Wikipedia:Featured article candidates

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

The FAC coordinators—Ian Rose 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  • a nomination is unprepared, after at least one reviewer has suggested it be withdrawn.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.

Nominations in urgent need of review are listed here. To contact the FAC coordinators, please leave a message on the FAC talk page, or use the {{@FAC}} notification template elsewhere.

A bot will update the article talk page after the article is promoted or the nomination archived; the delay in bot processing can range from minutes to several days, and the {{FAC}} template should remain on the talk page until the bot updates {{Article history}}.

Table of 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]

SS Choctaw[edit]

Nominator(s): GreatLakesShips (talk) 19:50, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[]

This article is about the Great Lakes freighter SS Choctaw. I brought the article to GA status in December 2020. Ever since then, it has been copy edited by Baffle gab1978 and has undergone and a peer review. The original review was closed to a lack of input. GreatLakesShips (talk) 19:50, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Armenian genocide[edit]

Nominator(s): (t · c) buidhe 10:13, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[]

After a bit of a delay, I think it's time for this level-4 vital article to come back to FAC. I really appreciate the feedback I received on the last nomination, which I did my best to address, and am looking forward to additional comments. (t · c) buidhe 10:13, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Comments by Super Dromaeosaurus[edit]

Hello. As on the last FA review, I am here just to note some minor details and will not engage in full review.

  • Check duplicated links, there's a few of them.
    • Mostly fixed. I left a couple in where there's a large gap.
  • The only note on the article, "Also known by other names", should have its own section and not be included within the references one in my opinion. A period could also be added. It is pretty short anyway so we perhaps could just remove it.
    • Added period, but an additional section would add too much page clutter (including table of contents) to be worthwhile imo.
  • Article uses both "Armenian Question" (twice, excluding references) and "Armenian question" (once). It'd be better to have consistency.
    • Per MOS:Caps, this phrase is not consistently capitalized in reliable sources so it should not generally be capitalized. However in direct quotes original capitalization is preserved.
  • Could we add the Armenian name of the event in the lead? I imagine this probably has been discussed before and not just not considered at this point, my apologies if so.
    • I don't think so. The entire reason for creating the terminology article was to move the details on alternate names somewhere other than the first sentence of the lead where they're UNDUE (in my opinion).
  • It could be stated that the Armenian genocide is part of the Late Ottoman genocides and not just of WW1 in the infobox. Super Ψ Dro 21:53, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    • This is discussed in the article, but I'm concerned that it would add too much clutter to the infobox, which we've tried to keep simple, as well as not necessarily being understood by the average reader.
    • Thanks for your comments. (t · c) buidhe 22:12, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Source review[edit]

Will take this up. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 16:44, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[]

  • de Waal, Thomas (2015) WorldCat relates that the 2015 edition is a PHD dissertation, you may wish to make note of this.
  • Kévorkian, Raymond (2011) while Bloomsbury Publishing does currently own I.B. Tauris, it was I.B. Tauris themselves that published this before being bought seven years later, you may wish to specify the publisher to them.
  • Suciyan, Talin (2015) same here, may wish to specify to I.B. Tauris.
  • Ahmed, Ali (2006) the linked ISBN (9781135205089) seems to lead to a 2013 edition per WorldCat; suggest 9781579583880 as used for 2006 edition. If you used the 2013 edition, you may wish to simply insert an orig-year of 2005 (the earliest I can find it). If you used a paper copy of 2006 with the linked ISBN, disregard this.
  • Anderson, Margaret Lavinia (2011) listed ISBN of 9780199792764 brings up an error on WorldCat; 9780195393743 seems to be a common ISBN for the 2011 edition. If the listed ISBN is from a paper 2011 copy, disregard this.
  • Ditto Astourian, Stephan (2011), Göçek, Fatma Müge (2011) Zürcher, Erik Jan (2011), and Dündar, Fuat (2011).
  • Kévorkian, Raymond (2020 WorldCat seems to have a lot of 2021 editions compared to 2020, double-check that 2020 is the correct year; ISBN is appropriate for both, but 9781789204506 is more commonly used for 2021 editions.
  • Mouradian, Khatchig (2018) per WorldCat the current ISBN is somewhat rare for the 2018 edition, may wish to double-check/change to the more commonly used 9780415787444, but default to used copy.
  • @Buidhe: That is all, no objection to the inclusion of any sources. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 17:36, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Notes (non-issues)
  • Bloxham, Donald (2005) the ISBN (9780199226887) links only to 2009 WorldCat editions, but subsequent searches in the 2005 editions reveal the ISBN as valid for 2005 editions, presume failure of WorldCat.
  • de Waal, Thomas (2015) ISBN provided (978-0-19-935069-8) links to a 2019 edition, but WorldCat confirms valid for 2015 edition.
  • Bloxham, Donald; Göçek, Fatma Müge (2008) WorldCat has no 2008 entry but Google Books and Springer confirm it.
  • Leonard, Thomas C. (2004) no WorldCat entry for this date, confirmed in other locations.

Australian nationality law[edit]

Nominator(s): Horserice (talk) 20:56, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[]

This article is about the history and regulations of Australian nationality. This is a follow-up to the New Zealand nationality law article, which just got through FAC last month. Some information will be quite similar due to the two countries' shared history. Horserice (talk) 20:56, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Billy Bates (baseball)[edit]

Nominator(s): Therapyisgood (talk) 02:33, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[]

This article is about... Billy Bates. Pinging @Hog Farm:, as they did a great pre-FAC review. I've expanded this over the past few days, and hopefully this meets FA criteria. Expanded with new sourcing and information after a Newspapers.com search and roundup. Therapyisgood (talk) 02:33, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[]

I'll wait to post a review to let some other editors look at this first, but I feel like my comments in the pre-FAC review and in the last FAC have been well-addressed. Hog Farm Talk 02:43, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Comments
  • "William Derrick Bates was born on December 7, 1963, in Houston, Texas, to a paint foreman" - to my mind, being born "to" someone suggests that person was the mother. Presumably his mother wasn't a paint foreman?
    • The source doesn't say which parent was a paint foreman, so I've reworded in the article to just say "the son of a paint foreman". Therapyisgood (talk) 20:32, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • "He finished the season batting .296" - what does this mean?
  • "and drew a walk" - what does this mean?
  • "As of 2018, Bates holds" - that was three years ago, so if a more up to date stat is not available, I would suggest changing it to "held"
  • "Bates; and LaVel Freeman" - think that semi-colon should be a comma or possibly not even there at all
  • "stated Bates may make" => "stated that Bates might make"
  • "in a Zephyrs' victory" - no need for that apostrophe
  • Image caption is a complete sentence so needs a full stop
  • "though Bates stated he played at shortstop and third base last year" => "though Bates stated that he had played at shortstop and third base the previous year"
  • "was placed on the DL" - what is the DL?
  • "an error that allowed Boggs to reach" - reach what?
  • "and the Brewers won, 8–4" - don't think that comma is needed
  • "Bates came into the game as a pinch runner" - first mention in the body so should be linked
  • "with the Reds losing, 4–3" - don't think that comma is needed
  • "moved on to the World Series" - link World Series (probably the specific one)
  • "was not able take his spot" - word "to" is missing
  • "He was a physical education major at the University of Texas" - in 1984?
  • Think that's it from me..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:14, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Support - nice one -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:02, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[]

British logistics in the Siegfried Line campaign[edit]

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:35, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[]

This article is the next in my series on logistics of the campaign in North West Europe in 1944-1945. The "Siegfried Line campaign" is not an official designation, but nor is it a Wikipedia one. When the American official historians were preparing their series of works back in 1945, the American official designation for the campaign that came after the breakout and pursuit is "Rhineland", but the historians felt that it covered too many battles, and divided it in two: the Siegfried Line campaign (the actions of the US First and Ninth Armies in the north) and the Lorraine campaign (the actions of the US Third and Seventh Armies in the south). For our purposes, we have them both under the umbrella of the Siegfried Line campaignbox, along with the British and Canadian actions. The British divided the period into four phases: the advance from Brussels to the Nederrijn (Operation Market Garden), the Channel Ports (clearing the Channel Coast), the Opening of Antwerp (Battle of the Scheldt) and the Ardennes (Battle of the Bulge). This article therefore covers the logistics of the 21st Army Group in the period from September 1944 to January 1945; the earlier period from June to September 1944 has been covered in British logistics in the Normandy campaign, and that leaves the campaigns of 1945 for a future article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:35, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Nick-D[edit]

I provided a pedantic source review of this article during its A-class review, and was very impressed with the article and the range of sources used. I'd like to offer the following comments:

  • " in the Second World War operations " - bit clunky
    Changed the wording slightly. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:44, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • The second para of the lead should note that while the advance through Normandy was slower than planned, the advance through the rest of France and Belgium was much quicker given the German collapse
    Noted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:44, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Can the 'Organisation' section note briefly how logistics for the small national conventional forces (the Polish armoured division, Czechs, Free Dutch brigade, etc) that were serving with the British and Canadians were managed? I presume that they were treated as if they were British or Canadian units.
  • The 'Market Garden' section doesn't seem to cover the difficulties the British had resupplying the 1st Airborne Division at Arnhem? The huge, very brave and not entirely successful supply dropping operation deserves some coverage.
  • Added a section about Market logistics. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:48, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • What's a 'Queen Mary transporter'?

Nick-D (talk) 05:07, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Source review - pass[edit]

  • Taking this up. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 17:50, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • I've fixed a deadlink and archived all of the current links; I've also changed some OCLCs which did not lead anywhere.
  • Buckley, John (2013) per WorldCat the used OCLC of 1026765168 is for a 2014 edition unless this OCLC is in a physical book you used, suggest using 0300205341 from 2013 and which corresponds to the listed ISBN; ISBN is good for both editions.
    Book It says copyright 2013 published 2014. Switched to 2014. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:24, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Carter, J. A. H.; Kann, D. N. (1961) used OCLC seems to correspond to a 1974 edition, per same stipulations above suggest 632441304.
    Book is the 1961 edition. OCLC is correct. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:24, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Ellis, L. F.; Warhurst, A. E. (1968) OCLC given gives a date of 1962, may wish to either change date to 1962 or insert an orig-year of 1962, depending on which was used. If you aren't changing the date, suggest OCLC of 491514035.
    Book is 1968; 1962 is volume I. Looks like that OCLC is in error. Switched to 491514035 as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:24, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • King, Benjamin; Kutta, Timothy (1998) what makes this a high-quality reliable source?
    Benjamin King is a well-known historian. In his US Army service he worked with rockets, hence the interest in the V-2. At the time the book was written he was chief historian of the US Army Transportation Command. He has written several books on logistics. He has an article; linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:24, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Langston, Keith; Kerr, Fred (2012) is there a reason the location of Barnsley, South Yorkshire isn't included?
    Oversight by another editor. Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:24, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Mead, Richard (2015) what makes him a high-quality reliable source? Additionally, standardize locations that aren't mononyms to city, state, so Barnsley, South Yorkshire here.
    Added "South Yorkshire". Mead is a well-known British writer who has written biographies of Browning and McCreery. [1] Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:24, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Ruppenthal, Roland G. (1959) the OCLC leads to a 1978 edition, and the link leads to a 1995 edition; if linked edition was used suggest date of 1995 and orig-year of 1959.
    My book is the 1959 edition. Substituted 277459588. The link goes to the 1995 edition; nothing that can be done about that, but the page numbering is the same. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:24, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Ruppenthal, Roland G. (1960) this OCLC seems to correspond to a 1978 edition, suggest changing to 631288908 OCLC for 1960 edition, per usual stipulations of usage.
    Switched to 631288908. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:24, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • @Hawkeye7: that is all. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 19:25, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    Article passes source review. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 20:42, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Jesu, meine Freude, BWV 227[edit]

