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, Ealdgyth and Gog the Mild—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  • a nomination is unprepared, after at least one reviewer has suggested it be withdrawn.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

Featured content:

Featured article candidates (FAC)

Featured article review (FAR)

Today's featured article (TFA):

Featured article tools:

How to nominate an article

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.
Commenting, supporting and opposing

Supporting and opposing

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

Nominations[edit]

The Masked Singer (American TV series)[edit]

Nominator(s): Heartfox (talk) 22:21, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

This article is about one of the most popular TV shows in the United States right now, The Masked Singer. It is a really interesting read and I think very helpful to anyone wanting to learn more about the show. The core of the article was written in April/May last year, with edits and additions since then. In its current state, I believe it is one of the best television articles on Wikipedia and worthy of FA status. I look forward to responding to any comments you may have :)

This is my fourth nomination for the article. The first two did not attract enough reviews and I withdrew the third unceremoniously after a source review by Ealdgyth in which I felt dismayed. I don't want to dwell on that, but aside from AwardsWatch and The Playlist, none of the sources she inquired about remain in the article. Those two are niche awards/"For Your Consideration"-focused outlets and are interviews with the costume designer in which she discusses the costumes. I don't think it is unreasonable to include them as 100% of topic's coverage is not going to come traditional outlets. It is a miracle there is this much coverage about a reality show to begin with. Heartfox (talk) 22:21, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Cai Lun[edit]

Nominator(s): Aza24 (talk) 23:58, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

He invented paper, but you've never heard of him? Well don't worry, most people outside of East Asia haven't—and he didn't "invent" paper exactly, but his improvements were so pivotal that he is credited with the invention, at least in its modern form. Not only this, but he certainly had an interesting (albeit mostly unknown) life, full of palace intrigue. This article has been a project of mine for a little over a year, and I've dug deep to find sufficient sourcing. I primarily rely on two authorities on the subject: Tsien Tsuen-hsuin and Rafe de Crespigny; de Crespigny even kindly gave me valuable feedback via email on the article's state. Thanks to PericlesofAthens, Wehwalt and White whirlwind for their invaluable suggestions; Nlu for providing various translations; and Tenryuu for his first-class copy editing. And of course, thanks in advance to any who are able to review. Aza24 (talk) 23:58, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Image review

  • Don't use fixed px size
    • Removed
  • Suggest adding alt text
    • Will consider doing so, though it may be tomorrow
  • File:刘炟.jpg needs a US tag. Ditto File:Cai_Lun_with_Donchō_and_Mochizuki_Seibee_(Minobu_Museum_of_History_and_Folklore).jpg
    • Added PD-1996 to both
  • File:Making_Paper.gif needs a source and a US tag
    • Added source & PD-1996
  • File:Hunan_International_Economics_University23.jpg: commons:Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/China#Freedom_of_panorama suggests there may be some complications around using images like this
    • Hmm the issue is that there's no author/creator given, but I'd be surprised if the artist's name was even recorded anywhere.
    • How old is the statue? If we can show it's PD, there is no issue, but if there's still copyright then there are issues. (t · c) buidhe 02:38, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
      • Not sure, I'll see if Nlu can read the chinese on the pedestal. Aza24 (talk) 04:58, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
  • File:Cai-lun.jpg: source link is dead, needs a US tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:05, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
    • Added new source and PD-1996
    • @Nikkimaria: I added some tags that I think cover the issues. Only thing I'm un-sure about is the Hunan_International_Economics_University23 situation, if you could offer further insight. Aza24 (talk) 02:31, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Nikkimaria beat me to it, but I also found

  • File:Cai Lun.jpg Not PD-US because of URAA (t · c) buidhe 01:16, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
    • @Buidhe: Does PD-1996 work for this? Aza24 (talk) 02:31, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
      • No, because 1962+50 is after 1996. A lot of Commons files are not free in the US for this reason! (t · c) buidhe 02:38, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
        • Hmm, buidhe, so would the picture ever be in US copyright in the future? Just trying to figure out how this works. Aza24 (talk) 04:58, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
          • It would get the standard 95 years after first publication, see the Hirtle chart. (t · c) buidhe 05:03, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
            • Ah I see—now replaced. Aza24 (talk) 07:01, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt[edit]

I'm making a number of hands-on edits as we go. Feel free to revert or change any you do not like.
No need, all looks great Aza24 (talk) 06:38, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
  • I might cut back on the number of parentheticals, translations, etc in the lede. It's a bit distracting and makesita bit hard to read.
  • Removed all the parenthesis except one—tried to incorporate the Chinese titles into the text, hopefully that helps
  • In the lede, you say Song was An's grandmother; in the body you say mother. Also, the lede says there was a false rumor Cai intended to harm An, this isn't backed up in the body.
  • Good catch, changed to grandmother for both
  • When multiple refs are used, they aren't in numerical order at present. Is there a reason why they aren't?
  • No reason, I actually meant to bundle them so have done so now. They should all be good; for the dagger refs I've kept them after the normal ones regardless as they're primary sources and thus different numbering, if that makes sense.
That's it.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:36, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
Thanks Wehwalt, all addressed I believe. Aza24 (talk) 06:38, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Christian Bale[edit]

Nominator(s): KyleJoantalk 08:24, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

This article is about the Welsh-born English actor. Known for his work in films, including the Dark Knight trilogy, Terminator Salvation, American Psycho, and The Fighter, the last of which earned him an Academy Award; he has been noted for repeatedly gaining and losing weight for his roles. The article has seen a major expansion since its successful GA review, so here's hoping that one of the most physically gifted and versatile actors of his generation becomes one of Wikipedia's featured articles! KyleJoantalk 08:24, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Image review—pass
  • File:Ch Bale 02.jpg What's the evidence that the uploader actually took the photograph?
  • Currently there's a lot of headshots in the article. Would be better to replace some with group photographs or other images that show the subject in context for variety. (t · c) buidhe 10:01, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
    • I've removed Ch Bale 02.jpg from the article. Since so many of the uploader's files have been kept after deletion requests, I though it was at least established that there was also no evidence of the contrary (i.e., the photos not being their own work), but I understand that this is not in line with the FA criteria. Regarding the other headshots, I've replaced the photos from the Public Enemies premiere and the American Hustle promo rounds with ones from the 2011 Oscars and the 2019 TIFF red carpet. KyleJoantalk 13:58, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
      • For a famous guy like Bale usually OTRS or being taken at a public event is required to show that the images are free, at least that's what I think is reasonable at FAC. (t · c) buidhe 06:04, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
        • I'll keep that in mind. Thank you for the image review and comments, Buidhe! KyleJoantalk 05:13, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
Comments by Buidhe
  • You state that he "will play". This should be rephrased to avoid WP:CRYSTAL, such as saying that Bale has agreed to play these roles. (t · c) buidhe 10:02, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
    • Replaced it with "is set to" and "is attached to". General question: is it still inappropriate to say "will" when a film has wrapped production? KyleJoantalk 13:58, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
      • IDK, I don't edit many film articles. (t · c) buidhe 05:48, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
  • The section "2005–2012: The Dark Knight trilogy and acclaim" is too long—should be split up. (t · c) buidhe 10:13, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
    • Removed "2005–2012: The Dark Knight trilogy and acclaim" and "2013–present: Continued success"; added "2005–2011: Batman and dramatic roles", "2012–2018: Continued acclaim", and "2018–present: Recent career". KyleJoantalk 04:13, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
      • That's an improvement, although I would say 2005–2011 section is still probably longer than ideal. Keep in mind that a majority of readers will be accessing on their phones, where this section (on my phone, at least) is more than six screens long—more frequent section breaks would make it easier to read. (t · c) buidhe 05:48, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
        • Adjusted the headings to encompass 2005–2008, 2009–2012, 2013–2018, and 2018–present. You were right about the section breaks. The article seems to flow much better this way. KyleJoantalk 06:58, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Cas Liber[edit]

Taking a look now...will make straightforward copyedits as I go (please revert if I inadvertently change the meaning) and jot queries below.....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:53, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

  • He attended Bournemouth School but later said that he left school at age 16 - why "but" here?
  • Para 2 of 1986–1999: Career beginnings and breakthrough and para 2 of 2000–2004: Rise to prominence and commercial decline are a bit listy. I sorta get why but some other bits about the roles he did/motivation/or any anecdote might break the listy feel. THe article has 26kb of readable prose so size is not a worry at this point.
  • ...an audio recording of when Bale went into a tirade on the film's set.... - I remember this...the wording here is slightly awkward. However I am having trouble thinking of a smoother alternative.
  • is there anything about which actors he was inspired by, and who has regarded him as an inspiration?

Otherwise pretty comprehensive. Reads well - there are a few run-on 'and's but alternative phrasing with subordinate clauses don't spring naturally so not sure they can be "improved" as such. Will read through again as I am not the best at picking up prose improvements. Nice work. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:38, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Solo Man[edit]

Nominator(s):   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:22, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

This article is about the last known population of Homo erectus, part of my massive overhaul of prehistoric humans and allies. The only other great ape FA is orangutan. There aren't any recent comprehensive books focusing just on Solo Man (there are a lot which briefly mention it) but the primary description of the anatomy is a lengthy monograph from 1951 (I've omitted the detailed discussions on individual bones for brevity), and there are a few literature reviews which I've relied upon especially in Research history.   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:22, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Image review—pass
  • File:Solo Man reconstruction.png, File:Ngandong excavation.png, and the other images from this 1951 publication. How do you know copyright was not renewed?
The US copyright renewal database doesn't show this publication (or any publications by Weidenreich) renewed. The Commons links this website with the description "United States Copyright Office. Online database for all copyrights registered or renewed in 1978 or after. For works with copyrights from 1950 or after, the renewal will appear here."   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:21, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
I would think it's more likely for Anthropological Papers of the AMNH to renew copyright for the contents of their journal? (t · c) buidhe 05:38, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
I mean they clearly renewed a lot of their publications [1], including other works from 1951   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  05:51, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
Did you look through all 201 pages of results or otherwise confirm that this issue of the Anthropological Papers of the AMNH was never copyright renewed? (t · c) buidhe 13:18, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
I looked through all 201, yes   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  14:55, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
  • File:Biface Extension.png What is the source of the information displayed on the map?
I can add one, would you prefer [2] or the doctorate thesis used on File:Carte hachereaux.jpg?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:21, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
Either of these would appear to be a reliable source. (t · c) buidhe 05:38, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

(t · c) buidhe 02:37, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Uturuncu[edit]

Nominator(s): Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:10, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

This article is about a volcano in Bolivia which was glaciated in the past and is the highest summit in the region. It'd be unremarkable - except that satellite images show that since 1992 it has been inflating due to the ascent of magma at depth. Because it's in an area with numerous supervolcanoes, some folks think this inflation may be the prelude to a giant eruption although a regular eruption is certainly possible too. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:10, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

  • Images appear to be freely licensed. However, I would suggest that you label the infobox image with the angle at which it was taken (north face, from the southwest, etc.) rather than the date, unless the volcano changed drastically since 2006. (t · c) buidhe 09:27, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
    That's done. AFAIK the apparel of the volcano has not drastically changed during the past 15 years. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:30, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Moisejp[edit]

Hi Jo-Jo. I've done one read-through so far and the article seems in pretty good shape. Now I'm working my way through the second read-through and I will add points as I notice them. By the way, I don't know much about volcanoes, so this is a layman's review.

  • (Minor comment) Geography and geomorphology: "since then scientific interest has increased, including a reconnaissance mission carried out by scientists in 2003". Would something like "scientific interest and activity" possibly work better? For me "reconnaissance mission" doesn't quite seem to mesh with "scientific interest" ("interest included a reconnaissance mission" doesn't seem precise).
    Seems OK to me; done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:37, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Structure: Halfway through the first paragraph the subject changes to be about lava flows. Would it be better to break off into a new paragraph, either as a new second paragraph or possibly join it with the existing second paragraph about lava flows? Moisejp (talk) 04:38, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:37, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Charles Heaphy[edit]

Nominator(s): Zawed (talk) 10:25, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

This article is a biography of Charles Heaphy, a British explorer and soldier of the 19th Century, active in New Zealand from the 1840s through to 1880. He was awarded the Victoria Cross for an action during the New Zealand Wars. He was also an artist, and produced many early artistic representations of life in New Zealand, many of which were used to attract colonists to the country. The article was promoted to GA in 2014 and successfully went through the MilHist A-Class process in 2016. I now bring it forward for consideration for promotion to FA. Zawed (talk) 10:25, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Image review

  • Suggest adding alt text
  • File:Te_Rauparaha,_N.Z._chief,_photographic_print_of_wash_drawing_by_Charles_Heaphy,_1839.jpg needs a US tag. Ditto File:Matukituki_Valley,_1847.jpg
  • File:Charles_Heaphy_-_Wellington_Harbour,_N.Z._-_Google_Art_Project.jpg: when and where was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:56, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Nikkimaria, I have added alt text to all images, and also added US tags. I swapped out the Wellington Harbour image for what I believe is a more striking image, but one which also has a US tag. Thanks for looking at this. Zawed (talk) 10:15, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Thanks for that. For the URAA tag you've added, we generally need to know when and where these images were first published - some are missing that information. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:17, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
  • I've tried another tag but I really don't know what I'm doing here. Heaphy died in 1881 so his work should all be PD. Similarly for the Fox painting, he died in 1893. It is going to difficult to find evidence of when the paintings were first displayed, which I think is what you mean by publication. Zawed (talk) 09:28, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
OK, I have replaced the images with ones that have publication dates I can verify. Zawed (talk) 10:16, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by PM[edit]

Great article, interesting guy. A few points:

Lead
  • suggest linking New Zealand in the first sentence, many people around the world sadly have no idea where it is
  • Linked, but I thought we were supposed to link countries? I've been pinged in the past for doing so. Zawed (talk) 09:41, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
  • decap Invasion if "Invasion of the Waikato"
  • "As well as being the first soldier of the New Zealand armed forces"
  • is there a link to an article about the NZ militia that could be used?
  • There is no article that I believe is suitable. Articles on NZ's early military history, including the various militia units, are pretty patchy and it would be pretty tricky to write up a cohesive one. Zawed (talk) 09:41, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
  • suggest "he was the first recipient from any militia force."
Body
  • comma after "who was a professional painter"
  • link London and Birmingham Railway
  • suggest "It is unlikely it was a serious wound, for a few weeks later he went on a trek back in New Zealand to the Taranaki Region, where he produced some of his more notable landscapes."
  • state that Arthur Wakefield was yet another brother of Edward
  • suggest "It had clashed with Māori in the Wairau Affray in the Wairau Valley to the south-east of Nelson, and several company employees were killed, including Arthur Wakefield."
  • Done but with mention of Wakefield's brother. Zawed (talk) 10:02, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
  • suggest "Food sources included roots and berries; birds were snared and eels caught from streams. Along the coast, shellfish and gull eggs were added to the diet."
  • suggest "As they believed they were only 32 kilometres (20 mi) from the coast, their dwindling provisions prevented them proceeding to the mouth of the Buller River."
  • link South Island and Whanganui
  • Done. I added mention of the South Island earlier in the article and linked it there. Zawed (talk) 10:25, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
  • suggest "They continued along the coast, climbing steep cliffs and fording rivers as they went. Their movements were held up at times due to rain and high tides."

More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:40, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

  • could we be a bit more specific regarding his "artworks"? What medium(s) did he use?
  • I have added mention of watercolours and sketches at certain points. Zawed (talk) 03:58, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
  • link captain (armed forces)
  • decap Invasion if "Invasion of the Waikato"
  • riverways
  • link Maritime pilot
  • suggest "As the British advanced deeper into the Waikato, he was attached to the staff of Lieutenant Colonel Henry Havelock."
  • "being killed by the Māori"
  • suggest "They were eventually relieved by reinforcements, but the two wounded men that Heaphy and the soldier were trying to protect died of their injuries."
  • in the VC section, you need to add the info from the lead about the status of the VC and source it
  • suggest "Grey, who was serving a second term as governor, despite knowing that neither Heaphy or another man recommended for the VC for an action earlier in the campaign, were in the British Army or Royal Navy."
  • suggest "Heaphy refused to accept this and began to agitate with the British government, with support from Grey, Havelock, and General Duncan Cameron, commander of the British forces in New Zealand."
  • the table regarding his term in Parliament is superfluous, just include that he was an independent in the text
  • "A parliamentary colleague was William Fox"
  • except when used in the sense of the full formal title, Commissioner should be commissioner, per MOS:JOBTITLES
  • suggest "The enquiry cleared Heaphy of corruption, although he was criticised for taking payments from young trainee surveyors in return for work."
  • link justice of the peace
  • Just wondering if Infobox officeholder is the right choice for this chap. He is notable for a range of things, but I'm not sure that politics is really the leading one. Perhaps Infobox person with embedded modules if needed?
  • I've swapped out the existing infobox for the Infobox person version with embedded modules, as suggested. Zawed (talk) 03:58, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

That's it. Great job. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:49, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

  • Thanks for taking the time to have a gander at this Peacemaker67, I have responded to your feedback as above and with edits to the article. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 03:58, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Support by Nick-D[edit]

Interesting article. I'd like to offer the following comments:

  • "create art for advertising the country" - bit clunky
  • Rephrased, how does it read now? Zawed (talk) 06:17, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
  • "around the centre of the country" - was NZ was a 'country' at this time? It's not clear to me what's meant by its 'centre'? I'd suggest tweaking this to something like 'around the inland of the North and South Islands' or similar
  • Have rephrased. Zawed (talk) 06:17, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
  • "he travelled extensively around the country " - as above
  • Have rephrased. Zawed (talk) 06:17, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
  • How did the NZ Company disseminate Heaphy's art in the UK?
  • It seems to have mainly reproduced it as lithographs. I have added some material to the New Zealand Company section to expand on this. Zawed (talk) 06:17, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
  • "He took nearly six months to reach London," - this makes it sound like he dallied, when this was actually how long it took to make the trip
  • Have deleted "nearly". Zawed (talk) 06:17, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
  • "On 11 February, soldiers of the 40th Regiment of Foot were bathing in the Mangapiko Stream near Paterangi and were ambushed by a raiding party. Heaphy, commanding some men of the 50th Regiment of Foot, came to the aid of the defenders and moved to cut off the Māori line of retreat. He then overcame the Māori reserve, before leading his men to the ambush site, to assist the British soldiers. Despite being outnumbered, the British repulsed the Māori and began to pursue them into the bush." - I find this a bit hard to follow. Are you sure that the British troops were 'ambushed' rather than 'attacked', and if the Māori line of retreat was cut how did they manage to escape?
  • I went back to my source and revised. What I don't think was clear previously is that Heaphy was in charge of some of the reinforcements, not the entire party. Zawed (talk) 08:12, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
  • "Although he was a hard working representative for the people of the Parnell electorate, Heaphy's time in parliament was undistinguished" - can any examples of what he did for his electorate be provided?
  • I don't have a lot of info on that; I added a sentence based on my main source (Sharp). Zawed (talk) 10:03, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
  • What were 'native reserves'? (and is this still an appropriate term given 'native' is a term best avoided unless it was the actual name of something)
  • It was Māori land - I have reduced mention of the term to its official usage as a title and clarified what the role entailed. Zawed (talk) 10:03, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Have there been any recent interpretations of Heaphy's role in the British conquest and administration of NZ? I can see a few reasons this might not be fondly remembered by Māori. Nick-D (talk) 04:08, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Not in that context; modern scholarship is more focussed on his art. I have expanded the legacy section to be reflect this. Nick-D, thanks for reviewing this. I have responded above and with edits to the article. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 10:03, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Support Those changes look good, but I've made some slight tweaks. Nice work here. Nick-D (talk) 10:22, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the support. Zawed (talk) 10:35, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Support by Card Carrying Parrot

Well written. Also, you need to link Australia. This isn't really a deficiency, but I feel like maybe there needs to be one more photo or painting of the man himself (not necessarily needed, but if there is one it would probably be an excellent idea to include it). Excellent job overall. Card Carrying Parrot (talk) 20:27, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the support. I have linked Australia. RE another illustration of him, there is no painting of him, and supposedly only three photographs of him exist (one is obviously in the article, and there is another one of him taken at the same time where he is standing. The third is one from his politician days but I haven't been able to find it. Zawed (talk) 09:38, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
Okay. Great job overall. Card Carrying Parrot (talk) 22:03, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

2016 FA Cup Final[edit]

Nominator(s): The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 07:04, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Even though it's lost a bit of polish over the last few years, this is still the premier domestic association football cup competition in the world. I believe we now have a comprehensive and detailed article covering all aspects of the final, and I look forward to addressing any and all constructive comments, with thanks in advance for taking the time and interest to help the nomination. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 07:04, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Resolved comments from ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:33, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
;Comments
  • "Just before the interval in the first half of the additional period" - there isn't an interval in the first half of extra time
  • "Manchester United's Rooney was named as man of the match" - this is the first mention of him, so his forename needs adding (as does a link)
  • "Zaha scored in the first half, after [...] passing the ball past Jakob Haugaard" - he scored by passing?
  • "Crystal Palace went into the match without a win in the league" - pedantically, they hadn't won in the league that season, rather than ever? Also, why mention this in relation to this round in particular?
  • "Manchester United's first shot on target came from substitute Memphis Depay, who was fouled in second half stoppage time by Dean Hammond for a penalty kick" - this is a long sentence which seems to conflate two completely separate incidents - might be better to break it up
  • "United were forced play" - missing word there
  • "when James Tomkins' scored with a header" - no need for that apostrophe
  • "West Ham halved the deficit in the 79th minute [..] and despite dominating the closing stages, including a disallowed goal from West Ham United's Cheikhou Kouyaté, the match ended 2–1" - this reads a bit clumsily, suggest a reword
  • "saved Romelu Lukaku's subsequent spot-kick" - last word is a bit slangy
  • "sent in a cross which was deflecteed" - typo
  • "off Chris Smalling" - previously at second mentions, you haven't repeated the forename
  • "In the two league matches between sides" => "In the two league matches between the sides"
  • "The referee for the final was Mark Clattenburg, from Consett, County Durham, and was assisted" => "The referee for the final was Mark Clattenburg, from Consett, County Durham, who was assisted"
  • "by both BBC" => "by both the BBC"
  • "All tickets prices " - lose the s on tickets
  • "The financial prize for the winning the" - there's either a word missing here or one word too many
  • "the latter dropping to the substitute's bench" => "the latter dropping to the substitutes' bench"
  • "Mata was then shown the yellow card for high and late tackle" => "Mata was then shown the yellow card for a high and late tackle"
  • "while Alan Smith in The Guardian " - link The Guardian
  • "a low cross from Valencia was partly clear" => "a low cross from Valencia was partly cleared"
  • "Rooney was named man of the match and expressed admiration of his opponents" => "Rooney was named man of the match and expressed admiration for his opponents"
  • "Crystal Palace defender Dalenay" - name spelt incorrectly
  • "Alan Smith, writing in The Guardian described" - comma needed after Guardian, also you can delink it here as you will have linked it above per my earlier comment
  • "Crystal Palace one point above the relegation positions in the Premier League" - overlinking on Premier League
  • Think that's it from me :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:27, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
ChrisTheDude thanks, I think I've got to all of your points. I really appreciate the review. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 15:36, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Source review[edit]

Will do soon. Aza24 (talk) 22:43, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Formatting
  • James M. Ross seems to be the author for ref 13
  • ref 19 is missing a work/publisher
  • The Rostance refs seems to have "21 May 2016" as their dates. It's above the summary and under "Mourinho latest & FA Cup final reaction"
    • Suggest a "find and replace" tool to update this quicker
  • ref 47 is missing the date
Reliability
  • No issues
Verifiability
  • Checked a few—no issues. Aza24 (talk) 22:54, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
Aza24 thanks so much, I've addressed your concerns, let me know if there's anything else. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 09:01, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Support from Casliber[edit]

  • Support from me. I concede I am not the tightest of prose reviewers so others might pick up something but I could not see any outstanding prose errors. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:07, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Raya and the Last Dragon[edit]

@Wingwatchers: The first step in ensuring an article passes FA is to initiate the nomination. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:25, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Ok, to begin with, the article met all FA criteria. Wingwatchers (talk) 01:43, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Oppose - MOS:PLOT suggests plot summary should be between 400-700 words, this one is too long at over 800. Entire soundtrack track listing is uncited, as well as a few bits in the voice cast section. A number of sources look to be unreliable or only marginally reliable, like the D23 Expo YouTube link, Digital Mafia Talkies, DisInsider, dvdreleasedates.com, whattowatch, and maybe a few others. Several references are not formatted correctly, including missing publishers and other issues. I don't think this one is quite ready; it currently fails WP:FACR #1c, 2c, and 4, and possibly others (I'm not familiar enough with this film to judge comprehensiveness first. I'd recommend sending this through WP:Peer review and probably the WP:GAN process before renominating. Hog Farm Talk 03:23, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

I will complete it. No worries. Wingwatchers (talk) 00:18, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
@Hog Farm: I found another article that also crosses the border of 800 words. Wingwatchers (talk) 03:48, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
The other article is about twice as long as Raya, so the plot summary is only comparatively about half the percentage of the article. I did some very rough math, and the plot summary here appears to be in the 27-30% of the article range (may not be exact, did some rough rounding). Hog Farm Talk 03:57, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
The citation problems is obvious, but can you elaborate on why it fails WP:FACR? Wingwatchers (talk) 03:50, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
The main issues are with claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources from FACR #1c (several some of the references from the version I checked don't seem to be high-quality RS) and where required by criterion 1c, consistently formatted inline citations using footnotes from FACR #2c. Essentially, you'll need to make sure that each reference includes the publisher, that the various things are done in the same way (for instance, "Joanna Robinson" vs "Robinson, Joanna", that the author is listed for all sources cited (for instance, "Raya and the Last Dragon: Creating Disney's First Southeast Asian-Centered Movie" has an author, but it is not included in the citation), and things like including the date for all references that have a publishing or "last updated" date. FA can be a very tough process, so I think working up through GA and then maybe a peer review will be a better path. That way the article can improve in small steps, rather than have to make one big leap. I had multiple articles I'd brought to GA before bringing one to FA. FAC can be tough at first, because it has really high standards. Hog Farm Talk 03:57, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
No problems, I will get it done. Wingwatchers (talk) 00:15, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
Done. @Hog Farm:. Wingwatchers (talk) 17:26, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
Striking oppose for now; I hope to be able to give this a longer read-through over the next couple days. Hog Farm Talk 03:40, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Images Sole image seems OK to me use and licence wise. ALT text is necessary though. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:33, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus:, completed. Wingwatchers (talk) 17:27, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
Seems OK to me. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:26, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
Can some images of the cast be added? Heartfox (talk) 00:32, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
Added. @Heartfox:. Wingwatchers (talk) 02:23, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
In my opinion, the images seem like a bit of an overkill now. Maybe reduce them to just the primary cast (e.g. just Kelly Marie Tran and Awkwafina)? Pamzeis (talk) 11:36, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
@Pamzeis: Corrected. Wingwatchers (talk) 00:15, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and adjusted the size of the images. Feel free to change it. Pamzeis (talk) 02:27, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

HF (second run)[edit]

Lead
  • "The 59th film produced by the studio" - not in body, not cited anywhere
  • "It has grossed $132 million worldwid" - need to indicate an as of date, as this figure may continue to change
Infobox
  • Kiel Murray is not cited
  • Dean Wellins is not cited
  • Rob Dressel is not cited
  • Adolph Luskinsky is not cited
  • Fabienne Rawley is not cited
  • Shannon Stein is not cited
  • Not the nominator but I think the film credits are able to be used here (and above) as a WP:PRIMARY source.
  • March 3 release date in Indonesia is not found elsewhere and is not cited.
  • Running time is not cited
Plot summary
  • Again, this is too long. Not so much in raw word count, but the plot summary is about 33% of the article's length, which suggests either A) the plot summary is too detailed B) the rest of the article isn't detailed enough or C) both
Development
  • Normally, in movie FAs, it's expected that some detail about how the movie was actually produced should be included, in this case, this would be information about what types of animation were used.
  • "The recasting was due to creative shifts in the character and story" - any further detail that can be said here?
  • Tran was selected for her "lightness and buoyancy, but also badassery. [23] - missing the closing parenthesis, you should also directly attribute inline direct quotes.
  • she was well aware that Disney Animation "had already turned her down and removed another actor from the project" - not convinced that the direct quote is necessary here, this should probably be paraphrased
  • "The score was released on February 26, 2021." - Source is actually from before February 26, so it doesn't confirm this
Music
  • No need to quote KZ Tandingan so extensively, quotes from here are almost half of the prose in this section
  • "All lyrics are written by James Newton Howard, except where noted" - none are noted to not be written by Howard, so you can just drop the "except where noted"
Release
  • "Raya and the Last Dragon was available for purchase through Premier Access until May 4, 2021 (March 19 in Latin America) and is available for free to all subscribers as of April 23 in Latin America, and as of June 4 in other countries" - source is a press release from February, so it doesn't support either of those as of dates.
  • "with DVD, Blu-ray, and Ultra HD Blu-ray released on May 18, 2021" - source if from May 15, so it only really proves that this was planned, you'll need a source after May 18 to confirm that it actually was released on that date
Reception
  • "Saying so, the film's performance improved on the next weeks, therefore matching and eventually surpassing Tom & Jerry's box office numbers" - remove "saying so" as not really encyclopedic tone.
  • I don't think the demographics statistics for viewership is really relevant, unless you can find a source discussing why the stats are significant
  • Critical response could probably be fleshed out a bit more; it's rather short for a fairly significant internet-age movie
Sources

Sorry, but I'm back at oppose - this just isn't quite ready for FAC. WP:GAN would be a better step for this. It's also going to be really hard to write an FA about a movie only months after the film came out; a lot of the significant critical commentary about the film probably just hasn't been written yet. Currently, this looks like it fails WP:FACR #1b through likely lacking information about development and critical response, it fails #1c through the uncited text in the infobox and lead, the lead contains information not found in the body which fails #2a, and the fact that about 33% of the non-lead length is the plot summary fails #4. I'm sorry, but this isn't close enough to the FA criteria right now, although GA would be a realistic goal. Hog Farm Talk 03:20, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

And Again, I will get you to strike oppose again. Wingwatchers (talk) 03:47, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Indian roller[edit]

Nominator(s): BhagyaMani (talk · contribs), LittleJerry (talk · contribs), Aa77zz (talk · contribs), Shyamal (talk · contribs) & Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:00, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Right folks, we scoured the world for sources. And got a thorough going-over at GAN. I think in terms of comprehensiveness and prose this is on a par (or at least within striking distance) of other bird FAs. Let us know of any outstanding issues and we'll fix pronto. Cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:00, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

  • Image licensing looks good (t · c) buidhe 18:16, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
    • I swapped a few of the images for higher resolution ones and added a painting in the culture section. Feel free to rv my changes except for the header image, which I think should be the FP of the bird. (t · c) buidhe 18:41, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Valereee[edit]

  • The caption for the image of the bird in the tree hollow says they breed in hollows and crevices. Do they actually breed there, or do they just nest there? —valereee (talk) 23:39, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 03:06, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
@Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI: yes -is a collaborative project and all input is welcome Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:43, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
  • "Namesake relative" is a fairly uncommon term, maybe a link? —valereee (talk) 23:59, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 21:40, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Why are we naming in the lead the subspecies that isn't included, but not the two that are? —valereee (talk) 10:29, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
    I think it is common to list distinct species which were previously confused for the animal, no? Subspecies are imo too specific a detail for the lead. Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI converse | fings wot i hav dun 16:50, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
Subspecies do not commonly have a common name and are often hard to distinguish to all but experts. Mentioning them in the lead is fine - naming them individually probably doesn't need to happen. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:37, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Ceoil[edit]

  • Two subspecies are recognised. The Indochinese roller was formerly included as a subspecies. punctuation here isn't great.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 03:06, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Linnaeus based his description on the "Jay from Bengal" that had been described
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 03:06, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
  • ...who in turn had received a drawing from a namesake relative who resided at Fort St. George, India. - Would cut this altogether. I mean, who cares.
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 03:06, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
  • also described a roller from India under - drop also
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 03:06, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
  • which actually lies within the range of the southern subspecies, - never say "actually"
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 03:06, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Two subspecies are recognized:[8] - As this is followed by a bulleted list...maybe The two recognized subspecies are:[8]'
This formatting is more typical. LittleJerry (talk) 01:28, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Support by Femke[edit]

Resolved
  • states of India may be a better link than India in second paragraph lede.
Done. Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI converse | fings wot i hav dun 17:21, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Explain anting. Shouldn't that picture be in the next section?
I've moved the pic, I'll let the noms decide how best to explain it. Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI converse | fings wot i hav dun 17:21, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
I overassumed on the anting. changed to sunning now. new location is fine.Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:39, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
  • and called Little King among villagers in Khuzestan Province -> relevance for conservation? That name might fit better in the taxonomy section.
I've moved it to "in culture". where I think a separate section for names could be added... Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI converse | fings wot i hav dun 17:21, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
Sorry @Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI: then we'd have two separate sections for names - taxonomy includes scientific and common names. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:54, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
I think that the section Taxonomy should contain info about scientific names and classification. But common names, i.e. names used by people in various regions and cultures, should be placed in the section In culture. Common names are not at all relevant in taxonomy. So I agreed with Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI to move the common names. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 08:58, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
Except that the International Ornithologists' Union makes a big deal of giving official names and (sometimes) aligning them with taxonomy. True if names have some folklore have put them in cultural sections, but anything that is just a name we've put in taxonomy, well for the last several dozen bird/snake/plant articles I've taken to FAC and others I have seen as well Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:17, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
On sleeping on it have moved back to culture anything that is not strictly name only. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:32, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Not entirely sure we can use such an old source here for protection in Iran.
amended with ref. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 18:22, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
has been done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:39, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
  • The list of subspecies has inconsistent bracketing
I'm pretty sure that bracketing is correct because Linnaeus described the nominate subspecies benghalensis as a Corvus species, but indicus as a Coracias species. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 22:26, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
Bhagyamani is correct Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:38, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Explain type locality
None of the 2 authors -- Linnaeus + Edwards -- provide any more detail about localities than just India + Ceylon. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 22:41, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
Explaining common jargon is allowed without it being explicit in the sources. Given the fact that type locality is not the exact link, hovering over the term doesn't give an immediate understanding either. FemkeMilene (talk) 20:45, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 21:49, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Should Threats be before Conservation (why conserve if there are no threats)? Maybe merge the two sections? FemkeMilene (talk) 20:59, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
Swapped. And yes, I also like it better that way, but separate. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 22:45, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
  • It's the state bird of three Indian states, but only one of them is given a navbox at the bottom. Do the other two also exist?
added 2 missing navboxes. Or should all 3 be removed? After all: none of the other countries in IR range are not navbox'ed either? -- BhagyaMani (talk) 06:17, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
I guess they are in because of the symbolism. I have no strong feelings whether they are kept or removed. I don't think we need them on other countries Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:59, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
  • On my screen, the 'Indian roller in Kerala' photo would be better placed in 'Distribution and habitat' (making sure the refs aren't pushed to the left)
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 21:49, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 21:49, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
  • a channel with rods of β-keratin containing rods of 100 nm -- rods containing rods? FemkeMilene (talk) 16:21, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 17:13, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
Is linked - you want explanation was well? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:56, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, I couldn't figure out what it meant approximately from context. FemkeMilene (talk) 09:34, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
Okay I did this - looks a bit cumbersome to me but then again is an area I am familiar with so a neophyte's view is welcome :) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:21, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Accessibility review - pass
  • There are a few non-english words in the article. Is it possible to use the lang template with those languages (f.i. neelkanth and pɑːla-pitta)?
now templated Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:06, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Include alt for all images that are not purely decorative. FemkeMilene (talk) 15:59, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
Done. Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI converse | fings wot i hav dun 16:51, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
Make sure that the alts don't repeat the caption, this would typically cause the text-to-speech software to repeat itself. If the caption is sufficient to understand the picture, you can add 'refer to caption' (or leave it blank?). Ask yourself: what relevant information do readers miss if they can't see the picture. FemkeMilene (talk) 16:55, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
Oh I didn't know that's how tts software worked. I assumed it would look for and read only the alt text, not the caption. Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI converse | fings wot i hav dun 17:21, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Source review - pass
    • Formatting looks good;
    • FN 59, 60 do not have information about Karnataka.
added a ref. @Shyamal: may know a different one? -- BhagyaMani (talk) 16:52, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
Added a ZSI ref. Shyamal (talk) 04:23, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
    • Page 140 of FN61 does not seem to mention England. The previous page mentions exports to a wider set of countries. FemkeMilene (talk) 16:17, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 17:05, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
    • It was a common winter visitor to the marshes and mudflats of Shadegan County in Iran, though not reported since the early 1970s; I don't think the latter is in the source, as its scope seems to be the 1970s. FemkeMilene (talk) 10:46, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
I have reworded it to remove implication it has not been reported since Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:54, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
  • The sentence about the Kol people is cited to 1946. Should it be reworded so that it's unclear whether this is still the case (These things are always a bit awkward to word nicely).
Have changed to "traditionally considered" to place it in folklore. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:52, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Have spot checked 6 more sources. FemkeMilene (talk) 12:17, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Alicia (album)[edit]

Nominator(s): isento (talk) 20:45, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Another album article, as complete as can be... Barring some major blind spot, just might need some tweaks, which the review process oughtta sort out. isento (talk) 20:45, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Support from TheAmazingPeanuts[edit]

The article look good, you have my support. Wish you luck. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 08:50, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Support Comments from K. Peake[edit]

Resolved comments from K.Peake

It is only fair for me to comment on this FAC since I was the GA reviewer and you've helped out with my recent FAC, so before listing concerns I will say honestly that this article is mostly in great shape! However, Bustle should be removed or replaced because WP:RSP has come to no consensus about the reliability of the source, making it not suitable for FA. I understand that Rap-Up is usable for GA, but I do not see how it is a highly quality source for FA so would recommend replacing or removing, unless you have a reasonable argument for it being of such quality. Citation #32 is missing Rolling Stone from the ref layout, plus I suggest adding the url access parameter with subscription to all refs using this magazine like you have done for The Times and The Sunday Times to be consistent with formatting, while The New York Times should have this parameter and cite limited. --K. Peake 07:55, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

I've replaced the first Bustle source. But I would defend the second because the writer is one of note -- Shayla Lawson, a published author of music-related topics -- and the few citations to her article are observations/commentary on the album's music (WP:SUBJECTIVE). isento (talk) 15:14, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
Using a disputed source is fine when the writer is considered reputable, so I will accept this. --K. Peake 19:51, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
How isn't Rap-Up a high-quality source for an R&B album article? It's impact and reputability in this particular area are documented in Rap-Up#Impact. isento (talk) 15:14, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
The article itself says Rap-Up has no audit, plus can you provide evidence of an editorial process? --K. Peake 19:51, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
The nytimes article sourcing that claim (from 2005) is referring to that in the context of its sales, so audit (as in the primary definition) is of the magazine's finances. Like the nytimes article, Muckrack lists the Lazerine brothers as the magazine's editors ([3], [4]). isento (talk) 21:08, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
On the other hand, I'm sure I can replace these references since they mostly source quotes from Keys that may have been reprinted elsewhere... isento (talk) 21:29, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
Replaced them. isento (talk) 22:30, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
I've added the parameter to the nytimes citation, but I don't see why the Rolling Stone citations need them. Last I checked, the website's content is still free to all visitors. isento (talk) 15:14, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
Just checked and for the majority of the RS sources you are correct, but refs 41, 46 and 55 are all subscription required, so add the appropriate parameter. --K. Peake 19:59, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
I checked other references, and it seems that articles from this magazine sometimes do ask for a log in and sometimes don't... so I will add the parameter to them all. Sad development I'm seeing, in any case. isento (talk) 21:08, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
It is always best to be on the safe side so good job here; I will now fully support this candidacy! --K. Peake 06:04, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Support from 100cellsman[edit]

Resolved comments from 100cellsman

I think this article is acceptable enough for FA status, but the quote-box on the left is kind of lengthy to me. Also, the refrain for "Authors of Forever" should be best omitted since it can count as a copyright violation.OO 01:21, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. And I've trimmed the quote-box a bit. But I would defend the quoted lyrics with criteria from WP:NFCCP: "Minimal extent of use" (only four lines, as specified by Keys, of a ~48-line work), "Previous publication" (in Keys' memoir, with permission from the copyright holder), and "Contextual significance" (connected to central themes of the album, as discussed by Keys and other sources in the article). Similar qualities of pertinence and contextual significance at WP:QUOTATION also seem to justify this case, as does the idea of incorporating lyrics in the context of an "analytical framework" at WP:LYRICS. But let me know what you think to all of the above. isento (talk) 15:51, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
I changed my stance to support now. 웃OO 19:27, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Images/Files[edit]

Is there any source discussing the sample File:Alicia Keys - Authors of Forever.ogg or is it just a custom-made cut that features the most representative portion of the song? Otherwise, sections are pertinent and ALT text is so-so; some files lack it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:42, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

NPR uses the same soundbite, with the same lyrics that are oft-cited in sources, a few among them cited in this article. isento (talk) 16:38, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
I'm sorry but I don't understand what you mean about "some files lack it". Which images can use an improved ALT text? isento (talk) 16:38, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
It means that not all files have ALT text. I think normally the point of an ALT text is to replace the information provided by the image, not to describe its content. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:24, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
I wrote alt text for all images. In my experience, I am normally asked to offer descriptions of the images. Can you respond more thoroughly in regards to your concerns so I can have a better idea of how to resolve them? isento (talk) 20:24, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
The general purpose of ALT text is to replace the image for readers that cannot see it. Ergo, if the image is meant to convey a specific information (e.g a physical description) that information needs to be in the ALT text. Otherwise, a generic description is OK. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:32, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
Ok. But I've also been advised of its connection to visually impaired readers. In any case, I've revised the alt text for each to comply with both concerns. Let me know what you think and whatever else needs to be resolved. isento (talk) 21:03, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
Perhaps a bit overlong, but OK. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:20, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Source review–pass[edit]

Resolved comments from Heartfox
  • https://file1.largepdf.com/file/2020/04/08/More_Myself_-_Alicia_Keys.pdf#page=231&zoom=100,102,196 → isn't this a copyvio? you should remove the link per WP:COPYLINK.
    • Not sure. But yeah, it can go. isento (talk) 21:49, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
  • The book needs page numbers cited
  • "She held a private show for the radio station NRJ in Paris on February 4" → is there a source that reports this after the fact? (The article was written Jan 27). If not, what makes Sortira Paris a high-quality source?
    • I've replaced it with a post-show source in Yahoo Actualités isento (talk) 21:49, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
      • The new source doesn't support that she performed. Heartfox (talk) 00:24, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
        • I've revised it to simply say "guest spot". isento (talk) 02:17, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
  • News Break is a deprecated source following an RfC at WP:RSP.
  • Is there another source other than Insider for the delayed release date (fn 42)?
    • There's this by That Grape Juice and this by the hip hop blog OnSmash. isento (talk) 21:49, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
    • There are even more reputable sources that verify the delay from March to May; they just don't mention the detail about the streaming services. isento (talk) 01:52, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
      • An earlier review here questioned the quality of Rap-Up as the source, which was originally cited here. Instead of fighting the issue, I replaced it with Insider. isento (talk) 04:00, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
        • Given that Insider cites Rap-Up, which in turn cites a random tweet, maybe go with the better sources as the streaming services listing it doesn't seem that important IMO. Heartfox (talk) 00:24, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
          • Done. I've used a CBS News source. isento (talk) 02:17, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
  • probably add the dateline from the CBS Boston article and the Associated Press article and the locations for the other newspapers like Star Tribune.
    • What do you mean by dateline? Location, like Minneapolis for Star Tribune? isento (talk) 21:49, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
    • Oh, the date was there for the AP article, just rendered ahead of the title because no author is credited. I added Foxboro to the CBS Boston citation. And I replaced the Star Tribune source with ABC News since the former was a dead link. isento (talk) 01:45, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
      • ABC News ref is showing a red formatting error. It also should include agency=Associated Press and can include place=Los Angeles. Heartfox (talk) 00:24, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
  • fn 60 missing authors
  • fn 61 missing author
  • fn 61 missing date
    • Wow, good catch! Done. isento (talk) 21:49, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
  • fn 62 "UNSTAGED" doesn't need to be capitalized
  • fn 62 url-status=dead
  • fn 63 url-status=dead
  • fn 73 can be formatted as Template:Cite tweet
    • Fixed all of the above. isento (talk) 21:49, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
  • What makes Atwood Magazine a high-quality source?
    • It's been cited as a source in some books/journals by music journalists ([5], [6]) and academics ([7], [8]), as well as news sources like NME ([9]), BroadwayWorld ([10]), and Green Left Weekly ([11]). The magazine is an independent music publication used for critical commentary, connecting the music to the collective social consciousness, and cited among more mainstream sources. In the spirit of MOS:ALBUM#Critical reception, "Be sure to note minority opinions as well, properly cited. Also, the way that the album affected the cultural consciousness of a society or culture should be included to further establish notability. ... Professional reviews may include only reviews written by professional journalists ... or found within any online or print publication having a (paid or volunteer) editorial and writing staff". Zoominfo's records on Atwood shows employee and revenue records with editorial staff. One of their editors previously worked for the online magazines The 405 and Euphoria ([12]). isento (talk) 22:37, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
  • I'm confused by the italicization. Official Charts Company fn 67 isn't, but iSpot.tv and iHeartRadio are?
    • Official Charts Company is an organization. Per Template:Cite web, this belongs in the publisher parameter, which does not italicize the name. isento (talk) 22:37, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
    • I could cite the website name -- officialcharts.com -- as the work, which would italicize it, but that's not normally done, as shown by the UK charts template (Template:Albumchart). isento (talk) 23:55, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
    • Honestly, I would be open to any suggestion. I've never found much consistency or sense with how some of the work vs. publisher cases are handled at these articles. isento (talk) 23:57, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
      • Yes there is a lot of contradiction between cite templates and MOS so I will not bother with this. Heartfox (talk) 00:24, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Spotchecks not done. Heartfox (talk) 19:42, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Pass for the source review. Good luck with the rest of the nomination! Heartfox (talk) 04:00, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. I appreciate it very much. I'm listening to it now, and it's a beautiful album, really deserves more recognition. isento (talk) 05:35, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Support from KyleJoan[edit]

Resolved comments from KyleJoan

I did a deep dive and found the article to be superb. The writing alone is outstanding. I'm only familiar with the album's singles, so the thorough read has been enlightening. I do have some revisions I'd like to suggest:

  • "during 2017 to 2019" → "from 2017 to 2019"
    • I would keep "during". "From" implies a definite start point, which no source can really verify here. 2017 is the earliest known year of recording, and "during" merely connotes a course of time ([13]) and thus is a more grammatically appropriate compromise, imo. isento (talk) 04:47, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
      • My qualm about "during" is the "to 2019" extension. It would work fine if the statement only read "during 2017". How about "between 2017 and 2019"? It doesn't specify a start or end time, only estimates. KyleJoantalk 05:21, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
        • Done. isento (talk) 05:41, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
          • On second thought, and to avoid another "and" construction, I'll revert to "from 2017 to 2019". The sentence begins with the qualifier "primarily" (which can subsume the years of recording as well), and the sources indicate that she began recording at some point after Here (2016) and the absence from the Voice season (2017) -- returning to Oven would mean after Here, since that is also where that album was recorded. So the bulk of the timespan is 2017 to 2019. isento (talk) 05:46, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
  • "identity as a multifaceted concept" → "a multifaceted concept of identity" – This would read more smoothly, as the other two themes in the sentence exist as a matter of fact rather than interpretative.
    • I think this would take away emphasis from identity while suggesting to readers that "mutlifaceted concept" may subsume the other two themes as well. As for readability, I would like to cite some Google search results (for the above phrasings) as a possible barometer: not counting this article in those results, many more academic articles seem to favor the current text than the suggested one. isento (talk) 04:35, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
      • Oh, I didn't think about the term "concept" bleeding over to the other two themes. In that case, the existing phrasing suffices. KyleJoantalk 05:21, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
  • "The album has been described by Keys" → "Keys describes the album"
    • That is a great suggestion; more variety in dependent-clause subject. isento (talk) 04:35, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
  • "Keys will perform in concert" – Replace "will" with "is set to" or "is expected to" to adhere to WP:CRYSTAL.
  • "In 2016, Alicia Keys released her sixth studio album Here" – The "singer-songwriter" description in the first sentence should go here as well since this is the body's opener.
  • "In the spirit of Here's unrefined aesthetic, the singer stopped wearing makeup that year." – The Variety article doesn't correlate her not wearing makeup with the album. It seems the two merely coincided with her stance on perfection, all after Girl on Fire. It would be more appropriate to state the three neutrally and let readers draw the connection. It seems fairly easy to infer that Here's bareness fits the idea of going makeup-free and the rejection of perfection.
    • Actually, revisiting that article now, I see it suggests Here and going bare-face were acts of her ditching perfectionism. So I've reworded accordingly. Thanks! isento (talk) 04:35, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
  • "Keys reportedly returned to Oven Studios" – When?
    • I recall there being no source to verify that. And the source cited doesn't say either. isento (talk) 04:35, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
  • "However, it avoids emphatic hooks and motifs characteristic of her past music." – In this structure, to avoid mistaking "characteristic" as a noun, maybe use a different adjective (e.g., "singular" or "distinctive")?
  • "evoking a particular mood rather than conforming to a singular sound" – The NME article says that mood is more important than any sound, which seems like a simple way of saying "a conventional genre", so rephrasing the description "a singular sound" to anything that resembles it would work.
    • The source uses the phrase "any specific sound", so I'll keep "singular" but use "genre" in place of "sound". isento (talk) 04:35, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
  • "Alicia has been described by Keys as 'a musical exploration of identity – both my own and ours collectively'." – Make it clear that this is a quote from her book so readers get a sense of who she means by "ours".
  • "reflecting different dimensions of her relationship to people as a whole" – Would "mirroring" be more appropriate than "reflecting"?
  • "Subsequent tracks advocate more positive pleas for hope and change" – Make it clear that she was referencing the state of the world in this sentence. While sentences later in the paragraph hint at this, a clear reference would make the general statement less ambiguous.
  • "She performed 'Good Job' and 'Perfect Way to Die' for CNN and the BET Awards 2020, respectively." → "She performed 'Good Job" and 'Perfect Way to Die' on CNN and at the 2020 BET Awards, respectively."
  • "In June 2020, Keys premiered 'Gramercy Park' during her first-ever appearance on NPR's Tiny Desk Concerts, alongside 'Underdog', 'Show Me Love', and her 2001 song 'Fallin'." – Since she didn't premiere the other three songs, state that she simply performed them.
  • "she made appearances at Good Morning America and the iHeartRadio Music Festival" → "she made appearances on Good Morning America and at the iHeartRadio Music Festival"
  • "and a performance at the 2020 Billboard Awards on October 14" – State the award ceremony's proper name and italicize "Billboard" (i.e., "2020 Billboard Music Awards")
  • "'Generosity tempered with humility is a rare and welcome look', he wrote of her performance." – From reading the review, it seems Dolan was commending the album's content and not any performance since the paragraph from which the quote is pulled highlights specific songs (and lyrics).
    • Dolan notes that the lyrics are "delivered with a genuine sense of concern", so it extends a bit beyond the written words. But I'll sum it up as "the singer" in place of "her performance". isento (talk) 04:35, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
  • "For the 2021 NAACP Image Awards, Alicia was nominated in the category of Outstanding Album." → "At the 2021 NAACP Image Awards..." – It would be appropriate to also note that "So Done" and "Jill Scott" received nominations in other categories.
    • Great find! Just let me know if the way I worded the subcategory bit works. isento (talk) 04:35, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Please feel free to challenge any of these points. I'd be happy to discuss them. Wonderful work! KyleJoantalk 10:25, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

I really appreciated seeing your kind comments and the suggestions, thank you. Apart from a few points, I edited the article accordingly. isento (talk) 04:35, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
Now that we've addressed all of the suggested revisions, I'm happy to support this candidacy. Wonderful work! KyleJoantalk 06:16, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
Thanks buddy :D isento (talk) 06:20, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Katie Joplin[edit]

Nominator(s): Aoba47 (talk) 19:24, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

This article is about a 1999 WB sitcom which starred Park Overall as a host of a phone-in radio program. It was optioned as a potential mid-season replacement for the 1998–1999 television season, but was delayed for a year. The WB had already decided to cancel the series prior to its premiere and seemingly did little to no promotion for it. This show is so obscure that it did not have a Wikipedia article until 2018, and I would be surprised if anyone has heard of it before this nomination.

