute accent. Engvar, very possibly, as I know AmE users are allergic to diacriticals.

As far (not very, or indeed not at all) as I am any judge the text is authoritative and comprehensive. It is certainly very readable for a non-expert visitor. I lean towards supporting, but will, if I may, delay signing on the dotted line, to see if more informed editors than I express a view on the scientific content. – Tim riley talk 21:10, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

@Tim riley: Nah, these were mostly typos; I've remedied them. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:17, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Image review

  • Suggest scaling up the stratigraphy
  • Suggest adding alt text
  • File:Payun_Matru_Volcano_in_Mendoza_Province_Argentina.jpg: source link is dead. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:06, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
@Nikkimaria: Got them. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:55, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Tropical Storm Carlotta (2018)[edit]

Nominator(s): NoahTalk 01:23, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

I have decided to nominate Carlotta after having worked on it for a long time. I actually tried to delete the article myself and it was on the cusp of being merged into the seasonal article. I rewrote Carlotta and added an impact section after finding out there was a decent bit of information on the storm. I now believe Carlotta is of sufficient quality to be brought here. NoahTalk 01:23, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Image review[edit]

  • Suggest adding alt text
Most of the descriptions were good enough. I added in things like "visible satellite image" for alt text in addition to the description of the image. NoahTalk 19:36, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Suggest scaling up the map. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:20, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
@Nikkimaria: This can't be done without changing EVERY track map. There really isn't a reason to make it any larger as the intensity dots are easily discernable even without clicking on the image for the full size. Yeah, some of the dots are smashed together, but that's what you get when a system slows down and stalls. Please let me know if you think this is a large enough issue that it warrants a change. NoahTalk 19:36, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
Why would every track map need to be changed in order to change this one? According to the documentation for {{storm path}}, the functionality to change the image size is already part of the template. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:05, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
@Nikkimaria: Oh, I thought you meant the image itself needed to be zoomed in more. There is an issue though... the project doesn't scale up track maps unless the storm has a long track, such as that of Hurricane Hector (2018). Storms with short tracks do not get enlarged. Keep in mind that such a change would go against the current practice and would likely require some form of consensus or it would run the risk of being reverted. NoahTalk 22:43, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
Where has this practice been codified? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:02, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
It is more of a practice to cut down as much text squishing as possible. Nearly every article has the infobox on the right, and the map is in the top-left of the meteorological history. It's more a matter of style. That being said, there is one extra line at the very bottom of my screen, so if the map was a tiny bit bigger, the line wouldn't drop all the way to the left. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:44, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
@Nikkimaria: As far as I am aware, there aren't any actual discussions on the matter. I asked a few people without any luck. It's just how it has been done (for the reason pointed out above). As it appears there is no official consensus, I have honored your request. Is everything good now regarding images? NoahTalk 02:08, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
Yes. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:15, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Support and comments from ♫ Hurricanehink (talk)[edit]

  • I would link Mexican state in the first sentence
    Done. NoahTalk 16:35, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
  • On June 12, the National Hurricane Center (NHC) reported that a broad area of low pressure had formed several hundred miles south of the aforementioned country. The NHC continued to track the disturbance over the next couple of days as it drifted northward. Following an increase in organization, the system was designated as a tropical depression on June 14 and was upgraded to tropical storm status the following evening. - too much MH for the lead. This can all be summarized into one sentence
    Cut out any mention of TD in the lead. I have it as strengthening to TS by June 15. NoahTalk 16:35, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I would mention how close to land Carlotta got in the lead, or maybe add that it stalled "just offshore" or something
    mentioned closeness at peak intensity. NoahTalk 17:01, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
  • The NHC continued to monitor the disturbance over the next couple days as it drifted northward.[3] Initially, strong upper-level winds prevented organization,[2] but by the next day, conditions had become marginally conducive - as my general rule of thumb, if the previous sentence doesn't mention a date, then don't refer to "the next day", since then the reader has to go back two sentences. Also, what were the conditions that became more conducive?
    Added a date and corrected the statement. NoahTalk 17:01, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
  • The system thereafter increased in organization, resulting in the formation of a tropical depression by 18:00 UTC on June 14. - where?
    Added place and distance. NoahTalk 17:01, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
  • The NHC later reduced its intensity forecast as the system's center had reformed further north, decreasing the amount of time until landfall. - the wording could be tighter here, like - After the system's center reformed farther north, the NHC anticipated only minimal intensification due to less time over water. That's not perfect either. It's odd, because you're talking about two different time frames here, the forecast, and what the storm did. Also, because it's distance/location related, it should be "farther", not "further".
    Is that better? NoahTalk 22:14, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Carlotta began to intensify around 06:00 UTC as it stalled off the coast of Mexico. - wasn't it already intensifying once it became a TS?
    Clarified as the intensity stalled for multiple times. NoahTalk 22:30, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Around 18:00 UTC, Carlotta weakened into a tropical depression after lacking organized deep convection for several hours. - see what I said earlier about timing
    I hope that clarifies the timing more. NoahTalk 22:30, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  • On June 14 at 21:00 UTC, a tropical storm watch was issued for Tecpan de Galeana to Punta Maldonado [es]. - I'd say "The government of Mexico issued a tropical storm watch..." - this cuts down on the passive voice
    Fixed. NoahTalk 22:30, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  • There, a total of 170 families were affected and the DN-III-E Plan, a plan for the coordination of search and rescue operations and disaster aid, was activated to help with recovery efforts. - this seems like two different ideas. First, what does it mean that the families were affected? I don't usually include that in articles because it's a fairly open-ended stat that doesn't mean too much. Also, was this plan used for any search/rescue on the Yucatan?
    removed the stat and replaced it with the police station that was inundated. I can't find any information on search and rescue operations. I have tried multiple searches with no success. I did find that the army was prepared to help if needed, but nothing available on whether they actually did help in Yucatan. NoahTalk 22:58, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Could you cut down in general on the passive voice in the impact section?
  • A total of 138 trees were downed; 120 in Acapulco and the remaining 18 in the municipalities of Cuajinicuilapa, Florencio Villareal, Azoyu, Tecpan de Galeana, Benito Juárez, Coyuca de Benítez, Eduardo Neri, and Coyuca de Catalán. - usually articles don't give a breakdown for towns where trees were downed. Seems kinda trivial IMO. I'd just keep the 138 downed trees
    cut most of that. NoahTalk 17:20, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Additionally, 11 roads collapsed, nine houses lost their roofs, 32 neighborhoods lost power, and a hospital sustained window damage in Acapulco. - was this all in Acapulco? Also, the ordering seems off. Mentioning collapsed roads in the same sentence as damaged windows seems off.
    Should be fixed now. NoahTalk 23:12, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Approximately 210.6 mm (8.291 in) of rain fell in La Villita while 194.9 mm (7.673 in) was recorded in Presa La Villita. - watch for rounding. Also, is there any significance to these rainfall totals as opposed to the previous one mentioned (which was presumably the highest recorded in Mexico).
    I have been told rainfall values must conform to sig fig conversion rules, which states a value with 4 sig figs must have a conversion to inches with 4 sig figs. No, there isn't a particular significance, although those three were only exact rainfall values throughout Mexico. NoahTalk 17:20, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
  • In the Tiquicheo Municipality, 10 houses flooded after a river near the city of Tiquicheo overflowed its banks. - no need to mention Tiquicheo twice, IMO.
    cut "of Tiquicheo" NoahTalk 17:20, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Throughout the storm, 35 temporary shelters were in operation. - nationwide? Or in Michoacan?
    Added... please note I did not intend to leave that as open ended since it is in the Michoacán paragraph. NoahTalk 23:20, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  • A 30-to-35-year-old woman and a 15-to-17-year-old girl became entrapped in their vehicle due to rising flood waters - no need to mention the age range. How about just "Two women became trapped..."
    Cut the ages. NoahTalk 17:20, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

That's it for my review. The article is in decent shape, but just seems lacking for an FA (probably because the storm wasn't too damaging, therefore not too much to write about). ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 12:43, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm happy to Support now. It may be short, and not what I would've put on FAC, but I believe it passes the criteria. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 23:41, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Support and Comments by 12george1[edit]

  • "and sea surface temperatures exceeding 30 °C (86 °F)," - The rest of the MH uses imperial units first. Therefore, celsius should be in parenthesis. Because it's a template, you can just add |order=flip
    Fixed... seems odd that NHC uses Celcius when they use imperial units for everything else. NoahTalk 20:41, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  • "Carlotta's remnants dissipated around 06:00 UTC.[1]" - Specify where the remnants dissipated
    Added virtually the same thing that the TCR had since there was no specific location/distance. NoahTalk 20:41, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  • "The proximity of Carlotta prompted the closure of the ports of Huatulco, Puerto Ángel and Puerto Escondido" - Comma after Puerto Ángel
    Fixed. NoahTalk 20:51, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  • "In Puebla, a state highway and a bridge collapsed, cutting off several towns in the area." - At first I couldn't tell if you were referring to the city or the state because you end the sentence with "in the area". Upon further investigation, it looks like this was in the Tehuacán area. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. The source used for this sentence also states that there were flooded businesses and homes, as well as stranded cars in Tehuacán area, which should be added to the article
    I clarified... I was referring to the state with Puebla. I added info about the flooding as well as the cars and trees. NoahTalk 20:51, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  • At the bottom, add Category:2018 in Mexico
    Done. NoahTalk 20:51, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

That should be it. This is a pretty good article, but just a few things need to be done before I can support. Anyway, I'm glad you decided against withdrawing.--12george1 (talk) 18:33, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

@12george1: I should have addressed everything. If there are any problems, please let me know. NoahTalk 20:51, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
I will now support this nomination--12george1 (talk) 03:26, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Other discussion[edit]

At this point, I would say a withdraw is warranted. The article is simply too short to qualify for FA. I would like a second opinion on it before formally making a decision on this. NoahTalk 15:27, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
I guess I will see this through given the negative feedback regarding a withdraw. Maybe the sentiment has changed in more recent years. I had heard in great detail about opposition to smaller hurricane FACs. NoahTalk 21:53, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Before you withdraw, two questions: 1. Is this subject worthy of a stand-alone article? If not, withdraw and nominate for deletion. If it is worthy of a stand-alone article, 2. Does it incorporate every useful and worthwhile piece of encyclopaedic information, without going into trivia or too much details? If not, withdraw. If it passes both 1 and 2, don't withdraw. I know nothing about hurricanes, etc, but if this is a worthwhile article and is of sufficient standard that covers all appropriate material, then there is no reason it cannot be an FA (although I say this without reviewing the current version). We have shorter articles than this (I think some of Crisco's Indonesian lost-film articles were shorter, and they deserved to be FAs as much as this one may). If you decide to remain, ping me and I'll review the prose. - SchroCat (talk) 20:57, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Looking further, Panggilan Darah – 982 words and Air Mata Iboe – 948 words are both shorter than your 1214 words of "readable prose size". Because they were short Crisco ensured that every useful and encyclopaedic piece of information was included. If you have too, then there is no need to withdraw on size alone. - SchroCat (talk) 21:05, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
    @SchroCat: I have decided to continue on with the process. NoahTalk 23:24, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

SC[edit]

General
  • The name "Carlotta" appears 36 times in the article. A few of these could be replaced with "the storm" etc, as a bit of variety.
    Changed some. I had 4 in the lede and about 10 in the prose. NoahTalk 01:26, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
  • You have a habit of adding an introductory word at the beginning of each sentence (Additionally, However, Moreover, Soon after, Meanwhile, etc). Try and remove those if they are not actually needed. They make the reading less fluid that it could be (and it looks like an added in sentence of something forgotten – 'oh, and another thing…')
    Changed as possible. Meanwhile and soon after are mainly there as we only have 6 hour track points. NoahTalk 01:21, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
    • You have "Additionally" seven times in the article, which makes for awkward reading. Most of them could be removed, or the sentences tweaked slightly to make the reading a bit more fluid
    Removed all but one. NoahTalk 01:21, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
    • "due to" always jars slightly (although that may just be a personal thing), so consider whether "because of" would be better
    Replaced all of them. NoahTalk 01:21, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
Lead & IB
  • Fatalities: "3 total": do we need "total"?
    Yes, it is needed because there are both direct and indirect deaths. This is done for almost every storm. NoahTalk 14:27, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
    But that field in the IB makes no distinction. It just supplies the number of deaths and the "in total" is inherent in the field, which is three - SchroCat (talk) 14:57, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
    We always clarify... either list “# total”, “# direct, # indirect”, or “# direct/indirect (whichever it happens to be)”. NoahTalk 16:01, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
    "We" being? A project, I presume? The benefit of not being part of a project is that I approach it like a reader (which is exactly what you need). This looks wrong and the two words raise more questions than answers. An IB should give simple points that clarify, not complicate matters. - SchroCat (talk) 16:08, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

───────────────────────── I did clarify on the deaths since such information exists, but I will not go against project practices as this would require a consensus to change. NoahTalk 21:36, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

  • "the aforementioned country" feels a bit forced. "Central America" or something else would work better
    Removed Mexico from the first sentence and replaced the aforementioned country with Mexico. NoahTalk 22:46, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
  • "The storm caused a total of three deaths": "a total of" is not needed. This should be followed by a colon, not a semi solon
    Fixed... oops typo... 22:46, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
  • "Additionally, the storm caused": "Additionally" not needed
    Fixed. NoahTalk 22:46, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
History
  • "However, a tropical wave": "However" not needed
    Removed NoahTalk 00:57, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
  • "the National Hurricane Center": As we're talking about a storm over Mexico and the previous mention of a country was Mexico, it may be worth clarifying to "the US National Hurricane Center"
    Added "Miami-based" NoahTalk 00:57, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
  • "the NHC forecast that" -> "the NHC forecasted that"
    Although both are correct, everyone uses forecast. NoahTalk 14:47, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
Preparations
  • "at 21:00 UTC,": delink UTC
    Done NoahTalk 00:57, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm not an AmEng speaker, but shouldn't "cancelled" be "canceled"? (I ask from a position of complete ignorance!
    English is weird... both spellings are correct, but appears canceled seems to be preferred (at least by rule books, not neccesarily by actual people). I always used cancelled due to cancellation. NoahTalk 14:27, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
  • "fishing operations.[25] Additionally, multiple": use a semi-colon instead of a full stop and drop "Additionally"
    Done NoahTalk 00:57, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
  • "collapsed.[37] Moreover, 12" Again, semi colon and drop the "Moreover".
    Done NoahTalk 00:57, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

I hope these help. – SchroCat (talk) 10:27, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

British logistics in the Normandy Campaign[edit]

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:20, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

This article is about the British Army's Normandy campaign in World War II. Wrote it on my summer vacation last year. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:20, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Image review

CommentsSupport by CPA-5[edit]

Look who've here? Welcome back mate, may I ask you which kinda English this article uses? British, American or Australian English? It wouldn't suprise me that it is written in Australian English. Also I'll do this one later I'd give you my comments within two days. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 08:29, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

British English. Added a {{use British English}} template. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:04, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
  • an opportunity to build up reserves of supplies American build up.
    Changed to "accumulate". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:55, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  • to the north to capture Antwerp Add Belgium after Antwerp.
    Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:55, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  • British Guards Armoured Division liberated Brussels Same as above.
    Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:55, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  • logistical units had learned from practice American learned.
    Changed to "learnt" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:55, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  • developed plans for Operation Rankin No link for Operation Rankin?
    It would be a red link. There's no article, although it warrants one. I don't normally cfreate a red link unless I intend to create the article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:55, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  • In the image File:Invasion_Build-up-_Preparations_For_the_D-day_Landings,_UK, A line of army trucks awaits collection along a tree-lined lane or path in preparation for Overlord First American line/lined and second American trucks.
    Changed to "lorries" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:55, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
    • @Hawkeye7: Shouldn't line be replaced by queue because it looks in my view they're standing in a queue? Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 06:18, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
      They are not in a queue; they are lined up. If they were queued, they would have to leave in the order they arrived. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 13:02, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Brigadier L. L. H. McKillop; and a Deputy Adjutant General (DAG), Brigadier Cyril Lloyd No links for L. L. H. McKillop and Cyril Lloyd?
    Brigadiers are not presumed notable. Lloyd became a major general after the war, and was involved in the establishment of West Dean College, so he is presumed notable, but has no article. I created articles on Miles Graham and Gerry Fielden for this article, but not McKillop or LLoyd, as I lacked sources. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:55, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  • A Headquarters (HQ) Line of Communications Is this an official name if not then I don't reckon it's bad to change line into queue?
    That's an official name; "line" as in "line of communications" does not mean "queue". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:55, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  • under 11 Line of Communications Area when Second Army Same as above.
    as above. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:55, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  • would be gradually built up to a fortnight's Again American built up.
    Changed to "increased" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:55, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  • charged with responsibility for regulating the build up of vehicles Same as above.
    Changed to "build-up". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:55, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  • were employed by Vice Admiral Sir Philip Vian's American Vice Admiral.
    Hyphen added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:55, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  • stores had to anchor up to 5 miles (8.0 km) from shore The nought isn't necessary.
    Rounded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:55, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  • This sentence destroying 100,000 imperial gallons (450,000 l) uses only imperial gallons but this sentence "which was about 200,000 imperial gallons (910,000 l; 240,000 US gal)" uses imperial and US gallons.
    Removed USgal. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:55, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  • when it arrived, 11 Line of Communications Area Same as above if it's not an official name then uses queue instead of line.
    Again, "line of communications" is a military term; here is is also the name of the unit, hence capitalisation. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:55, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Is it "Mediterranean Theatre" or just "Mediterranean theatre" because there're two different theatres.
    De-capped the second.
  • supply for the 5.5-inch guns to 30 days' No metric units?
    The gun is linked; the calibre is not so meaningful. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:55, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  • consumed tens of thousands of tons of steel This sentence uses three ofs isn't that too much?
    I think it works here. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:55, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  • tankers up to 5,000 gross register tons (14,000 m3) could discharge Link both "gross register tons" and m³.
    Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:55, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  • using Tombolas, floating ship-to-shore lines American lines.
    This is another definition of "line". In this case it means a hose or pipe. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:55, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Ammunition Depot arrived and began coordinating the stores American coordinating.
    Changed to "co-ordinating" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:55, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  • In the image File:Supplying_Allied_Forces_After_D_Day,_July_1944_B7186.jpg GMC two-and-a-half-ton 6 × 6 trucks (CCKW-353) parked on expanded metal standings, taking on fuel supplies American trucks.
    Changed to "lorries" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:55, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  • When HQ Line of Communications assumed administrative command on 13 July Same as above.
    As above. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:55, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  • An exception was 1,400 Austin K5 three-ton trucks American trucks.
    Changed to "lorries" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:55, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  • While the railway lines in northern France and Belgium Another American lines.
    Yet another meaning of "line". In this case it means "A connected series of public conveyances, as a roadbed or railway track". See List of railway lines in Great Britain. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:55, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  • 800 long tons (810 t) of POL and 300 long tons (300 t) The "(300 t)" isn't necessary. There is one already previously.
    Yes, but the conversion templates make it necessary. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:55, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  • much less than of the lines south of the Seine American lines and unlink Seine there is one already previously.
    Unlinks, and "railway lines" is meant here. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:55, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  • had provided an opportunity to build up reserves American built up.
    Changed to "accumulate"
  • had a draught of 2.90 metres (9 ft 6 in) "2.90" is a little to accurate maybe remove the nought 'cause it looks in my opinion a little bit unnecessary. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 07:25, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
    Rounded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:53, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 15:54, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

  • I couldn't find anything else. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 11:54, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Review[edit]

Fantastic well researched article which breathes a new fresh perspective ino the Normandy campaign in 1944. When it comes to warfare logistics in general is definitely overlooked. An inspiration for future articles on same subject and a good link to related articles. Many thanks. Eastfarthingan (talk) 11:17, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Sources review[edit]

  • No spotchecks carried out
  • Formats: the inclusion of a retrieval date for the Coles & Weinburg source seems unnecessary. The similarly-sourced Ruppenthal entry does not have a retrieval date.
  • No other issues. The sources are uniformly and consistently presented, and appear to meet the requirements of the FA criteria with regard to quality and reliability. Brianboulton (talk) 19:57, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Death of Blair Peach[edit]

Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 08:33, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Just over forty years ago Blair Peach attended a demonstration against the National Front where he received a blow on the head that killed him. This was, in all probability, from one of a possible six Special Patrol Group officers. No-one was ever charged with his death and it is unlikely that the actual culprit will ever be formally identified. The case was high-profile at the time, and it has been mentioned numerous times since, normally when there is a death related to police action. This has gone through a thorough re-write recently, and any further comments are most welcome. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 08:33, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Comment by David Fuchs
  • In the lead, In 2009 Ian Tomlinson died after he was struck from behind by a member of the Territorial Support Group, the SPG's successor organisation—it’s not immediately clear in the lead (versus the body) that this similar account led to the release of the report into Peach’s death. I think this should either be made clearer or Tomlinson’s death should be moved into the subsequent paragraph detailing the legacy of the incident. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 17:10, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
Many thanks David. I've added a sentence to link the Tomlinson death and release. Does that look OK to you as is? It may be that others would prefer it in the later paragraph, but we'll see. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 19:01, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
Works for me. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 21:44, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
Support per my detailed comments at the peer review.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:01, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
Many thanks, Wehwalt - I'm much obliged to you for your time and comments at PR and again here. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 07:41, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Comments from Noswall59

  • I hope you don't mind, but I've added his parents' names (which I believe are standard in biographical articles/summaries yet missing in his ODNB entry) and the names of his brothers, one of whom (Roy) was a solicitor and led the legal campaign after Blair's death; their mother Janet also sued the Met in 1981, but I've not added that. I am not familiar with your citation template though, so I'm afraid you might need to go through and standardise the references I've added (currently numbered 2, 3 and 4). As a final note, cite 2 is a bit odd; his parents' names are included on his gravestone, a photograph of which is available at the Getty Foundation and I've linked to it; the Foundation explicitly states in the caption that it belongs to "Blair Peach, who died in the Southall, West London, demonstrations against the National Front on April 23rd 1979, by a blow to the head." An unusual source, but I think perfectly acceptable. Cheers and good luck with the nom, —Noswall59 (talk) 12:52, 8 May 2019 (UTC).
Only (watching), but if i may say so, Noswall59, that's all useful stuff, cheers; Apropos nothing, I think SC is out raising money for the Police Benevolent Fund atm. ——SerialNumber54129 13:13, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Noswall59. I've tweaked the text just a little to reflect the sources a bit more closely and turned the citations into the right forms. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 07:41, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Image review[edit]

  • File:Blair_Peach.jpg: I read the statement re: public domain on the Guardian site as attribution rather than release. Any idea what the original source of this image was? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:13, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Thanks Nikkimaria. I don't know, I'm afraid. I went with what the newspaper say it is (the press are normally excellent about ensuring the licencing is correct for images). - SchroCat (talk) 19:34, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
  • That has... very much not been my experience. The same image appears to have been used in contemporary protests (eg [4][5]), though of course without any attribution. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:25, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
  • The use of the image in those protests suggests that it predates the Guardian publication cited, although the original source is unclear. Might the Guardian have more information on where the photo came from originally? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:26, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I've emailed the pictures department to ask on what basis they show it as PD. I suspect we may be in for a long wait! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:06, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Support Comments from Tim riley[edit]

I think I shall be supporting, but a few minor points first, as I ducked out of the PR:

  • "The BNP's successor, the National Front" – I see what you mean, of course, but is "successor" quite accurate? In present-day terms, is the Brexit party the "successor" to UKIP? One gang following a moribund predecessor gang, but I think "successor" implies some sort of hand-over.
  • The original BNP (1960–1967) help form the National Front when it imploded, with a large chunk of the party joining with a couple of other far-right knuckle-draggers to form the new organisation. I think there are some reliable sources that use the "successor" tag too. - SchroCat (talk) 19:32, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
  • "After bad press, they were replaced" – "they" being District Support Units? It isn't crystal clear.
  • I don't press the point, but there is a certain amount of in-and-out running in singular-v-plural for groups: e.g. "The SPG was disbanded .. the National Front announced that they would..."
  • Capitals are, I know, a headache for the scrupulous writer, but I do wonder why commissioner of the Metropolitan Police but Director of Public Prosecutions. (I'd capitalise Commissioner, but that's just my view.)
  • I've followed your suggestion. I go round in circles trying to work out what the MoS are saying on whatever day of the week. - SchroCat (talk) 19:32, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
  • "Despite statements by the police and the Labour government" – it seems a touch tendentious to say "the Labour government", as if a Tory one would have been sans peur et sans reproche.

Those are all my points on the prose. The content of the article seems to me balanced, comprehensive and well-referenced. I shall look in again to, I hope and expect, add my support. Tim riley talk 21:26, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Many thanks Tim. Only the singular-v-plural point to deal with, but I'll go over those shortly. - SchroCat (talk) 19:32, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Tim, I think I've covered these now (although I'm not sure I've made it worse in doing so!) Could you cast your eye over and see if I've brushed it up sufficiently? Ta - SchroCat (talk) 09:33, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I think you've got all the singular-v-plurals right. Some would write "the family was", but I'm with you in making them plural. While I was checking the current text I noticed (smack handies for not spotting it before) that you are inconsistent with the definite articles of newspaper titles: the Daily Mirror, but The Daily Telegraph and The Times. Not a matter of grave import, but it would be as well to stick to the same form for all. Tim riley talk 10:46, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Many thanks Tim - duly tweaked to be consistent. - SchroCat (talk) 11:48, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Happy to support now. I see a source review is wanted. If no-one more expert volunteers I'll have one of my occasional goes at source reviewing, using BB's wise guidance. Tim riley talk 08:24, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Many thanks Tim. As always, your comments are extremely helpful. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:32, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Support by Gog the Mild[edit]

  • "the parallels in the deaths proved to be a catalyst in the release of the Cass report to the public." Something can be the catalyst for a single event, but not "a" catalyst - that would imply that it is one of several which is not chemically nor grammatically allowed.
  • "In the late 1950s—a decade after the partition of India—many of those who had been displaced by the events lost land and savings in the movement of people from their homelands into new areas." Umm. Possibly this has lost a word or three somewhere along the way while being copy edited?
    • I've re-written this several times, and deleted them all! How does this current version look? - SchroCat (talk) 20:05, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
  • "meant easily obtainable jobs" IMO this would read better as 'meant jobs were easily obtainable'.
  • "Southall" The second and third sentences start with "Many", as does the last clause of the first sentence. Would some variation be possible?
  • "During local elections of the 1960s anti-immigration rhetoric was used by some candidates, successfully in many cases." Can you cite "successfully in many cases"?
    • It was part of the Karapin reference at the end of the next sentence, but split out now for clarity. - SchroCat (talk) 20:05, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
  • "In 1978 there were 204 members of the SPG in the Metropolitan Police Service." "in the Metropolitan Police Service" is redundant, the first sentence of the section covers this.
    • yeah-but, no-but... By '78 the SPG model was being used by forces outside the Met, so we need it there for clarity. (If you think a line would be beneficial to say the model was used in other forces, let me know and I'll dig out the sources again. - SchroCat (talk) 20:05, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
  • "Accusations were made that the police were inappropriately violent towards those demonstrating against a National Front march." Is this connected to the previous sentence? It seems to spring out of nowhere.
  • "After bad press" It may just be me, but that does not read as encyclopedic. If only for want of a verb. Possibly 'After receiving bad press'?
  • "As the number of demonstrators at the town hall rose, the crowd contained what the police considered militant elements." That doesn't really work. Perhaps 'The number of demonstrators at the town hall rose, and included some whom the police considered militant elements'?
  • "The police decided to make a sterile cordon around the town hall" "make" -> 'set up' or similar? 'create'? 'establish'?
  • "a sterile cordon"; "The cordons were". Singular or plural?
    • Both, according to the police report! I've tweaked to put all plural - SchroCat (talk) 20:05, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Caption: "the green arrows shows Peach's direction of travel while trying to leave the area" "shows" -> 'show'.
  • "between 5:30 and 6:30 pm violence rose" Possibly a personal preference, but can violence 'rise'? 'the violence increased'? the level of violence rose'?
  • Personal or not, I've gone with it anyway. - SchroCat (talk) 20:05, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
  • "which triggered the reaction from the crowd" "the" -> 'a'. (Or specify what "the" was.)
  • "One house on Park View Road was used as a first aid post; the building was also the headquarters of Peoples Unite" "one" needs to be 'a' and the sentence seems messy. How does something like 'A house on Park View Road, the headquarters of Peoples Unite, was used as a first aid post' sound?
  • Much better, thanks - SchroCat (talk) 20:05, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
  • "'peaceful English hamlet'" Why the additional quote marks.
    • That's how they are in the quote (see here). I've moved one of the citations adjacent to make the quote clearer too. - SchroCat (talk) 20:05, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
  • "At about 7:30 pm Peach, along with four friends decided that they would return to their cars" Needs tweaking. Possibly 'At about 7:30 pm Peach, along with four friends, decided to return to their cars ...'?
  • "radioed to the central control that there was a riot in progress" This seems to need a word after "control"[?]: 'point', 'room', whatever.
    • I think it was just called "Central Control", but I've added "unit" to clarify. - SchroCat (talk) 20:05, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
  • "There were a group of 100 to 150 protesters" "were" -> 'was'.
  • "Beachcroft Avenue and as the SPG vans of Unit 3 drove to the junction" Delete either "and" or "as".
  • "He was rapidly operated on" "rapidly" -> 'promptly' (or similar).
  • "25 members of the public were also injured, of which Peach was one." "which" -> 'whom'.