Nominator(s): Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:56, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[]

This article is about Bach's longest motet, with a complex text alternating hymn stanzas from "Jesu, meine Freude" with biblical text from Paul's Letter to the Romans. The music, in a symmetrical arrangement of 11 movements, displays various vocal scorings (from 3 to 5 voices) and compositional variation and finesse. For the longest time, the motet was believed to have been composed for a certain funeral, but recent scholarship questioned that. - The article has a long history, I came in late, Francis Schonken brought it to GA quality, - I wonder how he could receive credit. It received a peer review earlier this year, with good comments by Amitchell125 and Aza 24. There is no similar article, because it's a unique artwork. Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:56, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Image review[edit]

  • File:Jesu,_meine_Freude_(Bach)_Anfangstakte.png is tagged as lacking author info, and should include a tag for the original work
  • File:Jesu_Meine_Freude_Praxis_Cruger_1653_-_extract.jpg needs a US tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:56, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Thank you for the review! GRuban, can you please help in a field I'm not sure I do the right thing? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:10, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[]
@Nikkimaria: I fixed the complaining templates on both pages, but not sure what "should include a tag for the original work" meant. It's a score of a Bach composition, do you mean you want a link to our page for the composition, meaning Jesu, meine Freude, BWV 227, this article in question? --GRuban (talk) 19:57, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Not a link, but a copyright tag, reflecting that the copyright of the work itself has expired. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:23, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[]
 Done --GRuban (talk) 23:25, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Laborintus II (album)[edit]

Nominator(s): 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ 20:01, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Another attempt for this particular article after the last nomination was declined on prose grounds. It has undergone further copy-editing since and as always I'm happy to respond to constructive criticism as to any improvements. Bit a strange one, it's only the third recorded version of an Italian composition, recorded by a Dutch choir, a Belgian orchestra, and an American ... vocalist(?), but I feel it's worth a listen. Thanks in advance to anyone giving this one a look. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ 20:01, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[]

CommentsSupport from ChrisTheDude[edit]

  • "the Belgian orchestra Ictus Ensemble, the vocal group Nederlands Kamerkoor and the American vocalist Mike Patton" - personally, I would put a comma after Kamerkoor
    Done.
  • "debuted at number 23 on the American Billboard Classic Albums chart" - it's the Classical Albums chart, not Classic
    Changed at both mentions--was this renamed or have I been staring at this one for years?
    Can't say for certain but I would imagine it's always been called that. Classical Albums (recordings of Mozart, Beethoven, etc) are very different from Classic Albums (Dark Side of the Moon, Sergeant Pepper, etc) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:35, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Is there an appropriate wikilink for "usury"? It's not the most common word and some people may not know what it means
    Yes, linked.
  • Refs at the end of the first para of Composition are not in the right order
    Rearranged.
  • "spent one week on the Billboard Classic Albums chart at number 23" - same comment as above
  • "the musician has previously produced similarly avant-garde records in the past" - I would change "has" to "had", and also, you don't need both "previously" and "in the past", as obviously anything that happened previously happened in the past
    Changed.
  • What's the source for the personnel section?
    Initially the album notes, which I don't have to hand currently, but I can add a source to AllMusic. Have added as a brief line but can refactor it another way if preferred.
  • First note is a sentence fragment so doesn't need a full stop
    I'm not sure about this--the Dutch is a complete sentence ("the libretto can be read as an indictment against the practice of loan-sharks"), does a full sentence quoted in what would otherwise be a fragment count?
    I would personally say the whole thing is still a sentence fragment...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:35, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    No worries, removed.
  • Think that's it from me :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:45, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Thanks for having a look at this, I hope these changes address everything, although I have one query above. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ 10:25, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Support from Aoba47[edit]

  • This is more of a clarification question than a suggestion. Was there any coverage on Berio using a blow-up doll during his performance? I fully admit that I'm not familiar with this genre of music at all, but this part seemed particularly strange and I was curious if this received any attention.
  • This is a nitpick, but for this part, being a recording of theatrical music—described the recording as, I would avoid repeating "recording" in such close proximity.

For full disclosure, I participated in the last FAC for this article and supported it for promotion at that time. I honestly cannot believe it has been over a year since that FAC. I have two quick comments right now, and I will read through the article again tomorrow. I do not anticipate finding anything further, but I want to make sure I thoroughly read everything a few times. Aoba47 (talk) 04:46, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[]

  • Thanks for having another look at this. I've amended the sentence in question by changing the second "recording" to "album". As to the former point, I've had no joy in finding anything further, I've even used my limited dutch to try looking through dutch sources for the Holland Festival to no avail, but it's possible I'm missing something a native might find. It's a curious note so I'd love to be able to expand it more too but I've exhausted what I can find. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ 10:23, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Thank you for the response! It could just be a case where it was not discussed in sources or was overshadowed by other elements on the performance. Thank you for looking though! I will look through the article again later today. Aoba47 (talk) 17:14, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[]

I could not find any further issues with the article. I support this FAC based on the prose. Best of luck with everything! Aoba47 (talk) 03:14, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Hurricane Leslie (2018)[edit]

Nominator(s): NoahTalk 18:52, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[]

This article is about Hurricane Leslie, a long-lived system that was the strongest cyclone to affect Portugal since 1842. It caused severe wind damage across Portugal and Spain. Leslie combined with another system to cause severe flooding in the Aude department, France, which was the worst seen there since 1891. River records in the Aude that had held strong since 1871 fell during the storm. This article took months of work to research and write; it contains 81 Portuguese, 27 Spanish, and 17 French-language sources. Incorporating the local perspective is something that I see as a cornerstone with articles like this. I'm proud to finally be able to bring this behemoth of a storm here. NoahTalk 18:52, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Support from LightandDark2000[edit]

There are just a few minor issues that I found. Otherwise, I think that this article is a solid FA candidate. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 19:48, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[]

  • In the lead, I would specify that the USD and Euro values are in their 2018 values.
  • At least 13 districts in Portugal were placed under a red alert from 13–14 October in anticipation of adverse weather conditions from Leslie. Add a comma after "13–14 October".
  • Following the storm, water currents were greatly diminished for multiple weeks, This could be clarified some more. Is the sentence referring to the strength of the water currents?
  • causing fog to persist for 32 hours in Ferryland, Newfoundland. For "Newfoundland", I would change the link from Newfoundland (which redirects to Newfoundland and Labrador) to Newfoundland (island), since the latter is more specific.

That's all I have. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 19:48, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[]

@LightandDark2000: should be fixed. NoahTalk 21:11, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Supporting now. Looks good to go. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 22:13, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Chinatown MRT station[edit]

Nominator(s): ZKang123 (talk) 02:47, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Following the successful nomination of Dhoby Ghaut MRT station, using what I have learnt from that FAC review, I am now nominating this page for FA. This is about a Singapore MRT station in the Chinese ethnic enclave of Chinatown. It has a pretty interesting construction history, due to its location in a built-up area. And the artworks adorned in the station are rather vivid and suited for the station. ZKang123 (talk) 02:47, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Comments by KN2731[edit]

I'll go through section by section and review against criteria 1a/1b (i.e. no comment on copyright/sourcing/images). ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 08:42, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Lead

  • Is the hatnote necessary? "MRT station" is quite clear in the title, and Chinatown, Singapore is linked in the second sentence.
  • Link ethnic enclave
  • Might as well provide the DTL station opening date, since the NEL one is mentioned.

North East line station (1996–2003)

  • Arterial roads like New Bridge Road, Eu Tong Sen Street and connecting streets had to be rerouted – are connecting streets part of the arterial roads?
  • Added a comma so it becomes "Eu Tong Sen Street, and connecting streets". The connecting streets are the alleys and streets branching off the arterial roads.--ZKang123 (talk) 09:47, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • The rerouted roads and the construction barriers erected had impacted the foot traffic of the area – tense is off, no need "had". "impacted" is vague – I assume "reduced" works better?
    • Actually more of inconveniencing pedestrians who have to use longer alternative routes to get to their desired destinations around the construction site. Fixed.--ZKang123 (talk) 09:47, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • In addition, any businesses in the area were affected by the noise and construction dust. – remove "any". Are the sources more descriptive than just "affected"? Was it just patronage that took a hit?
    • Yes. Reduced. Also their goods and merchandise were dirtied by the dust.--ZKang123 (talk) 09:47, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • During the Lunar New Year in 2001, a temporary bridge was constructed – any reason in particular that this was done during CNY? Was it simply a coincidence, in which case it would be much clearer to state the month, or was it done in anticipation of increased foot traffic during CNY?
    • It isn't specified, but it's likely due to the increased foot traffic.--ZKang123 (talk) 09:47, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • The Land Transport Authority (LTA) engaged with the local community through press releases, discussions and community events – corporate puffery, can be removed.
    • Shortened to just "Through engagements with the local community, the Land Transport Authority...--ZKang123 (talk) 09:47, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • The sentences Prior to the construction, the utilities at the site had to be diverted at a cost of S$7 million (US$4.7 million). This was to ensure that the utilities were not damaged during the station's construction. and To prevent disruption to the power and water supply and telecommunications during the manoeuvre, the utilities had to be cautiously protected or substituted. essentially state the same thing.
    • Reword and removed.--ZKang123 (talk) 09:47, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • the construction had resulted in a few cave-ins at the site – no need "had"
  • Did all the cave-ins occur in 1999? The text doesn't really make this clear.
    • Yes. Added "that year".--ZKang123 (talk) 09:47, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • a two cm (0.79 in) depression – is this width or depth?
    • Depth. But already doesn't a depression imply it's a depth?--ZKang123 (talk) 09:47, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Following the discovery of the cracks on the road – this is the first time cracks are mentioned? Are these linked to the depression found on 2 December, or found during the later inspection of pipes/cables under the road, or a separate discovery?
    • Reworded to have cracks mentioned earlier.--ZKang123 (talk) 09:47, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • cement mixture was pumped into the ground – think just "cement" will do

Downtown line station and further plans (2007–2013)

  • when he announced → "where he announced" (date's already mentioned, plus emphasis should be on location since that's the significant bit)
  • being constructed near the foundations of the State Courts and a HDB block – mentioned already, unnecessary
    • Removed. Done.--ZKang123 (talk) 09:47, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • disrupted lives is very vague.
  • Check if you're spelling tunnelling with one or two Ls.
    • Double Ls. Fixed.--ZKang123 (talk) 09:47, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Location

  • In addition, this station site allows closer links to shopping centres and busy pedestrian areas – "closer" as compared to other undiscussed sites...? Just say "closely linked to shopping centres [etc.]" and remove "In addition".

Services

  • Chinatown station is served by the North East (NEL) and Downtown (DTL) lines – no need to reintroduce abbreviations

Design

  • The NEL station is a designated as Civil Defence (CD) shelter – something's wrong here
  • As Pagoda Street is on a low-lying area, vulnerable to flooding, → "As Pagoda Street is in a low-lying area vulnerable to flooding,"

Haven't looked at Public artwork yet – I'll likely continue next weekend. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 08:42, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Prose comments from Dracophyllum[edit]

  • "As the name suggests" - is this needed?
  • "...resulted in pedestrians have to take longer routes around..." - have is wrong tense, should be having
  • "tarnished" and "patronage" seem unnecessary complex, not a biggie tho
    • Hmm, "tarnished" seem more professional than 'dirtied'. --ZKang123 (talk) 03:36, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • "Through the engagements with the local community," - > Through engagements with the local community,
  • " Initially, it was considered to use steel beams - Rephrase; "it was considered" sounds wrong; can be done in many ways
  • Is the section following the above line in the source?
  • "During the construction of the NEL station, it was proposed for Chinatown station" - rephrase
  • idk if "As the name suggests" should be in the body either...
    • I rather retain it, unless it breaks the encyclopedic tone.--ZKang123 (talk) 03:36, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Is "concourse" standard English?
  • "As the artist has explained, the poem" >> The artist intended...