I worked on this article back in 2018, and I was inspired to expand it further for this FAC. I am looking forward to hearing everyone's feedback. I will do my best to further improve the article and address all the suggestions. Thank you in advance! Aoba47 (talk) 19:24, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Comments from SNUGGUMS[edit]

Resolved
  • While not an absolute requirement, I would recommend adding a photo of at least one cast member (and this doesn't include TV logos)
  • I agree. Ideally, I would love to use an image of Park Overall since she is the star of the show, but unfortunately, she does not already have an image in the Wikimedia Commons and I am honestly quite bad at tracking down free-use images. Jay Thomas, Jim Rash, and Majandra Delfino each have images, but neither are from the time period that this series was filmed so I do not want it to be misleading, and the Simon Rex image seems too low-quality for the article. Apologies for the lengthy response. I just wanted to be show my thought process behind this one. Aoba47 (talk)
  • Let's trim "has an estranged relationship with her husband" down to "is estranged from her husband"
  • Agreed. It is always better to more concise so I have used your suggestion. Aoba47 (talk) 18:52, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Does "secure a better career" mean one that makes more money, something Joplin enjoys more than her prior job, or both?
  • According to the Terrace source, it is more about Katie wanting to start over so it more the second reason, but I am sure money also played a factor in it although that is not directly said. I have reworded this part to hopefully make it clear that it is more about her starting over and trying to find a new direction in life. Aoba47 (talk) 19:15, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Not sure how pertinent the "more fashionable" bit is (I've never watched the series and hadn't even heard of it before looking at this article)
  • I have added a bit more on this. Liz works as a fashion editor and her focus on fashion seems to one of the show's ways of distinguishing her from Katie. Aoba47 (talk) 19:29, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
  • "is a recurring character on the show"..... that sounds like a stretch when Katie Joplin only runs for 5 episodes total, and "recurring" makes it sound like one appears inconsistently in a show that has multiple seasons (or at least one with many more episodes). You should instead discuss Sara's characterization/plot elements.
  • That is a fair point. I have removed the "recurring character" bit altogether. Thank you for encouraging me to look further into the characterization/plot elements. I have added a bit about that. Let me know if any further work is needed for that part. Aoba47 (talk) 19:56, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
  • "started production in 1998"..... is a specific day or even month known? If you can find anything on when filming concluded, then I definitely feel that should also be added
  • Unfortunately, I cannot find further information on the show's production. It is likely the entire thing was filmed in 1998 and then the WB decided to pass on it and only later aired as a burn-off or some kind of filler. However, that is pure speculation on my part. That being said, I will look around some more just to make sure I did not miss anything. Aoba47 (talk) 20:11, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
  • "cited Katie Joplin in his book"..... listed would read better, and I would make it clearer that the "sitcoms you never saw" is part of the Forgotten Laughs: An Episode Guide to 150 TV Sitcoms You Probably Never Saw title. Elaborating on any commentary Irvin left would be helpful here.
  • I have used your suggestion. When I first wrote the article, I was able to access the Katie Joplin part of the book through the Google Books preview, but unfortunately, my access to that particular book has been greatly limited. I have put in a request here as I agree that it is best for me to re-examine that source to see if I can find anything new. Aoba47 (talk) 20:05, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
  • You're missing a citation for "Overall learned the WB canceled Katie Joplin while promoting the sitcom Ladies Man; she said: 'I think that pretty rude. Honey, they didn't even call me to tell me they were canceling it!' According to Overall, the WB decided to cancel the series months before it aired as they did not believe it could attract a young demographic." Also, shouldn't "that pretty rude" be "that's pretty rude"?
  • Yikes! Apologies for that as I am not sure how that happened. You are correct. For some reason, I made a typo. I made a lot of silly mistakes in this part in particular >< lol. Aoba47 (talk) 20:07, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

For a short-lived series that many are unaware of, you mostly seem to have covered all the essential aspects. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 16:02, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

  • @SNUGGUMS: Thank you for your review. I believe that I have address everything. I will let you know when I get further access to Forgotten Laughs: An Episode Guide to 150 TV Sitcoms You Probably Never Saw. If you have any questions about my responses (or any further comments), I would be more than happy to respond to them. If you are interested, here is a clip from the show and you can watch the opening credits here. It seemed like a fairly standard, and rather unremarkable, sitcom for the time period. Aoba47 (talk) 20:11, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
  • My pleasure, and let me know once that Irvin bit gets expanded. You still haven't given the full title of his book within the prose, though. Perhaps I should've been more explicit in saying that should be included. I see what you mean with the photos. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 21:41, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
  • @SNUGGUMS: I have added the book title to the prose. I was able to get a hold of all the pages from the Irvin citation about the series and I have added that information. I am glad that I did as the book had information on the unaired episodes and at least gave the month that production ended as well as a vague reason on why that had occurred. Thank you again for the help. Aoba47 (talk) 23:01, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
  • I forgot to say this in the above message, but the only commentary Irvin had about the show was comparing it to Muprhy Brown. Otherwise, he just focused on the facts about the show's episodes and production. Aoba47 (talk) 23:11, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Looks good, so I now support this nomination, and the media review passes as well. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 23:57, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

  • @SNUGGUMS: Apologies for the ping. I just wanted to let you know that I added an image of Jay Thomas per a request from a below review. I wanted to update you since you did the media review and you had also requested an image be added to the article. I think it does look better with an image so I was likely over-thinking with my hesitancy about it before. Aoba47 (talk) 19:52, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 20:01, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Comments from ChrisTheDude[edit]

  • "the series portrays Katie characterizes Katie" - think there's a stray word or two in there
  • "Katie's radio show received a city-wide promotional campaign" - shouldn't that be in the present tense like the rest of the synopses?
  • Think that's all I got - great work! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:22, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
  • @ChrisTheDude: Thank you for your review. Those were some silly mistakes on my part. If there is anything else I can do to improve the article, please let me know. I hope you have a great week! Aoba47 (talk) 18:42, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Tintor2[edit]

Resolved
  • The lead feels a bit small even for its size. Maybe the unaired episodes' could be mentioned there.
  • I have expanded the lead to include further information. Aoba47 (talk) 21:04, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Since the lead is an intro to the body, it could give a brief reason for why the response was negative.
  • Unfortunately, I do not think that is possible. From my experience, these kinds of reasons are only included in the lead if there was some sort of critic consensus, but while both of the retrospective reviews are negative, their reasons do not really overlap. Aoba47 (talk) 21:04, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
  • What exactly happened to the last two unaired episodes? Were they released in VHS? I'm kinda confused. I mean there are brief summaries about what happens in the narrative.
  • The series was not released on VHS or in any other format to the best of my understanding. You can watch a clip from one of the unaired episodes here. It could be that journalists were given summaries of all the episodes to either review or run in the newspapers. While the WB had always planned on canceling this show, the network may have originally wanted all the episodes to air so the summaries could have been given out for TV listings, but that is pure speculation on my part. Aoba47 (talk) 21:04, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Only these three confused me. I'll do a source review if you want another day.Tintor2 (talk) 20:23, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

  • @Tintor2: Thank you for your review. I have expanded the lead, and I have left responses for your second and third comments. A source review would be greatly appreciated if possible. I hope you have a great rest of your day! Aoba47 (talk) 21:04, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Supporting nomination. The only nitpick I might throw is that "Rob Owen believed the series would appeal to fans of Overall" Does he specify that the actor is quite popular within a certain demography? Kinda like how the character Takayuki Yagami you once read was given the facial expressions and Japanese voice of the celebrity Takuya Kimura to make his video game more popular within fans.Tintor2 (talk) 21:42, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

  • Thank you for your support. That is a good question. The part about this from the source is the following, If you're a fan of actress Park Overall (Empty Nest) tune to the WB's summer sitcom Katie Joplin, and I have added a part about her association with the Empty Nest sitcom. Aoba47 (talk) 22:45, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Source review – Pass[edit]

Will do tomorrow. Aza24 (talk) 09:26, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

  • Thank you. Take as much time as you need. Aoba47 (talk) 20:34, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Version reviewed [14]
Formatting
  • Though I can't access ref 4 (see below) I assume it needs a subscription marker like the other Los Angeles Daily News refs
  • I have replaced the citation with one from ProQuest and added the appropriate formatting. Aoba47 (talk) 17:18, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Retrieval dates are a bit inconsistent. If I understand it correctly—it seems like you're not having them for archived pages, which is fine, but there's some inconsistency otherwise, Newspapers.com for example has retrieval dates for some but not others.
  • Thank you for catching this. Apologies for my sloppy work. I have archived the web sources, but not the newspaper or ProQuest sources. I believe it should be consistent now, but please let me know if there is anything I have overlooked. Aoba47 (talk) 17:18, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
  • ref 12 should be via Newspapers.com, right?
  • wrong first name for ref 16 I think :)
  • I apparently just loved that guy's last name that much lol. Aoba47 (talk) 17:18, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
  • ref 25 should probably have via Newspapers.com
  • Burnett doesn't seemed to be used
  • Removed. It was used to cite that a recurring character, but since the show aired for only five episodes, it is a little silly to say someone is recurring when they never had the chance to do so in the first place. Aoba47 (talk) 17:18, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
Reliability
  • Given the subject matter, seems fine in general
  • Thank you for checking this. Aoba47 (talk) 17:18, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
Verifiability
  • Link for ref 4 is broken for me
  • Replaced with a different link. Aoba47 (talk) 17:24, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Hmm Irvin really needs page numbers, or a page range if that's more convenient. If there's no page numbers (which is my guess for why you don't have them already) add a chapter or section title if possible, with |loc= instead of |p=
  • Thank you for the suggestion. You are correct that it does not have page numbers (at least for the digital version and I have checked a few different places to confirm this). I have added the chapter title to better help readers who want to find this information in that source. Aoba47 (talk) 17:24, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
  • that's it for a fist pass—I'll take another look whenever you have a chance to respond Aza24 (talk) 08:36, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
  • @Aza24: Thank you for your review. Apologies for my very silly mistakes with the sourcing on this one. I hope you are having a great end to your week and an even better start to your weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 17:24, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your attentiveness. Looking great now—pass for source review. Aza24 (talk) 05:14, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Thank you again for your review and I greatly appreciate that you added the access-dates for the ProQuest sources. I am not sure why I missed those. Apologies for that. I hope you are doing well and staying safe! Aoba47 (talk) 05:55, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Heartfox[edit]

  • "It is about Katie Joplin (Park Overall) who moves from Knoxville to Philadelphia" → I think something should describe who Katie Joplin is, like "It is about a single mother, Katie Joplin, ...". Right now it feels like the reader should already know who she is.
  • Good point. I have decided to just revise this paragraph as a whole to hopefully make this clearer, but please let me know if further work is necessary. Aoba47 (talk) 21:13, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Oh sorry, I meant the lead not the section. Heartfox (talk) 22:00, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
  • No need to apologies. I misread your comment so that was my mistake. I have revised this. Thank you again! Aoba47 (talk) 22:10, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
  • I believe it should be written "The WB", not "the WB"; "The" is a part of its name.
  • "original program WB" → "original program The WB"
  • "was the subject" → "was a subject" (not the only one)
  • "the series characterizes her through her fashion" → what does this mean?
  • The show (at least according to the sources I have found) presents Liz as a far more fashionable person than Katie. I have revised this part with a quote from the source. This was something from an earlier draft of the article before I found the source about her career as a fashion magazine editor so that may already cover this and if necessary, I can just remove this part altogether. Aoba47 (talk) 21:13, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
  • author-link=Marilyn Beck
  • Thank you! For some reason, I missed this one. Aoba47 (talk) 21:13, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Thank you for catching this. I have marked the url as dead and I have used the press release template. I always forget about it so I will be better about using it in the future. Aoba47 (talk) 21:13, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
  • link "1998–1999 television season" in the lead and body
  • Advertising Age url-access=subscription
  • location of Statesman Journal?
  • I am uncertain about adding this because I do not specify location in any of the other citations so I am not sure if it would work if only citation has this. Plus, there is an article for the Statesman Journal, which specifies the location (i.e. Salem, Oregon). Aoba47 (talk) 21:13, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Heartfox (talk) 20:20, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

  • @Heartfox: Thank you for your review. Apologies for all the silly mistakes that I had made in the article. You have helped to improve the article immensely and if there is anything else that can be improved, please let me know and I will get to it. Have a great weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 21:13, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Happy to Support. Have a nice weekend, Heartfox (talk) 00:04, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 01:05, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Support from 100cellsman[edit]

This is a short but sweet article about an unsuccessful television show. 😃 웃OO 00:56, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

  • Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 01:05, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Comments Support from Spy-cicle[edit]

Resolved

Not an expert on writing TV articles but here are some comments, mostly on prose.

  • I have added a local short description, feel free to adjust.
  • Thank you for this. I always forget about the short description. Aoba47 (talk) 16:39, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Any way we can reduce the repetition of 1999 in the lead sentence maybe: from August to September 1999.?
  • What are your thoughts on changing the second lead sentence to "Park Overall stars as the title character, a single mother who moves from Knoxville to Philadelphia and tries to balance her job as a radio program host with parenting her teenage son Greg (Jesse Head)." or something else, to avoid repeition of Katie Joplin.
  • Works for me. Aoba47 (talk) 16:39, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
  • The part about "fashion-plate" uses a hypen but the article does not, is there a reason for the discrepency?
  • The source uses a hyphen and I have kept it since it is a quote. Aoba47 (talk) 16:39, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Ah I see there are quite a few quotes in that section already, so I just boldy unquoted it, feel free to adjust.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 14:00, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Per infobox documentation the run time should not include commercials but this appears to be case in this article since in text it says each episode lasts 30 minutes with commercials
  • Good point. Unfortunately, I cannot find a more exact time for the episodes so I have removed it from the infobox. The closest thing that I could find is that all seven episodes aired for 210 minutes. A typical American sitcom runs 22 minutes, but I am not sure if that would be original research to add without a citation. Aoba47 (talk) 16:45, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Ah I see understandable, if no reliable source exists I guess it is just easier to note this in prose.
  • I know there is probably limited coverage for such an obscure show but do reviewers break down the parts of the show, like writing, acting, direction, or was it all broadly seen as a "failure"
  • TheRadio World critique is focused on the premise, while the USA Today one just lists it as one of The WB's biggest failures without any real explanation, but that is probably due to how quickly the show was canceled and how little The WB promoted (or even seemed to care about) it. Aoba47 (talk) 16:53, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
  • I have revised this part to hopefully make it a little clearer. I added more context specifically for the USA Today article. Aoba47 (talk) 17:14, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Ah I see thanks for clarifying that.
  • I am hesitant to add images that were not taken from around the same time period as the show as I think it could be rather misleading. The Jim Rash and Jay Thomas ones were both taken over a decade after/before the show. The Jay Thomas one is at least from the 1990s, but I am uncertain about helpful it will be. Ideally, it would be great to have an image of Park Overall, but I am pretty bad at finding free-use images. Aoba47 (talk) 16:53, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
  • I understand the hesitancy. Could not find any free images of other actors. I can understand the Hampton/Regalbuto images are probably not relevant enough considering they only directed one unaired episode each. Jim Rash's image closest to airing is 2011, so 12 years out. However, Jay Thomas's image File:Jay Thomas at 44th Primetime Emmy Awards cropped.jpg is only 7 years out (1992) compared to the airing of the show (1999) and is billed third. From looking at other media articles it does not seem unprecedented to use free images that are out by a number of years (For instance Groundhog Day (film) (1993) uses cast images from 2017 and 2018, Ghostbusters II (1989) uses cast/crew images from 2009, 2010, 2013, 2019). Regards  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 13:52, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
  • @Spy-cicle: Thank you for the response. I have added a Jay Thomas image to the article. Aoba47 (talk) 17:46, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Any sources mention opening theme (if so could add to infobox)
  • Unfortunately, I could not find any sources about the opening theme. I did find this YouTube video of the opening credits, which has the theme song, but I cannot find any further information about it. Aoba47 (talk) 16:53, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Ah I see thank you for clarifying.
  • Seeley and Gunzenhauser should proabably listed as executive producers in the infobox as well.
  • They definitely should be added to the prose. Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 16:57, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the suggestion. I have revised this. Aoba47 (talk) 16:57, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Worth mentioning some of writers/directors in prose?
  • Unfortunately, there is not much I could add about them in the prose. The only information I have found is that they were involved with the show. The only writers that had further background on them were Norm Gunzenhauser and Tom Seeley since they created and produced the show. I tried doing another search to see maybe if I could find something on Steve Zuckerman since he did the pilot episode and directed the most episodes, but I could not find anything else. Aoba47 (talk) 17:00, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Ah I see no problem, thank you for clarifying.

That's is pretty well all I could think of, hope these comments help. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 12:56, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

  • @Spy-cicle: Thank you for your review. It helps a lot. Your copy-edits to the article have helped to improve a great deal as well. I have addressed all your comments (either through revisions or responses). Please let me know if there is anything else I can do to improve the article. I hope you have a great rest of your weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 17:04, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
  • @Aoba47: Thank you for the speed response, I have replied above. The only outstanding query I have is regarding the images.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 14:02, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Thank you again for the help. I have addressed that point. Have a great week! Aoba47 (talk) 17:46, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Great thank you once again for the fast response. Support. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 18:31, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Abberton Reservoir[edit]

Nominator(s): Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:33, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

A lot of water, many ducks, some naval mines and the "Dam Busters". Thanks to Gog the Mild for help with the milhist stuff and to aa77zz for help with the rest Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:33, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

  • Image licensing looks good (t · c) buidhe 10:39, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Support by Nick-D[edit]

This is an interesting article which covers its topic pretty well. I'd like to offer the following comments:

  • "large pumped storage freshwater" Is it really large? It's smaller than most of the several dams that serve Canberra where I live, which is a smallish Australian city. Not sure how to word this, but I think that what you're getting at is that it's large by the standards of the UK (a country which reliably gets lots of rain, unlike Australia where we need to store lots and lots of water for dry years). The second sentence says this, so I'd suggest omitting this from the first sentence.
  • "Plans to increase the capacity of Abberton reservoir to 41,000 megalitres (9.0×109 imp gal) by raising its bank height were completed in 2013" - were the plans completed, or the project to undertake these works?
  • The lead should note when the reservoir was established
  • "the RAF's 617 Squadron" - add a "No." in front of 617
  • Can anything more be said about the establishment of the reservoir? The material on this seems rather thin.
  • It's hard to know how much detail to put in, but I've added another para to History. In the process, I spotted an incident involving a Heinkel bomber that I've added to the WWII section Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:27, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
  • That's still a bit thin. It would be good to discuss how the reservoir came about, how it was funded, who it was built on behalf of, etc. Is it possible to access newspaper archives or similar? (In Australia, the Trove service would likely be very useful for this, for instance). Nick-D (talk) 10:31, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Nick-D, I don't have access to newspaper archives, but I'm not really sure what you are asking anyway. In the UK water companies have a (regulated) monopoly for their areas, and they identify the need for infrastructure improvements, as I've said in the text, plan the works, as I've also said and provide the funding themselves. They have customers who pay for the water, and shareholders who invest in the companies, but I would have thought both those facts are a bit trivial to mention Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:44, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
  • From my reading of the article, as someone totally unfamiliar with how water supplies are run in the UK, that wasn't clear to me to be honest. Can you draw on sources to state that it was the local water provider who oversaw the construction of the reservoir?

Nick-D (talk) 01:14, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

  • Nick-D, I've added a new paragraph summarising the enabling legislation for the reservoir and its associated infrastructure. Basically, parliament gives approval for the scheme and the rest is up to the water company Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:37, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
  • That looks good to me. Nick-D (talk) 23:56, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
  • "The reservoir's current owners, Essex and Suffolk Water, part of the Northumbrian Water Group, recognised that its capacity was insufficient to meet growing local demand,[6] and initiated a £140 million project to increase the capacity by 58% to 41,000 megalitres (9.0×109 imp gal) by raising its banks." - when was this recognised?
  • The relevant public document is dated 2007, so I've used that, although it's likely that the water company was aware of a growing problem for several year before that Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:01, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Was there any opposition to expanding the reservoir? (for instance, from environmentalists or local famers). Nick-D (talk) 10:21, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
  • I couldn't find anything, and it's unlikely. The reservoir was enlarged by deepening, so no impact outside the reservoir's existing land usage, and the changes to the banks were designed to make it more wild-life friendly as it says in the Ecology section Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:50, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Support My comments are now addressed. Thanks for your work on this article. Nick-D (talk) 23:56, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Nick-D, thabnks for your comments and support Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:18, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt[edit]

Interesting read. Some comments:
  • In the lede, the sentences about WWII and about the 2013 expansion are about the history of the site, yet they are separated. You have room in the lede for a paragraph basically historical in nature.
  • Reordered Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:31, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
  • The second paragraph of "history" seems to deal with the present state of the reservoir, yet it is in a history section, with paragraphs on either side dealing with the history of the site.
  • I've reorganised this section which had accreted material based on previous comments Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:31, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
More soon.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:55, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
  • The final, brief paragraph of "History" is still a bit of an anachronism, as is "but most of its water is pumped in from the River Stour "
  • I've moved that sentence to start Ecology. What's wrong with "most of its water is pumped in from the River Stour"? I thought the text was clear that that's been the case from the start? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:10, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Are the contents of a body of water measured in imperial gallons, or in cubic feet or some other measure?
  • I thought that I'd consistently given volumes in metric megalitres (as does the main source), with a conversion to UK local units in imperial gallons. Areas are in ha/acres and depths in m/ft. Have I missed something or done something inconsistent, I can't see what's wrong here Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:10, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Are the bridges referred to in the History section the same as the causeways referred to later on?
  • Essex Wildlife Trust is not linked on first use. It also strikes me that the World War II section, being history-related, should be adjacent to or part of the historical account. The latter half of the article is for the most part for the birds and it seems ill-placed there. Ecology and Protection seem to contain related matter and could also benefit from a merger or being adjacent.
  • linked EWT at first use, moved WWii after History, made birds and protection subsections of ecology; I think protection has to follow birds since they are the main reason. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:10, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
It seems comprehensive, but I'm not certain everything is ideally arranged.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:18, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
Wehwalt Thanks for further comments, all done, I think Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:10, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Momčilo Đujić[edit]

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:59, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Momčilo Đujić is the fourth WWII Chetnik leader I've brought to FAC, and the first one who was also a priest. A member of the interwar Chetnik Association, which largely functioned as a paramilitary arm of the Serb-dominated Yugoslav government, Đujić escaped the initial onslaught of the Ustaše after the Axis invasion of the country and the establishment of the so-called Independent State of Croatia, but returned during the general uprising to take charge of a large proportion of the Chetniks in the Dalmatian hinterland. He collaborated extensively with the Italians and then the Germans against the communist-led Partisans, and withdrew west alongside the Germans at the end of the war, surrendering to the western Allies. He was able to emigrate to the US, where he lived among the diaspora. He played a bit supporting part during the Yugoslav Wars and died in 1999. Have at it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:59, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Image review
  • Images appear to be freely licensed
  • I rescaled and moved around some images for MOS compliance
  • Dinara Division section is too long for ideal readability, I would try to put in subsections. (t · c) buidhe 08:20, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
Thanks Buidhe, did a bit of a restructure! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:33, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Support from Vacant0

  • I gave this a read, and everything seems to look fine, although I noticed Šešelj later became the leader of the Serbian Radical Party, a government coalition partner of Serbian President Slobodan Milosević, so Milosević should be changed to Milošević. Besides that, everything looks fine. Good luck! --Vacant0 (talk) 14:19, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
Thanks Vacant0! Fixed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:52, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Tomobe03

  • In the lede, when I read ...Đujić escaped to the Italian occupation zone and... I though he escaped from German to Italian occupation zone (either Zone II or III). From the corresponding prose in the body, I understood he fled to Kistanje, but that would be Zone I annexed by Italy on 18 May 1941.--Tomobe03 (talk) 14:48, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

John McGraw[edit]

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 22:50, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

This article is about... John McGraw, who not only spent thirty years as manager of the New York Giants baseball team, but before that was one of the legendary Baltimore Orioles of the 1890s, who originated many plays and weren't shy about abusing the umpire to get their way, a characteristic McGraw, despite great success with the Giants, kept through much of his career.

Image review
  • File:John McGraw 1891 Cedar Rapids Canaries.jpg what's the pub date? It's not clear if the scanned document was published or if it was some sort of unpublished document.
Swapped for an image from 1890, provably pre-1925.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:13, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
  • File:1896 Baltimore Orioles.jpg How do you know that the first publication was 1956, or is it possible there was an earlier publication?
I've added evidence of pre-1923 publication, justifying the PD tag.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:38, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
  • File:1899 Baltimore Orioles.jpg , File:1912 John McGraw by Conlon.jpeg When was the first publication?
Cut the 1899 photo.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:38, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
  • File:John McGraw 1924.jpg Why is it PD?
I've changed the license tag.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:57, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

(t · c) buidhe 00:21, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Also, please break up the longer sections. "Baltimore years", "Early years (1902–1908)", "Middle years (1909–1920)", "Later years (1921–1931)", "Retirement, death, and posthumous honors" are all way too long especially when browsing on a mobile device. I would also try to break up "Minor leagues" and "Managerial techniques" as too long to comfortably browse on mobile. (t · c) buidhe 03:45, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

I've split the ones in the first sentence above. I don't think it's practical to split the other two.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:57, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

At 11442 words the article probably needs some cutting. (t · c) buidhe 08:10, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm not so sure about that. There is a baseball career of over forty years, each year of which needs coverage and can't be lumped together with others.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:15, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
You could split off sub articles Managerial career of John McGraw and/or Playing career of John McGraw, while retaining just the most important information in this overview. (t · c) buidhe 10:44, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
I really think most of this needs to be in the main article. Sub-articles get little traffic. Casey Stengel, another FA about a manager with a similarly long career, is also on the long side.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:01, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
I've cut some.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:44, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
Some articles such as Huey Long were broken up and improved as a result. I think this one also would be improved with a spinoff and application of summary style. (t · c) buidhe 17:50, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
I would think you need to have some information on each year of his career, and the end product would not be too much shorter than what is there now. Sub-articles get minimal readership. Thanks for your review and comments. I'll wait and see what other reviewers have to say.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:58, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Edward Mitchell Bannister[edit]

Nominator(s): —Wingedserif (talk) 23:19, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

This article is about Edward Mitchell Bannister, an African-American abolitionist and painter. He first received national recognition for his art in 1876 at the Philadelphia Centennial Exposition, and he was a founder member of the Rhode Island School of Design and Providence Art Club. I have particularly attempted to expand our coverage of Bannister's earlier abolitionist years in Boston and the specifics of his artistic style and subjects.

In support of this nomination, I have solicited other editors' help with GOCE copyediting, a successful GAN, and a recent peer review. This is my first FAC nomination. (@Ceoil: since they offered to look at this earlier.)Wingedserif (talk) 23:19, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi Winged. Wasn't expecting this, seemed to have missed the PR, but you have some formatting issues with closing brackets (ie [[]]) in refs 10, 11, 13 and 30 in i this revision. Also ref 39 is returning a syntax error. All easily sorted, and far from deal breakers. Will read though again shortly, with a full review in a few days. Ceoil (talk) 23:55, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
Hi Ceoil, sorry, didn't mean to surprise you, I assumed you'd seen the previous pings/listing. And the ref changes you mentioned above are  DoneWingedserif (talk) 01:33, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
Great. Gripes to follow. Ceoil (talk) 01:57, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
I welcome them! —Wingedserif (talk) 02:31, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
Image review
  • File:Edward Mitchell Bannister.jpg and File:'Hay Gatherers' by Edward Mitchell Bannister, c. 1893.jpg When was the first publication?
For the first, the carte de viste, Wiki Commons says the photo was taken circa 1870; the Kenkebala exhibition catalog colophon says only "after 1870". For a date of first publication, between 1870 and 1901 is probably the most accurate we can get... The copy itself might have been taken from Holland's 1992 dissertation. Hay Gatherers was painted c. 1893 and the photo is likely also from Holland's dissertation. Holland's exhibition history appendix lists Hay Gatherers as part of the "Fleisig Collection" in 1893; I'm not sure if that indicates a sale into a private collection (the work is still privately owned today) or a proper first exhibition. (I'm also still waiting for Bannister's catalog raissone to be finished...) —Wingedserif (talk) 04:19, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
When you say For a date of first publication, between 1870 and 1901 is probably the most accurate we can get, what information is this based on? Is there any documented publication prior to 1926? For the second one, public display does not count as publication under US law. (t · c) buidhe 18:33, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
For the portrait, "between 1870 and 1901" is based on source captions that list 1870 as the earliest possible date for the photo and the fact that Bannister died in early 1901. Sorry, I did not realize that the publication in this case means the date of the creation of the photography/copy, not first exhibition. I haven't been able to find earlier copies than Holland's 1992 thesis. By my understanding, the photo of Hay Gatherers should be in the public domain, as we are now 100+ years past the death of Bannister and the photo fits the criteria of "faithful photographic reproductions of two-dimensional public domain works of art".
Publication is not equivalent to creation either. To count as publication, copies of the work generally have to be distributed to the public, see the legal definition[15] PD-art only applies if you can show the underlying work is PD. {{PD-US-unpublished}} is a possibility, but you would have to show it wasn't published. (t · c) buidhe 22:46, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
As I said, the Hay Gatherers painting is in the public domain, as we are well past life of the author plus seventy years after the author’s death, making the photograph of it eligible for PD-art. —Wingedserif (talk) 23:24, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
Nope, that's not how it works! It needs to be PD-US which is more complicated than public domain in most countries. See the Hirtle chart for details. (t · c) buidhe 00:55, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
When you say "It needs to be PD-US", what "it" are you referring to? By that chart, the painting, produced c. 1893 and necessarily before the death of Bannister, meets the criteria for both PD-old-70 and PD-US-expired. Both of those apply whether or not the painting was ever "published" or not. Therefore, the painting is in the US public domain. The photograph of it is public domain as well, per PD-art. —Wingedserif (talk) 03:19, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Note: I did not check licenses for images in the gallery. (t · c) buidhe 07:31, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Peloneustes[edit]

Nominator(s): --Slate WeaselT - C - S⟩ 14:44, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

This article is about perhaps the most completely known short-necked pliosaurid, a group of plesiosaurs, prehistoric marine reptiles with four flippers. This is also the first FAC for a Jurassic plesiosaur. Peloneustes has had quite a long history, and a great deal has been said about it in the literature, so I've done my best to cover all important aspects of its history, anatomy, and biology in the article. This is my first time at FAC on my own, though I have been a co-nominator for two other articles. In addition to GAN and PR, this article has also passed through the WP:PALEOPR page. --Slate WeaselT - C - S⟩ 14:44, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Image review
  • File:Peloneustes and Pliosaurus andrewsi Mandibles.png, File:Peloneustes Skeletal Mount from Andrews (1910).png, File:Peloneustes Skull Jaccard.png, File:Peloneustes Crania and Teeth.jpg, File:Peloneustes Middle Cervical Vertebrae.png, File:Peloneustes Pectoral Girdle Andrews.png, File:Peloneustes Pelvic Girdle Andrews.png, File:Simolestes Skull Dorsal View.png, File:Liopleurodon Skull Dorsal View - Extracted.png, File:Peloneustes Paddles.png — claimed to be PD because "author's life plus 70 years or fewer", but no death date given. You can fix that by adding the death date (I assume it's known and actually 70+ years ago) in the image description. (For works before 1901, if you don't know the death year, {{PD-old-assumed}} plus a US PD tag may be used).
I've added the "deathyear" parameter to all of these, except for File:Peloneustes Skull Jaccard.png. I couldn't find anything online about Jaccard's death date. Adding {{PD-old-assumed}} creates a template stating that the image was published more than 120 years ago, which is not quite true by six years. What should be done in this case? --Slate WeaselT - C - S⟩ 22:05, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
If you can't show it's public domain in both the source country and the US, it would have to be removed. (t · c) buidhe 07:22, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
An alternative is to upload it locally on English Wikipedia, where only US copyright applies. Like this image:[16] Then the Commons version should be nominated for deletion. FunkMonk (talk) 08:12, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
I've nominated it for deletion and removed it from the article. I think that it might just be easier to use another image from an older source (such as Andrews' skull paper) in its place. --Slate WeaselT - C - S⟩ 17:58, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
Could also move another image already in the article up there to make it less crammed elsewhere. FunkMonk (talk) 18:45, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
I've moved the image of the paddles up to that place (as it has some relevance as they came from the Leeds Collection) and the life restoration down to where they used to be. --Slate WeaselT - C - S⟩ 20:24, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Other image licensing looks OK.
  • I would consider scaling up images. I have mine set to display larger than the default and I still have trouble seeing the full details of the images.
I've scaled up the ones I felt could be larger. How do these look, and are there any others that could use larger sizes? --Slate WeaselT - C - S⟩ 22:05, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
Looks better. This is somewhat subjective as it depends a lot on your display settings. (t · c) buidhe 07:22, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Sandwiching in Palaeobiology section
I've moved the life restoration up into classification. --Slate WeaselT - C - S⟩ 22:05, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

(t · c) buidhe 16:48, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

  • Pass pending removal of the Jaccard image. (t · c) buidhe 07:22, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Support from Cas Liber[edit]

Taking a look now....will make straightforward copyedits as I go, please revert if I inadvertently change the meaning, and jot queries below. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:26, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

  • ....that was around 30–50 metres (98–164 ft) deep.. - nitpicky but I'd round this to "that was around 30–50 metres (100–170 ft) deep"
I think that I've implemented this, although I'm not sure how to change it from 160 to 170. --Slate WeaselT - C - S⟩ 23:24, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
  • As seen in other pliosaurs, the pelvis of Peloneustes bears very large and flat ischia and pubes. - usually the use of "very" is discouraged - do you think is justified here?
Probably not. I removed it. --Slate WeaselT - C - S⟩ 23:24, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Maybe put Henry Porter's ccupation in...was he a miner or paleontologist....
Some cursory research seems to suggest he was a geologist. --Slate WeaselT - C - S⟩ 23:24, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
  • In addition to the limb girdles, the specimen also consists of a partial mandible, teeth, multiple vertebrae - I'd leave this in the past tense (i.e. "In addition to the limb girdles, the specimen also consisted of a partial mandible, teeth, multiple vertebrae") to align with the past-tense narrative flow here. Reads weirdly otherwise I think
I'd prefer to keep this in present tense, putting it in past tense could imply that some parts of the specimen were lost. --Slate WeaselT - C - S⟩ 23:24, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
Okay, valid point too Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:28, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
  • By then, PIN 426 had suffered from heavy damage. - err....what from?
Pyrite damage. I originally explained this, but it was pointed out that this could be excessive detail considering the specimen almost certainly belongs to Pliosaurus, so I removed it. I could reinstate this if it would be helpful. --Slate WeaselT - C - S⟩ 23:24, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
Oh, back then I suggested you should remove the details about how this damage works, not what kind of damage it was, must have missed it, I think the term "pyrite damage" should have been left in. This was the part I meant back then: "(a buildup of iron sulphate crystals in specimens containing pyrite due to oxidation and exposure to moisture, leading to cracking)". But who knows, maybe someone thinks it would also be appropriate to leave that explanation in. FunkMonk (talk) 23:40, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
Ah, re-added "pyrite". Sorry for the overcorrection! --Slate WeaselT - C - S⟩ 23:43, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Overall a good read and I only have the few tiny nitpicks above. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:52, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

I've implemented or explained why I didn't yet implement all of the above comments. All your copyedits to the article look good! --Slate WeaselT - C - S⟩ 23:24, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Support by Jens[edit]

  • I had my say already during the review, and have little to add. But see below for a few more quibbles:
  • The premaxilla (front upper tooth-bearing bone) of Peloneustes bears six teeth, and the diastemata (gaps between teeth) of the upper jaw are narrow; these are characteristic features of this pliosaurid. – This second part of the sentence does not say much/says what is expected anyways. Maybe remove or start the sentence with "Characteristically, the premaxilla …"?
Done. --Slate WeaselT - C - S⟩ 20:00, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
  • I see some issues with singular/plural in the description part. You gou "The premaxilla" (singular) but then you have "nasals" and "frontals" in plural. Then you have "The frontals (bones bordering the orbit)", which sounds that there is only a single orbit, bordered by two frontals. And it continues: "contact both the orbit and the external nares" – orbit is singular, external nares is plural.
While planning an expansion to another pliosaurid article (currently all off-wiki), I began to wonder if my writing might have this problem. I've tried to pluralize paired skull bones and fenestrae, though I'm not totally sure how to make it clear that there is one bone bordering one fenestra on each side. --Slate WeaselT - C - S⟩ 20:00, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
  • link palate, palatine bone, and parasphenoid?
Done. --Slate WeaselT - C - S⟩ 20:00, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
  • The parasphenoid (a bone that articulates with the lower front part of the braincase) bears a long cultriform process (a frontwards projection of the braincase) – The first explanation implies that the parasphenoid is not part of the braincase (but I would say it is), while the second explanation implies that the cultriform process is part of the braincase.
Looking at Noè's thesis (which has a handy chapter on pliosaurid skull osteology), it looks like the parasphenoid is indeed part of the braincase. I've amended the explanation. --Slate WeaselT - C - S⟩ 20:00, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
  • You need to use many technical terms, but some of them may be avoided, which can only help the reader. For example, you could just replace "orbit" with "eye opening"; alveoli with "tooth socket", and autapomorphy with "unique feature". The respective technical terms should be pipe linked but there is no real need to mention them (one rule is "don't use technical terms just to teach them").
I've changed alveoli, autapomorphy, orbit, and caudal fin to more familiar terms. Is there anything else that should be changed? I'm not really sure what the cutoff is for when to use a technical term. --Slate WeaselT - C - S⟩ 20:00, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
I talked with FunkMonk about this recently, and the conclusion was that we could avoid technical terms whenever reasonable and relatively unambiguous substitutes in plain English exist (which is the case, for example, in alveolus -> tooth socket). But most of the time, such nice common English words just do not exist, so the technical term is required.
Another term you could replace is "external naris" -> "bony nostril". And btw., I am not sure if "eye opening" or "eye socket" is better. The latter seems to be more common and is the term used for humans, but we don't have much of a socket in these reptiles. What do you think? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:35, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
"Bony nostril" sounds rather strange to me, and I worry it implies that the entirety of the external nares were taken up by the nostrils, so I think that it would be better to stick with the more technical term here. I think that "eye socket" may be the better term here, just because that's its only meaning in English (whereas "orbit" and "eye opening" are more commonly used to refer to other things). --Slate WeaselT - C - S⟩ 21:22, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
  • the rami (sides of the mandible) – maybe just "the left and right branches" to be clearer and avoid another term + explanation? To many explanatory glosses can also make it tedious to read.
Just changed to "the two sides of the mandible". --Slate WeaselT - C - S⟩ 20:00, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
  • The ventral rami of the two scapulae – again, this becomes very technical. Why not use "lower" instead of "ventral"?
I think that these are the actual names of the structures (like "cultriform process"), which is why I didn't change them when I otherwise removed all references to anatomical direction. I can still change it to something like "lower projection" if that would be preferable. --Slate WeaselT - C - S⟩ 20:00, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
Such combinations (e.g., ventral rami) are usually descriptive in nature and used ad hoc, and not so much defined terms. Not sure about this particular example though. I think a substitute would be fine (maybe just "lower part", to indicate that it is quite a bit of the bone?), but the decision is yours. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:35, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
Since "lower projection" doesn't seem to imply that the feature's very big, and "lower part" could also be used to describe the entire underside of the bone, I think that I'll stick with the more technical term here. --Slate WeaselT - C - S⟩ 21:22, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
Done. --Slate WeaselT - C - S⟩ 20:00, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Treaty of Guînes[edit]

Nominator(s): Gog the Mild (talk) 11:40, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Another in my occasional series of treaties and truces. 17 years after the outbreak of the Hundred Years' War a draft treaty to end it was signed. This was supposed to be finalised and ratified in front of the Pope six months later. But by then the French King had changed his mind, hostilities were renewed and the war lasted a further 101 years. There is limited information in the sources on this curiosity, but I believe that I have worked in what there is and that the article is substantial enough to be up to a FAC. Other opinions may be available, so have at it. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:40, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

  • Image licensing looks fine (t · c) buidhe 13:27, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

BasedMises[edit]

I would like to preface this with the unmistakable fact that I am not very experienced in grading featured articles. I cannot comment on whether or not it is a FA, although I can assure you, it likely is. However, I would recommend some very minor changes:

Done.
  • Remove "that" from unnecessary areas
Several removed. IMO the eight remaining are all "necessary".
  • Occasionally it feels underlinked, but this is purely from a reader's perspective
Well, possibly I pay too much attention to MOS:OVERLINK. and at the margin it is a subjective decision. I have gone through the article and added several Wikilinks, although in several cases it seemed that I was stretching. See what you think.
Certainly seems better. It is likely the optimal amount of linkage.

BasedMisesMont Pelerin 17:42, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi BasedMises, don't worry about inexperience too much - although thanks for flagging it up - we all have to start somewhere, and all constructive contributions are grist for the mill. Many thanks for these thoughts; I shall address them as soon as I can and ping you. Meanwhile, if anything else occurs to you, don't be shy. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:53, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
Hi BasedMises, your points above now addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:44, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Comments Support from SusunW[edit]

  • Comment: A read through shows inconsistency of commas. I know that punctuation is different in BE and AE, so perhaps this is a situation of variance in style, but in any case, you should either use commas consistently after dates or not use them. Same for Oxford commas and introductory clauses, either use them or don't. My preference would be to use them in each of those situations, but that is preference and certainly not required.
Well spotted. It must have been me who did that, in a fit of sub-literacy, but I am struggling to believe it. Extraneous commas removed.
Methinks it was gremlins.

Lede

  • Link Guînes in the 1st sentence and not in the 2nd paragraph.
Done.
  • "… A truce was agreed" reads awkwardly to me. Can a truce agree to something? I would perhaps use brokered or negotiated, but maybe it’s a BE vs AE thing? (See also this wording in the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs.)
Truces aren't agreed in the US. How odd. Google finds a 100,000 instances of "A truce was agreed" - [17].
You are asking me how wars are settled? Me? Maybe truces are agreed, it just sounds weird to me. Terms are agreed upon, but the actual truce seems like it would just be accepted or rejected.
  • Why was Guînes an important town?
I have added "a strategically located strongpoint". Does that work?
yes
  • Link Innocent VI
Done.
  • This "Negotiations were reopened and a peace agreement whereby Edward abandoned his claim to the French throne in exchange for French territory was rapidly agreed and the draft formally signed on 6 April" reads awkwardly to me. Perhaps: "Negotiations, whereby Edward abandoned his claim to the French throne in exchange for French territory, were reopened and a peace agreement was rapidly drafted and signed on 6 April."
I prefer sentences where events are in chronological order. How about "Negotiations were reopened and the English emissaries suggested that Edward abandon his claim to the French throne in exchange for French territory. This was rapidly agreed and a draft treaty was formally signed on 6 April."?
fine
  • "…round of warfare may leave", might leave? Because may typically is iffy but probable, whereas might is used for hypothetical situations, but maybe it's a BE vs AE thing?
Changed to "might".