More to follow.

Gog the Mild (talk) 18:27, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

  • All done, except where commented on above. Thank you for all these: they are excellent. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 20:06, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
  • "and the Labour government" I assume that this refers to the UK Government? It would, IMO, be more appropriate to label it as such. If there is some point to be made as to which political party was in power, could it be made more openly. I note that when Ealing London Borough Council was mentioned earlier in the article, the party or parties in power did not come up.
  • swapped for "incumbent government". - SchroCat (talk) 20:20, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
  • "Instead of holding the trials locally, they were held 25 miles (40 km) away in Barnet." How unusual was this? In the area of the UK where I live, it has long been the case that high profile cases are not tried in the area where they are alleged to have taken place. If it was not unusual then add something such as 'as was normal practice in such cases'. If it was not, then could you cite this.
  • 'High profile' tends to mean a major crime which goes to the regional crown court. These cases were small stuff, so should have been the local magistrates court. I'll dig out the info and add as appropriate. - SchroCat (talk) 20:20, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
  • "writes that while initially 90% of the defendants" "writes" -> 'wrote'
  • "the eve of Peach's funeral" Redundant, given that the following sentence starts "The following day he was buried"
  • Note g: "A sample list of the weapons found in the lockers of Unit 1-1's members, included" I don't think that the comma is necessary.
  • "including for Officer F and Officer G and Officer I" Should the first "and" not be a comma?
  • "shaved off his moustache which he had that day" "his" -> 'the'
  • "Cass considered that he had identified the likely individual who hit Peach" Is "likely" necessary here?
  • I think so. Cass put a list of six and said "in order of likelihood" or something similar. - SchroCat (talk) 20:20, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Taking a break.

Gog the Mild (talk) 19:17, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Again, all done except where commented on. I'll dig out the court info shortly Now added. - SchroCat (talk) 20:20, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
Carried down from above[edit]
  • "In the late 1950s—a decade after the partition of India—many of those who had been displaced by the events lost land and savings in the movement of people from their homelands into new areas." How about 'In the late 1950s many of those who had been displaced by the partition of India a decade before emigrated to the UK.' I am honestly not sure whether you are trying to say that they lost land etc during partition or when they moved to "new areas". But I don't see how any of that is relevant. I don't even see how the background of some - you don't quantify - immigrants is relevant, but if you do I can be flexible.
  • The point is that the relocation of 10 million+ people meant that many lost land and property and ended up coming to the UK as a result. - SchroCat (talk) 22:46, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
In which case perhaps something like: 'As a result of the population transfers after the 1947 partition of India over fourteen million people were impoverished. From the late 1950' on many of them relocated again in search of more prosperous lives.' Nothing special about those words, but I feel that you are trying to pack a novella into a single sentence, so cutting the information to what a reader really needs to know may help, as might spreading it out over two sentences.
That's better. I've added a slight variant to it here - SchroCat (talk) 09:26, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  • "meant easily obtainable jobs" IMO this would read better as 'meant jobs were easily obtainable'. Neither commented on nor actioned.
I am clearly going senile. Apologies.
  • "Southall" The second and third sentences start with "Many", as does the last clause of the first sentence. Would some variation be possible? Neither commented on nor actioned.
  • Ditto - swapped out one of them for "some" - SchroCat (talk) 22:28, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I think it was just called "Central Control", but I've added "unit" to clarify.
If it had had upper case Cs in the article I wouldn't have queried it. Just saying.
  • Given the MoS's often bizarre approach to capitalisation... either way, it should be clear now. - SchroCat (talk) 22:28, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Instead of holding the trials locally, they were held 25 miles (40 km) away in Barnet.
How unusual was this? In the area of the UK where I live, it has long been the case that high profile cases are not tried in the area where they are alleged to have taken place. If it was not unusual then add something such as 'as was normal practice in such cases'. If it was not, then could you cite this.
'High profile' tends to mean a major crime which goes to the regional crown court. These cases were small stuff, so should have been the local magistrates court. I'll dig out the info and add as appropriate.
I see your point. Hopefully you see mine. If we are accusing the British judicial system of attempting to rig the system against the accused - something I am personally willing to believe - we need to nail it down with a couple of very reliable sources IMO.
  • Done this already - SchroCat (talk) 22:28, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
  • "writes that while initially 90% of the defendants" "writes" -> 'wrote'
Tim riley suggests "writes".
Mr Riley is a renown semi-literate. Ask him if he would care to reconsider his position.
He'll pipe up shortly, but as the text is extant and the opinion not withdrawn, it is still the "current" position of the author. All allowable in grammatical terms. - SchroCat (talk) 23:03, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
It's an odd convention I suppose, a sort of variation on the historic present, and even those who adhere to it interpret it differently. Some people apply it only to recent-ish publications, and others use it for everything. From a quick search of Google books: "according to what Julius Caesar writes in his Commentaries", "Julius Caesar writes of iron nails", "Julius Caesar writes about the transmigration of the souls in Celtic religion". My own use of the idiom is arbitrary, I'm afraid. I use "write" or "wrote" according to what feels right in each case. In my current overhaul of Orpheus I see I have said "Albert Lasalle, in his history of the Bouffes-Parisiens (1860) wrote that ... In 1999 Thomas Schipperges wrote in the International Journal ... Félix Clément and Pierre Larousse wrote in their Dictionnaire des Opéras (1881) that ..." but "Peter Gammond writes that the public appreciated... Kurt Gänzl writes in The Encyclopedia of the Musical Theatre that... In his 1981 study of Offenbach, Alexander Faris writes, "Orphée..." Of these one "wrote" refers to a living writer, and one "writes" to a dead one. One or two of these "writes/wrote" could perhaps be switched, and in fact I dithered about the choice for M. Lasalle's quotation, but on the whole the choice of tense seems to pick itself according to the context. And note that at the PR nobody has been troubled enough by it to mention the inconsistency. In short, I think either "writes" or "wrote" is acceptable in the sentence in question, and it is a matter of personal stylistic preference. I hope that satisfactorily confuses the issue. – Tim riley talk 07:37, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
Thank you Tim. As muddy as a very muddy substance. In brief SC, it would seem that you can go for whichever variant you prefer.
  • "Cass considered that he had identified the likely individual who hit Peach" Is "likely" necessary here?
I think so. Cass put a list of six and said "in order of likelihood" or something similar.
OK. In which case how about 'Cass considered that he had identified the individual whom he considered most likely to have hit Peach.
Now done - SchroCat (talk) 07:34, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Why not reorder the first paragraph of Special Patrol Group as:
The Special Patrol Group (SPG) was formed in 1961 as a specialist squad within the Metropolitan Police;[a] In 1978 it consisted of 204 members, divided into six units, each of which contained three sergeants and 30 constables. Each unit was commanded by an inspector.[2] It provided a mobile, centrally controlled reserve of uniformed officers which supported local areas, particularly when policing serious crime and civil disturbances.[3] The SPG comprised police officers capable of working as disciplined teams preventing public disorder, targeting areas of serious crime, carrying out stop and searches, or providing a response to terrorist threats.[4][5]
  • Because it wouldn't be correct. In 1978 the SPG comprised 1,347 members, of whom 204 served in the Met, the others elsewhere (including 368 in the RUC). Reading the above makes it appear that there were only 204 members anywhere. I'll tweak the existing para to include info about the number overall. - SchroCat (talk) 07:34, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

References

Notes

  1. ^ The original name was the Special Patrol Group Unit; this was renamed Special Patrol Group in 1965.[1]
Act 2, scene 1[edit]
  • "Cass finished the investigation fully in February 1980" "fully" is redundant.
  • "during that time" You haven't given a time [period], just an end date.
  • "as only the coroner and police lawyers had copies of the report, "it was impossible for anyone ... to obtain a complete picture of the evidence" However well cited, this is clearly incorrect, as the coroner and the police lawyers would have been able to.
  • "the Peach case is an example where "compensation is ... paid in tacit admission that a wrong had been committed." As the quote is not a full sentence, the full stop should be outside the quote marks.
  • "That June the Metropolitan Police commissioner, Sir Paul Stephenson announced that Cass's report and supporting documentation would be released. The parallels in the deaths of the two men proved to be the catalyst in the release of the Cass report to the public." IMO it would be beneficial to swap the order of these sentences.
  • "The journalists Mark Hughes and Cahal Milmo see that the action of the SPG "became a symbol of police corruption"." Grammar issues. 'The journalists Mark Hughes and Cahal Milmo considered that the action of the SPG "became a symbol of police corruption".'?
  • What are you saying to change? The sentence already has "that" in there. - SchroCat (talk) 23:01, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
Apologies. I put the emphasis in the wrong place. I was attempting, ineptly, to suggest that 'considered' might convey your meaning better than "see".
Ah, OK - swapped for "consider" - SchroCat (talk) 09:44, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  • "Sus law" -> 'sus law'.
  • "to commemorate the former NUT member" If you are going to use an abbreviation, you should put it in brackets after the first use of the in full of the term abbreviated.
Which would be either the last line of the lead, or the second paragraph of the main article. Your choice.
The second para is a bit too far away for many to remember, so I've left it as full in the final section, but tweaked so it is not repeated twice in quick succession. - SchroCat (talk) 09:44, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Note g: "Figures for the actual number vary. "actual" is redundant.
  • Sources: Butler and King 1965 and 1966 are too early to have had ISBNs.
Well, well; live and learn. I am astonished and enlightened.
I was a bit surprised by it too. I think it's something that happened with the release of some works as ebooks - not entirely sure, but I was looking for the oclc number when I came across this. - SchroCat (talk) 09:44, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Ideally Gilroy should have the page range of the article or chapter given.
  • Caption: "Ian Tomlinson, just after being struck to the ground by police. His death was the catalyst for the release of the Cass report" There should be a terminal full stop.

Gog the Mild (talk) 22:45, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Covered, except where commented on. Thanks again - although I know I need to cover a couple of points from further up. - SchroCat (talk) 23:01, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Gog, Again, many thanks for these comments - I am very grateful indeed. If there are any that I have missed, or you think need more work on, please let me know. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:45, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
No problem SchroCat. It is an issue I was quite exercised about at the time, and it has brought me to a steady simmer several times since. You have clearly put an enormous amount of work into the article and it was a privilege to be able to contribute my smidgen. (That said, if you happen to feel like dropping by my A class nomination Battle of Cape Ecnomus then please feel free. I learnt this shameless approach from Tim.)
I was about to sign off with a support when I noticed "Cass considered that he had identified the individual whom he considered most likely to have hit Peach" Two times "considered". I have boldly edited the first one to 'decided' so as not to hold things up, but feel free to revert or make a different change.
Good spot. I may tweak to "considered", but either of them are better than the duplicated word. - SchroCat (talk) 11:57, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

A magnificent article. Well-written, solidly cited to a wide range of sources, neutral, even in trying circumstances, and comprehensive. Happy to support.

Gog the Mild (talk) 10:21, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

That's very kind of you, thank you. I am most indebted to you, and will return the reviewing favour shortly. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:57, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Comments from Cass[edit]

I am so sorry, I completely forgot about this. Reading through tonight...(not John Cass, obvs) CassiantoTalk 19:46, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

  • "During his studies he visited Britain and liked the country." -- Not List or Rutherford, presumably?
  • "From the late 1950s on..." -- do we need "on"?
  • "...many of them relocated again." -- do we need "again"?
  • "Many Sikhs and Hindus left..." -- Many/many
  • "Some of the early arrivals found work at the R. Woolf and Co Rubber factory and by 1965 all the lower level workers were from Poland or the Indian subcontinent." -- I'm really not sure of the conjunction here. I don't think it works with what precedes it.
  • "Racial discrimination in the workplace was common, and 85% of those Asian workers who had been given entry into the UK on the basis of their education or training, were only employed in unskilled or semi-skilled roles." -- and here. An obvious semicolon would work better here, IMO.
  • Did all forces have units called "SPG"? Only the Met have what is called the "TSG", now, with other forces having units using different names. I'm led to believe that some don't have a support group/public order unit at all now and rely solely on level two aid deployments.
    • Most had an SPG, even if they were only 11 officers (like Derbyshire's). The source I have says Glos, Norfolk and Notts were the only English forces without one, and neither did Central Scotland. - SchroCat (talk) 20:51, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
  • "...meeting hall. The day before the meeting..." -- meeting/meeting
  • "Approximately 1,200 police officers were on duty along the five-mile (eight-kilometre) route, at which 19 people were arrested." -- Is it possible to be at a route or on it?
  • "... regardless of what they were doing, and there were subsequent complaints of racist and sexist abuse by the police." -- those police are a precious lot, aren't they. Surely they're used to such abuse? Or were they the ones dishing it out?
    • Bloody snowflakes, the lot of them! - SchroCat (talk) 20:51, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
  • "It reconvened on 25 May 1979 and again was adjourned" -- "It reconvened on 25 May 1979 and was again adjourned" is a bit crisper.
  • "PC Raymond White, PC James Scottow and PC Anthony Richardson" -- could we get away with PCs and then the names?

Stopping for now, more soon. CassiantoTalk 20:31, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Excellent stuff, cheers. All done, except the one point where I've clarified the extent of the SPG 'model' at the time. - SchroCat (talk) 20:51, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Continuing with coroners inquest down...

  • "In early 1980 sections of the Cass report..." -- this makes it sound like the report was written sectionally over a period of decades. Is there a way of avoiding this? I know its the American comma, but here I think it would work. Failing that, get rid of "In early 1980" as it soon becomes obvious with "January 1980 and "March 1980".
  • "...but the calls were turned down by the government." -- I should imagine the calls weren't, but the public inquiry was.
  • "...concern at the way Burton conducted the inquest. One concern..." -- concern/concern
  • "...including the BBC, of producing what he described as "biased propaganda" -- The BBC, who'd have thought!
  • "After Stephenson announced the Metropolitan police would publish the Cass report, Murray stated that he believed that he was the officer referred to in the report as "Officer E". -- awkward, especially around the that/that part. "After Stephenson's announcement that the Metropolitan police would publish the Cass report, Murray stated that he believed he was the officer referred to in the report as "Officer E".
  • "In 2010 Andy Hayman, the former assistant commissioner for Specialist Operations at the Metropolitan Police wrote..." -- is there a closing comma missing from the end of Hayman's introduction?

That's my lot. A very balanced article, and a good read, albeit a difficult one at times (emotionally, you understand, and by no-means a slur on your shoddy prose), executed sensitively. Support unconditionally, with regards to my comments. CassiantoTalk 18:29, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Many thanks Cass. All your suggestions taken on board and duly sorted. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:57, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Support on the basis of my peer review comments, and the considerable degree of fine tuning that has occurred during this FAC. A source review will follow. Brianboulton (talk) 10:18, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Many thanks Brian. You PR comments were very helpful, as always. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:32, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Sources review[edit]

  • No spotchecks carried out
  • Links: all links to sources are working, per the external link checker tool
  • Formats: There is an issue of italicasation of non-print sources in the refs. See 2 (Getty Images); 28 and 34 (Metropolitan Police Service); 44, 67, 111, 120, (BBC); 48 (Birkbeck); 133 (National Union of Teachers); 139 (Shazam). I believe these should be de-italicised. BBC is also italicised in the list of News articles.
  • Quality and reliability: The sources include books, reports, articles and online sites, and appear to be very comprehensive. In my view they meet the required FA criteria for quality and reliability. Brianboulton (talk) 19:18, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Many thanks once again Brian. All now de-italicised. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 19:45, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Battle of Blanchetaque[edit]

Nominator(s): Gog the Mild (talk) 11:02, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

A battle from the Hundred Years' War. The English army was trapped by the French in an area stripped of food. At Blanchtaque the English escaped by fighting their way across a tidal ford of the River Somme, against a French blocking force. Two days later the English fought and heavily defeated the main French army at the Battle of Crecy. I hope that this is ready for FAC, and I would be grateful for any and all suggestions for improvement. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:02, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Support from PM[edit]

I reviewed this closely at Milhist ACR and consider it meets the Featured criteria. Well done on this. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:21, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Support by CPA-5[edit]

As someone who reviewed this one in an ACR I think it meets the featured criteria. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 15:54, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Images[edit]

- are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:45, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Comments Support by Cas Liber[edit]

Having a look now...

  • I am a neophyte in this area but do we really call it a "Chevauchée"? I am surprised there is not some English analogue....
We really, really do, odd as it sounds. This from Google Scholar gives you an idea of how widely it is used; eg, note "Cyber chevauchee" and Sheridan and Sherman's activities referred to as chevauchées just in the first six hits, of 9,000.
  • I'd probably add "French noble(man)" before Godemar du Fay to clarify who/what he is...
At which point? The lead, or in the article, where he is already tagged as "an experienced French general" at first mention?
  • ... source of conflict between the two monarchies throughout the Middle Ages - see, to me "monarchy" to me is an emphasis on the type of government rather than the government itself. I'd never use it to describe a kingdom except that of the UK really. Why not, "kingdoms" here?
To me it is a matter of nuance. The "dispute" was more one between the two dynasties over the control of the kingdom of France, than one between the two kingdoms per se. But it is a nuance which will no doubt bypass most readers, so I have changed it.
  • .... which was to last 116 years. - I don't think this is needed here. The previous segment is sufficient.
Deleted.
  • ...and the main force would accompany Edward to northern France or Flanders - awkward as Edward is the subject at the beginning of this sentence. How about, "and he (±himself) led/took the main force to northern France or Flanders"
Changed, although IMO it makes the sense slightly less clear
  • In early 1345, the French anticipated, correctly, that the English planned to make their main effort in northern France - sounds odd as we've just used "Early 1345" in the previous bit. I'd suggest dropping the time here as it is obvious it is about the same period.
Good spot. Dropped.
  • ...while Edward attended to diplomatic affairs. - err, sounds a bit vague...what was he doing exactly? If it was simple better to just say what it was.
Well, yes, except it wouldn't. A messy, ongoing situation on which whole books have been written. There is almost no limit to which I couldn't expand it and still leave questions hanging, but I have given it a go.
Yeah that's enough and helps a lot Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:16, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
  • When it sailed, probably intending to land in Normandy, it was scattered by a storm... - this flows awkwardly. How about, " Although the army intended to land in Normandy, it was scattered by a storm..."
Tweaked. See what you think.
  • During 1345, Derby led a whirlwind campaign through Gascony - "whirlwind" comes across as a tad informal to my ears.
I am honestly struggling to think of another word. I am probably fixated, any suggestions? (He captured over 100 towns and castles in three months; serious modern scholars have variously described the campaign as: "superb and innovative tactician"; "ris[ing] to the level of genius"; "brilliant in the extreme"; "stunning"; "brilliant". I would like to communicate some of this in as few characters as possible.)
Yeah I see your point - it does convey it as succincntly as possible - ok don't worry Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:16, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
  • ....and gave the English possessions in Gascony strategic depth - umm, what does this mean?
I have Wikilinked it. I should have anyway. Me bad. Does that help?
  • "enormously superior" to any force the Anglo-Gascons could field - why use quoted words here? Can we reword without needing something to be in quotation marks?
Gone. (You are not the first assessor to comment on this sort of thing. I am trying to break my life's habit of quote marking even individual words, but am finding it difficult.)
  • Meanwhile Edward was raising a fresh army in England and the largest fleet ever assembled by the English to that date - the switch from active to passive verb here makes it sound odd. How about, "Meanwhile Edward was raising a fresh army (±in England) and assembled the largest English fleet to that date" actually strike that, I think it would flow better as "Meanwhile Edward was raising a fresh army and assembled a fleet of over 700 vessels - the largest ever in England to that date"
Excellent thinking. (This got picked on at both GAN and ACR and I think that I was hesitant to do anything radical to it.) I have changed your suggested wording slightly. Is it ok?
  • The English "achieved complete strategic surprise" and marched south - can we reword so we don't need quotes?
Fixed. (No idea why I left it - exactly the same quotes were picked up in a previous FAC.)
  • The greater pressure of the English forced the whole melee onto the French bank of the river. - I suspect "whole" is redundant here...
Removed

Concluding, most of it reads well, just a few clangers (listed above) that it would be much better with fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:18, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi Cas Liber, thanks for stopping by, and for your insightful read. Your points above all addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:59, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

SupportComments from Tim riley[edit]

Just spotted this. Shall look in tomorrow, I hope. Just booking my place for now. Tim riley talk 21:48, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Nothing of any great importance from me. Minor quibbles about the otherwise first-rate prose:

  • "out-manoeuvred" – the OED doesn't hyphenate the word.
Silly me. Corrected.
  • "melee" – the OED prescribes mêlée
Damn foreign diacritics. I shall, of course, bow to the preferred wisdom of the OED. Done.
  • "entrepôt into northern France" – if entrepôt means what I think it means, and what our linked WP page says it means, I don't think it can be "into" – just "in".
My shorter OE (a mere 2,500 pages) does not give this meaning, but it is very nearly as old as me [!] and who trusts Oxford dictionaries anyway. Advice welcomed.
I was using entrepôt in the sense of the third usage here ("A point of entry for people"), where it gives a quotation of "an entrepôt into …" The GAN assessor requested the Wikilink, and I can see how it may mislead.
Having mentioned the point I am entirely content to be corrected and go with your preferred usage. Tim riley talk 15:35, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
  • "including all of the military officers" – Fowler describes the unnecessary "of" in such constructions as an Americanism. Gray (Practical English Usage) and Fowler both go for the shorter form, which here would be "including all the military officers"
Later: I wrote the above when away from home and bookshelves, with only the 2nd edition of Fowler to hand. Back at GHQ I see the current (4th, 2015) edition says – I paraphrase – do as you bloody well like. I mention this but will, for myself, stick with the 2nd edition.
I believe that I have commented before on my unconscious penchant for Americanisms. Thanks for picking this up. Corrected.
Even later: By all means let us not be au goût du jour.
  • "assembled over 700 vessels" – some style guides insist on "more than" rather than "over" for relational quantity with numbers. A bit of a superstition, I think, but I generally comply just the same. I merely mention it for your consideration.
Appreciated. Changed over-hastily to meet an entirely justified concern of the GAN assessor's. Your suggestion is more felicitous. Changed.
  • "to transport it - the largest English fleet" – en-dash rather than a hyphen wanted here, according to the MoS, in a rare outbreak of good sense.
See above re haste. Corrected.
  • "disembarking an army other than at a port" – "other than" looks rather odd to me. Might "except" be more natural? Just a thought. Ignore ad lib.
I hope that you won't mind if I feel that "other than" flows more naturally and communicates my meaning marginally better, for all of its admittedly unusual construction.
Placet. Tim riley talk 15:35, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
  • "many ships deserted" – the meaning is crystal clear, but can inanimate objects actually desert?
My shorter OD suggests that it can. It has a "hand" or a "regiment" deserting.
OK. If you're happy with it that'll do me. Tim riley talk 15:35, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
  • "They also captured" – if "They" refers to the the English fleet, is there a case for internal consistency by treating "fleet" as a singular noun, as you do for "army"?
An overwhelming one. What a polite way of saying: "Gog, you're being an idiot."
Now would I say such a thing? (Answers on a postcard, please.) Tim riley talk 15:35, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
  • "Poissy, 20 miles from Paris, having left a 40-mile wide swath of destruction down the left bank of the Seine to within 2 miles of the city" – earlier and later you give metric equivalents of miles. One can have too much of a good thing, but if I correctly read the MoS (MOS:CONVERSIONS) we are enjoined to give equivalents for all miles/kilometres.
We are, we are. Although only at first mention of any given distance. CPA-5 keeps me on the straight and narrow in this regard, bless them. So two of the distances you mentioned converted.
  • "On arriving at the river, it was discovered" – the participle dangles a bit, perhaps. Particularly as we're at the start of a paragraph, might it be better to say something like "When the English arrived at the river they discovered..."?
Fair point. Done.
  • "a disorderly melee" – as above (OED). (And, now I think about it, can one have an orderly mêlée?)
Diacriticed. My shorter OD gives a single definition: "A mixed fight between two parties of combatants, a skirmish." I understand (arguably incorrectly) that in a military context mêlées are allowed to be orderly. If you care to stoop to lesser authorities than the OED I could give examples?
No need. If you want an example of a disorderly mêlée, have you ever been in the Athenaeum on Boat Race night? Neither have I. – Tim riley talk 15:35, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
  • "Having moved into contact at walking pace, casualties were few" – another dangling participle? I think the intended meaning is that the soldiers (not just the casualties) had moved into contact at walking pace. But I don't press the point.
Not impossible, all those arrows and bolts you know, but no, not what was meant. Tweaked.
  • "Abbeville, 6 miles away" – another place where you cruelly confuse kilometre fans by not providing a translation of the obscure English term "6 miles".
Readers who are not aficionados of the exotica of the English language should now be less confused. (The convert template has an option to convert into rods, but I resisted. Aren't I good?)
Wot, no parasangs? Tim riley talk 15:35, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
Tim.Sadly not. Although checking I found perches. I shall have to work that into an article at some point. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:45, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
  • "So the English were able to resupply; Noyelles-sur-Mer and Le Crotoy in particular yielding large stores" – if you're going to use the absolute construction (and very elegant it can be), the semicolon must be a comma.
Oops. Comma'ed.
  • "entrepôt into" – as in the lead.
See above.

I'll look in again with a view to supporting once these minor points are addressed. As always with articles in this series, I have enjoyed the read and learnt a lot. – Tim riley talk 08:29, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Good afternoon Tim and thank you muchly for your usual comprehensive demolition of my miserable use of English. All of your points above addressed.
Gog the Mild (talk) 14:36, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
Oh, get off! All [of] your prose is among the best I regularly see in these hallowed halls. I'm sure you could find just as many tweaks to suggest in any of my attempts (blatant hint). I am very happy to support the elevation of this article to FA. It seems to me balanced, comprehensive without going into excessive detail, widely and well referenced, and a cracking read. – Tim riley talk 15:35, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

SN54129[edit]

Couple of prose remarks.

  • "out manoeuvred"---one word or hyphenated.
Could you fight it out with Tim riley? See "'out-manoeuvred' – the OED doesn't hyphenate the word." above.
Just spotted this. So much for the alleged excellence of my prose: what I was trying to say is that in the OED it is one, unhyphenated, word. I've removed the space. Tim riley talk 08:33, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  • "was defeated at the"---space.
Oops. Well spotted. Done.
  • (re. hyphenation, all the "south west"s etc.)
Are you suggesting that "south west" etc, should be rendered as 'south-west' etc? If so, then can I point out that not hyphenating in such cases is a perfectly acceptable practice in all variants of English. I offer in evidence South Western Railway; South Western School District; South Western Highway; South Western Railway zone. These are each from a different continent - to establish common usage, including one from the US. If that's not what you are suggesting, apologies and could you elaborate?
@Gog the Mild: Hyphenate when adjectival. Cheers, ——SerialNumber54129 06:14, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
@Serial Number 54129: Whoops. Done. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:25, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  • "richest land"---historians usually refer to lands, unless in a purely geographical sense.
Fair point. Amended. (I note that I am also inconsistent, having referred to "richest lands" in the lead!)
  • Battle of Blanchetaque.jpg: the alt text has an extraneous comma (and "Medieval" doesn't need to be uppercase, although I don't suppose it particularly matters for a screen reader).
The alt text only has one comma and it is supposed to be there. It separates the two attributes of "image of knights and bowmen in hand to hand combat" as is usual in a list.
Have I mentioned French sources before?
I believe that I can recognise a rhetorical question when I'm asked one.
Although not in French, presumably.
¿Que? Gog the Mild (talk) 10:25, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

(Possibly) back tomorrow :)

——SerialNumber54129 18:20, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi SN. Good of you to look this over. Your points above addressed and I await a possible further installment in an excited state of quantum uncertainty.
Gog the Mild (talk) 18:48, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

SC[edit]

Absolutely fascinating piece about the run up to Crécy – one of the major battles of Europe – and I thank you for covering it. Very scant fare from me, but for what it's worth:

Background
  • "unexpectedly threatened with the loss of his Flemish allies": is it worth a brief footnote to say what his woes were? (or, second best, a link to something we may have to cover it) – I won't push the point if you decide not to, but I don't like leaving question marks in people's minds.
Ah. Even that amount of detail is only there at the insistence of an ACR assessor. There is almost no end to the level of detail I could add, each one begging more questions. Think of it as trying to get two series of Game of Thrones, with 50 years back story, into a footnote. Sadly there is nothing on Wikipedia on this. I would love, seriously, to give more detail; but it would just get more and more off the point. IMO this unsatisfactory compromise is probably as good as it gets. Can you live with it?
If it's going to be too much detail to sensibly go in, then yes, no problems. - SchroCat (talk) 09:50, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  • "to that date[18][19] The..." missing full stop
Whoops. Done.
Prelude
  • "landing in Normandy Edward": I normally eschew commas after opening clauses, but I feel that one may be warranted here, just to avoid the obvious gangster name of "Normandy Edward"
 :) Done.
  • "left a 40-mile -wide (60 km) wide":1. Need to lose the space on "mile -wide"; 2. Can you either tweak the template or just put into plain text so that "(60 km) wide" reads as "(60 km-wide)"
Mr Riley was insistent re the CONVERT template. Tweaked. (Sloppy proof reading by me.)
Battle
  • Speaking as an ignoramus, is there a difference between knights and mounted men-at-arms? You have in the lead "the longbowmen but were in turn attacked by English knights", but it looks like it may be the mounted men-at-arms who did that, or maybe I'm just reading it wrong in the fog of war...
No, they mean the same thing. There is a tendency for some historians to use knights when speaking of mounted, as opposed to unmounted, men-at-arms. I was just trying to bring a bit of variety to the prose, and both are Wikilinked. Probably best if I standardise as men-at-arms. What do you think?
Sounds good. As long as it's consistent then no problems from me. - SchroCat (talk) 09:50, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  • "2,000 French soldiers were killed": you give us this info twice in quick succession. The first ("reported to be as high as 2,000 killed") can be culled
Done. I have no idea how I missed that.