That's all for now, thanks, Dracophyllum 11:02, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Image review by MSG17[edit]

All pictures are properly licensed, have descriptive alt text and adequately illustrate the article's subject and aspects related to it. I will analyze image placement later. MSG17 (talk) 15:21, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[]

I've Just Seen a Face[edit]

Nominator(s): Tkbrett (✉) 14:40, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[]

This article is about a song by the Beatles featured on their album Help!, except in North America, where it appeared as the opening track of Rubber Soul. Tkbrett (✉) 14:40, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Image review

Pass. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:35, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • File:I've_Just_Seen_a_Face_sheet_music.jpg: the tag says this is an audio recording, but the description says it is sheet music? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:08, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Support from Aoba47[edit]

Addressed comments

Before I get into my comments, I would like to clarify that I know very little about the Beatles so I'm very much a non-expert in that regard. My comments are below:

  • The infobox says this song was handled by Parlophone, but that record label is not mentioned in the lead, and instead Capitol Records is mentioned so it is a little confusing for an unfamiliar reader like myself.
  • I've included further info on the song's release to clarify the situation.
  • For this part, is today appreciated as a fan favourite from the band's pre-Rubber Soul era., I would avoid using "today" as that can change depending on when a person is reading this article.
  • Following the guidance given at WP:PUFFERY, I've changed the wording to specifically refer to the song's Rolling Stone rankings.
  • I believe so. I'm not an expert in the subject, but as I understand it, the country and western genres went through a process of amalgamation from the 1950s through 1970s. In the 1960s, "country and western" was the term of choice, whereas today we just call it "country". This is the term Paul uses in his authorized biography: "['I've Just Seen a Face'] was slightly country and western from my point of view" (Miles 1998, p. 200).
  • That makes sense to me. As I continued to read the article, I had a clearer sense about this. Thank you for the explanation. The history of country music is interesting. Aoba47 (talk) 15:50, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • This is nitpick-y, but if read literally, this part, A cheerful love ballad, the song's lyrics discuss, describes the lyrics as a cheerful love ballad instead of the song.
  • By all means, point out the little errors. How about: The song is a cheerful love ballad, its lyrics discussing a love at first sight and conveying the singer's associated excitement and inarticulateness.?
  • That looks better to me. Aoba47 (talk) 15:50, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • For this sentence, The Beatles recorded the song in June 1965 during their Help! sessions at EMI Recording Studios on the same day they recorded "I'm Down" and "Yesterday"., I'd avoid repeating "recorded" twice in the same sentence.
  • How about this? The Beatles completed the song in June 1965 during their Help! sessions at EMI Recording Studios on the same day they recorded "I'm Down" and "Yesterday".
  • This part, while another acoustic guitar plays simultaneously to provide a contrasting effect, reads somewhat awkwardly as earlier in the sentence, you identify George Harrison playing a solo and it is not clear who is playing this part.
  • Yes, I presume it's John doing the contrasting acoustic part, since he did the rhythm guitar for this song, but I'm worried about WP:SYNTH since Everett 2006 doesn't actually say who is playing the other guitar. What exactly do you find awkward about it?
  • That is a fair concern. If John is not directly connected to this part, then I agree it is best to not name him. I just found it awkward to directly name the guitarist in one part of a sentence and in the other, just say that the guitar plays (seemingly by itself) if that makes sense. Aoba47 (talk) 15:52, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • I have a question for this part, Reviewers and commentators have described "I've Just Seen a Face". What is the difference between reviewers and commentators?
  • I'm distinguishing between people like Stephen Thomas Erlewine, who reviews songs and albums for the website AllMusic, and someone like Walter Everett, who has written extensive musicological works analyzing the Beatles' discography, but isn't really a critic.
  • That makes sense to me. Thank you for the explanation. It is good to distinguish between the two as a critic will have a different approach and writing style than a musicologist. Aoba47 (talk) 15:53, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[]

These are my comments for the lead and infobox. I hope this is a helpful start. I will read through the article either tomorrow or later in the week and add more comments at that time. Have a great rest of your day/night! Aoba47 (talk) 02:23, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[]

  • For this part, had been rejected for inclusion, do you know who rejected them? Was it other members of the Beatles, the record label, or someone else entirely?
  • The band rejected its inclusion. That's as specific as i can get it.
  • That makes sense to me, and that is specific enough for me anyway. Aoba47 (talk) 15:58, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • I believe the citation placement in this sentence, Working on a piano, he composed the melody first, beginning it as an uptempo country and western-inflected piece., hinders readability. I know that it is acceptable to put citations in the middle of a sentence (as it is more up to personal preference), but I find that these citations cut up the sentence rather awkwardly and more noticeable than they should be.
  • Agreed. Collapsed into one citation at the end of the sentence.
  • This is another nitpick so apologies for that. If read literally, this part, Split into three phrases, the intro's illusion of acceleration, is saying that the "illusion of acceleration" is split into three phrases, not the intro.
  • Tried this: Splitting the intro into three phrases, its illusion of acceleration ...
  • That looks better to me. Aoba47 (talk) 15:58, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • After reading the "Genre" section, I do not think it is accurate to call this a bluegrass song in the infobox. This section uses phrasing like "tinged", "inflected", "tempo", "feel", and "soaked", but does not outright called it a bluegrass song. This reminds of other song articles, where critics identify "elements" of a genre in a song and that is not enough to put that genre in the infobox. I understand this song was later covered by bluegrass bands, but I do not see clear evidence that critics classified the original as bluegrass.
  • Upon reflection, I think you're right. Quite a few describe it as either folk or folk rock, but I wasn't sure if it makes sense to have both listed since folk rock feels like a subgenre of folk. What do you think?
  • That is a good question. I agree with you that it could be a little strange so I think it would be best to just use folk rock and not both folk rock and folk. Aoba47 (talk) 15:58, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • I do not think the clear templates are necessary, but I am honestly not super familiar with them.
  • I have each of them there to prevent quote boxes from cutting off lower section titles on different screen sizes. I removed the one in the genre subsection b/c I don't think it's entirely necessary.
  • Thank you for the explanation. Again, I am not super clear with the templates (no pun intended lol) so this was more of a clarification question. Aoba47 (talk) 15:58, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • This part, Made up of run-of verses and alliterations, McCartney later described, reads as if McCartney is made up of run-of verses and alliterations.
  • I joined the first part to the preceding sentence to avoid the ambiguity. Also, fixed "run-of" to "run-on".
  • Is there a reason why the "Recording" section is after the "Composition" section? From my experience, it would usually go first.
  • Since WikiProject Songs doesn't provide much guidance in the way of article layout, I've based this article on some of the many Beatles related GAs, such as "Think for Yourself". As for FAs, I've seen it done this way at "Something", whereas "Hey Jude" uses the format you mention. I like it better with the composition described first, since it moves things along chronologically, with the song being written before recorded.
  • Thank you for the explanation. I do not have any issue with the current structure, and I can see your point about the order. Aoba47 (talk) 15:58, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • I have two comments for this part, Recording took place in EMI's Studio Two, with George Martin producing the session. I do not think the producing link is entirely necessary as a majority of the music articles I've read do not use it. I would also avoid WP:Plusing. I do not have an issue with it, but I have received this note in the past and I've been told to avoid it in FA writing.
  • I really need to review WP:PLUSING again ... Anyway, how about this? Recorded in EMI's Studio Two, George Martin produced the session with assistance from balance engineer Norman Smith.
  • This was the only instance that I saw in the article so far. That looks better to me. Aoba47 (talk) 15:58, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Here are some more comments to the end of the "Recording" section. I will be really stopping here for tonight. I am enjoying reading the article so I got sucked in lol. Please let me know if you have any questions. I am always happy to see song articles in the FAC process. Aoba47 (talk) 03:03, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Thanks so much Aoba47, glad to hear you're enjoying it so far. My responses to your comments appear above. Tkbrett (✉) 15:18, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Thank you for the responses! I will collapse my comments later today when I continue to read the article, but I will leave them up for now so you can see my responses to your responses. I greatly appreciate your explanations. My full review should be posted sometime later today. Aoba47 (talk) 15:59, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • For this part, replaced the Memphis sound inspired "Drive My Car", shouldn't there be a hyphen between Memphis sound and inspired? I am admittedly not the best with this so I wanted to ask rather than make the edit myself.
  • I was wondering about that as well, and I think you're right, but I'm not certain. Anyway, I've gone ahead and added it.
  • Thank you for addressing this. If other reviewers say another, I'd go with their opinion as I am uncertain about it. Aoba47 (talk) 20:19, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • After reading the "Release and reception" section, I revisited this part from the lead, Reviewers and commentators have described "I've Just Seen a Face" in favourable terms. For the third paragraph of this section, there are a decent amount of negative or more subdued criticisms. I am not entirely sure if it is accurate to characterize the song's contemporary reviews as "favourable terms".
  • Those aren't contemporary reviewers – rock music criticism didn't really exist in 1965 (for more on this, refer to the talk page discussion). Those are retrospective commentators reflecting not so much on IJSaF as a song qua song, but on how its inclusion on the North American Rubber Soul changes the album's feel. To avoid the ambiguity, I've re-titled the section from "Release and reception" to simply "Release". I've also added a sentence to the lead regarding how these commentators view the change.
  • Thank you for the edits and apologies for my misreading. Aoba47 (talk) 20:19, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • This is more of a clarification question, but it seems that all the retrospective reviews for this song are positive. I am guessing there are not any negative retrospective reviews?
  • Try as I might, I haven't been able to find anything. Every substantial review or piece of commentary made regarding the song appears here, as far as I am aware. The worst impression seems to be Doggett saying it has "an entirely satisfactory acoustic arrangement" (though he also calls it "a McCartney gem", so he obviously still admires it).
  • That is what I thought. Thank you for double-checking though. Aoba47 (talk) 20:22, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • I would revise this part, with Turner arguing it has been "key in stimulating a relationship between bluegrass and the music of the Beatles", as it is another instance of WP:PLUSING.
  • Changed to: ... covered by several bluegrass artists, and Turner argues it has been ... Alternatively, I could make them two separate sentences if you think that works better.
  • Either way looks good to me so I will leave that up to your personal preference. Aoba47 (talk) 20:22, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • I believe I already know the answer to this question, but I want to make sure. Since the original version of this song was never released as a single, it could not chart. Is that correct?
  • Hmm, I'm don't think so. In Everett's book The Beatles as Musicians, he lists every Beatles song added to the most popular radio station in 1960s New York, WABC. "I've Just Seen a Face" ranks at 77, but Everett lists its Billboard Hot 100 position as "Album Cut", seemingly implying it did not have the opportunity to chart as an album track.
  • From my understanding (and I could be wrong so take it with a heavy pinch of salt) was that songs from earlier time periods only appeared on charts if they were marked as singles and released to radio and album cuts being able to chart was more of a recent phenomenon. That being said, I could be wrong though. This is probably a better question for someone who is more familiar with this part of music history. Aoba47 (talk) 20:24, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[]

This should be the end of my review. Again, I am very unfamiliar with the Beatles so I am only focusing on the prose. With that being said, I really enjoyed reading this article, and I will be more than happy to support this FAC for promotion once the above comments are addressed. Aoba47 (talk) 18:22, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Thanks so much for your helpful comments. I really appreciate your attention to detail. Tkbrett (✉) 19:20, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Thank you for addressing everything. I have left my responses above, but I have collapsed everything to save space. I support this FAC for promotion based on the prose. You have done a wonderful job with this article! Aoba47 (talk) 20:26, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Capture of Sedalia[edit]

Nominator(s): Hog Farm Talk 13:46, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[]

This is probably the most obscure topic that will run through FAC this year. M. Jeff Thompson and his Confederate cavalry rode in, scattered the small and poorly trained garrison, and then engaged in a debated amount of looting. While Thompson stated that "no outrage or murder" was committed, tales circulated of people riding around with whiskey-filled boots and Thompson "spanking" soldiers with a sword. I created this in summer 2020; it passed GA in August 2020 and ACR in July 2021. As a warning, it is a bit thin in some spots because there is very little detail in sources. Only two military reports were left for this in the first place - a Union officer trying to explain away why his troops ran away, and Thompson trying to make it sound like his troops didn't get out of control. Hog Farm Talk 13:46, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Support from Gog the Mild[edit]

I looked at this at both GAN and ACR, and will recuse to see what else I can find to pick at. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:32, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[]

I have done a little hopefully uncontroversial copy editing. If any causes you alarm could you flag it up here?