Background

  • "…declared they were forfeit" is confusing. What was forfeited? English title to lands, perhaps?
I have changed to "declared that these lands were forfeit". As it says "regarding the status of English-held lands in south-west France" in the previous sentence I hope that us clear(er).
yes
  • "This marked the start" seems very passive for beginning a war. Perhaps, "His action started (or sparked)"?
It was very passive. There were years of bad tempered negotiations both before and after what was only with hindsight recognisable as the outbreak of serious hostilities.
fine
  • I think the sentence "In 1340 the English king…" reads clearer as "In 1340, the English king Edward III, as the closest male relative of Philip's predecessor Charles IV, laid formal claim to the Kingdom of France in order to permit his allies who were also vassals of the French crown to lawfully wage war on it."
Done.
  • What other aims?
Cough. Good point. Specified.
Thanks
  • "It was to run for nine months…" what does this mean? The term of the truce was for nine months or it was successfully adhered to for nine months? (I think you mean term, as the following sentence says clashes continued, but 9 months seems an odd period to negotiate.)
I can't see what is wrong with the original, nearly all late-Medieval truces ran for specific periods, and this one was for nine months. But trusting you that something is awry I have changed to "It was agreed that it would expire nine months later". How is that?
fine
  • What is a freelancing soldier? It sounds like someone who goes out and wages war independently, i.e. terrorist. But I am guessing it is more like a mercenary?
OK. The etymology of free lance. See Lances fournies for what a "lance" was. (A small unit that accompanied a knight when he went into battle during the 14th and 15th centuries, a lance might have consisted of one or two squires, the knight himself and one to three foot soldiers or archers.) The knight would usually be bound by an oath of fealty to a feudal superior. If not, he, and his lance, would be described as "free". During war time they may sell their services and thus be considered "mercenaries", but not much more so than soldiers today who fight for pay. (Swift homage to Houseman's poem.) These free lances were loose cannons when there was little or no fighting going on. They would frequently strike off on their own on unauthorised looting sprees. This became known politely as "freelancing". When doing this they were the opposite of mercenaries. Possibly they could be equated to freebooters or pirates; or even more loosely to privateers. I have had this discussion before and am loath to describe them inaccurately. I could suppose go with something like "a band of English soldiers on an unauthorised expedition ..."?
You should word it how it makes sense from a standpoint of military history, of which I clearly do not have a grasp. Perhaps just linking to Lances fournies would allow the reader to ascertain the context.
Good idea. Linked.
  • Perhaps: "…desperate measures to raise money, set about raising an army, and resume the war"?
Instead I have expanded the last sentence to "Thus the opportunistic capture of Guînes resulted in the war resuming."
fine

Prelude

  • Difficult to approach the castle”? I am sure this is my misunderstanding of military operations but it seems really passive. Unless there were obstacles—men, moats, weapons in the way—what was stopping them from walking up to it? Do you mean take/storm the castle?
Just as you surmise. The source: "surrounded by moats or marsh on every side" ... "almost inaccessible by land".
Can we just clarify that in the text, i.e. "Difficult to approach the castle by land or some such?
Done.

Treaty

  • "…ex-archbishop of Canterbury among others", are you saying Islip had more titles or there were other negotiators? Perhaps, a semi-colon is needed after Canterbury?
That seems an unusual grammar, but I take your point. Done.
  • Verb tense seems awkward in "After several meetings". Either offset "reconvening on 19 May" with commas, or use "would reconvene".
Went with the latter.
  • Agreement was agreed seems redundant. Perhaps "Edward assented on 30 March to the principle of a peace agreement, abandoning his claim to the French throne in exchange for French territory."
Chronological order again. And your proposal loses the role of the negotiators. I think "of a peace agreement" is the problem and it adds nothing, so I have deleted it.
fine
  • Again perhaps a BE vs AE thing, but I would say "By it, England…"
Comma added, although it now reads oddly to me.
  • Same for "In the same ceremony, English…"
Ditto and ditto.
  • "…another round of warfare may leave him" see above may vs. might
Done.
  • "…1355 campaigning season"? Do we need campaigning? Sounds political, but obviously is used for military strategy.
We do, it is; but I have found a link! Does that help?
yes

I think that's it for me. Thanks for your work on the article. SusunW (talk) 15:19, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Guerillero[edit]

Thoughts

  • Encyclopedia of the Hundred Years War is a tertiary source. Why is it used instead of secondary sources?
Largely because there is no policy against it; WP:RSPRIMARY "Reputable tertiary sources, such as introductory-level university textbooks, almanacs, and encyclopedias, may be cited." Pragmatically because secondary sources, being largely narrative, tend not to make simple statements like "The Hundred Years' War began in 1337 and ended in 1455", Encyclopedias do, and so are useful for supporting simple, uncontroversial facts. And secondary sources frequently aren't: so Rogers p. 291 (which is cited in the article in 25, 28 and 32) in his cites mentions Fowler, Perroy and another work by himself. I agree that this is not usual, but it is not that uncommon. And Wagner is a top historian himself. He cites the article "Guines, Treaty of" solely to Sumption, but there is more in his article than Sumption provides, otherwise, as you say, Wagner wouldn't be needed.
    • The publisher seems to be Greenwood Press and the front matter claims that it is out of Westport, CT in the US. The UK location is listed as London. Maybe this is a US vs UK edition?
No, it is me getting it wrong. Fixed.
  • Weirdly the ISBN brings up Faber and Faber and U. Penn. Press as the publisher of Sumption's history of the 100 years war. Is this a UK vs US issue as well?
I suspect that someone has run auto ed or a similar bot over the article. I have reinstated the ISBNs as they are on the works' title pages, but who knows when some good faith soul will "improve" them?
  • Dictionary of Battles and Sieges is also a tertiary source and seems to be from the same publisher as Encyclopedia of the Hundred Years War but with a slightly different name/location pair
Dropped. Not really necessary.
  • JSTOR has some stuff beyond the books that you used that might be of interest

--In actu (Guerillero) Parlez Moi 02:41, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by PM[edit]

Interesting. I don't have much to nitpick about, other than a sourcing issue:

  • "Brittainy"
Done.
  • suggest "The French responded on 8 May by cancelling the truce and announcing an arrière-ban in Normandy, a formal call to arms for all able-bodied males."
Done.
  • link ratification and treaty
Done.
  • There does seem to be heavy usage of a tertiary source (Wagner, 15 citations of 48, almost a third), which isn't ideal in an FA. English Medieval Diplomacy (1985) by George Peddy Cuttino seems to have some useful material, also have you checked the back catalogue of The Journal of Medieval Military History? I'd like to see secondary sources used for some of the material cited to Wagner.
15 from 48? I count 15 from 63. All for straight forward facts. Most secondary sources go for narrative flow and so miss some of the obvious facts. I can probably hunt down most of it elsewhere, and I'll look at Cuttino. Wagner now down to 8, and I can probably lose a couple more.
Wagner reduced to 6 cites. Note that he is a leading scholar of the conflict and that the content of each article is his original contribution. I don't see that the title alone makes it a tertiary source.

That's it. Nice job. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:23, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi Peacemaker and thank you for the review. I have addressed all of your comments above. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:34, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
All good. Supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:54, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

=Source review[edit]

I have much of this, and will do the necessary. Tomorrow, more horse, blackadder! ——Serial 22:15, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

I have a cunning source sire. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:19, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Battle of Saint-Malo[edit]

Nominator(s): Nick-D (talk) 04:35, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

This article covers a large but little-remembered battle between the US Army, with the support of French and British forces, and the German Army in France during August and September 1944. Allied forces assaulted the heavily defended resort town of Saint-Malo in the hope of capturing its port and eliminating the German garrison. This led to what the war correspondent Lee Miller described as "fortress warfare reminiscent of crusader times". The Allies eventually prevailed, but as the Germans had completely demolished the port little was achieved by the victory. The battle is perhaps most known today as the subject of the final chapters of the award winning novel All the Light We Cannot See.

I first became aware of this battle and its unusual nature after seeing an exhibition of Miller's photographs at the Imperial War Museums in London during 2015. I created this article last year after belatedly realising that we didn't have an article on it. It was assessed as a GA in March 2021 and passed a Military History Wikiproject A-class review in April. The article has since been further expanded any copy edited, and I am hopeful that the FA criteria are now met. To pre-empt a possible comment, the article relies heavily on the US Army official history as every other source I have been able to find is also obviously based on this work; there doesn't seem to have been any subsequent significant original research into the topic. Given this, I favoured going to the horse's mouth, rather than using works which re-hashed it. I have drawn on a large range of other works, including more recent works, to round out the story wherever possible. Thank you in advance for your time and comments. Nick-D (talk) 04:35, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

  • IR pass per ACR (t · c) buidhe 13:25, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Support from Gog the Mild[edit]

Interesting. Last year I was looking to write an article or three on some of the US Army's pre-breakout battles in the Cotentin. But I really struggled to find much in the way of sources. (I ended up writing a couple of articles on the Battle of Crete.) So I look forward to seeing how you have addressed a similar problem. A full review to follow.

  • Cite 81: "p." → 'pp.'.

Gog the Mild (talk) 11:59, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

  • "The Allies sought to capture the town so that its port could be used to land supplies ... it was decided to capture rather than contain Saint-Malo in order to secure its port ..." This seems like a duplication.
    • I've tweaked the wording to clarify this. Nick-D (talk) 00:42, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
  • "the Oberkommando der Wehrmacht". This being the English Wikipedia, why are we communicating in a language very few readers will understand?
    Some German terms are better known to English readers in that language. OKW is one of them. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:23, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
    • Oberkommando der Wehrmacht is for better or worse the common name English-language name here, but I've added a translation. Nick-D (talk) 10:29, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
  • "and the other French ports with prewar fortifications as fortresses" Suggest deleting "the".
  • "gained a reputation for war crimes." Insert 'committing'.
  • "any partisans taken as prisoner". I am not sure about "as".
  • "after it managed to breakout from Normandy." It may just be me, but this looks a bit clunky. Perhaps "after it broke out from Normandy."?
  • "a collapse in the German positions." Optional: → 'a collapse of the German position'.
    • Tweaked to read better here Nick-D (talk) 10:29, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
  • "led to a change in plans." Whose?
    • Tweaked to clarify Nick-D (talk) 10:29, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
  • "On 3 August Bradley suggested to Patton". Suggested or ordered?
    • I've added material clarifying the changes in plans here. They're a bit hard to follow, as the senior American generals were changing their plans very frequently at this time due to the unexpected German collapse Patton and some of his divisional commanders pushing back against (and occasionally ignoring) orders they didn't agree with. Nick-D (talk) 10:29, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
  • "the resistance in Brittany was activated on 2 August". You explained earlier that it had always been active?
    • I've clarified this - they were directed to start a general attack, while avoiding "open warfare". It seems that the resistance exceeded their instructions though! Nick-D (talk) 10:42, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
  • "of these areas and their transport infrastructure". Suggest "their" → 'of the'.
  • "This fort had originally been designed by the great engineer Sébastien Le Prestre de Vauban." Is it known when?
    • The eighteenth century - added. Nick-D (talk) 00:42, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
  • "Pointe de la Varde (fr)". Is there meant to be a link here?
    • Red linked. It's interesting that our coverage of French coastal fortifications isn't great. Nick-D (talk) 00:42, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
  • "were mutually supporting". Perhaps a brief in line explanation of this concept.
    • Tweaked to make this clearer. Nick-D (talk) 00:42, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
You have rephrased to avoid "mutually supporting", which you have done well and is fine, but you use it twice more in the article. You either need to rephrase both of these or actually define it somewhere.
Tweaked. Writing this article has illustrated that our coverage of siege/positional warfare isn't great, as it should be possible to link these terms. Nick-D (talk) 23:14, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
I frequently think that we could do with a glossary of military terms, similar to the naval or cricket ones. A project for MilHist? Gog the Mild (talk) 10:28, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
  • "A key deficiency was that few artillery guns were emplaced." Does this mean that there were too few artillery guns, or that there were sufficient, but that they were not emplaced? And what does "emplaced" mean?
    • There weren't many guns - clarified. Nick-D (talk) 00:42, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
You have removed this mention of "emplaced", but have used it twice more ...
Tweaked Nick-D (talk) 23:14, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
  • "assault guns"> An explanation of what these might be for non-aficionados?
    • Linked. The concept was a bit tricky to understand by this period of the war, as the Germans were often using them as tanks. Nick-D (talk) 00:42, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
If it were easy, they wouldn't need us.
  • "Despite Patton's intention to avoid siege operations, Middleton believed that the German force at Saint-Malo was too strong to be safely bypassed, as it could potentially attack the supply lines supporting the forces advancing into Brittany." I don't understand the first part of this. It reads to me as if both commanders wished to avoid sieges.
    • I think that the changes earlier in the article should make this clearer, and have tweaked the wording here as well. Middleton was much more cautious than Patton, and had a better feel for the area. Nick-D (talk) 00:42, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Should the dates not be given in US format?
    They are in US military format. See WP:MILFORMAT. True story: visiting one of the antebellum homes in Louisiana, I signed the visitors' book using a military format date. My two US Army buddies signed it the same way. Then a bus load of American seniors arrived and complained bitterly about having to use the US military format - the idea of not doing so did not occur to them. (Later we got into trouble for locating the slave quarters out the back - not part of the tour apparently.) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:12, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
    Yep, this is the format used in the US Army official history, for instance. Nick-D (talk) 00:42, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
I knew that, I had a brain fart!
  • "around 10,000 Germans in the region". Suggest "region" → 'area'.
  • "an artillery battalion". It may be helpful to readers to give an idea of how many guns there were in one of those.
    Twelve. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:12, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
  • ""Added a note to this effect. Nick-D (talk) 00:42, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
  • "suffered 31 killed and 106 wounded". It would be helpful if even a vague idea of the battalions strength on entering combat may have been.
    • I've added a note on the nominal size of US Army infantry battalions at this time. It's likely that the battalion would have been below strength though. Nick-D (talk) 10:50, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
  • "increasingly used white phosphorus rounds." Why, and what are they?
    • Added 'incendiary', but I think that the link should make this pretty clear? Nick-D (talk) 00:42, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
      That's not quite right. White phosphorus munitions - "whiskey papa" we called it - are used to generate smoke, either for a smoke screen or marker for artillery or aircraft. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:02, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
      Good point - clarified. Nick-D (talk) 05:50, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
  • What is "napalm"?
  • "To transport the troops, 15 US Navy landing craft, vehicle, personnel were moved by truck"> Something has gone awry with the grammar here.
    • This was the awkward name of the things. Despite their central role in the Allied war effort, the grammar for amphibious craft was awful (eg, pretty much everything hinged off the awkwardly-named Landing Ship, Tanks). The abbreviations are often used, but I'm not sure if that's an improvement in this context. Nick-D (talk) 00:42, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
There is no requirement that we use the contemporary military nomenclature - imagine if I did so with my Medieval articles. How about "US Navy landing craft, vehicle, personnel" → 'US Navy infantry landing craft' or similar/
Tweaked to 'LCVP landing craft', which seems to be the common name and should be clearer (with the link). Nick-D (talk) 11:03, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Excellent work. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:31, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

  • @Gog the Mild: Thank you for this review. I think that I may have addressed all the comments, but please let me know if I haven't. Nick-D (talk) 00:42, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
  • What qualifies Bardham to be described as an "historian"? And why is "To the last man" a reliable source? Gog the Mild (talk) 00:45, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
    • It was published by Frontline books, which is an imprint of Pen & Sword, a reputable publisher of military history works (I think they have a few other imprints). Googling him shows that he authored a couple of other works on related aspects of the war, including Hitler's U-Boat Fortresses which was published by one of the scholarly publisher Rowman & Littlefield's vast stable of imprints. It doesn't look like he was a qualified historian, but a couple of obits noted that he wrote about the war [18] [19]. Nick-D (talk) 01:00, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
OK. I am convinced. I have and have read the same volume and it is indescribably poor. As you only cite it twice and for non-controversial points I shall be Nelsonian.
Hmm, OK. I've been relying on the Google Books previews, which are pretty good for this battle. As you note, the two points I've used it as a citation for aren't controversial - Bradham simply states a conclusion about the nature of the German resistance that pretty much every other author describes (Blumenson for instance highlights all the instances the German commanders made histrionic statements and fought on in the face of obvious defeat, and almost every author notes that Aulock was nicknamed the 'mad colonel' for these behaviours. A range of sources also note how badly Aulock treated the civilian population during the battle and turned down opportunities to avoid the destruction of the town). Nick-D (talk) 23:14, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
Even better after the changes in response to the various reviewers comments. A handful of come backs from me above. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:38, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for these further comments. Nick-D (talk) 23:14, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
However, the following week, the Allies refused to allow the evacuation of the civilian population from Le Havre, and over 2,000 of them were killed by air and naval bombardment. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:43, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
Yep, and as I understand it a lot died in the bombing of that town shortly after D-Day as well. Nick-D (talk) 05:50, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Nick-D, just my last point about landing craft to address. I am going to support anyway, but I think that point could do with resolving. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:42, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
    • Sorry, I forgot that one - despite devising a solution while running errands today! Tweaked per the above, and thanks again for this review. Nick-D (talk) 11:03, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Hawkeye7[edit]

@Gog the Mild: Zawed would have been my first port of call for an article on Crete. As Nick pointed out, there hasn't been a lot of American interest in the campaigns in North West Europe, except for the Battle of the Bulge. However the Brits and Canadians have done a lot of work lately, and I have a pile of material on the campaign in southern France. Let me know if you're interested in working on some of them.

Oh yeah. I reviewed this article at A-Class and Support it here. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:50, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

  • Thank you for this. Yes, there's lots of opportunities to develop articles on the campaign in North West Europe. Our coverage of the fighting in 1945 is especially bad. Nick-D (talk) 07:55, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
Nick-D, I have for a while been toying with writing an article on the Battle of La Haye-du-Puits. Might you be interested in a collaboration?
I would be willing to help you with it. Looks like we don't have an article in English, although there is one in French (fr:Bataille de La Haye-du-Puits) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:17, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
Hawkeye7, re Crete: possibly, but I have pushed two battles through to FA anyway. I seem to have run out of steam a bit on these. Zawed, you reviewed them both, would you be interested in a collaboration on the Battle of Prison Valley?
Gog the Mild (talk) 21:53, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
Gog the Mild, would be good to work with you on a collaboration. I have a few print sources in relation to the NZers on Crete that will be useful. Zawed (talk) 10:32, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Support from Ceoil[edit]

  • I expect to support this impressive account.
  • The Imperial War Museums hold a recording identified as an account of HMS Malaya bombarding Cézembre in its collection `- made by whom
  • The phrase "had been" appears 14 times, and is a bit vague. Eg "Extensive fortifications had been constructed in the Saint-Malo area"...in the lead up to the American invasion presumably, though earlier we are told that the town had been designed for defence over centuries.
    • Got this down to 6 times. Nick-D (talk) 06:40, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Was confused by this: Accordingly, the Overlord plan specified that securing Brittany would be the main objective of Lieutenant General Omar Bradley's Twelfth United States Army Group after it managed to breakout from Normandy. This task was assigned to the Third Army
    • It was part of the army group - clarified. Nick-D (talk) 06:40, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
  • more later, still only scanning. Ceoil (talk) 00:23, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
    • Thanks for these comments so far. Nick-D (talk) 06:40, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
      • Did a number of [light] copyedits during initial readings, and the page has improved since. Support, nice work. Ceoil (talk) 22:03, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
        • Thank you for your review. Nick-D (talk) 22:42, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Comments by Sturmvogel_66[edit]

Just some drive by comments on stuff that I noticed while doing the source review

  • Burt's book British Battleships 1919–1945 specifically states that Malaya bombarded the islands off St. Malo on 1 September. Lemme know if you want fuller bibliographic info.
    • Thanks, but I don't think that's necessary: in the note here I'm using some illustrations from the main works on the topic rather than noting what every source says. It seems most likely that the ship was HMS Malaya given the BBC record, though Warspite was also operating in the area at the time (she shelled Brest). The British official histories don't mention this action unfortunately, as they would be the best source here - I suspect that this is what has led to the confusion in the sources. Nick-D (talk) 11:13, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
  • The German garrison names are misspelled. Should be Küstenverteidigungsgruppe Rance, etc.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:24, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
    • This is what the source uses. Thank you for these comments. Nick-D (talk) 11:13, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
      • An unforced error by the author. See [20] for examples.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 11:44, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
        • Checking Google books shows that terminology is used by German-language works - tweaked accordingly. Nick-D (talk) 01:15, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Source review[edit]

  • Cites consistently formatted.
  • Some British publications have United Kingdom as part of the location, others don't. Standardize these. Otherwise consistently formatted
    • My understanding is that the convention is that highly specific locations only need to be added for cities which aren't well-known publishing centres (e.g., no need to refer to 'New York City, United States' or 'London, United Kingdom' as everyone will know what's being referred to). The UK locations where I've included 'UK' are those which are a bit obscure - Barnsley, Abingdon-on-Thames, etc (ditto Annapolis, Maryland, etc). Oxford and London are well-known. Nick-D (talk) 11:08, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Randal needs an ISSN
  • Spotchecks on ISBNs and ISSNs proved out
  • Sources are highly reliable
  • Prose spotchecks not done--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:24, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Additional comment (not to step on Sturm's toes here, but it occurred to me when I looked over the article) - are we concerned about the age of a few of the sources, most notably Blumenson, since the article relies on it heavily? The source obviously predates the public release of Ultra - have you looked into more recent publications to see whether Enigma decrypts played a role in the operation? I'd assume it was a factor in Allied planning, for instance. Parsecboy (talk) 13:03, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

There's nothing on Ultra's role in this battle in Zaloga's recent work, and he usually comments on this form of intelligence in his works on World War II. The relevant volume of British intelligence in the second world war notes that intelligence on German naval operations from Saint-Malo before D-Day that was sourced from Ultra and that the Allies were tracking the 77th Infantry Division as it moved between Normandy and Saint-Malo, but doesn't cover this battle in any detail. This Masters thesis has a few interesting snippets, but as a masters thesis isn't a RS (though its author recently retired as a Lieutenant General!). The other recent works consulted don't mention Ultra. My understanding is that the value of Ultra at this time was mixed, as German Army units in France used landlines for communications wherever possible. The fact that the Americans greatly under-estimated the size of the garrison at Saint-Malo and blundered into a bigger battle than they expected indicates that Ultra wasn't much use to them in this battle. I've added some extra material to flesh the intelligence picture facing the Allies out. Nick-D (talk) 11:17, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Mosasaurus[edit]

Nominator(s): Macrophyseter | talk 17:17, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

This article will be the first article about a mosasaur (or any extinct marine reptile apex predator) to receive a FAC. It is about the type genus of the mosasaurs, which is one one of the largest marine predators in history. It is also quite culturally significant. The stories of its fossils are historically and culturally significant in the Netherlands and France, and they stood alongside the mastodon and Megalosaurus as the pioneering fossils that helped develop concepts like extinction and the precursors of evolution. Thanks to films like Jurassic World the genus today is among the most iconic prehistoric creatures. In addition, we know a substantial deal about the biology of the animal, which I've summarized the spectrum of breadth of in this article, covering just about every published literature that touches on the genus. Given that Mosasaurus is not the only mosasaur with such a depth in history and scientific knowledge, starting with the most famous of them all can set a great model for how others can be written. Macrophyseter | talk 17:17, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Lythronaxargestes[edit]

I left extensive comments on this article in a peer review and I was fairly happy with it the last time I looked at it. I'll take another look through next week given the recent revisions for and after the GA, but I expect to support once I've done so. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 22:19, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

IR by Buidhe[edit]

Page size is 14434 words / 91 kB readable prose. IMO this is against length criterion (see Article size); in general, many FAC reviewers are looking for articles no longer than 10,000 words. I strongly suggest splitting the article or trimming on the order of 1/3 to 1/2 the content. One possibility for a spin off article might be Research history of Mosasaurus. This is a lot to do over the course of FAC so I would suggest withdrawing and re nominating once that's done. (t · c) buidhe 02:02, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Buidhe. Heartfox (talk) 05:11, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
I've been working on trimming prior to FAC; I also was hoping if an exception could be made given the sheer scope the article covers like in the case of Maya civilization. I've lowered the prose count to around the 10k range; I don't think being a few hundred above exactly ten thousand would be problematic, but I can try to trim more if so. Macrophyseter | talk 07:27, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
The condensed summary in the article right now fits awkwardly. You should have a paragraph, however brief, mentioning the other species by name so that the rest of the article has context. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 15:01, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
As for the size, my calculator script says "Prose size (text only): 66 kB (10361 words) "readable prose size"", which I think is within acceptable range. FunkMonk (talk) 16:46, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
I've expanded Research history to summarize all other confirmed species. Size-wise, my script says 10775 words, which I think remains acceptable. Macrophyseter | talk 16:18, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Image licensing is good. I do think there are still some parts of the prose that go into a lot of detail, and might be better moved to sub-articles, but paleontology isn't the focus of my editing so I'll see what others have to say. Without the research history section it's a lot more manageable. (t · c) buidhe 07:39, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
Jumping in here, I saw a comment about too many images on the right, which was then turned into a gallery, but what guideline is that based on? Aesthetically, it looks much better to fill out the white space left by the current cladograms, as it doesn't break up the text (like the current gallery does), just fills empty space. I've never seen such a suggestion before (having made similar white space filler in several FAC articles), and I do think the former version looked much better. FunkMonk (talk) 14:14, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
Looks like FunkMonk comments faster than I do, lol; the way the images in "Phylogeny and evolution of the genus" were clustered before your (Buidhe) edit was an intentionally planned format as a way to present the diversity of species without interrupting the prose read. Is there a reason as to why that would not be an appropriate format? Macrophyseter | talk 14:19, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
Some FAs have imagery which consist entirely of a row of right aligned images, such as the recent Ring ouzel, so I'm not sure what the problem is. As long as there isn't WP:image sandwiching, I don't see what the guidelines would have against this. FunkMonk (talk) 14:31, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
The issue was that it's wrong to have three right-aligned images in a row, but that the images were in excess of the text (see screenshot). According to MOS, the solution to excess images are use less images or combine them somehow (multiple image template, gallery, etc.) so as to avoid leaving a lot of whitespace. (t · c) buidhe 14:38, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
Another formatting option is to combine all four images in the section into one vertical multiple images template, which would not leave much whitespace. (t · c) buidhe 14:41, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
Strange, doesn't look like that on my screen, it just fills up the white space. There is a way around this that we've used elsewhere, Lythronaxargestes or IJReid I think might know. FunkMonk (talk) 14:43, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
Do you have the same issue here[21], buidhe? I think it can be solved by making the cladograms less wide. FunkMonk (talk) 14:44, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
@FunkMonk: Depends on exactly how wide the browser window is. It either looks like this (just fine) or this (because the topology + image together are too wide for the window, they separate). Different viewers will see one or the other depending on browser settings. (t · c) buidhe 14:51, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
Yes, this is how I see it[22], and how it was intended. It is odd that in your screenshot, the text associated with the cladogram doesn't reach the images, yet it still creates the white gap. Pinging Jts1882 too, who might know something. FunkMonk (talk) 14:57, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
I've done some investigation and that situation only appears when the window displaying the article is scaled to a certain small width range due to the cladogram blocking the images (narrower, and the text fills up the white space; wider, and the cladograms stop blocking the images). The same situation exists for [23], and probably any image that appears side-by-side with any cladogram. Moving the images up a few paragraphs (like to the second) fixes this issue, although some might see the resulting narrow spacing between the left image as a borderline sandwich. I'm still against a gallery format because it distracts from the content of the text. Macrophyseter | talk 15:04, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
An alternative way could also be what I've done at quagga (by the cladogram and under description), where multiple images are collected horizontally on the right, without disrupting the text like a gallery. FunkMonk (talk) 15:07, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
A problem with that is the image dimensions are very different, so you end up with a tiny square-ish image and a gigantic rectangular image in the cluster. Do you know if there are any formatting solutions to that situation if I go with the quagga example?Macrophyseter | talk 15:27, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
No sandwiching if all images are aligned on the same side. (t · c) buidhe 15:31, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
I think you had a fourth image in the row once, maybe it could help with balance? It can be a pain unless you find that sort of stuff funny (which I do), but I just experiment with different layouts and numbers of images, as in Cimoliopterus or Dilophosaurus I've been working on lately. FunkMonk (talk) 15:35, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
The fourth image was the hoffmannii skeleton that's now in the taxobox. It was there because I originally had a picture of another skeleton in the taxobox, but I had to take that down because the CC license was incorrect. Macrophyseter | talk 16:36, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
Responding to ping. It's a bit difficult to comment as the page has changed as the discussion progresses, with the images now in a gallery. I assume the two cladograms were put in a table that was set to a maximum of 75% screen width to allow images to be floated to the right. The problem with this is it is it needs a wide screen. If the images don't fit in the 25% left for them, the cladogram gets moved down leaving white space. This also leaves the cladograms slightly scrunched even when there is white space to the right. One solution would be to float the two cladograms so they are displayed vertically on narrower screens (not ideal for the comparison, but maybe OK in portrait mode on a phone). {{clade gallery}} is responsive (e.g. Neoaves). I've made this edit (now reverted) to show the cladograms in a responsive gallery with the images are floated to the right. The side by side comparison only shows on relatively wide screens, with the cladograms displayed vertically on narrower screens. Given the side by side comparison is useful, the image gallery seems preferable, although I thought these were discouraged in FA articles.
Looking good to me, but I'll of course lets others decide. This is how it looked "originally":[24] FunkMonk (talk) 18:07, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
Demo looks great, I think that format would be the best choice as it preserves the original format but also fixes the spacing issue. Added.Macrophyseter | talk 19:28, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Jens Lallensack[edit]

  • it as an Ichthyosaurus – I think either "it as Ichthyosaurus" or "it as an ichthyosaur". --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:16, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
I disagree with the former since it's not the name of an individual. Macrophyseter | talk 20:02, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
I think the reason is that genus names are always used without article. It is "Mosasaurus", not "the Mosasaurus". I don't think a formulation such as "identified it as an Ichthyosaurus" is common in the literature for this reason. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:41, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
I'm personally used to hearing genus names at times being used with an article, although I will admit that I've only heard it used by those who aren't in the field. Macrophyseter | talk 14:54, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
Cut anyways. Macrophyseter | talk 15:29, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
  • The type specimen of M. missouriensis was first described in 1834 as a snout fragment – "described as a snout fragment" somehow seems weird. Also, link type specimen.
This one's a bit tricky since the type specimen consists of two different cataloged specimens. Since they're both the same individual, they would be the holotype. Rearranged the wording if that works. Macrophyseter | talk 20:02, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
  • But the rest of the skull was discovered earlier by a fur-trapper – would remove the "but", and maybe "had been discovered earlier"?
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 20:02, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
  • this species was reidentified as a Mosasaurus – "as a species of Mosasaurus"? Or simply "as Mosasaurus"?
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 20:02, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
  • We don't usually put attributes like nov. sp. ("new species") in the reproduced cladograms, I think because this can be misunderstood in a way that the new species is defined in this very Wikipedia article.
Substituted with quotations around taxa to preserve distinction that these are proposed and not official names. Macrophyseter | talk 20:02, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
  • I suggest to use "Main article:" instead of "See also:" where appropriate. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:16, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 20:02, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
  • The most complete skeleton of Mosasaurus, whose species-level identification is debated – maybe the detail on this specimen that follows could be moved to Research history of Mosasaurus, with some more information on its discovery if this is available? It would be very relevant in that article. But in the "description" section, information on where this specimen is on display are just not the right place. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:57, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
I checked the sources and apparently its not as clear about the completeness of the fossil. The skeleton had some restoration, although the degree to which isn't clear, but given the full vertebral formula is known the skeleton probably is complete in vertebral representation. I don't have access to the thesis that described the fossil in detail, so there's not much I can work with at the moment. Also, there are some fossils that are probably more complete, but none of them have been described in whole yet. So I've reworded the passage for now. Macrophyseter | talk 15:29, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
  • thirty-eight dorsal vertebrae (which includes thoracic and lumbar vertebrae) – the explanation implies that thoracic and lumbar vertebrae can be differentiated in Mosasaurus, but I don't think this is the case. Maybe just "dorsal (back) vertebrae" is enough as explanation.
I'm pretty sure they can be differentiated by presence/absence of ribs, but apparently scientists don't appear to have the need to differentiate them when talking about vertebrae although it's been done at least once. Macrophyseter | talk 14:54, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
  • All species of Mosasaurus have seven cervical vertebrae – This contradicts what was said earlier, that one species is only known from isolated teeth. I think it needs re-formulation.
The article never said that M. beaugei is only known from isolated teeth, but that the type specimen is only isolated teeth. It's also implied in sections like Size that more complete remains are known, and its a bit more explicit in the Research history article. Macrophyseter | talk 14:54, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
  • the rib cages of Mosasaurus – would use singular: rib cage
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 14:54, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
  • which implies Mosasaurus – should be "indicates" I think.
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 14:54, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Sometimes you give skull length in cm, sometimes in mm. Should be consistent; I personally would go for cm as this is easier to grab at such large numbers. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:57, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 14:54, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
  • et al. is an unnecessary technical term, can be replaced with "and colleagues".
Fixed, but kept when an inline citation is used (i.e. Polycn et al. (2014)) Macrophyseter | talk 14:54, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
  • I don't understand why some information on the species is found in "History of taxonomy" and not under "Other species". For example, M. conodon is discussed a lot in the latter section, but the quite relevant bit that it was moved to a different genus by one study only appears in the "History of taxonomy" section, so there is some disconnect, making it hard to follow. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:59, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
The situation regarding M. conodon is from a PhD thesis rather than a peer-reviewed study, so it's not really formally valid yet (It's still important to mention because its currently the only modern research that attempts to clean up the entire genus taxonomy; caveats are noted to point out the thesis case). I don't want to provide so much weight of the thesis on the article, hence why I didn't incorporate its information in Other species. I could as an alternative move History of taxonomy to Research history, but that would put distance between the discussion of the thesis and the cladogram that visualizes it. Macrophyseter | talk 14:54, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
  • The first paragraph of "Relation with snakes or monitor lizards" now misses a source. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:24, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 14:56, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
  • However, it has been pointed out that measuring δ13C levels may not be the most accurate method of determining the preferred habitat of Mosasaurus and As a result, isotope levels can misrepresent the actual habitat preferences of Mosasaurus – I think both sentences say basically the same, and one of them could be deleted without loss. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:24, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 14:56, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
  • I think that the "Research history" is, from an encyclopedic point of view, the most important section. Yet, the paleoecology ection is three times as long. What do you think about moving that section to "Paleoecology of Mosasaurus" and leave a summary here, and make the history section slightly longer again? Not sure if "Paleoecology of mosasaurs" would be the better title for such a sub-article, but that might require more work. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:24, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
Do you think it may be better off to simply swap the spin-off article statuses between Research history and Paleocology? In other words, bring back much of everything from Research history and move much of paleoecology to a separate article. It seems that most FAs have pretty skimmy Paleoecology sections anyways, so perhaps inbalance won't be a problem. Macrophyseter | talk 14:56, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
Are there maybe existing articles about formations, other taxa or similar that some of the paleoecology info could be spun off into? I also noted at the PR that it goes very much into detail about the lifestyles of different taxa, which is interesting, but probably also the first that should be cut, since it's not about the subject of the article. FunkMonk (talk) 14:59, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
Hmm, I think that, if you bring back the History of research full-length, you will have difficulties keeping the article below 10,000 words again. Paleoecology is still important and needs to stay a decent section, though it could be reduced by over 50% at least. Regarding the "Distribution, ecosystem, and ecological impact" section, maybe FunkMonk's suggestion is best, though I wonder which articles that info could be moved to. An alternative might be to have a section on paleoecology in the Mosasaur article and move the info there; this would require some additional text because of the broader scope of that article, however. For the "habitat" and "interspecific competition" sections, I would try to formulate them much more concisely (overall, you tend to be quite wordy in this article). Let me know if you need help with this. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:07, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
I just trimmed it a bit further, and we are below 10,000 words of prose now. I think it is OK to leave the entire section in the article. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:11, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
  • In what is now modern-day Alabama within the Southern Interior Subprovince, most of the key genera including the mosasaurs – does "key genera" only refer to mosasaurs? If so, it should be reformulated accordingly. If not, than I doubt that Mosasaurus could possibly replace all kinds of key genera in a given ecosystem. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:11, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
Swapped placement of sharks and mosasaurs to remedy potential confusion of context. Macrophyseter | talk 14:38, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
  • In the text you variably give full author names (e.g., T. Lynn Harrell Jr.) or just the surnames, and sometimes use the attribute "paleontologist" but sometimes not. This should all be consistent. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:11, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
Do you think it would be better to refer to everyone by first and last name w/o occupation or just inline citations (i.e. Konishi et al. (2014)? Macrophyseter | talk 14:38, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
Not sure. "Konishi et al. (2014)" still sounds too technical to me, I would go for "Konishi and colleagues (2014)". In one of my FACs, people told me that they dislike having the years in brackets, and since then I write "Konishi and colleagues, in 2014,". In recent FAs, we often provide full names at first mention + occupation and nationality, e.g. "The British paleontologist … argued that". But I see that this might be overkill for such a central article like this. Only giving the occupation ("paleontologist") doesn't make much sense to me, since one would assume that most are anyways. Maybe just first and last names? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:28, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
  • (a feature present on the palate of all mosasaurs and various modern reptiles) – it was already mentioned that they are present in all mosasaurs, so this is partly repetitive. Cut? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:07, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
Where is it mentioned prior? Perhaps it was within one of the parts I removed for trimming... Macrophyseter | talk 15:13, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Late Maastrichtian – make sure to have all sub-stages in lower case (i.e., "late Mastrichtian"), because these are not formal names. This is the convention. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:09, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 15:13, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Mosasaurus sp. – also, "sp." should not be in italics. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:15, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 15:13, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Another minor nuisance: Make sure to put "|sp=us" into the unit conversion templates throughout, because right know you have a mixture of the British English "metres" and the American English "meters". --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:25, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 15:13, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Much of the knowledge on the musculature and mechanics of the head of Mosasaurus are largely based on Lingham-Soliar's 1995 study on M. hoffmannii skulls. – Since this is sourced to that very study, it is borderline WP:synth. I would just remove this sentence.
Replaced with something more objective, since I still needed to establish that this is specific to M. hoffmannii. Macrophyseter | talk 15:13, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
  • possibly to allow the animal to better position them and prevent deflection (the positioning of a prey in a way that increases its chance of escape from a predator) when hunting. – Since this is not even about Mosasaurus in particular, can we just write "possibly to allow the animal to better position them to prevent their escape"? The technical term "deflection" seems unnecessary here, and "when hunting" redundant.
Shortened to simple "prey escape." Macrophyseter | talk 15:01, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
  • which indicates that its jaw mechanics were different than modern lizards; – this doesn't add anything; the reader will already know they are different, and now needs to know in which way.
Cut. Macrophyseter | talk 15:01, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
  • I would explain "adduction" in a gloss.
"Adduction" was removed. Macrophyseter | talk 15:01, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
  • allowing it to swing forward and backward – allowing "them"?
Wording altered from a different point. Macrophyseter | talk 15:01, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Rather, M. hoffmannii likely swallowed its prey whole – but with ratchet feeding, you also swallow the prey whole?
There was a term I may have looked over when I first wrote this; replacing with that term. Macrophyseter | talk 15:01, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
  • The magnus adductor muscles, one of the muscles attaching the lower jaws to the cranium and which has a major role in biting function, – "which have"? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:16, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 15:01, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Cas Liber[edit]

Taking a look now....will make straightforward copyedits as I go, please revert if I inadvertently change the meaning, and jot queries below. Am aware of article's size and will think about how to deal with this Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:59, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

  • Mosasaurus was first discovered in 1764 in a subterranean chalk quarry... - why "subterranean"?
Removed. But the quarry was subterranean (i think 90 feet below the surface) Macrophyseter | talk 19:13, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
    • Or indeed why "first discovered" -- can it be discovered more than once? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:05, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
It was a shortening attempt due to word count. Bringing back the original wording. Macrophyseter | talk 19:13, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
  • The skull of Mosasaurus is conical and tapers off to a short and snout that extends a little beyond the frontmost teeth - something missing here...or remove the "and"?
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 19:13, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Given size constraints, I would move the whole Relation with snakes or monitor lizards subsection to a higher taxon page (such as Mosasaur) as it is about placement of the whole family/suborder not the genus. Maybe leave one sentence but not sure how/which, and append onto previous section.
Macrophyseter has already moved much of this section. Maybe the first paragraph could be mildly shorter still though. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 22:56, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
I disagree as that section is germane to the family/suborder and not the genus. And given the size of the article it is the most obvious thing that can be moved. This is an encyclopedia of many parts and it is better placed at a more appropriate page as it is still too detailed for here. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:15, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
I agree with Casliber. Since we are below 10,000 words now, removing this section would allow you to bring back some much more important bits of the original history section. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:20, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
I added it because given that Mosasaurus is the type genus of the mosasaurs and also a common representative of the group in public recognition, so I thought it would be helpful to add something a bit broader but still relevant to the genus. Do you think it would be okay to maybe reduce the entire section to one sentence or two under Systematics and Evolution, as well as move the See also spinoff under that? Macrophyseter | talk 03:23, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
I did what I was suggested anyways. Macrophyseter | talk 04:08, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Mosasaur inner ears have been studied in the past, but exclusively with non-mosasaurine species. - could lose this I think. Try reading it without and see if any meaning lost
Cut. Macrophyseter | talk 19:13, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
  • While there is little direct evidence of the feeding habits of Mosasaurus, paleontologists generally agree that it was likely an active predator that preyed on a variety of marine animals - err, not surprising given it's been extinct for a long time. I'd trim to "Mosasaurus was likely an active predator that preyed on a variety of marine animals"
Direct evidence includes stomach contents, and the only thing we have for that is a fish, which doesn't really prove that its an apex predator. But I cut the first half. Macrophyseter | talk 19:13, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
  • The last 3 sentences of the first para of the Paleopathology section reiterate the material in the previous section, so can be removed or trimmed somehow
Trimmed. Macrophyseter | talk 19:13, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
  • If we are not sure the species in Antarctica belong to Mosasaurus, maybe this section can be trimmed or removed...?
It's never stated that Mosasaurus was specifically doubted to exist in Antarctica in that paper, and the article text cites "incomplete" fossils, which would be a step above the isolated teeth that the Kaikaifilu scientists think warrant doubt. Macrophyseter | talk 14:39, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Anyway, the rest does look pretty integral. I think it might be still slightly wordy in places so I will have another read-through. Otherwise comprehensive and interesting. Almost all of what is left is integral so I don't mind it being a bit over 50kb prose. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:08, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Do you think it would be helpful to request a second copyedit at the Guild to minimize verbosity? Macrophyseter | talk 16:37, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Slate Weasel[edit]

Since there's been some talk above about possibly splitting off/relocating/condensing various parts of the article, I'll start my review by going through the description section, as it doesn't seem as though there have been any suggestions to significantly change that.