Only a couple of these definitely need to be dealt with as mistakes, the others are for consideration. I do hope this means you'll be bringing Crécy to FAC at some point too? Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 20:07, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Crecy :)
Excellent - I look forward to seeing it!
Many thanks SchroCat. Appreciated. Your points addressed above, two with queries.
Gog the Mild (talk) 21:01, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. Very nice piece. From a prose point of view this covers the FA criteria as far as I am concerned. I am not a subject expert, so can't comment on completeness, reliability of sources etc. - SchroCat (talk) 09:50, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Sources review[edit]

  • No spotchecks carrried out
  • All links to sources are working
  • Format: No issues; the refs and sources are consistently and uniformly presented.
  • Quality and reliability: The article is comprehensively sourced, and the sources appear to meet all the requirements for quality and reliability per the FA criteria. Brianboulton (talk) 21:55, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Query to coordinators[edit]

@WP:FAC coordinators: Apologies if I am doing my impatient act again, but it looks as if this one may be winding up? If so, would it be permissible for me to nominate the next in my queue? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:29, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Sure, go ahead. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:36, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Older nominations[edit]

The Legend of Bhagat Singh[edit]

Nominator(s):  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 08:20, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

This article is about The Legend of Bhagat Singh, a 2002 biopic of the Indian freedom fighter Bhagat Singh. The film stars Ajay Devgn as the titular character and is known for its direction, story, screenplay, technical aspects and the performances of the cast members. A special note of thanks to Numerounovedant for reviewing the GAN. This is my sixth FAC attempt and my second solo nomination. Constructive comments here are most welcome.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 08:20, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Support from Damian Vo[edit]

  • Support – A well written article. Meets the FA criteria. Damian Vo (talk) 10:11, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
Thank you very much, Damian Vo. Your thoughts and comments are greatly appreciated.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 10:58, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Support Comments from Tim riley[edit]

The nominator has asked me to comment, which I am happy to do. Please bear in mind that as a BrE writer I am not familiar with differences in usage in Indian English. The two may differ in ways I don’t know about.

  • Plot
  • The text switches between past and present tenses in places, for example:
"When Lala Lajpat Rai was beaten to death ... Thapar and Chandra Shekhar Azad, carry out the assassination" – [is beaten?]
"the British proposed the Trade Disputes and Public Safety Bills, Bhagat... initiates the bombing" – [propose?]
"The Indians hope that Gandhi would..." – [will?]
  • "Bhagat and other fellow prisoners, including Thapar and Rajguru, undertake a 63-day fast unto death" – plainly not "unto death" in his case, at least.
  • "Irwin": his name is in the link to the pact, but he should, I think, be linked at first mention of his name in its own right.
  • Development
  • "Although Manoj Kumar made an earlier film in 1965, titled Shaheed" – we don't need to be told that 1965 was earlier than 2002.
  • Casting
  • "but he left the project due to schedule conflicts" – varieties of English differ about "due to". In AmE it is evidently accepted as a compound preposition, like "owing to"; in formal BrE it is not, and either "owing to" or (better) "because of" would be wanted. I don't know what the convention is in Indian English, and just raise the point for you to consider.
  • Music
  • The table of numbers is beautifully presented. I must have a look at the edit page and see how it's done.
  • Reception and accolades
  • "Devgn's execution of Bhagat" – in the circumstances I think you could find a synonym for "execution" here.
  • "more "restrained and credible" than Deol" – careful readers will be clear that this Deol is Bobby and not Sunny, but for casual readers it might be a kindness to give this Deol both his names here.
  • "Kehr eulogised Devgn's interpretation" – "eulogised" seems a bit strong unless the critic really went over the top in his praise.
  • References
  • On the face of it, to my inexpert eye, the sources are proper media ones – not relying on blogs or other sites that don't qualify as WP:RS.

The article is readable, well-proportioned, properly referenced, and thorough without going into excessive detail. The mixed reviews are given due coverage. I look forward to supporting the promotion of this article once these minor points are addressed. I'll look in again soon. – Tim riley talk 06:58, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your review, Tim riley (Some solid points there). I've resolved your comments. Do have a look at the article and let me know if there's anything. Thanks.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 07:18, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
All nicely attended to. I'm happy to support. Tim riley talk 09:09, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
Thank you very much, Tim riley. Your thoughts and comments are greatly appreciated.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 09:18, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Comments from Veera Narayana[edit]

  • "...until the day he was hanged" -- "...hanged to death" might be a better choice.
  • "Produced by Kumar and Ramesh Taurani under their Tips Industries Limited banner..." -- Could be rephrased as "Produced by Kumar and Ramesh Taurani's Tips Industries Limited...".
  • "the film's story and dialogue were written Santoshi and Piyush Mishra wrote respectively" -- "the film's story and dialogue were written by Santoshi and Piyush Mishra respectively" should be fine.
  • "Later in 1929, when the British propose the Trade Disputes and Public Safety Bills, Bhagat, along with Batukeshwar Dutt, initiates the bombing at Parliament House." -- Why did they initiate the bombings? What was the specific threat that accompanied the bills? If the film speaks about it clearly, please mention it.
  • What was Lord Irwin's role in the film exactly? Mention it in the plot.
  • "Bhagat, Thapar and Rajguru are hanged in secrecy at 7:33 pm on 23 March 1931." -- "hanged to death" might be a better choice. BTW, is the time that important in the larger scheme of things?
  • "Sunil Grover as a Jaidev Kapoor": "as a" --> "as"
  • "Anjum Rajabali mentioned to Santoshi about his work on Har Dayal, whose revolutionary activities inspired Udham Singh." -- Who is Udham Singh?
  • Feel free to disagree, but, what is the specific need to the quote of Devgn which is doing nothing but glorifying the subject matter? The Development section already said that the film is about the man more than the revolutionary. Hence, it would present something the public domain was unaware of. Will Devgn taking aback after listening to the script for this very reason qualify the need for a quote like that?
  • "Sushant Singh and D. Santosh, who made his cinematic debut, were cast as Bhagat's friends" -- Could be rephrased to "Sushant Singh and D. Santosh (in his cinematic debut) were cast as Bhagat's friends".
  • "The soundtrack was released on 4 May 2002 in New Delhi under the label of Tips." -- I think it is better to say that Tips marketed the soundtrack.
  • "...criticising the inclusion of Mannewali as Bhagat's widow..." -- widow? He married her? No such instance was found in the plot summary though.

Well, for the images and sources, we do have specific and separate reviewers. Hence i am staying away from those aspects. On a concluding note, this article seems to be comprehensive and well-researched enough to be a FA Candidate. Let me know once the comments above are addressed. Regards, Veera Narayana 11:17, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

I've resolved your comments as best as I can, Veera. Do let me know if there's anything else. Thanks.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 12:14, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick response. Well, Ssven2, what is your view/understanding on Devgn's quote and its inclusion into the article? Veera Narayana 14:05, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
Veera Narayana, he's basically talking about how much playing the freedom fighter on-screen means to him. Also, those who watch the film would get a better understanding of the freedom fighter and that Bhagat Singh was more than just 23 March 1931. So, I feel it can be included in the article for the readers to get what it means to Devgn (He also won the National Award for it btw).  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 14:13, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
I have nothing much to say further. This candidate has my support. Veera Narayana 14:33, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
Thank you very much, Veera Narayana. Your thoughts and comments are greatly appreciated.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 14:36, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

SC[edit]

I've made a couple of minor tweaks to punctuation and a couple of minor additions. Please let me know if you'd like to know the rationale behind any of them.

Development
  • "Later in August 2000": Either "Later" or (much better) "In August 2000". (As it's two years after the previous date, it's obviously "later").
  • Rajkumar Santoshi and Anjum Rajabali. I think you need to introduce the two a little better: "the film director Rajkumar Santoshi" and "the screenwriter Anjum Rajabali" would just help the reader here
  • "Santoshi gave Rajabali a copy of K. K. Khullar's biography of the revolutionary titled Shaheed Bhagat Singh." You can tweak this to flow a little better: "Santoshi gave Rajabali a copy of Shaheed Bhagat Singh: K. K. Khullar's biography of the revolutionary". (your call – it's not an actionable one if you don't want to)
  • "Martyr : Bhagat" You can lose the space before the colon
  • "began his research on Bhagat Singh": we don't need the full name again
  • "was "a difficult task" for him.": the last two words are not needed
  • "received inputs from Kultar Singh": input singular
  • You need to check throughout for WP:LQ punctuation. For the quote ending 'fighter." ', it's not a full sentence, so it should be 'fighter". ' with the full stop outside. (ditto 'in that period."' In the final para of the section, plus a few other places).
  • "by it and agreed to produce the film under their banner and commence filming". The "and ...and ..." nature of this makes it feel a bit of a run on. Full stop after "impressed by it" and redraft the next sentence would work well enough.
Casting
  • "that point.[5] he had not watched" – Capital H
Additional
  • Is there any indication how the film has fared since its release? (Did/does it do well in the DVD market, for example, or was there a '10-year retrospective' or similar, which looks at the impact or legacy of the film? Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 10:32, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
All done except for the final comment, SchroCat. I've asked for your opinion about it on your talk page. Cheers.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 14:17, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
If those are all reliable sources, then I think you should include a paragraph covering their content. How the film compares with similar works or stands the test of time should be covered wherever possible, I think (particularly for an FA). Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 07:27, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
Included a paragraph as per your suggestions, SchroCat. Do let me know if there's anything else. Cheers.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 09:48, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
Thank you very much, SchroCat. Your thoughts and comments are greatly appreciated.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 10:40, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47[edit]

  • I would add ALT text to the infobox image. I would check to make sure that all of the images used in the article have appropriate ALT text.
  • Would a wikilink for “hunger strike” be helpful?
  • For this part (burning British-made clothing, giving up school, college studies, and government jobs.), shouldn’t it be “burning British-made clothing and giving up…)? The entirety of the phrase “school, college studies, and government job” is tied up to the “giving up” part and by having another comma, it makes me think that there is a third item in this list of actions which is not the case.

The article looks great. You definitely inspire me to work on more film articles. If possible, I would greatly appreciate any comments on my current FAC. Once my three (very minor) comments are addressed, I will be more than happy to support this. Aoba47 (talk) 18:24, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the comments, Aoba47. I've resolved them as per your suggestions. Do let me know if there's anything else. Cheers.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 09:44, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Thank you for addressing everything. I support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 16:14, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
Thank you very much, Aoba47. Your thoughts and comments are greatly appreciated.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 16:46, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Comments from Kailash[edit]

  • I think "biopic" is informal, so write the full form. I'm sure you can find other ways to reduce the "film" count in the lead.
  • In the lead, all major Filmfare nominations (directing, producing, writing and acting) must be mentioned. But you have simply mentioned that the film won "three Filmfare Awards" with no nominations. Or just consider writing "X Filmfare Awards from X nominations".
  • Replace "publisher" with "website".
  • Santoshi gave Rajabali a copy of Shaheed Bhagat Singh: K. K. Khullar's biography of the revolutionary - I would suggest a comma instead of a colon.
  • Chandrashekhar Azad – the article is Chandra Shekhar Azad.
  • it was declared a "disaster" by Box Office India - BOI verdicts are not supposed to be included per this disccussion and this too. Kailash29792 (talk) 07:01, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for the comments, Kailash29792. I've resolved them as per your suggestions. Do let me know if there's anything else. Cheers.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 09:47, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
Nothing else from me, just verify that the cast members are all sourced (using BH and the credits). Nonetheless, this already has my support. --Kailash29792 (talk) 10:12, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
Thank you very much, Kailash29792. Your thoughts and comments are greatly appreciated.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 10:17, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Cass[edit]

Marking my place here, whilst reading through and taking notes. As with Tim and SchroCat, I'm English so my way of phrasing things may differ somewhat to others. Comments to follow...

Lede
  • "The Legend of Bhagat Singh is a 2002 Indian historical biographical film directed by Rajkumar Santoshi." The year jars where it is. Would suggest: "The Legend of Bhagat Singh is an Indian historical biographical film directed by Rajkumar Santoshi and released in 2002."
  • "The Legend of Bhagat Singh was released on 7 June 2002 to generally positive critical reviews" -- what is "critical" adding here?
Plot
  • "Later in 1929..." -- later, in 1929 or later on in the year 1929? This is the first mention of 1929 as the year before it is 1907.
  • "In Central Jail Lahore, Bhagat and other fellow prisoners..." -- some fellow prisoners, all his fellow prisoners?
Development
  • "In August 2000, the screenwriter Anjum Rajabali..." -- we dip from an accepted form of AmEng (In 1998, film director Rajkumar Santoshi) into a spot of BrEng, here, with the use of the definite article. Be consistent and stick to a particular style.
Casting
  • "...to see Devgn's face closely resembled Singh's" → "to see Devgn's face closely resemble Singh's"
  • "Devgn called the film "the most challenging assignment" in his career at that point" -- You don't need "at that point".
  • "Mishra mentioned that while informing his father about his role" -- Why was Mishra having a frank discussion with his father about his paternal responsibilities? I think you mean to say "Mishra mentioned that while informing his father about his role of Azad"
  • Who said "became a driving force"? You quote it but without attribution.
  • "The actors were chosen according to their characters' backgrounds as well." → "The actors were also chosen according to their characters' backgrounds."
Filming
  • "some of them were shot between 9 pm and 6 am." -- and this is pertinent, because? I assume because it was dark.
  • "Kultar in turn was so pleased..." -- no need for the adjective here.

I will continue later. All looks good though. CassiantoTalk 18:05, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your comments, Cassianto. I've resolved them. Do let me know if there's anything else. Thanks.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 05:25, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
  • It looks as if the rest of the article is in a good order. I can find no other faults. Good work all round. Support. CassiantoTalk 22:52, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
Thank you very much, Cassianto. Your thoughts and comments are greatly appreciated.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 06:56, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Comments from Dwaipayan[edit]

  • Any reason why Bhagath Singh is referred to as Bhagath instead of Singh in the article?
This is done to avoid confusion with the surname "Singh" as there are many characters and actors (Sushant Singh) with that particular surname. So I've referred to those people by their first names.
Ok.
  • "Many aspects of Bhagat's life, including Mannewali, were derived from Piyush Mishra's 1994 play Gagan Damama Bajyo..." Mannewali is probably not an "aspect" of his life. Perhaps "including his romance with/marriage with/relationship with (wife/fiancée) Mannewali" is better.
Done. As asked.
I finetuned it in the article :) You are taking suggestions too literally!
Thanks for that.
  • Ajay Devgn was known as Ajay Devgan at the time of the film's release. I guess this may be mentioned in the cast section. --Dwaipayan (talk) 16:25, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
Done. As asked,
Oh, you have changed Devgn to Devgan everywhere. I did not ask for that. I am not sure whether this is appropriate. What I requested is mentioning something like "Ajay Devgn (then known as Ajay Devgan)" in cast section.--Dwaipayan (talk) 16:59, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
Oops, my bad. I've changed it now. Have a look and see if it is alright, Dwaipayanc.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 17:13, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Image review[edit]

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:42, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Nikkimaria. Appreciate it.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 06:57, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Sources review[edit]

  • No spotchecks carried out
  • All links to sources are working according to the external link checker tool
  • Formats
  • Ref 12: should "K, Kannan" read "K. Kannan", i.e full stop not comma?
@Brianboulton: The URL (link is here) says it as "Kannan K" so there's no full stop as per the source.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 07:49, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
  • General: Sources which are not in print media should not be italicized. See for example Box Office India, Bollywood Hungama, Sify, Zee News, possibly others
Done as asked.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 07:49, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Quality and reliability: Refs 9, 21: what makes this a high quality, reliable source?
@Brianboulton: They are from the film's official website.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 07:49, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Apart from the issues indicated, the sources are consistently presented and in general meet the required standards of quality and reliability per the FA criteria. Brianboulton (talk) 21:27, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Eastern brown snake[edit]

Nominator(s): Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:23, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

This article is about a badass snake that is considered the world's second most venomous snake...except that it isn't...except that it sort of is. The ranking was based on a highly potent neurotoxin isolated from the venom...except that in people it has almost no neurotoxic effects...however, it is responsible for most deaths from snakebite in Australia due to the severe damage it does to the human circulatory system. Anyway, have a read and let me know what to fix. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:23, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Comments from JM[edit]

Only have a few minutes, so won't get far.

  • "First described by André Marie Constant Duméril in 1854, the adult eastern brown snake" A little jarring: "the adult eastern brown snake" was "first described"...
I split the sentence Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:01, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
  • "cardiovascular system—coagulopathy, haemorrhage, cardiovascular collapse and cardiac arrest. One of the main components of the venom is the prothrombinase complex pseutarin-C" A little technical for the lead; perhaps you could introduce some wikilinks?
linked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:15, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
  • "gave it the name Diemenia textilis in 1896" This is presumably explicitly "resurrecting" Duméril's name? Perhaps worth mentioning?
Not quite. He just recognised it was the oldest valid name, as evidenced by having it at the top of the list of synonyms. Hence added this acknowledgement, with link to Principle of Priority Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:27, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
  • "and reinforced by American herpetologist" Gramatically, it's not clear what was reinforced. "and Worrell's claim was bolstered by American herpetologist" or something, perhaps?
I went with "upheld" Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:03, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Perhaps Pseudonaja ohnoi should be in the taxobox? Same with the rejected subspecies?
added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:29, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
  • "The Dharawal and Awabakal held ceremonies for the eastern brown snake" I'd definitely like to hear more!
so would I - this is proving elusive.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:27, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Ok, got to dash. Will hopefully be back! Josh Milburn (talk) 16:34, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Back for a few more minutes... Sorry for the bittiness...

  • Any sexual dimorphism?
doesn't appear to be - but nothing outright states there isn't either (frustratingly) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:42, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Could you perhaps explain what "divided" means in the context of scales?
It is mentioned under anal scale but added footnote Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:15, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
  • "and arid scrublands and farmland, as well as more arid areas that are intermittently flooded" More arid than arid? I'm not saying you're wrong, just wondering if it says what you meant it to.
well, yeah, that'd be more desertlike as there'd not be enough water for scrub. changed to "drier" anyway Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:42, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
  • " engage in 'ritual combat' with" Why the 'single quotes'?
don't recall but unnecessary and removed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:42, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
  • What do the eggs look like? Just little white orbs?
I think so but need a source describing them... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:52, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Should you provide Fahrenheit conversions for the temperatures?
yes/done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:44, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Stopping again! Josh Milburn (talk) 17:07, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

More:

  • This may sound silly, but you don't actually mention that the venom is used for hunting. Or is it not?
AFAIK all venomous snakes use venom for hunting and thought it was obvious...will see what I can source. ok added this Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:35, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
  • "the inland taipan of central" Specific name? You generally provide one, but not always.
yes/done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:35, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
  • "brown snakes accounted for 41% of identified snakebite victims" Were responsible for (or similar) I think - this reads like they were the ones bitten!
ok/done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:35, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Snakes of Medical Importance or snakes of medical importance?
source actually lowercases it so aligned Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:35, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
  • "a third of cases develop serious systemic envenoming including hypotension and collapse, thrombotic microangiopathy, severe haemorrhage, and cardiac arrest" Wikilinks, perhaps? And next few sentences/paragraphs. I appreciate that this section has to be fairly technical, but wikilinks can help.
linked a bunch Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:45, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
  • "Mirtschin and colleagues found that Queensland eastern brown snakes produced over triple the average amount of venom (11 mg vs 3 mg) than those from South Australia.[61] Worrell reported" Full names, perhaps?
added - Worrell mentioned previously in article Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:45, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Some pictures in the venom section might be good. A picture of a bite would work, or chemical structures, or something?
Heh, not volunteering! Will have a think...already asked on flickr for immature photos too... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:45, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Hope that's useful. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:04, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Support on prose. This reads very well, and is no doubt a valuable resource for anyone wanting to learn about the snake. I'd really like to hear more about cultural significance, and perhaps about human/snake interactions... I'm guessing that people kill them, for example? Josh Milburn (talk) 10:58, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Yeah I'd like some more cultural significance - and if I can find I will add. Regarding their status, most Australians are not too good at distinguishing species and there are loads of dangerous ones. These are not hated any more or less than other species really. And thx for support :) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:22, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Comments by AhmadLX[edit]

  • "German-British zoologist Albert Günther described Demansia annulata in 1858." Maybe described it/eastern brwon snake as Demansia annulata ?
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:08, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Günther or Gunther? I see both.
now umlauted Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:52, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
  • "Italian naturalist Giorgio Jan named Pseudoelaps sordellii and Pseudoelaps kubingii in 1859." is unclear. Are these different species, different looking specimens of eastern brown snake?
different specimens as different taxa that turned out to be this species. Thing is, it can be quite variable in appearance (particularly young and mature snakes) and covers a wide range. Will see if I can make this clearer Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:52, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
Alright, then it should be mentioned. Currently it seems as if they are different species. In my opinion, one general statement describing the situation should be added at the beginning of the paragraph. Something like "Due to differences in appearance, different specimens of Eastern Brown Snake were categorized as different species in the early nineteenth century."
now added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:37, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Correct me if wrong, I am no expert in biology, but "described as ABC" gives impression that some species ABC already existed and specimens of EBS were wrongly associated with it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:08, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
No that is a fair point. I have rewritten the first segment to address that. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:09, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Maybe I'm a bit dumb, so can't understand what does this mean: "Snake clutches in colder areas often have more banded than unbanded young snakes."
more of the offspring have a banded coloration Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:30, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
Contrast doesn't seem to be clear: more banded vs. unbanded. I can't access the source, based on your description I think a formulation like "In colder areas, newly hatched snakes are more heavily banded than young snakes" would be easier to understand.
it means more baby snakes with bands not baby snakes with more bands (some babies do lack bands) - tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:41, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Any reason for one-line para in Distribution and habitat?
no - fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:30, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Why not °C?
fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:52, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Any info on longevity in the wild?
none that I could find Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:30, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
This source explicitly says "it is not known", so for comprehensiveness, it should be mentioned here too.
  • "...carpet python (Morelia spilota), have also been eaten." perhaps juveniles?
I'd love to but the source does not specify Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:30, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
  • "The bearded dragon is possibly resistant to the effects of the venom." Does this mean they are not on the menu? or?AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 12:45, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
not really - they still get attacked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:30, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

I am supporting. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 15:35, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

thx! Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:22, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

SC[edit]

Lead
  • "The adult eastern brown snake is a slender snake up to 2 m (7 ft) long with": snake – snake
rejigged Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:00, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
Tax
  • We have both "Gunther" and "Günther"
now umlauted Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:52, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
  • "for lack of rigour": I would probably phrase as "for a lack of rigour", but if that doesn't look right in AusEng, please ignore
no, Aussies are no different, "a" added.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:52, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
  • "number of diploid chromosomes at 38, those of the other species": looks a little like a comma splice – a semi colon may work better
semicoloned Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:42, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
now linked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:59, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
  • "The species commonly called" -> "The species is commonly called"
verb added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:59, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
Reproduction
  • At the end of Behaviour you say "cool days in September and October risked running into courting male snakes", and the next sentence—in Reproduction—you say "snakes mate from October onwards". It may be worth smoothing the discrepancy out a bit
looking at source again, "early" added before October, and "generally" Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:32, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
Venom
  • "pre- and post synaptic" -> "pre- and post-synaptic" (with the hyphen)?
see below Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:59, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
  • "presynaptic" and "posstynaptic": 1. "posstynaptic" is a spelling mistake; 2. are this meant to be hyphenated or as one word
now one-worded Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:59, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
Refs
  • You have dates in the "30 October 2015" format and "January 11, 2014" format (the latter at FN 52)
now linked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:59, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
  • You have the rage ranges in the "pp. 224–26" format, while the MoS now says it should be "pp. 224–226". It's pointless nonsense and I'll leave it to you to decide whether you need to bother or not.
???? - I must go read...I read somewhere the two digits were ok.....damn... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:59, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

That's it: all very minor fare and I look forward to supporting shortly. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 18:42, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

reviews from neophytes are necessarily to analyse accessibility...and thx ++ Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:06, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Image review - as this already has three reviews, I'll give an image review, but maybe continue with a full review if this stalls. Sources and licences look good, but I have some comments on image use. FunkMonk (talk) 06:13, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
  • You write the juveniles can be reticulated. Why not show it? We have this photo:[6]
I am stunned at how I missed that after looking for images of young sneks Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:06, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
  • You show a snake wrestling with a lizard, but why not use this photo from the same series, which is closer to them?[7] I see the snake's head is shown better in the image you use, but maybe crop it then, which would also get rid of the watermark.
have changed images - will get to an image editor soon.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:33, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
I've removed the watermark. FunkMonk (talk) 11:37, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
  • This sign, if really free, could be nice under Venom:[8]
The author Frederick McCoy circulated it in 1877 as an educational poster, so yes it is free and added Cas Liber (talk · contribs)
  • Why is the taxobox image's caption downsized? Not exactly easy on the eye.
Not me, undone Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:33, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
  • If you want to collapse the long synonym list to save space, you can do as in for example red rail.
yes/great idea/done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:33, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Sources review[edit]

  • No spotchecks carried out
  • All links to sources are working
  • Formats
  • Page ranges: In his general review, SchroCat indicated the MoS requirement that page ranges should be given in full, e.g. as 149–150 not 149–50. It's a very minor issue but nonetheless, probably worth complying.
done. I've done two digits for years but failed to find the supporting guidline. Not a big deal. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:12, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Ref 3: publisher details missing
added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:12, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Ref 22: publisher details missing
added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:46, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Ref 30: "South Australian Museum" should not be italicised
for some reason, using the "work" or "website" field in "cite web" format does this. Not sure what to do about it. Open to suggestions Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:12, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Ref 31: "Australian Reptile Online Database" should not be italicised
see above Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:12, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Cited texts: The ISBN format of Greer is inconsistent.
fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:12, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Quality and reliability: Ref 21 is a self-published source. What makes this qualify as a high quality reliable source?
Professor Jaky Troy is an expert in the field Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:12, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Subject to the above, the sources look to be of the appropriate standards of quality and reliability per the FA criteria. Brianboulton (talk) 11:45, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Maryland Tercentenary half dollar[edit]

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 21:28, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

This article is about... another coin, this one with a man with dubious dress, especially his collar. This is my solo nomination article, as Gadsden Purchase half dollar should be promoted soon no doubt.Wehwalt (talk) 21:28, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Support – Up to the usual standard of this series. Remarkably readable for an article on a – forgive me – dry subject like numismatics (I chuckled at the attempt to sanitise the Italian slogan), well and widely referenced and beautifully illustrated. There are two "a number of xxx"s in fairly quick succession, but otherwise I have no comment on the prose. I don't see how this article could be bettered. Happy to support. Tim riley talk 17:15, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Support. Meets the FA criteria, is well written and nicely illustrated. The only point to consider (not that it sways my support) is that you have the rage ranges in the "pp. 217–18" format, while the MoS now says it should be "pp. 217–218". It's pointless nonsense and I'll leave it to you to decide whether you need to bother or not. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 18:04, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for the review and support.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:58, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Support Comments by Usernameunique[edit]

Infobox

  • Images seem somewhat small in full size, any particular reason?
That's all we have. Bobby131313 uploaded them years ago, and he's more or less inactive today. We have very few image sources on coins.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:10, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Background

  • Intro is a little abrupt. How about "The Maryland Tercentenary Commission, formed in 19XX, desired..."
I don't see a founding date, so I've played with it some.
  • the Tercentenary celebrations — I don't think you need to capitalize "Tercentenary" here. Also, this is the second use of the word in this sentence; you could probably drop one.
Done.

Legislation

  • a Maryland Tercentenary half dollar — Same re: capitalization.
Avoided.
  • and passed without any recorded discussion ... and the bill passed without further discussion. ... and the bill passed without debate — Any of these three times, was there a vote for which any numbers were recorded?
No. That very rarely happened on commemorative coins. Mostly they went through uncontested, if they got as far as the floor of Congress.
  • The bill was brought to the House floor on March 20, and passed without any recorded discussion. The bill was transmitted to the House of Representatives — I'm a bit confused, it went from the House to the House? Based on the rest of the section, it seems as if the March 20 date is actually when it was brought to the floor of the Senate.
My goof. Good catch. Fixed.
  • That committee made report — Made a report?
rephrased.
  • this was merely pro forma — Is the lack of italics (pro forma) intentional?
Yes. I think it's passed into the English language enough that italics are not needed.
  • It became the Act of May 9, 1934, authorizing 25,000 half dollars — Is this the official title of the bill? If so, a manner of making this clear (e.g., italics, capitalization, or quotation marks) would help.
Rephrased.