  • "He sent side raids to Glasgow and Sedalia. One of these brigades". "these brigades"; what brigades? You have only mentioned raids.
    • Reworded
  • "One of these brigades, led by Brigadier General M. Jeff Thompson of the Missouri State Guard led a brigade". Repitition of "led"; repetition of "brigade".
    • Down to one usage of each
  • "significant Union movements". What was significant about them?
    • Removed word
  • "and quickly overwhelmed its approximately 830-man garrison. After paroling or releasing their prisoners" To my eye there is something missing in the middle, if only 'capturing most of them' or similar. The lead contains very little about the topic of the article.
    • I've added several more sentences about the battle to the lead, is this better? Hog Farm Talk 03:45, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • "bouncing around in various places before landing in Marshall, Texas". {{WP:INFORMAL]]?
    • I've rephrased this
  • "The Union gained control of in March". Where is this place "in"?
    • Missouri. Added
  • "Price decided to abandon the attempt against St. Louis". "the attempt", what attempt?
    • Rephrased and clarified
  • Lead "Price soon needed supplies, weapons, and remounts"; body "Price, needing weapons and supplies".
    • Removed from lead
  • "Missouri State Guard Brigadier General M. Jeff Thompson's Confederate brigade of Brigadier General Joseph O. Shelby's division". Genuine question, does "Confederate" add anything here?
    • I think its useful to clarify what's a bit of a technicality. Thompson's troops were part of the Confederate army, while Thompson himself was commissioned in the Missouri State Guard (allied but distinct from CSA) and wasn't technically a Confederate officer. I've had issues with the fairly-spurious addition of the Missouri State Guard to the article as a combatant due to the presence of Thompson, and I've trying to nip that in the bud by explicitly making it clear in the article that while the commander here was not officially Confederate, everyone else was so this can be referred to as a Confederate action The line between MSG/CSA can be quite blurred but also a point of contention, which can make this a more difficult angle to address. One of my ancestors actually served in both forces before he was executed by John McNeil
I understand that, kinda. But you are telling readers, in an oblique way, that part of the "Confederate" armed forces weren't Confederates. If this is important it seems to me worth expressly stating somewhere. If not, lose the reference: it is already in a hideously complicated clause ("Missouri State Guard Brigadier General M. Jeff Thompson's Confederate brigade of Brigadier General Joseph O. Shelby's division") which is in an even more convoluted sentence ("Price, needing weapons and supplies, then authorized two raids away from his main body of troops: Brigadier General John B. Clark Jr. was sent to Glasgow, and Missouri State Guard Brigadier General M. Jeff Thompson's Confederate brigade of Brigadier General Joseph O. Shelby's division to Sedalia"). Only the most anoraky of aficionados would pick up the reference. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:08, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Dropped
  • The first paragraph of Battle is long. Maybe break after "had moved towards the west"?
    • Done
  • "Two redoubts and some rifle pits defended the town." I am not sure that inanimate objects can defend. Consider rephrasing?
    • Rephrased
  • "were driven back into town and scattered". Maybe swap the order?
    • Done, and rephrased the next sentence accordingly
  • "reported capturing hundreds of weapons and wagons of "goods suitable for soldiers" ... reported capturing a number of weapons and some military goods".
    • Done for the first part. The "good suitable for soldiers" is Thompson's exact words - I'm inclined to think that maybe the direct quote to Thompson should be used, as the official line is a bit dubious based on what the secondary sources are saying here. I'd like to hear your thoughts on this though.
I love that phrase. It smacks of Thompson desperately trying to suggest that he kept control of things without actually lying. I mean, if soldiers took them, they must have been suitable for soldiers, no? But it reads as if you are giving the same information twice. If Price's "number of weapons and some military goods" is separate, could this bit be rephrased?
I think I misunderstood your original comment. I've removed the second reference to this, as it appears to be Price regurgitating Thompson's report
  • "captured almost 2,000 mules and cattle". It seems odd to conflate these. Does the source not differentiate?
    • It does not
  • Add JSTOR for Geise.
    • Added

Gog the Mild (talk) 16:00, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[]

    • @Gog the Mild: - Replies above; I'd like to hear your thoughts about the "goods suitable for soldiers" one. Hog Farm Talk 05:35, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Second read[edit]
  • "which was primarily defended by various classes of militia." Optional: 'which was primarily defended by militia'?
    • Done
  • "The Confederates then retreated into Texas, but not before suffering defeats at the battles of Mine Creek and Second Newtonia later in October." Consider recasting in chronological order.
    • Done
  • "who promoted ending the war". Well Lincoln wanted to end it too. Suggest unpacking this a little.
    • I've added a bit, McClellan wanted an armistice that would preserve slavery
  • "1st Missouri State Militia Cavalry Regiment. Additionally, 33 men of the 7th Missouri State Militia Cavalry". Why does one unit have "Regiment" on the end and the other not?
    • Standardized
  • "The National Park Service reports that the Union suffered one man killed and 23 wounded". Why in this single instance do you specify the source?
    • Not sure. Removed the specification

Gog the Mild (talk) 12:58, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Image review[edit]

  • Suggest scaling up the Price's Raid map
    • Done (1.2)
  • Suggest adding alt text
    • Done
  • Don't use fixed px size
    • Removed
  • File:Map_of_Pettis_County,_Missouri,_1872_LOC_2012593079.jpg: what's the author's date of death?
  • File:Price_Raid_(cropped).jpg: when was this digitized? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:11, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    • Suspecting current licensing may be wrong - does this description of photographic reproduction from 1914 count as publishment?
      • Potentially, but unclear, per the definition here; any more details about who got copies and under what circumstances? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:35, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[]
        • @Nikkimaria: - I can find no further details, likely because the concept of modern copyright rigor wasn't an issue people would have thought of in Kansas in the 1910s; I'd say it about has to be public domain with the painting made in 1865 and the artist verifiably deceased in 1914. I don't know if I can prove it, though. Unfortunately, the other Price's Raid depictions I'm aware of are even more dubious with licensing, I may have to purge this one from most of the series. Hog Farm Talk 05:06, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[]
          • What is the earliest publication that can be verified? If you can't find any, then do we know when it was digitized? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:38, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[]
            • @Nikkimaria: - I can't really find anything in the pre-internet age; although I did turn up a reference to it being publicly displayed by a state historical society at least before the 1940s. Should I just remove it? I could correct the weak licensing at File:Meriwether Jeff Thompson.jpg (a derivative was published in an 1880s book as shown here and use that as a replacement. Hog Farm Talk 05:48, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[]
              • That would work. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:08, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[]
                • @Nikkimaria: - I've swapped the Reader drawing for the Thompson image with updated licensing. Is there anything that needs done with the 1872 Pettis County map? Hog Farm Talk 06:01, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[]
                  • Because the country of origin is the US, we can use just the pre-1926 tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:18, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    • @Nikkimaria: - replies above on two kinda tricky items, will do the others shortly. Hog Farm Talk 03:30, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Source review - pass[edit]

  • Jenkins, Paul Burrill (1906) current OCLC links to a 2009 edition published by "Bibliolife, Llc", change OCLC to 475778855 of correct date and publisher.
    • Good catch, corrected
  • Kennedy, Frances H., ed. (1998) is the location either Boston or New York, or is it both? If it's both, suggest Boston & New York, if either, retain Boston/New York.
    • Source's title page has the text "Houghton Mifflin Company * Boston * New York", I'm not sure if that should be interpreted as one or both
  • McGhee, James E. (2008) linked book is from 2011, suggest date of 2011 and 2008 orig-year, if you used the online version to write the article. ISBN is correct for both.
    • I used a borrowed print copy 2008 edition
  • @Hog Farm: that is all. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 18:25, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    • @Iazyges: - Thanks for the source review! I have absolutely no idea what I should do with the Boston/New York thing. Hog Farm Talk 05:55, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[]
      If it lists as both in the original text I'd assume both publishing locations did print some of them and go with Boston, Massachusetts & New York, or a more simple Boston & New York. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 15:53, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[]
      Done. It's pulling through {{Cite Kennedy 1998}} so it may take some time for the change to be visible in the article. Hog Farm Talk 00:29, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[]
      Article passes source review. May be around as a reviewer later depending on timeline. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 01:43, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Truce of Calais[edit]

Nominator(s): Gog the Mild (talk) 12:33, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Another in my occasional series of treaties and truces. The Truce of Calais was agreed between France and England eight years into the Hundred Years' War. It was intended to last nine months but eventually ran, not quite continuously, for eight years. It never halted all conflict, but it did punctuate two periods of major campaigning by the two royal armies. I worked this up to a run at GA earlier this month, and following a little further work believe that it meets the FAC criteria. Let the negotiations commence. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:33, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Comments Support from Tim riley[edit]

Not much from me. Splendid, readable article. A few minor points on the prose:

  • Lead
    • "a truce agreed to by King Edward III of England and King Philip VI of France" – do we need two prepositions here? "to by" would be better as a simple "by" in my view. I don't say we're in "what did you choose that book to be read to out of from for?" territory, but a trim would be nice, I think.
      Trimmed.
    • "had lost all of its territory in France" – unnecessary AmE-style "of". There are three more such later, all of which would be crisper without the superfluous "of".
      Oh dear. Perhaps I should give up and just write in AmE? Joke! Joke! Four of's excised, hopefully the four you had in mind. (I use "of" 203 times!) And now added to my pre-FAC checklist of words to watch, just after "due to".
      All fine now, me judice. Tim riley talk 15:58, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Background
    • "the English Crown had controlled the Duchy of Aquitaine … By the 1330s this had been reduced to Gascony" – what is "this" that had been reduced? The duchy or English holdings?
      Ah. Good niggle. Changed to "these holdings". Does that fix it?
      Certainly, in my view. Tim riley talk 15:58, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Truce
  • "a temporary cease fire" – a ceasefire is one word according to the OED.
    A recent innovation it seems - [2], but changed.
    You're right: the older citations in the OED hyphenate it or make it two words, but since the 1960s the noun (though not the verb, of course) seems to have been one word as a rule. Tim riley talk 15:58, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • John II
    • "13 knots ([convert: unit mismatch])" – needs attention.
      A passing stranger has helpfully fixed it. Apparently "kn" is not a unit of measurement. Who knew?
      I have never hitherto seen you as Blanche DuBois, depending on the kindness of strangers, but full marks to the passing stranger nonetheless. Tim riley talk 15:58, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[]

That's all I can find to quibble about. Good stuff, as ever. – Tim riley talk 14:04, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Excellent stuff Mr riley, thank you. All addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:20, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Support. Meets all the FA criteria in my view. A very good read, well illustrated, broadly referenced, evidently impartial. Just what one expects from the Gog FA factory, in fact. Tim riley talk 15:58, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Image review

Pass. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:54, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Nikkimaria (talk) 03:13, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Both done. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:02, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Comments Support from Girth Summit[edit]

Only very small pernickety things from me - generally well-written, comprehensive, etc.