  • "Mosasaurus was a type of derived mosasaur," - Is there any particular reason why the link isn't limited to just "derived"?
I think it is easier for the reader to grasp when worded as original. Macrophyseter | talk 21:10, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
I'd personally go for "derived mosasaur" as the linked article doesn't discuss mosasaurs and this technically doesn't change the wording, but I'm ultimately okay if you want to keep it as is, as it's a very minor thing. --Slate WeaselT - C - S⟩ 00:02, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
  • "elongated tail that ended with a hypocercal downturn that supported a two-lobed fin," - As hypocercal is used to describe caudal fin morphology, can a downturn (as opposed to the fin) be described hypocercal? It might also be good to explain what hypocercal is briefly.
The word "downturn" explains the term anyways, so removed the term. Macrophyseter | talk 21:10, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Optional: "would have measured 11 meters (36 ft) or more." -> "would have measured 11 meters (36 ft) long or more."
Done. Macrophyseter | talk 21:10, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
  • "Dollo estimated that M. lemonnieri grew to around 7 to 10 meters (23 to 33 ft) in length." Is this hypothesized maximum size or the typical size range?
It's unclear; probably typical size range in my guess. Macrophyseter | talk 21:10, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Optional: "while in M. lemonnieri it is sharp" -> "while in M. lemonnieri it is pointed" I worry that sharp might imply that it is pointed like a tooth, but it's quite possible that I'm overly concerned about this.
"Sharp" is how the sources says it, but I see where you're coming from. Changed. Macrophyseter | talk 21:10, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
  • "The disparity is also reflected in the dentary, the lower jawbone.[27] But all species share a dentary that is long and straight." - I think that this might flow more nicely if turned into a single sentence.
Done. Macrophyseter | talk 21:10, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
  • "The external nostril openings" - A bit of a nitpick, but I'd personally go with "The external nares (nostril openings)" as "external nostril openings" could refer to the actual nostrils themselves
Done. Macrophyseter | talk 21:10, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
  • "and nearby bones of other processes" - Should "processes" and "bones" be reversed here?
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 21:10, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
  • "The neurocranium housed a brain that was narrow and relatively small compared to other mosasaurs. In contrast, the braincase of the mosasaur Plioplatecarpus marshi provided for a brain around twice the size of that in M. hoffmannii despite being only half the length of the latter." - I feel like "in contrast" should instead be "for example" here, as P. marshi having a larger brain than M. hoffmannii supports the statement that the latter had a small brain for its group.
Done. Macrophyseter | talk 21:10, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
  • "is the smallest in the Mosasauridae family" - Perhaps this could be condensed to "is the smallest among mosasaurids"?
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 21:10, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
  • "tympanic ala" - Is it customary to italicize this?
I think some sources italicize certain anatomical terms and some don't. I'll just de-italicize it. Macrophyseter | talk 21:10, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Hopefully these comments are helpful! Sorry that some of my above comments may make the prose a bit lengthier. I'll try to review the other half of the description section soon. --Slate WeaselT - C - S⟩ 22:33, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

  • Forgot to mention this above: "Artist's impression of M. hoffmannii" - I'd change "Artist's impression" to "Life restoration" and link that to Paleoart.
Done. Macrophyseter | talk 21:10, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
  • "prism-shaped enamel circumference" - While this is explained later in the paragraph, it might be good to try and explain this here briefly, as I found it to be confusing out of context (but to make much more sense when explained).
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 21:10, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
  • "two opposite cutting edges, and a design specialized for cutting prey." - Perhaps move the mention of a prey-cutting design to an earlier place in the sentence, as "opposite cutting edges" presumably would be part of a design for cutting.
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 21:10, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
  • "Mosasaurus teeth are considered to be large and robust" - Could "considered to be" be dropped here?
Cut. Macrophyseter | talk 21:10, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Optional: "The cutting edges of Mosasaurus can be serrated depending on the species." -> "The cutting edges of Mosasaurus teeth can be serrated in some species." Alternatively this sentence could just be dropped entirely, as specifics are discussed immediately afterwards.
Changed to "can differ by species." Macrophyseter | talk 21:10, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
  • "In each jaw row, from front to back, Mosasaurus had: two premaxillary teeth, twelve to sixteen maxillary teeth, and eight to sixteen pterygoid teeth on the upper jaw and fourteen to seventeen dentary teeth on the lower jaw." Since specific counts are given after this, I feel like this sentence could be condensed into "All species of Mosasaurus have two premaxillary teeth.". The order that the teeth appear in could be transferred to the start of the paragraph when it's outlined which bones bear teeth.
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 21:10, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Optional: "The number of teeth in the maxillary, pterygoid, and dentary positions" -> "The number of teeth on the maxillae, pterygoids, and dentaries"
Done. Macrophyseter | talk 21:10, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
  • "M. hoffmannii had likely up to thirty-two dorsal vertebrae and ten pygal vertebrae" - The footnote states that "The number of caudal vertebrae is not fully certain but at least ten vertebrae are known in an M. conodon tail and completely unknown in M. hoffmannii." which seems to imply we have no tail vertebrae of M. hoffmannii, so how can we estimate the number of pygals for this species?
It says caudal at the beginning of the sentence. Macrophyseter | talk 21:10, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
Oh, it seems that I misunderstood that pygals aren't considered to be caudals (it's been a while since I dealt with mosasaurids in detail). --Slate WeaselT - C - S⟩ 00:02, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
  • "at least ten vertebrae are known in an M. conodon tail and completely unknown in M. hoffmannii." -> "at least ten vertebrae are known in an M. conodon tail while none are known in M. hoffmannii." - Current wording either implies "at least ten vertebrae are completely unknown in M. hoffmannii" or that it's unknown if 10 caudals of M. conodon were present in M. hoffmannii.
Clarified. Macrophyseter | talk 21:10, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
  • "the rib cage of Mosasaurus are unusually deep and form" -> "the rib cage of Mosasaurus is unusually deep and forms"
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 21:10, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
  • "Rather than fused together" -> "Rather than being fused together"?
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 21:10, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
  • "which indicates Mosasaurus enjoyed a high range of aquatic adaptation" - Not sure if "enjoyed" is the best word here. Perhaps "possessed" instead?
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 21:10, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
  • "neutral buoyancy seen in cetaceans" -> "neutral buoyancy as seen in cetaceans"?
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 21:10, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Optional: "of which soft tissue evidence for a two-lobed tail was first reported in 2013" -> "of which soft tissue evidence for a two-lobed tail is known"
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 21:10, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Centra should probably be glossed.
Removed. Macrophyseter | talk 21:10, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
  • "Mosasaurus also has large haemal arches located at the bottom of each caudal vertebra" - I think that this should be "Mosasaurus also has a large haemal arch located at the bottom of each caudal vertebra" but I'm not entirely certain.
It'll stick with the original, as the context I got was: Mosasaurus has many haemal arches in total. Each of them are at the bottom of each vertebrae." Macrophyseter | talk 21:10, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
  • "twice as long than it is wide" -> "twice as long as it is wide"?
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 21:10, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
  • "Five sets of metacarpal and phalanges" -> "Metacarpal" should be pluralized.
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 21:10, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
  • That clickable skeletal diagram is great fun and also potentially quite helpful for non-specialists seeking information on anatomical terms!
Thanks! Macrophyseter | talk 21:10, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

I've finished going through the description, a lot of the comments are pretty minor and grammar-related. I'll try to review another section tomorrow. --Slate WeaselT - C - S⟩ 00:29, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

I've clarified one or two of my points above, but otherwise, all of the changes look good! I've posted some comments on the paleobiology section below; it's quite a large section, so it may take a few days for me to read through it all. --Slate WeaselT - C - S⟩ 00:02, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

  • "Much of the knowledge on the musculature and mechanics of the head of Mosasaurus are largely based" - I think that "are" should be changed to "is" here (not totally sure though).
This sentence was removed per another point. Macrophyseter | talk 14:36, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
  • This isn't in paleobiology, but "extant" should probably be linked to extant taxon on its first mention.
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 14:36, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
  • "the positioning of a prey" -> Can there be "a prey"? I'd change it to either "prey item" or just "prey".
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 14:36, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Optional: "This rigid but highly shock-absorbent structure of the cranium likely allowed a powerful bite force during prey seizure." - Bit of a nitpick, but "during prey seizure" could be removed as it presumably still had the potential to deliver a powerful bite at other times.
Cut. Macrophyseter | talk 14:36, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
  • "Like all mosasaurs, the lower jaws of Mosasaurus were capable of adduction, allowing it to swing forward and backward." - I'm not totally sure if I'm reading this correctly, but wouldn't capability of adduction allow mediolateral movement instead of anteroposterior movement?
Removed the scientific term. Macrophyseter | talk 14:36, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
  • "However, especially compared to that in M. lemonnieri, the pterygoid teeth in M. hoffmannii" -> "However, especially compared to those in M. lemonnieri, the pterygoid teeth in M. hoffmannii"
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 14
36, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
  • "The magnus adductor muscles, one of the muscles" - It's a bit jarring that the term is pluralized but the definition is singular.
Reworded. Macrophyseter | talk 14:36, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
  • "The paddles' steering function was supported by large muscle attachment" - I think that this should either be "a large muscle attachment" or "large muscle attachments". I wonder if "enabled" might be better than "supported" here, though I'm not totally sure.
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 14:36, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
  • "pronation" currently links to Pronation of the foot, but since this refers to (presumably) both the forelimbs and hindlimbs, wouldn't just pronation be a better target?
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 14:36, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
  • "maintained a constant warm-blooded temperature" - I don't think that a temperature can be warm-blooded, perhaps change to "maintained a constant body temperature"
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 14:36, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
  • "studies on the biochemistry of related endothermic mosasaur genera such as Clidastes" - perhaps specify "potentially endothermic mosasaur genera" here (based on the footnote) or select another genus as an example and move the footnote to the end of the sentence.
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 14:36, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Optional: "foraging in larger areas" -> "foraging across larger areas"
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 14:36, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
  • "Mosasaurus had relatively large eye sockets[36] with large sclerotic rings occupying much of the sockets' diameter,[27] which is correlated with eye size" - Are these both correlated with eye size? It's a little unclear right now.
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 14:36, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Optional: "was described from a fossil by Grigoriev (2016), but the remains are incomplete" -> "was described from an incomplete fossil by Grigoriev (2016)"
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 14:36, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
  • "the rear and middle semicircular canals, which helps control the sense of balance" - Should be "which help"
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 14:36, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Optional: "a Mosasaurus of ~14 meters (46 ft) in length" -> "a Mosasaurus of about/around/approximately 14 meters (46 ft) in length"
Done. Macrophyseter | talk 14:36, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Which species is the inner ear fossil from?
Specificed as Mosasaurus sp. Macrophyseter | talk 14:36, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
  • "scientists believe that larger members of the genus would have been able to handle virtually any animal" - Perhaps "capable of attacking virtually any animal" might be better here?
"handle" is how the sources word it. Macrophyseter | talk 14:36, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
Handling animals usually refers to (safely) holding them in humans, which is why this phrasing struck me as odd, but I suppose that we may as well just stick with what the source says. --Slate WeaselT - C - S⟩ 22:29, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
  • "The relationship between δ13C levels in mosasaurs and their trophic levels are found to be negatively correlated; mosasaurs with lower δ13C values tended to occupy higher trophic levels." - Perhaps the first part of this sentence could be cut, the second part says pretty much the same thing but in a way that's easier to understand.
Cut. Macrophyseter | talk 14:36, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
  • "The presence of other large mosasaurs like Prognathodon, which specialized in robust prey, coexisting with M. missouriensis strongly suggests that the species likely specialized more on prey best consumed using cutting-adapted teeth in an example of niche partitioning." - This feels like information that would belong more in the paleoecology section.
Something like this is also mentioned in Competition, but I also had some here because it was directly relevant to diet. The mention in Competition focuses on evidence of niche partitioning. Macrophyseter | talk 14:36, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
  • The last paragraph seems to really be jumping to conclusions about what happened to that nautiloid, although if the source states this hypothesis, then there isn't much that can be done about this.
Removed the conclusion jump. Macrophyseter | talk 14:36, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
I see that the statement that the former hypothesis was more likely was removed, but that wasn't what I was referring to here. What struck me as odd is that the paragraph makes it seem as though the study didn't consider it possible for Mosasaurus to catch a healthy nautiloid, or that the two mosasaurids were competing instead of cooperating. I unfortunately don't have access to the study, so I can't verify whether or not this is the case. If the study didn't, then there isn't really much that can be done (sometimes studies do do strange things, like estimating the length of Argentinosaurus to the decimeter). Oh, also Argonautilus could perhaps be linked. --Slate WeaselT - C - S⟩ 22:29, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Question about the taxobox: Why is M. lemonnieri in the synonyms list of M. conodon? It's also listed as a valid species, and the article seems to treat it like this.
I was confused about this too, but was told this was the convention so I just shrugged and ran with it. Undoing. Macrophyseter | talk 23:01, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Now M. conodon is listed as a jr. synonym of M. lemonnieri, but since the former has priority, wouldn't this be impossible? Also, the article treats M. conodon as a valid (though possibly incorrectly assigned) species, and it's listed as a valid species immediately above. If the synonymy is debatable, then the name can be marked with a "?" at the end. --Slate WeaselT - C - S⟩ 22:29, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
Hm. I'm used to a taxon listed as a synonym being that the current valid taxon used to be called whatever the synonym is. So it's not saying that the valid taxon M. conodon is a synonym of M. lemonnieri, but that M. lemmonieri used to be called M. conodon. Perhaps I'm wrong on this? Macrophyseter | talk 06:04, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
I think that we only include jr. synonyms in the synonym list, as we don't list Chuanjiesaurus anaensis as a synonym of Analong chuanjieensis, for example. --Slate WeaselT - C - S⟩ 17:01, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
  • "Some scientists have speculated on the possibility that Mosasaurus may have even occasionally engaged in cannibalism" - If this is the result of one study, then I'd specify who hypothesized it, if instead it's widely accepted, I'd add some more citations to the end.
Specified the source in text. Macrophyseter | talk 06:04, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
  • "It is likely that Mosasaurus was viviparous (giving live birth) like modern mammals today" - This is a minor quibble, but I'd add "most" in front of "mammals".
Can't forget the platypus! Macrophyseter | talk 06:04, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Optional: "Microanatomical studies on bones of juvenile Mosasaurus and related genera have found their bone structures" -> "Microanatomical studies on bones of juvenile Mosasaurus and related genera have found that their bone structures"
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 06:04, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
  • I wonder if the "Intraspecific combat" section might fit as a subsection of "Paleopathology", as the former extensively discusses pathology while the later has multiple mentions of combat.
I do want to have a topic on intraspecific combat as a distinct stand-out like other sections, though, due to the implication of behavior. Perhaps maybe a single section with subsections of intraspecific combat and paleopathology? Macrophyseter | talk 06:04, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
That seems reasonable, as this topic does cover both behavior and physiology. --Slate WeaselT - C - S⟩ 17:01, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
Done. Macrophyseter | talk 19:16, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
  • "IRSNB R25 preserves a complete fracture near the sixth tooth socket." - What exactly is a "complete fracture"?
Wikilinked. Macrophyseter | talk 06:04, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
  • "one has almost fully healed" -> "one had almost fully healed"
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 06:04, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
  • "and an estimated half-liter (0.5 kg) of bone tissue destroyed" - It's somewhat odd that metric volume is converted into metric mass here. I'd recommend providing conversions for both, if this is correct.
Changed to gal conversion. Macrophyseter | talk 06:04, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Optional: "which progressed to the point that a large portion of the quadrate" -> "which progressed to the point where a large portion of the quadrate"
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 06:04, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
  • "may have either been habitual deep-divers or repetitive divers" - Don't these mean the same thing?
Elaborated. Macrophyseter | talk 06:04, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
  • "Agnete Weinreich Carlsen commented that it would be frugal to consider the appearance of such conditions as being due to non-adaptation of the animal's anatomy" - Frugal seems to be a bit of an odd word choice here. I can't tell if it's arguing for or against this being due to a lack of adaptations (since frugal means "sparing", I'm not sure if I should interpret this as "simplest explanation that fits all the evidence" or "too/overly simple").
The original wording used in the source is parsimonious, but I thought it doesn't seem like the context relates to Occam's razor as it then explains adaptations in mosasaurs for handling deep diving, so I ran with the alternative definition of "stingy." The given paragraph is as such:
"It is parsimonious to presume that non-adaptation is the original state and that the animals with disease were deep or repetitive divers without appropriate physiological or behavioural adaptations. Vaughn and Dawson (1956) have described calcified tympanic membranes in Platecarpus, Tylosaurus and Plioplatecarpus. They probably had thick cartilaginous eardrums, filling the external auditory cavity, in place of a simple membrane, for better protection under undue pressure of the water in deep diving. This condition has been interpreted as an adaptation to deep diving by protecting the eardrums from the large ambient pressure and prevented the stapes from being driven forcibly inward during rapid increase in the external pressure (Vaughn and Dawson 1956). Decompression illness seems to have been common in the mosasaurs."
What do you think? Macrophyseter | talk 06:04, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
Hmm... I can't figure out if that paragraph is arguing for or against a lack of adaptation against DCI. If so, then perhaps "commented that it would be frugal to consider" could be changed to "considered it likely that"; if not, then it could be changed to "considered it unlikely that". --Slate WeaselT - C - S⟩ 17:01, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
I'm not sure, since it's unclear what the author is meaning by "parsimonious" given the context. Maybe simply being literate and saying something like "commented that it would be "parsimonious" to consider" and leave the word up to interpretation? Macrophyseter | talk 20:34, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
That sounds like the best option. --Slate WeaselT - C - S⟩ 15:30, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

I've finished going through the paleobiology section; I've re-addressed a few previous comments above. I'll probably go over either classification or paleoecology next. --Slate WeaselT - C - S⟩ 22:29, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

I've added some comments on paleoecology below. I'll try to add some more later today. --Slate WeaselT - C - S⟩ 19:38, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

  • "Mosasaurus was a transatlantic mosasaur with its fossils having been found in marine deposits on both sides of the Atlantic Ocean. These localities include" - I think that this could be shortened, perhaps just "Mosasaurus had a transatlantic distribution, with its fossils having been found in"
Done. Macrophyseter | talk 04:45, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
Done. Macrophyseter | talk 04:45, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Geographic terms should be linked on first mention.
  • "Multiple oceanic climate zones encompassed the seaways including tropical, subtropical, temperature, and subpolar climates." - I'm pretty sure that there should be a comma after "seaways".
  • "tropical, subtropical, temperature, and subpolar climates" - These climatic zones should probably be linked.
  • "The northern Tethyan margin was located around the paleolatitudes of 30–40°N, consisting of what is now the European continent, Turkey, and New Jersey." - Perhaps this could be moved down to the next paragraph to match the style of the third paragraph in the Mediterranean Tethys section?
  • "where its occurrences greatly outnumber that of other large mosasaurs" -> "where its occurrences greatly outnumber those of other large mosasaurs"
  • Optional: "found in the European side" -> "found on the European side"
  • "Located around what is now Africa, Arabia, the Levant, and Brazil, seabeds bordering the cratons in Africa and Arabia provided vast shallow marine environments." - It feels a bit odd that its specified the seabeds were located near Africa and Arabia twice. Perhaps something like "Seabeds bordering the cratons in Africa and Arabia and extending to the Levant and Brazil provided vast shallow marine environments." could be said.
  • "These environments were also dominated by mosasaurs and marine side-necked turtles." - Not sure if the "also" is needed here, as the environments were just introduced and the pleurodires hadn't been mentioned in the article before.
  • "Mosasaurus coexisted with bony fish such as Xiphactinus, sea turtles like Protostega and plioplatecarpine mosasaurs in North America." - Why not specify the plioplatecarpine genus shown in the image?
  • Optional: "brought in vast amounts of sediments" -> "brought in vast amounts of sediment"
  • "a period known as the Niobraran Age" - I'd personally prefer "time span" to "period" here as a "period" refers to something else in terms of geologic time. Also, is the Niobraran Age a faunal stage? It might be good to specify this so as to differentiate it from the Campanian (same goes for the Navesinkan).
  • "crocodilians such as Deinosuchus;" - Did Deinosuchus actually inhabit the pelagic zone?
  • "saw shark Ischyrhiza;" - I'd prefer either "sclerorhynchoid Ischyrhiza" or "sawfish-like Ischyrhiza;" as sclerorhynchoids are not sawsharks
  • "sea surface temperatures may have dropped below freezing and forming sea ice at times" -> "sea surface temperatures may have dropped below freezing and sea ice may have formed at times"
  • Optional: "Other marine reptiles included elasmosaurid plesiosaurs like Aristonectes and another indeterminate elasmosaurid." -> "Other Antarctic marine reptiles included elasmosaurid plesiosaurs like Aristonectes and another indeterminate elasmosaurid."
  • "These three mosasaurs converged in a diet on on similar animals such as marine reptiles." - Should this be "converged in diet on similar animals"? Alternatively, you could say "These three mosasaurs all preyed on similar animals such as marine reptiles."
  • "It was hypothesized that these adaptations reinforced resource partitioning between the two mosasaurs." - "Reinforced" implies that the two species were already ecologically separated, but this is the first time that their ecological relationship is discussed.
  • "T. bernardi was the only known coexisting animal likely capable of such damage" -> "T. bernardi was the only known coexisting animal likely capable of causing such damage" I'd also add a comma after damage.
  • "robust projectile-like elongated rostrum" - What exactly does "projectile-like" mean? A projectile could be a missile, an arrow, or even a stone.

I've finished going through paleoecology. I'll probably review the extinction section next. --Slate WeaselT - C - S⟩ 15:27, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

  • Optional: "reducing the number of available habitats for Mosasaurus." -> "reducing the amount of available habitat for Mosasaurus."
  • "Cretaceous-Paleogene extinction event that also wiped out the dinosaurs." - A bit of a minor quibble, but I'd specify non-avian dinosaurs.
  • Not in extinction, but it's not actually yet been stated what the extent of the Maastricht Formation is in the article
  • Optional - "The deposition of the layer itself was likely a tsunamite, alternatively nicknamed the "Cretaceous cocktail deposit", formed as a result of a combination of catastrophic seismic and geological disturbances," - "Cretaceous cocktail deposit", which formed as a result of a combination of catastrophic seismic and geological disturbances,"
  • "due to starvation from a total loss of prey structure" - I'd just use "prey" instead of "prey structure", or mention the collapse of the food web more directly.
  • Optional: "This does not mean that Mosasaurus and its associated fauna may have survived the K-Pg extinction." -> "This does not mean that Mosasaurus and its associated fauna survived the K-Pg extinction."
  • Link Lag deposit.
  • Does winnowing not count as reworking? Also, the lag deposit article seems to imply that it's an example of winnowing.

I've finished going through the extinction section. I'll probably review classification tomorrow. --Slate WeaselT - C - S⟩ 00:36, 13 June 2021 (UTC) I've started to add some comments on classification below. --Slate WeaselT - C - S⟩ 17:00, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

  • Optional: "nomenclature rules" -> "nomenclatural rules"
  • Since "M. glycys" is a nomen nudum, shouldn't it be put in quotes and not italicized?
  • "Relationships between living squamates remains controversial as scientists still fiercely debate on whether the closest living relatives of mosasaurs are monitor lizards or snakes." - Should this be "Relationships between mosasaurs and living squamates"? "between living squamates" implies that this is only about how to classify modern lizards. Also "remains controversial" -> "remain controversial"
  • "One of the earliest relevant attempts at an evolutionary study of Mosasaurus was done by Russell (1967)" - I'd change this to "by Russell in 1967" as this is immediately followed by "who"
  • The article does not address M. maximus being a junior synonym of M. hoffmannii
  • Optional: "which is one of the most completely known in the genus" -> "which is one of the most completely known species in the genus"
  • "These problems were addressed in Street (2016), who also performed an updated phylogenetic analysis." - Since Street (2016) is a study, I'd change this to either "These problems were addressed in Street (2016), in which an updated phylogenetic analysis was also performed." or "These problems were addressed by Street in 2016, who also performed an updated phylogenetic analysis."
  • "Conrad (2008) uniquely used only M. hoffmannii and M. lemonnieri in his phylogenetic analysis," - Again, this should be changed to something like "Conrad uniquely used only M. hoffmannii and M. lemonnieri in his 2008 phylogenetic analysis,"
  • Optional: "This result indicated that M. hoffmannii and M. lemonnieri are not related by genus." -> "This result indicated that M. hoffmannii and M. lemonnieri are not in the same genus."
  • Link cladogram
  • "Because Street (2016) is not a peer-reviewed publication,[7] it is not cited in Madzia & Cau (2017)." - I don't think that this logic really holds up, as I've seen theses cited in papers before (in fact, this one cites four). Also, I don't know how this couldn't be considered original research if just the paper and thesis are cited, as the thesis came first and if the paper doesn't mention why the thesis isn't cited. Since it's not too uncommon for different studies to recover different topologies, I'd recommend just removing this sentence.

Robert Roberts (author)[edit]

Nominator(s): Noswall59 (talk) 08:52, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

I first read Robert Roberts's book The Classic Slum some years ago. An unusual and beautifully written mix of autobiography and social history, it struck me then as one of the most evocative, brilliantly drawn accounts of life in the English working classes that I have encountered. Along with his autobiography A Ragged Schooling, it offers a richly textured and at times moving insight into the lives and struggles of people who otherwise would have disappeared into obscurity. Unsurprisingly, both books have been mined by historians for decades and were critically acclaimed on their release; they are often set texts for university courses on modern British history today.

I was, therefore, disappointed to find that we had only a two-sentence stub on Roberts and nothing more about his books. That is, until this week when I reworked the article to include a comprehensive summary of Roberts's life, works and contributions to scholarship. It's a compact article, but I do not think there is more that I can say about the topic. Tim riley has kindly reviewed the prose and I've incorporated his suggestions. I therefore believe it meets our criteria and is ready for FA status. Thanks in advance for any comments. —Noswall59 (talk) 08:52, 27 May 2021 (UTC).

Pre-emptive notes

  • Firstly, Roberts wrote two autobiographies and I have used these to support some of the article text. In most cases, this is attributed inline or supports a quote. It is also used, sparingly, to source some basic biographical facts: his mother's background, his parents' decision to purchase their corner shop, and their business and status in the community. I think that this acceptable under WP:ABOUTSELF, especially given that the books cited were published by a major university press.
  • Secondly, there are hardly any photos of Roberts available publicly; the one I've used is a fair use one taken from the ODNB. It is already a small image and I've had to scale it down further to suit the fair use requirements. There are, to my knowledge, no free images available of his old street, which was demolished years ago. —Noswall59 (talk) 08:52, 27 May 2021 (UTC).
Image review
  • Images are appropriately licensed.
  • Consider using an infobox such as {{infobox writer}}. I think that most bios benefit from such infoboxes. (t · c) buidhe 09:42, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
Many thanks buidhe. I will consider the infobox; I have no strong feelings either way about them. —Noswall59 (talk) 11:35, 27 May 2021 (UTC).

Accessibility review

  • Some of the images are missing alt text. Heartfox (talk) 05:18, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
Heartfox. This should be done now. Thank you, —Noswall59 (talk) 10:33, 28 May 2021 (UTC).

Coordinator comment[edit]

This nomination has attracted little attention. It could do with a couple of general reviews by the time it hits the three week mark, or I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:27, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Gog the Mild, that's a shame – is there anything I can do to raise interest in the review? Could it be added to the "urgents" bar or something? —Noswall59 (talk) 07:40, 14 June 2021 (UTC).
Urgents is, usually, reserved for when a single additional review would make the difference between archiving and promoting. You could put a request on the FAC talk page, or the talk page(s) of anyone who has shown an interest in the article - as it hasn't gone through GA or PR no one may spring to mind. Or you might enquire of anyone who you think might be interested in this sort of area, put a request on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography or on the talk pages of anyone whose FAC nomination you have previously reviewed. In all of these cases, especially the latter, be sure to use neutral phrasing. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:33, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Vaticidalprophet[edit]

The urgents bar, of course, is when I lurk FAC and see something interesting at archive risk. :) Have skimmed, will return with nits to pick. Standard disclaimer: I have no idea what I'm doing am still getting a feel for FAC reviews. Vaticidalprophet 06:58, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Many thanks, I shall look forward to your comments Vaticidalprophet. —Noswall59 (talk) 07:34, 15 June 2021 (UTC).
Lead[edit]
  1. Per Buidhe's suggestion of an infobox, I mocked one up in my sandbox, though the effect is a little ruined because the bot removed the image. I have no strong feelings on them myself and certainly don't want to reignite the ceasefire, but there may be a useful balancing effect for an article like this with a long lead and a small lead image.
Okay, I've added it. I actually tend to prefer biographies (especially of literary figures) without them, but I think in this case you are right – for desktop users, it does look strange with such a small image and this balances the lead and photo better. If a bigger photo becomes available, I may switch back.
  1. I think the image may be downscaled too far. I asked a couple people with file experience and couldn't get a straight answer, but WP:IMAGERES and the formula linked on it suggests an image as large as 280 pixels wide would be acceptable. I'm insufficiently comfortable in my understanding of NFCC to suggest expanding that far, but it seems you could have a 220x image (the default display size for Wikipedia images) without issues.
Like you, I really don't know much about these policies and I'm more concerned about not violating copyright as the original image was quite small and low-res already.
  1. In 1929, he was hired as a tutor at a commercial college There's no explanation anywhere in the article of what a 'commercial college' is, and where it's linked it's redlinked, which doesn't assist in giving one.
Explanation added as a note at the first instance in the body.
  1. A staunch internationalist, he was dismissed from this job in 1940 when he was exempted (as a conscientious objector) from military service in the Second World War Uncertain about the need for brackets.
Removed.
Background[edit]
  1. This led to the conurbation's rapid expansion but it also brought poverty is somewhat rapid-pace phrasing. The easy solution is to stick a comma after 'expansion', although the sentence then becomes fairly long and twisty, which may be why you omitted it. If you find that solution suboptimal, there may be some rejigging of the broader sentence required.
I'm not sure I understand what you take issue with about this sentence.
  1. But poverty and poor housing remained endemic in working-class districts is a sentence fragment.
Swapped "nevertheless" for "but".
  1. Within a year of their marriage, the elder Robert had grown tired of travelling to Derbyshire to work for a firm of engineers; he was also envious that his brothers-in-law were shopkeepers. So he borrowed £40 from one of his sisters (who had all married well) and purchased a corner shop in a slum neighbourhood I don't think this reads particularly smoothly. Writing this as two sentences, it's better split where you currently have the semi-colon, with the second sentence reworked as "He was also envious that his brothers-in-laws were shopkeepers, and borrowed £40 from one of his sisters, who had all married well, to purchase a corner shop in a slum neighbourhood".
Changed as suggested.
Early life (1905–1919)[edit]
  1. his autobiographical–historical books reads to me as a blending that would use a hyphen rather than a dash, although I hate nitpicking these and so am unsure.
I think you're right, so I've changed it to a hyphen.
  1. Jennie ran the business but the elder Robert's work as an engineer was punctuated by periods of unemployment Would add a comma after 'business'.
Done.
  1. His formal education (at Christ Church School) ended at the age of 14 No need for parentheses.
Removed.
  1. According to Roberts, he wanted to remain in education but Would add a comma after 'education', and this is a very long sentence that strikes me as wanting to be split.
Done. I also split the sentence.
Apprenticeship and unemployment (1919–1929)[edit]
  1. He then began a seven-year[21] apprenticeship as a brass finisher Does the cite for 'seven-year' need to be where it is, rather than at the end of the sentence? I respect concerns about not having too many footnotes on a sentence, but it's no less distracting to move them to the middle of non-contentious statements. It's a short sentence, so wanting to footnote individual clauses doesn't apply.
Removed to the end of the sentence.
  1. Roberts gives an account of joining the Amalgamated Engineering Union in his autobiography Any possibility we could expand on this?
The account is quite brief and recalls specific work friends inviting him, him attending meetings and the general culture of the trade union. I am not sure it would add much of encyclopedic value here to expand on the point, I mentioned it more to specify which union he was a member of.
Teaching, farm work, writing and later life (1929–1974)[edit]
  1. In 1929, Roberts was employed as a French teacher by a local commercial college Per above about 'commercial college', and there's some abruptness involved in what languages he knows -- we've previously only discussed Esperanto. Perhaps the end of the prior section can discuss better what he studied?
Note added, and I've mentioned French in the earlier section.
  1. In 1971 appeared his book Not sold at all on this phrasing, which feels like a failed attempt at elegant variation. A more simple "In 1971 x was published" or "his next book x was published in 1971" et al works fine.
Changed.
  1. a writer and traveller himself (his books included Sailing in a Sieve, 1963) This parenthesis can be omitted or moved to footnotes.
Put into a footnote.
Imprisoned Tongues (1968)[edit]
  1. included extracts of the prisoners' work which were interesting is a somewhat long-winded phrasing. I don't have a simple solution -- "interesting extracts of the prisoners' work" is a bit much for wikivoice -- but it caught my eye as making the sentence drag.
Changed, hopefully to something better.
The Classic Slum (1971)[edit]
  1. Roberts's impression of the district thus sharply contrasted with the notion of the "traditional working class" used by many social scientists "Traditional working class" strikes me as something that shouldn't be a redlink, and not just on the metaphorical "why is our coverage so poor for so much?" level. There's an idea being called at here, and it's not necessarily what every reader seeing the words 'traditional working class' will have called to mind. It would be worth defining the term-of-art here in somewhat more detail.
I have added a note to clarify this meaning.
A Ragged Schooling (1976)[edit]
  1. Though not as influential as The Classic Slum, it "confirmed [Roberts'] reputation as one of the most sensitive chroniclers of English working-class life" (in Davies's view) Broadly speaking, I've been picking at the parentheses a lot here. I don't think they've generally added particular value to the article that couldn't be served with commas. This can be just as well expressed by moving this up as "it, to Davies, confirmed et al" or a similar rephrasing.
Changed as suggested.

Broadly speaking, this is good work, hence the nitpicks rather than coming in with structural concerns (although there are some points where I called out issues with detail). I enjoyed reading it and hope to support. Vaticidalprophet 01:16, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

User:Vaticidalprophet, many thanks for your review. I have addressed almost every comment (through these edits), but there was one I couldn't understand – about the "rapid-pace" problem in the background description of Salford. I'm not sure I understand your meaning there. Otherwise, I hope I've resolved the rest of the issues. Cheers, —Noswall59 (talk) 08:26, 16 June 2021 (UTC).
Looks good. "Rapid-fire" was probably too metaphorical a phrase on my part for clarity. The sentence seemed to move slightly too quickly over a long sentence, without enough punctuation or other markers to separate its ideas -- basically, quite similar to the sentence about his education I noted that you ended up splitting. It could do with a comma where I called out the comma, or possibly ommitting the 'but' and adding a semi-colon. Vaticidalprophet 08:44, 16 June 2021 (UTC)


Older nominations[edit]

Ur-Quan[edit]

Nominator(s): Shooterwalker (talk) 20:23, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

This article is about the main antagonist from Star Control II. This article is on the short side as the character is from the pre-internet era: not only before journalists had any deep analysis of a game's story, but arguably before any game character had enough depth to analyze. But there are enough later reviewers who remember this character as a sort of historic turning point, inspiring a later generation of game developers. I focused the weight of the article on the biggest real-world impact, rather than an exhaustive look of plot details, and feel confident it still meets our comprehensiveness requirements. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:23, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Support by Aoba47[edit]

Resolved comments
  • I would add ALT text to the infobox image and the images used in the article itself.
  • I am not familiar with Star Control so apologies if this is obvious. Is there a reason for using a screenshot from a fangame as opposed to one from the official games?
  • This part, an intelligent race of giant predatory caterpillars, leaders of a hierarchy of battle thralls, reads a little awkwardly since it is two separate descriptions tied together by a comma.
  • As someone who has never played (or really heard of these games), I am not really sure what this part, a traumatic past that lead them to fiercely seek their own security, from the lead means. Could you clarify this for me?
  • For this part, The Ur-Quan's military doctrine becomes a subject of intense internal conflict, could it be phrased instead as The Ur-Quan's military doctrine leads to intense internal conflict or something similar? The current wording seems a little off to me.
  • For this part, In Star Control 3, developed by a different team, I believe it should be which was developed instead.
  • I was somewhat confused by this part, they ally with the player against a different antagonist and their role is scaled back, as there is really no context about the player or overarching story behind these games. Would it be possible to add something brief (like a single sentence) to clarify how these aliens fit into the player's story?
  • I am uncertain about the use of modern in this part, and has influenced other modern space games, per MOS:CURRENT. Could it be possible to either clarify the time period or provide examples of these games (or possible both)?
  • For this part, they are praised for their surprising depth and humanity, I would clarify in the prose who is doing the praising. I am assuming that it is critics, but it would be nice to be specific.
  • I am not entirely sure "Background" is the best name for the section as it seems to more so focus on the characters' roles in the game. Something like "Appearances" would seem more accurate to the section's content to me.
  • I am confused about this sentence: Their biological origins are similar to solitary predators such as the praying mantis, who are naturally limited in their social behaviors. Is this mantis comparison made in the context of the game? If not, then I would move it down to the "Concept and creation" part as this section seems to be more focused on their roles in the game.
  • I think genetic engineering could be wikilinked.
  • For either of these two points, Prior to the events of the games and Much later, the Ur-Quan led a successful slave revolt, could you provide a more exact time frame as it is very vague.
  • Why is Hierarchy capitalized? Is it a proper noun in the context of this game?
  • After reading this part, Star Control II begins following the war from the first game, I was left wondering what this war was. I would provide more context to readers who know nothing about this game.
  • I was confused by this part, the Ur-Quan join an alliance with the player, as the article does not establish who the player is and their relationship in regards to the Ur-Quan.

These are my comment so far. My main concern is the article does not provide background on Star Control and reads like it was written for a reader already familiar with the game. Since I never heard of these games, I was honestly somewhat lost with the story. I will look through the rest of the article once the above comments are addressed. Have a great rest of your week! Aoba47 (talk) 02:08, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Those questions were really useful to help me find the right balance of information. The prior version tried to err on less, since I've seen lots of FA's fail due to WP:UNDUE weight on fictional details. But I tried to really clarify some of the plot details, splitting the "Description" section into a "Background" and "Appearances" subsection. I believe this should help distinguish between the characters' backstory, and the events of the game, with context as to what the games are about.
I used the re-written "Description" section to improve the lead, along with some of your other suggestions. I added Alt Text for the images. As an aside, the open source version is maintained by fans, but it's officially authorized by the developers as a faithful reproduction. The image avoids any copyright issues by pulling from the original game, and should be mostly indistinguishable.
Ready for more feedback when you have it. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:24, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
Thank for addressing my comments. I will resume my review sometime tomorrow. I agree that it is best to brief with background context, and you have added the right to me (at least from my perspective). I have just one quick comment below, and just for clarity, my review will primarily focus on the prose:
  • I have a comment for this part, Besides their menacing and threatening persona, journalists have praised them for their surprising depth and humanity., in the lead. I do not think it is grammatically correct as the beginning phrase is tied to the noun of the next phrase so it reads like you are saying journalists having this menacing and threatening persona, which is obviously not the intention so I would reword this part to avoid this. Aoba47 (talk) 22:27, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
  • I'm going to go back to this sentence: Their biological lineage is compared to solitary predators such as the praying mantis, who are naturally limited in their social behaviors. Is this comparison made in the game itself? If so, then I would attribute who makes the comparison, and if not, I would move it down to the "Concept and creation" section and attribute who makes this comparison. I look at the "Description" section as being entirely in-universe so that is why I am approach it this way. Also, mantis is linked twice in the article when it should only be linked on its first instance.
  • For this part, Reiche describes their character creation process, I believe it should be in past tense.
  • The first paragraph of the "Concept and creation" uses this sentence construction, which led, twice. This is super minor and admittedly quite nitpick-y, but I would change one of those two instance to avoid repetition as it was something that caught my eye while reading this section.
  • I do not think antagonist needs a wikilink as it seems like a universally understood concept. With that being said, I think a wikilink for synthesizer would be helpful as I can see some readers hearing the term but not fully knowing what is referencing.
  • In the first paragraph of the "Reception" section, I would identify the The A.V. Club reviewer in the first sentence with this source. Naming the publication in the first sentence and then the reviewer's name in the second sentence seems unnecessarily confusing as I can see a reader thinking they are too separate things and not understanding who William Hughes is.
  • The "Reception" section as a whole seems rather inconsistent with critics' names. Sometimes they are said in the prose while other times they are not. I would be consistent with one approach or another.
  • In the first paragraph of the "Reception" section, I am not sure the full GameSpot quote is needed. The way it is currently used seems a little off to me, especially since it repeats Ur-Quan a few times in the same sentence. I think the quote could be used in a better way, as it is a good one.
  • I'd be careful with how many times Ur-Quan is repeated. For instance, the Rock, Paper, Shotgun has three times and it makes the prose quite repetitive and not as engaging as it could be.

These are my comments up to the "Reception" section. I am still going through that part of the article and I will try to get through that tomorrow. Aoba47 (talk) 18:50, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions, especially when I introduced a new grammatical error that makes it sound like the journalists have a menacing persona. SMH. Things should be more clear and less repetitive now.
The only edit I'm struggling with is the part about their biological evolution, which is presented in the game as an accepted fact. My original phrasing was "Their biological origins are similar to solitary predators..." and I based on your feedback I changed it to "Their biological lineage is compared to solitary predators..." and now I could write "Character X, Y, and Z have stated that their biological lineage is similar to solitary predators..." I do want to improve the clarity, but I think I'm starting to get too pedantic. If you feel that the "Description" section is already implied to be in-universe, then I suspect we can simplify this a lot. What's the simplest way to present their biological evolution as an in-universe fact? Shooterwalker (talk) 19:17, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the clarification about this. Since the game presents it as an "accepted fact", then the current wording should be fine. I was more uncertain if this was an observation made by a specific character or group, but the current wording is a better representation of how it is just a fact presented to the player as part of the world/story. Apologies for taking a while with this review, and thank you for your patience. The article looks to be in very good shape right now, but I want to read through it one more time to see if I have missed anything so I will post anything further by tomorrow. I hope you had a great weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 23:33, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Hey, thank you! And you're pretty prompt by my standards. Stay healthy as a WP:VOLUNTEER and all your work is appreciated. Looking forward to wrapping your suggested revisions up whenever you're ready. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:38, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the kind words. It is important to remember that we are all volunteers here. I do have a tendency to forget that and it is important to know how to manage time on here. I have not gotten to re-read the article again today, but it is on my list for tomorrow. Aoba47 (talk) 04:18, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Everything in the "Reception" section should be in past tense. Here are some instances where things are in present tense (mentions the Ur-Quan for their role in one of the best video game endings and Laidlaw has praised the Ur-Quan). There are a few other instances of this so I would look through the entire section and change it to past tense as critics' reviews should be done in the past tense.
  • I would be careful about using "also" too much as it is mostly a filler word.
  • I would be careful with things like Echoing these rankings and This mirrored as it implies a strong connection between citations. For instance, I do not imagine that Hardcore Gaming 101 is deliberately "echoing these rankings" so I would be careful about implying connections between citations/reviewers that may not be entirely true.
  • The Hardcore Gaming 101 sentence in the first paragraph is missing a closing quotation mark.
  • The AllGame quote is very long, and I do not think it is encouraged to quote that amount of text from a citation. I would instead paraphrase and use the quote more sparingly.

After my above comments are completed, I believe I should be ready to support based on the prose. Aoba47 (talk) 20:30, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

  • Thanks again. I tried to incorporate all your suggestions. It's a thin line between a filler word and a transition, so I tried to vary the transitions to maintain the flow. I've also tried to be accurate: Hardcore Gaming 101 indeed says "the Ur-Quan are rightfully ranked among gaming’s greatest villains" in the context of their own praise. So I went with a more direct quote about the rankings, even though it's a tricky trade-off. I'm not crazy about excessive quotes, but they help readers to see what reviewers have actually said, and avoid confusion about whether they are reading a Wikipedia editor's opinion, or even a misquote. I did shorten some other quotes as you suggested. Either way, I hope I'm moving things in the right direction. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:40, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for addressing everything. I support the article for promotion based on the prose. Best of luck with the nomination! Aoba47 (talk) 19:50, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Source review - pass[edit]

Will conduct soon. Hog Farm Talk 04:27, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

  • Some consistency issues here - sometimes authors are listed as Last, First other times as First Last. This should be consistent.
  • DeMaria 2018 needs page numbers
  • For Barton 2016 you have the page range as " pp. 203–", you seem to be missing the second page.
  • Escapist is listed as situational at WP:VGRS, although this may be due to a time frame when they exercised little oversight in '17 and '18; would Escapist's early (2006) work be considered high-quality RS?
  • What makes 1MoreCastle high-quality RS?
  • "Red Bull also highlighted the importance of the Ur-Quan in creating the classic game world of Star Control II.[33]" - Unsure why the opinion of an energy drink manufacturer would really be WP:DUE for an article about a video game character, unless Red Bull has dabblings into video games I'm not aware of.
  • Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/Archive_153#Reliable_source_check - suggests that PikiGeek is at least somewhat reliable, but does it meet the higher "high-quality RS" standard?
  • Sainsbury 2015 needs page numbers.
  • Suggest adding links to CRC Press and No Starch Press, as applicable

Conducted searches in several places and databases and found no indication that there is sizeable scholarly literature that has been omitted.

Will do the spot checks for source-text integrity and copyright at Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Ur-Quan/archive1. Hog Farm Talk 05:25, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the review! For the sources, I fixed the first/last formatting, the page numbers, and the links to publishers. As for the quality of the sources themselves:
  • The Escapist piece is written by Retro Gamer's John Szczepaniak, who is considered an expert in the industry. The piece focuses on interview material with the developers. It for sure isn't the volunteer-written material we need to be cautious of.
  • The Red Bull piece is written by Stuart Houghton, who is a journalist at Kotaku[25], Gizmodo[26], and the New Statesman[27]. I can understand how seeing "RedBull" could be odd at first glance, but they have robust involvement with games now.[28] It warrants a mention, which is the appropriate WP:WEIGHT.
  • I removed the 1MoreCastle reference. There's some evidence of editorial review, but it's less than clear.
  • I see no issue with the Chris Ullery piece for Pikimal. Ullery is a journalist for the Intelligencer[29] and the Bucks County Courier Times[30] (both published by Gannett). Pikimal is defunct, but had full-time editorial review.[31]
Hopefully that covers the sources. I was pretty careful and focused more on quality than quantity. Thanks for the spot check too, and let me know if you see anything else. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:24, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
Explanations for quality sound good, passing on the source review. Hog Farm Talk 02:52, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the review! Shooterwalker (talk) 19:17, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Image review

  • Don't use fixed px size
  • I just want to make sure I understand the explanation above re: the lead image. The design elements present in this image are indistinguishable from the original game? How would this avoid copyright issues - did the authorization to produce the game include license to release the graphics as CC? (The link from the image description that may explain this is not working). Nikkimaria (talk) 22:46, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Fixed the image, and yes, the images have been released under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.5 license. Here's an archived link to the open source project's FAQ. (A really inconvenient time for the site to be down.) Let me know if you have any other questions. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:17, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
  • So if the images from the original game have been released CC, why not include images from the original game? And if the images from the original game have not been released CC, how could the images from the fan game which are visually indistinguishable have been licensed in that way? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:48, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
  • What exactly is meant by the term "authorized"? Does it encompass release of intellectual rights, or no? Or was their participation to the extent to make that a moot point? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:07, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
  • It means their involvement has been extensive, yeah. It was their idea to release the game as open source. They worked with the open source community to do it, so it's a combination of the original creators and the wider community. They licensed the code and content on a free, perpetual non-commercial license. And when the project was finally made available, they published the licensing info that I linked above. The creators also made their stance clear in public that (direct quote) "our policy has been to let people do whatever they want, as long as they don’t turn our characters into mass murderers or make money with it." I didn't upload the image but it looks like the CC licensing information in the image is correct. Shooterwalker (talk) 22:53, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Tornado Over Kansas[edit]

Nominator(s): GeneralPoxter (talkcontribs) 17:00, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

This article is about a 1929 Regionalist painting by John Steuart Curry. GeneralPoxter (talkcontribs) 17:00, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Image licensing
  • Worst case, Baptism for Kansas will just have to be removed from the article. Is there any avenue of potentially avoiding this? According to DMacks, it should still be considered in the public domain? GeneralPoxter (talkcontribs) 19:23, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
  • I don't think so. I explained on the deletion why their keep rationale is invalid. (t · c) buidhe 01:57, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
  • So far, I couldn't find any way to justify PD-US. Could this be considered for fair use? GeneralPoxter (talkcontribs) 19:23, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
  • No, although it would be fair use in an article specifically about Line Storm(if notable). (t · c) buidhe 01:57, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
  • The main image, I'm not sure. This issue of Life magazine that it was published in (23 Nov 1936) was copyrighted and its copyright was renewed[32], not 100% sure how that applies to the contents of the magazine. (t · c) buidhe 00:40, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Nice to see you back at FAC with another great article about notable works of art! (t · c) buidhe 00:12, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

@Buidhe: Since it appears that Baptism for Kansas is slated for deletion, and since PD-US so far can not be justified for Line Storm, I removed those images from the article. Hopefully, they can be added back sometime in the future. GeneralPoxter (talkcontribs) 23:01, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Drive-by comment[edit]

  • 'The composition appears "almost theatrically staged."' Note that MOS:QUOTE requires "The source must be named in article text if the quotation is an opinion" (emphasis in the original). Gog the Mild (talk) 10:48, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Coordinator note[edit]

This has been open for a while and has yet to pick up a support. Unless it attracts considerable further attention over the next four or five days I am afraid that it will have to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:22, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: Thanks for the reminder. Is it considered acceptable to ask users to review a certain candidacy on their talk pages or just ping them directly here? GeneralPoxter (talkcontribs) 16:33, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
It is, so long as the notification or request is phrased neutrally. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:36, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
Alright, thanks. GeneralPoxter (talkcontribs) 16:57, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Kids See Ghosts (album)[edit]

Nominator(s): K. Peake 16:40, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

This article is about the album Kids See Ghosts by the duo of the same name, which consists of successful rappers Kanye West and Kid Cudi. The album was a widespread critical success and was ranked amongst best-of lists, while it also experienced commercial success in various countries. After having promoted this article to GA status in September 2019, I have frequently monitored it and stayed hard at work, with the article having gone through a peer review and two unfortunately unsuccessful FA candidacies as well as becoming part of a GT and the main article of another! I have looked thoroughly at the previous FACs, assuring to take on as many issues as I can, but I am willing to listen to any further comments made on this one. K. Peake 16:40, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Support from Shoot for the Stars[edit]

Resolved comments from User:Shoot for the Stars

The article looks great Kyle, but the sources are the reason it keeps failing. Sources like HotNewHipHop and Hypebeast are perfectly fine for GA but not are not considered "high quality" sources for FA. You know I'm shooting for the stars, aiming for the moon 💫 (talk) 18:30, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Shoot for the Stars The album sources classify HNHH as reliable so this one is not really an issue and I will start going over the Hypebeast material properly soon; once this is resolved, would you switch to support? --K. Peake 18:44, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
Kyle, the people at FAC do not care what the album sources classify. Only the "highest quality" sources are allowed. And HNHH is not one of them. You know I'm shooting for the stars, aiming for the moon 💫 (talk) 08:29, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
Shoot for the Stars It is debatable whether that's a high quality source though, plus do you support yourself or not??? Also, get on with reviewing "Say You Will", as you've been quite active and that review was opened days ago. --K. Peake 08:44, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
Shoot for the Stars I have removed HotNewHipHop from this article altogether and done the same for numerous similar sources; are you willing to support now? --K. Peake 10:08, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
I support! You know I'm shooting for the stars, aiming for the moon 💫 (talk) 05:18, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
Shoot for the Stars Thanks a ton, that's really satisfying to hear after I worked so hard on removing the sources from the article adequately! --K. Peake 05:28, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Support from 100cellsman[edit]

I greatly respect the effort being made to improve the article, especially on overshadowed topics regarding black music and musicians. Hope this gets through this time! 웃OO 18:07, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

  • Noting for the record that 100cellsman made substantive comments at the first FAC, so this is not a drive by support (t · c) buidhe 11:59, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Support Comments from TheAmazingPeanuts[edit]

Resolved comments from User:TheAmazingPeanuts

Why integers from zero to nine are not spelled out in words? They are supposed to be that way per MOS:NUMERAL. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 10:17, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

TheAmazingPeanuts Read MOS:NUM advice on comparative values; doesn't that imply these should be written as numbers when integers of 10 and larger are used in the same sentence? --K. Peake 14:07, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
@Kyle Peake: I don't think that doesn't matter, the guidelines says numbers from zero to nine should be spelled out in words, even integers of 10 and larger are used in the same sentence. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 22:40, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
@TheAmazingPeanuts: Done now, do you support? --K. Peake 08:36, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
@Kyle Peake: Yes, wish you luck by getting this article to featured article status. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 08:49, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Source review–pass[edit]