Preparation

If we don't have an article on Moore, I think Caemmerer is way down the list. I don't know if it's worth it.

Design

  • their joint work on commemoratives — Perhaps "on commemorative coins".
  • Michael Kittle, in his blog for the American Numismatic Association — Does Kittle work for the Association? If so, there's probably a way of phrasing this that doesn't have to include the reference to this being a blog post.
  • the painting may show someone who is not Lord Baltimore — What is the basis for this claim? Any commentary by art historians?
Cut Kittle's entire contribution. I don't see where he's getting that from.
It's an intriguing point, too bad there isn't more.
  • The obverse shows ... The reverse side shows — Is "reverse side" correct, and/or should it be "obverse side" as well?
Both are correct.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:17, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
  • the arms of Lord Baltimore quartered — What does "quartered" mean here?
  • The state motto appears — Where? On the ribbon thing under the seal?
The above two addressed.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:58, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Production and distribution

  • Between two and four pieces are known in proof condition — What accounts for the range?
Because it's not always clear if a coin is a proof coin, it may not have been submitted to the experts, if it's in a collection it won't be making news until it's sold. Up to 4 is the figure for many of the commemoratives of the 1930s. That sort of uncertainty. Many Mint records were destroyed in the 1970s.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:17, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
  • One such specimen sold at auction for $109,250 in 2012. — May as well include the auction as a source. Also, might be worth asking Stack's Bowers if they would issue the images under a free license.
At one time I did write to them and other auction houses, and got no response in most cases and "we'll let you know" (still waiting) in a couple of cases.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:17, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
  • The stamp isn't mentioned outside of the image caption. Was the Tercentenary Committee involved with it, and if so, perhaps worth mentioning in "Background"?
My sources on philatelic are not good. Swiatek & Breen illustrate it but don't mention a specific connection.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:37, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
Found this and this through Google, seems like they were connected. This probably isn't a reliable source for purposes of citing, but has a lot of information that could lead to other sources.

References/Sources

Most of it does not appear to be.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:17, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
Footnote 10 is here (just click on the "pdf" link on the left to see the text). Footnote 11 is here, and footnote 8 is here. These also all appear to be part of volume 78, not volume 80.
That will be useful. Thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:09, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Just checking that Flynn 2008 was issued without an ISBN.
Yes.

Overall

Thank you for the review. I think I"ve addressed everything.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:58, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, Wehwalt. Comments on two minor points above. --Usernameunique (talk) 17:39, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
I've addressed those now.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:18, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, adding my support. --Usernameunique (talk) 18:48, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, and thank you for that website on the Congressional Record. Already adding it to next coin article.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:32, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
Happy to help, Wehwalt; I look forward to the next one. --Usernameunique (talk) 14:11, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Sources review[edit]

Sources appear to have been checked out and dealt with during the general review. For the sake of formality:

  • Spotchecks not carried out
  • Accessibility: no issues
  • Formats: no further issues
  • Quality and reliability: no issues. The sources appear to meet all the requirements for quality and reliability to meet the FA criteria. Brianboulton (talk) 19:36, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
Much obliged, thank you.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:22, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Image review[edit]

Bobby131313 was the creator and uploader. He did not explicitly state a license but we've had this several times at FAC and I made an inquiry at MCQ a while back, and it's accepted that such are suitable images.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:16, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
I uploaded a fresh version and included that.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:53, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
Images seem all to be pertinent to the article topic. No ALT text that I can see. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:30, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for the image review.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:53, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
I've added the alt text, hopefully that is everything. I think we're good to go.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:04, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
I should add that I don't add alt text to the infobox because it has captions.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:59, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

SOLRAD 2[edit]

Nominator(s): Neopeius (talk) 17:56, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Now that SOLRAD 1 has passed the FAC process, I have updated SOLRAD 2 to the same level of quality (I hope!) I hadn't planned on going past GA for SOLRAD 2, but thanks to a great new cite from User:Kees08, I was able to add a lot of interesting information, and it turns out SOLRAD 2 was pretty important even if it didn't actually make orbit. Since much of the text is identical to that of SOLRAD 1, a good deal of SOLRAD 2 has essentially already passed FA muster. The big differences are the lede and the Mission sections. Enjoy! --Neopeius (talk) 17:56, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

No hurry, but if the folks who gave SOLRAD 1 a gander could take a look at SOLRAD 2 at their leisure, I'd be obliged. :)

@Maury Markowitz: @Balon Greyjoy: @Nick-D: @CPA-5: @Mike Christie: @Kees08: --Neopeius (talk) 01:52, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by CPA-5[edit]

I'll do this one this evening (CET). Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 06:21, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

You're amazing! :) --Neopeius (talk) 12:43, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
  • over Cuba and instigating official protest from the Cuban government Unlink Cuba and capitalise government.
Why is Cuba unlinked? Also, having done some scouring, it appears that government is only capitalized when a proper noun. For instance, the Government of Cuba but not Cuban Government.
  • Is it? Because I saw some editors using (including myself) government capitalised. May I ask you which ref you used it can help me about this issue. I always thought it was capitalised. Also I think Cuba should be unlinked because here in Europe they know some infomations of Cuba. Of course I do not know or Americans know where Cuba lies or some infomations of it - by MOS:OVERLINK.
I'd like to keep Cuba. I delinked China. And here's a source for decapped government.
  • Thanks for the ref. Sadly it is a dead link on my screen. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 17:20, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
How vexing! Try here @CPA-5: --Neopeius (talk) 16:58, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Great, thanks for this information. Cheers.
  • In 1957 the Soviet Union began deploying Link Soviet Union.
10-4
  • President Eisenhower approved full Link Eisenhower.
Right-o
  • I see two kinda USes the first in This allowed the US Air Force to plan its entrance as US. The second is in northwest of the U.S. Navy's Guantanamo Bay base as U.S..
Fixed
  • Eisenhower cancelled the project and implemented British cancelled.
Huh! Learn something every day (though I double-taked on that -- I thought you were saying the British canceled SOLRAD, and I was like, "That's kind of presumptuous of them!")
  • the complete solar spectrum.[9]:64–65[9]:5–6, 63[10] merge both 9 citations in one citation.
Ugh, yes. And fixed in SOLRAD 1, too.
  • of its predecessor, SOLRAD/GRAB 1[14], Suggest moving the citation outside the comma here.
For sure.
  • to observe the sun in X-ray and ultraviolet light If I'm not wrong then it should be "to observe the Sun in X-ray and ultraviolet light"
Absolutely
  • spherical and 51 cm in diameter No Imperial/US units?
Right again!
  • same scientific experiments (18kg versus 19kg) Same as above and there should be a space between a number and a unit.
Must you ALWAYS be right? :)
  • providing 6 watts of power Link watt.
Watt's that you say?
  • photometer mounted along the equator Link equator.
Okay.
  • light in the 1050-1050 Å wavelength I'm sorry if I don't understand this one. But why are there two 1050s? Also shouldn't it be "light in the 1,050–1,050 Å wavelength"?
Criminy. It's 1350.
  • broadcasting on the S band (1,550–3,900 MHz) Unlink S band there is one already used previously in the body. Also this MHz is the first one so please link it.
Actually, the sentence at the end of the first paragraph was superfluous once I added the other language, so I killed it. Moved the MHz link.
  • was sent on 108 MHz Unlink MHz.
Yawp
  • Some 20 kg No Imperial/US units?
Of course there are! (now...)
  • The Cuban Army post at Holguin Link Cuban Army.
We have a link for everything!
  • sealed sphere of some 40 pounds Do you mean the unit pound or the currency pound?
It's a quote... but what do you think? :) I don't think SOLRAD 2 carried money in it. Nor does America use the pound.
  • was sold to the People's Republic of China Unlink People's Republic of China.
Why? I am genuinely confused -- why does the Soviet Union get a link but not Cuba or China?
  • China on the other hand is a popular country even childeren do know some infomations and where it lies so it shouldn't be linked - by MOS:OVERLINK
  • In response to the Cuban government protest --> "In response to the Cuban Government protest"
Again, internet research suggests government is not capitalized after an adjective.

Here you go. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 17:22, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Excellent stuff, @CPA-5:! Thank you so much. :) --Neopeius (talk) 03:23, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Looks great I reckon this one is ready for my support. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 17:08, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

image review

  • All three diagrams would benefit from being scaled up
done
  • Suggest adding missing alt texts
done
  • Should use |upright= rather than fixed px size
done
  • File:SOLRAD1schematic.gif: if this is uncredited how do we know what the tagging should be? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:58, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
It's from | NRL's website and I changed the WikiCommons file to reflect that.
Thank you @Nikkimaria:! --Neopeius (talk) 16:42, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by Balon Greyjoy[edit]

Nice to see you nominating another article! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 02:38, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

  • When you say that future SOLRAD flights were programmed to avoid Cuban flyover, are you referring to just during the launch, or the spacecraft's entire lifetime in orbit (I'm assuming it's the former)? I would make that clear, as I assume the satellite would otherwise make passes over Cuba eventually
Fixed, thank you.
  • In the background section, I would provide a quick intro about the SOLRAD/GRAB satellites being used to detect SAM radars, and then go into the background of the radar detection. I understand that you're trying to build a narrative about how the US eventually decided to used SIGINT/ELINT satellites, but I found myself asking "How does this tie in?" throughout the first paragraph, and I had the added benefit of knowing the general properties of the satellite.
I've drafted a better narrative, both in that paragraph and the following one. I don't want to lose detail, but I think it flows better now.
  • Not sure about this one (hopefully can get some feedback from other editors), but is it general practice to use the official Russian reporting names/numbering for SAMs, or the NATO reporting names? I admit that I'm biased towards the use of the NATO reporting names, but I think most readers of a US Air Force program would more likely recognize "SA-2" or "SA-2 Guideline" over "S-75" (my vote is just for "SA-2")
I'm not married to any convention. I don't think it should stall FA status, but if consensus is ever reached, I'm perfectly fine with someone changing it after the fact.
  • Do you have any details on the electronic reconnaissance aircraft that the Air Force was using? I think linking to the individual types of aircraft would be useful.
I do not.
  • I would either remove the part about the Air Force planning its entrance routes, or expand upon it. Right now, it comes across as only part of the story. I think the significance of knowing the locations of enemy SAM sites is important enough, so my vote is to just remove it. If you wish to expand, indicate the use of the entrance routes that you are referring to (I'm assuming it was hypothetical entrance routes in case of hostilities breaking out).
I agree, and I have changed the wording accordingly.
  • I would change "but the information collected was not particularly detailed" to something that just states that the information couldn't be used to locate the SAM sites. I think any collection of SAM radar signals is not going to be detailed, in that you are just getting the rough EM wave characteristics and a line of bearing, but that can be used to locate the SAM site.
Better wording.

Had an inadvertant few days away. Back at it. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 04:59, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

  • I would combine the first two sentences about the submarine antenna, and just say that Mayo developed an antenna that allowed submarines to detect the radar from anti-submarine aircraft
Fixed.
  • I would change "was given an official go-ahead" to something like "was approved." "Go-ahead" is a bit of a colloquialism
fixed
  • How significant was the news leak and what changed between Tattletale and Walnut? It doesn't make much sense that the program was cancelled and then immediately restarted, just with a different code name.
I moved the heightened security to make more sense -- basically, Ike canceled, and Walnut was the same project but with heightened security. I've elaborated. Hope you like.
  • American launches aren't classified now either, just the payloads. I would clarify this a little more.
According to my sources, this is not the case. While news of launches might have leaked (it's hard to hide a rocket launch), the launches themselves were classified. Prior to launches being classified, only payload contents were classified (and disguised by some cover, e.g. Discoverer and SOLRAD)
  • Remove "Fortunately" from the start of the sentence, as it's a subjective word.
Fortunately, I don't mind doing so. :)
  • Instead of saying "roughly a duplicate of," maybe us "similar to" and then list the differences. I think that makes it more clear that there were some differences from the beginning.
The problem is I don't know how the two differed. There is virtually no information to that regard. They had the same equipment listed in the various sources but a difference in mass. All of the SOLRADS were "similar to" each other, but SOLRADs 1 and 2 were very close. Thus "roughly a duplicate of" is the verbal solution to the problem I came up with.
  • How delayed was the rocket launch, and how many glitches were there? I don't think the betting pool is necessarily indicative of how delayed it was; formal/informal wagering over the likelihood of a launch/takeoff/etc. is pretty common.
Insufficient data. Long enough that the lone source on the matter thought it noteworthy.
If you wish to include it, I would shorten it to just say they were taking bets; as it's not clear what $1-per-person means (my take is that each person bet a dollar on a given time, but that's not self-explanatory).
Done.
  • I would remove the italics on "did" and take out the sunny sky, as weather played no factor in the rocket's demise.
fixed
  • I would remove "However" before "the Thor first stage" as it's not an event that is contrasted with the previous sentence.
I like it, narratively. The rocket launched despite the holds. The weather was good. BUT THEN TRAGEDY STRUCK. The "However" indicates something bad is about to happen.
I would argue that you don't want to be using foreshadowing-type terminology and phrasing in these articles to tell a narrative. Per WP:EDITORIALIZING, it's good to avoid words like "However" as that can imply a relationship when there is none. While the initial launch and clear weather were positive signs of a launch, they were pretty unrelated to the failure of the launch.
I think that's an overly assiduous interpretation of WP:EDITORIALIZING :) If this is the only difference of opinion on this article, I think we're in good shape!
I disagree, but one "however" isn't enough to dissuade my support for this article.
  • Similar to my comments about overflying Cuba, when you say that future SOLRAD flights were programmed, I'm assuming you mean for a launch? How would a launch flying south have a more northerly course?
Fixed. (and the launch never went DUE south. Just south enough to fly over Cuba until the flight path was modified.)

That's all I have for now! Nice work! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 05:13, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

@Balon Greyjoy: Thank you very much for the help! Please let me know what you think -- the changes I've made in the Background section, I can migrate to SOLRAD 1 to improve that article. --Neopeius (talk) 16:48, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
@Neopeius: My apologies for forgetting to come back to this. I have added two comments. Nice work improving the article. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 04:01, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
@Balon Greyjoy: You're a busy man. I'm just grateful for all of your help! Are we good to go? --Neopeius (talk) 22:49, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
Indeed. Nice work! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 04:45, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Neopeius comments[edit]

@Nikkimaria: Hi, folks! Thank you for your comments. I have jury duty this week, so I may not get around to addressing them immediately. I just wanted to let you know so you didn't think I was ignoring you. :) --Neopeius (talk) 15:38, 5 May 2019 (UTC) @Balon Greyjoy: --Neopeius (talk) 15:38, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

SC (Support on May 16, 2019)[edit]

@SchroCat: Thank you for visiting! :) --Neopeius (talk) 01:03, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

A fair few bits and pieces to cover here:

Lead & IB
  • "and was destroyed, raining debris over Cuba and instigating official protest ..." and ...and looks like a bit of a run on. "and was destroyed, raining debris over Cuba, which instigated official protests ..." may work better (note plural: an official protest (singular) or "official protests" (plural)
Fixed.
  • I see you have a "start of mission" in the IB. Is there and "end of mission" or "outcome parameter that could be added?
Added a "Destroyed" parameter, thank you. :)
Background
  • "plan its entrance": "plan its possible (or) potential entrance"?
  • "In March 1958,[3]:4" I looked at this initially because I never like seeing a citation after only three words of a sentence. Perhaps moving this to the end of the second sentence (to sit alongside ref [2]:364 would work better)
  • "After a news leak": an approximate date would work well here, just for context. (Either here, or following "the project was restarted")
  • The two paras "After a news leak" and "The study of the Sun's" could be run together as they are essentially on the same point
  • I'd be tempted to scale up File:Atmospheric electromagnetic opacity.svg a little – it's not at all clear on such a small scale
  • "Martin Votaw": just a word or two of introduction would work wonders: "NRL engineer Martin Votaw" would give enough context
  • "Fortunately": it's a minor and petty thing, but that's NPOV. "Fortunate" according to who?
All of these issues are addressed by Balon Greyjoy above (great minds!) so I will fix them per his suggestions. This will necessitate fixing the language in SOLRAD 1, too.
Spacecraft
  • "GRAB 1,[14], spherical": no comma needed after the ref
Fixed.
  • "in diameter[8] slightly lighter": comma needed after diameter
Fixed.
  • "solar cells[4]:a1-4. The..." Full stop before the ref
Fixed
  • "the S band (1,550–3,900 MHz).[13]:29,32 over" Is that a full stop? If so, it should be a capital letter for "Over..."
Should have been a comma. Thank you. :)
Mission
  • "so many holds in the": this may be an AmEng thing, but my BrEng eye expects to see "hold-ups"
Hold is a term of art specifically dealing with launch holds. I believe my usage is correct. (What I see Kees said below -- thank you, Guardian Angel!)
  • I think its more space vernacular than AmEng vs BrEng, 'The launch vehicle is in a built-in five minute hold' would be an acceptable usage for example. Kees08 (Talk) 00:37, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
  • "SOLRAD 2 did launch": no need for the italics: "SOLRAD 2 launched" works much better
Fixed
  • "19:50 UTC[12]," comma before the ref
Fixed
  • "Some 20 kilograms (44 lb)[19]": Again a ref after a few words of a sentence. This citation supports the position that "some 20kg is equivalent to 44Lbs". If you want to connect the 20kg to the fragments that fell over Cuba, it needs to be at the end of the sentence. I'll also point out that when I look at http://archive.aviationweek.com/issue/19601205#!&pid=26, I don't see the article titled "Transit Launch Fails".
The reference cited is the only one that gives the mass of the debris. The problem is there's no way to put a citation in between numbers of a convert template.
I still have a problem with that citation. We don't need a citation for basic maths (we automate the process with a convert template most of the time), so it can come out. As the Avian Week link doesn't have an article titled "Transit Launch Fails", and the page contains no reference to 20kg it isn't needed. - SchroCat (talk) 10:07, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
It absolutely does have a small piece called "Transit Launch Fails" on page 26. However, reading the article again, I think they are just citing what the Cuban report said, so I've eliminated the problematic reference and language, thank you.
Ah, that's a different link altogether - you should have ignored the http://archive.aviationweek.com/issue/19601205#!&pid=26 link and done the citation as a journal, linking to the specific page. Anyway, that's moot now it's been removed. - SchroCat (talk) 18:34, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
Negatory. If you have an account, that link takes you right to that page. :) I was lucky enough to get an account! --Neopeius (talk) 02:14, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
(I downloaded the page from AvWeek and hosted it on my own site so you could see it)
Sources etc
  • Is there a reason you are using {{rp}}? The documentation says "This template should not be used unless necessary", so I wonder what makes it necessary here
  • You have a few instances of pages as " 142,149", without a space in between. Although you are partially consistent in not including a space, the addition of one works better, I think. (I saw partially as there are examples of the spaced "5–6, 63–65")
I have added spaces after commas both here and in SOLRAD 1. I use {{rp}} to identify pages within particular references (rather than listing the same reference multiple times for different page numbers. How else would I do the citation?
If you use the {{sfn}} template it drops everything into the right place and bundles the same pages together in one number. It's partially a matter of personal choice (so I won't push it here), but the MoS advises not to use it "unless necessary", and I don't see the need here. - SchroCat (talk) 10:07, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
I understand. I prefer rp to sfn is all. :)

No rush on these: I see you are on jury duty, so whenever you get round to this is great. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 23:10, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

I really appreciate your help, @SchroCat:! I will try to get to the other issues this weekend. Busy week! @Balon Greyjoy: --Neopeius (talk) 01:03, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
@SchroCat: --Neopeius (talk) 18:31, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - all good from me on prose. I am not a subject expert, so won't comment on the coverage, but it passes the FA criteria on prose grounds. - SchroCat (talk) 18:34, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
Woohoo! Thank you :)

Image review[edit]

All images are appropriately licensed.

  • Could you use "upright", not px, to size images. (DM 21)
Done.
  • Transit 2A and GRAB 1.jpg sandwiches the infobox. Maybe move it to the right, below the infobox, and drop Atmospheric electromagnetic opacity.svg down a little?
I'd rather not move the images. These are the same positions as in the FA-approved SOLRAD 1, and if I move them, they will no longer be in their relevant sections. It's a big infobox. There's not much I can do about it. :)
It sandwiches on this article because you have made all of the images (much) larger. If you revert them to the same size as the images in SOLRAD 1 the issue will probably go away.
But I was instructed by the other image reviewer that they should be bigger (actually, I wasn't even the one who made the images that much bigger...I just blew up the Votaw one, I think). Perhaps you could arrange the images as you feel appropriate and then let's see how it looks? @Gog the Mild: --Neopeius (talk) 17:42, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
OK. I have changed the images to the size they were for SOLRAD 1 and moved one. It is a little difficult to squeeze so many images into the article, but if there are to be six, this minimises sandwiching. See what you think. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:22, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
Looks worse IMO, but up to you two. Kees08 (Talk) 18:28, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

───────────────────────── @Kees08 and Neopeius: I think that it looks better, but that is neither here nor there. It is now, barely, MoS compliant, and so I can sign it off for FA. I am more than happy to consider any different array, so long as it is MOS compliant. I think that this is going to be difficult unless the number of images is reduced. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:40, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Fair enough; you may want to have Nikkimaria check in on it since she had comments relating to image size earlier that are now overridden. I am pretty indifferent overall. Kees08 (Talk) 18:43, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
  • All images need alt text. (Even if it is the same as the caption.)
Added. I'll have to do that with SOLRAD 1, too.
For the record, it is optional to have alt text. Although it is good to have. Kees08 (Talk) 06:42, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, SOLRAD 1, yes. @Kees08: That's not how I read the MOS: "Images that are not purely decorative should include an alt attribute that acts as a substitute for the image for blind readers, search-spiders, and other non-visual users."
Most recent RfC says not required but should be encouraged. Also, if you do not sign the line that you ping someone they do not get the ping. Kees08 (Talk) 17:51, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I was unable to find Thor Able Star with Transit 3A Nov 30 1960 pad.jpg at [9], which may have been me. In any case, it would be better to have a direct link.
I'm not certain what you're asking. ^^;;
I thought that I was going mad, because I missed Kees08's comment below. They have sorted it out. You owe them a beer. Thanks Kees.
@Gog the Mild: I added the filename and a link to the direct image page. Kees08 (Talk) 16:27, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Gog the Mild (talk) 13:51, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, @Gog the Mild: I am working my way through these backwards. :) --Neopeius (talk) 00:42, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
Weekend chores catching up to me. Next pass will probably be Monday. Thank you for your patience! --Neopeius (talk) 22:11, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
No rush. Wikipedia isn't going anywhere. Just the sandwiching issue to resolve; which should be easy. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:09, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Sources review[edit]

Some sources points were raised and dealt with in the body of the review. I have a few further issues:

  • A limited series of spotchecks revealed no apparent problems with verifiability or close paraphrasing.
  • Ref 3 is missing publisher details
Fixed
  • Ref 8: I was unable to locate the source article in the link
It works if you have a login to AvWeek. One will have the same issue with all of my AvWeek links.
  • Ref 10: The title in the ref is given as "Appendix A: Department of the Navy History in Space". In the link, page 157 of the source reveals "Intelligence Satellite Development by the Naval Research Laboratory" Is this the intended source article?
Correct, and page 157 is indicated in the citation.
  • Ref 12: What makes "Jonathan's Space Report" a high quality reliable source?
He's been a space journalist for more than a decade, his master launch log is the gold standard, and I've yet to find any inaccuracies (as opposed to, say, Mark Wade's Astronautix site, which has lapsed)
  • Ref 16: The source title in the ref is "Vanguard: a History", by Constance Green and Milton Lomask, but no page references are given. The link is to Lindbergh's "Foreword": is this the sources article?
Page references are there as :{{{1}}}s after the citation.
  • Ref 19: What makes "Drew Ex-Machina" a high quality reliable source?
He's a reputable, long-time space journalist, and when I've checked his work with his sources, he's been reliable.
  • Formats: I notice an inconsistency in the presentation of authors' names. For example, we have (ref 2) "James Bamford", and (ref 3) "McDonald, Robert A.". There are other examples of both forms. I suggest consistency is applied using one format.
It's what comes of using templated names versus just the author= field. Fixed so they're all last name first.

Subject to the exceptions raised above, the sources appear to meet the requirements of the FA criteria with regard to quality and reliability. Brianboulton (talk) 18:19, 17 May 2019 (UTC)


Thanks very much for the source check! :) @Brianboulton: --Neopeius (talk) 18:02, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Support by Kees08[edit]

  • Could use this newspaper if you want; I was not sure how often they flew over Cuba before, looks like this was only the second attempt (in case it is useful: One, Two
Added.
  • Acronym not introduced while the NRL was heavily involved
Fixed.
  • Should there be a comma after engineer for the appositive phrase? Reid D. Mayo, a Naval Research Laboratory (NRL) engineer determined
Yes, but that sentence sucks for clunkiness. Fixed. :)

More to come later. Kees08 (Talk) 03:28, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

@Kees08: Thank you! --Neopeius (talk) 03:35, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Is this like the 100 meter dash, where even though there are 100 meters, since it is describing something it is singular? It sounds weird to me that centimeters is plural four whip-style 63.5 centimeters (2.08 ft) long antennas
It is weird, but it's an artifact of the convert template...
  • I would link range safety officer instead of range safety, which I know redirects to range safety, but if the range safety officer article is ever made the link will go to the right page. the range safety officer.

Sure.

  • As a launch vehicle nerd, I think it would be good to get into the fact that the first and second stages were separated, and range safety blew up both of them. I was picturing one vehicle when I was imagining the scenario (from this source).
Added
  • I think you should also add that a formal complaint was made to the United Nations, because I was specifically looking for that detail (maybe the last paragraph of that section?)
Added.

That's all I have right now, I am going to poke around a little more and see if I can find any more sources, but I'll likely support soon. Kees08 (Talk) 02:00, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Done! W00tiew00t and thanks. :) @Kees08: @Balon Greyjoy: --Neopeius (talk) 02:19, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
Support granted; I made a change to the destruction of the rocket, let me know if you have an issue with it. Kees08 (Talk) 06:14, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Summary[edit]

As of today, we're at four supports and completed image and source review (i.e. I have addressed all issues)

Is there anything left to do before elevation? I'd like to get this wrapped up so I can apply the changes to this article back to SOLRAD 1 before it hits the front page on June 22 :) Then I can go forward and finish the other SOLRADs.

Thanks to @Balon Greyjoy:, @Kees08:, @CPA-5:, @SchroCat:, @Gog the Mild:, @Nikkimaria:, and @Brianboulton: for your invaluable help! @Laser brain: --Neopeius (talk) 16:14, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Sadly, the image review is not yet signed off. See "Just the sandwiching issue to resolve; which should be easy" above. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:00, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Horncastle helmet fragment[edit]

Nominator(s): Usernameunique (talk) 22:35, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

The Horncastle helmet fragment is a tiny but interesting slice of Anglo-Saxon history. Its rich construction of silver, gold, and garnets, only hints at the likely richness of the helmet it once adorned; even the richest Anglo-Saxon helmets yet known, from Sutton Hoo and Staffordshire, have more rudimentary crest terminals than the Horncastle fragment. This 40 mm (1.6 in)-long fragment was purchased for £15,000, and is now on display in Lincolnshire.

This article draws from all available sources to describe the fragment and place it in proper context. It passed a good article review last year, and is ready to be nominated here. --Usernameunique (talk) 22:35, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Support from PM[edit]

This fairly brief article is in excellent shape, up to Usernameunique's high standards. I consider it meets the Featured criteria. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:56, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Much obliged again, Peacemaker67. Thanks for the support. --Usernameunique (talk) 09:10, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Support Comment from Tim riley[edit]

A most readable and interesting article, clearly written with considerable erudition. I expect to be supporting, but a few minor points on the prose first:

  • "likely was once attached" – unexpected and slightly jarring Americanism. The normal BrE construction is "probably was once attached". Ditto for the four *"likely"s later in the article (although for some reason "most likely" in this construction is not uncommon in BrE although the unadorned "likely" is).
  • Done. Had actually been wondering about this, after this edit by Espresso Addict; before that, I had no idea that there was a difference in usage between probably and likely.
In the UK, if not the US, using likely in such contexts as "they will likely win the game" sounds unnatural at best; there is no good reason to use it instead of probably. If you really must do so, however, just put very, quite or most in front of it and all will, very likely, be well.
The AmE usage is arguably superior to the BrE, judged by two of Fowler's five criteria: "Prefer the short word to the long. Prefer the Saxon word to the Romance", but be that as it may, current BrE usage goes for the longer, Romance word. (I'll shut up now.) Tim riley talk 06:32, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
  • "can not be conclusively determined" – "can not" is probably OK but "cannot" is surely the normal way of writing it.
  • Done.
  • "and perhaps York" – this is fine as it stands in the lead, I think, but in the main text it seems to me to call out for a word of explanation – perhaps a footnote – to explain why you say "perhaps".
  • Done.
  • Just what was wanted, I think. Beautifully clear. Thank you. Tim riley talk 06:32, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
  • "venerated, eulogised..." – a splendid line, but to have a quotation like this with no inline attribution leaves it rather in a vacuum. Helpful to your readers to put it in context by identifying the author: "as the archaeologist XYZ writes..." or some such.
  • "turn of the millennium Gundestrup" – as " turn of the millennium" is used as a compound attributive adjective I think it would benefit from hyphenation.
  • Done. Had already done this in the related sections just mentioned, but must have missed this one.