  • "...and was repeatedly prepared to repudiate it in exchange for..." Presumably he was continually, rather than repeatedly, prepared to do this. Perhaps something like '...and repeatedly declared that he was prepared...'
Checking the source, I was probably stretching what it said a bit, so I have removed the claim.
  • Perhaps link 'Fleming/s' on first mention to Flemings? (I lived in Belgium for a year, but a lot of readers might be unfamiliar with the word.)
Good point. I have linked the first mention of Flanders to County of Flanders. I am not convinced about linking "Flemings" - the first mention of which is three words later - to Flemings; that article only takes their history back to 1830.
  • "and murdered him as he knelt naked, pleading for his life." Is murdered supported by the sources? I mean, it certainly sounds like a murder by any reasonable standards, but medieval law was a funny thing, just checking the sources support it.
Oh yes. First source I checked: "arrange the consta�ble’s murder in January".
  • The final paragraph has the "Treaty of Calais"; elsewhere it's the "Truce of Calais". Are these two different things, or is this a typo?
They are different, but that was a typo. Sorry. Good spot.
  • Are we happy about all the capitalisations? (Treaty of..., Truce of... etc). No particular argument for change from me, just worth checking that sources support them.

That's it - I expect to be supporting this soon. Girth Summit (blether) 15:00, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Girth Summit, many thanks for wading through this. Your comments addressed above. On a separate note, do you fancy casting your eyes over this? Gog the Mild (talk) 16:45, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[]
I'll try to get chance to take a look - this is all good, thank you. Girth Summit (blether) 17:32, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Source review - pass[edit]

  • Taking this up.
  • Burne, Alfred (1999) [1955]. On WorldCat the only 1955 edition I can find uses OCLC 1032692380 and was published by Oxford University, in New York (presumably OUP USA); and Google Books provides a 1955 edition of the listed ISBN but with the publisher of Eyre & Spottiswoode; double-check your edition if you used a physical copy.
Nope, that's what my physical copy states "First published in 1955 by Eyre and Spottiswoode". Want a photo of it?
  • Fowler, Kenneth Alan (1969) just wanted to make a note that the 9780389010036 ISBN brings up a Google Books page which contains information that the current WorldCat (brought up by OCLC used) does not, including the publisher.
You have lost me there. And so?
You might want to add the ISBN as well, given its availability and ease of access to information. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 00:05, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Added.
  • Hardy, Robert (2010) per the previous usage of orig-year, you may wish to insert an orig-year here of 2006.
Orig-year of 1976 inserted.
  • Ormrod, W. Mark (2008) the link portends that the source was published in print and online in 2004; you may wish to use an orig-year of 2004.
Done.
  • I've edited Jaques, Tony (2007) and Ormrod, W. Mark (1990) to standardize location usage.
Thank you.

Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 21:02, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Thanks Iazyges, all responded to. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:52, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Passing. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 00:05, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Support from Iazyges[edit]

I reviewed this article for GAN, happy to support it for FA. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 21:02, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Uskok-class torpedo boat[edit]

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:25, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[]

This article is about the Uskok or Četnik class of motor torpedo boats built for the Yugoslav Royal Navy during the late 1920s. An enlarged version of a British design, they deployed their torpedoes by lining the boat up with the target, dropping them off the back of the boat and steering away. Both boats were captured by Italian forces during the Axis invasion in April 1941, and they were commissioned in the Italian Royal Navy. Their age and condition meant they were only used for patrolling and second-line duties. One sank in 1942 when its hull failed, and the second one became non-operational in September 1943, but escaped from the Germans after the Italian surrender that month and sailed to Allied-occupied southern Italy. It was broken up after the war. This article forms part of the featured topic Ships of the Royal Yugoslav Navy that I am slowly moving towards 100% featured. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:25, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Image review

Pass. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:23, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Source review - pass[edit]

  • Chesneau, Roger, ed. (1980). Standardize location to "City, State" as elsewhere, or just simplify to "London" as one would with New York.
  • Freivogel, Zvonimir (2020) double-check the ISBN on this one, I can't find it anywhere but www.aircraft-navalship.com. Amazon gives an ISBN of 978-9537892128, but I also cannot confirm this in other places. If you bought the book physically, this may explain it.
    • Yes, I can confirm I physically have the book, and that is what it says on the relevant page, I think there may be some confusion as a second volume is pending and an ISBN for it is also listed, but this is the one listed against Vol 1. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:10, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Despot Infinitus is not the most ideal publisher, but I will accept on Freivogel's merits.
  • @Peacemaker67: that is all. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 18:54, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Comments by Pendright[edit]

Greetings @Peacemaker67: I have a few minor commemts! Pendright (talk) 23:06, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[]


Lead:

  • They were equipped with two British-designed 456-millimetre (18 in) torpedoes as their main armament, and were also fitted with hydrophones and could carry depth charges instead of torpedoes if being used in an anti-submarine role.
  • They were equipped with "cradles" that carried two British-designed torpedoes?
  • Drop the comma after armament or add a subject to the last clause?
  • Is the word "being" neccessary, since the word "if" usually means "on condition that"?
  • The boats were lightly-built using mahogany, powered by two petrol engines, and lacked transverse bulkheads within the hull to mitigate leaks.
Consider replacing and with "but
  • They were commissioned in the Italian Royal Navy and operated with a squadron out of the Dalmatian port of Šibenik, where they had been based pre-war.
They -> "The ships" would drop one they?

Background:

  • Large numbers of 17-metre-long (55 ft) Coastal Motor Boats (CMBs) had been produced in the UK between 1917 and 1922 for the British Royal Navy, and they were also sold to overseas customers in the interwar period.[1]
This seems to be the first use of "UK"?
  • This created very uncomfortable conditions for the engine room crew due to [the] lack of space and the loud engine noise.
Consider this change?
  • An open cockpit for steering was located amidships, immediately fore and aft of which were columns on which twin machine guns could be mounted.
Might consider replacing one which?
  • The boats of the class had two Thornycroft V12 petrol engines installed, the forward one driving the starboard propeller shaft and the aft engine driving the port shaft, with the rudders placed immediately aft of the propellers.
Should port and starboard be linked?
  • To conduct a torpedo attack, the [a] boat would be aligned with the [a] target, [then] the torpedo engines would be started and [a torpedo would] they were then [be] pushed over the stern by a 3-metre-long (9 ft 10 in) mechanical rod, after which [a] the boat would immediately turn to the side and [its] the torpedo would proceed towards [a] the target.
See what you think?
  • Only four torpedoes were delivered with the boats, which were to be used for both training – with an inert warhead – and in combat with a live warhead.[6]
  • See if you can live with this version: Only four torpedoes – with inert warheads – were delivered with the boats, which were to be used for both training and combat with live warheads.[6]
  • The torpedoes had two speed and range settings. At 35 kn (65 km/h; 40 mph) it had a range of 2,300 m (2,500 yd), but a range of 3,650 m (3,990 yd) at 29 kn (54 km/h; 33 mph). It had a warhead that consisted of 145 kilograms (320 lb) of TNT.[7]
The subject of the first sentence is pural, but the sentence that follows refers bcck to the first and it's singular?
  • There were also some concerns that the Mediterranean sun would warp their hulls, and precautions were put in place to cope with this should it occur.[11]
Change would to could
  • It appears that after the two boats were commissioned, plans to order more were shelved due to a combination of: negative assessments of the boats during their sea trials and [the] training of crew members[,] ; and the advent of the Great Depression in 1929, which meant funds [would probably] were not [be] available in subsequent years for further acquisitions.[6]
See if you can live with some of these changes?
  • By 1941, the maximum speed that could be achieved by boats of the class was 30–32 kn (56–59 km/h; 35–37 mph), and in Italian service the auxiliary engine could only achieve 4.5 kn (8.3 km/h; 5.2 mph).[1]
"while" in Italian service?
  • Depth charges
How were thsee put into the water?

Sevice history:

  • one such training exercise a torpedo was lost from Četnik, and until 1941 she only carried one torpedo.
Any details about the loss of the torpedo?
  • Četnik was sailed to Divulje near Split by Popović's second-in-command, Porucnik Fregate (Lieutenant) Velimir Škorpik, ostensibly in order to join the nascent Navy of the Independent State of Croatia (Croatian: Mornarica Nezavisne Države Hrvatske, RMNDH).
  • "was" and "in order" could be dropped?
  • Think about bracketing "near Split"
  • One of the boats was sent to Piraeus in Greece for a short time, but the wear and tear of the long voyage weakened her hull.[14]
Can you tell readers which one?
  • She sprang a leak and sank quickly due to the lack of transverse bulkheads in her hull.[5][13]
Any survivors?
  • On the evening of 11 September, her crew escaped and sailed ME47 to Taranto in Allied-occupied southern Italy.
Suggest replacing "and sailed" with "by sailing"

Finishd - Pendright (talk) 23:06, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Farran Zerbe[edit]

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 23:47, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]

This article is about... a major figure in numismatic history, if a controversial one. He seems to remain controversial, as in 2021, the American Numismatic Association took his name off its major award, some 110 years after the events in question. Enjoy.Wehwalt (talk) 23:47, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]

  • Image review I don't see any major issues, willing to believe that The Numismatist was not copyrighted. I made some adjustments to avoid sandwiching and strongly urge the 1908 photograph to be used as the lead image as the current lead image is low quality. (t · c) buidhe 03:00, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[]
I've done that. Thanks for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:02, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Comments from Usernameunique[edit]

Early life

  • By many accounts — Suggest rephrasing this (and making an appropriate adjustment in the next sentence) to something like "By many accounts, including as told by Zerbe in his later years,"
  • silver French 50-centime piece — Anything to link to?
We don't seem to have an article that would suit. Zerbe exhibited a 50 centime piece he said was the one, but I've not seen a picture of it. Since France changed its coins in the early 1870s after the deposition of Napoleon III, I can't make assumptions as to which half franc piece this was.
  • John P. Lupia III — Worthy of a red link?
He doesn
  • the story Zerbe told in 1903 — What were the circumstances?