Resolved comments from User:Heartfox

Version reviewed

Quality—addressed

  • What makes the following sources worthy of inclusion in a featured article?
    • The Fader
    • Rap-Up
    • HotNewHipHop
    • Highsnobiety
    • HipHopDX
    • Fact
    • Atwood Magazine
    • Rough Trade
    • Dazed
    • Analog Planet
    • Hipersonica
    • laut.de
    • The Line of Best Fit
    • Sonic Magazine
I am going to start by responding to the assessment of the sources, as I will be going out soon so am not able to go over all of your points in one go. The Fader, Rap-Up and HotNewHipHop are all listed as reliable at album sources plus they all have a proper staff team and editorial process that reports facts unless clearly differentiated as opinion pieces; more of these are published by HNHH but none are in this article. Highsnobiety never came up in the last FAC but I do believe it is reliable due to covering news in subjects including music, also the source changed away from being a blog a while ago. The staff are over 100 strong, so it does not have a problem with lack of an editorial team. HipHopDX focuses on both the album and the performers' genre of hip hop, reporting news regularly to do with rappers and the well-regarded Warner Music Group has ownership of it plus there is an editorial process. A wide range of US music culture is covered by the nearly 20 years old magazine Fact, which established reliable source The Guardian has named as influential thus showing it is worthy of inclusion. Atwood Magazine is a magazine with 40 writers that are based in various countries, with the content focusing on many different artists and it is run by an editor-in-chief. Furthermore, the magazine sets out to provide writing that is authentic and it also was a Webby Award honoree for Best Music Website, helping establish reliability. Rough Trade is the site of an independent record label that has been around for decades and pressed releases for many artists, so it should be clearly reliable. The website for Dazed launched in 2006 digitally for the magazine that has been around since 1991, setting out with a dedicated editorial team including various writers. Blogs are clearly separated from other content on Analog Planet, so the source is not a WP:SELFPUB violation and best-of lists are often published by the website. Hipersonica seems like an unknown quantity due to it being a Spanish website, but the source is dedicated to music and publishes proper articles rather than blogs. Music is dealt with exclusively by laut.de, including hip hop, plus 14 music journalists and programmers work with the magazine and I think that shows reliability. The album sources page I linked to earlier also classifies The Line of Best Fit as reliable, plus reputable aggregator Metacritic has used the site's reviews and established reliable sources such as NME and The Independent have mentioned the reviews. Sonic Magazine has been around for decades and set out to provide well-written music journalism specifically, also it has a proper editorial team. --K. Peake 10:07, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
  • HotNewHipHop—In the previous FAC, both Ealdgyth and Nikkimaria expressed concerns about this source. Even Shoot for the Stars above didn't think it was "high quality". You're going to need a stronger justification than them having a staff to persuade everyone.
  • I will replace or remove this in all areas to the best of my ability come to think of it, as the publication has repeatedly been questioned like you said. By now I've got round to wiping all usages of HotNewHipHop as a source from the article, managing to replace the majority by using reliable sources! --K. Peake 10:08, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
  • The Fader—I am not seeing a staff page or evidence of editorial process.
  • I tried hard to research this but they have all contributors listed on separate pages, including the staff that are listed as a contributor rather than members by name. The source has now been omitted from the article by me, which has thankfully not caused any major content removal! --K. Peake 06:18, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Rap-Up—What concerns me is that the article has no author listed and I am not seeing a staff page/editorial process.
  • I have replaced this source with a Billboard one, as it is better to use a well-regarded source than one with its reliability in question when both report the same info. --K. Peake 19:29, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
  • HipHopDX—Because they are owned by Warner (but not when the articles cited were written) and have a visible editorial process etc. I am willing to accept, but I suggest you provide further evidence in case others take issue with it.
  • Rough Trade—I think I was confused because you linked to a record label. It appears the link should be Rough Trade (shops), not the record label website.
  • Done, I should have checked initially to find the most appropriate article for the release itself. --K. Peake 19:32, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
  • I suggest you elaborate on the justifications for the non-struck sources. Have reliable publications cited them recently, have they been used in books by reputable publishers, do the authors have strong credentials, etc.? It is not enough to have a staff list and not be a blog.
  • I have replaced Fact with Exclaim! now, plus in that part of music and production the booklet is used to help source every sentence from the Plain Pat one so I invoked it only once from there onwards per overcite guidelines. Will look at the other sources tomorrow. Sonic Magazine have managed to secure interviews with many popular artists including Bruce Springsteen, David Bowie and Jay-Z, helping establish them as reliable alongside their co-signs from major Swedish newspaper Göteborgs-Posten and well renowned journalist Jan Gradvall [sv].1 The German languages and literature department at the Uni of Michigan ranked laut.de number one on a recommended list for online magazines, plus the publication's coverage was acclaimed by a portal of major German newspaper Rheinische Post; these accolades should indicate reliability. I have now replaced the usage of Atwood Magazine under themes and lyrics with reliable sources that are used elsewhere in the article too. Highsnobiety won the Cultural Blog/Website award at the 2017 Webby Awards, has collaborated with Xbox and Puma, plus here is proof of an editorial process; it says "online editorial", also the about page specifies that the company is drawn to the ideas rather than claiming to present them. Don't all of these combined demonstrate reliability? Taking a look at the about and contact pages of Analog Planet, the website lacks a proper editorial team, authors with strong credentials or any similar recognition, so I have removed it. Hipersonica do not even have an about us page, plus the other pages on the website do not establish reliability themselves and it has now been omitted from this article by me. The new addition of Mondo Sonoro may raise eyebrows due to it being a foreign source, but the magazine is distributed in clothes shops, discos, pubs and music venues in as wide a range as eight regions of Spain, each area for which it has a local edition. Two uni students were the founders and the pulication even evolved from a fanzine to a magazine, plus it has collaborated with Terra Networks and Matadero Madrid, while the contact page specifies the editorial process for the 25 workers. All of this should be solid proof of reliability, but I've either removed or elaborated on my defense of the sources you questioned. --K. Peake 07:32, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Sonic Magazinne—I suggest adding a link to the Swedish Wikipedia page.
  • Done and thanks for reassessment of the sources! --K. Peake 21:00, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

AllMusic—addressed

  • fn 23 → citing a user review on AllMusic?
  • Someone must have added that author by accident; fixed to the correct one. --K. Peake 18:20, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
  • fn 26 → why is an AllMusic review being cited for "On June 1, 2018, a week before the release of Kids See Ghosts, West released his eighth studio album Ye as the second album of the "Wyoming Sessions"."?
  • The GQ source is used for the sessions part, while the release date is backed up by AllMusic.
  • Can you use something other than AllMusic for the release date? Surely Billboard or something has an article with the Ye release date?
  • I replaced with The New York Times, which backs up both parts of the sentence directly and does the same for Daytona's release. --K. Peake 07:24, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
  • fn 32 → why is an AllMusic review being cited for "A week after its release, fellow rapper Nas released his eleventh studio album Nasir as the fourth album of the "Wyoming Sessions""?
  • The source mentions it being the fourth album of the sessions. --K. Peake 18:20, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Pitchfork might be slightly better to cite for this. This article also gives Nasir as the fourth album.
  • I used that source for the fourth album part instead, but added another PF source to back up the actual release date. --K. Peake 07:24, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
  • fn 33 → consensus at WP:ALLMUSIC seems to be it is mostly only reliable for reviews. Are there alternative sources that can be used for the K.T.S.E. release date? Why does it need be cited for track listings (fn 46)? Surely you can cite liner notes or a different source. I suggest limiting the source to the review part only. I don't think this is unreasonable either as this is not an obscure release. Also, attributing the reviewer to the rest of the page (tracklist, release date, etc.) is inaccurate as they're not the author.
  • Done for the track listing even though I was using it due to the source displaying the order online, but I think it is usable for release info since that sidebar is not written against like genres plus the dates are from review sources. --K. Peake 18:20, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
    • June 23 is written in text, but AllMusic says June 22, as does this Billboard article?
  • No idea where I got June 23, 2018 from, probably misread something and got it stuck in my mind. I replaced with the Billboard ref for the release date, while invoking the PF one you listed here too because it supports the album's placement in the sessions. AllMusic has now been removed entirely from the article by me, apart from the KSG review that is seen as usable. --K. Peake 07:24, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Spotchecks—addressed

  • fn 1 → good
  • fn 10 → "who had since admitted himself into a rehabilitation facility after battling with depression and suicidal thoughts following a Facebook post" → this wording is a bit weird. He made a Facebook post and then entered rehab? That's not what the source says. Additionally I think this is too close to the article text of "had checked into rehab after battling depression and suicidal thoughts".
  • Changed the Facebook post parts, plus reworded other areas. --K. Peake 18:20, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
  • fn 11 → does not apply to the sentence after the comma
  • Can you explain what fn means, as I am confused what you are specifically referring since not all of these numbers are in order with the refs? --K. Peake 18:30, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
  • the number between the brackets [11] from the version reviewed link at the top of the section.
  • "with the tour being cancelled after the rapper brought Cudi out to perform at his Sacramento show" → which source supports this?
  • I don't know how those September 2016 sources ended up there to be honest, have now added a Complex ref that supports the cancellation and Cudi's appearance; interestingly enough, this was one of the sources used to replace The Fader. --K. Peake 06:18, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
  • fn 14 → good
  • fn 16 → which quote in the article supports "In March 2018, Cudi was spotted recording with West in Wyoming"?
  • This is an instance where I replaced HotNewHipHop with a reliable source; the Billboard ref says Cudi was present. --K. Peake 10:08, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
  • fn 27 → Cudi is not listed
  • fn 31 → ok
  • fn 35 → ok
  • fn 42 → ok
  • fn 48 → ok
  • "showed two caricatures that appeared to be of West and Cudi stood by a ball of smoke with a face" → this is really close to the article text "The image shows what is seemingly two caricatures of West and Cudi standing next to a ball of smoke with a face"
  • Put more into my own words. --K. Peake 10:08, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
  • fn 52 → ok
  • fn 63 → source only says GOOD Music; Def Jam is only mentioned is the Apple Music thing at the bottom, which is a separate source. Wicked Awesome is unmentioned in either.
  • Changed to a PF source which mentions both GOOD and Def Jam, plus the Wicked Awesome label is included for numerous releases due to being on the back cover like me and TheAmazingPeanuts discussed; should the booklet be added as a secondary ref to back this up or is it fine now you have full context? Also, the NME ref for the digital download and streaming part in release and promotion mentions the label. --K. Peake 15:31, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
    • The Pitchfork article does not indicate digital download release; it only gives streaming services. I would add the back cover citation as well. Which NME ref are you referring to?
  • In the current revision, I am referring to ref 49 that mentions Wicked Awesome as one of the labels. Also, the source backs up the album as being released for download since it mentions Apple Music. --K. Peake 21:00, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Can you add ref 49 and the booklet to the citation cell where ref 59 currently is?
  • Done. --K. Peake 05:19, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
  • fn 65 & 66d → where are you seeing August 3, 2018?
  • I removed this one altogether since there's no release date for it. --K. Peake 15:31, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
  • fn 65 → only Def Jam is given, not Wicked Awesome or GOOD Music
  • fn 66a → source says August 22, 2018, not September 28, 2018
  • Comment I changed to just 2018 since none of the Amazon sources give a specific date apart from the US and Australia ones (the latter says September 28), but does them all listing 2018 as the original release date properly source this? --K. Peake 15:31, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
    • The year only is fine. However, you have rowspanned the 3 labels but the Amazon sources do not support that. Amazon.com and .de give Def Jam, .co.uk gives Virgin, .au gives GOOD Music.
  • What should I do here, as the album was obviously release through GOOD Music and Def Jam Recordings on all of the ones that list either but some listed GOOD and others listed the distributor in Def Jam; maybe merge these ones into a various citation for the labels and add the UK one separately as Virgin?? Or do you have any other suggestions? --K. Peake 21:00, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Maybe just write "Various" in the cell. Heartfox (talk) 03:14, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Heartfox But the label col still exists, so what I should I write in there? --K. Peake 05:19, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
  • I meant write "Various" in the label cell. Heartfox (talk) 05:16, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Oh right, done. This thread applies to the four points below too, as the citations are all part of the same ref like they were in the old revision. --K. Peake 07:37, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
  • fn 66a → only GOOD Music is given, not Wicked Awesome or Def Jam
  • fn 66b, fn 66c & 66d → source says 2018, doesn't specify September 28, 2018
  • fn 66b → only Virgin is given, not GOOD, Wicked Awesome, or Def Jam
  • fn 66c → only GOOD Music is given, not Wicked Awesome or Def Jam

Formatting—addressed

  • fn 61 Consequence is unlinked, but it is linked in fn 73?
  • Done, must have been the sources getting moved around or something like that which I got confused with. --K. Peake 18:27, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
  • fn 91, 93–95 → is there a reason url-status=live is absent?
  • Done, the bot somehow missed this when archiving I believe. --K. Peake 18:27, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

More to come... Heartfox (talk) 07:14, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

  • Cudi was featured on the tracks "Ghost Town", alongside PartyNextDoor and 070 Shake, and "No Mistakes", alongside Charlie Wilson and Caroline Shaw." → "appeared" may be a better wording as he does not seem to be credited as a featured artist, but "associated performer".
  • Altered to "made appearances on" if this works? --K. Peake 21:00, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
  • There appears to be a pinky vinyl version missing from the release history section according to RecordStoreDay.
  • Comment should I list this as being released by GOOD and Def Jam since the source mentions only the latter, but it is known that was the label used for distribution so maybe I can add GOOD Music without this mentioning it due to WP:OVERCITE guidelines? --K. Peake 07:33, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
  • fn 7, 20, 25, 82, 86, 92, 98, 99, 100, 105 → is there a reason url-status=live is absent? They are all live URLs. Some I could understand bypassing paywalls but some of these are freely accessible.
  • They are all actually live even if paywalls exist, so I added the parameter. Not sure if this wasn't there initially due to me or another user forgetting to add, or the bot missing the parameter for these URLs. --K. Peake 07:37, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Rolling Stone articles are url-status=limited.
  • When I click on the OG urls, it says once the articles have loaded that I need to subscribe to continue so this is accurate. --K. Peake 07:37, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
  • fn 26 → "via" is for when the source comes from another provider, like ProQuest. As the url is from Tidal, and it's citing Tidal, you can write publisher=Tidal and remove the via.
  • Done. --K. Peake 07:37, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
  • fn 87 URL is dead.
  • There is an archive for this ref though, which works perfectly fine and these are allowed for dead links. --K. Peake 07:37, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Now there is. It was changed to dead by TheAmazingPeanuts a few hours ago; wasn't there when I reviewed. Heartfox (talk) 09:52, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Oh you meant the status needed changing, sorry I thought you were taking issue with the original URL being dead... thanks to TheAmazingPeanuts but I'd have changed it anyway if I knew what you were talking about initially. --K. Peake 10:11, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

More spotchecks

  • fn 25 → title italicizes Nasir.
  • Added; did the same for Kids See Ghosts on ref 59. --K. Peake 07:37, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
  • "Nas released his eleventh studio album Nasir" → which source says it's the eleventh?
  • Comment does a source really need to be provided that explicitly states this or does it fall in the same category as info like Nas and Pusha T being rappers, for which no source is provided due to this info being basic? --K. Peake 07:37, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
  • The eleventh part must have been a mistake on my part from misreading somewhere else, have now changed to twelfth since chronologies for albums are basic info really. --K. Peake 10:11, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
  • "West's 2018 "Wyoming Sessions" recordings" → source does not specify 2018; are you sure all of the "Wyoming Sessions" albums were recorded in 2018? Maybe just omit "2018" from the sentence.
  • The following prose mentions all of the albums being released in 2018, but removed from this part of the sentence because it is a bit too monotonous for a FAC when I've mentioned the exact release date of the album in the same sentence. --K. Peake 07:37, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
  • " Plain Pat contributed production to "Feel the Love", "4th Dimension", "Reborn", and "Kids See Ghosts". Evan Mast helped produce "Feel the Love", "Fire", and "Reborn". "Feel the Love", "4th Dimension", and "Kids See Ghosts" include production from record producer Noah Goldstein. Production was contributed to the tracks "Fire", "4th Dimension", and "Freeee (Ghost Town, Pt. 2)" by record producer BoogzDaBeast. Record producer Dot da Genius, Cudi's WZRD bandmate, co-produced the tracks "Reborn" and "Cudi Montage" for Kids See Ghosts." → not in source
  • I did address earlier that after I removed The Fader, all of the info from the Plain Pat sentence onwards in this para is at least partially sourced by the booklet, but I have invoked that solely at the end of the para after this point per WP:OVERCITE. --K. Peake 07:37, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
  • ? Exlcaim! is cited at the end of the quote above, but it does not support any of it. Heartfox (talk) 09:52, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
  • It supports the WZRD bandmate connection, which is not basic info about Dot da Genius so requires a source. --K. Peake 10:11, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
  • By only citing one reference at the end, it gives the impression that it supports everything. Please add references that support the rest of the sentence to the end of it. Heartfox (talk) 22:48, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Done and added the booklet every two sentences before, but it's only at the end of the para afterwards since every sentence following this is only sourced by it. --K. Peake 06:35, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
  • You can also do this for the first two sentences of the paragraph; only the one at the end of the second sentence is necessary as it's the same and only thing cited. Heartfox (talk) 07:20, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
  • fn 9 → ok
  • fn 27 → ok
  • fn 33 → ok
  • fn 39 → ok
  • fn 49 → ok
  • fn 60 → ok
  • fn 64 → ok
  • fn 67 → ok
  • fn 72 → ok
  • fn 75 → ok
  • fn 86 → ok
  • fn 97 → ok
  • fn 98 → ok
  • "Kids See Ghosts was West's 10th top-five album and Cudi's 6th top-five album in the United States." → not in source
  • Removed. --K. Peake 07:37, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
  • "On the US Top R&B/Hip-Hop Albums chart, the album entered at number one" → not in source. the thing at the bottom is not an actual chart, it's their measure of rap/hip hop albums on the BB200. cite fn 148 instead.
  • Could not find any source that states this in prose, so I invoked the ref you mentioned. --K. Peake 07:37, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
  • fn 110 → ok
  • fn 111 → ok
  • fn 115 → ok
  • fn 121 → ok
  • fn 125 → ok
  • are the sample credits sourced from the liner notes?
  • Yes; added booklet for track listing to make this clearer. --K. Peake 07:37, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
  • fn 139 → it gives this week and last week; how do we know last week at #76 was the peak?
  • AGATA does not provide chart histories for artists like others, plus citing weekly Billboard charts is acceptable here so this should be as well. --K. Peake 07:37, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Billboard indicates the peak position; AGATA doesn't. Heartfox (talk) 09:52, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
  • My point moreso was that citing weekly chart issues is acceptable when there are no chart histories published by the organisation, so isn't this fine? Citing every single issue on which the album was present just to show the peak would be very tedious. --K. Peake 10:11, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Where does it indicate 76 is the peak? Heartfox (talk) 22:48, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
  • It does not specifically do so like a chart history but the position of last week is mentioned as being lower so that's the closest to this, also AGATA is a reliable source therefore with these two pieces of info and my earlier explanation, can't this citation remain? --K. Peake 05:56, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
  • I will leave this as it appears the URL cited is the first week the chart was published. Heartfox (talk) 07:20, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
  • fn 152 → ok

If everything above is addressed, this will be a pass. Heartfox (talk) 05:16, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

I have addressed all of the above comments, only not making changes where I do not believe I should do; feel free to elaborate if you still disagree with anything. --K. Peake 07:37, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
Barring issues indicated by other editors, I will say this is a pass. Congratulations on getting the article this far and I would say the sourcing has improved significantly during this review. Good luck with the rest of the nomination. Heartfox (talk) 07:20, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
Heartfox Thank you so much, I have collapsed your comments since they are now resolved, but would it be ok for this sub-section to be retitled with the support part like the other ones to be clearer for all readers? --K. Peake 08:50, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
No, I didn't review to make a general support it's just the source review pass. Heartfox (talk) 16:50, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
Oh fair enough my apologies for the misinterpretation, feel free to add any further comments about this article! --K. Peake 20:57, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Support from LOVI33[edit]

Definitely ready for FA in my opinion. The sources seem okay to use for me, the prose looks amazing and I don't see any MOS issues. Great job! LOVI33 19:31, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

LOVI33 Thanks a lot for your support; I am still having to fix sourcing at points since other editors have different standards! --K. Peake 20:41, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Support from isento[edit]

Resolved comments from User:Isento

I recommend replacing "rappers/producers" with "rapper-producers", since the single "s" at the end plurlizes the compound construction as a whole, while the dash serves the same function as what the slash is meant to but without the possibility of meaning "either/or". isento (talk) 02:29, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Done. --K. Peake 05:19, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

I recommend condensing the lead's discussion of the duo's pre-history and being more specific to engage readers about the story, since the background section paints some nasty emotions between the two. Something like, "West and Cudi had collaborated on each other's solo recordings since 2008, but experienced personal quarrels stemming from creative tension as well as mental health issues prior to Kids See Ghosts. After reconciling in 2016, West and Cudi recorded the album at the former's ranch in Jackson Hole, in sessions that also produced West's 2018 album Ye ..." The next paragraph reads a bit monotonously, listing names and credits off without much insight into the recording process. I recommend revising it with details from the music and production section. isento (talk) 02:57, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Isento I have rewritten the lead similarly to what you said but did not mention Ye or the Jackson Hole sessions in the first para, as that info is provided properly in the second one plus the 2016 recording was before the Wyoming Sessions started. Also, I've given more details from the musical section but does the loosely styled part read fine, or should I reword to something else? Thank you for the comments. --K. Peake 06:40, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
Looks better! I'll revisit the article later with some more reviewing, but given the above reviews, I'm leaning toward support... isento (talk) 18:56, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
Thank you, I replaced "loosely styled" with "fragmented" on my own behalf since that flows better, thought I await any more comments and the hardest part has been sources, but I've finally fixed all bad ones today! --K. Peake 19:52, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

In "background and recording," mention their mental illness in the paragraph leading up to the recording, since it has more connection as background to the two artists. And rearrange the Pusha T album detail somewhere else, since the first sentence of a paragraph should introduce the paragraph's main idea(s). isento (talk) 21:24, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

I did my best to address that concern above myself, but feel free to copy-edit yourself as well... I would also ask that you check each paragraph for repetitions of years in the month-day-year dates. It is only necessary to mention the year the first time in a paragraph if subsequent dates in the same paragraph are from the same year. isento (talk) 21:35, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Isento Copy editing is fine to do for FACs when it is only light as you've contributed, so thank you but make sure not to get carried away if you have any further concerns. I did change the prose of the Pusha T sentence despite keeping it in your set position, as saying the album is among the releases from the sessions and then calling it the first of them in the same sentence reads tediously. We have come to contrasting stances about how often the year should be mentioned when it reoccurs consecutively, with you and me believing once a para and once every two sentences, respectively. In this article, I have tried to cut down on the number of times repeated years are directly written in prose since your comments by mentioning only the month and day at points in as many places as possible, plus have used phrasing like "the same month as..." on more occasions than before. Hope this is sufficient, as it is a reasonable compromise of our two ideologies! Also, I would suggest that you strike out comments when they have been resolved like the other users have done... makes it a lot easier to see what has got done! --K. Peake 07:36, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Ah, yes, well I usually see brief points struck out, not entire paragraphs, but I will confirm here that the above has been addressed... But some of the subsequent text needs more than lightweight copy-editing tbh. In "Themes and lyrics", "Fighting demons" isn't encyclopedic/formal writing - I would suggest "battling sources of mental health illness" or something of that nature. Replace "delays" with "impediments". Remove "deeply" from the sentence on "Kids See Ghosts" unless you can go into depth about how it does it "deeply" - otherwise it's useless to readers. Rephrase the next sentence to avoid the "sees" construction, as that isn't formal writing either. isento (talk) 14:47, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

In instances where you refer to "release" (such as "prior to release"), please specify the subject of the release or use the determiner its. ex. "prior to the album's release", or "prior to its release". To avoid ambiguity. isento (talk) 16:36, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the comments, I do understand why you may not want to strike through full paragraphs so that is fine! Regarding the first issue, I did replace "fighting demons" with "battling against their mental demons" since the demons may not be real but they are what appears to be haunting Kids See Ghosts in their head, plus I need to follow the source to a certain degree per WP:OR. I did take on all of the other suggestions fully, apart from the one instance in which I used "prior to the release" in the third sentence of the lead instead because that comes directly after the release sentence for the album. Hopefully I will be able to get your support soon enough. --K. Peake 18:28, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Okay, great. Just a few more items: "demons" (as you see is defined there) in this context refers to a person's "fears or anxieties", so replacing it with "battling their fears and anxieties" would be faithful to the source and more academic in tone. The last thing I would suggest is, in "Commercial performance", replacing "pushing" with "registering" or "recording", since "push" primarily refers to the physical action and in this context the meaning is again figurative. isento (talk) 19:07, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

I have changed "demons" to "fears and anxieties", but kept "mental" in prose to be specific... plus used "registering" for the certified units. Ready to support, I guess? --K. Peake 20:05, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

I feel comfortable offering my support to this article now. Great work on a good album from a couple of talented and good-hearted, if flawed, human beings. isento (talk) 21:19, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Isento Thank you so much, it is a true honour to have your highly significant endorsement!!! --K. Peake 06:00, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
My pleasure, buddy. isento (talk) 06:02, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Support Comments from magiciandude[edit]

Resolved comments from User: Magiciandude

I don't really have much to go on since the grammar in the article is fine to me and I'm not really an expert on the prose. One thing I noticed is that the past FACs mention keeping non-free files to a minimum. While not mentioned previously, I would remove the album's artwork on the artwork section since the album cover is already presented and the rationale doesn't justify it being outside of the infobox. Since the article describes the artwork that is the same as the album cover, the image doesn't need to be posted twice. Alternatively, you can just use a public domain image of Thirty-six Views of Mount Fuji since it's mentioned as being influential for the album's artwork. Erick (talk) 15:32, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Magiciandude Thank you for your comments but they are supposed to be added in a sub-section, which I have fixed for you. However, I have implemented what you suggested by adding an image from the series to illustrate what the mountains in the cover art's background are based on. This is one that does not have its own article because that would cause issues with wikilinking when we don't know what print the artwork is based on specifically but the mountains showcase relevance... do you support this nom now? --K. Peake 16:35, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
I gladly give you my support! This article is otherwise fantastic and it'd be a shame if it failed again because of NFCC (which the FAC takes very seriously). Erick (talk) 21:59, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
Magiciandude Thank you a lot for helping me switch to a better image and eventually supporting, plus I've retitled your sub section to make this clearer to viewers of the FAC and collapsed the comments to save space. --K. Peake 06:01, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Willie Mays[edit]

Nominator(s): Sanfranciscogiants17 (talk) 16:33, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

This article is about Willie Mays, one of the greatest and most famous Major League Baseball players of all time. Last time this was up as a featured article candidate, it was suggested that the prose needed more work. Since then, I have had this article copyedited by the Guild of Copyeditors.

In reviewing this, be sure to see Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Willie Mays/archive1. That review will contain helpful information, as an image and source check were done in the last one. Sanfranciscogiants17 (talk) 16:33, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

  • My comments at the peer review weren't addressed. some sections such as "Most Valuable Player, World Series champion (1954–1957)" and "Move to San Francisco, 1962 pennant race (1958–1962)" are awfully long (and these titles look like they cover two separate topics). Trying to split sections every 3–4 paragraphs is ideal for readability, particularly for readers on mobile devices. Also, "Following the death of Tommy Lasorda on January 7, 2021, Mays became the oldest living Hall of Famer." is unsourced and looks like trivia. "Oldest living Baseball hall of famer" is still in the article and still unsourced. (t · c) buidhe 11:55, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
    • Oppose 1c, 2b based on the points noted above, which have yet to be addressed (t · c) buidhe 23:08, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Accessibility – the infobox image is missing alt text. Heartfox (talk) 05:22, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

HF[edit]

I will review this nomination, but I have become busier in RL at the moment. Will try to start within the next couple days. Hog Farm Talk 22:53, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Sorry this took so long, I've been busier than expected.

Lead
  • "As of his birthday in 2021, he is the oldest living Baseball Hall of Famer." - unsourced, probably trivial
  • Specify that the Black Barons were in the Negro Leagues
  • Mention in the lead the year he made his MLB debut
  • Indicate the significance of the $100,000+ contract in the lead
Early life
  • "Mays did not graduate from Fairfield until 1950, which journalist Allen Barra calls "a minor mystery in Willie's life".[21] He graduated in 1950.[21]" - no need to say that he graduated high school in 1950 in consecutive sentences
Playing career
  • "Ten days later, Mays played 33 innings in a doubleheader against the New York Mets" - A few comments here. It actually appears to be 32 innings - the first game was 9, and the second 23 in 23 according to the box scores, for 32 innings instead of 33. Also, if I read the box scores right, it looks like Cepeda and Jesus Alou played all innings of both games, so unless sources more in-depth than the box scores comment on the significance of this; I'd recommend removing this sentence.
  • "Despite nursing an injured thigh muscle on September 7, Mays reached base in the 11th inning of a game against the Dodgers with two outs, then attempted to score from first base on a Frank Johnson single. On a close play, umpire Tony Venzon initially ruled him out, then changed the call when he saw Roseboro had dropped the ball after Mays collided with him. San Francisco won 3–2." - Not sure in all of Mays's career if this is significant enough to call out in a summary article, although others may disagree with my thinking here
    • I think I included it because Hirsch thought it was notable enough to mention, but I'm okay with either leaving it in or taking it out. Will wait and see if anyone else has thoughts on this. Sanfranciscogiants17 (talk) 01:57, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
  • "He scheduled his off days that season to avoid facing pitchers like Bob Gibson or Tom Seaver.[177]" - As a baseball fan, I'm aware of why you'd want to avoid facing Gibson and Seaver, but I'd recommend glossing here that these two were some of the best pitchers, as it may not be obvious to someone not familiar with 60s and 70s baseball.

I'm ready for the section about the Mets, but I need to stop here. I'll finish this off very soon. Hog Farm Talk 21:17, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Off-topic comment

"His right thumb would stick out in the air as he waited for pitches, but he wrapped it around the bat as he swung" - Tried this once in high school, didn't get it back around the bat in time on an inside pitch, and squared up the ball with my thumb instead of the bat. After I could finally bend my thumb again after two weeks, I never tried that again

Assessment and legacy
  • "Third in home runs with 660 when he retired, he still ranks sixth as of September 2020" - go ahead and update the as of date (he's still sixth), and update the accessdate for the source, as well.
  • "His 2,062 runs scored rank seventh, and his 1,903 RBI rank 12th.[42] Mays batted .302 in his career and his 3,283 hits are the 12th-most of any player.[42] His 2,992 games played are the ninth-highest total of any major leaguer" - These all need as of dates, in case they change. Pujols or somebody may pass him in some. Pujols is really close to him in hits, for instance.
  • "and his 1,903 RBI rank 12th." - This needs a footnote. He's 12th per B-Ref, but 11th per MLB, as B-Ref and MLB have different total for Cap Anson, so this needs a note/qualifier

I'm through the cultural effect section, I hope to be able to finish this tomorrow. Hog Farm Talk 03:28, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Categorization
  • Some of the categories don't seem to be mentioned or cited anywhere in the text: Cangrejeros de Santurce (baseball) players, Liga de Béisbol Profesional Roberto Clemente outfielders
Infobox
  • Roberto Clemente Award is in the infobox, but I'm not seeing it mentioned or cited in the body (may have missed it)
  • Not seeing where the MLB all-time team in the infobox is mentioned in the body
  • I was having trouble finding articles mentioning it, so I took it out of the infobox as something that, while true, may not be that notable. Sanfranciscogiants17 (talk) 23:06, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Not seeing where the team Wall of Fame mentioned in the infobox appears in the prose or is cited.

That's it from me, I think. Hog Farm Talk 03:11, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Addressed all changes! Sanfranciscogiants17 (talk) 23:12, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
I've read over the two news sections added during this FAC, and think that they are fine and due weight. So supporting on WP:FACR #1a, 1b, 1c, 1d, 1e, 2a, 2b, 2c, and 4, did not check others. Hog Farm Talk 00:15, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

JJE

Commenting on images:

  • If I'm not mistaken, this is the direct source link: [33]. The caveat concerns "Images by unidentified creators and images from unidentified sources". Here, the Library of Congress identifies this as a "World Telegram & Sun photo by William C. Greene" taken in 1961. According to the LOC page, it is paragraph 3 you should be looking to, not paragraph 2. Sanfranciscogiants17 (talk) 23:01, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
  • File:The Catch.png does not seem to significantly improve the understanding of the article topic, and it needs to under WP:NFCC#8 if it has to stay.
    • It should be fine. It's the image itself that's important, moreso than the event. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 22:02, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
      • I tend to agree with Sportsfan77777 here. While the NFCC criteria are needfully strict, given that this is one of the most iconic photos of all of baseball history, I think its supportable to include it in this article. Hog Farm Talk 22:42, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:25, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Sportsfan77777

I don't have time to review the whole article at the moment (maybe later in the year?), but some quick comments:

  • I think the separate All-Star Game section is necessary. The All-Star Game is probably more important to Mays than anyone. Without the separate section (and in particular the quote from Ted Williams), I don't think that is conveyed too well.
  • To a lesser extent, I would also recommend keeping the separate Barnstorming section.
  • I'd have to agree with you, especially after reading the Hirsch and Barra books. Just readded them. Sanfranciscogiants17 (talk) 20:30, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Leave MVP in the 1954 section header.
  • Some of the paragraphs have good opening sentences that introduces the rest of the paragraph well (e.g. "The Giants won the NL pennant and the 1954 World Series, sweeping the Cleveland Indians in four games."). A few of the other ones do not (e.g. "Mays began the 1954 season on Opening Day with a home run of over 414 feet (126 m) against Carl Erskine." It would be better to start off with saying Mays won the MVP and the Giants won the World Series.)
  • The biggest problem I have with starting the paragraph with Mays won the MVP and the Giants won the World Series is that I'm trying to present events chronologically. The MVP and the World Series did not happen until the end of the year. I fully agree with you that these are the most important things that happened that season, but in a chronological article, I don't think the first sentence needs to introduce the theme of the year. In an article as long as this, writing it that way could make the article too bulky. That said, if you've got suggestions on improving the first sentences of other paragraphs, please let me know about them. Sanfranciscogiants17 (talk) 22:53, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Sort of similar to that issue, the middles of paragraphs don't always have the best transitions from one event to the next. (e.g. "On May 21, Dark named Mays the Giants' captain, making Mays the first African-American captain of an MLB team. "You deserve it," Dark told Mays. "You should have had it long before this."[140] Ten days later, Mays played 33 innings in a doubleheader against the New York Mets." These are unrelated events, but the "ten days later" transition seems like it tries to connect them. Also, I don't think the specific day he was named captain needs to be emphasized, and there are a bunch of other places where I would also suggest to avoid mentioning the specific date in favor of just the month or the part of the season. Also in general, for individual game highlights unrelated to the progression of the season for Mays or his team, it might be better to introduce them with something like "Mays had a notable day [early in the season] where he [played 33 innings in a doubleheader against the New York Mets]" to make it clear it's not really part of the overarching sequence of events for the season(s).)
  • I actually just removed the 33-inning highlight based on another editor's suggestion. I'll be happy to address other instances once you do your more specific review. As to specific dates, I think they should be included when known. It doesn't save significant room by only mentioning the month or part of the season. However, I don't have strong feelings about this, so if other editors think more general dates are better, I'd be fine with changing it. Sanfranciscogiants17 (talk) 22:53, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

The last comment is probably the most regular issue in the article, although I don't think it would be so difficult to fix. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 22:01, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Coordinator comment[edit]

This has been open for nearly three weeks and shows little sign of obtaining a consensus to promote. Unless this changes over the next three or four days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. For clarity, I would want to see two supports, or reviews well on their way to being addressed, to consider that a consensus had, potentially, begun to form. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:15, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

  • Obviously I can't support or oppose the article, but I have now addressed each review left on this page so far. Sanfranciscogiants17 (talk) 23:12, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

2009 Football League Two play-off Final[edit]

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:42, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Having successfully promoted the article on the first play-off final won by the team I support, I now present the second (and, to date, most recent). Once again, despite it involving my team, I feel I have managed to write the article in a neutral fashion and without excessive jargon. I eagerly await feedback, which will be actioned as soon as humanly possible. Fun fact: at this particular play-off final, the dignitary who had the job of presenting the trophy to the victorious captain at the end was someone who had been in my class at school....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:42, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

  • Images appear to be freely licensed (t · c) buidhe 11:57, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment - just a quick note to say that I will now be off-WP till Tuesday evening. If there's any fresh comments in that time, I will pick them up on my return..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:33, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Support from TRM[edit]

  • ".... the semi-finals; the semi-final between ..." repetitive.
  • "as the scores finished level" ah, over two legs, on aggregate and after extra time??
  • Link ref in the lead.
  • "until the last minute. In the 90th minute" kind of saying the same thing...
  • "would spend only" why not "only spent"?
  • "would spend three" similar...
  • "In the 2008–09 Football League season, the teams finishing..." I know the league table is there, but I usually give a passing mention to the promoted clubs and the distance behind the two play-off finalists ended, to put some context sometimes into how far off automatic they were but yet still had a chance/got promoted.
  • "in fifth place in... two places..." could switch one of these for "position"?
  • "The "Shrews" had" dislike nicknames, especially if not adequately introduced.
  • Link "lobbed".
  • Link cross.
  • Link foul.
  • Extra time, sending off?
  • 1996 Football League Trophy Final has an article.
  • "Shortly before kick-off" the kick-off of the final, not the preceding match you just described which was a regular league game.
  • Odds can be linked to fixed-odds betting.
  • "final who had" parses badly, it should be "same as" somehow, not "same who"
  • "Stimson opted not to make any changes to his starting XI and Miller was named" you already said he made no changes, so maybe jusut cut to "Stimson named him as a sub" or similar.
  • 2005 FA Trophy Final doesn't have an article but it should, so I would link it.
  • Link "sent off".
  • "Shrewsbury kicked off the match" what time?
  • ""looked unsettled" according to whom?
  • Link penalty area.
  • Link header.
  • "the key men " bit POV.
  • "the 15-minute mark ... the 15-minute mark" repeat.
  • "first serious goalscoring" bit POV.
  • "to receive attention"" perhaps be clear it was medical attention.
  • "Following the foul on Chadwick..." feels odd to have the sentence before this one interjected between the natural chronological flow.
  • "defeated, BBC Sport's interactive" overlinked.
  • Ref 15 scoreline needs en-dash.
  • Ref 16, needs pp. for multiple pages.
  • Curiously the match isn't linked to in the "2008–09 in English football" template so that shouldn't be there (or the play-off finals should be added to the template!)

That's all I have on my first pass. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:36, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: All done I think, apart from the one about ref 16, which I don't understand because it doesn't list multiple pages...? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:14, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
Quite right, it doesn't. Odd coincidental line break! I'll re-check over the weekend. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 21:54, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
Happy with this and the modifications made following my suggestions, so I support. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 10:03, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Comments Edwininlondon[edit]

Having reviewed the other Gillingham play-off final, it seems inevitable I end up having a look at this one too. Not too much to say actually, the article looks in good shape. Just these comments:

  • was philosophical about the fact --> not sure this is the right tone for an encyclopedia
  • The teams finishing between fourth and seventh inclusive competed in the play-offs for the fourth and final promotion place. Brentford, Exeter City and Wycombe Wanderers were promoted automatically. --> might be just a personal style preference, but I would swap the order of these 2 sentences. And perhaps say something like "Champions Brentford". Just something to at least consider.
  • Shrewsbury Town finished two places and six points lower. --> I'm not sure a team can finish 6 points lower.
  • in which BBC Sport commented --> to my foreign eyes that "in" looks a bit odd. It's probably ok, but just checking
  • Shrewsbury's Chris Humphrey (pictured in 2016) --> link Chris Humphrey
  • Shrewsbury had previously played at the new Wembley in the 2007 League Two play-off final --> should that not be a capital F in final? I never quite understood why all the article titles of play-off finals have a capital F for Final, but okay, they all seem to have it, I suspect because they are proper names for events. But then I think we should be consistent and have an F here too. Not sure if the same rule applies a bit further on, where it reads "higher than the 35,715 registered at the previous year's League Two play-off final". That one doesn't look like a proper name to me, so maybe the f is fine here, but I'm just guessing now.
  • leading scorer among all League Two players with 20 goals in the league --> I had to read this twice to figure out what is going on. Would be good to try and get the number 28 in first, so that it contrasts better with Jackson's 20
  • and 7 in the Football League Trophy --> link Football League Trophy
  • Defender Graham Coughlan played a prominent role for his team in the first half. --> add for which team he played
  • Simeon Jackson scored the only goal of the game --> add Gillingham's
  • ref #48 (The Independent). Why is London here? The other newspapers don't seem to get a location.

That's all I could find. Edwininlondon (talk) 10:42, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

@Edwininlondon: - all done I think -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:16, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
Great. I see you have changed the "philosophical" bit into the rather neutral "chose not to dwell" which is okay, but perhaps something along the lines of "did not blame the referee for their defeat" is a bit closer to the essence of his statement. I hope to be able to do a spot check soon. Edwininlondon (talk) 08:31, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
Slight adjustment made -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:14, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
I like it. Edwininlondon (talk) 20:40, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Sources spot check:

  • #4 ok
  • #5 all fine except for the BBC says the game was played at Oteley Road. It doesn't mention New Meadow
    • @Edwininlondon: This is an odd one. At the time, the stadium was officially called the Prostar Stadium due to a sponsorship deal, but it seems that BBC policy was to use unsponsored names for stadia (as is WP:FOOTY policy). However, because the stadium was newly built and had acquired a sponsored name basically straight away, there wasn't 100% confirmation of what its unsponsored name actually was. Our own article at the time was called "New Meadow", but the BBC seem to have decided to use the name of the road it's on. This Guardian article from 2008 calls it New Meadow, as in fact does this BBC article which uses it in the context of the very game being described here. Not sure what to do there - use "New Meadow (also known as Oteley Road)".....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:21, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
Odd indeed. But I'd be happy with simply adding a source that puts New Meadow on Oteley Road. For example this BBC article. No need to change the text I think. Edwininlondon (talk) 10:05, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
@Edwininlondon: Done, and for good measure I also added the BBC Sport article I linked above which specifically references the Shrewsbury-Gillingham match earlier in the season as having taken place at New Meadow, hope that's OK -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:23, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
Even better. Edwininlondon (talk) 06:19, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
  • #8 ok
  • #13 (all first half occurrences): all ok
  • #17 ok
  • #49 ok
  • #52 ok
  • #53 ok
  • #54 ok
  • #56 ok

That should do it. Edwininlondon (talk) 20:40, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

All fine. Support from me. Nice work. Edwininlondon (talk) 06:19, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Giovanni Antonio Grassi[edit]

Nominator(s): Ergo Sum 03:34, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Unlike many of the other articles about Jesuits I've nominated here, this Jesuit had a very active life in Europe, not just in the United States. He was an astronomer turned missionary turned educator turned royal advisor. I've developed this article substantially and think that it is up to FA standards. Ergo Sum 03:34, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Support from SportsLover 31[edit]

I like this article a lot.Has a lot of references ,good text ,sources written clearly,reasons explained well. These are the reasons why I like the article for a Featured Article.

Explanation

  • Quality

The Quality of this works is very good .The images line with the text given,the text relates to the sources given and the sources are also a good informative reference for information.

  • Sources

The sources are well mentioned and have the pg.no ,author and the publisher listed properly are correct in the sense of a reader.The sources have also been read .These a re a reliable source for an FAR.

Thank You SportsLover31 10:34, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments, SportsLover31. Ergo Sum 14:18, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Johannes Schade[edit]

My opinions given here should not be overrated as I lack many of the qualifications usually expected from wikipedians engaged in FAC discussions. :-)

I feel the article tends towards overlinking (MOS:OL). Some of the writing is not Plain English. Sometimes, linked names are dropped without introduction and with insufficient context.

Removed some of the clustered blue links and added explanatory tidbits here and there. Ergo Sum 04:27, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

The lead is a bit long. MOS:LEADLENGTH recommends 2 to 3 paragraphs for the article's text length (15 kB), not 4. On the other hand, the body could perhaps be extended to cover the subject better.

I've trimmed the lede. Ergo Sum 20:10, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
  • 1st paragraph. If a mentioned place is immediately followed by a wider localisation, then IMHO the wider localisation should not be linked as this comes near MOS:SEAOFBLUE. It is therefore proposed to unlink Washington D.C. and Rome. —The short Propaganda Fide is easier for the reader than the full Latin name, which I believe to be too cumbersome to use in the article. However, if deemed necessary, it should be given at the first occurrence in the text (or possibly the lead) with the short name between parentheses behind it.
  • 2nd paragraph. The mention of Połock after two northern-Italian towns surprises. Perhaps add some brief explanation ("now in Belarus"?). One might also wonder whether Polotsk would not be more appropriate (or give both?). If I understand it right, Połock is the name in Polish, whereas Polotsk is the transliteration of the Russian and Belarusian name. Polotsk has the advantage of ensuring the right pronunciation of the second syllable. At the time Polotsk had just been acquired by the Russian Empire, but the school might have been teaching in Polish by tradition. —I think that "natural sciences", "mathematics", "astronomy", "rector", "Peking", "London", and "Lisbon" should not be linked in this context. —The geography in the last two sentences is confusing as Lisbon and London are mentioned, but then Coimbra, which is not in Lisbon, and Stonyhurst, which is not in London. Perhaps there is an occasion here to shorten the lead a bit.
    • I've significantly reworked this part of the lede so that many of the more minor details are not mentioned. I've also added that the Polotsk college was in the Russian Empire, since that is not something that is common knowledge. While many European readers have no use of linking European cities, I think it's generally useful to link them for a global readership. I've removed some of the other links. I've also changed the spelling of Polotsk. Ergo Sum 20:18, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
  • 4rd paragraph. Propaganda Fide as already been linked. The last sentence again gives the full Latin name. It might not be clear to all readers that these two are forms of the same name. (more to come) Johannes Schade (talk) 11:10, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
    • I'm not really sure how to make that clearer to readers since it just repeats the name. Ergo Sum 20:20, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

The section Early life and education should perhaps be extended and clarified by additions.

  • 1st paragraph. The first sentence is too short to describe the region of his origins. Schilpario is a village in the Alps of north-eastern Lombardy that in Grassi's time was part of the Venetian Republic. The Italian version of the article does this quite well: "Schilpario in provincia di Bergamo (allora parte della Repubblica di Venezia)". The reader might find that "Lombardy" and "Venetian" contradict each other as Schilpario in not in the modern Veneto. —Somaschi and seminary in Bergamo. As you give a location for the seminary the reader might wonder where the Somaschi school he attended was. I would think also in Bergamo. But your use of "going to" might be understood to mean that it was elsewhere. Perhaps: going to -> entering? or attending? —It would be helpful to indicate the year when the pope suppressed the Jesuit order.
    • The source is not clear that it was actually a proper school, but rather that he studied under the Somaschi Fathers, so I can't give a location of where exactly it was. I'm a bit hesitant to go beyond simply the Venetian Republic because there's a whole article that explains it. Added the year of suppression. Ergo Sum 20:51, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
  • 2nd paragraph. "Therefore" is difficult to understand. The reader might first need some background about the suppression of the order that allowed the exception of Russia. You give this later. Perhaps you could move it forward? —Simple vow. Is it really necessary to introduce here the distinction between the simple and the solemn vow? Most readers will never have heard of it. I feel it should be sufficient to say that he had to go to Polotsk for his further training. —Replace "With Polock becoming" -> "where Polotsk became". Besides, the article about Gabriel Gruber uses Polotsk (Russian) rather than Połock (Polish). —Unlink "natural sciences" and "rector".
    • Moved up the explanation of Catherine the Great. While the distinction between simple and solemn vows is not huge in modern Catholic canon law, at this time, there was a big difference, so I think it's worth noting. Ergo Sum 20:59, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

The section European voyage abounds in needless detail.

  • 1st paragraph. Beak up the sea of blue (MOS:SEAOFBLUE): Jesuit Superior General, Gabriel Gruber, to St. Petersburg -> summoned to Saint Petersburg to see Gabriel Gruber, the Superior General. —Last sentence Peking by sea? Confusing as Peking is not a seaport. What is this "departing Russian delegation" Which are "those cities? I think we do not need to know about them. Hence: Gruber wanted Grassi and his two colleagues to sail to China rather than to travel overland (or something similar).
    • Trimmed and unlinked. Ergo Sum 20:43, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
  • 2nd paragraph. 1st sentence: "General" -> "Superior General" or "Jesuit General". General alone might be misleading. —"gifts to give to the people" -> "gifts for the people". —2nd sentence: unlink sled. Is it useful to mention the Swedish interpreter? —3rd sentence "They set out for London, where the Superior General arranged" -> "They planned to go to London where Gruber had arranged" —The sentence "Shortly after departing, three of the party fell ill, including Grassi, and they stopped for ten days at a small town on the Russian–Swedish border, where they were attended by a doctor." seems needless to me or could be shortened to "They were delayed by sickness". —"22 March" -> "22 March 1805". Dropping the year from dates looks sometimes elegant, but IMHO it should not be extended across paragraph boundaries as it becomes too difficult for the reader to establish which year it was when reading the paragraph on its own.
    • Fixed date continuity. Trimmed.
  • 3rd paragraph. The 1st sentence can be shortened to: "They eventually reached London on 25 May 1805." —2nd sentence Peking -> China. —3rd sentence "who unsuccessfully attempted to convince" -> "who however failed to convince".
  • 4th paragraph. The sentence "Their journey was delayed when the captain stopped in Cork, Ireland;" can be omitted. —Unlink "astronomy". —They seem to have met Damoiseau in Lisbon where he taught them some astronomic calculations that they thought would be useful when in China to correct the Chinese calendar. Give more detail to make this understandable.
    • I don't see this in the source. Can you point me to a page number that mentions this? Unlinked astronomy. Ergo Sum 21:01, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
  • 5th paragraph. Nothing to report.

The heading of the section American missionary is perhaps misleading. Grassi did not go West to christen the Indians. He mostly was a teacher at an established school and a priest serving established Catholic parishes. The word "missionary" probably refers to the Maryland Mission, a Jesuit administrative subdivision, which became the Maryland province in 1833. The heading should be shortened to "American mission", or even to just "America".