Nothing of great consequence there. I'll look in again and, I hope, add my support. –Tim riley talk 19:17, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the review and comments, Tim riley. Adopted all your suggestions. --Usernameunique (talk) 05:50, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
Very pleased to support now. Meets the FA criteria in all respects, in my view. I thoroughly enjoyed reading and rereading the article. Tim riley talk 06:32, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

FunkMonk[edit]

  • Will have a look soon. At first glance, compared to how the rest of the article looks, the last section could probably be split into two paragraphs? Looks a bit like a wall of text now. FunkMonk (talk) 06:01, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
  • " and set against the skull" Why skull and not head? Makes it seem as if it is depicted as skeletal.
  • That was the wording in the source, but you're right, "head" works just as well. Done.
  • "found by a Mr D. Turner" Being such a recent find, should be possible to find the full name?
  • I've done some searching on this (e.g., looking for members of Lincolnshire metal detecting groups) without much luck. The next step might be to send out a couple "Hey, do you happen to know a Mr. D. Turner" emails, but I'd like to hold off on this for the time being.
  • "As required of found objects" Required for? Otherwise it seems like the object has to do something?
  • Done.
  • Link boar and dragon at first mentions? Also Anglo-Saxon.
  • Done.
  • The full name of the subject is not mentioned anywhere in the article body. Could perhaps be good to mention it at the beginning?
  • Done.
  • Not sure about this but should "in their stable of symbols" be staple?
  • I mean "stable" in the sense of "collection."

FunkMonk, responses above. --Usernameunique (talk) 19:07, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Support - that's all I could find, looks good. FunkMonk (talk) 19:12, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Image review[edit]

Didn't notice any license issues. All images appear to be in good sections and have ALT text. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:47, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Sources review[edit]

  • Spotchecks not carried out
  • all links to sources are working
  • Formats:
  • In the bibliography, the source "Record ID: PAS-5D5B56 - EARLY MEDIEVAL helmet" is listed out of alphabetical sequence.
  • Done.
  • WorldCat provides a OCLC for Chaney: 490832405
  • Added ISBN 0-520-01401-4. Technically it's a 9-digit "Standard Book Number", since it's a 1970 book, but adding an extra 0 at the front seems to work.
  • All sources appear to be of the appropriate standards of quality and reliability, as required by the FA criteria. Brianboulton (talk) 10:34, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley[edit]

  • This is a first rate article, although I think 'Horncastle boar's head' would be a more informative title than 'Horncastle helmet fragment'.
  • Thanks, Dudley Miles. You may be right about "Horncastle boar's head." The current phrasing is designed to maintain some consistency between articles (see Gevninge helmet fragment; Lokrume helmet fragment; Tjele helmet fragment). Guilden Morden boar does not fit into this consistency, although it is something of a 'named artifact' in the way that the others are not. The biggest danger is probably for fragments that are not necessarily from helmets (see the "?"s in this list)—for now the naming convention seems to work, but I may revisit at some point, especially if I create articles for some of the less clear fragments.
  • Looking again I see you say "probably once attached to the crest of a helmet". As it is not certain I do not think "helmet" should be in the title. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:22, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
  • "turn-of-the-millennium". I took this at first to mean around year 1000, whereas I see you mean turn of BC/AD.
  • That phrasing is really just a way of avoiding getting into the debate over when the Gundestrup cauldron was made. The previous sentence, with a reference to Tacitus "writing around the 1st century AD," should hopefully make clear which millennium we are talking about.
  • I do not think that solves the problem as the previous sentence is in the previous paragraph. How about "late Iron Age"? Dudley Miles (talk) 17:22, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
  • "including the twentieth". It might be worth adding that the twentieth was stationed in Britain (Foster, p. 19).
  • Turned into "including the England-based twentieth," which based on the links seems a fairly uncontroversial point; I may need to look for another source for this though, since Foster (based on the Google snippet view, since I don't have it at hand) mentions them being stationed in Wales for a time, not England.
  • Foster (which I have borrowed) says their HQ was Chester but they were probably also at the legionary fortress at Usk, Monmouthshire. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:22, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
  • "The boar nonetheless persisted in continental Germanic tradition". I would delete the word "nonetheless"
  • Done.
  • "Its return to prominence in the Anglo-Saxon period, as represented by the boars from Benty Grange, Wollaston, Guilden Morden, and Horncastle, may therefore suggest the post-Roman reintroduction of a Germanic tradition from Europe, rather than the continuation of a tradition in Britain through 400 years of Roman rule.". This correctly quotes Foster, but the word "reintroduction" implies that there was a Germanic tradition in pre-Roman Iron Age Britain, and this cannot be right. So far as I can discover neither Foster nor any other writer says that there was German influence on Iron Age Britain. Leslie Webster in Anglo-Saxon Art treats the Germans and Celts as separate peoples and cultures. She discusses Celtic influence and says that Celtic style ornament appears on eighth century Anglo-Saxon metalwork, albeit rarely (p. 105). Maybe Foster meant the reintroduction of the boar tradition and used the word 'German' in error? Webster also says that the German peoples, including the Anglo-Saxons, were strongly influenced by Roman culture in their homeland before they came to Britain. Dudley Miles (talk) 08:44, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  • My memory of this line in Foster is that it is fairly cursory, and I could understand it being inaccurate as a result; after all, the point is tangential to the larger work. It may take a couple days to track down Webster—the only circulating copy nearby is unavailable—but if you think this would be solved in the interim by simply removing "reintroduction," I am happy to do that.
  • Oppose. My comments not dealt with. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:08, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Sorry for the delay on this; I had meant to dig up Foster and Webster, but haven't had the time and let this slip. I've responded to your points above. --Usernameunique (talk) 16:43, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Oppose Comments by Eric Corbett[edit]

Here are a few issues I spotted on a quick read through:

  • "The 40 mm (1.6 in)-long fragment ..." The hyphen shouldn't be applied to abbreviated units.
  • Would you not still consider this a compound adjective requiring a hyphen?
  • Why not? I may well be wrong, but I am unclear on what the rule is for compound adjectives with abbreviated units. I would have thought it analogous to something like "San Francisco-based," where there is no hyphen after the first word, but a hyphen after the second.
  • ... whereas "a horse head terminal ... does require a hyphen.
  • Right, added.
  • "The Horncastle helmet fragment represents a boar's head made of silver..." No it doesn't; there is no "boar's head made of silver" that it's a representation of, it's a boar's head made of silver.
  • Reworded, but if we're nitpicking, nor is it "a boar's head made of silver"; it is a silver representation of a boar's head.
  • Perhaps you would have done well to have said that in the first place then? Eric Corbett 19:09, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
  • The difficulty in doing so is then in working in the gilding and the garnet eyes into the sentence. They seem best treated with the mention of silver, for then the materials are treated together. Indeed, if the sentence read "...is a silver representation of a boar's head, parts of which are gilded, and with garnet eyes." then it would suffer the same flaw that you discussed earlier: It does not represent a boar's head that is gilded and has garnets for eyes, but rather is a representation that uses silver, gilt, and garnets.
  • This is supposed to be an example of Wikipedia's best work, not an example of how we can't phrase something correctly. Eric Corbett 20:19, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
  • " a prominent mane runs down the middle and terminates in a blunt snout, indicated by three grooved and gilded lines" "Indicated isn't the right word here, maybe represented?
  • I think "indicated by" is appropriate, meaning "shown," but have reworded to "defined by."
  • "This is also gilded ..." Starting a sentence with "This" always introduces an element of uncertainty about what the subject being referred to actually is.
  • Here, however, any confusion is tempered by the fact that the subject is the immediately preceding word, and that "skull" is the only singular noun in the preceding sentence.
  • What else would you think "this" refers to? it is little different than leading of a sentence with "it."
  • The writing seems a little stuttering in places, as in "The fragment was found on 1 May 2002 in Horncastle, a market town in Lincolnshire, England. It was found by a Mr D. Turner, who was searching with a metal detector. That would be better recast as a single flowing sentence.
  • I agree that that part is a bit choppy, although I wrote it that way because there are already so many parts in the first sentence that it was hard to find a flow. One suggestion is "The fragment was found on 1 May 2002 by a Mr. D. Turner, searching with a metal detector in Horncastle, a market town in Lincolnshire, England., but feel free to suggest others. In particular, I think where it was found is more important than who found it (especially when we only have an initial for his first name), and so would be inclined to place that later.

Eric Corbett 19:02, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the quick read through, Eric Corbett. Responses are above. Your comments feel quite minor, so the oppose is surprising. What is your reason for it? --Usernameunique (talk) 18:58, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
  • The FA criteria require that the article complies with the MoS, which it does not. Eric Corbett 19:05, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
  • That section is inapposite. The guideline means that "40-mm fragment" would be incorrect; it does not mean that "40 mm-long fragment" (or "40 mm (1.6 in)-long fragment") would be incorrect. At any rate, it is striking that your example of why you oppose this nomination is how a hyphen is used. --Usernameunique (talk) 17:09, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I gave you several other examples above that you have chosen to ignore. Eric Corbett 21:05, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

SN54129[edit]

  • On that, why "It was reported as..."? Surely that gets decided legally if in any doubt, and if not, then just "As found treasure..."?
  • The point I'm trying to emphasize is that the person who found it reported the find.
  • "Dated to"—is this a WP:ENGVAR thing perhaps? I'm thinking either "dating" from or to?
  • Changed to "dates from"
  • "now known as The Collection"—unnecessary detail I think.
  • Perhaps, but I'm trying to make clear that it being in The Collection despite having been bought by the City and County Museum does not reflect a change in ownership.
  • Convert 15 grand; into what is your choice.
  • Any idea of a good template? Tried using "To USD", but that one omits the comma (24000 instead of 24,000).
  • "fragment on display"—public display.
  • Done.
  • I wanted to suggest you link "semi-naturalistic"; but a search shows little of any direct use without getting on toast. The nearest—semi-realism—leads to something both bizarre and crap in equal parts.
  • "formed the terminal"—is this a speciaist term? If not, could we use "peak" or "tip" of a helmet?
  • Maybe not specialist, but widely used. I've changed the first mention to "crest terminal" to make it a little more clear, whereas "peak" or "tip" would make it seem as if it went on the top of the helmet, not near the nose.
  • Done.
  • "associating the boar with the gods"—"associating boars with the gods" would remove repetition.
  • Done.
  • Done.
  • "The elongated head features a prominent mane running down the middle and terminating in a blunt snout"—atm this could be read as saying that the mane ended in a snout; perhaps (assuming I'm reading you right) "The elongated head, which features a prominent mane running down its middle, terminates in a blunt snout".
  • Good point, reworded.
  • "On each side above the snout are more grooved and gilded lines representing the mouth, including pointed tusks"—this almost beats one of mine for complexity; can we adjust to (again, something like) "There are grooved and gilded lines above the snout on both sides; these are thought to represent the mouth, and including pointed tusks". That "more" has to go, though, and I can't think of a way of working the tusks in. Perhaps a separate sentence.
  • Reworded.
  • "Two small eyes are formed with lentoid cabochon garnets set in beaded gold filigree work with a double collar"—chuck in a couple of commas? It's rather breathless.
  • Done.
  • "This is also gilded, and repeats on either side the pattern of a crouching quadruped with three toes on front and back feet and head twisted backwards, its jaws biting across its body and back foot"—can this be split?
  • Done.
  • Any reason D. Turner is only an initial Turner?
  • Only his first initial was published; see discussion of this point in FunkMonk's review, above.
  • Ah, "subsequently declared treasure"—partially explains my query above; treasure trove.
  • "The City and County Museum, Lincoln—now known simply as The Collection"—clarify that it's the museum that's known as The Collection; atm it's ambiguous, and could imply that this single fragment is "the collection". A very small one :)
  • I think this one is probably clear enough as is—after all, if the name of the fragment was "The Collection," wouldn't that also be the title of the article?
  • Link the august bodies the MLA and V&A.
  • I'm sure the Massachusetts Lobstermen's Association will be proud!
  • "amidst a variety"—perhaps "alongside"?
  • Done.
  • Is AD necessary? MOS:ERA leaves it up to you.
  • I think it's needed in places, considering there is also discussion of the BC years, and because readers' can't necessarily be expected to know what was happening in the 7th century AD, as opposed to in the 7th century BC.
  • "the Sutton Hoo helmet...the Staffordshire helmet"—can you avoid the outbreak of helmets? You've managed it neatly in the following sentence.
  • Done.
  • "Hoo and perhaps York"—I ignored this in the lead, but here, it's begging for an explanation as to why it is only "perhaps" in the York helmet. Can the footnote be expanded a little to explain why the presence or otherwise of a boar is only a possibility?
  • I'll look around a bit more, but I don't recall there being much more discussion than what is in the article already. The main thing, as I understand it, is that the teeth do not look like boar teeth.
  • Done. That one's been on my to-do list for a while.
  • " linguistically Celtic communities"—if you're drawing a distinction with Celts, say so; but are you?
  • "The boar persisted in continental Germanic tradition during the nearly 400 years of Roman rule in Britain"—I can see what you're getting at, but it seems to be saying that something was happening in one country while something unconnected happened in another...perhaps give actual dates, following which you can fit in "during which time Britain was ruled, etc", if you think it necessary—bearing in mind you mention "Britain through 400 years of Roman rule" in the next sentence.
  • Is this not clarified by the following sentence, "Its return to prominence in the Anglo-Saxon period ... may therefore suggest the post-Roman reintroduction of a Germanic tradition from Europe, rather than the continuation of a tradition in Britain through 400 years of Roman rule"?
  • " the Anglo-Saxon boar appears to have been associated with protection; the Beowulf poet makes this clear"—well, if it makes it clear, then there's no need for "appears to" earlier; although I assume that what Beowulf says is at the interpretation of scholars, so perhaps something like " the Anglo-Saxon boar appears to have been associated with protection; the Beowulf suggests that...".
  • How about "the Beowulf poet says as much"? I come close to overusing "suggests" as it is.
  • Serial Number 54129, many thanks for that thorough review. I think I've responded to all of your points above, adopting most of them. I couldn't get that template to work, though—perhaps you could add it for me? Cheers, --Usernameunique (talk) 01:39, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Dank[edit]

  • If the lead text stays like it is, then I agree with Dudley that the article title isn't quite right. I'm bringing this up because changing the article title later on can cause headaches. (I believe the coords prefer that you wait until after the article is promoted or archived before you move the article page.) - Dank (push to talk) 18:02, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm a bit confused here. Are you suggesting renaming it now (because "changing the article title later on can cause headaches"), or after the end of this nomination (because "the coords prefer that you wait until after the article is promoted or archived before you move the article page")?
    • The lead says "attached it to a larger object, such as a helmet", so the lead is taking the position that we don't know that it was attached to a helmet. Assuming no further changes to the lead, then the article title should change, and the sooner the better ... but it will confuse the bots if it changes while a FAC is pending, so let's leave it alone until after the FAC. - Dank (push to talk) 03:09, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
  • FWIW, i think it's better to avoid "in)-long". - Dank (push to talk) 18:04, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Reworded to The fragment is 40 mm (1.6 in) long and made of silver., which should do the trick.
Thanks for the comments, Dank. Responses above. --Usernameunique (talk) 01:44, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Ceoil[edit]

Support on quality of research, and after minor ces; writing. A real pleasure to read, as always with this nominator. I realise I am posting after many unresolved prose reviews; this support is a culmination of those, plus bits and pieces since. Ceoil (talk) 03:01, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Support by Wehwalt[edit]

Support Not much to say. This FAC looks like a well-trodden path. I've made some minor edits.

  • "Garnet" why the cap?
  • I might conclude the lede by saying something directly about the fragment.
  • "The figure's head is twisted backwards, its jaws biting across its body and back foot, and has three toes on its front and back feet.[1][2]" Since technically the "its" in the final clause refers to "the figure's head" (heads don't have feet, mostly), I would start "The head of the figure ..."
Looks generally good. I suppose there will be more scholarship directly about the fragment with the passage of time.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:30, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Soultaker (film)[edit]

Nominator(s): GamerPro64 23:55, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Does anything really star Joe Estevez?

You like horror movies about the grim reaper chasing young adults after their souls get knocked out of their bodies from a car accident? Well I got an article for you. Presenting Soultaker, a 1990 movie starring Charlie Sheen's uncle and the films screenwriter as the female lead. What would have remained in obscurity if it wasn't selected as for mockery on the cult television series Mystery Science Theater 3000, this article presents a passion project based on a real near-death experience the screenwriter, Vivian Schilling, had in her life that became a 250k dollar project. And despite the negative reception it got, it still ended up winning a Saturn Award for Best Video Release.

And I believe I have scrounged up enough information about the movie to make it able to stand on its own as a Featured Article. GamerPro64 23:55, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Comments from JM[edit]

You drew me in with your opening line. Yes, I think I do like horror movies about the grim reaper chasing young adults after their souls get knocked out of their bodies from a car accident.

  • The plot section is a little on the long side for what (seems like?) a relatively simple film with a shortish article; it's currently at the upper limit recommended by WP:FILMPLOT
  • I think this article might benefit from a close copyedit by someone new to the text. The whole souls in and out of bodies stuff is tricky to follow, while the first paragraph of the production section is very choppy.
    • I already had a copyedit beforehand but I see if I can get someone else to do a new sweep. GamerPro64 00:58, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
  • "This was Schilling's fourth film she appeared in, as well as her first in a starring role." Messy
    • Cleaned it up. GamerPro64 00:58, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
  • The blockquote comes six sentences after the comment it expands on.
    • Wouldn't know where else to place it. GamerPro64 00:58, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Who was the first director?
    • Can't find any source of who was the original director. GamerPro64 00:58, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Is Terror Eyes worth a wikilink? Don't be scared of redlinks, if it's notable.
    • Wiki-linked. GamerPro64 00:58, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Final sentence of the "production" section feels tacked on.
    • Moved it as the second sentence of the paragraph. GamerPro64 00:58, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
  • "and its transformation into" What does it refer to, here?
    • It meant the movie. Changed the wording. GamerPro64 00:58, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
  • "comparing its portrayal of the afterlife to be more consistent than the film Ghost" Clumsy
  • "also called the film a "micro-budget variation on Ghost", criticizing the special effects and Michael Rissi's direction, but praising Vivian Schilling for her work" Why also?

Got to dash; I'll try to find time to come and look further! Please check my edits. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:14, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Could we perhaps have some more details of the novel? Was it released? When? Title? Publisher? Any reviews?
    • I think I was able to find the novel. It was her first book Sacred Prey. Found a Femme Fatales source that I can add. Will do so once I get some time to. GamerPro64 21:41, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
      • Re-reading the sources about the novel, Schilling said that the planned Soultaker sequel was adapted as her second book, which might have been Quietus. This interview from her sounds to be the case. GamerPro64 23:37, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Is Gorezone or Fangoria the magazine? Check the Barsky ref.
    • Gorezone is the magazine and it was published by Fangoria. GamerPro64 21:41, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
  • The Dare ref - could we have volume and issue information?
    • Didn't see it the first time but now I see it. Added. GamerPro64 21:41, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Is Action Figure Insider a reliable source?
    • Replaced it with IGN. GamerPro64 21:41, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Hope this is helpful. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:40, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Snooping around for more sources...

  • Mystery Science Theater 3000 Volume XIV, according to one article, includes "New interviews with Estevez and "Final Justice" writer-director Greydon Clark". Unless that's a different Esevez, it may contain some valuable material; is this something you've seen?
    • Unfortunately no. Tried looking for it online to no avail. And now that the boxset is out of print I cannot find the means to watch it. GamerPro64 20:42, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Kathleen Morgan reviewing the film in the Daily Record: "SOULTAKER (Ch5, 1.35am - 3.15am) Car crash couple hover in limbo - like the audience, really. Vapid supernatural hokum with Joe Estevez. 1990".
    • Morgan, Kathleen (8 May 1998). "Dressed to thrill as style police take off". Daily Record. p. 32.
      • You linked to a dab so I have no clue which Daily Record you are talking about. Also is that all the review is? GamerPro64 01:08, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
        • Sorry; the Scottish one. And yes, it's just a review alongside television listings. Don't feel you have to include it - indeed, it's hardly The Times - but included it as it's pretty much the most I found. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:12, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

And a few more reviews of the MST episode! Josh Milburn (talk) 19:27, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Made a paragraph to the reception to the episode. GamerPro64 02:22, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

@J Milburn: A copyedit was done for the article. If there are anymore issues to the article that I have missed or have not been brought up let me know. GamerPro64 16:15, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Still looking for more sources.

  • There is pretty extensive discussion of the film in Horror Films of the 1990s by John Kenneth Muir. This should definitely be incorporated!
  • There's a whole chapter about it in The Comic Galaxy of Mystery Science Theater 3000; this doesn't seem to be solely about MST3000. This, too, should be looked at!
  • It's mentioned in Nature of all places! I don't know if you could do much with it, but surprising!

I think there's probably potential for significant expansion yet. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:36, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

I added the John Kenneth Muir book as a source. Not sure about adding the other two, though the Nature source reminded me of this Wall Street Journal piece on MST3K that mentioned Soultaker but not positive the material mentioned is worth noting. GamerPro64 15:18, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
McFarland is a reputable publisher. I'd have thought the MST3000 book easily passes the bar for a reliable source (though perhaps not for outlandish claims). I'm left feeling there is probably more you can pull from the various sources used in the article and that have come up in this review, meaning I feel this falls a little short of the FA bar. A decent GA, for sure, but perhaps not at FA level right now. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:30, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
Pulled a bit more information from some of the sources. I could probably expand the Reception section more but not certain about any other section. GamerPro64 14:24, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Copyedit comments[edit]

This was a really enjoyable article to read: I may have to watch this movie now! For the most part, it didn't need too much copyediting, just a bit of polishing here and there. As always, if you feel that any edits compromise the accuracy of the article's information, feel free to make changes. That said, I have a few lingering points of confusion while copyediting that perhaps you can clarify, particularly since I am unfamiliar with the source text:

  • "Candice dies instantly while Natalie, Brad, Zack, and Tommy's souls leave their bodies." Is this because Natalie, Brad, Zack, and Tommy are comatose while Candice is dead?
    • Its because the car accident knocked their souls out of their bodies. Candice died in the crash with her soul still in her body. GamerPro64 20:04, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
  • "While investigating the car, the Soultaker reveals himself and claims Brad's soul; the others, helpless to stop him, flee." Does the group investigate the car, or does the Soultaker? Or both?
    • The Soultaker appears inside the car while they are looking at the crashed car. GamerPro64 20:04, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
  • "Michael Dare of Billboard directed praise towards the film in his review, calling it a "good looking, low-budget fantasy thriller", though he noted the cast's overacting and the movie's transformation into "several layers of advanced silliness".[14]" I'm a bit confused by the "transforming/transformation" part of this. Is it a criticism of the narrative (starts off serious and gets ridiculous) or is it the entire movie turning silly?
  • "A sequel was planned for the movie; it went through name changes from "Dark Angel" to "Dark World"." Was it just the name change from Dark Angel to Dark World, or were there more?
    • There was also mention of it being called "Soultaker II" in one article. GamerPro64 20:04, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
  • "However, the project fell through due to money issues." Anything more specific than this? Issues raising money, managing money, etc?
    • Re-reading the interview, Schilling said that the money fell through in the project. So I guess there was no more money going into the project. GamerPro64 23:26, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
  • "Erik Adams from The A.V. Club considered it one of the most essential episodes, opining that Joel Hodgson's appearance in the episode was a “stamp of approval” for the show after he left." After he left its production?
Best wishes, Rapunzel-bellflower (talk) 18:07, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for clarifying; I've now finished the copyedit. Best of luck, Rapunzel-bellflower (talk) 23:10, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for the copyedit. GamerPro64 02:53, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Support from Aoba47[edit]

I am always down for a horror movie. The article is in very good shape. I just have the following comments, and I will be more than happy to support once everything is addressed. I would also recommend looking through the sources suggested by Josh Milburn in his comments. I hope this helps out at least a little:

  • I would add ALT text to the infobox image, and make sure that any image used in the article has appropriate ALT text.
  • For this part (but the film was never made and Schilling turned its premise into a novel.), I would mention the year in which the novel was published, as I think that it is somewhat notable that it was published more than a decade after the film's release. The novel's name may be helpful as well, but I think the year would be beneficial to help the reader understand the chronology.
  • For this part (As well as writing the script for the film, Vivian Schilling), I do not think it is necessary to use Schilling's full name as it was used earlier in the same paragraph.
  • In the "Production" section, I would remove the wikilinks for the actors as they have already been linked in the "Plot" and "Cast" sections so it is somewhat overkill to me. Vivian Schilling in particular is linked twice in the "Production" section alone.
  • Would there be a way to combine these two sentences (Soultaker was written by Vivian Schilling. Inspiration for the film came in discussions between Schilling and Action International Pictures producer Eric Parkinson.)? Maybe something like (Soultaker was written by Vivian Schiller who was inspired by discussions with Action International Pictures producer Eric Parkinson) would work?
  • For this part (Her previous acting credits included Fred Olen Ray's Prison Ship), I would use a descriptor in front of Prison Ship to let the reader know that it is a film without having to click the wikilink.
  • Something about this part (Snake Eyes, which became part of the anthology movie Terror Eyes, which Eric Parkinson and Vivian Schilling were also involved with) reads awkwardly to me. I think it is the repetition of the "which" clauses. Maybe something like (Snake Eyes, a part of the anthology movie Terror Eyes which also involved Eric Parkinson and Vivian Schilling) would be better?
    • Re-worked that sentence. GamerPro64 01:16, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Would there be a way to avoid repeating "direct" twice in this sentence (Originally reluctant to direct, Rissi decided to join after being interested in directing a film involving parallel universes.)?
  • I would simplify this part (Schilling later wrote an article for the magazine about a scene not written by her but added by investors and the film crew) to (Schilling later wrote an article for the magazine about a scene added by investors and the film crew). The "not written by her" part is unnecessary in my opinion as "added by" already makes that clear.
  • Maybe there could be a way to combine these two sentences (Actor Joe Estevez starred as the titular "Soultaker". Originally he was asked to play the mayor, Grant McMillan.) into something like (Actor Joe Estevez was asked to play the mayor, Grant McMillan, before being cast as the titular "Soultaker".)?
  • I have a comment for this sentence (Vivian Schilling said the movie was successful in theaters but flopped in her hometown, Wichita, Kansas.). The word "flopped" seems too informal to me. Maybe something like "said the movie was successful in theaters except in her hometown, Wichita, Kansas" would be better?
  • TV Guide should be in italics.
  • I have a question about this sentence (Blockbuster Entertainment gave the film two stars, while VideoHound's Golden Movie Retriever by Jim Craddock gave it one and a half stars.). Did either reviewer provide more commentary beyond the score?
    • There were some commentary about the movie but I didn't think they were of much substance. They were pretty much one sentence reviews. GamerPro64 01:16, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Should the lead mention the positive reviews for the Mystery Science Theater 3000 episode?
    • There isn't a precedent behind that. Other MST3K movies like The Incredible Melting Man and Laserblast don't mention reviews. Back when Manos: The Hands of Fate was a Featured Article it didn't mention the reception to the episode in the lead. I think doing that would distract that the article is about the movie itself, not the MST3K episode. GamerPro64 01:16, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
      • That makes sense to me. It would give the episode a lot of weight that may border on undue. Aoba47 (talk) 15:46, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I am a little confused by the structure of the "Reception" section. The first paragraph focuses on the negative reviews, but the second paragraph jumps from a positive review to comparisons to Ghost. Would it be better to move the positive Billboard review with the sentence on the award to have a paragraph on its positive reception and then have the second paragraph focus on these Ghost comparisons instead?
    • Reworked the entire paragraph, movie sentences around and added the award sentence to the end. GamerPro64 01:16, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I would wikilink Netflix.
  • I have a comment about this part (the movie's transformation into "several layers of advanced silliness"). The quote from the source goes on to specify that these layers occur "when we meet the soultaker's boss, the Angel of Death". Shouldn't this be specified in the article?
    • Didn't think of that. Added it.