Numismatist of the world's fairs

  • In the first years of the 20th century, Zerbe began to show his traveling exhibit, "Money of the World" — Generally speaking, this section is fairly hazy on how Zerbe got started, and gained traction, in the coin-collecting world. I realize that much of this may be lost to time, but are there any more details that could be added?
I'll look, but numismatics was a very small pond at the time and someone competent and self-promoting could make their way to the top. As did Zerbe, in only seven years.
I found something in the sources that says much the same thing that I just said but perhaps that fills the gap.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:01, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Some collectors lent items for the exhibit and could not get them back — Why?
It is implied that Zerbe kept them and did not/would not return them
  • he felt was justified — He felt, or he claimed?
Tweaked.
  • he also sold them mounted in spoons, jewelry and other items — I realize there are a lot of images in the article already, but is there a good one of one of these items?
We have permission from Heritage Auctions to use their photographs, so it wouldn't be difficult to add one. I think it's a bit far afield though.
  • When he was not busy with his duties — What duties?
Clarified.
  • and found the New Orleans Mint temporarily not striking coins — I'm not really sure what this means. How did he "find" it not striking coins?
When he visited, they were not striking any coins. This wasn't unusual for the mints as they tended to shut down in the summer pre-air conditioning and the New Orleans Mint had only reopened in 1879 as there was such a need to strike silver dollars under the Bland-Allison Act and this had ended in 1904 when the last of the bullion obtained under the Sherman Silver Purchase Act of 1890 had been minted, and the more modern and efficient Denver Mint was effectively taking its place. It finally closed in 1909.
  • a profit of about $16,000 — What is that in current dollars? {{inflation}} should help.

President of the ANA

  • Zerbe aided those affected by the earthquake — How?
The source does not elaborate.
  • After serving three years, with Zerbe as first vice president ... with Henri Buck as first vice president ... with John Henderson as first vice president — It's "First Vice President" (capitalized) above.
Standardized.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:43, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • setting a membership goal of 3,000 — How many did it have at the time?
Less than 500. Clarified.
  • There were complaints — By whom?
The source isn't specific, but as we soon get into the conflict with Elder, I think we can do without.
  • got the membership to approve a dues increase to improve The Numismatist — Even though the ANA wasn't responsible for the publication?
It was still its journal, although it didn't have ownership. Without its services, the organization isn't much.
  • President Theodore Roosevelt appointed Zerbe to serve on that year's Assay Commission. — May as well give a brief description of the Assay Commission.
Added.
  • a "long price" for the periodical — No further details, I assume?
Not that I can find.

1915 Panama-Pacific International Exposition

There was also a medal, mentioned in the article on the coins though not covered in detail.
  • the Mint's exhibit — The Mint also had an exhibit, or is this referring to Zerbe's exhibit?
The Mint/Department of the Treasury had its own area. I think this is clear. The Mint's space is mentioned twice.
  • Zerbe was present at the San Francisco Mint for the first ceremonial striking of the octagonal $50 piece — When?
Added.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:46, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • He felt ... and felt ... who he felt — Overuse of the same verb. More importantly, however, we can't know how Zerbe felt; we can know only how he said he felt.
Tweaked.

Later years, death and appraisal

  • returned to the road and exhibitions — What does this mean?
He would make arrangements to show Money of the World at different banks.
  • Lesher Referendum Dollars — Worth a red link?
  • Bryan money — Worth a red link?
Added in both cases.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:46, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • America's influence for peace — What does this mean?
Tweaked.
  • a paper from Farran Zerbe ... Zerbe's letter — Paper, or letter?
Done.
  • and by two brothers — Might be worth mentioning any siblings in "Early life".
This is the sole reference to siblings I have found.
  • Oglivie deemed him — Not yet introduced, so a full name and brief description should be given.
  • His noteworthy achievements have truly earned him the title, 'Dean of American Numismatists'". — If this is a full sentence, the period can go inside one or both of the quotation marks.
The above two done.

Wehwalt, comments above. --Usernameunique (talk) 18:28, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Thanks. Due to travel, it may be a few days before I get back to this.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:24, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[]
I think I've gotten to everything. Thanks for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:46, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Seventy-Six (novel)[edit]

Nominator(s): Dugan Murphy (talk) 20:24, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Nobody knows who John Neal (writer) is, so everybody doubly doesn't know about his novel, Seventy-Six (1823), even though it pioneered literary styles that later came to characterize American literature and foreshadowed better-remembered novels by better-remembered authors later in the 19th century. So I think it's interesting anyway, and hopefully you do too. I've successfully brought one other article (Neal's) through FAC and another through FLC, so I feel like I know what I'm getting into on here. This article recently passed GAN (Talk:Seventy-Six (novel)/GA1), which brought up one important comment that I was able to address. Because that reviewer already completed image and source reviews, they offered to do that here as well. Thank you in advance for taking the time to read through this article and making some comments! Dugan Murphy (talk) 20:24, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Image and source review[edit]

I reviewed this article at GAN and encouraged this FAC so I'll recuse myself from a full review at this time, but vetted the images and references at the time and will do so here. Based on this revision.

  • Both images used are PD-US, both pictured works date to 1823 so predate the cut-off for public domain substantially, the photography itself has also been released into the public domain.
  • Sources formatted consistently and cleanly, reliability thereof is also of a good standard. No CS1 errors or inconsistencies found. Spotchecks carried out only sparingly—cannot access JSTOR but have checked Neal 1869, Poe 1849 and Waples 1938 for accuracy and am satisfied. If a more in-depth spotcheck is required it may take JSTOR access or collaboration with nominator but as this is not their first FA this may not be customary.
  • As I'm not the most experienced in these matters I will defer to anyone wishing to give a second opinion on either review but I happy to consider this a pass for images and sourcing. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ 01:32, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Thanks for looking it over! If a more thorough source spotcheck is needed, I can provide scans of requested pages in an of the print books sourced in the article. Dugan Murphy (talk) 02:21, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Harry S. Truman 1948 presidential campaign[edit]

Nominator(s): Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 12:23, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]

This article is about Harry S. Truman's 1948 campaign, arguably the most under-rated presidential campaign in American history. By various accounts, Truman was a fine man, who was nominated for vice-presidency by Franklin D. Roosevelt for his fourth term. Just 82 days after being inaugurated for his unprecedented fourth term, Roosevelt died. Truman ascended to the presidency, explaining the burden of the presidency as "the moon, the stars, and all the planets had fallen on [him]." In 1948, he tried to "earn" a term in his own right, but almost all predicted a victory of his opponent—the young and charismatic Governor of New York, Thomas E. Dewey. Various Democratic Party bosses wanted General Dwight D. Eisenhower (considered the most popular man in America) to run, and drafted him. Due to his unpopularity, Truman even agreed to run as Eisenhower's running mate! Eisenhower declined. Truman had to face division withing his own party; two new parties were formed by influential Democratic leaders challenging Truman in the election. Truman campaigned around 22,000 miles, gave 352 speeches, and traveled almost the entire nation (except deep south). Almost all polls predicted a "landslide" for Dewey. Elmo Roper discontinued polling way before election, saying "My whole inclination is to predict the election of Thomas E. Dewey by a heavy margin and devote my time and efforts to other things." The top 50 political writers were asked their opinion about the election. All predicted a victory for Dewey. On the election day, Chicago Tribune printed the headline "DEWEY DEFEATS TRUMAN", boldly anticipating a victory for him. Truman won! He won by a margin of over 2 million popular votes. Truman's picture, holding the erroneous headline of Chicago Tribune has been described as "greatest photograph ever made of a politician celebrating victory".

This article was copy-edited by @Twofingered Typist, reviewed for GA by @Maile66, and peer reviewed by @Hog Farm and @DanCherek. Any constructive feedback is more than welcomed. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 12:23, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Image review[edit]

  • Caption grammar could use some improvement
    • Keep in mind that captions should end in a period if a complete sentence, and otherwise not. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:33, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[]
      • Tried.
  • Instead of "See caption", suggest "refer to caption" for alt text
  • Don't duplicate between caption and alt text
  • Don't use fixed px size
    • Removed the fixed px size, but the info-box image now appears unnecessarily large. Can we fix it? – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 13:44, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]
      • I moved the alt to its specific parameter, see Special:Diff/1050616001. If you wikilink the file, it will typically display at full size, but if you just pass in the name the infobox should automatically resize to fit. Zetana (talk) 22:30, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • File:Harry_S_Truman,_bw_half-length_photo_portrait,_facing_front,_1945.jpg: why specifically is this believed to be PD?
    • The image record on the Library Of Congress states "No known restrictions". Also, it was published in 1945, so maybe {{PD-US-no notice}} should also apply.Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 13:44, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]
      • The image descriptions states that it was "copyrighted" in 1945. Is that not the case? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:33, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • File:Harry_S._Truman's_1948_Democratic_presidential_primary_result.tif: it doesn't seem that the colours in the legend quite match up with the colours in the actual image? See MOS:COLOUR
  • File:Alben_Barkley,_pensive_(cropped).jpg is missing link to the LOC image record
  • File:Eubie_Blake_-_Just_Wild_about_Harry.ogg: commons:Commons:Hirtle_chart#Sound_recordings suggests this would not yet be PD
    • And yet it is a featured sound! Removed for now, will add after 75 days (on Jan 1, 2022). – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 13:44, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • File:Political_Cartoon_by_Jim_Berryman,_"Down_by_the_Station"_(cropped).jpg: why is this believed to be a US government work?
    • Changed to {{PD-US-no notice}}. Truman Library claims it to be in PD. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 13:44, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • File:Truman-Dewey-polls-1948.jpg: in what paper(s) did this cartoon appear?
    • Unclear, but Clifford Berryman (the author of the cartoon) used to work for The Washington Star from 1907-49. National Archives claim it to be unrestricted for further use. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 13:44, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]
      • If this is unknown, how do we know there was no copyright notice in the original publication? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:33, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[]
        • I meant, it is also unclear that if that cartoon was published in a newspaper or not. All we know is that it is created by Clifford Berryman in 1948, and it is a part of his cartoon collection, compiled by the "U.S. Senate. Office of Senate Curator". NARA claim it to be unrestricted for further use. As we don't know whether it was copyrighted or not, I have changed the licence to {{PD-US-not renewed}}. Does that help? – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 04:06, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[]
          • Since that is also not specified, I would suggest using a more generic tag with the NARA claim. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:38, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[]
            • @Nikkimaria – Okay, so I decided to double check everything. It was difficult to find, but I finally got this October 19, 1948 edition of The Evening Star, Washington. Indeed the cartoon appeared in this newspaper on that date. Don't know why NARA doesn't say that ... And it was published without any copyright notice. I have now changed it back to {{PD-US-no notice}}. Is it fine? Also, Berryman (the author) died in 1949, i.e. more than 70 years ago, so it is surely in the PD anyways. And I guess, rest all the image licencing concerns are resolved. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 07:27, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[]
              • That's fine. Thanks for tracking that down. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:13, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • File:Deweytruman12.jpg needs a stronger FUR. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:55, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    • Tried. I do want to note here that there are three images of the same incident on Commons. I had discussed about copyright status of those images here, and it was concluded that they should be deleted from commons. There is a deletion request underway. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 13:44, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]

@Nikkimaria – Replies above. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 13:44, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Pamzeis[edit]

As you probably know from Daisy, I am very inexperienced/naive in the field of politics and probably will screw something up.