You may underestimate just how "missionary" Maryland was at the time in the eyes of the church, especially rural Maryland, which is where most of the Maryland mission's institutions were located. The Maryland Mission was classified as such (rather than as a province) by the Jesuit order because it was located in a place where church was not yet very established. The Jesuits sent missionaries all over: China, Siberia, South America. There's nothing unique to the Indian missions that makes them missions. Ergo Sum 21:05, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
  • 1st paragraph. 1st sentence. The reader might be surprised by the change in name from Gruber to Brzozowski. I propose "In 1810, Tadeusz Brzozowski, who had succeeded Gruber in 1805 as Superior General, ..."
    • Good catch. I've clarified the succession. Ergo Sum 21:06, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
  • 2nd paragraph. 1st Sentence: "became naturalized" -> "would become naturalized" using future-in-the-past tense to stress that it would happen much later than where the main flow of the narration is now. —2nd sentence: introduce Francis Neale already here as the rector of the school. —Spanish: unlink. How could he teach Spanish? At that stage he probably could speak Italian, Latin, Polish or Russian (or both?), Portuguese and English but not Spanish.
    • Done (rephrasing). I'm not sure when he learned Spanish, but the source says he was able to teach it by that point. Ergo Sum 21:10, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

The section Presidency of Georgetown College

  • 1st paragraph. 1st sentence. Mention that Charles Neale was brother of Frances Neale. Helps the reader not to confuse them. —Final vows. The link refers to the article Religious vows, which says, under Catholic, that Jesuits' first vows are perpetual. I am confused. Perhaps some additional explanation is needed. —Correct typo: Caroll -> Carroll.
    • Fixed typo. Clarified relationship. I'm not an expert on the minutiae of vows under canon law; the get very complicated very quickly. I know there is a difference between first and final vows in the Jesuit order (see here), but I will leave it to an inquisitive reader to research that outside the corners of this article. Ergo Sum 21:15, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
  • 2nd paragraph. Faculty: perhaps link to Wiktionary: this American English sense was unknown to me. Unlink "algebra", "mensuration", and "arithmetic".
    • Unlinked all except mensuration, because I've never heard that word and would be surprised if its meaning is common knowledge today. Ergo Sum 21:17, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
  • 3rd paragraph. Nothing to report.
  • 4rd paragraph. Replace: Leonard Neale -> Archbishop Leonard Neale, another of the Neale brothers. —Proposed: "Following the papal restoration of the Society of Jesus in 1814," -> "After the pope had restored the Society of Jesus in 1814," (less static)
    • Rephrased. Ergo Sum 21:19, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
  • 5th paragraph. 1st sentence: we seem here to jump backward to the time when Carrol was archbishop. We just learned Leonard Neale had succeeded him in the role. Probably move that sentence up. —"an increase in both the religious and ethnic the diversity of students" -> "an increase in the religious and ethnic diversity of students" —Proposed: "and he was succeeded" -> "when he was succeeded".
    • The fifth paragraph is not part of the temporal sequence but is instead a conclusion of the section, giving an overview of his presidency. I think to break it up and intersperse throughout the section would be more confusing to the reader. Rephrased per suggestions. Ergo Sum 21:27, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

The heading of the section Representative to the Propaganda Fide should perhaps better read "Mission to Propaganda Fide in Rome" (or similar). The section is supposed to explain Grassi's mission to Propaganda Fide, but is difficult to understand and involves Charleston, South Carolina, and White Marsh, Maryland and some punished priests, in mysterious ways.

My concern with "mission" is that in the technical canonical sense, it wasa not a mission. I've trimmed some of the extraneous detail about White Marsh so that it keeps to the point of the section better. Ergo Sum 04:25, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
  • 1st paragraph. 1st sentence: replace "tasked Grassi with going to" -> "sent Grassi to" (be concise). —The reference to "White Marsh" is not understandable at all. What happened there? The linked to article White Marsh, Maryland describes a place in Baltimore County, Maryland and says nothing about Catholics and Jesuits there. I hope that is at least the right place. —The entry in the "Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani" talks about the "scisma di Charleston". This schism is also mentioned in the article on Leonard Neale. Should be extended and reformulated to makes his mission understandable to the ordinary reader without going into undue detail.
    • As the Leonard Neale article explains, it was a rather complicated and tedious affair. I've removed mention of it altogether because it's not terribly relevant to Grassi except to say that Neale had removed the priests. I also caught a silly typo. The controversy was in Charleston, South Carolina, not Charlestown, Maryland. I might look into writing an article about the schism to have a place that both articles can link to. Ergo Sum 21:30, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
  • 2nd paragraph. "ecclesiastical superiors" -> "church leaders" in the interest of plain English. —"While in Rome, he also successfully argued before the Propaganda Fide for the full canonical restoration of the Jesuit order in England." -> "While in Rome, he skilfully pleaded for the full canonical restoration of the Jesuit order in England at the Propaganda Fide and appeared to have obtained it for a moment but new obstacles were later raised by the English Vicars Apostolic." (or something similar).
    • Rephrased. Ergo Sum 21:37, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

The section Confessor and provincial superior mentions a profusion of offices and responsibilities given to him. He probably quit some of them before taking up the next duty which sometimes seems not to have been mentioned. The timeline is sometimes difficult to follow. Perhaps not all these offices were essential. Perhaps some were honorific only?

Yes, the timeline is a bit tricky. The sources are not great about supplying dates for the offices he held in Italy, and they rarely mention when he left an office. I've tried to organize them as clearly as I can, such as indicating when he left a certain city (and hence relinquishing an office he held there). None were honorific, as far as I can tell. Ergo Sum 21:39, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
  • 1st paragraph. The first sentence is long and difficult to understand and does not work well as an introduction to the subject of "Confessor and provincial superior" indicated by the heading. It might be better to split it. The 1st part might be: "Grassi became the procurator of the Jesuit province of Italy." However, it still would need to be explained what his responsibilities were. The link to the article for Procurator does not seem to be very helpful in the given context. The second sentence might be "He also was appointed 'socius' (assistant) to the Provincial Superior of Italy." —"who Grassi had assisted" -> "whom Grassi had assisted", besides, what does this mean? What influence had Grassi on the succession to the throne? Seems to need some explanation.
    • I've added an explanation of what a procurator is and rephrase the sentence so that the punctuation breaks it up a bit. Ergo Sum 03:00, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
  • 2nd paragraph. The first sentence is overloaded and should be split. Clarify that the "College of the Holy Martyrs" was a school. He seems to have been transferred from being rector of the "College of Nobles" (mentioned in the section's 1st paragraph) to being rector of the "College of the Holy Martyrs".
    • It only expresses two ideas, so I've reworded slightly and added some punctuation. Ergo Sum 04:20, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
  • 3rd paragraph. "Recalled Grassi to Italy in 1835". He had not crossed any frontier by going from Turin to Chambéry. At the time Chambéry was part of the Kingdom of Sardinia just like Turin. Sardinia would cede its parts west of the Alps to France in 1858. —Again, full name of Propaganda Fide: not a good place for it. Keep with the short one. —Filiberto Avogadro di Collobiano, explain: "an Italian politician". —Pignatelli, the reader might have forgotten; remind the reader briefly: "his teacher at Colorno".
    • Good catch. I've left it simply as " recalled Grassi." This is the first mention of the Propaganda Fide College (not to be confused with the congregation) in the body, so it only makes sense to use the full name. Added those brief explanatory details. Ergo Sum 04:24, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Johannes Schade (talk) 20:24, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Apologies for the delay. I am on vacation and will get to this as soon as possible. Ergo Sum 01:32, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
Thank you, Johannes Schade, for your very thorough comments. I've tried to address them all. There are a few instances in which I haven't adopted your suggestions and have provided some explanation. Ergo Sum 04:26, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
Dear Ergo sum. Thanks for pinging me. Not being a subject-matter expert, I had indeed confused the College (school, Pontificio Collegio Urbano de Propaganda Fide) with the Congregation (organization, Sacra Congregatio de Propaganda Fide,Congregatio pro Gentium Evangelizatione). Thanks for taking my criticisms so graciously, for sifting the wheat from the chaff among them, and for sometimes going even beyond my suggestions in adding needed detail. I have reread the article and will soon start another traverse of comments below. Best regards Johannes Schade (talk) 08:02, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Second traversal of the lead.

  • 2nd Paragraph. —1st Sentence; proposed "appointed the rector" -> "appointed rector"; "Polotsk, located in the Russian" -> "Polotsk in the Russian". —2nd Sentence. I propose to reformulate entirely: "In 1805 he was selected to go to China as a missionary, but spent five years travelling through Europe without being able to secure a passage to the far-away country." (or similar). —3rd Sentence. The problem here is that he only studied at Coimbra, but studied and taught at Stonyhurst.
    • Rephrased. Ergo Sum 01:55, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
  • 3rd Paragraph. Last sentence; add "(a school for missionaries)" after the "Fide", so that readers can avoid the mistake I made.

Second traversal of the the section Early life and education

  • 1st Paragraph. —1st sentence. I would add "near Bergamo" after "Lombardy". I would also add "then" before "in the Republic of Venice". —2nd Sentence "going to" -> "entering". —Last sentence: add "near Parma" after Colorno. To Europeans Bergamo and Parma are known places but Schilpario and Colorno are not.
    • I generally try to keep like articles alike; in this case, the like articles would be the other Georgetown presidents articles. I think most towns most people have never heard of. If a reader is interested in its location, they can always follow the link. Ergo Sum 02:46, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
  • 2nd Paragraph. —Penultimate sentence: "there" -> "in Polotsk", needed as the last place named was Colorno, but you mean Polotsk.
    • Clarified. Ergo Sum 02:48, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Second traversal of the the section European voyage

  • 2nd Paragraph. —2nd Sentence "ultimately arrive in London" -> "go to London". —Last sentence "China, who failed" -> "China, failed" —Penultimate sentence: "ships that would take them to Peking" -> "ships that would take them to China" as Peking is not a port city.
  • Last Paragraph. —3rd Sentence: "causing the it" -> "causing it".

Second traversal of the the section American missionary

  • 1st paragraph. —Last sentence: "distrustful of the Jesuits" -> "wary of Jesuits".
  • 2nd Paragraph. The paragraph is too short to appropriately narrate his arrival at the college, introduce Francis Neale and describe the problems Grassi finds there. I think Francis Neale must be introduced here and not later. Something like "Arriving at the college he met its president Francis Neale and joined its staff as a teacher. He soon found that the school was struggling. Enrollment had dropped and the college was running at a deficit. etc." See the article about Francis Neale. At that stage Neale was approaching his seventies, was overloaded with other duties in addition to the presidency of the school, and was often in conflict with Carroll, the archbishop. It seems also that he was a heavy-handed disciplinarian and not liked by the pupils. —Last sentence (gradus). This sentence stays unclear despite the explanatory footnote. Perhaps omit it.
    • There's really no reason to bring up Neale here or go into detail about his presidency. I think that's suitably covered in the Neale and Carroll articles. Gradus is not terribly important today in the Jesuit order (as I understand it) but was important at this time, so I think it's worth mentioning. That's another example of one of those things I think an interested reader can research on their own since it is obscure enough to not be readily described here without going into too much detail. Ergo Sum 03:05, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Second traversal of the the section Presidency of Georgetown College

  • 1st Paragraph. —1st Sentence: "Grassi was appointed the president" -> "Grassi was appointed president" (without the article).

Second traversal of the the section Representative to the Propaganda Fide

  • 1st Paragraph. —1st Sentence. I would prefer to call him "Archbishop Neale" rather than "Leonard Neale".
    • That's fair. Rephrased. Ergo Sum 03:06, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Second traversal of the the section Provincial Superior and confessor

  • 1st Paragraph. —4th sentence: "appointed the confessor" -> "appointed confessor".
  • 2nd Paragraph. —1st Sentence: "which forced" -> "that had forced". —3rd Sentence: "the the" -> "the". —Last sentence. "eventually when" -> "eventually broken when".
    • Done. I don't see a repeat of "the" or use of "eventually." Ergo Sum 03:10, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
  • 3rd Paragraph. —1st sentence: clarify that the "College of the Holy Martyrs" was a school.
    • Is this not apparent from the name? My first thought when I hear "college" is school rather than collegial body like the College of Cardinals. Ergo Sum 03:10, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
  • 4th Paragraph. —1st Sentence: "Wanting him to choose a permanent residence, the Superior General recalled Grassi in 1835" is not clear did he call him back to Turin? The Italian does not seem clearer. Is there another source?
    • I presume that the author uses the term "recall" in relation to the borders of modern-day Italy. Ergo Sum 03:10, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

So far. Best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 20:08, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

@Johannes Schade: Thank you for the ongoing feedback. I hope there's not too much more or else I might start to doubt my writing abilities. Ergo Sum 03:12, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Z1720[edit]

  • "Born in the Republic of Venice, Grassi proved to be a promising student" -> "Born in the Republic of Venice, Grassi was a promising student" Sounds more encyclopedic to me.
  • "in which was ultimately unable to secure passage to the distant country." -> "in which he was unable to secure passage to the distant country."
  • "where he eventually became the superior of the Jesuits' Maryland Mission" Delete eventually
  • "For significantly improving its curriculum and public reputation and obtaining its congressional charter," Too many ands. Maybe, "For significantly improving its curriculum, public reputation, and obtaining its congressional charter"
  • "which had been officially suppressed by the pope since 1773." why is this important to Grassi's biography?
  • " only to pronounce their simple vows." What does pronouncing mean in this context? Is there a wiki article for this?
  • "Because Empress Catherine the Great had declined to suppress the Jesuits,[a] the order fled Western Europe and survived in the Russian Empire," I don't think it's best practice to start a sentence with "Because". Perhaps, "Empress Catherine the Great declined to suppress the Jesuits,[a] and the order fled Western Europe and survived in the Russian Empire"
  • "Therefore, Grassi went to the Jesuit College in Polotsk in 1801" Delete therefore.
  • " Grassi proved to be an excellent student " Again, "proved to be" might be an idiom. Why not, "Grassi was an excellent student"
  • "summoned to Saint Petersburg by, Gabriel Gruber," Delete the first comma
  • "Therefore, the trio departed by sled for Sweden," Delete therefore.
  • " Lord George Macartney, the former British ambassador to China, who failed to convince the directors" Delete who
  • "Therefore, the party set sail for Lisbon, Portugal, where they believed they could secure passage to Macau." Again, delete therefore.
  • "the Superior General finally decided that he would no longer permit their mission." Delete finally
  • "He set sail from Liverpool on 27 August," -> Grassi set sail from Liverpool
  • "Washington was an even greater contrast to the cities of Europe he was used to," Delete even
  • "He also established a museum, that housed these devices among items, which drew members of the public, including senators and congressmen." Awkward phrasing. Perhaps, "He also established a museum that housed these devices, among other items, which drew members of the public, senators, and congressmen." I'm not thrilled with the amount of commas but I think it's necessary.
  • "He maintained good relations with the Russian ambassador to the United States, Andrey Yakovlevich Dashkov, who frequently visited the college, as well as with the American political leaders." Did Grassi maintain relations with other American political leaders, or Dashkov? Please clarify in the article.
  • "His presidency came to an end on 28 June 1817" -> "His presidency ended on"
  • "Despite the calls of Peter Kenney, the visitor to the United States on behalf of the Superior General, to return Grassi to Georgetown, he would remain in Europe for the rest of his life." -> "Grassi would remain in Europe for the rest of his life despite calls from Peter Kenney, the visitor to the United States on behalf of the Superior General, to return Grassi to Georgetown."
  • "While in Rome, he also successfully pleaded before the Propaganda Fide for the full canonical restoration of the Jesuit order in England." Delete also as redundant
  • "this promise would later be broken when Charles Albert expelled the order from the Kingdom of Sardinia." Delete later as redundant.
  • ""for a total of 25 years," -> "for 25 years"
  • "even though it required that he reduce his duties as provincial." what does "reducing his duties as provincial" mean? Please clarify in the article.
  • Why are the sources in "Further reading" not included as references in the article?

That's it for my first readthrough! Z1720 (talk) 15:59, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Inuit clothing[edit]

Nominator(s): ♠PMC(talk) 22:30, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Inuit skin clothing is a tremendously interesting topic that I wrote a whole article about out of spite because we didn't have one and I wanted to merge an orphaned stub to it. The more I said about it, the more I learned there was to say about it, and my research resulted in not only the comprehensive primary article, but two child articles as well (history of Inuit clothing and research on Inuit clothing). It's a shame it took us until 2020 to have an article on the topic, but I'd be lying if I said I wasn't happy I got to be the one to do it.

Throughout their entire history, the Inuit have been master survivors, and their skin clothing system is a living testament to that: research has found that the traditional clothing of the Inuit is warmer and more comfortable than modern military and expedition gear. In addition to being effective, Inuit clothing is an expression of identity, artistic technique, spirituality, and style. While full outfits of traditional skin clothing are no longer worn all the time, it would be a mistake to pin Inuit clothing to the past – the Inuit continue to integrate the patterns and styles of their traditional clothing with their modern lives today. ♠PMC(talk) 22:30, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

As noted bolded phrase in the lead should match the article title per MOS:BOLD. Otherwise there shouldn't be a bolded phrase. (t · c) buidhe 23:52, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Image review
  • https://skinddragter.natmus.dk/ states that its photographs are "CC-BY-NC". That is NOT a compatible license, nor is it the same one you used when uploading these photographs to Commons. Unless the license was changed post-upload, all these photographs will have to be deleted from Commons. (t · c) buidhe 00:03, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
  • If you double check the samlinger.natmus.dk source links for all the photos, all are tagged as CC-BY-SA. I'm not sure why the front page of the Skin Clothing database would give contradictory information, but I believe it's not possible to un-license a photo once it's released under a more free license
  • However, some of the photographs on https://samlinger.natmus.dk/ such as https://samlinger.natmus.dk/es/object/34959 are individually stated to be CC-BY-SA 4.0 which is OK, but does not match the license used on Commons, "Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.0 Generic". These need to match. Please be careful when uploading photos to get the licensing right!! (t · c) buidhe 00:25, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
  • There is no need for exclamation marks. When those photos were uploaded, the license on the source pages explicitly stated CC-BY-SA 2.0. They may have updated their licensing since then. ♠PMC(talk) 01:08, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
  • I somewhat doubt this as 4.0 was being used before these uploads, according to Wayback Machine:[34][35][36][37] (t · c) buidhe 01:33, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Those archived links are from January this year. I started using the site in August last year (you can see this from my earliest skin clothing upload), at which time their licensing stated CC-BY-SA and linked to CC-BY-SA 2.0. Obviously they have updated their licensing since then. I had no reason to realize they had done so in the mean time - why would I, since the line describing the licensing still read CC-BY-SA as it always had? ♠PMC(talk) 16:07, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
However, there is no way to verify that the images were ever available under the other license. (t · c) buidhe 01:14, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
Irrelevant, as the Commons pages have been updated to CC by 4.0, which you would know if you had looked. ♠PMC(talk) 01:42, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
  • File:Inuit-Kleidung 1.jpg File:Throat singers 1999-04-07 (cut).jpg — why is the underlying clothing out of copyright?
  • I have never heard of clothing having to be out of copyright before it can be photographed. ♠PMC(talk) 01:15, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Commons seems to indicate that freedom of panorama would cover it, clothing being a 3D work. ♠PMC(talk) 01:30, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
  • The underlying clothing also has copyright. Unless the clothing designer has relinquished their rights to it or it expired. FoP only applies to permanently located works such as buildings or statues. (t · c) buidhe 01:33, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
  • The helpful people in the Commons Discord pointed me to Commons:Copyright rules by subject matter, which has a section on clothing. Per that section, "Images illustrating clothing styles or articles of clothing are normally acceptable." It goes on to state that copyright of fashion exists in some countries, such as France, but as far as I can tell, Canada does not have such a provision (See for example [38]). Since both photos were taken in Canada, they are fine. ♠PMC(talk) 16:07, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
  • File:Two smiling Kauwerak Eskimo girls wearing print cotton parkas, Nome, Alaska, between 1903 and 1910 (AL+CA 6372).jpg — when was this first published?
  • Before 1926, per the PD tag applied to it on the Commons page. ♠PMC(talk) 01:15, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
  • The source does not give a publication date, so you can't assume it was just because the tag has been applied to it. People often use Commons tags incorrectly. (t · c) buidhe 01:33, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Per [39], the photographer, Beverly Bennett Dobbs, stopped working in still photography and had sold his negatives to the Lomen Brothers by about 1911, including that photo in particular. The Lomen Bros. got out of photography entirely after a fire destroyed their building in 1934; they never reopened. If Dobbs published it himself first before 1911, or if Lomen published it before 1926, it's expired, both under {{PD-US-expired}}. If Lomen for some reason hung on to it for fifteen years and published it sometime between 1926 and the 1934 destruction of their studio, it's {{PD-US-no notice}}, because while the studio's name is on the photo, there is no explicit copyright notice on it. I find it exceedingly unlikely that they published it after they went out of business. ♠PMC(talk) 16:07, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
  • It could have been published by someone else at any point. The image is the negative, not a published form. (t · c) buidhe 01:14, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Respectfully, are you suggesting that it could have been first published after it was first published? It was clearly published in by Lomen Brothers, as you can see on the photograph in the bottom left corner. Therefore, the latest that this image could have been "first published" is 1934, when their studio burned to the ground and went out of business. If anyone else published it first, they did it earlier, which only strengthens the PD-expired argument. ♠PMC(talk) 01:42, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
  • File:Camp at Tikkoot, Hudson Strait (69047).jpg How do I verify that this is available under the stated license? (t · c) buidhe 00:25, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
  • It was uploaded by an employee the Canadian Museum of History working through GLAM; they're still an active uploader so if you have further questions I'm sure they could answer them. It was also created before 1949 so it hits {{PD-Canada}} even if it wasn't uploaded as CC. ♠PMC(talk) 01:15, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
  • The gallery. Sticking a bunch of images at the bottom of an article in a section titled "Gallery" is the worst way to do images in a Wikipedia article. If you MUST have galleries, they should be split up and placed in the article sections where they are relevant. For example, if you feel you absolutely must have three images to illustrate caribou clothing, put a gallery of three images in that specific section. Also, I did not check these images for copyright status.[40] (t · c) buidhe 01:06, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
  • You aren't obligated to like the gallery, but in my opinion it presents a selection of images that illustrate relevant and unique aspects of Inuit clothing that do not otherwise fit well in the text. WP:GALLERY does not forbid them in articles, nor does it state that they must be positioned in any specific place. The image of Niviatsinaq shows that beaded parkas have a long history, there is no other image of a Mother Hubbard parka where the subject isn't obscuring much of it, there are no photos of gloves in the text, the chewing to soften leather demonstrates the traditional clothing-making process, the Kalaaliit outfit illustrates the modern evolution of Greenlandic wear into the national costume (and the "skin embroidery" process mentioned in the article), and the image of kamiit with the tools demonstrate the specific process of boot-making. It's clear that the gallery serves the reader by providing a curated selection of images that are otherwise of interest to them. ♠PMC(talk) 01:23, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment from the peanut gallery: I think the gallery adds value to this article and should be kept. This is a topic wherein visuals really help and freely licensed photography exists, so use it (if anything, increase the default size of the pictures in the gallery), and the gallery allows lots of relevant images to be included without creating sandwiching or overwhelming the text. Also, just stylistically, it's cleaner to have a single gallery at the end rather than multiple galleries, barring a truly gigantic amount of images in the gallery; not saying that the multiple gallery approach can't work, but it's a style preference at most. SnowFire (talk) 04:24, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Not my opinion: MOS says that images should be placed in the section where they are relevant. If there isn't a relevant section with text closely related to the image, then it shouldn't be there at all. (t · c) buidhe 04:31, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
  • You are extrapolating MOS:IMAGELOCATION, which describes the most sensible place to put individual images, to apply to galleries. In fact, that section goes on to state that if that's not possible, only to avoid placing images too early in the text. It gives no direction about galleries. Neither WP:GALLERY nor Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout specify where galleries should be located, but most general galleries are placed at the bottom of articles by custom, such as at dress, wedding dress, Lolita fashion, or oil painting. I see no reason that this gallery should be any different - as SnowFire says, it's cleaner to have one gallery than a bunch of tiny ones cluttering up the main text. ♠PMC(talk) 16:07, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Yes, they are, and just making "policy" up, and not for the first time. Perhaps unfortunately, WP:GALLERY doesn't reflect the existence of "mini-galleries" at all, mainly because they had not been "invented" when it was written - everybody using galleries did what you have done and put a single gallery at the end of the article. Just ignore. The pictures are of course absolutely vital for this, like any costume article, and very good. I'd only say the gallery size could be upped a bit. Johnbod (talk) 21:58, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Hi Johnbod, I appreciate your input. I've never actually used the image size parameters for galleries before - should I use both the height and width parameters, or only one? And how big do you recommend? ♠PMC(talk) 22:46, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
  • I mostly use something like <gallery widths="180px" heights="200px"> , then maybe fiddle with the settings as appropriate. You have a mix of "portrait" and "landscape" images; you could split them into 2 consecutive galleries, or use the landscape ones in the text somewhere. Johnbod (talk) 02:43, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose 1f and 3. I'm concerned that the image licensing is not compliant with Wikipedia copyright policy in all cases and that images are being used without demonstrated encyclopedic relevance and connection to the article text. As stated in WP:IMGCONTENT, "The relevant aspect of the image should be clear and central." With each image I should be able to connect it to some aspect discussed in the article. A curated image gallery that's not directly connected to the text can be moved to Commons and linked as an external link. I don't appreciate being accused of "making policy up" when WP:image use policy actually says, "A gallery is not a tool to shoehorn images into an article, and a gallery consisting of an indiscriminate collection of images of the article subject should generally either be improved in accordance with the below paragraphs or moved to Wikimedia Commons." (t · c) buidhe 22:19, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Buidhe, can you clarify as to which images you feel are out of compliance with copyright policy? I replied with clear explanations to all of your objections above over a week ago. Unfortunately, I have received no replies from you since then, so if you had any further concerns, it has been impossible for me to know what they are as you have not articulated them. It also feels distinctly unfair to have an opposition based on wording in a comment that someone else made - I did not ever say you were making anything up. ♠PMC(talk) 00:23, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Yes, I'm sorry if my remarks (not solely based on this nom) caused this, and I don't want to make things worse, but Buidhe, perhaps you could give the policy support for your statements above:
  1. "Sticking a bunch of images at the bottom of an article in a section titled "Gallery" is the worst way to do images in a Wikipedia article. If you MUST have galleries, they should be split up and placed in the article sections where they are relevant."
  2. "If there isn't a relevant section with text closely related to the image, then it shouldn't be there at all."
  3. You might also comment on how "An image should generally be placed in the most relevant article section; if this is not possible, try not to place an image "too early" i.e. far ahead of the text discussing what the image illustrates, if this could puzzle the reader" (from MOS:IMAGELOCATION) ends up as "MOS says that images should be placed in the section where they are relevant. If there isn't a relevant section with text closely related to the image, then it shouldn't be there at all".

Johnbod (talk) 01:49, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

It’s a really strange oppose. If Buidhe can't reply to PMC's in-line responses, it doesn't seem actionable to me. — ImaginesTigers (talkcontribs) 23:14, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Just to clarify, a full image review has not been done. I have not checked the copyright status of the image of the gallery, because the gallery itself violates WP:image use policy. Furthermore, the copyright issues from other images have NOT been resolved. so the oppose still stands. (t · c) buidhe 01:14, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Any "outstanding issues" exist because you failed or refused to reply to me, and then showed up ten days later to dump an oppose based on so-called unresolved copyright concerns - and still without responding to me at that time. Now you show up another ten days after that to respond to exactly two of them, then reaffirm your oppose without waiting for any reply to that! I hope the coordinators will treat this oppose with some scrutiny, because I feel that it goes completely against the collaborative spirit of FAC at which discussion and responsiveness from all parties is expected. ♠PMC(talk) 01:42, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Accessibility review[edit]

  • I would suggest adding alt text to at least the map image, as the caption doesn't make it clear how the distribution of groups is being presented (e.g., a map, graph, chart, etc.)
  • I went with "Map of the North American Arctic with colored zones to indicate the primary Inuit language or dialect spoken within the area" - does that suit? And are there any other images you would recommend an alt for? ♠PMC(talk) 16:44, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
  • According to WebAIM, "Every image must have an alt attribute". (This is because every image in a Wikipedia article links to another URL. According to WebAIM, "An image that is the only thing inside a link must never have a missing or empty alt attribute"). This is why if the alt text would mostly repeat a caption, I would recommend just doing alt=refer to caption. Heartfox (talk) 17:13, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Add row scopes, column scopes, and row headers to the "Main components of traditional outfit" table per MOS:DTAB. Heartfox (talk) 20:56, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
  • How's that? ♠PMC(talk) 16:28, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Source thoughts

  • Why is Bird 2002 a reliable source? It appears to be a self-published report that was submitted to the UN
  • I'm not sure self-published is the right descriptor. It was prepared by Bird for Pauktuutit, a national-level Inuit women's organization, as a report on a major research project they undertook regarding rights to the amauti (as well as the relevant background leading up to Project Amauti), and submitted at a UN summit. I'm fairly sure you have to be invited to speak at those, although admittedly the UN website isn't very clear on that. Also, I realize the organization was unlinked in the reference so I've linked it now.
    • I think of it like written testimony before a parliamentary committee. We wouldn't use the testimony itself as a source. --In actu (Guerillero) Parlez Moi 01:18, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
      • Sorry to be argumentative, but this is a source I'm willing to quibble over (not least because it's used in History of Inuit clothing more substantially, and I plan to take that to FA eventually as well). I believe the report meets our "acceptable use of self-published works" criteria. Pauktuutit as an organization is a subject-matter expert on the question of Inuit women's issues, having studied and published on the topic since the 1980s. Their work in the area of Inuit clothing/IP protection and the report itself specifically have been cited in other reliable works, ([41], [42], [43] for a couple of examples) and the report was cited as a document for discussion at a World Intellectual Property Office invitational workshop in 2019 ([44]); all of which indicates to me that it is considered a reliable source by experts, and so should be by us as well.
  • It is, see the source that starts with "Kobayashi Issenman, Betty; Rankin, Catherine (1988b)."
  • Why is Pauktuutit: Inuit Women of Canada a reliable publisher?
  • See note under Bird - national-level Inuit women's organization that works in various fields including education. Since it's the only use of the source and the content is supported by the Truth & Reconciliation report, I'm willing to drop this one if you object to it strongly.
  • Why is Inuktut Tusaalanga a reliable publisher?
  • Published by Pirurvik, an Inuit educational centre that publishes Inuktut-language educational material. The Inuktut Tusaalanga site in particular has been given an award by the Canadian government ([45]) and is supported by the government of Nunavut (the polar bear "Nunavut" logo at the bottom of the page is a government icon - see here for confirmation).
  • Why is UpHere a reliable source?
  • Up Here is an established magazine with a reputation for quality, having won several journalistic awards over its 35+ year history. They accept outside pitches but not user-generated content, all stories are bylined, and the contact info for their editorial department is transparent and available. They include corrections when they make errors. The author of that particular article, Kassina Ryder, is as far as I can tell an experienced journalist in covering northern culture.
  • The way chapters from books is organized is strange, but I like it
  • I figured better to go alphabetical on the chapters since the names are the primary means of identification in the citations. Glad you like it :)

No spotchecks were done --In actu (Guerillero) Parlez Moi 03:00, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments! Hopefully that's sufficient to address any concerns. ♠PMC(talk) 03:59, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Likely to Support Excellent article, in an area (clothing) where we have few very really strong articles. I will do some points soon, but nothing is likely to be major. Johnbod (talk) 03:51, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Source review and spot-checks

Sources don't need any interrogation. Everything is from reliable sources (anthropological or Inuit-focused journals). None of the citations are malformed or missing necessary parameters.

There are a lot of citations on this article. For that reason, I'm going to start with an unusually low 5% (which is still 15 citations). If there are more than 2 errors in that sample, I'll do another 15. If I need to do another 15, it'll be tomorrow or the day after. Given that the nominator has previously gone through FAC with a stellar sourcing record, I'm not concerned. Nominator has helpfully provided a list of her source access. Of the ones she does not have access to, I've been able to track down most online, so I don't think we'll struggle to get a representative survey.

  • Fns 1 and 2 – Pass
  • Fn 29 (end of Upper body garments subheading) - I had a brain fart and couldn't find where it said it, but it’s right at the beginning of p.42 – pass
  • Fn 35 (trousers and leggings) - this website is hideous, but it’s an established museum and does indeed support the statement – pass
  • Fn 20 (accessory garments) - google books preview was enough - pass
  • Fn 61 (accessory garments) - pass
  • Fn 7 (very end children's clothing) - this author has two articles with a very similar name, weirdly - also, pass
  • Fn 65 (end of accessory garments) - this one caught my eye because it’s fascinating - pass
  • Fn 68 (children's clothing) - this is pretty hardcore - also pass
  • Fn 105 (bird skins) - makes sense - pass (available online)
  • Fn 97 (other natural mammals) - this is the only fact in the article so far that I actually knew - pass
  • Fn 10 (construction and maintenance) - side note: construction feels like a weird word for this heading - pass, though MUSE did not work for me
  • Fn 145 (hide processing) - straightforward pass, paraphrasing across the board is really good (paraphrased but not so much that it’s impossible to find)
  • Fn 12 (major principles) - a brilliantly written section, clearly grounded in judicious research - pass
  • Fn 184 (decorative techniques) - pass (found online)
  • Fn 223 (decorative techniques) - PDF copy provided by nominator I'm not paying £7 for it. quote from paper: "Traditionally, kamiks had geometric patterns which ran vertically down the front on men's and horizontally around the top on women's". pass, but would probably be worth including that extra information about where the patterns go. also, standardise the tense (the nominated article has "are" for men and "were" for women, as if things have changed; Oakes' article says "were")

And just like that, we have 15. This one was really straightforward. I have literally no reservations in supporting the article on the quality and judiciousness of its sources. This has very clearly been a labour of love for the nominator, and I want to extend my sincere appreciation to her for making such an incredible, centralised resource. I love seeing this sort of stuff at FAC. — ImaginesTigers (talkcontribs) 23:11, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Martin Rundkvist[edit]

Nominator(s): Usernameunique (talk) 20:16, 19 May 2021 (UTC); Chiswick Chap (talk)

Martin Rundkvist has excavated a Viking boat grave, a sixteenth-century sword, and, last summer, a mead hall from the time of Beowulf, where he discovered nearly two dozen gold figures. And then there were the times he won six games on Jeopardy!, and spent a week at the helm of Sweden's official Twitter account, @sweden. Cool stuff.

This article, too, has an interesting history. It lasted for less than a month when it was created in 2008; within days of its recreation in 2020 it was brought back to the gents at AfD, where it again failed their discerning gaze. This year, Chiswick Chap and I thoroughly reworked the article, incorporating dozens of new sources and soliciting the input of half a dozen users with experience in this space, including Midnightblueowl, Johnbod, KJP1, The Rambling Man, and Amitchell125, even before MeegsC gave it a thorough good-article review. The benefit of this process is that the article is in pretty much the best shape it could possibly be in; it is therefore featured-article material. --Usernameunique (talk) 20:16, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Support from Hurricane Noah[edit]

  • Scandinavian élite I don't believe an accent is needed here. NoahTalk 21:54, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
  • It's not a big deal, but I'm inclined to keep this one. The relevant guideline, for its part, says that "The use of diacritics (such as accent marks) for foreign words is neither encouraged nor discouraged". And the OED lists both forms.
  • Link the first mention of Stockholm in the prose.
  • Done.
  • Link to amber since not everyone may know it is fossilized tree resin. NoahTalk 21:54, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Done.
  • Link brooch. NoahTalk 21:54, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Done.
  • four of its 25 castles Numbers shouldn't variate between numerical and word form in the same sentence. NoahTalk 21:54, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Well done. I only found some minor issues with the article. I have a nomination up currently and would appreciate it if you were able to review it. NoahTalk 21:54, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, Hurricane Noah, I appreciate the review. --Usernameunique (talk) 04:54, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
I support this nomination now. NoahTalk 23:37, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
Comments from Spicy

(Not an image review). I have concerns over the licensing of the lead image. This was uploaded to Commons with the source listed as 'Directly from photographer' and the author listed as 'Kristina Ekero Eriksson'. The uploader doesn't seem to be the same person as Erikson, so this would require an OTRS release from the copyright holder. Spicy (talk) 22:07, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Resolved, permission has been received. Spicy (talk) 18:28, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Comments Support from Aza24[edit]

How fascinating! Looking through now. Aza24 (talk) 05:50, 2 June 2021 (UTC) Lead

  • Hmm, may be picky (and perhaps incorrect) of me, but "He is particularly known for research into the Bronze, Iron, and Middle Ages of Scandinavia, and for significant excavations in the province of Östergötland" doesn't sound right. These are obviously huge spans of time and seem like a fairly large topic to be "particularly known for". My initial reaction is that people are particularly known for more specific things, such as "He specializes in medieval music and is particularly known for his work on Guillaume de Machaut—am I making any sense here? Maybe rephrase to "his research focuses on/lies in", "he studies" or something...
  • "research into" seems a bit vague, is there a qualifier for what kind of research we're talking about here? Archaeology seems like a broad subject for such a statement
  • Is there a name for this group of people Rundkvist is discovering all these things on?—or are they merely the inhabitants of said areas?
  • The inhabitants; groups were often small in those times, and there were many different ones over the centuries of the Bronze, Iron, and Middle Ages. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:26, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
  • It feels a little odd to exclude almost all the universities he has been associated with in the lead
  • Added a new sentence to the third paragraph of the lead. --Usernameunique (talk) 07:17, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Early life and education

  • I presume nothing is recorded on his parents or secondary schooling?
  • Not that I recall seeing, and certainly, not in a secondary source. --Usernameunique (talk) 06:36, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Update: Found the names of his parents in the acknowledgements section of his dissertation, and added to the article. --Usernameunique (talk) 05:55, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
  • "has lived entirely in Stockholm", just to check, though a researcher at Exeter and Chester for ~10 years, he still lived in Stockholm?

Career

  • "In January 2020"—would be nice to avoid the two sentences in a row that begin with "In"
  • The Bronze buckle is a nice picture, but confusing and out of place as there's no explanation for why it's there, what it is, or indeed anything about Barshalder until a later section. You may want to add to the caption, text or perhaps move it downwards
  • Good point. Mentioned that it was one of Rundkvist's excavations in the caption. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:28, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Any date for the pic of Rundkvist?
  • Planning to look at Research and the rest of the article tomorrow. Aza24 (talk) 06:21, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Research

  • Completely up to you, but it's been a while since Williams was mentioned, so I almost wonder if his full name should be used here again for his first mention (though me forgetting who he was could have easily been the result of returning to this article they next day). By no means necessary though
  • I think using just the last name suggests that he was mentioned previously—and that someone trying to figure out who he is should look above—whereas a full name might suggest that he was not mentioned. So if anything, a second link is probably the way to go rather than a full name. I'm happy either way. --Usernameunique (talk) 22:07, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Fair point, should be fine how it is then
  • "Reported as far away as India" seems a bit odd, I mean, India has a huge media system and probably reports on a ton of archeological subjects. And either way, it might be more meaningful to say something like "widely reported in the media"
  • Maybe a wikitionary link for oblong? I had to look it up and I suspect others would have to as well
  • Linked to rectangle, which discusses "oblong" (with a link to wiktionary) in the first paragraph. --Usernameunique (talk) 22:00, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Would a link to "Late antiquity" for the Late Roman Period make sense? Might be a stretch but am not sure
  • It's marginal; either of those two would do at a stretch. Chiswick Chap (talk) 05:43, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Aska mead hall

  • I feel a bit awkward to say I didn't know what "pendant" meant—so it could warrant linking—but this may just be me. As an aside, this seems like a broad category—is there a more specific characterization that could be used?
  • Linked. I took a look, but couldn't find a more specific article. --Usernameunique (talk) 22:07, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure what the "stamped" either in this context. Does it literally have a stamp of somekind?

Other

  • Well the "Royal Swedish Academy of Letters, History and Antiquities" is dup linked, but the distance between is far enough that it could be warranted
  • I don't think the duplicate linking was intentional, although I'm slightly inclined to keep the second, since arguably the link is more important there. But I could also be convinced to take it out. --Usernameunique (talk) 22:00, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Seems to be retrieval dates missing from ref 6 and 7 of the Primary section
  • These are archived URLs where the originals are dead. The "archived on" dates are thus the relevant ones: whatever day the archived URLs are accessed, they will still appear as the sources appeared on 11 February 2015 and 3 September 2014, respectively. --Usernameunique (talk) 22:12, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Indeed. My rationale was merely that other archived refs have retrieval dates, so I assumed this was an oversight
  • Most of the URL-sourced references have archived URLs as backups; only primary refs 6 & 7, and secondary refs 5 & 10, have dead URLs, and rely on the archived URLs in the first instance. Those four are the ones that don't have retrieval dates. --Usernameunique (talk) 05:03, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
  • That seems to be it. First class work; looking forward to supporting. Aza24 (talk) 21:08, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Thanks very much for the review, Aza24. I think we've responded to everything above. --Usernameunique (talk) 22:17, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
  • I left one response about retrieval dates, but I'm fine with it either way. Happy to support. Aza24 (talk) 02:41, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Responded above. Thanks for the support, Aza24.

Placeholder Support from KJP1[edit]

Apologies, life is intruding, but shall certainly be back with comments, although probably not before the weekend. KJP1 (talk) 17:14, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

I made some minor suggestions on this at the informal PR. It was a very good article then, and has been improved since. It is well-written, exhaustively researched and impeccably cited, nicely illustrated, and guides the lay reader through some, quite technical, concepts. I’ve re-read it for FAC, think it fully meets the criteria, and am pleased to Support it. KJP1 (talk) 11:03, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
Thank you very much. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:06, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, KJP1! Appreciate it. --Usernameunique (talk) 16:50, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Zombie Nightmare[edit]

Nominator(s): GamerPro64 03:29, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

This article is about a voodoo priestess resurrecting a baseball player to get revenge on the people who ran him over. Set in Canada. Starring Adam West.

This Canadian jaunt is yet another article about a film that ended up on Mystery Science Theater 3000 and personally surprised me with how much information I was able to find about this. But I am prepared for the criticism this nomination might bring. But I do think this has what it takes to become a Featured Article. GamerPro64 03:29, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Image review[edit]

Comments from JM[edit]

This looks fun!

  • "and was originally intended to be a black-centric film before changing the characters to have whiter names to appease investors" How about "The film was originally written to start mostly black actors [if that's what is being claimed] but, at the request of investors, the characters' names were changed to more typically white names, and white actors were hired." Or something. I find the current wording a bit off.
    • Fair assessment. I'll use that instead. GamerPro64 01:58, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
  • "mother Louise mourns for him" Do you mourn for someone, or just mourn them?
    • I changed it to "mourns over him". GamerPro64 01:58, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Is Blood Sisters worth a link? Don't be scared of redlinks! (Ditto the bands mentioned in the soundtrack section.)
    • Not really on the movie. But the bands I can wiki-link.
  • "for eating all the craft services" What does this mean?
    • It means he ate all the food meant for the cast and crew. GamerPro64 01:58, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
  • I'm getting a few hits on Google Books/Google Scholar, but nothing (I don't think) that absolutely has to go in. And nothing of any interest showing up on Netflix. Maybe there'd be more sources buried deep in forgotten magazines, but I don't know how much there is written about this one!

Hope that's helpful. Josh Milburn (talk) 11:17, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Andrzejbanas[edit]

  • "Zombie Nightmare was a commercial success despite negative reviews". Probably shouldn't say "despite" here, as that implies that the financial success of the film defies any negative critical reaction. I may note too that despite comparisons between budget and gross, we don't have any statment that says it was a financial success as budget may be the cost of the film, it does not take into consideration how much other factors of it may have caused. So you might just want to state something a bit more specific and less interpretive like "The film grossed a total of ____ againa a ____ budget" and let users piece what that means themselves.
    • Changed.
  • Similar to the above, where its stated "Wrestler Superstar Billy Graham was originally cast to play Tony's father. However, on the day he arrived in Montreal, no one came to pick him up at the airport and Graham left after waiting ten hours. Fasano took up the role." You can probably drop the "However" as its a bit jarring to read a statement, assume its true then read a "however" which sort of puts into the readers mind what's happening was not true at all.
    • Removed the "However". GamerPro64 01:58, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
  • The music section in the article is so small that I would not give it its own headline.
    • Ok removed section. GamerPro64 01:58, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
  • The Deep Red Magazine link goes to FantaCo Enterprises, but there is no information on the magazine here, so i would remove the link.
  • I'd try to split the contemporary reviews between the retrospective ones (i.e: the initial release give or take a year over the retrospective ones). Otherwise its not clear how the film was received on its release compared to later reception.
    • Moved things around. GamerPro64 01:58, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
  • The Kerrang" article doesn't state "Best" it just says "13 Kickass Horror Soundtracks To Amplify Your Halloween". Kerrang! is an ok source for things but this is a cheap listicle that doesn't really provide much critical commentary and just sort of arbitrarily lists halloween playlists for people. It might be better to get the more critical meat of the article like how it says the soundtrack is better than the film itself.
  • The DVDTalk article does not state that the DVD was released in 2010, that's just when the review is posted.
    • Added source from AllMovie. GamerPro64 01:58, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
  • A brief description of what the Turkey Day marathon would be helpful otherwise i don't know what the film screening on that session has in any context.
    • Just mentioned that its an MST3K marathon. GamerPro64 01:58, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
  • The Bloody Digusting film should specify the genre your mentioning (i.e: it's talking about rock-music themed horror films, not just zombie films as the identified genre in the lead.

That's all for now! Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:39, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Hey hey, sorry for the slow response.
  • The lead should cover some information about the production. I know there isn't much, but even the basics on how it was filmed in Canada, some casting, etc. Whatever you feel is important as the lead should cover the major parts of the article, and one of the major parts is the production.
    • Added some more information in lead. GamerPro64 17:06, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
  • You can remove the red links to bands that probably will not be getting any wiki articles any time soon.
    • Kind of goes opposite of what J Milburn said. GamerPro64 17:06, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
  • This will probably sound picky, but my own pet peeve is assuming an all encompassing reception to a film from the few we've gathered. There is no ratio that collects whether it was recieved poorly or not (i.e: no metacritic / rotten tomatoes or historian covering these bits and pieces). So I don't really like say things like "The film received negative reviews from contemporary and retrospective yadda yadda yadda". I'd remove it unless you have a source with suggests the general reception. (For the record, I don't doubt it recieved bad reviews, but we should have something that backs up that statement other than our own original research).
    • Removed the sentence. GamerPro64 16:33, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
  • The part of the Voodoo in Film book probably should focus on the criticism of the film rather than how it uses voodoo in context as that seems to be a pretty minor element that's not really expanded on here.
Other than that, I don't have much more to add. once these things are addressed i can look it over one more time. Otherwise, i'd say it's good. Andrzejbanas (talk) 01:43, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Parsecboy[edit]

  • What variant of English is being used? I'd assume Canadian, but I see a "centers" - I'm not an expert on Canadian English, but I think they use the same "-re" spelling as British English
  • "the production crew, believing him" - the gerund doesn't sound quite right to me; "the production crew, who believed him" matches the tense of the rest of the sentence
  • "that set an up old, tired plot" - the "up" is out of order
    • Changed the right order. GamerPro64 17:06, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
  • I'm not an expert on film articles by any stretch of the imagination, but do we not need citations for members of the cast not mentioned elsewhere in the article?
    • I think it varies. GamerPro64 17:06, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
  • The film grossed C$1.5M by 1990 - any idea on sales of the DVD? I'm guessing not, but figured I'd ask.
    • I did not find any results on sales on DVDs. GamerPro64 17:06, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

If you have a moment to spare, I also have a FAC that could use a review from someone less familiar with the topic. Thanks. Parsecboy (talk) 22:54, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47[edit]

I have actually not seen this film or the MST3K episode about it so hopefully, I will be able to offer a different perspective. My comments are below:

  • I do not think "Canadian" needs to be linked in the lead. I see where you were going with the Cinema of Canada link, but I think it is unnecessary as I do not believe any other film FA links nationality in this way.
  • In the lead, I would link "Haitian voodoo" to the Haitian Vodou article. I would also link "priestess" to be consistent with the link in the plot summary.
  • I have two comments for this part, The film was shot in the suburbs of Montreal, Canada, the film was originally written to start mostly black actors but. I believe the comma after Canada is supposed to be a period as these seem like two separate sentences. I would also avoid having two separate sentences begin with "The film".
  • For this part in the plot summary, Now a voodoo priestess, I would clarify that it is Haitian Voodoo as without that, it looks like it could be referring to other voodoo topics.
  • I would be consistent with using either a character's first or last name in the plot summary after their first mention. For instance, you use Tony and Churchman. Since a good portion of these characters do not have last names, I would go by first names.
  • In the "Cast" list, is there a reason Captain is not fully spelled out? Was it done that way in the film credits?
  • For the Adam West image, I would revise the caption to include the year that it was taken.
  • For this part, Wanting to direct a horror film, Jack Bravman, I think it may be worthwhile to add a link for horror film.
  • For the first sentence of the "Production" section, I would avoid repeating "horror film" twice.
  • Do we know what budget the original script received from investors (or did they just flat-out refuse to do the film with black characters and actors)?
  • I have a question about this part, Adam West, who portrayed Batman in the 1960s television series. How is West's work as Batman relevant to this article or to the film? I understand that West is best known for his performance as Batman, but it seems rather tangential to me.
  • The "Critical reception" sub-section seems rather short, but I am assuming this means that this film just did not receive a lot of reviews. That would not be surprisingly given the low budget, its direct-to-video status, and its general obscurity, but I just wanted to confirm this with you.
  • Were there any reviews of the MST3K episode about this film?
  • Have you checked out the following source, Historicising Racialised Objects of Horror: From the Black Renaissance Villain to the Voodoo Doer? It is behind a paywall so I cannot say for sure if it has anything, but it may be useful.
  • This is another potential useful source, The Migrant Monsters of Multiculturalism in Andrew Currie’s Fido. It is behind a paywall, but it has more information about the original script. It talks about how the film was originally "a retribution narrative in which a black teenager returns from the dead to exact revenge on the privileged white hoodlums responsible for his death". It uses the 2004 Vatnsdal citation that is already used in the article so maybe that information is also in there? I think this information is relevant as it adds more background on the original intention for the film.
  • I would encourage you to archive your web citations (like citation 17) to avoid any future issues.
  • I would clarify in the ProQuest citations that a subscription is needed to access the information.
  • Citation 17 has Allmovie when it should be AllMovie.
  • Citation 28 has Popmatters when it should be PopMatters.
  • Citation 4 has Newspapes.com when it should be Newspapers.com.
  • Why is Den of Geek not linked in Citation 26? I have the same question for Montreal Gazette in Citation 16 and Newspapers.com in Citations 5 and 24.
  • Why do you not include a link for the Newspapers.com citations? I would think it would benefit the reader more to include a link (or ideally a clipping) so they can verify the information for themselves or read the original source.