Again I hope this helps. I will have to check this film sometime soon. Aoba47 (talk) 20:23, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Thank you for addressing everything. If you have the time, I would greatly appreciate any comments for my current FAC. Either way, I support this for promotion. It was a very fun and interesting read. Aoba47 (talk) 02:14, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Sources review[edit]

  • Verifiability: No spotchecks carried out
  • Links
  • Refs 2 and 6: the links are returning an error message: "The page isn't redirecting properly". Please check these out – it may be a local or temporary problem
  • Worked fine for me. I added archive links to them just in case. GamerPro64 01:02, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  • All other links to sources are working properly
  • Formats
  • ref 14 has hyphen in page range
  • ref 18 is missing retrieval date
  • Quality and reliability: the sources seem appropriate and of the required standards of quality and reliability to satisfy the FA criteria. Brianboulton (talk) 18:36, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

French battleship Jauréguiberry[edit]

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk) and Parsecboy (talk) 20:31, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Jauréguiberry was one of five roughly similar battleships built in the early 1890s in response to a British naval expansion program. Constrained by fiscal and size limitations imposed by the French National Assembly, they were inferior to their British counterparts and had much longer building times. The ship was particularly accident prone over the course of her career with incidents of running aground, boiler and torpedo explosions. She played a minor role in World War I, although she did participate in the Gallipoli Campaign before becoming a guard ship in Egypt for the rest of the war. She was then used as an accommodation hulk before being scrapped in 1934. The article just passed a MilHist A-class review that included image and source reviews. While Parsecboy and I believe that it meets the FA criteria, we would like reviewers to look closely for any remnants of BritEng and unexplained or unlinked jargon.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:31, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Support from PM[edit]

I just looked over this article at Milhist ACR, and consider it meets the Featured criteria. One thing though, the Foreign Periodicals Data Service newsletter has an OCLC which should be added, 41554533. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:16, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Damn librarians, cataloging anything and everything ;-) --Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:27, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:French_battleship_Jaureguiberry_NH_88826_.jpg: the current template used is for article text, not images
    • Fixed
  • File:Jaureguiberry_1915_AWM_J06004.jpeg: why would this have been Crown copyright? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:43, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
    • Good question - corrected the template. Thanks Nikki. Parsecboy (talk) 15:45, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
      • As per the new tag, any information on first publication? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:15, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

CommentSupport by CPA-5[edit]

  • scrapping on 23 June 1934 for the price of 1,147,000 F Maybe link franks?
  • @Sturmvogel 66: Yes of course. it's a great article and I don't see anything else. Well I guess you wanted something and you'll get it from me. ;) Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 15:31, 17 May 2019 (UTC) Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 15:31, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Sources review[edit]

The sources all appear to meet the appropriate standards of quality and reliability as required by the FA criteria, and are uniformly and consistently presented. Brianboulton (talk) 18:14, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

1969 Curaçao uprising[edit]

Nominator(s): Carabinieri (talk) 00:31, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

This was a major event in the history of a small country. The article reflects all significant scholarship on the topic and I'd be interested in getting some feedback. Carabinieri (talk) 00:31, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Image review

  • Suggest adding alt text
  • File:Curacao-CIA_WFB_Map.png: source link is dead
  • File:Dutch_soldier,_1969_Curaçao_uprising.png is tagged as lacking author info. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:19, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
Hi User:Nikkimaria, thanks for your comments. I believe I've addressed them:
  • I've done the best I could, but I'm still a little unclear on the difference between alt texts and captions.
  • I've added an updated link. Does the fact that this map appeared in the CIA Factbook make it public domain?

Sources review[edit]

  • The sources all seem to be scholarly and appropriate. However, there is a serious concern about the method of referencing, which is organised in a way that makes verification nearly impossible. Typically, each fact-packed paragraph is given a single citation, which appears at its end; this citation generally consists of multiple works and page references, with no guidance as to what refers to what. The referencing needs to be reorganised, so that individual statements and, in particular, direct quotations can be traced to a specific source.
  • The language of the source, if other than English, should be stated – see refs 28, 30, 31, 34.
  • It is standard practice for FA bibliographies to include ISBN details, unless there is a specific reason for omission. Brianboulton (talk) 21:52, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for your review, Brian. As a reader, I find having a footnote after every sentence very distracting. That's why I generally don't use as many, but I'll increase the footnote density to make it clearer which source covers which claim. As to your other two points, they're not really standard practice outside of Wikipedia and I've never really understood why we do it here. But if you think it's important I'll implement them.--Carabinieri (talk) 00:10, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
It's a minor point, but it's probably best to follow Wikipedia's standard practices when working on Wikipedia. Brianboulton (talk) 12:26, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
User:Brianboulton, I believed I've addressed all the issues you've raised.--Carabinieri (talk) 06:24, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
Oh and by the way, I can send you PDFs of most of the sources, if you want to check anything.--Carabinieri (talk) 18:24, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

FunkMonk[edit]

  • I know nothing about this topic, but it looks interesting, so while I would usually wait for someone else to comment, I'll have a look soon so it won't get archived just yet. FunkMonk (talk) 16:38, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
  • " which is a country (Dutch: land) within the Kingdom of the Netherlands" and "seat of government of the country Netherlands Antilles" kind of confuses me. So it is a country, but also part of another country, both within the kingdom of the Netherlands?
  • "while the former spoke Papiamentu" You could explain in parenthesis what kind of language this is.
  • "The Dutch colonization of Curaçao began with the importation of slaves" Slaves from where?
  • "rhetoric as Black Power and civil rights movements" Link those. I see then former is linked further down, but should be at first mention.
  • "many Antilleans traveled abroad, including a number who studied abroad" The double abroad looks repetitive.
  • "The uprising would parallel anti-colonial, anti-capitalist, and anti-racist movements" Link these terms.
  • "When Vitó started being published in Papiamentu rather than Dutch in 1967" How long had it been published until then?
  • "In many ways, black Curaçaoans' situation" Reads a bit awkwardly, "the situation of black Curaçaoans" maybe?
  • "Although a progressive priest" Seems a bit disjointed if you don't mention his name or nationality.
  • "was about read a declaration" Missing to?
  • You can choose a more exciting thumb still for the video if you use the thumb time parameter, see for example the videos under description in the passenger pigeon article.
  • "and guard banks and other key buildings" Guarded?

South Park: The Fractured but Whole[edit]

Nominator(s): Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 20:06, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

One of the only times FAC will stand for F******g Awesome Content dude, we have the South Park: The Fractured but Whole article. Comprehensive, well sourced, and open for review. Thanks. Pinging previous reviewers Laser_brain, TheJoebro64, Lee Vilenski, Aoba47, Zwerg Nase Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 20:06, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Support - read through it and the prose was good enough for me to just slip into "read-only/consumer" mode without thinking about it, which is a Good Sign. I can't exclude some minor issues but overall I think this passes on comprehnensiveness and prose Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:55, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Comment: the sound file exceeds the maximum length recommendation set out by WP:SAMPLE. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:37, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Done.Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 17:30, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. Meant to do this earlier (as I reviewed at the previous FAC), but I have glanced over the article again and find nothing to nitpick. JOEBRO64 19:09, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
Comment/support from Aoba47
  • I noticed a few instances where the references are not in numeric order (primarily in the “Gameplay” section). I would read through the article to catch these parts .

This is the only point that I have noticed and since it is rather minor, I still support this from my review during the previous FAC. Aoba47 (talk) 16:17, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback Aoba47, I went through and rectified these reference issues anyway, thank you for your support. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 20:06, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Of course. Hopefully, things go well for the FAC this time around. Congrats on all of the work you put into the article. Aoba47 (talk) 20:37, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
Comments from Laser brain
  • @Darkwarriorblake: Sorry I'm so late in getting around to this. Can you recap for me what you did to address my comments from the previous nomination? --Laser brain (talk) 12:43, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
Hi Laser_brain, I went through and tried to find the quoted material and either added quotes or just outright removed stuff that wasn't essential.Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 19:42, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Almost There (album)[edit]

Nominator(s): Toa Nidhiki05 02:19, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I feel it meets the FAC criteria and represents an interesting and notable topic - one of the best-selling Christian albums of all time with over 3 million copies sold in the United States, notable for spawning "I Can Only Imagine", the best-selling Christian single of all time (also with over 3 million copies sold) with one of the more unusual chart runs in recent memory and the rare feat of having a Hollywood film based off of it.

For those unfamiliar with this album, it was released in 2001 as the first major-label work by the band MercyMe. After six independent albums (released from 1994 to 2000), the band signed with INO records and produced this record. The songs are a mix of new songs as well as songs from their previous indie albums. The album received positive review, and it achieved strong sales after its second single "I Can Only Imagine" became a number-one hit on Christian radio. The album remained on the Christian charts for two years before "I Can Only Imagine" became an unlikely mainstream hit in 2003, leading the album's sales to their peak; the album peaked at number one on the Christian Albums chart in 2003 after over 100 weeks on the chart. The album eventually reached double-platinum status, a feat only a few Christian albums have ever achieved, and ranked as the fourth-best selling Christian album of the 2000s. The album finally reached triple-platinum status in 2018 following the release of a major motion picture based on "I Can Only Imagine" (which became a sleeper hit at the box office), which also resulted in the song having a second number-one run on the Christian charts. To this date, it's the band's best-selling album. Toa Nidhiki05 02:19, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

I’ve removed that section for now, although I have seen other FA album articles with similar sections. Toa Nidhiki05 13:57, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
No problem; it might be better to leave it in and see what other reviewers say. I don't mind being corrected :) ——SerialNumber54129 14:18, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Support from Lirim.Z
  • The lead needs references
  • Where does it need them? References generally aren’t needed in the lede if the content is cited in the article. Toa Nidhiki05 02:13, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
  • No need to write IMO Records twice in the lead.
  • The album is a worship and pop rock album The album has been described as a worship and...
  • Almost There was recorded at Ivy Park, The Indigo Room, Paradise Sound, and IBC Studios Where are these studios? US? — Mention the country
  • Not sure. The album liner notes don’t mention. Toa Nidhiki05 02:13, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
  • "I Can Only Imagine" is a ballad,[13][20] opening with just piano "I Can Only Imagine" is a ballad, opening with just a piano
  • chart on March 31 2018 chart on March 31, 2018
    Done. Toa Nidhiki05 02:13, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
  • and a sincerity sure to hold other artists wishing to dive into the genre accountable and a sincerity sure to hold other artists wishing to dive into the genre accountable. (Full stop)
    Done. Toa Nidhiki05 02:13, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
  • The structure of this article is quite weird for me; the Release and promotion section only contains content about the Commercial performance of the record and the singles. A promotion section should normally contain information about live performances, special releases etc. I know that singles can be included too, but this section ist way more Commercial performance than promotion. I would personally rename this section to commercial performance.
    Changed it to “Release and commercial performance” since it does cover the release and strategy, if that works. Toa Nidhiki05 18:02, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Billboard needs to in italics, since it's a magazine. use |work= for the refs
    Done. Toa Nidhiki05 18:04, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Lirim | Talk 20:18, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Refs: 6, 7, 8, 10, 24, 29 — Millard, Bart; [[Bart Millard|Millard, Bart]]
    Done. Removed overlooks as well. Toa Nidhiki05 00:20, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Ref 35: Replace the hyphen with an en-dash (–)
    Done. Toa Nidhiki05 00:20, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Ref 36: |via=Highbeam Research; |url-access=subscription
    Done. Toa Nidhiki05 00:20, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Ref 53: This ref should be archived, since the website is unavailable in the European Union. Seems good otherwise.
    Done. Toa Nidhiki05 00:20, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Ref 56: remove the unnecessary capitalization MOS:CAPS
    Done. Toa Nidhiki05 00:20, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Are they maybe any other pictures that could be included?--Lirim | Talk 19:49, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
    I've added another picture. If you have any time, User:Lirim.Z, I'd really appreciate if you gave it one last look and see if there's anything else left to deal with. Toa Nidhiki05 23:54, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
Lirim | Talk 23:55, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Media review

  • File:Mercyme_almostthere.jpg needs a more extensive FUR. Same with MercyMe_House_of_God.ogg. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:50, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
    I've made what I consider to be substantial improvements to both. Toa Nidhiki05 00:01, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
  • The first of these is now fine. However, the FUR for the two clips is now almost identical, which makes it difficult to justify both - one or ideally both of these should be edited to clarify what unique benefit each provides. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:19, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
    I've tried to elaborate more specifically on House of God (explaining it is used to show the song's style structure) as well as I Can Only Imagine (similar reasons but also the essential nature of the song to the album). I'm firmly in the camp that most articles should have at least two song samples to provide diversity. Toa Nidhiki05 01:16, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
    I've provided a different explanation for "House Of God". Is it sufficiently different now? Toa Nidhiki05 00:33, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
    Definitely better, thank you. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:36, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
Comments from Aoba47
  • The lead’s second paragraph seems pretty sizable, and I am wondering if there is a way to split it into two paragraphs to help with readability. This is not a required part of the review, but I just wanted to let you know as it was one of the first things that I noticed when I opened the article. I am terrible at writing leads though so you could wait for further feedback from other editors/reviewers if you would prefer.
    Good catch. I checked WP:LEDE and the article has enough characters to warrant a third paragraph. I've split critical reception and honors into the second paragraph. Toa Nidhiki05 00:30, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
  • For this part (The album has been described as a worship and pop rock album), I would clarify who is describing the album this way. Is critics? The band itself? Kipley? The label? Right now, it is a little too vague. The same part applies to the rest of the sentence. Who is saying that this album “adopts a more radio-friendly sound than the band's independent albums”.
    Done. Toa Nidhiki05 00:30, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Remember to link the band the first time you mention them in the body of the article (i.e. MercyMe was formed in 1994 by vocalist Bart Millard, guitarist Mike Scheuchzer, and keyboardist Jim Bryson.).
  • I personally do not see the value in having references for the singles’ release dates in the infobox as all of that information should be located and cited in the body of the article.
  • I see what you mean here. I've moved those references into the main body. Toa Nidhiki05 00:30, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
  • For this part (In October 1999, the band released their fifth independent album, The Worship Project.), I would use “they” instead of “the band” to avoid repetition with the previous sentence.
  • Something about this sentence (All of the songs of the album were written by Millard or the band except "I Worship You", which was written by Kipley and Reggie Hamm.) reads a little awkwardly to me, probably due to the passive tense in the beginning. Maybe something like: Millard and MercyMe wrote a majority of the songs for the album except "I Worship You", which was written by Kipley and Reggie Hamm.) would be a better alternative? I would also avoid saying “all” when it is not the case as qualified later in the sentence.
  • I would include the year that The Prayer of Jabez was first published.
  • Do you have any further information for this sentence (The band did not want to record the song, but eventually acquiesced.), specifically why they did not want the song and why they eventually agreed to do it? It seems like their first instincts were correct given that it was not commercially successful.
  • At least from that source, there's no actual indication of why. It is implied from the writer of that piece that they didn't want to write it because it was a cash grab ("The band wrote the song at the urging of their record label, in an attempt to cash in on the popularity of Bruce Wilkinson’s best-selling book “The Prayer of Jabez.”), but all Millard did was say that they did repeatedly refused to do it, eventually caved and did it, and hated the result. Toa Nidhiki05 00:30, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
  • For this part (Salvo mixed all the songs on the album at Cool Springs Studio with the exception of "In You”), I would use “a majority of the songs” rather than “all” to avoid misleading the reader until the second half of the sentence.
  • For this part (Similarities were noted between the "guitar nuances" of Scheuchzer and U2's guitarist The Edge.), clarify who noted these similarities.
  • For this part (The album's first song, "I Worship You" was described as "falling somewhere between adult contemporary and rock", and utilizes acoustic guitars and synthesizers.), clarify who described the song this way.
  • For this sentence ("How Great Is Your Love" was announced as the album's third single in an interview with Billboard magazine on February 12, 2002.), link Billboard.
  • The Bless Me Indeed (Jabez's Song) article includes an interview where Millard said it was “one of the worst songs we’ve ever done”. Would that be helpful in this article?
  • I think this is already included in the article as source 11. Toa Nidhiki05 00:30, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Otherwise, you have done excellent work with the article as a whole. Once my comments are addressed, I will read through the article again and most likely support this for promotion. Have a great rest of your weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 02:23, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Wonderful work! I support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 04:09, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Coordinator notes[edit]

@Toa Nidhiki05: Solid progress here but this will need to be archived shortly if it doesn't attract some more review and support for promotion. Just a heads-up in case you want to try to ping some reviewers. --Laser brain (talk) 12:24, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks User:Laser brain, gonna ping some Wikiprojects. Do you know any other good places to look? This is so close imo and I’d hate to have to wait and go through this again. Toa Nidhiki05 13:03, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Comments from BLZ[edit]

I saw the notice up at WikiProject Albums. At first blush, this looks reasonably close to FA status. I'm going to make direct copyedits to the article; if you disagree with any of my changes or believe I've misinterpreted something, please feel free to bring them up here and we can decide what's best. I'll bring up more substantive comments here. —BLZ · talk 19:36, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Sounds good, thanks in advance for giving this a look! Toa Nidhiki05 19:37, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
No problem! I've also just realized, to my surprise, I'm actually familiar with this band's music. I remember "I Can Only Imagine", which I probably heard via friends at some point in my childhood. I live in California now, but I spent most of my childhood in the South. —BLZ · talk 20:39, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, it’s their biggest hit by far (which is saying something - they’ve had like 15 #1 Christian singles since as well as a handful of other mainstream hits). It was kind of all of the place on AC radio in 2003, especially in the south - started in Dallas and then spread out to Atlanta and other big cities there. One of the strangest hit singles ever imo given how religious it is. They actually just made a movie about the song last year that brought it back into the mainstream again (top 10 on the overall Billboard digital songs chart), so it’s had like three distinct chart runs which is just insane. Toa Nidhiki05 21:58, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
Lead
  • "the first major-label studio album" — I'm a little confused about the "major" and "independent" terminology used throughout. The six albums prior to Almost There are labeled "independent"—which implies that they were signed to an independent record label—while Almost There is labeled a "major-label" release. But in fact, the band was not signed to any label prior to Almost There, and their first six albums seem to have been self-distributed. While in some sense they could be considered "independent" (i.e. not under contract to any label), musicians on this tier of record distribution are usually described as "unsigned" rather than "independent".
Meanwhile, INO Records does not seem to have been a major label or a subsidiary thereof when the album was released. "Major label" is a term of art in the music industry. It refers to one of a handful of major, international conglomerates (see Record_label#Major_labels). In 2001, the majors were Warner, EMI, Universal, BMG, and Sony Music—plus any of their respective subsidiaries. INO Records redirects to Fair Trade Services, which is the label's current name; that article says the label (under its new name) is currently distributed by Sony Music—making it a subsidiary of a major label as of this moment. But prior to 2011, it looks like records on INO were distributed by Integrity Music, which was not owned by one of the majors.
The term "major label" only appears in the lead section, not in the body. One of the sources (an audio interview from a deluxe edition of the album) is used to say that the producer said Almost There was "his first major project"—although that's not a direct quote, and the interviewee is not the producer himself. Either way, presuming the word "major" was used in the interview, it seems like the word was used in a general sense (as a synonym for "significant"), not in its industry-specific meaning ("distributed by one of a handful of conglomerates"). Unless I'm missing something, I think what's happened here is that the description of the album as a "major project", and the fact that the band was signed to any label for the very first time, is being conflated with "a major-label album".
Am I missing something? To be clear, I think you're making a useful distinction between the band's early, unsigned career and their career after being signed. It's conceptually similar to the distinction between a "mixtape" and an official "album". Based on what I've seen so far, I would probably refer to the earlier albums as "self-distributed" for clarity, and I would remove the "major label" description. —BLZ · talk 20:39, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
No, everything you said makes sense. I was trying to distinguish between the albums they made unsigned in a garage (which have been referred to as independent, but unsigned is just as accurate) with the ones they’ve made since. Their first six albums were indeed self-produced and distributed. INO did collaborate with major records. That absolutely makes since. It seems the context of “independent” that has been referenced by articles is that the music was made independent of the Christian industry, not that they were signed to an independent record label. Christian music is kind of its own little world so it makes sense the terms might not translate entirely accurately. Thanks for clearing this up.
So yeah, I’ll go ahead and make those two changes (removing “major” and referring to them as unsigned). This should probably be done on the I Can Only Imagine (MercyMe song), The Worship Project, and MercyMe discography articles as well, but that’s a separate deal I’ll handle.
EDIT: Made the changes. I’ve used the terms “unsigned” and “self-released” to avoid overusing the same term (sometimes “independent” was used multiple times in the same sentence, and “unsigned” didn’t feel as good to overused imo). Toa Nidhiki05 21:58, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

1927 Chicago mayoral election[edit]

Nominator(s): John M Wolfson (talk) 23:23, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

This article is about the last time a Republican candidate won a Chicago mayoral election. William Hale Thompson defeated unpopular prohibition-enforcing mayor Dever with a campaign supported by Al Capone and going off on such tangents as King George across the pond. His victory resulted in Chicago's disgrace across the country, and he would lose 4 years later to Anton Cermak due to the Depression. (This is my second FAC overall after an unsuccessful FAC of this article two weeks ago. I'd like to thank User:Coemgenus for reviewing this article in the interim and User:Factotem for introducing me to the Bibliography conventions of FA's. I'd also like to thank User:SecretName101 for his/her contributions to this article, including most of the images.) -John M Wolfson (talk) 23:23, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Support. I reviewed this at peer review and found it to meet the FA standards. There has been significant improvement since the last FAC, and this article is worthy of promotion. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:50, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Image review

  • Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods
Done
  • Suggest adding alt text
Will do when I get to a computer later tonight. Done. Feel free to correct it if needed.
  • File:William_Emmett_Dever_1923_headshot_(1).jpg: when/where was this first published? Same with File:Dr._John_Dill_Robertson_May_4,_1915_(1).jpg, File:William_hale_thompson.jpg
Those are crops from images in the Commons that I'll look at when I get to my computer later tonight. EDIT: I'm confused with what exactly you want, User:Nikkimaria. Unless I am mistaken I think the parameters you're looking for are already on the Commons pages. For the Dever and Robertson headshots I put the relevant parameters in the "Source" area of the description in Commons, but the Thompson photo already had that in the source department. This is my first experience with such things, so please do enlighten me in that regard.
These images all have a licensing tag indicating pre-1924 publication. However, while I agree all were taken before 1924, all are cited to archives rather than to contemporary publications. This is a problem because it's quite possible for archival images not to have been published contemporaneously, which would make those licensing tags incorrect. We need either to demonstrate that they were actually published before 1924, or to find some other applicable tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:33, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
Duly noted, will search. -John M Wolfson (talk) 03:44, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
I have replaced the Robertson and Dever images with newspaper clippings from 1915 and 1923, respectively. I have removed the unsure-license Thompson photo for now. Unfortunately the photos that were replaced are in the Chicago Daily News archives, whose paper archives I can't seem to access via newspapers.com like the Tribune. Perhaps someone else can help search through non-newspaper archives like books, but I hope this works for now. (EDIT: Perhaps User:Adam Cuerden can help with the Dever image. In any event I'm really tired and about to go to bed, see you tomorrow. EDIT EDIT: Looking through the websites it's quite plausible based on their rights statements that the images are NOT free. Given the replacement of the images I believe that all of Nikkimaria's concerns have been actioned on with regards to this article, but feel free to correct me and/or add more if you feel otherwise.) -John M Wolfson (talk) 04:27, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
  • File:Chicago_1927_mayor_by_ward.png needs a source for the data presented. Same with File:Chicago_1927_mayor_democrat_by_ward.png, File:Chicago_1927_mayor_republican_by_ward.png.
Those were from the aperture cards and news sources cited in their respective captions (except for the general results, which are cited at the ward table per INFOBOXCITE). I can add those citations to the appropriate Commons pages later tonight. Done on Commons pages. Let me know if anything else is needed in that regard.

Nikkimaria (talk) 15:37, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Support Comments by Ian[edit]

Recusing from coord duties, I heard of Thompson when reading about Al Capone as a kid; if I remember rightly he summed up his contempt of Prohibition with the claim "I'm wetter than the middle of the Atlantic Ocean"...

  • Having read through and copyedited the first half of the article, I think the prose needs work but perhaps not so much that it couldn't be improved within a reasonable timeframe at FAC.
  • I'll therefore oppose for now but with a further copyedit (by me when I have time, or someone else) I could see myself withdrawing that.

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:11, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. I'll see what I can do with copyediting but perhaps someone else might be better for the purpose. (EDIT: As in being a fresh pair of eyes, not an attempt to shirk nominator duties. In any event I have done some c/e of the remaining part of the article.) -John M Wolfson (talk) 12:06, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
Ian Rose, I have copyedited the article. In particular I focused on consolidating paragraphs and sentences (and for the primary elections entire sections) and rearranging content a bit, especially in regards to the general election and aftermath. I'm not sure whether the results will be to your entire satisfaction, but I hope that it's at least a start. -John M Wolfson (talk) 05:00, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Tks, I'll try to look at the rest of the article in the next few days. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:21, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Returning...

  • Not sure why my tweak to the lead made further comments on international affairs, directed against the United Kingdom in particular was essentially reversed as I still think it reads better to what's there now (a one-letter typo on my part notwithstanding)...
    • I thought the new text flowed better, feel free to revert it if you disagree.
      • Okay, tweaked. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:42, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Dever was endorsed by such prominent reformers as Charles Edward Merriam, Harriet Vittum, Harold L. Ickes, and Jane Addams, who campaigned for "decency" on his behalf -- was it Addams who campaigned for decency or all of them?
    • All of them, I have clarified to that effect I believe.
  • That's about it re. prose I think... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:07, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
    • Thanks again for your comments, this has been a really fulfilling experience. John M Wolfson (talk) 05:16, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
      • I hope it has, and sorry it's been drawn out -- given the above, and what I gather are completed image and source reviews, I'm ready to support now. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:42, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Sources review[edit]

  • Spotchecks: I have carried out a sample of spotchecks for verification purposes. There are a few minor issues:
  • Ref Books 8, p. 30: ARTICLE: "Known as "Big Bill", he was a charismatic character in Chicago politics." SOURCE: The word "charismatic" does not appear, nor does the description of Thompson support this characterization.
Having not found a better statement elsewhere in Schottenhamel, I have removed the sentence.
  • Ref Books 12, p. 33: ARTICLE: "He also had many enemies from his previous tenure in office including the Chicago Tribune and the Chicago Daily News," SOURCE: I'm not so sure that "many enemies" is justified, since the source only mentions the two newspapers, in connection with the 1915 election.
I have weakened the sentence.
  • Ref Books 29, pp. 43–44: ARTICLE: "Some Democrats criticized Thompson's positive relation with the city's African-American community". SOURCE: OK, but rather misses the main point, which was the crude attempt by some Democrats to divide the electorate on racial lines. I recommend you strengthen this somewhat.
I have strengthened the sentence.
  • Links: all links to online sources are working
  • Formats
  • Page ranges need ndashes, not hyphens
Done
  • The newspaper references are all via a subscription service, so the (subscription required) template should be used
Done via template parameters
  • In the Bibliography, the Bright book lacks publisher information
As said before, I couldn't find it when I looked at the book at the library, but I can check again when I get back.
  • Quality and reliability. The sources used appear to meet the FA criteria for quality and reliability

One further general point. Although the subdivision of sources between Books, Newspapers, Web etc is helpful in some respects, I found the notation in the text very distracting, especially when double or triple references are used. It is possible that your general reviewers may wish to comment on this readability aspect. Brianboulton (talk) 18:43, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

I'll wait for further consensus before doing anything about this, but thanks for bringing it to my attention.
Thank you for your comments, I'll address them when I get home. I couldn't find publisher info on the Bright book looking at it, but I can look again now that I'll be back from vacation. John M Wolfson (talk) 19:46, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
WorldCat gives the publisher as Jonathan Cape & Harrison Smith, New York, 1930. It also provides a OCLC number: 557783528. Brianboulton (talk) 22:33, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
The site of the Chicago Public Library, where I got the book, says New York, J. Cape and H. Smith, but not the full names or OCLC number. If it's okay with you I'll just put that lower amount of information. (If it matters, I can use the info you've posted.) John M Wolfson (talk) 03:33, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
The WorldCat info is reliable, o i suggest you use all of it. Brianboulton (talk) 12:23, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
In that case done, which I believe addresses all of your concerns unless you have any others. Again, thank you for your help! -John M Wolfson (talk) 14:36, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Misc. comments by nominator

I'll be leaving for vacation tomorrow and for a week afterwards I won't have access to offline sources, so I won't be able to effectively respond to comments on them. I will still have internet access, however, so online sources and comments dealing with solely online matters will not be affected. -John M Wolfson (talk) 20:46, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

I'd greatly like for this to be promoted by the 28th for WikiCup purposes if not an imposition. Even if that's not reasonable, however, I'd still be okay with pursuing this FAC to its conclusion, whatever it may be. Thanks! John M Wolfson (talk) 03:35, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

@John M Wolfson: That seems unlikely at this point given it's the 22nd and we have minimal support for promotion and open issues. --Laser brain (talk) 00:05, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Thank you, although the issues raised above (other than that of Ian Rose) have been dealt with if I am not mistaken. John M Wolfson (talk) 00:17, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

@Brianboulton:, I've shortened the ref group names to single letters, I was just wondering if you think that would be a good compromise or that more conversation should happen with it. @Ian Rose:, I was just wondering if you had gotten the chance to review the article after my copyediting. Thank you both for your help! John M Wolfson (talk) 18:42, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