  • In 1948, Harry S. Truman and Alben W. Barkley were — who are they and why do they warrant a mention?[just kidding]
    • In 1948, almost all media companies and pollsters were thinking the same!
  • and former vice president under — per MOS:PERSONOROFFICE, I think "former" can be removed
  • and urged former Chief of Staff of the Army Dwight D. Eisenhower toWP:SOB?
  • wanted Supreme Court Associate Justice William O. Douglas to — same as above
  • however, Douglas declined, claiming a lack → Douglas, however, declined, claiming a lack (MOS:HOWEVER)
  • and impressed Truman. Truman selected — repetition of Truman
  • received some notable endorsementsWP:EDITORIALISING
  • Initially leading in the popular vote, Truman defeated Dewey — given what the rest of the sentence says, I believe this is referring to Dewey leading the popular vote. Though I'm not that well-versed in grammar, I think this makes it grammatically as the verb in the dependent clause at the start (i.e. leading) is tied to the noun of the next phrase (i.e. Truman); if Dewey led, I would revise it to: "Initially leading in the popular vote, Dewey lost to Truman", or "Initially losing in the popular vote, Truman defeated Dewey", etc.
    • Well, Truman was initially leading in the popular vote. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 07:31, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • By July 1918, became commander — missing word
  • Roosevelt believed that Roosevelt might not live — "he" (for the latter "Roosevelt") seems fine in this case as this (probably) could not refer to Truman or another man
  • The incumbent Vice President Henry A. Wallace was viewed as too far to the left and too friendly to the labor by most of Roosevelt's advisors. → Most of Roosevelt's advisors viewed the incumbent Vice President, Henry A. Wallace, as too far to the left and too friendly to the labor.
  • I'm not ask you to change anything about it but I'm interested: what does "on his ticket" mean?
    • Well, a ticket in politics, especially in this particular case about American presidential election, comprises on the presidential and vice presidential nominee. When Roosevelt decided to replace Wallace from his ticket, he meant to replace him with any another candidate as the vice-presidential nominee. In American presidential election, voters vote for a ticker, not for a candidate. That is, if someone votes for Truman, he is actually voting for "Harry S. Truman for president and Alben William Barkley for vice president". – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 07:31, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Though he showed little interest in being the vice president, the 1944 Democratic National Convention chose him — I think this is another grammatical error as the beginning bit (i.e. Though he showed little interest) is linked to the 1944 Democratic National Convention. Might need rewording
  • nominee of Eisenhower, if Eisenhower so desired — repetition of Eisenhower
  • four possible Republican nominees including Dewey — to my knowledge, "include" means as part of a whole. Since all four are listed, however, I would replace "including" with a colon or something
  • "Americans in 1948 had to render [...] conventions really mattered." — per MOS:BQ, blockquotes should not have quotation marks
  • initial choice was Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas.WP:SOB

That brings me to #Democratic convention... Pamzeis (talk) 06:32, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[]

@Pamzeis – Done all, or replied above. Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 07:31, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[]
@Pamzeis – Just a courtesy ping that all previous comments were resolved. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 07:22, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Sorry for the delay, I've been kinda busy lately with... managing my time poorly. I'll finish this review by Sunday. Pamzeis (talk) 07:28, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Colin Robert Chase[edit]

Nominator(s): Usernameunique (talk) 04:24, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Most scholars are known for their conclusions; Colin Chase, by contrast, was known as the driving force behind "one of the most important inconclusions in the study of Old English". In a career cut short after 13 years, Chase nevertheless produced major works including The Dating of Beowulf, which put paid to the idea that the date of that epic poem was settled.

This article began as a two-sentence stub, then was expanded and given a good article review by The Rambling Man. I've expanded it further since, particularly with reviews of Chase's major books. Concise and complete, the article is ready to be nominated here. --Usernameunique (talk) 04:24, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Image review

  • The lead image is of very poor quality - are there any possible alternatives? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:40, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Nikkimaria, unfortunately this is the only photograph of Chase I have been able to find. I may try reaching out to Roberta Frank to see if she knows more about it and could provide the original, or to Chase's family, although the latter approach would require some legwork. --Usernameunique (talk) 22:17, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Comments I made a couple of edits to the Lead. This sentence needs work to deal with the repetition of "balanced" and clarity of meaning: "Each chapter took a different perspective, such as historical, metrical, stylistic, and codicological; Chase's chapter suggested that the poem could be dated by its balanced attitude towards heroic culture, balanced between appreciation and admonition, reflecting a time when heroic culture could be seen positively, but without romanticisation or infatuation." I'm concerned about the "comprehensive" criterion and Wikipedia:Notability (academics). Are there any sources about Chase? I don't think a list of Chase's publications is enough for FA. Graham Beards (talk) 13:10, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Thanks, Graham Beards. I've reworded that sentence as follows: Each chapter used a different approach, such as historical, metrical, stylistic, and codicological, to attempt to date the poem; Chase's chapter looked at the poem's balanced attitude towards heroic culture, reflecting both appreciation and admonition, to suggest that Beowulf was written at a time when heroic culture could be seen positively, but without romanticisation or infatuation. As for whether there are "any sources about Chase", the answer is yes: indeed, the very first source used in the article is his obituary from Old English Newsletter. This obituary, like the article as a whole, covers Chase's life and career, and should resolve any concerns about "comprehensiveness," however understood. (In any event, that criterion is best understood as requiring a comprehensive survey of the extant secondary sources, which this article unquestionably does.) As for notability, this is a surprising place to raise it, given that the article has survived years, and multiple reviews (including creation, DYK, and GA), without question. But while Chase's early death may have robbed him of the opportunity to collect some of the indicia of academic notability, such as a named chair, his work clearly had "a significant impact in [his] scholarly discipline"—even leaving aside his other work, he put together "one of the most important inconclusions in the study of Old English", with many hundreds of citations to its name. --Usernameunique (talk) 22:17, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]
I am surprised this has not be raised before now and since it hasn't, it should be raised here; this is FAC after all. So all we have is a short obituary in a low-profile journal. Having read it, I think it's enough but the article needs expanding with regard to the methods Chase used to date Beowulf since this seems to be his main claim to fame. To me, the article seems incomplete for a FA. I am open to convincing to the contrary, but in the meantime I oppose the promotion.Graham Beards (talk) 07:57, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Thanks, Graham Beards—glad we can get at least one issue out of the way. As to expanding discussion of The Dating of Beowulf, are you thinking about more coverage of the book (and all its chapters) as a whole, or of Chase's chapters in particular? The reason the book is currently dealt with in overarching fashion is because its conclusion—that credible arguments exist for ascribing Beowulf to many centuries, not just one—is more important than any one of those arguments. With that said, I'm happy to add more about it. How about adding a two- to three-paragraph subsection somewhat like this one, first starting with a paragraph summarizing the book and its arguments, and then getting into its reviews and impact? --Usernameunique (talk) 18:05, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Just Chase's chapters with his ideas and arguments. I think this would be an improvement; especially the reviews and impact as these would relate to Chase. The article does seem incomplete at the moment. Graham Beards (talk) 19:12, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Graham Beards, how does it look now? I've removed the section on the book to its own paragraph, and added both a summary of Chase's contributions and a sense of where they fit into the broader dialogue over the date of the poem. --Usernameunique (talk) 20:45, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[]
I think it's certainly an improvement. I have retracted my "oppose" and I'm interested to see what other reviewers have to say. Did you have any luck in obtaining a better photograph? Graham Beards (talk) 08:49, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[]

1998–99 Gillingham F.C. season[edit]

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:03, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Following on from three successful promotions and one which is nearly over the line, here's another season from the history of English football/soccer club Gillingham. This is one which brings back some very good memories but also some very bad memories of a day at Wembley at the end of the season which ended with me literally crying, which is never a good look for a grown man. Oh well, such is life and football. Feedback as ever gratefully received..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:03, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]

image review

Pass. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:32, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Is there any better-quality alternative to File:NyronNos.png? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:32, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    • @Nikkimaria: - I found one which is a little bit better. Unfortunately images of players from this season seem to be a bit thin on the ground...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:38, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Support from TRM[edit]

  • "the play-offs for " could link play-offs in general here, and then the specific year article for "semi-finals" perhaps.
  • "conceded two late goals, and Manchester City won the subsequent" did we skip over extra time?
  • "was 10,400 for the visit of Manchester City" in the league or in the play-offs?
  • "amid allegations of gross misconduct" probably not a great idea to leave this hanging, did anything ever get proven?
  • "The 1998–99 season" put season inside the link.
  • "67th season playing in" probably don't need "season playing" here.
  • "the 1997–98 season, Gillingham" I would pipe to something more contextual like "the previous season".
  • "but missing out due to having scored" -> "but missed out having scored..."?
  • "of £525,000" etc could inflate these values.
  • "won promotion in that" overlinked.
  • "were red and black" stripes.
  • "the FA Premier League in " no need for FA?
  • "game against Walsall and" overlinked.
  • "next game away to Blackpool, having" no result mentioned?
  • Minor: Wrexham is A.F.C. Oldham too. And Swansea City.
  • ("preceded by the arrival by helicopter of the club's new mascot, Tommy T. Trewblu" I mean, wow)
  • "former champions of English football, who" but Preston were former champions too??
  • "tier of the English football league system for the first" overlinked.
  • "Gillingham's 16th consecutive league game without defeat" that's not in the 11v11 source which is just a league table snapshot, you need the 11v11 Gills results for the season link there too.
  • "defeating Blackpool 1–0 to " overlinked.
  • "fifth in the table" mildly repetitive albeit in a previous section, still the previous sentence.
  • "away to Walsall.[24][30]" overlinked.
  • "by the Football Association, the" the is part of their name.
  • "contenders Preston North End.[36][37]" overlinked.
  • "but rebounded with a 4–0 win over Lincoln City" rebounded is a little journalese.
  • "on loan" I would have "on" in the link too. Same in caption.
  • "to AFC Bournemouth with" no need for AFC.
  • " away to Notts County, Asaba " overlinked, and I would say "over" or "against", not "to".
  • "finishers Preston North End. In" overlinked.
  • "Bartram dived" first mention so full name and link.
  • "played Manchester City, who" overlinked.
  • (As if there weren't already enough reasons to dislike Dickov.....)
  • Final is linked in table but not semis?
    • There's no article on the semis......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:06, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • "team Oldham Athletic." overlinked.
  • "at the earliest stage" welllllll.... "proper" stage...
  • "played Colchester United Goals from Asaba, Adrian Pennock and" Col U and Pennock.
  • "opponents were Millwall. In " overlinked.
  • "the highest number of appearances" -> the most appearances.
  • Again, did the accusations against Pulis come to anything?
  • "enter the play-offs" you previously linked to the relevant league section of the play-off article.
  • "defeating Stoke City in the semi-finals, Gillingham beat Wigan Athletic" stoke/wigan overlinked.
  • ref 2 is BBC News.
  • ref 12, pp.
  • ref 22 looks like Grauniad, not Times and has author missing. And page.
  • ref 27 page missing.
  • general: check the Gale refs, many seem to be missing page numbers which can be found in the citation at the bottom of each linked article.
  • ref 34 The Sunday Times.
  • ref 39 needs en-dash, not spaced hyphen.
  • ref 54, pp.
  • ref 66 is BBC News.

That's it from me. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:12, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[]

CommentsSupport from Grapple X[edit]

As a lifelong Manchester City supporter there's no way I'm passing this one up.