Once everything is addressed, I will read through the article again just to make sure I can do a thorough review. I hope you have a wonderful start to your week. Aoba47 (talk) 01:56, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Jamiroquai[edit]

Nominator(s): 웃OO 11:15, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

This article is about the English funk and acid jazz band Jamiroquai. They are well known for their music video of "Virtual Insanity" and the song "Canned Heat", the latter which appeared in Napoleon Dynamite. My previous attempts to nominate the article in 2019 failed and understandably so, as it had cluttered writing and excessive detail, but has now improved in comparison. I've worked on this since 2018, which has been challenging but rewarding, as I've learned alot from it. This article is in hopes that it will represent the band's artistry and success above all the tabloids and sensationalism that overshadowed them. Thank you and I hope this passes. Submitting again due to lack of feedback. 웃OO 11:15, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

  • I would use an image in "Stage and visuals" section. (t · c) buidhe 12:40, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, though I'd rather this [46] be the infobox pic and this [47] as the stage and visuals pic to vary the timelines and his headgear. 웃OO 13:01, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
Any shot that emphasizes the headgear may no longer be de minimis (see here) and you have to worry about copyright issues. (t · c) buidhe 13:06, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
Well, the headgear doesn't have to be necessary, I still would like for the infobox to give a clear shot of the frontman at least. 웃OO 13:51, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
Maybe File:Jamiroquai - The O2 - Sunday 3rd December 2017 JamiroquaiO2031217-15 (27352016619).jpg or File:Jamiroquai - The O2 - Sunday 3rd December 2017 JamiroquaiO2031217-21 (25262574408).jpg as the infobox image? (t · c) buidhe 13:55, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
Buidhe, I actually decided to change your first choice to this 2018 photo [48], which served as the infobox pic before. You can revert if you're not satisfied. 웃OO 00:08, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Support from Hurricane Noah[edit]

Resolved comments from Hurricane Noah

Hello, I have a few comments for you below to improve your article. I am not an expert on music articles, but I will give it a whirl. I have a nomination up currently and would appreciate it if you were able to review it. NoahTalk 19:04, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

  • funk/jazz movement Could you replace the slash with a word per MOS:SLASH? NoahTalk 19:04, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
  • The band has sold more than 26 million albums worldwide as of 2017 Anything more up-to-date? NoahTalk 19:04, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
  • The music video for its lead single, "Virtual Insanity", also contributed to the band's success, and was named Video of the Year at the 1997 MTV Video Music Awards, and the song earned the band a Grammy Award in 1998. Run-on sentence. I suggest changing to: "The music video for its lead single, "Virtual Insanity", also contributed to the band's success. The song was named Video of the Year at the 1997 MTV Video Music Awards and earned the band a Grammy Award in 1998." NoahTalk 19:04, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
  • As a prominent component within the London-based funk/acid-jazz Same thing here on the legacy section with the slash. NoahTalk 19:04, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
  • They sold 4.4 million albums in the UK and had US sales of 2.5 million copies sold as of 2010 This seems really out of date since it was 11 years ago. NoahTalk 19:04, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
  • FN66: Just judging from the title, it appears to be in German, but the ref doesn't state this. NoahTalk 19:04, 21 May 2021 (UTC)'
Copyedited the article per these requests. There aren't any updates regarding the sales in 2017 nor the individual sales in 2010. 웃OO 23:53, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
I support this nomination. NoahTalk 00:03, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Support Comments from K. Peake[edit]

Resolved comments from K.Peake

Sorry about taking so long to comment, I kept on forgetting and was busy quite a bit with my job at Maccy's. For publications like CNN and MTV that are not italicised, you should cite them using the publisher parameter instead. Consequence of Sound has now changed its title to Consequence so update accordingly, plus cite Paper magazine as Paper and pipe to Paper (magazine). You have written New Musical Express instead of NME at one point in the references; only use the latter for consistency. AllMusic should also be stylised in the correct format throughout, while every The Telegraph reference needs url-access=subscription due to the website having these rules consistently. Pipe Interview Magazine to Interview (magazine), plus are you sure Dezeen is a reliable source for a FA? Regarding the body, I believe that the last para of legacy is too short and should be merged with the above one. Furthermore, you should at least give an overview in the awards and nominations section, also not all forms of media should be aligned to the right since this looks tedious for a FA. --K. Peake 08:02, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm just so happy you commented! 😊 The ref format issues should all be addressed, but I couldn't find what you mentioned with AllMusic. Dezeen seems to have alot of high regard, [49] they were mentioned by The Independent, The Times and Time magazine. I merged the artists influenced by the band and I created a summary of the more relevant awards in the UK and US. 웃OO 19:32, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
This looks better now, but ref 29 – you have stylized as Allmusic, plus it should be wikilinked there and nowhere else since that's the first instance. Also, you missed citing CNN as publisher for ref 84 and MTV News for ref 9, as well as not getting Consequence for refs 34 and 48. --K. Peake 06:31, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Should be all fixed now. 웃OO 06:47, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Yes you have gone through everything, though there was a formatting issue with the first Consequence ref that I fixed and I will now support! --K. Peake 07:42, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Parsecboy[edit]

  • Quite a few dupe links in the article that need to be removed - if you don't happen to have a tool installed, User:Evad37/duplinks-alt is the one I use
  • Some refs are out of order (for example: [28][59][64][61])
  • "Jay Kay was sending songs to record companies" - when? You mention a single released in 1986, but the header says 1992 - there's a bit of vagueness here
  • Lots of things like "Other writers said", "some critics accusing ", etc. strike me as fairly WP:WEASELy - it would be best to be specific
  • "They sold 4.4 million albums in the UK and had US sales of 2.5 million copies sold as of 2010." - what's the purpose of including this? We've already said what their sales by 2017 were

If you have a moment to spare, I also have a FAC that could use a review from someone less familiar with the topic. Thanks. Parsecboy (talk) 20:42, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

I addressed most of these comments. As for the formation section, maybe the solution is to instead rename the subheader as "Formation in 1992". And the following comment, when it comes to reviews of entertainment, they tend to be best written this way to condense what critics often point out, per WP:Reception. Just as long as the information has sources. Thank you for commenting! I'll be sure to check out your candidate. 웃OO 23:09, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
Fair enough on the reviews thing - I'm not familiar with how these articles are written ;) As for the formation section, I wonder if it's worth adding a "In the early 1990s, Jay Kay was..." Parsecboy (talk) 19:24, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
Or maybe "by the early 1990s" when thinking about that 1986 single. 웃OO 20:24, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47[edit]

  • For this part in the lead, in the London-based funk and jazz movement, do you mean jazz in general or specifically acid jazz? If it is the first option, I would link jazz, but if it is the second option, I would clarify that.
  • The lead has Acid Jazz records, when I believe it should be Acid Jazz Records. The Records part is capitalized already in the body of the article.
  • Apologies in advance if this is obvious, but for this part, When he had it studio-recorded, is it necessary to specify that it was "studio-recorded" as opposed to just "recorded"?
  • It may be helpful to wikilink demo tape. It might be obvious to most people, but I could still see some people not being entirely certain on what it means.
  • For this part, but would share his royalties with his band members in accordance to their contributions, could you clarify what you mean by "contributions" as it is rather nebulous? Is it referring to like song-writing and/or production contributions or like performance contributions?
  • I would link world music just to help readers who may not be familiar with the term.
  • I have a question about this part, Zender left Jamiroquai due to conflicts with Kay. Do we have any more information about these conflicts?
  • I would link Congress Theater in the image caption since it does have an article.
  • I have a question about Gig in the Sky. It is not a suggestion or anything really necessary for the FAC. It is more of a question I had while reading this part. I thought it a little odd that a group who had songs about environmental issues would do a concert on a private plane as those are terrible for the environment. Was there any coverage on this contradiction?
  • I would link funk rock.
  • For the quote box in the "Lyrics" subsection, shouldn't "Virtual Insanity" be in single quotation marks since it is a song title within a quote?
  • I think it may be beneficial to link "Native American rights" to the Native American civil rights article. It may also be useful to link "youth protests", but I am honestly not sure what it is referring to (which is why I think a link would be useful).
  • First Nations is linked twice in the article.

Great work with the article. I have honestly never heard of this band, but I enjoyed reading the article. If possible, I would greatly appreciate any help with my current FAC, which is only very tangentially related to this as it is a sitcom involving a radio station. Either way, I will support the article for promotion once all my comments are addressed. I hope you have a great weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 19:51, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

I addressed most of these comments. I clarified the contribution thing to indicate that they work as musicians. For Gig in the Sky, I don't recall seeing any coverage about the contradiction. Though similar comments are already covered with sports cars in the lyrics section. For Zender leaving, information regarding the conflicts is all unclear. The Independent article says he wanted to quote "do his own thing" but where did the statement come from? Only the Rocky Mountain News article where Toby Smith is interviewed states there is an unspecified conflict but I'm unable to access the interview to re-read it. 웃OO 21:26, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the responses. Your response about Gig in the Sky makes sense to me and I for some reason completely missed the sports car part so I am glad that I was not the only one who was thinking about this. The Zender coverage should be fine in the article. If the information is not known, then this is the best option of addressing it. I support the article for promotion. Again, I really enjoyed reading through this one. Great work! Aoba47 (talk) 02:05, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Steve Davis[edit]

Nominator(s): Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 11:08, 14 May 2021 (UTC), User:The Rambling Man

This article is about one of the most important snooker players of all time. Davis is a six-time world champion, and absolutely dominated the 1980s, winning 28 world ranking tournaments and a further 56 invitational devices. Three times a winner of the Masters, Davis was also a master of nine-ball, poker and chess during his professional career from 1976 to 2016. Gaining an MBE in 2000, Davis is also the only snooker player to win the BBC Sports Personality of the Year, and was part of the most viewed broadcast on BBC2 and post midnight at the 1985 World Snooker Championship.

I think the article is fantastic, so I would like your comments as to how this looks alongside my other nominator The Rambling Man. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 11:08, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Comments from BennyOnTheLoose[edit]

I may claim Wikicup points, if I consider my review substantial enough. Will probably add my comments in a few batches. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 23:26, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

General

  • No mention of Frank Callan?
    • I have added a mention. I'm sure there's loads of sourcing about it, but other than him being the coach, there's not much to say. Happy to add a quote if Davis says something specific. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 09:15, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
      • In Pocket Money, Gordon Burn notes how Davis had never publicly mentioned Callan and how "Stalin-like, [Callan] has been written out of all the official Davis histories." Seems like Bill Davis and Callan clashed, but given how Griffiths, Hendry, Mountjoy and others have spoken about Callan, it seems very possible that Callan was important for Davis's development and success. He's mentioned now, so cool. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:11, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
  • No mention in the text of the tours to China, etc in the 80s? I think these were pretty significant for the later development of snooker, and he was the headliner IIRC.
  • No mention of his off-table sponsorships/endorsements? The ratio of his other income to prize money appears in quite a few sources.
    • Any examples? I feel it's a bit of a throwaway thing, other than his relationship with Hearn being monetary in nature, Davis isn't a businessman; and this is a bio about a snooker player. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 09:15, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
      • "At 29, Davis is the game's first millionaire. … cued his way to 255,000 pounds sterling ($510,000 Cdn.) in tournament winnings last year, while endorsements and exhibitions boosted his income to about $1.5 million … Davis has a five-year, $1-million pound contract with a brewery that calls for him to devote 40 days a year on their behalf - at roughly $10,000 a day. His other endorsements include men's toiletries, luggage, watches and, of course, snooker equipment"[1]
      • "his season's earnings in official prize money to a record$A1.06 million. And it is estimated that he earned the best part of another million in restricted tournaments, exhibitions, endorsements and sponsorships … By 1981, the year in which he won the championship for the first time, he was already a millionaire. It is accepted that he has earned a million pounds a year ever since."[2]
      • "Courage’s original agreement to become patron to Davis made him the best-paid sportsman in Britain"[3]
      • "Hearn and Davis need each other"; coverage of Hong Kong trip, and Riley and Goya deals.[4]
        • and another: Dominic Sandbrook, Who Dares Wins: Britain, 1979-1982. London: Allen Lane. 2019. ISBN 978-1-846-14737-1 p.492 : "[Davis] was not merely an exceptional sportsman but an exceptional business, cashing in on the transformtion in snooker's image ...[By 1985] he was raking in three times as much from endorsements, an estimated £600,000 a year, than he was from tournament prize money." BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 23:23, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
  • On my desktop view, the names of the tournaments in the performance and ranking timeline disappear when I scroll past a certain year, is there any way to make this a bit more reader-friendly?
  • Legacy section looks a little light, but let me have a look at sources to see if I have any more specific points/comments.
    • I agree there's room for improvement. You've certainly added some good sources below that would benefit. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 09:15, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
      • I haven't read it as it's paywalled, but this might be interesting. There's a Eurosport article that might be useful here. The last couple of pages of the Davis chapter of Masters of the Baize are on Google Books (on my view), as is some of Black Farce and Cue Ball Wizards (see the start of chapter 7, for example). I suppose what I'm looking for in the article, ideally, is some comment or speculation (from suitable people) on why he was so successful, his influence on other players (e.g. style of play, general inspiration), him becoming the UK's highest paid sportsperson, and possibly something about his contribution to the growth of snooker worldwide. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 15:50, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Infobox

  • Shouldn't info be cited in the body rather than in the infobox?
    • WP:INFOBOXCITE suggests that citations shouldn't be in the infobox if there is a suitable way to convey the info in the prose. I'd argue with these nicknames they aren't really all that important. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 08:32, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
  • "Master Cueman" is not sourced in the article.
  • "Golden nugget" is not sourced in the article, but does appear in two headlines of sources used.
  • 147 as being his highest break isn't explicitly sourced, only that he compiled it...perhaps doesn't need to be as it's called a "maximum break" in the body and breaks over 147 are virtually unknown?
  • Total number of century breaks isn't sourced.

Lead

  • "he remains the only snooker player ever to win the award." - not explicitly sourced in the article.
  • "Davis domination of the game waned in the 1990s" - Davis's?
  • "at age 39" - "at the age of 39" seems better to me.
  • "He made a record 30th" - doesn't look like the "record" part is sourced in the article.
  • Should MBE be wikilinked?
    • It is linked after the name in my eyes. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 08:32, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
      • OBE (same target) is, but not everyone will know that MBE is part of the same Most Excellent Order. I suppose it might be seen as overlinking. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 08:43, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Images

  • "Davis playing a trick shot exhibition during the break of the 2012 German Masters final" - maybe something like "interval" rather than "break" (to avoid any possible confusion with break)?

Early career

  • "introduced him to snooker at age 12 took him to play at his local working men's club and gave him an instructional book" seems to be lacking some punctuation or words.
  • "Pontin's Spring Open" is redlinked here; "Pontins Spring Open" (no apostrophe) is wikilinked in the Pro-am finals section.
  • "He made his debut at the World Snooker Championship in 1979, losing 11–13 to Dennis Taylor in the first round" - consider mentioning that he won two qualifying matches to get there.

Professional success (1980-1984)

  • "defeating defending champion Terry Griffiths in the second round" merits a little more detail, I think.
    • reworded. I don't want to give it too much weight though. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 09:56, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
  • "Over the next 18 months, Davis won seven more events" - not verified by source, as far as I can see. (Seems that after the 1980 UK, he won the the English Professional, the Yamaha Masters, the 1981 World Championship and "The following season he won seven more titles" which would probably be ten in 18 months - I've not checked all the dates.)
  • "Davis followed up this with a 9–0 whitewash victory over Dennis Taylor in the International Open final" - sort of, but I think he lost to Griffiths in the Pontins Pro Championship and also won the Lang's Scottish Masters inbetween the world championship and the International Open (if Hayton has the sequence right).
  • "This began a six-month period in which Davis and Griffiths contested almost all the major tournament finals." - source?
  • "In doing so, Davis won a Lada car" - possibly worth mentioning that Lada were the sponsors of the tournament. Also, it feels like that belongs with the previous sentence rather than with "but lost 8–9 to Griffiths in the final"
  • "defeating Griffiths 9–6 in the final." - the source (and Hayton) say 9–5.
  • "falling to the Crucible curse" - I suppose a little poetic licence is allowed even in featured articles.
    • I mean, we have a full on article on it, seems fair game to me. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 09:56, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
  • "he was the first player to retain his title at the Crucible Theatre – the venue for the event " - may be worth adding since when it was the venue.
  • How about adding when he first achieved the number one ranking?
  • Feels like this section is slightly out of balance with the Retirement (2010–2016) section, which looks like it has a higher proportion of match scores but for matches which are IMO less significant in his career. (e.g. "He qualified for the Shanghai Masters by defeating Alfie Burden 5–1 and Andrew Higginson 5–0, defeating Zhu Yinghui 5–1 to reach the last 32[116] before losing 4–5 to Ricky Walden" v "Davis reached the final by defeating White in the first round, Higgins in the second round, Griffiths in the quarter-finals and defending champion Cliff Thorburn in the semi-final." and "Davis also won the 1984 UK Championship, defeating Higgins 16–8 in the final".)

1985 World Snooker Championship

  • "lost only 23 frames en route to the final" - might be useful to add how many he won, to put the 23 in context.
    • I've added who he beat instead, which is much more relevant. 23 isn't a low amount of frames to conceed. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 10:03, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Later world championship victories (1985–1989)

  • "The result did not affect his position at the top of the world rankings, since he had won the UK Championship, the Grand Prix and the British Open in the 1985–86 season.2 is not sourced.
    • Yeah, suprised I didn't mention the win better. Fixed. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 10:03, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
  • "By the end of the 1980s, Davis was snooker's first millionaire" - fair interpretation of the source. The Evening Standard for 7 April 1983 says Davis was a millionaire, and there was a March 1985 edition of Sportsnight that said the same, so the current wording is supported but he was probably a millionaire earlier than it implies.
    • Yeah, not much more we can do than say this, unless there's a specific source that says when this was. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 10:03, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

1990–2005

  • "His last victory in a major tournament was at the 1997 Masters." - source? (BBC source after the next sentence mentions it, but not that it was his "last")
    • We do say his last ranking title was in 1995, source added that specifically says this. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 08:57, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
  • "After a season in which he reached only one ranking event quarter-final" - source?

In other media

  • I'd suggest wikilinking or explaining " sixth form"
  • Combine the two mentions of Phoenix FM, I think
  • Is The Official Matchroom actually The Official 1990 Matchroom Snooker Special (isbn 0600566005)? If so, Ian Morrison is the author, although Davis wrote the introduction and, unlike Morrison, has his name on the cover. ("Introduced by world champion Steve Davis")
  • Could add Medical Grade Music to his list of books. There's a Guardian interview about it here.
  • Could add Steve Davis Snooker, Virtual Snooker and /or Steve Davis World Snooker to the list of software.
    • Virtual snooker is already mentioned. Added the others - I will try and clean these articles up one day. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 09:26, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Legacy

  • "Davis won a record 83 professional titles and was the runner-up in 38 events, with 28 of these as ranking event victories. His modern-era record of six world titles has been broken only by Hendry, and his six UK Championship titles has been bettered only by Ronnie O'Sullivan. Davis compiled over 300 competitive centuries during his career. " - all seems to be unsourced.

Personal life

  • "he is honorary president of the Snooker Writers' Association" - source is from 2005, is he still President?
    • I'm not even convinced it still exists. There's nothing online in the last decade. Any ideas? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 09:05, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
      • No idea. Maybe change wording to something like "became", and perhaps remove the redlink as the association doesn't appear to be notable. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:26, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
  • "he is on the board of Leyton Orient F.C." - source is from 2011, is he still on the board?
    • Doesn't look like it. It's hard to find sources, as they've had both a player and manager named "Steve Davis" at Orient. I'll put "was on the board", unless anyone can find differently. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 09:05, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
  • "Davis lives in Brentwood, Essex" - source is from 2004, does he still live there?
    • No idea. He still was as of 2019, so probably. The mail online suggests he might have been selling [50], but hardly a trustworthy source. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 09:43, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Performance and Ranking Timeline

  • What's the source for 1990 Shoot Out?
  • What are the sources for Pot Black performances? (Excluding the finals, which are cited in the article)
    • We could use [51], which I'm never sure if it's suitable or not. Looks to have a 13 year history (copyright 2007). Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 09:40, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Career finals

  • 1989 Hong Kong Gold Cup - no source given (I've not been able to find one for the result)
    • Added Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 09:31, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
      • That source has "Alex Higgins meets Steve Davis in the 11-frame final of the Hong Kong Gold Cup today" (and some other details) - not the result of the final. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 11:43, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
  • 2018 Seniors Irish Masters - source has his opponent's name spelt "Jonathan Bagley"
  • 1991 World Mixed Doubles Championship - might be worth linking to 1991 World Masters as it was part of that.

Sources (I'll try and help where I can if you get stuck....)

  • What makes http://www.cuesnviews.co.uk/ a reliable source?
  • What makes https://www.snookerisland.com/ a reliable source?
  • What makes "The Mob Poker Database" a reliable source?
  • what makes britishcomedychannel.com a reliable source?
  • "Guinness Book of Snooker match report" - not sure what this source is. My book with this title is from 1982, and Guinness' The Records book was published in 1985 so neither of those could comment on a match in 1989.
  • "White Crowned Senior Champion". Archived from the original on 7 August 2011. Retrieved 24 May 2011." looks to be lacking publisher/site.
  • ""Champion of Champions Group Seeds Announced – Matchroom Sport". 17 October 2014. Archived from the original on 18 June 2015. Retrieved 21 October 2014." Publisher is part of the title.
  • "Davis, Steve (1989). The Official Matchroom 1990. Hamlyn" - looks like title is incomplete. (see comment under "In other media")
  • There's something odd about " "When Snooker Went Loopy". BBC. 20 November 2000. Archived from the original on 13 June 2011. Retrieved 20 June 2010." which looks like a BBC site but an IMDB archived page.
  • ""Snooker Loopy". Official Charts Company. Retrieved 5 February 2009." links to Square Dance Rap by Sir Mix-A-Lot.
  • "Williams, Luke; Gadsby, Paul (2005). Masters of the Baize: Cue Legends, Bad Boys and Forgotten Men in Search of Snooker's Ultimate Prize" I'm surprised to only see this used once. The "detailed comparison and ranking of snooker professionals" is only 12 pages out of 235 in my edition so I think that's more a description of part of the contents rather than of the book as a whole.
  • Snooker Scene refs aren't consistent. (Also, publisher was Everton's News Agency before Snooker Scene Ltd)
  • Notes section doesn't have any sources. I think this is the first snooker bio to be nominated for FA so I'd be interested to hear views on how far the contents of the performance and ranking timeline (progress, and statements like "not held" or "ranking tournament" or "did not participate") need to be sourced within a bio article.
    • I'd argue these are cited to the reference sections to the individual tables. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 08:41, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Seems to be quite a high proportion of "World Snooker" and snooker.org sources, which is fine by me to confirm results, but would we be better with some more commentary from secondary sources? (I'll reflect on this after re-reading)
    • I mean, sure, but these are both independent sources in this case. I'd love to use news publications to talk about things, but they aren't all that indepth, especially for the smaller comps. I don't have the snooker scenes from anything earlier than this year, so the worldsnooker links were really helpful, and snooker.org is a good database for what we need. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 08:52, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
      • I'm happy for those sources for verifying the facts of results, dates, etc. I was thinking more of secondary sources for general commentary/analysis, like Black Farce and Cue Ball Wizards (nearly 60 references to Davis in the index, some of which likely lead to interesting stuff), Masters of the Baize, or Hayes's Snooker Legends and where are they now? There are also some older books like Trelford's Snookered and Burns's Pocket Money that cover a couple of years in depth (not just about Davis). There are a load of other 1980's books that talk about Davis but obviously recent publications would be preferable. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:26, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
        • Could probably use these in the legacy if you have any ideas. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 09:11, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
  • The archive for "Boniface, Susie (6 March 2005). "Steve's Cutie". Sunday Mirror(Questia Online Library). Archived from the original on 4 May 2021. Retrieved 4 April 2012." isn't very helpful
  • "Layton, Eric. Cuesport Book of Professional Snooker. pp. 159–160." name should be Hayton, as per "Hayton, Eric (2004). The CueSport Book of Professional Snooker. Suffolk: Rose Villa Publications. pp. 344–347. ISBN 978-0-9548549-0-4."
  • Inconsistent ISBN number format in the "Sources" section.
  • Thanks for the responses, Lee Vilenski, I haven't checked through them all yet, but will do. I need to have a look at a few sources to make any other specific suggestions about legacy etc. I haven't found a reliable source for the Hong Kong Gold Cup result - seems it wasn't covered by Snooker Scene unless I haven't found the right issue. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 11:43, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Was the Gold Cup not covered in the link I added? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 12:54, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I can't find much either. I'd suggest a cull, it was just a glorified exhibition with three participants after all. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 14:56, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
  • I'll re-read as a lot has been done on the article since I last looked at it, but the outstanding points from above are:
  • "Master Cueman" is not sourced in the article.
  • Link MBE in body? OBE (same target) is, but not everyone will know that MBE is part of the same Most Excellent Order.
  • "falling to the Crucible curse" - my point about "poetic licence" was that he lost to Knowles, not to this abstract concept.
  • "Davis won a record 83 professional titles and was the runner-up in 38 events, with 28 of these as ranking event victories" - BBC source has 28 ranking and 53 non-ranking (and 9 team) events, which would be a total of 81 (excluding team events). Our table lists 56 non-ranking wins, and I'm not going to guess which 53 are counted in the sources - possibly some not in our list. Perhaps a footnote? I didn't see "was the runner-up in 38 events" in the sources; if it's from the tables in the article then, again, maybe add a note to that effect?
  • Does he still live in Brentwood, Essex? In the absence of RS after 2004, reword or omit.
  • What are the sources for Pot Black performances? (Excluding the finals, which are cited in the article)?
  • Source used for 1989 Hong Kong Gold Cup doesn't have the final outcome or result.
  • "Williams, Luke; Gadsby, Paul (2005) ... The "detailed comparison and ranking of snooker professionals" is only 12 pages out of 235 in my edition so I think that's more a description of part of the contents rather than of the book as a whole.
  • Notes section doesn't have any sources - I'll wait and see what other reviewers think.
    • I don't have much of an issue around this - the table itself is really well cited. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 12:52, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 14:33, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Outstanding points:

  • No mention in the text of the tours to China, etc in the 80s?
  • No mention of his off-table sponsorships/endorsements?
  • Legacy - "I suppose what I'm looking for in the article, ideally, is some comment or speculation (from suitable people) on why he was so successful, his influence on other players (e.g. style of play, general inspiration), him becoming the UK's highest paid sportsperson, and possibly something about his contribution to the growth of snooker worldwide." (Note "ideally", not "or else")
  • (Added 15/06) Is The Official Matchroom actually The Official 1990 Matchroom Snooker Special (isbn 0600566005)? If so, Ian Morrison is the author, although Davis wrote the introduction and, unlike Morrison, has his name on the cover. ("Introduced by world champion Steve Davis").
    • Hi BennyOnTheLoose - I've added something suitable. Probably do with a bit more expansion when I get a few minutes to check through sourcing, but let me know what you think as I've covered the other points. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 13:24, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

New points

Early success (1980–1984)

  • reword second sentence of "Despite making the maximum, he lost 8–9 to Griffiths in the final. Davis defeated Griffiths 9–5 in that year's final..."
  • change either "won or "win " in "he won 18–12 against Doug Mountjoy to win"
  • "retained the UK" - add "championship" or "title" or similar.
  • The link shortcut "Classic" is used twice - once to the 1980s Wilsons Classic and the 1982 Classic; I'm not sure if that is an issue.
  • "In doing so, as Lada were sponsoring the event, Davis won a car" - slight reword, as them sponsoring doesn't necessarily mean there would be a car awarded for a maximum.
  • "Despite making the maximum, he lost 8–9 to Griffiths in the final" - the maximum was in a different match, so I'm not sure it was "despite"

1985 World Snooker Championship

  • "left Taylor with a reasonably-straightforward pot to secure the championship." - feels to me like a mention of Taylor actually potting it should be here.

Oppose from Amakuru[edit]

I feel really bad here, because I've worked a lot with Lee and TRM in the past and consider them to be very good wiki-friends. But without having gone into the detail yet I think there's a fairly fundamental balance issue in this article with the Career section. I ran a quick prose-size check on Sunday evening on the different subsections, and found the following:

Year range Bytes Words Bytes-per-year
1970-1979 1580 271 words 158
1980-1984 2323 385 words 464.6
1985 1082 184 words 1082
1985–1989 3258 569 words 651.6
1990–2005 1467 253 words 97.8
2005–2010 3855 652 words 771
2010–2016 4570 778 words 761.7

As we can see, the prose is heavily skewed towards the last ten years of Davis's career, a period which evidently wasn't his heyday. (He won all of his world titles in the 1980s). Looking at the narrative itself, it switches in 2005 from extremely broad-brush statements to suddenly having intricate detail of individual seasons, including individual scores in minor events such as the Australian Goldfields Open. By contrast, the 15-year period from 1990 to 2005 is the shortest of all the sections, with only two shortish paragraphs covering an entire period in which he was presumably a higher-profile player than he was in his twilight years.

Of course, it doesn't take a rocket science to figure out why this phenomenon might have occurred, it's something we see across the Wiki: 2005 marked the point in time when our august project really hit the big time, and from that point on there would have been editors updating details of his tournaments on a daily basis, as and when they happened. This is why our article on John Isner, a decent tennis player but never anywhere near the best in the world, is significantly longer than Pete Sampras, one of the all-time greats.

It's totally understandable why this occurs, and at GA level I would rate this an easy pass. But for FAC, I think I regretfully have to fail this on both criterion 1b and criterion 4. The Career section needs to be written so that it:

  1. has significantly more detail on the earlier years (particularly that 1990–2005 period), to satisfy 1b "comprehensive", and probably
  2. a bit less detail on the 2005–2016 period, in order to satisfy criterion 4 "It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail". I doubt we'd want to include Australian Goldfields Open calibre events for every one of the 40 years he played!

Sorry again, but I'm not able to support at this time. If you're able to fix the above issues while the FAC is active, or if there's some fundamental detail that I've missed here, then I'll happily look again and also take a look at the prose and the other sections. There's no doubt this is well on the road towards being an FA, but for now I'll leave it there. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 09:21, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

I've begun an expansion of that particular section. There's still a bit more that can be added (I haven't gotten as far as 2000-05 yet), but we are already bordering on 200 bytes per year. I agree the later years are too in-depth (for the reasons you outlined), so I'll get on removing some fluff. I'd argue the 70s section is the right size, as he didn't turn professional until 78, perhaps a little more on his development in the early 80s. The later 80s looks about right, considering that's when he was the most popular, most famous snooker player on the planet.
Give me a day or two to fix, and I'll drop you a ping. Thanks for the in-depth statistics. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 10:42, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
It's worth noting, that even after the cull, there are a lot more tournaments in the later seasons compared to those in the 1990s (6 per year against 20ish nowadays). I'm going to do a c/e and get back to you. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 13:51, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
Amakuru - I don't know if you mind having another look? Sorry it's been so long, I'm having a few issues offwiki; but if at all possible I'd still like to progress this. :) Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 18:48, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
@Lee Vilenski: thanks for the note, and it's certainly looking much better now. That said, the "1990–2005" section is still giving me a cause for concern though. Is there no more detail that can be added to that? I'd favour splitting it into at least two, and bringing it up to having the same level of detail as we see in the post-2005 sections. Just as one example, we have "During the 1990s, Davis also won the Irish Masters four times: in 1990, 1991, 1993 and 1994"... this has no scores and no individual detail; yet below, we have match-by-match detail on all sorts of tournaments such as the Paul Hunter Classic, Shanghai Masters etc. Perhaps those are more important tournaments than the Irish Masters of the early 1990s, but in general I think the level of coverage needs to be consistent throughout his career for an FA. Regreta that this isn't the answer you want, but this is the gold-standard when it comes to article awards! (Also, the readable prose is at 25kB at the moment, so I don't think there's a danger of the article becoming too long). On the plus side, I'm confident that this can eventually make it, whether on this FAC or a future one, so please keep up the good work. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 10:12, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
I've added some additional to those sections. The issue is around the lack of tournaments during the late 90s and early 2000s, where the game was almost killed off. I'll do a bit more to cull some of the extrenous stuff from later years, as clearly the weight of his career is around his titles in the 90s. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 18:08, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
@Lee Vilenski: Ok thanks, let me know when you're done with that. By the way, ahead of more detailed analysis on this, I'm thinking that some expansion of his media career may be in order as well. Although obviously his career is the dominant aspect of his notability, I think he has become quite ubiquitous on the commentary at the crucible in recent years and I think it would be worth saying more than just the current one-liner "... is a commentator for the BBC's snooker coverage". I think a "Media career" section similar to Mark_Lawrenson#Media_career might be in order, covering when he joined the BBC, which events he covers, any other TV commitments, plus newspaper columns etc (if any). Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 09:44, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
The Lawrenson bio is good, but most of it is uncitable. To my knowledge Davis doesn't do newspaper columns, doesn't do radio, doesn't have much criticism, he's just been ever present on the commentary and punditry team for the BBC's coverage of the Triple Crown events. I did miss out that he is a pundit, which is more of what he does. Looking at the 2005-2010 section, most of the text is on the 2010 World championship, which is particularly important, reaching the quarter-finals and beating Higgins, and the replay of the 1985 World Championship; which are big deals. I have however, culled the remaining final section, which covers his final title, his retirement and dropping off the tour. Let me know what you think Amakuru. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 13:06, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

- I don't know if you have any further opinions on the weight of the article Amakuru? I think it's suitable now and his later career covers the important results (specifically against Higgins at the world championships, and then his retirement. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 14:00, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

@Lee Vilenski: I will hopefully be able to give this another look-over tomorrow morning. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 16:20, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Davis pockets snooker crown", November 2, 1986, Toronto Star, The (Ontario, Canada), Author: Rick Morrison, Page: E6
  2. ^ "... - BUT THE MILLION-DOLLAR MAN WILL NOT BE HERE – SNOOKER", May 4, 1988, Sydney Morning Herald, The (Australia), Author: LES WHEELER, Page: 66
  3. ^ "Elders renews its sponsorship of snooker ace Steve Davis", Gideon Haigh, The Age (Melbourne, Victoria, Australia),11 Apr 1990,Page 26
  4. ^ "Earn with Hearn – it’s the life of Riley" Michael Herd, Evening Standard ,(London, Greater London, England), 01 Apr 1985, page 37

Ceoil placeholder[edit]

  • Waiting for the above to be resolved, which seems on track. Have ready about half the page so far. Ceoil (talk) 15:16, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Accessibility review[edit]

  • #CCCCCC text on #F8F9FA background does not meet MOS:COLOUR/WCAG AA. I checked at https://webaim.org/resources/contrastchecker/.
    • With some help, I've changed this. If it's suitable, I'll let the project know the change needs to be made across all our bios. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 18:33, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
      • It seems it would only meet AA if it was large text. It looks like #727272 text on #F8F9FA background is the lowest acceptable for meeting AA, and ideally it would be #555555 to meet AAA. Heartfox (talk) 05:49, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Tables should have captions per MOS:DTAB; because some are below headings you can enclose those in Template:Sronly. Heartfox (talk) 21:15, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
    • Covered (unless there's an additional table I didn't see.)

Source review from Vami_IV[edit]

Placeholder for now. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 06:21, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

First comments: There are three books under #Sources, and several books, or at least references with an ISBN, in #References. Of the three books under #Sources, two presently do not have citations pointing at them; of the one that does, it presently has a single citation pointing to it. Some of the books in #References, particularly The CueSport Book of Professional Snooker, are cited many times. There are also a lot of missing page numbers, named below. For consistency, I advise for book citations either sfnrefs, or Template:RP to keep the long-form citations. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 00:02, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Also, at the time of writing, Citation [9] does not point to any of the books under #Sources. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 00:02, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

This is my first source review for Featured content; if I have demonstrated gross incompetence or caused offense, please let me know. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 00:02, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi Vami, to make things easier, as I don't really know much about Harvard style citations, I've made everything into regular style references. The two remaining sources are things that help to cover the writing, but aren't specifically cited. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 13:11, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
Sehr gutt. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 02:50, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

I have identified these technical hiccups:

  1. There is no instance of Template:Notelist; as a result, all uses of Template:Efn are broken and will not display.
    1. Added Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 12:39, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
  2. No instance of citation [65] has a page number. There are additionally several book citations without page numbers. I recommend, for consistency and verifiability, that all book citations be followed with Template:Rp for page numbers.
    1. Might need your help with this, BennyOnTheLoose Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 12:39, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
      1. Sure, Lee Vilenski. Can you list the ones you want help with specifically? The Davis pages in Hayton are 343 to 349. A few weeks ago, I checked the first few years of the performance & ranking timeline and added in some refs for events not in that source, like the 1979 Tolly Cobbold Classic, 1982 Australian Masters, and 1982 Highland Masters. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 13:52, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
        1. Basically need page numbers for the CueSport Book of Professional Snooker book. Even if we had a range for the results per year that would be pretty good. Can easily use {{rp}} after each one. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 13:58, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
          1. I reviewed the use of the book in the article; the exception where page numbers isn't cited is currently ref 65 (used multiple times) and looking through what it's used to support, pages 343 to 349 are indeed OK for that ref. The book has subheadings in bold for each season of results for Davis, so I think that using a range of a few pages in the citation is reasonable. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 14:22, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
  3. Citation [175] is broken; there are more than one versions of reference "theg_Stev".
    1. fixed. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 12:39, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
  4. Citation [197] is still an sfn Harvard reference.
    1. Fixed. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 12:39, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
  5. Citations [249], [252], [255], [265], [267], [286], [269], [276], and [287] are missing the |magazine= parameter.
    1. Added Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 12:39, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
  6. Citation [282] also needs |magazine=.

Additionally, I recommend the changing of #Sources's title to #Further reading.♠Vami_IV†♠ 02:50, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

I am ready to support as soon as the page numbers are in place. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 21:58, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Coordinator comment[edit]

This has been open for a month and while it has attracted a fair few comments it has no supports and has had an open oppose for nearly four weeks. Unless this changes significantly over the next couple of days, I am afraid that this nomination is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:02, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Rockstar San Diego[edit]

Nominator(s): IceWelder [] 21:09, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

This article is about the video game developer Rockstar San Diego, formerly known as Angel Studios. Rockstar San Diego is one of the best-known Rockstar Games studios and has produced highly acclaimed games, such as Red Dead Redemption (2010). It has a 35-plus-year history beginning as a work-fore-hire animation studio, turning into a video game studio, and being acquired by Rockstar Games. I originally wrote this article gradually as a learning exercise starting in October 2017; it became a GA in November 2019. Having exhausted all immediately available sources, I want to take on FA as the next step. Credit goes to the GOCE members Miniapolis and Baffle gab1978, GA reviewer Spy-cicle, peer reviewers Panini!, Rhain and SandyGeorgia, and FA mentor PresN. IceWelder [] 21:09, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

I participated at the Wikipedia:Peer review/Rockstar San Diego/archive1, and will watchlist to go through after independent editors have been through. I am have been extremely busy IRL, and have not yet had time to check whether my prose concerns were addressed. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:27, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
@SandyGeorgia: I hope it is not rude to ping for this but I wanted to know whether you have been able to check for these issues. Inbetween the PR and now, there has been a GOCE batch, manual copyedits, and requested edits seen below. Of course, I'd gladly accept further suggestions to improve the article. Regards, IceWelder [] 08:27, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Panini![edit]

Participated in the peer review but didn't say much.

Infobox
  • Similar edits at Paper Mario with this one; you can cut "Rockstar San Diego's" because its what the article is about.
  • I'd also find a way to cut out one of the two instances of "Rockstar Games". It can be a mouthful.
Lead
  • "... and a studio of Rockstar Games that is based in Carlsbad, California." The "that is" can be cut to remove the repitition of is.
  • I'd link computer animation
  • "It began with a focus of..." I'd change "It" to "the company"; it refers to Angel prior and it seems like you are calling him a thing.
Early years (1984–1993)
  • (also spelled Diego Ángel) would work better as a hatnote. I'm an anti-paranthesis person because they look unproffessional if used excessively in my eyes, so there could be other instances where hatnotes could work better too.
  • "... Angel's wife invested in Angel Studios and Angel secured a bank loan." Although I'm a Christian, there's too much Angel here. I'd change the second instance to "the company".
  • Refer to Hunt and Limber by their full names in their first appearances ("Hunt became the company's chief technology officer and Limber was its chief operating officer..." and then later "Brad Hunt and Michael Limber were among the founding partners.")
  • "...which meant he would not accept any offer that came his way..." I would change "any" to "every" because it currently sounds like, "They didn't do any work, but they did work."
Entry into video games (1993–2000)
  • "... Silicon Graphics to create demos for Silicon Graphics'..." Repetitive, -> "... Silicon Graphics to create demos for the latter's..."
  • "... as a partner for the upcoming Nintendo Ultra 64 console, which ultimately became the Nintendo 64." -> "...as a partner for their upcoming Nintendo Ultra 64 console, later named the Nintendo 64."

Beyond this point, I got distracted in reading, which in my eyes means you did a very good job.

Miscellanious
  • I don't believe stating "the founder of Angel Studios" in the quote box is necessary.
  • Not necessary, but any "See also"'s?
  • Are refs 7 and 8 the same?