After looking through the recent TFA's for guidance I have decided to remove the ref groups and consolidate the reflists into one. Feel free to let me know if you disagree with that decision. Thanks! John M Wolfson (talk) 20:11, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

I have posted notices of this FAC to the talk pages of WikiProject Chicago and WikiProject Elections and referendums in an effort to get more feedback, I hope that isn't an issue. (I have read WP:CANVAS and I do not believe such notices constitute canvassing.) – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 01:09, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

@John M Wolfson: Any luck? This has been open for quite a long time (and is at the bottom of the queue) and will need to be archived soon if it doesn't attract some more feedback. We have a good amount now, but FAC really requires a substantial amount of review and support for promotion before an article can become featured. --Laser brain (talk) 12:20, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
@Laser brain: Not yet, unfortunately, although the two users below give some hope. If the worst does happen will I be able to waive the two-week waiting period and renominate this article sooner? – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 17:23, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
I've been meaning to review the article. It may take me another day or two. --Carabinieri (talk) 14:14, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
I've solicited another experienced editor to review this, too. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:15, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt[edit]

The prose is a bit rough in the lede but pretty good elsewhere and I'm not making an issue of it.
  • I don't see the point of mentioning the other elections in the first sentence. That seems relatively insignificant to put in your first sentence.
    Done
  • " his approval rating." did they have such things?
    Probably not as a number, but his approval did fall qualitatively. Fixed as such
  • "Former mayor Thompson took advantage of this and entered the race, as did Robertson." is the reader whose off if this is omitted?
    Reworded
  • "directly particularly" That phrase is new to me.
    Reworded
  • "Thompson was supported and funded by notorious mobster Al Capone, and the campaign involved much demagoguery on his part." I imagine "his" refers to Thompson but it could arguably be Capone. You might want to mention if this was public support, it might help to set up your damaging the reputation bit at the end of the lede.
    Reworded
  • Somewhere early in the first paragraph of "Background" you might mention he's a Democrat.
    Done
  • Nowhere in "Background" do you mention that the election at which all these people are to run is in 1927. You could possibly figure it out but you shouldn't have to.
    Done
  • I would cut "in the interim" and earlier in the sentence put a "had" before "managed".
    Done
  • "Lundin later had Robertson withdraw from the Republican primary in order to support Edward R. Litsinger, " I might replace "to support" with "not to split the vote with" or similar. It's unclear who Litsinger is at this point. You introduce him on second mention, which is a bit odd.
    He would campaign for Litsinger, which I've modified to show
  • After Brundage's name, the references are in reverse order; unsure if this is an accident.
    Fixed
  • "to investigate causes and potential remedies of recent tax increases" Not sure what this means.
    Reworded to clarify
  • "admitted on the ballot" I might say "allowed on the ballot"
    Done
  • I don't see the point of the redlinks Galpins, Ellers.
    Potential future articles, but not particularly likely at the moment.
  • "Robertson retaliated, asking his audience "Who killed Billy McSwiggin, and why?"[36] and accusing Thompson of corruption by "flocking with the Crowes, Galpins, Ellers, and birds of like feather[.]"[36] Litsinger reiterated such accusations ..." What this is saying is that Litsinger repeated allegations against himself. Suggest "Litsinger replied in kind ..."
    The accusations were against Thompson, which I've made clearer.
  • In the third sentence of "Campaign", you use the word "conspiracy" twice. I would avoid the second usage.
    Done
  • "Thompson based these claims on McAndrew allowing his allies to promote historic texts which Thompson believed were unpatriotic" what does this mean?
    It means that McAndrew allowed textbooks that Thompson considered unpatriotic to be used in the school system. I have reworded it as such.
  • "He attempted, particularly early in the race, to tout parts of his record such as his construction of Wacker Drive and 51 new schools and a pure milk ordinance he had passed.[26]" I think this needs a comma after schools.
    Reworded
  • "Attorney Orville James Taylor.[50]" why is attorney capped?
    Fixed
  • I'm not sure that "socialite" is the first description of Potter Paper that comes to mind, though he certainly was. Builder?
    Done
  • "Thompson won the election with the absolute majority of votes cast," I would just give the percentage unless there is some reason not to.
    Done
  • "ultimately failing to properly promote Dever's own message.[48]" I might say "fully" rather than "properly". I'm sure they did their best.
    Done
  • Suggest consistency among the hyphenations between the nationalities and "American" in second paragraph of "Result"
    Done
  • Refs out of order on the Will Rogers quote.
    Fixed
  • It strikes me that the final two sentences of the article could be combined.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:46, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
    Done. Thank you for your comments. – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 21:25, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Comments from Factotem[edit]

Lead

  • "It remains as of 2019 the last Chicago mayoral election won by a Republican as well as and the last such election not won by a Democrat.";
  • "Thompson engaged in much demagoguery during his campaign...";
  • "Thompson won the election, which damaged Chicago's reputation nationally." -> "Thompson's victory damaged Chicago's reputation nationally."

Background

  • "...he and businessman Julius Rosenwald ultimately convinced Dever to run for reelection."
  • "...Thompson, who was mayor for two terms from 1915 to 1923, took advantage of the situation and ran for a third term..." Tripped on "third term" as it is not obvious that being mayor from 1915 to 1923 involved two terms (which I assume to be the case);
  • "He also had such enemies from his previous tenure, such as the Chicago Tribune and the Chicago Daily News,[14] and had started to wear out his welcome with such former allies, such as party boss Frederick Lundin."

Democratic primary

  • Dever faced no genuine opposition from within his party,[28] winning all the wards and securing the citywide vote by more than 10 to 1. There's a confusing leap in the narrative here. Suggest moving the statement about winning to:
  • "Although he overwhelmingly defeated his token opponent, winning all the wards and securing the citywide vote by more than 10 to 1, Dever's vote total in the Democratic primary was less than the margin of victory Thompson had secured in the Republican primary."
  • "The 27th ward attorney Martin Walsh filed on February 2..." to avoid beginning a sentence with a number;

Republican primary

  • "After Thompson's victory partisans of Robertson claimed that Democratic voters for Thompson were what had propelled him to the Republican nomination;" And suggest a comma after "victory";
  • "...nomination;[28] similarly, Democratic leaders insisted that many of Thompson's voters..." Think a full stop rather than semi-colon is called for after "nomination".

Campaign

  • "...set the groundwork for the United Kingdom to retake possession of repossess the United States;"
  • "...the use in schools of textbooks which Thompson believed were unpatriotic and being critical of such artworks as Archibald Willard's The Spirit of '76."
  • "...the former of which was also used by The Independent Republicans for Dever Committee."
  • "Supporters of both Thompson and Dever appealed resorted to bigotry."

Endorsements

  • "After Thompson's primary victory, Charles Deneen relented and backed Thompson." -> "After his defeat in the primary, Deneen backed Thompson."

Result

  • "He found that Eastern European Jewish precincts were carried by Thompson 55 to 41%, while the German Jewish precincts were carried by Dever 62 to 35%" I think you need to specify that 55 and 62 are also percentages. Per MOS:PERCENT, percentages in the main narrative (not infoboxes, tables, etc.) are "commonly" written in USEng as "percent", not "%".

Aftermath

  • "The election was accompanied by only one ballot box theft and a negligible amount of violence, an uncommon occurrence in Chicago elections at the time." Were ballot-box theft and violence uncommon, or was it uncommon that so few/little thefts/violence occurred?

That's all from me. Factotem (talk) 07:35, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Featured article reviews[edit]

Featured article review (FAR)

This section is for the review and improvement of current featured articles that may no longer meet the featured article criteria.
To contact the FAR coordinators for further questions, please leave a message on the FAR talk page, or use the {{@FAR}} notification template elsewhere.

Music of the United States[edit]

Notified: TUF-KAT, WP:US, WP:MUSIC

I bring forth this article to the attention of the community. Music of the United States was promoted to Featured Article status way back in 2006 and it does not meet the current, stricter FA criteria. The article has been through a previous FAR in 2008, started by the article author, that I'm bringing to this discussion because I think that the nominator's concerns were well-presented and still apply to the current article. Also, note the closing admin's ending remarks and that that discussion ended as a "default keep" because no one was interested in fixing the article.

Copying a bit from my talk page notice,

"The most glaring issue is the failure to meet 1.c - claims must be "supported by inline citations where appropriate." This article is severely undercited for a Featured Article, as there are entire paragraphs that drone on without providing a single citation. The entirety of the Diversity section has exactly 2 inline citations, to the same two-pages. There are also lots of citations without specific page numbers like Collins, Morales, Clarke, Werner, Guralnick, etc."

I added 2 citation needed templates back in March, but I couldn't exactly tag the entire article to death. User:DrKay later removed the unsourced text. Speaking on the quality of the sources, it seems that the article relies on a weird mix of reliable sources with some random biographies from Allmusic and the like.

"The article's length at some points is also problematic. The R&B subsection is three times the length of each of the previous subsections on blues, jazz and country. Rock, metal and punk come together in one section (why?), which made me realize that it's not entirely clear how the article is organized. How are the genres listed, is what I mean. Failure of 2.b?
The "Other niche styles and Latin American music" section has 3 unsourced paragraphs. There is also repetition of ideas, like how the reader has to be constantly reminded that the United States is a "melting pot" of cultures - 5 times, to be exact. There is also some POV language and unnecessary name-dropping of artists.

Other thing that has me worried about this artice is the sheer amount of notices on its talk page regarding media files. See this thread for instance. After my notice back in March, another bot came by to "claim" an image, so I think a media review would also be in order. To sum it up because this nomination is getting a bit long this article currently fails 1.a, 1.c, 2.b, 3 and 4 of the Featured Article criteria and does not represent the best we have on wikipedia.

RetiredDuke (talk) 21:04, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Albert Kesselring[edit]

Notified: WikiProject Biography, WikiProject Germany, WikiProject Italy, WikiProject History, WikiProject Military History, WikiProject Law, WikiProject Politics,WikiProject Jewish History, Hawkeye7

Nomination statement[edit]

The article was promoted to FA status in 2009; it does not reflect the most recent scholarship nor FA best practices. The criteria that are the focus of this nomination are: (1.b) comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context; (1.c) well-researched: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature; claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources; (1.d) neutral: it presents views fairly and without bias; and (2.a) lead: prepares the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections.

FAs are expected to maintain required standards and this article has not kept up with the times.[1] To start with, the lead contains material that is not expanded on in the article, such as: Nicknamed 'Smiling Albert' by the Allies and 'Uncle Albert' by his troops, he was one of the most popular generals of World War II with the rank and file. This is not discussed further in the article, and is also a selective reading of Kerstin von Lingen, Kesselring's Last Battle, 2009, p. 16, which goes on to state:

During the 1950s, this picture of Kesselring ['Smiling Al', a general with a common touch], which had been presented at his trial, was seized on and embellished by a range of memoirists. Yet when one considers the bloody assaults on whole villages during the Wehrmacht retreat in the summer of 1944, the picture of the 'good general' painted during the trial seems like a travesty.

The omission of Lingen's conclusion results in a non-neutral presentation starting with the lead. Some of the sources used are dated and / or questionable. Specifically, the article utilises Kesselring's memoirs published in 1955 (30+ citations); this source is not independent, not secondary, and in several important respects not reliable. In another example, a 1954 review of Kesselring's memoirs is used to claim that "the memoirs formed a valuable resource, informing military historians on topics such as the background to the invasion of the Soviet Union". This is neither neutral nor comprehensive, as the article neglects later evaluations that connect Kesselring's works to the myth of the clean Wehrmacht (e.g. here: Reckonings: Legacies of Nazi Persecution). In any case, the source is being used selectively & some of the content fails verification. To start with, the review is more sarcastic than glowing, and it opens thus:

To judge by their memoirs, German generals led sheltered lives. Most of them agree that under twelve years of Hitler rule they saw no evil, spoke none and did none. The latest to proclaim his innocence is 69-year-old Field Marshal Albert Kesselring. Loyal enough by his own admission to "enjoy Hitler's unreserved confidence," Kesselring also proved affable and adjustable enough after the war to assist U.S. Army historians and retain his wartime nickname of "Smiling Al."[2]

Note that the generic "military historians" in the article is actually "U.S. Army historians", from the US Army Historical Division that employed former Wehrmacht generals after the war; the review does not mention the attack on the Soviet Union either. This appears to be OR based on FA nominator's reading of the memoirs.

Further, the article's portrayal of Kesselring's does not align with recent scholarship. For example, the article states: Kesselring became one of Nazi Germany's most skilful commanders. Compare with Robert Citino, The Wehrmacht Retreats, 2012, p. 272: "Kesselring presided over the loss of 415,000 men (...). Even as a limited campaign of delay and attrition, the German defence of Italy was an utter failure." The material, when cited to Kesselring, is often self-serving. Take this passage, for example:

On 11 May 1944 General Sir Harold Alexander, commanding the Allied Armies in Italy, launched Operation Diadem, which finally broke through the Gustav Line and forced the Tenth Army to withdraw. In the process, a gap opened up between the Tenth and Fourteenth Armies, threatening both with encirclement. For this failure, Kesselring relieved von Mackensen of his command, replacing him with General der Panzertruppe Joachim Lemelsen. Fortunately for the Germans, Lieutenant General Mark W. Clark, commander of the U.S. Fifth Army, obsessed with the capture of Rome, failed to take advantage of the situation and the Tenth Army was able to withdraw to the next line of defence, the Trasimene Line, where it was able to link up with the Fourteenth Army and then conduct a fighting withdrawal.[3]

Citino, Wehrmacht's Last Stand, 2017, debunks or contextualises this narrative:

  • Citino begins by discussing Kesselring's intelligence failures ahead of Diadem: "More generally, Kesselring completely missed the dramatic redeployment of the Allied forces in Italy"; Wehrmacht was "caught napping", pp. 99-100
  • Details a bungled response: "Throughout it all, we cannot say that Kesselring was particularly active in arranging countermeasures. His initial reaction to Diadem was disbelief."
  • In re: Kesselring blaming a subordinate for the predicament that the Wehrmacht had found itself in: "In fact, nothing would have helped", p. 103.
  • Citino offers a more nuanced analysis of Mark Clark's dash to Rome, describing it as a "non-event of 'Clark's blunder'," because the Germans did not seem to have noticed it at all.

Citino writes about Kesselring's account: he "spends much of his memoirs criticising operational decisions on both sides (except his own, which he deems to be invariably correct)." Kesselring's writings themselves have become an object of historiographical analysis; this is not reflected in the article, not meeting the requirement for being comprehensive and placing the subject in proper context. Parts of the article reproduce the Wehrmacht myth, and Kesselring's self-portrayal brings to mind tenets of the Lost Cause of the Confederacy:

  • It left the burden of preventing the Allied evacuation of Dunkirk to the air force...[4]
  • Kesselring felt that much more could have been accomplished if he had had ...[5]
  • Kesselring was well aware that while this force was large enough to stop the Allies from simply marching in[to Italy]...[6]

No, a war that one starts is not a "burden" and Kesselring was not protecting hearth and home in Italy either; it was an occupied country. Citino 2012, The Wehrmacht Retreats, p. 281 cautions: "We need to write the history of the war year 1943 with a complete absence of romance. The Wehrmacht was not defending the fatherland. It was fighting to hold far-flung conquests it had made in a brutal war of aggression--the very definition of ill-gotten gains."

Where the article does make use of recent scholarship, cherrypicked citations and OR sometimes result in a distorted representation; see the 'Smiling Al' example from the lead above. Another example, in re: the German Operation Axis: Italy now effectively became an occupied country, as the Germans poured in troops.[7] Italy's decision to switch sides created contempt for the Italians among both the Allies and Germans, which was to have far-reaching consequences.[8] The last cite is out-of-context and OR/SYNTH. In the context of post-war prosecution of war criminals, Lingen, p. 81 discusses the "deep contempt felt, especially in military quarters, for Italy's decision to 'change sides' in 1943. The Italian protest [about not being allowed a judge at Kesselring's trial] fell on deaf ears". Lingen does not mention the German reaction, does not equate the Allied contempt with the German murderous actions in disarming the Italian army, nor talks about unspecified consequences. Further discussion of Operation Axis is likewise not comprehensive nor balanced.

The message one takes away here and from the rest of 1943/44 narrative is that atrocities were committed, but Kesselring had nothing to do with them directly. The article does not mention Kesselring's support for National Socialism, his silence on the ejection of Jewish soldiers from the armed forces, and loyalty to Hitler; see Lingen pp. 23, 24 & 27, respectively. Lingen's conclusions that Kesselring "created a myth focused on himself (a myth that resonated during the 1950s) and saw himself as the victim", p. 29, is not reflected in the article.

Here is a sampling of prior discussions where similar concerns were brought up:

I have attempted to resolve the issues by editing the article to add sources and remove Kesselring's self-serving POV. However, most of my edits were reverted on the grounds that "Tweaking the wording is not acceptable. The wording has been carefully reviewed...". Based on the inability to resolve the issues of sourcing, neutrality, and context, and after discussing with the FA nominator [11], I'm bringing the article to community review. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:08, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Note: in preparation for this review, I've consulted the following sources: While there's no requirement that the article is updated every time a new source comes out, the outlines should be within the current consensus, which I did not find to be the case. Lingen is already in the article; I used it to cross-check cited material and to identify potential gaps in coverage.
  2. ^ "Smiling Al". Time. 19 April 1954.
  3. ^ Kesselring, The Memoirs of Field Marshal Kesselring, pp. 200–209
  4. ^ Kesselring, The Memoirs of Field Marshal Kesselring, pp. 59–60
  5. ^ Kesselring, The Memoirs of Field Marshal Kesselring, pp. 186–187
  6. ^ Kesselring, The Memoirs of Field Marshal Kesselring, p. 161
  7. ^ Blumenson, Salerno to Cassino, pp. 63–64.
  8. ^ von Lingen, Kesselring's Last Battle, p. 81.

Featured article review[edit]

I do not agree that the article does not reflect the most recent scholarship nor FA best practices, but am willing to workshop the issues you raise. I choose to start with the part about Operation Diadem. This issue here is how good a general Kesselring was. I have not read Citino's books; I was under the impression that he wrote popular histories and did not discuss logistics. I have asked the university library to acquire Wehrmacht's Last Stand. In the meantime, I do have a copy of the most recent book on Kesselring, Andrew Sangster's Field-Marshal Kesselring: Great Commander or War Criminal? (2015), based on his PhD thesis (which I also have). In a nutshell, Sangster's thesis is that it is not that Kesselring was so great, but that his opponents, Alexander and Clark, were such poor generals. Neither enjoys a great reputation. Germany and the Second World War (Vol VIII, pp. 1150-1151) does not support the claim of a German intelligence failure, and this seems unlikely when everyone knew that after two attempts, the Allies would make a third the break the Gustav Line. On the other hand, there is no doubt that Kesselring was caught off-balance by the landings at Anzio, having committed his reserves to the Garigliano front, which was precisely what Clark wanted him to do. Germany and the Second World War notes that Kesselring was caught off-guard by the rapid French advance through difficult terrain. It also says: " The American general [Clark]'s ego-centric coup saved the German Tenth Army, at least temporarily" (p. 1153), citing both German and British sources. The text therefore aligns with the current consensus among historians. It could be expanded though. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:49, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Comment. The article contains a significant amount of POV which downplays his status as a war criminal.

Von Lingen describes the post-war situation very persuasively like this "After the war the Federal government bought the release of their war criminals including Kesselring".[1] "In return for Kesselring's death sentence being commuted and release on "health grounds", the Federal government received enough support within Germany to begin making a military contribution to the defence of Western Europe".[2] Veterans began using Kesselring to determine a new narrative of the past that absolved Kesselring of responsibility for his war crimes".[2] The British government, concerned with the growing Cold War, released Kesselring in order to encourage the Federal government to join the European Defence Council and NATO.[3] The British decided releasing a few "iconic" war criminals was a price worth paying for the support of West Germany.[3]

The article using exactly the same source instead says this;

The death verdict against Kesselring unleashed a storm of protest in the United Kingdom. Former British Prime Minister Winston Churchill immediately branded it as too harsh and intervened in favour of Kesselring. Field Marshal Alexander, then Governor General of Canada, sent a telegram to Prime Minister Clement Attlee in which he expressed his hope that Kesselring's sentence would be commuted. "As his old opponent on the battlefield", he stated, "I have no complaints against him. Kesselring and his soldiers fought against us hard but clean."[4] Alexander had expressed his admiration for Kesselring as a military commander as early as 1943. In his 1961 memoirs Alexander paid tribute to Kesselring as a commander who "showed great skill in extricating himself from the desperate situations into which his faulty intelligence had led him".[5] Alexander's sentiments were echoed by Lieutenant General Sir Oliver Leese, who had commanded the British Eighth Army in the Italian campaign. In a May 1947 interview, Leese said he was "very sad" to hear of what he considered "British victor's justice" being imposed on Kesselring, an "extremely gallant soldier who had fought his battles fairly and squarely".[6] Lord de L'Isle, who had been awarded the Victoria Cross for gallantry at Anzio, raised the issue in the House of Lords.[7] Szzuk (talk) 10:09, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

The two passages are talking about very different things. The latter is about the imposition of the death penalty; the former is about Kesselring's release from prison. The latter is entirely about the British POV; the former is where it intersects the German one. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:40, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Kirsten von Lingen says this about the death sentence in Hitler’s Military Elite in Italy and the Question of “Decent War” (2015):

However, Kesselring’s sentence was later commuted to life imprisonment, partly owing to the eruption of political controversy in London, led by former prime minister Winston Churchill and supported by Field Marshal Harold Alexander. Numerous English politicians deplored "British victors’ justice," church leaders preached reconciliation, and senior British officers raised their voices to praise Kesselring’s military skill. They were all given plenty of media coverage, thus creating the British version of the "upright and fair Italian theater of war." In addition, these men triggered a debate on the very purpose of war crimes trials—a bitter debate that continued to rage in England until Kesselring’s release in 1952. It showed the British victory in court to be a Pyrrhic one, at least with respect to memory politics.

References

  1. ^ von Lingen 2009, p. 2.
  2. ^ a b von Lingen 2009, p. 5.
  3. ^ a b von Lingen 2009, p. 6.
  4. ^ von Lingen, Kesselring's Last Battle, p. 359.
  5. ^ Alexander The Alexander Memoirs 1940–1945, p. 125
  6. ^ von Lingen, Kesselring's Last Battle, p. 130.
  7. ^ von Lingen, Kesselring's Last Battle, p. 131.
  • Nom's comment: The perception that Robert Citino writes popular histories is not correct. Citino specialises in the operational history of the Wehrmacht; he has held a number of academic positions and is a practising military historian who publishes with a university publisher, University Press of Kansas, same as Lingen. To anyone interested in Citino's work, I can recommend his lectures on Youtube, such as on Wehrmacht's campaigns in 1943: "Fighting a Lost War". His writing style is equally engaging.
  • I've obtained copies of the two books of his in question. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:27, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
On Szzuk observation, I also found that Lingen is used selectively and with an apologist bend; the book does not leave this impression at all. I already cited two examples: "Smiling Albert" in the lead and the treatment of the 1943 disarmament of the Italian army, Operation Axis (see #Nomination statement). Another example from the article:
The trials were held under the Royal Warrant of 18 June 1945, thus under British Military Law. The decision put the trials on a shaky legal basis, as foreign nationals were being tried for crimes against foreigners in a foreign country.[1]

References

  1. ^ von Lingen, Kesselring's Last Battle, p. 73.
The language in the article suggests that there was something improper about the trials or that perhaps they were illegitimate. Lingen details several challenges and questions to be resolved (pp. 73-74), but page 73 does not leave the impression of the trial being on a "shaky legal basis". The source is again being misread. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:34, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
Von Lingen says:
The Royal Warrant issued on June 14, 1945, established military courts and laid down the rules of procedure. But it proved more difficult than anticipated to legitimize the jurisdiction of Allied courts, for the legal basis for trying military commanders and commanders-in-chief was also subject to dispute. Which military penal codes should apply - the German ones in force at the time the crimes were committed, that of the country where the crimes took place, or the British one?

Von Lingen, Kesselring's Last Battle, p. 73

I think the article fairly summaries the text. It also makes it clear that crimes were committed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:03, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

"Smiling Albert" was a name given by the Allies on account of the fact that he was always smiling in the pictures they had of him. (Regrettably, he isn't smiling in any of the pictures in the article.) Given the circumstances, I don't think it was intended as a complement, and likely played to the wartime stereotype of the arrogant German general. You're quite right that it should also be in the body of the article; it will be an action item. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:03, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
Kesselring was only responsible for the 1943 disarmament in southern Italy. All I could find in his area was the shooting of Ferrante Gonzaga; but if you have another incident, it can be included. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:03, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment. The POV is being supported by the 20+ primary refs and a misreading of Lingen. There are eulogies such as the block quote beginning "Furthermore, we knew that in command of these forces was Field Marshal Albert Kesselring, one of the ablest officers in the Hitler armies." Szzuk (talk) 15:27, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
    It was not a eulogy, it was written by his opponent, Mark W. Clark, and was written in 1950, while Kesselring was not only still alive, but still in prison. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:19, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment. In 1937 he was in charge of the Luftwaffe and he cancelled the long range ural bomber program. The lack of a strategic bomber was a major fiasco. This isn't noted, instead the article argues he wasn't really responsible. Szzuk (talk) 10:07, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
    Have you got a good source for this? I originally wrote: Like many ex-Army officers, he tended to see air power in the tactical role, providing support to land operations. He rejected strategic bombing and cancelled the Ural bomber. The current text was written by Dapi89, who knows more about the subject of Luftwaffe doctrine. In what way was the bomber program a fiasco, and what was Kesselrinmg's role? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:20, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Nor mine, but I have asked them to consider purchasing it. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:27, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

A few comments[edit]

I see serious problems with neutrality, some problems with the writing, and in the few cases where I checked the sources, more problems.