Panini!🥪 13:43, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, @Panini!:, should be all done. Refs 7 and 8 are separate parts of the same story (appearing on different pages, so I had to clip them individually). I see no viable see-alsos that are not already linked within the article (Rockstar North, Red Dead, and so forth would have been good fits). Regards, IceWelder [] 15:44, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Support. I currently have nothing outstanding so no QPQ is needed. Unless if I find something to do in the future. Panini!🥪 15:53, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
    Wait, yes I do, Paper Mario is at WP:TFAR. Panini!🥪 17:00, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Shooterwalker[edit]

Lead
  • Can drop "The" from Columbian entrepreneur. (Columbian-American?)
  • "Angel Studios began working in the video game industry during the 1990s; its first video game projects were Ed Annunziata's Ecco: The Tides of Time (1994) and Mr. Bones (1996), for which the company created cutscenes." -> "Angel Studios began working in the video game industry during the 1990s, creating cutscenes for Ed Annunziata's Ecco: The Tides of Time (1994) and Mr. Bones (1996)."
  • I know you mention Angel Studios in brackets right away, but it might add clarity to name the studio in context. For example, "founded the company as Angel Studios", or "As Angel Studios, the company began..." That way it would be less jarring when you start calling it Angel Studios later, and you could easily just call it "the company" or "the studio".
  • "Angel Studios fully developed games in association with" -> "The company developed its first full games by working with..." or "They soon began developing full games with..."
  • Also consider putting the cutscene sentence next to the full game sentence, changing the paragraph structure for better context.
  • Is there a clearer word than "housed"?
Early years
  • Consider naming "early years" to include something to do with art / animation, just as the second heading mentions video games.
  • Does "invested in the industry" mean financial investment? If so, was he investing in his own studio? If it wasn't money, maybe there is a better word.
  • "receive a job" -> "find a paying client"
  • For the first project, can we clarify the timeline? Second year, third year...
  • "was films and music videos" --> "was for films and music videos"
  • "The studio was most successful with" --> "The studio's biggest successes came in 1992, with"
  • "adaptation of its scenes for the movie" --> "adaptation of its scenes from the movie"
  • "It further produced" --> "The studio further produced"
  • "The agency Spear/Hall & Associates was contracted to handle marketing services for Angel Studios" --> "They also contracted the agency Spear/Hall & Associates to handle their marketing services." (passive voice to active voice)
Entry into video games
  • "Angel Studios cooperated with the technology company Silicon Graphics to create demos for the latter's high-end computers and receive some of the computers in exchange." -> "Angel Studios collaborated on technology demos for Silicon Graphics computers, in exchange for high-end computers of their own."
  • "He requested an appointment with the company the following day and three days later signed it as a partner for their upcoming Nintendo Ultra 64 console, later named the Nintendo 64" -> "He met with the company the next day and signed an agreement just three days later, making them a partner for their upcoming console."
  • "The studio shifted its focus to the video game industry and in February 1995, it was announced as joining Nintendo's "Dream Team", a group of third-party companies that would develop games for the Nintendo Ultra 64" -> "The studio shifted its focus to video game development, and Nintendo announced them as one of the studios on their "Dream Team" for the Nintendo 64."
  • "Angel stated he decided to stop seeking projects in fields in which the company had already succeeded if the field involved a "high-risk, capital-intensive business", even if it offered rich potential" -> "Around this time, Angel consciously steered the studio away from "high-risk, capital-intensive" projects, even if they offered rich potential."
  • "Annunziata was pleased with the result and invited" -> "Pleased with the result, Annunziata invited"
  • "As part of the Dream Team" -> "As part of Nintendo's "Dream Team""
  • "Still in conjunction with Nintendo, Angel Studios worked with video game designer Shigeru Miyamoto on a Nintendo 64 vehicular combat game titled Buggie Boogie" -> "Angel Studios continued their work for the Nintendo 64, collaborating with designer Shigeru Miyamoto on a vehicular combat game titled Buggie Boogie"
  • "For the first meeting with Miyamoto, Angel and some designers spent 45 days creating a "design bible", which Miyamoto rejected upon confrontation, asking the team to spend the next three months working on the game technology and to "find the fun"." -> "Angel Studios spent 45 days creating a "design bible" for their first meeting with Miyamoto, but he rejected it and asked them to "find the fun" over the next three months."
  • "The company fit a game taking up two compact discs for the PlayStation version onto one Nintendo 64 cartridge, which had less than 10% of the original data storage" -> "The studio condensed the game's data to less than 10% of its original size, fitting the original version's two compact discs onto a single Nintendo 64 cartridge".
  • If Ground Effect never came out, you could probably drop the planned release date, and make it clearer that the game was cancelled when the publisher was acquired.
  • "The Virtual Reality Pavilion of Expo '98 exhibited Angel Studios' film Oceania, which was described as a "virtual journey", throughout 1998" -> "The studio's film Oceania was exhibited at the Virtual Reality Pavilion of Expo '98"
  • "The June 1998 opening of the first DisneyQuest interactive theme park in Orlando, Florida, debuted Virtual Jungle Cruise, an adventure ride to which the studio had contributed"
  • "The studio also contributed to an adventure ride called Virtual Jungle Cruise, which debuted at the June 1998 opening of the DisneyQuest interactive theme park."
  • "He decided his employees should work on their own and find their own ways to produce a full-fledged video game, a policy that was considered a major factor for the product's quality. Some workers developed a sense of ownership of their respective parts" -> "He encouraged his employees to work independently and take ownership over the game's different parts, and this policy was considered a major factor in the game's quality."
  • "The studio continued working with Microsoft on a game involving a virtual girlfriend known as XGirl. The game was planned as a launch title for Microsoft's Xbox console but was canceled" -> "The studio continued working with Microsoft on a game involving a virtual girlfriend. The game was planned as an Xbox launch title called Xgirl, but was cancelled."
Other notes
  • At the end of the article, you have a list of games, but Oceania is described as a film. You should decide whether you want to include the studio's video work (e.g.: Lawnmower Man, Peter Gabriel), or just focus the list on games. Even some of the early game work was only cut-scenes, so this does create a tricky issue.
  • I haven't checked any sources for accuracy. On the issue of completeness, I know there were some behind the scenes labor issues for RDR2, and perhaps this studio is included in that.
  • I'll come back for the last couple sections. On the whole the article is quite good, and don't let the notes detract from what's clearly on its way to FA. Great work so far. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:02, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
@Shooterwalker: Thank you so much! The issues should be addressed now. Some direct responses:
  • (Columbian-American?) – Sources describe him as Colombian. I don't think that he has US citizenship.
  • Does "invested in the industry" mean financial investment? – The source only says "invested". To avoid unclarity, I removed that part instead.
  • For the first project, can we clarify the timeline? Second year, third year... – This must have been 1986-ish but the source unfortunately does not provide a year.
  • If Ground Effect never came out, you could probably drop the planned release date, and make it clearer that the game was cancelled when the publisher was acquired. – This is never explicitly stated in the sources; the news just stopped after the acquisition and the game never came out. It is know that there were some shake-ups at Graphix Zone shortly after the purchase.
  • Even some of the early game work was only cut-scenes, so this does create a tricky issue. – Good catch. I removed Oceania, though I believe the first two games are fine as they are proper games with Angel Studios providing additional work, even if that additional work was art and not code.
  • On the issue of completeness, I know there were some behind the scenes labor issues for RDR2, and perhaps this studio is included in that. – The 2018 controversy centered around Rockstar Games more broadly, rather than R*SD alone. The Kotaku feature briefly mentions R*SD briefly in connection with this. I will look into adding some of these details soon. Red Dead Redemption 2#Controversies covers this comparably.
Lastly, I was taught to generally use 'it' for companies instead of 'they', which you use. Do you know whether this is MoS'd in any way? Regards, IceWelder [] 18:14, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
I don't want to overstate the "it" thing, since the grammar is up for dispute, and this is a situation where I choose style over grammar. Grammatically speaking, a company is a singular genderless proper noun, so "it" is grammatically correct. But "they" is also grammatically correct, because "they" can also be singular and genderless. The spirit of "it" is to refer to an inanimate object, where the spirit of a "they" is to refer to an intelligent entity, which is why I prefer "they". People don't like "they" because they see it as ambiguously plural or singular, but in its ambiguity, it's fine to use it for singular. TLDR: I prefer "the studio", "the team", "the company" because it's clearer, and my distaste for "it" is really a matter of style. If someone with stronger feelings on it comes along, you should listen to them.
  • "companies' combined expertise" -> "company's expertise" (not multiple companies?)
  • "which was owned by" -> "a licensed game for"
  • could we switch Rockstar Games to Rockstar for brevity, or is that going to make things confusing when Angel changes their name?
  • "Development of the sequel, which was titled Oni 2: Death & Taxes, was eventually halted" -> "However, Oni 2: Death & Taxes was cancelled during development."
  • "Rockstar Games initially presented what Angel considered a low-ball offer and did not respond to. The company then presented an offer Angel said he could not refuse." -> "Rockstar Games initially presented what Angel considered a low-ball offer. When he didn't respond, Rockstar then presented an offer Angel said he could not refuse, and convinced him that the studio would have the creative freedom he wanted."
  • Maybe introduce another heading after the acquisition? Becoming Rock Star San Diego is a big turning point, and it will also prime the reader to stop thinking of them as Angel, and start thinking of them as a subsidiary under the Rockstar brand.
  • "Angel Studios began work on the game in 2000, while Capcom oversaw it, funded it, and announced it in March 2002" -> These are probably separate thoughts, and should be separated into two sentences.
  • Maybe make it clearer that Rockstar bought the rights from Capcom, and not just abstractly.
  • "a stealth game with an open world" -> "an open world stealth game"
  • "The development team leadership, led by producer Luis Gigliotti, was inherited from the studio's Transworld Surf (2001)." -> This might be a little unclear as to how the leadership transferred, let alone why it's important. Comparing the teams between games might not be that important.
  • "removed studio-wide vacations after launching a game" -> do you mean "the game"? If it was after launch, does it make sense to place this sentence later, after launch?
  • "In both cases, police detained artists; the situation in Washington, D.C., was quickly resolved in but the one in Cairo took significantly more time. After both teams returned with their photographs, the development continued. " -> "When police detained the artists in both Washington and Cairo, the situation was eventually resolved. But Cairo took significantly more time, and development continued once both photography teams had returned."
  • "RAGE remains in development and is used in" -> the tense here is a little jarring, though I get that you're speaking to something that will persist for a long time. Maybe "RAGE would go on to be used..."?
  • "Since the acquisition, Angel had been working"... -> "Founder and CEO Diego Angel had been working..." (more important to remind folks that the founder is leaving than to explain the timing since the acquisition)
  • "The Houser brothers tried to persuade him to stay" -> add a comma for flow
  • "settle in Colombia" -> "return to Colombia"
  • "In Medellín, Angel created game development opportunities that ultimately faltered due to a lack of government support and talent in the area." -> "In Medellín, Angel tried to create game development opportunities, but they ultimately faltered due to a lack of government support and talent in the area."
  • "by January 2006" -> can probably drop this as it's implied, considering it follows on December 2005.
In the home stretch here. Take a stab at those and we can hopefully wrap up in the next day or two. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:38, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
Done. Re:
  • (not multiple companies?) – This refers to Angel Studios and Rockstar Games, each with expertise on their own. I changed "the companies'" to "their" for hopefully better clarity.
  • could we switch Rockstar Games to Rockstar for brevity, or is that going to make things confusing when Angel changes their name? – I chose to keep the full name because both "Rockstar"s are mentioned frequently, making confusion between the two somewhat possible. I hope this does not pose too much of an issue.
  • Maybe introduce another heading after the acquisition? – Not sure whether an additional header is the best choice here as the section is mostly about how the acquisition came to and what happened immediately thereafter. Only the first paragraph does not strictly tie into this, though it discusses how the relationship between Rockstar Games and Angel Studios built up. Should I move that to the previous section? I could also rename the section something like "Acquisition and transition to Rockstar San Diego" to make it more obvious what it is about.
  • "removed studio-wide vacations after launching a game" -> do you mean "the game"? – This refers to any launch, not a specific game. As in, after each release, all staff would get two or so weeks off, which Rockstar Games scrapped. I'm not sure where to put this but I moved it up to the actual acquisition.
Thanks again! IceWelder [] 08:21, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
The vacation part is now clearer, so that helps. The other stuff seems more clear now too. Do consider adding another heading, as it's one of the strongest and most helpful cues for the reader. I don't think there's any harm in breaking the acquisition out into its own section, as that section is already five paragraphs as is. But I wouldn't insist and you should take your cues from other reviewers when they come along.
  • This is a style thing, but I find "controversy" to always be vague and euphemistic. "Labor issues and Red Dead Redemption" would be shorter and clearer.
  • "Former Rockstar San Diego 3D artists Terri-Kim Chuckry and Garrett Flynn filed a class-action lawsuit on behalf of themselves and over one hundred other ex-employees against the company on August 26, 2006, over unpaid overtime compensation." -> "By 2006, two former Rockstar San Diego artists filed a class-action lawsuit on behalf of over one hundred ex-employees, claiming unpaid overtime compensation." (The timing is a good way to start the section, and we can be less wordy since the actual names of the claimants aren't as important in a class action.)
  • Add "Even after the settlement, the wives", for better flow and context...
  • The Rockstar quote is one where I think it's important to state it in their own words, rather than paraphrase, for readers to have the most accurate sense of their response. "...saddened if any former members of any studio did not find their time here enjoyable or creatively fulfilling..." is a good place to start.
  • "; other key employees" -> a hard stop "." would be better here.
  • "Take-Two Interactive's chief executive officer, Strauss Zelnick, named it one of the company's strategic permanent franchises" -> considering the last sentence, it feels like you could improve the context and flow here too. Even as simple as "Speaking to investors, Take-Two's chief executive officer, Strauss Zelnick, announced that the game would become one the company's strategic permanent franchises."
  • For the 2011 section, I think the timing is a little confusing that you jump from 2011 to 2018 in the first sentence, then jump back. I might move this sentence to later, closer to the release, or at least split this sentence into separate thoughts.
  • The second sentence about two games would probably be appropriate to separate into two separate thoughts too.
  • Without any context, the part about hiring for an untitled open world project feels kind of meaningless. I'd drop it, or find a way to make it more relevant, either explaining what happened to the project, or dropping the project to focus on the simple fact that the company was growing (which you could connect to them leasing a massive office space).
  • "Martin left Rockstar San Diego in July 2019; he joined the Chinese conglomerate Tencent in December that year and opened a studio called "LightSpeed LA" for the company in July 2020." -> "In 2019, Martin left Rockstar San Diego to join Chinese conglomerate Tencent, opening a subsidiary studio called "LightSpeed LA" the following year."
  • This last section is well written, but feels short. Not in the sense that it's one paragraph, but in the sense that it lists a lot of projects and doesn't really give much context about how they turned out, or their significance to the studio.
  • The N/A in the tables isn't the worst thing, but it feels like the theme park would be as much of a platform as a console. Would make the table feel more complete.
The article was already in good shape and it's already in better shape. Keep it up. You're very close IMO. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:21, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
[52]. I think the lawsuit filers are somewhat relevant, even in a class action, and one of their names appears again in the case name, which I would like to retain at least for flow. I reordered the last section to make for the order of collaborations->expansion->collaborations->departure, chronologically for the most part. I also expanded it with a bit on the over-hours controversy you noted earlier. I'm not sure whether GameWorks and DisneyQuest fit into the platforms column as they were merely the place where the games were used; the underlying systems were not disclosed. Regards, IceWelder [] 19:29, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
Support thanks to all your revisions. The prose is on the whole better and clearer. I'm hoping that other editors will take a closer look at the references, so I suppose my support is conditional on that. There's a few outstanding questions, like how much to expand the last section, or how to include the VR games in the table. But let's see what other editors say, since the article otherwise meets the FA criteria, from what I can tell. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:49, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Spy-cicle[edit]

Did a pretty thorough GA review a while ago, and glad to see it is making its way to FAC (also great to see a free image of Angel). Not sure if I'll have time to do a full review, but here are some intial comments.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 01:08, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

  • he company as Angel Studios in January 1984 after studying film in Chicago, where he grew fond of computer animation. The company... Maybe change the second use of the company to business/firm to avoid repetition, especially as sentence are back to back. This also goes somewhat for the body sometimes if you can repleace with studio/developer/it/firm, etc slightly more engaging and less repetitive
  • Is it worth linking to "Kiss That Frog" to album it is from (Us (Peter Gabriel album))
  • In the infobox "RAGE Technology Group" surely this should be spelled out in full "Rockstar Advanced Game Engine Technology Group" since RAGE is not a common acronym
  • "and continued with commercials for Nintendo, Polaroid Corporation, Asiana Airlines, and Cobra Golf, among others" So was the "educational video" a commerical as well? Continued makes it seems as if is but it is not clear or when they started doing commericals. Slightly awkward wording unless I'm missing something
    @Spy-cicle: Thank you! I fixed the duplication, linked the song (now a redirect to the album), and slightly reworded the commercials bit. Regarding the RAGE Technology Group, the division is known in full by that name (cf., for example, the Grand Theft Auto V credits). I am not aware of a source that refers to it as "Rockstar Advanced Game Engine Technology Group". Regards, IceWelder [] 11:45, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
    Oh okay I understand thank you for clarifying the bit about RAGE Technology Group, I might be able to leave some more comments if I get enough time.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 00:20, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Santería[edit]

Nominator(s): Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:30, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

This article is about a religion that formed in Cuba, drawing upon both traditional West African religions (primarily those of the Yoruba) with elements of Roman Catholicism. It has since spread to various parts of the Americas and also to Europe. Having previously brought Heathenry (new religious movement) and Rastafari up to FA status, I'm hoping that I've done enough to allow this currently GA-rated article to become an FA too. Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:30, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Image review+ other comments
  • Length is an issue with this article. It's 10524 words. Personally I think its readability would benefit a lot from reduction around 20% by increased use of summary style. (t · c) buidhe 10:11, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
  • I've taken out a few sentences in the "Demographics" section and will try and trim a few more bits here and there. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:46, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
  • I've done some general pruning, so the article now contains less than 10,000 words. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:14, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
  • File:Ellegua.jpg Dubious licensing. People often upload photographs as "own work" even if they're not the copyright holder of the underlying work. This is a fairly sophisticated piece of artwork and I think it would need OTRS for me to be convinced it's freely licensed.
  • Fair enough. It's a shame to lose it as I think it definitely helps with the illustration of the article, but you're right that the licensing here is far from water-tight. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:30, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
  • I've gone with the latter image, as you suggest. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:30, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
  • File:Statuo de Elegua en santeria vendejo (Mantilla, Havano).jpg I don't think this image is free either. The main subject in the photo is clearly the figurine so you can't claim de minimis applies and generally photographs of artistic statue-like objects are protected by two copyrights, including the one for the underlying object. (t · c) buidhe 15:27, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
  • I have now removed it; hopefully another image of Elegua will emerge in future that can be used here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:56, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Other images appear to be freely licensed (t · c) buidhe 10:22, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Some sections such as "Definitions" and "Olodumare and the oricha" are longer than ideal for readability, especially for mobile viewers, and should be considered for trimming or splitting into subsections. (t · c) buidhe 10:29, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
  • I have split "Olodumare and the oricha" into several sub-sections and will look at doing the same for "Definitions". Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:42, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
  • I have also added a sub-section into the "Definitions" section. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:46, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Coordinator comment[edit]

This seems to be attracting little attention. If there is not considerable movement towards a consensus to promote by the three week mark I am afraid that the nomination is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:17, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Comments Support from Vaticidalprophet[edit]

This is a great topic and a great article, and I'd hate to see it archived for lack of interest. I don't have my sea legs about FAC yet, so I'm approaching this quite cautiously, but I've read through and have an eye to support. I'll come back to pick some nits. Vaticidalprophet 14:08, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Vaticidalprophet
Beliefs[edit]
  1. It features 16 prominent deities, some female and others male I'm not sure that these clauses are best combined. "features 16 prominent deities" seems best-paired with the currently-choppy first sentence on polytheism, while the gender of the deities slots in with the later-in-the-paragraph discussion of their characteristics.
I've made the change you suggest here, merging the "16 prominent deities" part in with the opening sentence and moving the mention of gender to a later point in that same paragraph. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:14, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
  1. Practitioners believe that some oricha were created before humanity, but that others were originally humans who became oricha through some remarkable quality This is not, I think, a "but" matter. They're combined ideas, rather than contradictory ones. "...were created before humanity, while others were originally humans..."
That's much better. Good suggestion. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:14, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
  1. he is the messenger between humanity and the oricha and most ceremonies start by requesting his permission to continue This feels to me as though it's missing a comma after 'oricha', but may be personal style.
I can certainly add a comma in here, that's no problem. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:14, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
  1. The religion maintains that all people have multiple egun accompanying them at all times, and that these can be either benevolent, malevolent, or a mix of both Superfluous 'either'.
A fair point. I've taken out "either" here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:14, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
  1. Several academics have described Santería as having a "here-and-now" ethos distinct from that of Christianity, and the social scientist Mercedes C. Sandoval suggested that many Cubans chose Santería over Roman Catholicism or Spiritism because it emphasizes techniques for dealing with pragmatic problems in life There's a set of ideas here that doesn't quite emerge in the article and feels like it wants to emerge. You discuss earlier that Santeria is not an orthodox religion. Here, you stop just short of calling it an orthoprax one. The article doesn't drop the word 'orthoprax', simply heavily hints at it. Do any sources discuss orthodoxy vs orthopraxy in Santeria explicitly?
Not in so many words, unfortunately. I think that we could maybe throw in a wikilink to the Orthopraxy article in-text somewhere, but perhaps not use that word itself. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:14, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
Practices[edit]
  1. Santería is a practice-oriented religion; ritual correctness is considered more important than belief Same as for before -- this is almost, but not quite, explicitly saying 'orthopraxy' and comparing the concepts. Orthopraxy is a pretty unfamiliar theological concept to a lot of people in English-speaking regions, and I think it's worth explicitly discussing more what that means, and what makes Santeria different -- even unfamiliar -- through the lens of people working off Christian assumptions.
As I don't think any of the sources actually use the term "orthopraxy" (I would have incorporated it if they did) I'm not sure if we can explicitly include the term here, but I've added a wikilink to our article on the topic here, which hopefully does the trick. I'm open to expanding the text here, but not quite sure how to do so, given the constraints imposed by what is in the Reliable Sources. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:51, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
Wikilink is fine. Vaticidalprophet 21:47, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
  1. Most of its activities revolve around the oricha, although it also displays a focus on solving the problems of everyday life Are these actually distinct ideas in orthoprax religions? "Although" sets them off as counters.
I've changed this sentence to the following: "Most of its activities revolve around the oricha and focus on solving the problems of everyday life." Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:57, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
  1. Since at least the 20th century, some initiates have kept libretas, notebooks in which they have written down material relevant to the practice of Santería The article does not make clear the relevance of this sentence. "Some initiates" beginning in relatively recent years, and without later discussion of the concept, doesn't explain why this is encyclopedically relevant.
I thought it appropriate to discuss the notebooks (and their connotations of literacy) straight after mentioning the oral component in Santería teaching. I don't have a problem with moving this sentence elsewhere in the article, but I'm not sure where they might go that might be more suitable. Perhaps at the bottom of the "Initiation" sub-section? Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:57, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
That sounds like a better fit -- it's a bit disjointed where it is. Vaticidalprophet 21:47, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
I have now moved it. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:38, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
  1. Most Cubans do not understand the Lucumí language, barring a few words that have filtered into Cuban Spanish, the daily language of most practitioners Is the last clause of this sentence necessary? The needed ideas are expressed without it.
I've removed "the daily language of most practitioners." Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:40, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
  1. The casa will typically also include a place to store ritual paraphernalia So...this article uses the term 'paraphernalia' a few times (including in the caption of the image right here). It is, in the abstract, a perfectly respectable word, and likely to be the best one possible. But -- the common association with the term is drug paraphernalia, to the point if you google the word alone you get this. Considering there are already drug-culture associations with Santeria in the popular consciousness, I'm not sure this wording won't attract snickers from peanut-gallery readers.
Difficult one. I'm certainly open to using a synonym here, but "equipment", "utensils", and "implements" all also have connotations of other types of activity (indeed, more so than "paraphernalia", at least in my experience). Terms like "stuff" and "things" are just too vague. On the balance of things, I'd say "paraphernalia" is our best option. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:51, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
  1. Altars or shrines to the oricha are typically found both within the igbodu, and in practitioners' homes Not sure this needs a comma.
Removed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:40, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
  1. anthropologists have observed practitioners who have included Taoist figurines, or statues of wizards, on their altars As above re. comma.
Removed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:40, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
  1. There are specific rules of engagement that are laid out for taking part in the toque de santo; dancing poorly at the ritual is considered an insult to the oricha This is a great line, exactly the kind of thing that catches a reader's attention in a long article. Is there anything more on the bad dancing?
In her ethnographic account, Hagedorn discusses how one practitioner she observed began doing the moonwalk. Other participants thought that this individual was basically just trying to show off rather than being genuinely possessed by an oricha, and were disapproving as a result. I don't know if that's the sort of thing that we could add here or not. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:40, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
Oh, that's a great line -- I'd definitely add it. Human interest, y'know. Vaticidalprophet 21:47, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
  1. Some practitioners have also reported becoming possessed by an oricha in non-ritual contexts, such as while sleeping or walking through the streets, or in some cases during drumming performances carried out for non-religious purposes "In some cases" seems superfluous.
Removed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:40, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
History[edit]
  1. They largely adhered to what is now known as Yoruba traditional religion -- is this WP:PLEONASM? There may be a better way to discuss the Yoruba religions.
I'm not sure about this. Today's Yoruba are largely Christian and Muslim, so it would not be unreasonable for a reader unfamiliar with the chronologies of Abrahamic conversion in West Africa to assume that a lot of the enslaved Yoruba who were taken to Cuba were Christian or Muslim too. Explicitly stating that they were largely adherents of traditional religion just keeps things crystal clear for those readers. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:30, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
I get where you're coming from, but I think it sounds off how it's currently phrased. "They largely adhered to their traditional religions, rather than the Abrahamic religions they would later convert to" ...that's a quick rephrase and not necessarily a good one, but that's the sort of idea I think it's better pointed at. Vaticidalprophet 21:49, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
I'm a bit concerned that introducing Christianity and Islam among the Yoruba here might be a little off-topic; I've had a go at rewriting this sentence, merging it into the subsequent sentence. Do you think that works? Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:46, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
  1. In the 1920s, there were efforts to incorporate elements of Afro-Cuban culture into a wider understanding of Cuban culture, such as through the afrocubanismo literary and artistic movement Should Afrocubanismo be capitalized?
It certainly can be. I'll make that change. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:30, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
  1. Regarded largely as a U.S. phenomenon rather than a Cuban one I'm not sure how relevant it is to this paragraph, then. The rest of the section seems to focus on Santeria as practiced in Cuba, rather than as practiced in the United States.
I've deleted this part of the sentence; it is not essential. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:30, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
  1. One of the most prominent figures in this revival, Ava Kay Jones, had for instance previously been involved in King's Orisha-Voodoo "For instance" seems either superfluous, or needing to be moved forward in the sentence.
I've taken out "for instance" here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:30, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
Demographics[edit]
  1. However, there are a greater number of people who are not initiates but turn to santeros and santeras for assistance on practical matters Strike "however".
Done. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:20, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
  1. This section broadly seems to use older numbers, although I recognize it may be a limitation of what sources exist.
Unfortunately, I'm not aware of any more recent data on this subject. After a big rush of scholarly research on Santería coming out in the 2000s, things have died down a bit in the past ten years (academic fads moving on, I suppose) so there's no contemporary discussion of demographic information to draw on. Hopefully some more work will be done on this topic in future, which we can then incorporate into the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:20, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
Reception[edit]
  1. I think there may be room for expansion here, particularly in the last paragraph, which has a lot of ideas and seems to be compressing them. There's at least one very long sentence trying to deal with multiple different ideas ("the Catholics and the animal welfare activists both opposed" type stuff).
The Reliable Sources haven't really dealt much with the broader social impact and reception of Santería, strangely enough. (Whereas the sources on Haitian Vodou tend to dwell on these issues to a greater extent). I'm certainly open to an expansion of this section, although the article is already pretty much at the upper end of its recommended WP:Article Size at present. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:12, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Overall, this is a strong article. I'm hoping these can be resolved so I can support. Vaticidalprophet 16:35, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you so much for taking the time to read through this article and offer your thoughts, Vaticidalprophet. I hope that you enjoyed doing so and found it informative. I believe that I have responded to all of your points but let me know if any more come to you. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:27, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
Looking good -- just made a couple replies. Vaticidalprophet 21:49, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, Vaticidalprophet. I need to go back and look at the Hagedorn ethnography but I've responded to your other two points. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:48, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

All significant concerns I have are resolved, and I'm happy to support this outstanding work. Vaticidalprophet 17:53, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Comments (incl. source review) from A. Parrot[edit]

To avoid taking up time and space on the FAC page, I've made a lot of prose edits already. They're numerous but very granular, so it should be easy to check what I did; feel free to undo or rework them if you see fit. The article seems pretty comprehensive, so my questions are few.

  • Creyente seems to be used as both singular and plural in the article body, as per Lucumí, but the lead uses "creyentes". Should that be corrected?
  • Linguistics and languages are not my strong point, but (having done some delving on a search engine) it does seem that the plural should be creyentes in the Spanish language, so I have standardised that spelling throughout the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:03, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
  • "…between a few dozen through to hundreds" is awkward.
  • You're right. I've changed this to "tens or hundreds". Midnightblueowl (talk) 08:27, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Fernández Olmos & Paravisini-Gebert 2011 has oyugbona instead of oyubona (which is in Mason 2002). Should oyugbona be added as an alternate spelling?
  • I've re-checked Mason, and he definitely uses the spelling oyubona, but I'm happy to add oyugbona too. With a lot of this terminology, different authors seem to favour different spellings. Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:03, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Is there a distinction between the necklaces that are laid on the soperas and those (aside from the distinct collar de mazo) that are given to initiates? The text lists three terms for the latter but only one for the former, making it seem like there are two types with somewhat different terminology. Also, it's not clear how many necklaces initiates receive, though the comment about their colors seems to suggest each initiate receives one for each oricha.
  • In all honesty, I'm not completely sure about the distinction between these two different types of necklace; I believe they are effectively the same, but I could be wrong. I am not an initiate of Santería, so my knowledge relies on the secondary sources, none of which go into particular detail regarding these necklaces. Midnightblueowl (talk) 08:41, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
OK.
  • If santería is a semi-formalized version of a cluster of longstanding Afro-Cuban beliefs and practices, as the history section indicates, how did it come to be regarded as distinct from the other Afro-Cuban traditions?
  • As I understand it, that varies depending on the tradition in question. Palo, for instance, arises primarily in the east of Cuba and has a system of belief and practice that it very distinct from Santería, largely because it derives from Kongolese, as opposed to Yoruba, traditional religion. Abakuá operates as a sort of closed or secret society, which thus distinguishes it from Santería in an organisational manner. The situation with Arará is a bit more complicated; it is sometimes regarded as being part of Santería, and sometimes as something separate. The article used to mention that, but I removed it when trying to get the word count down. Would you like me to re-add it? Midnightblueowl (talk) 08:27, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
Yes, I think the distinctions need to be clarified as much as possible. The fluid nature of these traditions raises the question of how they came to be regarded as separate traditions with distinct names. Also, do the sources say anything about how these traditions came to be concentrated in the geographic regions that they are? A. Parrot (talk) 18:33, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
  • "…Argüelles Mederos and Hodge Limonta…" I think their full names and (if possible) academic field should be supplied.
  • I've added the personal names of these two and described them as "scholars of religion." I'm not sure if that is the specific field they are most closely associated with; I couldn't find a great deal of information on Argüelles Mederos, but Hodge Limonta appears to have a doctorate in social history and now works in a Center for Psychological and Sociological Research. Midnightblueowl (talk) 08:47, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
Source review

I'm not acquainted with the scholarship on this topic, but the all sources cited seem as strong as one could ask for, especially given the difficulty of studying religions of this type. Although many of the sources are inaccessible to me, I've spot-checked 15 citations to those I can access, and all check out, which is impressive. Here is my only point of concern:

  • Citation 203b: Some of the wording of this passage is a bit uncomfortably close to the source, but it could be reworded to shorten it and reduce the resemblance: "Many practitioners will also enshrine their family ancestors on the floor under the bathroom sink. The ancestors are thus located below the water pipes, allowing the spirits to transition between the realms via water, their preferred medium for travel."
  • Fair point. I've gone back and reworded this sentence. Midnightblueowl (talk) 08:41, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Excellent work, and I'm very close to supporting. A. Parrot (talk) 03:36, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

  • Many thanks for reviewing this, A. Parrot. If you had any responses or other queries then please do let me know. Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:03, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
My last point: the further reading section is pretty extensive. That brings up a question about the FA criteria that editors rarely discuss: "thorough" in criterion 1c could be read as meaning "including everything", which is impractical for large topics. In practice, editors treat 1c as if it said "extensive and representative", which means that leaving RSes unused is OK as long as the coverage is neutral and discusses everything it needs to at the appropriate level of detail. But Flores-Peña and Evanchuk 1994 seems like it might answer my question about necklaces. I'm assuming you didn't cite the book because you haven't been able to obtain it. If so, it's not a major problem, but it's worth keeping in mind in case you or some other editor is able to obtain that source—even an FA can be improved. A. Parrot (talk) 18:33, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Level Mountain[edit]

Nominator(s): Volcanoguy 19:54, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

This article is a comprehensive and well-researched account of Level Mountain, one of the largest volcanoes in Canada and one of the more obscure volcanoes on Earth. In late 2015, I rewrote and expanded this article greatly which was followed by a lot of copyediting that has lasted into this year. I have significant knowledge regarding the volcanoes of British Columbia, having researched them for the last 14 years or so. I have also brought other BC volcano articles up to FA class in the past and look forward to bringing this article about Level Mountain up to that standard. Cheers, Volcanoguy 19:54, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Image review[edit]

Done. Volcanoguy 01:09, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
  • File:Level Mountain topo cropped.jpg How was this map created? Is it automatic generation or is there any creative element? I think this would make a better lead image than the one you currently have, as it's much more clear (t · c) buidhe 00:33, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
I have never seen an FA article with a topographic map as a lead image. It also doesn't show the entire mountain. As for the map, it is based on SRTM data provided freely by NASA and processed in QGIS with World Imagery texture type TOPO. Volcanoguy 16:39, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Jo-Jo Eumerus[edit]

Going point-by-point through WP:WIAFA:

  • 1a: With the caveat that I am not necessarily known for my prose skills, this seems fine to me.
  • 1b: As far as I can tell, every topic I'd expect to be covered is covered here. Maybe details on climbing/mountaineering would be cool but in my experience reliable sources for such topics are hard to come by.
There is nothing about climbing/mountaineering at Level Mountain, which isn't surprising due to its remoteness. Volcanoguy 15:10, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
  • 1c: I see some sources mentioned here are not used in the article - from the summaries I think many say too little about Level Mountain or only bespeak technical details, but I assume we checked this? I have to AGF on some sources as I don't have access to them. Inline citations used through the article.
Yes I have already checked those sources. Most mention Level Mountain only briefly and aren't very useful to use as sources. A few in that list are already used in the article. Volcanoguy 15:30, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
  • 1d: I see no indication of NPOV problems, keeping the caveat about source access mentioned above in mind.
  • 1e: Fits.
  • 1f: The "drop a couple of sentences into Google" technique finds nothing untoward.
  • 2a: Seems to fit; topics mentioned in the article also in the lead.
  • 2b: Seems to fit.
  • 2c: I see some citation errors and some citations have retrieved dates and others don't.
What citation errors and citations are you referring to? Volcanoguy 15:34, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
Several show "Cite journal requires |journal=" errors, such as Holland 1976 and Gabrielse 1982. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:34, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
How about now? I didn't have those errors so I'm not sure if they're still there. Volcanoguy 19:35, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
  • 3: I think the ALT text on most images here is a little too much about what the image is and a little too little about what information it conveys. Does File:Level Mountain topo cropped.jpg have a source map? Images are appropriate for the sections they are in.
The map is based on SRTM data provided freely by NASA and processed in QGIS with World Imagery texture type TOPO. Volcanoguy 16:39, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
I did some improvements to the alt texts. Volcanoguy 19:35, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
  • 4: Seems to fit.

Parking an uncommitted !vote here for the moment. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:19, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

OK, provisional support here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:32, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Ceranthor[edit]

  • Lead
  • "It is located 50 km (31 mi) north-northwest" - should be endash for north northwest
Done. Volcanoguy 23:40, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
  • "extensive north-south trending volcanic zone" same note as above.
Done. Volcanoguy 18:55, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
  • "An extensive wild animal community thrives in the area of Level Mountain." - a very vague statement to make; I think this would read much better as "A wide variety of animal species thrives in the area of Level Mountain, with caribou being the most abundant."
Agreed. Volcanoguy 19:59, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
  • "Humans had arrived at Level Mountain by the early 1900s, followed by geological studies of the mountain from the 1920s to the 1970s." - does including "had" before arrived add anything here? I'm not sure it does
Removed. Volcanoguy 01:32, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Geology
  • "The rocks of these two terranes are displaced and autochthonous in nature.[7]" - maybe misunderstanding, but aren't displaced and autochthonous opposites? If so, what are you trying to convey with this sentence
You understood it correctly. It just meant that the Yukon–Tanana and Cassiar terranes consist of both displaced and autochthonous rocks. Since that sentence isn't needed, I've deleted it. Volcanoguy 16:34, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
  • "The most common and best mechanism used to explain NCVP volcanic activity" - best according to whom?
Rewarded. Volcanoguy 05:01, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
  • "This volcanic edifice forms a broad, oval-shaped, north-south trending lava plateau" - same note as above
Done. Volcanoguy 18:55, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
  • "although some estimates of its areal extent are as much as 3,000 km2 (1,200 sq mi).[3][4]" - is there any brief explanation in these two sources about the discrepancy here? If so, I think it's worth noting here
No there isn't. Volcanoguy 04:35, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
  • "The other planar fracture, Nahlin, is an east-dipping thrust fault" - what do you mean by east-dipping? Unclear to me.
Dipping is already linked in the article; see strike and dip. It's basically a thrust fault that is tilting towards the east. Volcanoguy 17:21, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
  • "A series of U-shaped valleys have been carved into the volcano" - Since you say "a series OF ... valleys" this should be "has been carved"
I don't think so. "A series of" implies that there's more than one, thus plural. Volcanoguy 15:35, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
  • "Level Mountain has experienced volcanic eruptions sporadically for the last 15 million years, making it the most persistent volcano of the NCVP." - Not sure how I feel about the use of persistent here; is there a better term we could use instead? Maybe the longest living or something more along those lines?
Replaced "persistent" with "long-lived". Volcanoguy 23:50, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
  • "Renewed volcanism sent a series of massive ankaramite lava flows over the second unit and have a total thickness of 76 m (249 ft). " - second half of the sentence does not match grammatically
Reworded to "Renewed volcanism deposited a 76 m (249 ft) thick sequence of massive ankaramite lava flows over the second unit." Volcanoguy 01:47, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
  • "These lava flows, comprising the third unit, are spheroidally weathered." - spheroidally weathered? What does that mean?
Linked. Volcanoguy 03:14, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
  • "The liquidus temperatures of these flows were in excess of 1,200 °C (2,190 °F) with viscosities as low as 100,000 poise." - Link liquidus
Done. Volcanoguy 04:46, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Geography
  • "The caribou at Level Mountain form a herd that is part of a larger population ranging west of the Dease River " - ranging doesn't work here
Changed "ranging" to "extending". Volcanoguy 01:17, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Human history
  • "there is a human population of more than 630 who live within 100 km (62 mi) of the volcano.[2]" - any more details on this?
No. Volcanoguy 02:56, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
  • "Level Mountain was demonstrated in the 1920s as a possible source" - need a better verb than demonstrated
What would be a better word to use? Volcanoguy 21:46, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
  • "The recognition of Level Mountain as a long-lived volcano in contrast to the small Tuya field volcanoes has given it status as a separate volcanic centre.[27]" - I think you're missing an "its" after "it" and before "status"
I don't think so. Volcanoguy 15:18, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Accessibility
  • Looks fine.
  • Monitoring and volcanic hazards
  • "Like other volcanoes in the NCVP, Level Mountain is not monitored closely enough by the Geological Survey of Canada to ascertain how active its magma system is." - too wordy, just say "it is not monitored closely enough to ascertain its activity level"
Done. Volcanoguy 00:48, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

All this from my first pass. Think the geology section is a bit jargon-y and dense for a lay reader. Will try to keep making small changes while these are discussed/addressed. ceranthor 00:37, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

@Ceranthor: I've already tried avoiding jargon as much as I could but it's not possible. Geology is a technical subject, something not everyone can understand. This ain't Simple English Wikipedia. Volcanoguy 02:29, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
Support will try and run through and copyedit once more, but I think this is well-written and comprehensive. ceranthor 19:38, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

TRM[edit]

Jargon will be a problem. Several other similar FACs have stalled/failed on their inability to bring explanations within the article to the readers, and that's a MOS issue, one which a FAC co-ord has picked up on. You'll need to expect to be asked to explain a lot of the things you believe are "common terms" within this article I'm afraid, and while I note you refute that position above, it's currently non-negotiable per MOS. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 00:56, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

For what it's worth, footnotes like on Huaynaputina that explain certain jargon terms might resolve the issue. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:05, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
@The Rambling Man: What terms need to be explained exactly? I could add footnotes. Volcanoguy 14:55, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Infobox has many entries separated from their references by a space.
That is an issue with {{Infobox mountain}} itself that I cannot fix. I have brought it up on the template's talk page. Volcanoguy 16:05, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
Spaces have been removed. Volcanoguy 05:17, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
  • "E-W." shouldn't that be an en-dash?
Fixed. Volcanoguy 16:05, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
  • "lava flows; these lavas created" no need for "lavas".
Deleted. Volcanoguy 16:05, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
  • "includes slab windows, mantle plumes, crustal extension and deglaciation." I think I can guess at what the last one means, but the others need explanation.
I've deleted that sentence since it isn't important. Volcanoguy 18:32, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
  • "discontinuous breccias, sporadic tuff horizons and local lenses of fluvial, lacustrine and" way over-jargon.
Deleted. Volcanoguy 00:30, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
  • "that local streams flow on" on which local streams flow.
Fixed. Volcanoguy 16:05, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
  • "appears remarkably flat" tone issue there, is that someone's opinion?
I fail to see what is wrong with the tone here. It isn't someone's opinion. Volcanoguy 17:14, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
I have never heard of an encyclopedic stating that something was remarkable. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 17:22, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
Would "unusually flat" work? Volcanoguy 17:49, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
  • "Smaller but related volcanoes" excuse my ignorance but what makes them "related"?
They were formed by the same geologic processes and are part of the same volcanic zone. Volcanoguy 16:05, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
  • "Phonolites are vesicular and pumiceous in nature, although phonolites with trachytic texture are also present" essentially meaningless to someone without clicking away or without expert knowledge.
Added notes for "pumiceous" and "trachytic". Volcanoguy 20:56, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
  • "of Tertiary basalts along" odd time to link basalt.
Agreed. I have moved the link to a spot earlier in the article. Volcanoguy 16:05, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
  • "stone stripping" what is that?
I am no expert but I assume it is the fracturing of rocks as a result of freezing and thawing of groundwater. There appears to be no article for "stone stripping", nor could I find a definition. So I do not know what to do here. Volcanoguy 16:35, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
Suggest we find an expert to explain it? The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 17:23, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
I looked at the source again and it appears "stone stripping" was just a typo on my part for "stone striping". I have fixed this and added a link to the stone stripe article. Volcanoguy 19:33, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
  • "confined to nivation and solifluction" more unexplained and unguessable jargon.
Added notes for both nivation and solifluction. Volcanoguy 21:53, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

That takes me to Volcanic history. Hopefully you can begin to see the kinds of terminology jungles that are in here which are intractable to all but the most learned readers, which contravenes MOS. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 12:23, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: I have added notes all throughout the article. Volcanoguy 04:17, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Source review[edit]

  • #1, 4, 5, 17, 25: Add archived URLs as backups?
The source templates do not allow archived URLs. Volcanoguy 14:56, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
No it isn't. I've linked it to the correct article. Volcanoguy 14:51, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
  • #8, 9, 18, 23, 26, 32, 33: Retrieval dates not needed, since you're relying on the archived URL.
Removed. Volcanoguy 16:02, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
  • #10: I'd link Canada Department of Mines to Minister of Mines (Canada). And this is a 95-year-old work; any chance it's available online?
Linked. I couldn't find it online. Volcanoguy 15:02, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
Where did you find the copy of the work you relied on? At a library? --Usernameunique (talk) 04:42, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
  • #10, 13, 15, 19, 29: Are there any identifiers for these works, such as OCLCs or ISSNs, that you can add?
No there isn't. Volcanoguy 15:49, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
  • I was able to find an OCLC for at least one of these by searching on WorldCat. Odds are, if a copy is in a library, it has an OCLC. Take a look at WorldCat. --Usernameunique (talk) 01:52, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
I was referring only to ISSNs; didn't know what OCLCs were. Volcanoguy 02:02, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
@Usernameunique: I was able to find OCLCs for all of these sources. Volcanoguy 03:25, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Volcanoguy, OCLCs aren't worth much if they aren't connected to books held by libraries; their main use is that they link you to a list of which libraries hold a book. Thus, for Bilsland 1971, I would use OCLC 1131206258 (listing 20 libraries) rather than OCLC 866011885 (listing one library). The other three you added aren't linked to libraries at all. But there is another OCLC available for Gabrielse 1998 (linked to a copy held by Stanford). Hamilton & Scarfe 1977 does not have an OCLC linked to a library, but this is because the work is miscited; it is actually a chapter within a book, and, as luck would have it, the book is available online (with a DOI, to boot). Mark 1987 (for which you did not actually add an OCLC) does not appear to have one—understandably, since it appears to be grey literature—but it is available online here, so a link should be added. --Usernameunique (talk) 04:42, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Fixed. Volcanoguy 06:16, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
  • #11, 14: Are "S.", "T.", and "G." middle initials? If so, they should go in the |first= parameter, not the |last= parameter.
Fixed. Volcanoguy 16:10, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
Linked. I'm surprised I missed that. Volcanoguy 15:04, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
  • #23: I'm a bit confused by this one. Should the Archives of Manitoba be the publisher, and "Hudson’s Bay Company Archives - Biographical Sheets" be the website? Also, the link is still live here, so reliance on the archived URL (other than as a backup) isn't needed.
Fixed. Volcanoguy 16:18, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
  • #27: Does the publisher really have the exact same name as the journal?
That's what it seems like according to the American Journal of Science article. Volcanoguy 15:41, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
  • #29: What is Ash Fall?
Ash Fall was a newsletter of the Volcanology Division of the Geological Association of Canada. Volcanoguy 15:09, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
Added the url and archived url for this source. Volcanoguy 03:27, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
  • #31: Is a library really the publisher?
Fixed. Volcanoguy 15:37, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
  • #2, 6, 10, 13, 15, 16, 27, 28: Why initials rather than first names? I generally prefer first names over initials; it can become a real pain to try to figure out later on who initialed authors are.
Simply because the sources use initials rather than first names. Volcanoguy 15:13, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Hamilton 1981: Same points re: initials, and identifiers such as OCLCs.
  • General: For works with multiple authors, you might get some traction with the "|name-list-style=amp" parameter. Up to you.

This version looked at. --Usernameunique (talk) 03:34, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Volcanoguy, comments above. --Usernameunique (talk) 01:52, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Volcanoguy, further comments above. In going through the second comment, I realized that it appears a number of the materials you cited are available online, even if they don't have links in the article. Some examples are mentioned above, but there are more, such as Fenger et al. 1986, which is available here. I would go through your references again, to make sure that what is available online carries a link. After you do that I'll take another look. --Usernameunique (talk) 04:42, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
I was able to find many of the sources online but not all of them. I have added urls and dois to those I found online. Volcanoguy 06:16, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

York County, Maine, Tercentenary half dollar[edit]

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 22:17, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

This article is about...One of the more obscure of the commemoratives issued in 1936. Still, the coin tells a story, and the only scandal seems to be that Congress let standards drop and chose to commemorate a very local event. Wehwalt (talk) 22:17, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Image review

  • Suggest adding alt text
  • File:York_county_tercentenary_half_dollar_commemorative_obverse.jpg: what's the copyright status of the photo? Ditto File:York_county_tercentenary_half_dollar_commemorative_reverse.jpg
  • File:LVPL-1CFD55_Silver_pine_tree_shilling_of_Massachusetts,_North_America_(FindID_285997).jpg should include an explicit tag for the coin. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:27, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
First two swapped for ones that areOTRS pending, will advise when permissions come through. License added on pine tree shilling. As for Alt text, I don't feel I do it well, so I prefer to leave it for others who care to. Thanks for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:46, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
OTRS has added permissions.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:58, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Comments by Ceoil[edit]

Know York quite well and spent a few days there during my honeymoon in 2014. The town has a rather picturesque and storied graveyard that have visited many times in last 8 years. Maybe so have a COI here, dunno ;)

Quibbles:

  • The commemorative coin craze of 1936 - as this is not linked, perhaps "a commemorative coin craze" rather than "the"
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:51, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
  • selling the coins to the public asked that the maximum issue of 30,000 coins be struck, but for uncertain reasons the Philadelphia Mint struck only 25,000 for public sale - is the second "public sale" here redundant. Same with "the remainder was sold to the public in the 1950s"
The "for public sale" was to exclude the 15 assay pieces, which were either tested to destruction, melted or sold to the 1937 assay commissioners. Tweaked.
  • what is now the state of Maine was at what is now...: change one "what is now" to "today's"
Done, more or less.
  • oldest and southernmost county in Maine and one of the oldest political units in the United States - oldest x 2. Does "first" political units in the United States follow?
I changed the other "oldest" instead.
  • Sparked by low-mintage issues which appreciated in value - sparked? Due to a series of...which appreciated...
I like the existing language, which I've used in other articles, better.
  • The new pieces then came on to the secondary market - entered
Fine.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:24, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
  • The apparent easy profits to be made by purchasing and holding commemoratives attracted many to the coin collecting hobby, where they sought to purchase the new issues - speculative buying and collecting are different things, so would re-phsase "drew many" as "brought attention to". where they sought to purchase the new issues - "especially in" rater than "where they sought to purchase"
Tweaked somewhat differently.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:24, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
  • an explosion of ?
Tweaked.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:24, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
  • more non deal breaking comments shortly Ceoil (talk) 13:11, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Have read through, and made minor tweaks rather than listing here....please feel free to revert at will. The sources seem as of the usual quality for this topic and editor. Support. 15:18, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the review and support. I've made the changes per the above.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:24, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

HF[edit]

Will take a look at this soon. Might claim for 5 points in the WikiCup. Hog Farm Talk 22:22, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

  • "In 1636, York County was formed, the first and southernmost county in Maine and one of the oldest political units in the United States" - Is it worth briefly noting that Maine itself technically didn't exist at that time, as it was part of Massachusetts until the early 19th century?
I'm not sure that's necessary here.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:14, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Do we know why Taber objected?
No. Working directly from Congressional Record there.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:14, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
  • "The original coin holder in which up to five York County half dollars were sent to purchasers are worth from $50 to $125, and if accompanied by original insert up to $150, depending on condition" - Source is almost ten years old, recommend adding as as of date here.
Did that, more or less.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:14, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Excellent work here; I couldn't find much to nitpick. Anticipate supporting. Hog Farm Talk 04:37, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Many thanks for the review. I've addressed those.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:14, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
Support on WP:FACR #1a, 1b, 1d, 1e, source reliability, 2a, 2b, 2c, and 4, did not check others. Hog Farm Talk 01:40, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Support by Moise[edit]

Hi Wehwalt, I'll review this. Here are some comments:

  • Lead: "the remainder was sold": I would say "were sold" because coins is plural, but if you disagree this is no dealbreaker for me.
Changed to "were sold".--Wehwalt (talk) 19:19, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Background and inception: Does "senior among them" mean "first among them". If so, could I propose "several coins minted in prior years were produced again, dated 1936, first among them the Oregon Trail Memorial half dollar, initially struck in 1926"? (I assume "senior among them" doesn't mean "most importantly among them" as that would sound subjective.)
It means that the Oregon Trail was first struck in 1926, the other coins referred to came along later (1934 and 1935). It's a simple way of saying it I've used in other articles, other ways seem messier.---Wehwalt (talk) 19:17, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
  • "The York County, Maine, Tercentenary half dollar was one of several early commemoratives issued despite its local significance": I initially was confused what "despite its local significance" refers to, but I see it is explained a bit farther down. I think it would be clearer to reword this as "despite its lack of national significance". Moisejp (talk) 18:39, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
Done, more or less.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:17, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Design: "The obverse depicts Brown's Garrison, located next to the Saco River... The reverse depicts the York County seal." This seems to repeat details mentioned just a bit above in the Preparation section. I'm not sure what the best solution would be if you feel the details are needed in both sections. One idea would be in the Design section drop the detail of Saco River (I don't believe it's actually shown on the coin?) and say something like "On the obverse four sentries are seen in front of Brown's Garrison, with one of them mounted,[29] making the York County half dollar the third U.S. coin, after the Lafayette dollar (dated 1900) and the Stone Mountain Memorial half dollar (1925), to depict a horse." In this way the repeated detail about Brown's Garrison is mentioned less directly and unobtrusively than "depicts Brown's Garrison". Likewise maybe the detail about the York County seal on the reverse could be slipped in less directly.
Done, more or less.--