  • "At the age of 48, he...", this is essentially self-praise translated into Wikipedia's voice.
    Well, we made a big thing about it in the articles on Ernie King, Bill Halsey and John McCain Sr. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:57, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
  • "Like many ex-Army officers..." contains way too much irrelevant stuff (and extraneous detail is found in other place; this is possibly accretion since 2009, I don't know)
    I'm always loath to remove additions that other editors think are important. In this case, I think it is relevant; it talks of the dictrine of the Luftwaffe, how it differed from that of English-speaking Air Forces, and the influence that ex-Army officers like Kesselring had. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:01, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Kesselring himself "would be shot down"? The war is over y'all: he "was shot down"
    Corrected this one - I was leaving the big ticket items for later in the review. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:57, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
  • "Kesselring was able to fly solo over the front in his Focke-Wulf Fw 189." -- it sounds like Cary Grant going out on the town, in Monte Carlo or so
  • "Flying his Fieseler Fi 156 Storch to a meeting," Oh! he got a new set of wheels
  • "For the Battle of Gazala, Rommel divided his command in two..." paragraph doesn't become relevant to Kesselring until halfway through
    Yes, the article has lots of bits where the importance becomes clear later. Otherwise I would have to jump back and forth in the chronology. The bits mentioned above about his replacement of Mackensen with Lemelsen, and Allied attitudes towards the Italians pertain to later in the article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:57, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
  • "The Allied invasion of Sicily..." is way too full of insignificant military detail about what plane killed what boat or whatever.
    This can be trimmed back. Will mark as an action item. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:57, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
  • "Kesselring returned to Sicily by flying boat on 16 July..." more new wheels!
  • "On the Greek island of Kefalonia – outside Kesselring's command – some 5,000 Italian troops of the 33 Mountain Infantry Division Acqui were massacred." Why is this in here? if it is outside of his command, why mention it? Or is it here to suggest that some other dude was much worse than this dude, who so far has only had one Italian commander shot?
    I don't think this is a well-known incident, and goes to what k.e.coffman was talking about. I didn't want to soft-peddle Operation Axis. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:57, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
  • "The Luftwaffe scored a notable success ..." (in the bombing by those Stukas of that port): why is that in here?
    Three things: (1) another reminder that Kesselring is an Air Force field marshal; (2) a refute of the claim that he fought a purely defensive campaign; and (3) demonstrates that his intelligence wasn't always bad. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:57, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
  • The entire "Actions affecting population and cultural objects" section reads like hagiography. In fact, it reads as if the Nazis are concerned to a great extent with preserving Italy's treasures, while the Allies just go in and bomb the shit out of Rome. I don't doubt they bombed Rome fifty times, but the little footnote, note 5 (which, sad to say, actually constitutes editorial commentary), indicates that the whole "open city" thing (which isn't even ascribed to Kesselring other than by "he supported it") can be seen as a ruse as well. (and there is way too much material on the events in Italy in 1943)
    • That's not all, though, in that paragraph. I wondered about the source of the approbatory "...as far as he was able, attempted...", whether it came out of his memoirs. The note is to Fisher's Casino to the Alps. Whether that source is completely acceptable (it is, after all, a publication by the US Armed Forces, and even an impressive editorial board doesn't mean that one can't question to which extent they participated in the well-known myth making) or not is one thing, but surely any editor can see that the paragraph I just pointed at is not found on p. 290 of that book: the only thing there is the destruction of buildings on either side of the Ponte Vecchio. And this is not unimportant, given content and tenor of these paragraphs.
      This is indeed a major issue, with multiple aspects. The German record on preserving cultural artefacts has to include the theft of artworks by Göring and others. Failure to adequately protect cultural objects is a war crime. It is also true that several times as many deaths were caused by Allied bombing as by German and Italian reprisals. I deliberately didn't mention this, but I guess we need to. (Kesselring denied knowledge of the theft of artworks, but not of the final solution; his mention of often flying over Dachau was removed by another editor as non-neutral.) This goes again to the treatment of Italy as not being an Ally, which is how Kesselring escaped being executed. I'll admit the open city footnote is a bit of an editorial by my Italian collaborator, but it was a war crime to bombard an undefended city. Kesselring was accused of this, and it also goes to the argument about other bombings. The American defence was that there were armament factories in Rome. I will mark removal of the editorial as an action item. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:57, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Well, I think I've seen enough: non-neutral and sometimes tendentious writing and at least some examples of poor sourcing. But the kicker is this: Hawkeye7, who should know better, restores the "jolly uncle Albert" to the lead, when the "Later life" section basically shows an unrepentant Nazi who wipes his behind with the orders of the government nextdoor, continues to support the myth of a clean German army, and on top of it defends the Marzabotto massacre. That OUR article calls him happy popular Uncle Albert, touring Europe in an assortment of airplances, and leaves the fact that he was, in fact, an unrepentant Nazi in the very bottom of the article, that is clear enough. I do not think this qualifies as an FA, but one could make some immediate improvement by undoing Hawkeye's unwise revert, to return some sense of neutrality to the lead. Drmies (talk) 00:46, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

If that's the impression you got from reading the article, I think I did pretty well. The term "smiling Albert" is commonly used for Kesselring; almost every reference I have refers to it. (Some mistakenly thought that it was a German monicker rather than an Allied one, so I was asked to correct that impression.) I tried to refute the "clean hands" myth by including details of massacres committed by each branch. Kesselring's administrative authority really only extended to the Heer and the Luftwaffe; the SS and the Herman Göring Division were outside his control. However, he was loath to admit that, and the Yamashita case makes it uncertain in any case. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:57, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
The impression that I got was indeed that it's not an FA. Is that what you succeeded in? What a strange comment. Here's the thing: no. I am sure that every reference you have also refers to him as a killer, guilty of mass murder. It was your choice to put "Uncle Albert" in the lead, in the very first paragraph. One of the hallmarks of POV is to present a fact out of context at the expense of others, with the goal to skew the reader's perception. You have done so successfully. And I think I have indicated well enough that throughout the article there are bits and pieces whose purpose seems to be to deflect blame in various ways. Certainly it's enough for a POV tag. Drmies (talk) 03:05, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
"Smiling Albert" was in the very first paragraph of the lead long before I started editing Wikipedia. [12] I corrected it by adding the Uncle Albert reference. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:49, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Age of Empires II[edit]

Notified: Giggy, WikiProject Microsoft, WikiProject Video games

This article was promoted in October 2008. Over the last eleven years standards have risen and this article has not kept pace and it no longer represents the best we have. There is a lot of unsupported information, POV/opinions and unencyclopaedic input. – SchroCat (talk) 16:28, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

The big issue is the "Single player campaigns" section. These don't seem particularly encyclopedic to me. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 16:43, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Some initial thoughts:

  • The campaigns can probably be condensed down to a line or two for each campaign, given that they follow the very real historical events. It’s not an original plot.
  • The unsourced gameplay stuff can be pretty easily trimmed and cited; I think the stuff that would be difficult to cite is the minutiae and that can go.
  • The development section could use a prose edit and seems a little slight given the caliber of game AoE II was, so I’m going to look for retrospectives and the like to fill it out.
  • Anyone care if I straight-up spin out all the Age of Empires II HD stuff? All the DLC info and reception stuff seems like there’s enough content for its own article rather than this one. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 17:03, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
    • I'd certainly co-sign the attempt, especially when maintaining an FA is concerned. I find that game FAs that get ported often start to degrade because of port articles feeling tacked on. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 18:09, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
      • Ditto from me. Go for it David. --Izno (talk) 18:55, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Tyrannosaurus[edit]

Original nominator hasn't edited since 2012. Notified: WikiProject Dinosaur

This article was promoted more than a decade ago in 2006. Now it has become really messy.

  1. Several parts could be considered as a hodgepodge of super technical data without any coherent flow. A notable example is the section on Locomotion. It's extremely long, but there is no flow there at all. Random information that are hard to understand are put here and there without any consideration of legibility. This section needs to be summarized based on the current scientific consensus, and then further debates could be put in a separate article.
  2. Bad sources. I have found and deleted blog sources that were cited. The article still cites a lecture; even if it's delivered by a professor, it's not a proper scholarly publication. The article also cited "science for kids" website, and all the popular science sources need to be replaced by peer-reviewed scholarly publications. In addition, many sources are missing the pages, and the Internet sources are not cited properly.

There has been no substantial progress ever since I raised these issues on September 17, 2018 (other than the minor edits that I made). The locomotion part now even has a maintenance tag, not to mention all the "page needed" problems. Mimihitam (talk) 06:42, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

I will work on summarizing the sections this week. I think FunkMonk, Jens Lallensack, MWAK and/or Lusotitan would be better suited for the rest. LittleJerry (talk) 16:04, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
Keep in mind that it is not policy, even for featured articles, to cite just the peer-reviewed literature!--MWAK (talk) 16:13, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
Hmm, ok, I thought it would be better to fix this internally in the dino project at our own pace rather than make it an "official" FAR; now we have unfortunately set a time limit for ourselves, and therefore risk demotion. There has been substantial discussion on the talk page, and a to do list is being worked on, so this FAR is premature, since according to the instructions, it is supposed to be the last resort. As for the comment "The locomotion part now even has a maintenance tag", well, you make it sound like a surprise, but you put it there yourself... FunkMonk (talk) 16:25, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
Summarising the Locomotion section will not be easy. There simply is no "current scientific consensus". It has been a contentious subject for thirty years and this has attracted a lot of research effort resulting in a constant flow of new papers. And that's all the flow the section should contain. We are not allowed to omit older work as irrelevant, or put the papers into some teleological framework as if we knew what the end result shall be. We don't and even when we did, we would not be allowed to let it influence the text as it would be OR and POV. Summarising will make the text much less understandable unless it consists of a lot of editorialising.--MWAK (talk) 17:05, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
Speaking of the locomotion section, it begins with two unsourced sentences that don't articulate well, have no citations, give no new information, and treat the hunter/scavenger thing as a relevant debate. Should this be removed? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 19:39, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
They are a good example of the kind of text that would remain after summarising. An authoritative meta-analysis is not available from the secondary sources, so we would be forced to provide one, guiding the reader through the subject. Such higher-order analysis can often not be sourced. As the hunter/scacvenger debate is historically relevant, it's defensible to treat the subject using it as a conceptual scheme.--MWAK (talk) 06:58, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
I'd be happy to touch up the paleoecology section. Surely one of the most studied dinosaurs ever has more to say about its environment and predator-prey relationships. I think most of the feeding-strategies section could be moved there - suggestions it preyed on this or that, or that it was a scavenger or hunter, that feels more ecological, though bite force and pack behaviour fit more with our use of the paleobiology section. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 20:45, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
You could argue it is arbitrary to place info on feeding behaviour under paleobiology rather than paleoecology, but it is probably best to be consistent with most other articles, where such info is under paleobiology. One thing MWAK argued for, though, is to make the two part of a single section, as was done in Achelousaurus. Or, rather than paleoecology, such sections could instead be called paleoenvironment, as suggested by Christophe Hendrickx. FunkMonk (talk) 12:01, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
MWAK did something different from others with Ahcelousaurus because he thought it made more sense, and I'd be doing the same here. Predator-prey relationships are very clearly under the window of ecology and if we're going to have such a section (and I think we should), then I see no reason not to put such information there. Palaeobiology as a section is overstuffed anyways. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 14:29, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
My own general philosophy on this is that whoever does the work should also get the final decision. But consistency across articles is always good for a variety of reasons. FunkMonk (talk) 15:54, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
Yes, and my opinion is that all of our articles should have ecology in the ecology section. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 15:59, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
If this is going to affect other articles, I think the best solution is simply to rename such sections "palaeoenvironemnt", both because that's pretty much what they're about (and we have been advised to rename as such by a palaeontologist), and it will avoid us making drastic, and in my opinion unneeded, changes to already promoted articles for consistency. In any case, we would need a project discussion before doing it as a general thing. FunkMonk (talk) 22:24, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
I would still disagree, the palaeobiology section is ginormous since everything that doesn't fit in the other sections is thrown in it, so moving out feeding information into the more logical palaeoecology section kills two birds with one stone. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 23:56, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
Feeding fits better in paleobiology. Paleobiology deals with how the animal functioned in life based on its anatomy while paleoecology is about the environment it lived in and thus is more about strata. With prehistoric animals we can't observe then behaving in the wild, we can only infer it from the remains and thus the articles are anatomy based. LittleJerry (talk) 02:23, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
Like most issues in Wikipedia, perhaps this debate should be settled by the sources. For example, the book Dinosaur Paleobiology lists feeding and "paleoecology and dwelling" as two separate chapters. RockMagnetist (DCO visiting scholar) (talk) 03:06, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
  • General comment - I don't think I'll have time to review this article, but I would like to point out that if you want to be sure that it is comprehensive and neutral, you should make heavy use of good secondary sources. I notice, for example, that the Tyrannosaur Chronicles was only cited once; and in that book, the Further reading section has some general sources that are also cited little or not at all. Let's not forget PSTS, which is part of the policy on original research: "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources. " RockMagnetist (DCO visiting scholar) (talk) 03:19, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
There is probably a lot of relevant published science which hasn't been covered by secondary sources (using primary sources is allowed in any case), but if anyone has Dave Hone's recent book "The Tyrannosaur Chronicles: The Biology of the Tyrant Dinosaurs"[13], that could probably be a good way to fill in possible gaps of the article. FunkMonk (talk) 04:17, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
FunkMonk, Jens Lallensack, MWAK and Lusotitan, I purchased Hone's book. Whats the plan? LittleJerry (talk) 21:34, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
In general, it should be understood that most scientific articles function as secondary sources in relation to much of the information they contain. They mostly do not simply present empirical observation but comprise hypotheses, theoretical reflection on data and references to other sources. In that they are a secondary source. Using popular science books as sources for articles on scientific subjects has to be minimised because they are inherently unreliable. "Popular" means: "Don't worry, we're not going to bother you with exact knowledge". Books about dinosaurs are notorious on this point.
Now, when an expert writes a popular science book, he might create the rare exception. Works by David Norman and Darren Naish come to mind. Sadly, Hone, as he himself admits and apologises for on numerous places, has not bothered to fact-check the Tyrannosaur Chronicles. As a result the text is riddled with error. It's an entertaining book, well-written by an intelligent and sympathetic author. But one who often didn't get the facts right. For a future edition, Hone would benefit from consulting Wikipedia first. But Wikipedia would not benefit from consulting Hone.--MWAK (talk) 09:36, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
I think it could be used to find gaps in the text, for example if Hone mentions a study that is not cited in the article, we can cite that article directly, rather than the book itself. I did something similar when writing woolly mammoth and parts of Smilodon, I went through popular books by Adrian Lister and Mauricio Anton and added sources they mentioned, as well as cited their books if they said something novel. FunkMonk (talk) 10:36, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment, responding to point 1 above i've summarised the information, it was failing WP:UNDUE. I haven't put the removed info in another article, this can be done by another editor if they wish. This section is still failing WP:FLOW but that is easier to fix, I may do that at a later time. I haven't looked at the rest of the article. Szzuk (talk) 10:45, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
  • I copyedited that section for flow. I looked for other problem sections as noted by the nom in point 1 above but I can't find them. Szzuk (talk) 16:27, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
Seems fine. One thing I saw the edits retained is the mention of exact journals various studies were published in, such as "A 2002 paper in Nature". Such info is rather superfluous here, and adds nothing about the subject, so should probably be pruned too. Instead, the authors of studies should be mentioned, the journal is irrelevant. FunkMonk (talk) 16:52, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
References

The following books are currently cited without page number:

  1. Horner, John R.; Lessem, Don (1993). The complete T. rex. New York City: Simon & Schuster. ISBN 978-0-671-74185-3.
  2. Ride, W. D. L. (1999). "Article 23.9 – Reversal of Precedence". International code of zoological nomenclature. London: International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. ISBN 978-0-85301-006-7. OCLC 183090345.
  3. Henderson, M (2005). "Nano No More: The death of the pygmy tyrant". In Henderson, M (ed.). The origin, systematics, and paleobiology of Tyrannosauridae. Dekalb, Illinois: Northern Illinois University Press.
  4. Carpenter, Kenneth (1992). "Tyrannosaurids (Dinosauria) of Asia and North America". In Mateer, Niall J.; Pei-ji Chen (eds.). Aspects of nonmarine Cretaceous geology. Beijing: China Ocean Press. ISBN 978-7-5027-1463-5. OCLC 28260578.
  5. Paul, Gregory S. (1988). Predatory dinosaurs of the world: a complete illustrated guide. New York: Simon and Schuster. ISBN 978-0-671-61946-6. OCLC 18350868.
  6. Paul, G. S. (1988). Predatory Dinosaurs of the World. Simon and Schuster. ISBN 978-0-671-61946-6. OCLC 18350868.
  7. Walters, Martin (1995). Bloomsbury Illustrated Dictionary of Prehistoric Life (Bloomsbury Illustrated Dictionaries). Godfrey Cave Associates Ltd. ISBN 978-1-85471-648-4.

Cited with page number, but the range is too large:

  1. Larson, Neal L. (2008). "One hundred years of Tyrannosaurus rex: the skeletons". In Larson, Peter; Carpenter, Kenneth (eds.). Tyrannosaurus Rex, The Tyrant King. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press. pp. 1–55. ISBN 978-0-253-35087-9.
  2. Holtz, Thomas R., Jr. (2004). "Tyrannosauroidea". In Weishampel, David B.; Dodson, Peter; Osmólska, Halszka (eds.). The dinosauria. Berkeley: University of California Press. pp. 111–136. ISBN 978-0-520-24209-8.
  3. Paul, Gregory S. (2008). "Chapter 18: The Extreme Life Style and Habits of the Gigantic Tyrannosaurid Superpredators of the Cretaceous North America and Asia". In Larson, Peter L.; Carpenter, Kenneth (eds.). Tyrannosaurus, The Tyrant King. Indiana University Press. pp. 307–345. ISBN 978-0-253-35087-9. Retrieved September 14, 2013.

Thanks Mimihitam (talk) 18:11, 2 December 2018 (UTC) Arbitrary line break

  • I deleted a paragraph on the old name, even with the page number (which it doesn't have) it is written like WP:OR and speculating on a situation. Szzuk (talk) 19:08, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
  • the section is pushing the pov that the creature was purely a scavenger, around 40% of the text (excluding the subsections) is discussing horners theory, which is obviously valid but is unbalancing the section
  • Predation isn't sufficiently discussed increasing the pov
  • There are 3 sentences on bite strength with lots of mathematical units which just isn't adding much to the readability
  • Horners work is presented as a theory but then criticism is dropped in the middle, it should be presented cleanly with criticism afterward or perhaps not at all

An obvious solution is to bring in the good info on predation from the extra content article Feeding behaviour of Tyrannosaurus and to reduce the word count on horners theory. I can't do that without agreement here, especially so as there appears to be a current issue about the naming of authors in the refs (I don't have any opinion about that) Szzuk (talk) 10:35, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

I think everybody would be more than grateful if you take this job. Yes, Feeding behaviour of Tyrannosaurus may contain useful hints, but we need to be very careful; I'm not sure if this helps to reach a balanced view; also bear in mind that this article never went through any kind of peer review, and content might be in need for improvement before reaching FA quality. Furthermore, that article is as outdated as the Tyrannosaurus main article. For example, there are three papers on Tyrannosaurus feeding in the 2013 book "Tyrannosaurid Paleobiology" (Parrish, Molnar, Currie, and Koppelhus), including a concise review on the scavenger-predator debate; I would highly recommend looking at those when reworking the section. I can send you the papers via Email if needed (in that case, please send me a Wikimail). --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:10, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
I will stay true to source and keep the new material to a minimum to avoid disputes. This isn't going to be a big rework, just enough to get the section past the featured article review, if I need any help with sourcing I will post here for your assistance, I may also post the section in a draft for you to look at depending on how much difficulty I encounter. Regards, Szzuk (talk) 16:25, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
Well, I took out everything that was weak and put the remains in a section draft here User:Szzuk/Tyrannosaurus. I think I'm going to have difficulty adding new content and have possibly bitten off more than I can chew! I'm not sure what to do now. If you wish to edit in that namespace and add content from your sources please do. Szzuk (talk) 22:19, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
Had a look now. I like the shortening you did of the section beginning with "Paleontologist Jack Horner". However, regarding the general structure, I like the current article version more (the arguments for the scavenger hypothesis should come first, for chronological reasons, and as those only ignited most discussions on tyrannosaur feeding). As far as I can see, the article version is not biased towards the scavenger hypothesis, but it is biased towards Horner. He is the most famous advocate of the hypothesis, yes, but he was not the first, and he is not the only. In your version, this problem is exaggerated, as you removed the reference to Lambe (1917), which should be kept in any case. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:03, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
It is about 50% done, I did that much and then wondered if I'd have the energy to do the other 50%. You're right removing lambe was a mistake. Generally I prefer the most accepted and most current information in the first paragraph on the basis that readers might not get passed that, and then for chronology to kick in. I think the major omission is linking the view it was a predator to its teeth and size. I will have a think. I might put more info back and do more of a copy edit than an overhaul. Szzuk (talk) 19:51, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
@Jens Lallensack I will move over the information beginning with "Paleontologist Jack Horner" as per your suggestion (but leave the rest). Szzuk (talk) 20:39, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
  • The "Sue" paragraph in the feeding section; i'm struggling to know what to do with that, the first sentence is ok because it describes aggression and hence predation, but then it contradicts itself completely and says this is due to infection, then starts discussing the scavenger hypothesis which isn't related to the rest of the paragraph - and there is a "page number" required for the ref. Should it be rescued? deleted? Can someone take a look. Szzuk (talk) 12:02, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
Hmm, for a start, we could remove "Further investigation of wounds showed that most were infections rather than injuries (or simply damage to the fossil after death), and the few injuries were too general to be indicative of conflict.[141]" – since the cited source here is older than the one for the previous sentence, "Further investigation" is simply misleading. The "page needed" is a popular book again, I would not consider this as a source we should use at all, we can remove that as well imo. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:17, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
You appear to be saying take it all out apart from the first sentence, I agree and have done so. Szzuk (talk) 10:02, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
  • @Mimihitam. Many of your concerns have been addressed, could you comment and list any other issues you think need addressing. Szzuk (talk) 18:22, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Paleoecology: The first paragraph of this section is unsourced - is this a summary section that doesn't need referencing? Szzuk (talk) 19:17, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Close? Anyone agree? Pretty much everything noted in the FAR and on the talk page has been done. I've been scanning the article for a couple of days and can't see any glaring problems. In particular the locomotion and feeding sections were overhauled and don't look anything like they did. All of the page needed tags are gone. The FAR has been open for a couple of months now with many edits and without further comment on how to improve the article there's not much left to do. Szzuk (talk) 12:12, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
I think the description section should be expanded though (which has noted in the talk page). Considering more recent Dinosaurs FAs have had large description sections there's no reason why this one on the most famous dinosaur shouldn't. LittleJerry (talk) 22:55, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
Both the classification and history sections feel similarly paltry. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 23:03, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
When comparing those sections to featured articles such as Gorgosaurus and Tarbosaurus the word count and quality is comparable. It might be preferable to have more content but I don't think they're failing the featured article criteria. Szzuk (talk) 21:06, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
Those two have similar problems as this one, though; the FA criteria/process were tightened around 2008/2009, so the articles from that time and before should probably not be used for reference, rather more recent ones. FunkMonk (talk) 21:18, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
How long other tyrannosaurid articles are shouldn't matter, it's about how well this covers the subject. The history section literally stops at the synonymization with Dynamosaurus in 1906, excepting a short note on Manospondylus and a short section of notable specimens. Are we implying no important developments happened through the entire 20th century other than a couple specimens being found? Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 21:52, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
There are a lot of synonyms that aren't discussed, for example Stygivenator, though some are discussed under classification, it might be better under history. FunkMonk (talk) 22:10, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
If there are omissions like you say then perhaps those should be included. I'm doubtful I would have the competence to add this content myself, it is just too far out of my experience. Szzuk (talk) 22:26, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
  • On the history section. I've just been reading through it and noting the earlier comment (that it looks like info is missing) I think it should be re-worked. I removed the mano section and merged it with earlier finds, then added a new section name for skeleton discovery. I'd say now the specimens section name should be changed so the timeline flows. Doing that would mean we're missing 1960s to 1990s (as there were no discoveries 1910 to 1960 or thereabouts). Did anything big happen in those decades? What exactly is missing? And what could the the notable specimens section be called to cover the time period 1990 to modern day? Szzuk (talk) 15:17, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
I think merging the sections was a good move; not every development needs its own section. FunkMonk (talk) 09:54, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
I guess this discussion can be closed. There's still the problem with expanding the "Description", which will hopefully be taken care of, but I don't think its a deal breaker for remaining as an FA. LittleJerry (talk) 18:31, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
I personally think the size of the description, history, and classification sections put it more in line with being a GA, but I won't argue against keeping its current status. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 19:51, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
Those issues can be worked on even after this is archived, by whoever wants to do it. FunkMonk (talk) 20:02, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
The classification section is actually about the same size as some recent FAs like Brachiosaurus and Dilophosaurus. LittleJerry (talk) 21:13, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Seems this could be wrapped up? Not sure we really need that maintenance tag under description. And not sure if the recent image placement rejig was really an improvement. FunkMonk (talk) 13:44, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm happy for this to be wrapped up. I don't think there would be m(any) votes to demote this if it went to FARC. I'm not convinced we need the tag under description either. I've looked for better pictures on commons, the article deserves some knockout pictures. Sadly we just don't have them available. I've no opinion on their placement. Szzuk (talk) 16:50, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
  • In some pretty significant news, the "Scotty" specimen has now been described[14], which should give us something to expand the description section with (perhaps LittleJerry wants to have a look). The big deal here is that it is apparently the most massive Tyrannosaurus (or even theropod?) specimen known... FunkMonk (talk) 13:06, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

@Lusotitan, Mimihitam, and LittleJerry: Where is this nom at? Are there issues you feel remain to be addressed? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:29, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Horner, John R.; Lessem, Don (1993). The complete T. rex. New York City: Simon & Schuster. ISBN 978-0-671-74185-3. --> still no specific page cited. In addition, the description part has a maintenance tag and it remains to be solved. Mimihitam (talk) 03:31, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

I think we can close this now. There appear to be no major issues. LittleJerry (talk) 22:01, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
Before closing, I'd like to see some cleaning up with regards to MOS compliance and citation formatting - I'm noticing quite a few errors and inconsistencies. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:01, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

@FunkMonk and MWAK:? LittleJerry (talk) 22:33, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Certainly not my strong side. Any Wikignomes around? FunkMonk (talk) 13:53, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
IJReid can you take care of this? LittleJerry (talk) 21:15, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
I can certainly go round and finish running the remaining references through Provelt to make the formatting consistent, but I'm not in the know if there are missing pages or etc so thats beyond me at this point. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 23:42, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
Nikkimaria, IJReid has run the sources through Provelt and made them consistent. Are we ready for closing? LittleJerry (talk) 17:28, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Featured article removal candidates[edit]

Campaign history of the Roman military[edit]

Notified: WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, WikiProject Military history.

Review section[edit]

I am nominating this featured article for review because this article was promoted FA in 2007, but now it looks quite under FA standards. I am mostly troubled by the bibliography:

Many of the sources used here are very questionable to me. Should a book written by Boris Johnson (!!!), or even Churchill, be included in a featured article, on a subject that is outside their sphere of competence? Moreover, Bury (1889), Harkness (1887), Gibbon (1776!), and Pennell (1894) are really dated; Victor Davis Hanson and Liddell Hart have dubious reputation; Holland, Welch, and Wood are more popular writers than academics. I suppose the criteria for featured articles were different in 2007, but I think this article should be delisted as it relies too much on sources that should not be used in a featured article. This was already pointed out during the review, but ultimately ignored. Moreover, few people curate the article, and there have been a number of unsourced additions.

The title is a bit weird as well. I would prefer something like "Wars of Ancient Rome", but that's a detail. T8612 (talk) 12:34, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Delist In my view this article lost its FA status. There're dozens and dozens of gaps of paragarphs or sentences without any citations which means this article doesn't support b1 of the B-class reviews. This article even doesn't use sources which a normal FA article ought have. Unless someone wanna restore this article I reckon this ought be a delist. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 18:09, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delist The article needs a complete overhaul which would change it so substantially in my opinion that it would need to be resubmitted altogether. SpartaN (talk) 22:07, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delist Which is a shame, but CPA-5 and SpartaN are accurate in their comments. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:30, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi all, I'm moving this to the FARC section now, but in future keep in mind that declarations aren't generally made until that happens. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:02, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

FARC section[edit]

Issues raised in the review section largely focused on sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:02, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
Delist per review section. I did some minor copyediting but I think this would require an overhaul to meet the FACr. – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 20:33, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Terry Sanford[edit]

Notified: WikiProject United States, WikiProject North Carolina, WikiProject United States governors

Review section[edit]

I am nominating this featured article for review because the issues I raised about it in May have not been addressed. This article was promoted to FA back in 2008 and, as was characteristic of the time, the review was not very rigorous. Terry Sanford was a monumental figure in North Carolina and throughout the southern United States in the 20th century and had a long, acomplished career. Per WP:FACR 1b it is expected that featured articles be comprehensive. This article is simply not a full summary of all the reliable material out there on this man. Some things not well covered:

  • He suffered "wounds" in World War II. No elaboration on how he got those, or why he wanted to be a paratrooper in the first place.
  • No details on how or why he became an FBI agent (plenty found in the very underused source, Terry Sanford: Politics, Progress, and Outrageous Ambitions)
  • Many details on his personal life absent (see above source)
  • Sanford left the bureau to work at the Institute of Government (this not stated explicitly in the article), but there are no details of his work there.
  • No details on his tenure as President of the NC Young Democrats
  • No details on his campaign for governor against I. Beverly Lake, Sr., despite the fact that a whole book (Triumph of Good Will: How Terry Sanford Beat a Champion of Segregation in and Reshaped the South) has been written about it, not to mention the political effects of race in that contest.
  • Only two small paragraphs on his work for NC education, probably his biggest legacy.
  • No background on the establishment of the North Carolina Fund or evaluation of its success, and no info on his relationship with LBJ and involvement in the overall War on Poverty
  • Very little info on race relations politics (I added most of what's there), which played a very important role in shaping his image as well as the face of Southern liberalism and the Democratic Party
  • Only the briefest info on how Sanford promoted Research Triangle Park
  • Aside from a blurb about his views on capital punishment, not very much other info about his gubernatorial career
  • As President of Duke University Sanford had a very important role in trying to right the institution's finances and get more money by appealing to wealthier students (see here), but this is not mentioned.

I've made some improvements but right now I don't have the time to read three books and rewrite a Wikipedia biography. -Indy beetle (talk) 06:00, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Update: I've since added more info about his education policy as governor, though details on his work with commuity colleges still needs to be fleshed out. -Indy beetle (talk) 19:24, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

FARC section[edit]

Comments in the review section largely focused on comprehensiveness. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:26, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

This reads to me as an FA standard article - no doubt partly due to Indy beetle's improvements - but I am not qualified to judge its comprehensiveness. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:15, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Notes:

  • Bare URL in citations
  • Incomplete citation ( Sanford Holshouser Economic Development)
  • Incorrect use of ellipses ("Sanford was a very engaging extrovert....His vision in life was to help people.)
  • Incorrect non-use of italics (The New York Times writer David Stout characterized Sanford as ... )
  • Why do we have "also" here? (Sanford was also a staunch opponent of capital punishment. )
  • Awkward, cumbersome: Sanford was an assistant director of the Institute of Government of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill from 1946 until 1948, then began a private practice of law in Fayetteville.
  • WP:OVERLINKing everywhere; I unlinked a few, but kept finding more.
  • Redundancy, why the "next"? (a position he held for the next 16 years.)
  • What is a "private career"?

Just generally needs a thorough going-over based on this; a number of these items were not there when the article was promoted (oops, passive voice, when I promoted the article). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:37, 13 April 2019 (UTC)


The lead strikes me as rather short at only two paragraphs. Nixon's article, an FA, has a 4-paragraph lead, while Strom Thurmond (not an FA, but a politician of what I believe is comparative importance, location, and era) has a 5-paragraph lead. While that's probably not in of itself a legitimate argument for delisting, it does reflect poorly on comprehensiveness. – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 00:56, 24 May 2019 (UTC)