  • Shortly after the end of the 1997–98 season, highly rated teenage forward Jimmy Corbett moved to Premier League club Blackburn Rovers for an initial fee of £525,000; clauses in the contract meant that the fee had the potential to rise to £1 million if Corbett played more than a specified number of games at the higher level, but a succession of injuries limited his playing time at Blackburn and Gillingham received no further money.—Quite a long run-on sentence here, I'd split this at the semi-colon.
  • The "Match details" tables throughout should use a table caption for screenreaders. It would be simple to move the "Results" title and ref into a caption field but you might wish to leave the reference as a byline above the table and just add a title
  • Brian Statham was restricted to one game in the 1998–99 season although he had been a semi-regular in the team the season before.—Not sold on "semi-regular" here, might be preferable to give a number of games played instead if the source permits this
  • He scored 20 goals in the Second Division during the regular season, 1 in the play-offs, and 1 in the League Trophy for a total of 22 in all competitions—Elsewhere we seem to have smaller numbers as words ("Two players" and "one game" just a few sentences prior) so this seems inconsistent
    • I have been told multiple times that all numbers in the same sentence should be written as either numbers or words, not mix-and-match, so I think this is OK -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:11, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[]
      • It's MOS:NUM. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 21:32, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[]
      • That's not to say there isn't a wording that could avoid it; something like and once each in the play-offs and League Trophy for a total of 22 in all competitions or and another in both the play-offs and League Trophy for a total of 22 in all competitions would avoid mixing words and numerals for comparable quantities but also avoid those stray "1"s coming so soon after "two" and "one". A minor point and not worth holding things up over, though. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ 23:04, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[]
        • That works - why didn't I think of that? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:51, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Re: Pulis' sacking—I can understand not going into a lot of detail here but it does seem remiss to not mention he won a settlement for unpaid monies relating to it. (BBC story on it, Grauniad).
  • All I have at present. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ 17:53, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    • @Grapple X: Done, with one exception as noted -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:11, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[]
      • Looks good. For consistency's sake I've applied the same inflation template to the court settlement amount added, feel free to revert. Happy to support this at present. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ 23:04, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[]
        • Thanks for that, can't believe I missed that one..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:51, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • @Grapple X: - just checking to see if I have addressed everything to your satisfaction.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:23, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    Already stated my support above, all good by me. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ 09:41, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    You did, I apologise. It was early :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:46, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Benedict Joseph Fenwick[edit]

Nominator(s): Ergo Sum 14:08, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]

This is the second nomination of this article, after the first failed for lack of input. I have taken this article through GAN and believe it is up to FA standards. Fenwick led a fascinating life, full of controversies and disputes navigated from senior positions. Ergo Sum 14:08, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]

CommentsSupport from ChrisTheDude[edit]

  • "with it officially shuttering in April 1814" - shouldn't that be "shutting"? Or is "shuttering" a synonym for that in US English?
    • Shuttering is a common Americanism but it sounded a bit colloquial on second glance, so I've rephrased. Ergo Sum 00:53, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • "Fenwick served alongside Kohlmann as pastor of Old St. Patrick's Cathedral in 1809, an office he held until 1815" - he held the office in 1809 (implying only during that year), but until 1815? That's a bit unclear......
    • Agree that that was poor wording. I've fixed it. 01:01, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
  • "St. Patrick's Cathedral, whose construction" => "St. Patrick's Cathedral, the construction of which" ("who" should only be used when referring to people, not inanimate objects)
    • Done. Ergo Sum 01:22, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • No need to link Georgetown College again in the section of that name
  • "In May 1822, Fenwick returned to Washington, D.C." - when was he in DC before? The city hasn't been mentioned up to this point......
    • The Early life section discusses how he lived in and then studied in Georgetown, which is in Washington. Ergo Sum 01:25, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • That's what I've got as far as the end of the Georgetown section. I'll look at the rest later..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:19, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • "This was followed by the establishment of a co-ed day school." - what does "co-ed" mean? I suspect this is possibly a common US term with which I am not familiar
    • I don't think co-ed is a strictly AmEng term (but I could be wrong. Nonetheless, I've expanded it to co-educational and linked it. Ergo Sum 01:27, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • "the school began charging tuition" => "the school began charging for tuition"
    • I've never heard that particular construction. I've only ever heard "charging tuition." I suspect this might be an AmEng vs. BrEng matter. Ergo Sum 01:27, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • "As they left, a mob of 2,000, wearing masks or painted faces encircled the convent" - needs a comma after faces to close off the clause
    • Done. Ergo Sum 01:28, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • "All but one of the perpetrators was acquitted" => "All but one of the perpetrators were acquitted" (the subject "all but one" refers to multiple people)
    • Fixed. Ergo Sum 01:28, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Think that's it from me :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:24, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Thank you for your comments, ChrisTheDude. Ergo Sum 01:29, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Operation Sportpalast[edit]

Nominator(s): Nick-D (talk) 01:11, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]

This article covers the only occasion the famous German battleship Tirpitz was used to attack Allied shipping during World War II. On 6 March 1942 she was dispatched to attack two of the Allied Arctic Convoys off Norway. The British learned of her sailing through code breaking, leading to a cat and mouse chase in appalling weather. An attack against the battleship by British carrier aircraft failed on 9 March due to bad tactics, bad aircraft and a bit of bad luck, and she returned to her base on 13 March. Only one Allied merchant ship was sunk.

The article is the latest of a series I've brought to FAC on attacks against the Tirpitz. It was assessed as a GA in early August, and passed an A-class review a couple of weeks ago. I have since developed the article further, including by drawing on extra sources, with this burst of editing being aided by a COVID lockdown in my city which has left me with lots of spare time! I am now hopeful that the FA criteria are met. Thank you in advance for your comments. Nick-D (talk) 01:11, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Image review

  • Suggest scaling up the maps. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:31, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    • Done, and thank you for this review. Nick-D (talk) 02:50, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Comments by Wehwalt[edit]

  • It might be good to state the general locality where the operation took place in the lead paragraph.
More soon.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:04, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Sorry, am traveling and time not my own.
  • " Tromsö" This redirects to "Tromsø". Which is preferable? Note you use the latter on second use (with repeated link).
  • The latter - fixed Nick-D (talk) 09:19, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • "Admiral Commanding Battleships, Vice-Admiral Otto Ciliax, assumed command of this battle group" Is "Admiral Commanding Battleship" a formal title? If so, should "The" proceed it?
  • Yep, the German Navy had clunky-sounding titles like that. I've added a 'The'. Nick-D (talk) 09:19, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • " 12 pm on 5 March" would it be better to say "12 noon on 5 March"?
  • Yep, done Nick-D (talk) 09:19, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • "During the afternoon of 7 March the Admiralty warned PQ 12 that German ships may be operating in its vicinity." Should "may" be "might"? This may be engvar as I see you use similar usages elsewhere.
  • Probably more one of my quirks than any particular English variant (I work in an industry where emphatic language in written documents is actively discouraged). Tweaked to 'might' as I agree it's the better word. Nick-D (talk) 09:19, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Footnote 4: Should Bismarck be italicised?
  • It's not italicised in the source, so I don't think so. I've tweaked the presentation of this reference though. Nick-D (talk) 09:19, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[]
That's it.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:33, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[]
@Wehwalt: Many thanks for these comments. Nick-D (talk) 09:19, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Support--Wehwalt (talk) 14:23, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Support from Iazyges[edit]

Source review - pass[edit]

Taking this up for a source review also. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 16:32, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Locations
  • Kennedy, Ludovic (1979) currently Boston, put into "Boston, Massachusetts (presumably).
  • Zetterling, Niklas; Tamelander, Michael (2009) change to Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (presumably)
    • I think that both those cities are well known as centres for publishing, and as the dominant cities of their names especially for publishing purposes. Nick-D (talk) 08:39, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • London and NYC are both good as mononyms, may wish to change Oxford to Oxford, Oxfordshire, but it and Cambridge are also generally accepted mononyms.
IDs
  • Dimbleby, Jonathan (2015) I only see the 978-0-241-97210-6 ISBN listed for one of the 10 listed WorldCat entries for the 2015 edition, double-check (if you own the book) that this ISBN is correct, most of the 2015 editions use 9780241186602 per WorldCat.
    • Checked, that that's the ISBN in the book Nick-D (talk) 08:39, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Roskill, Stephen W. (1956) per WorldCat it looks like the listed OCLC of 258695345 is for a 1957 edition; all of the 1956 editions have different OCLC's, but the one with the most coherent WorldCat page is 633635983; I'm unable to find the 258695345 OCLC in the link, so suggest changing the OCLC to 633635983. If you have a paper copy of the 258695345 check the date, and if it is 1956, disregard this as a failure of WorldCat.
    • Changed to 633635983, thanks. Nick-D (talk) 08:39, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Comments
  • Dimbleby, Jonathan (2015) is also published by the Oxford University Press, although this starts in 2016; if you can confirm page numbers are the same I'd suggest switching dates and publishers. Entirely depends on if you view the effort as worth your while though.
    • I'll stick with the only edition I have access to here ;) Nick-D (talk) 08:39, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • @Nick-D: That is all. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 17:05, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Old Exe Bridge[edit]

Nominator(s): HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:53, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[]

And now for something completely different. This is an ancient bridge in Exeter, south west England, built from about 1190. For 600 years, if you wanted to travel west from Exeter, you did it by crossing this bridge. The River Exe is now crossed by a pair of bridges built in the 1960s but the remains of the mediaeval bridge (by then buried under the river bank and a road) were restored and you can now walk across it again, not that it leads anywhere.

It took me a few years to get round to writing this, and a few more to get round to finishing it, but I've been accumulating a pile of books on bridges and decided the time was right. It's had a very helpful GA review from Neonblak and Dumelow was a big help in providing one of the main sources. I think it's ready for its star, but all feedback is welcome! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:53, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Image review

Pass. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:12, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • File:Exeter,_1563.jpg needs a US tag, and any idea why the version at the given source has a copyright notice at the bottom of it?
  • File:Exe_Bridge_(1780).jpg needs a US tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:49, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    @Nikkimaria: thanks for the review. US tags added. Not a clue why someone would try and claim copyright over a 500-year-old map. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 09:59, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Support Nick-D[edit]

This article is both interesting and in great shape. The nomination also deserves bonus marks, as the article features photos taken by the nominator! I'd like to offer the following comments:

  • 'mediaeval' seems a bit old-fashioned
    • I suppose my education was old-fashioned but I remember being taught that "medieval" was the "American" (and, implicitly, "wrong") spelling.
      • Oxford expert on the topic Chris Wickham uses medieval [3] Nick-D (talk) 10:11, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • "The mayor, John Shillingford, appealed for funds to rebuild it. " - can you say when this was?
    • 1447 or shortly after. Clarified.
  • "bridge estate grew to a considerable size and the records show that it leased 15 shops on the bridge, and over 50 other properties elsewhere in Exeter, including mills and agricultural land, all providing an income for the maintenance of the bridge" - mentioning 'bridge' three times in a sentence is probably a bit much, even for an article on a bridge ;)
    • Abridged! ;)
  • "Parts of the mediaeval bridge were exposed by German bombing during the Second World War." - can you say how? (e.g. was this when buildings in the city were destroyed?) Nick-D (talk) 03:07, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    • Not sure what you're looking for here. There's not actually a lot of detail on it in the sources. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:41, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[]
      • I think that you and I are both familiar with bomb damage leading to this kind of thing, but the average reader probably isn't. Can you say how the exposure occurred? Nick-D (talk) 10:11, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[]
        • The mention in the source is very brief, to the point that I debated omitting it in the first place. I can't say much more without indulging in original research, but I've rephrased slightly. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:02, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[]
          • That looks good, and fair enough with the sourcing limitations. My other comments are also addressed, and I'm very happy to support this nomination. Nick-D (talk) 09:01, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Dumelow[edit]

Just a note that HJ Mitchell kindly names me in his nomination but I did no more than find a source on the subject and have never edited this article so feel entirely justified in carrying out a prose review. I visit South Devon fairly regularly and have always enjoyed driving past this bridge when heading out of Exeter towards the south coast, I'll have to stop next time and walk across it! A few comments, mostly nitpicking and I am more than happy to discuss any of these - Dumelow (talk) 07:52, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]

And I'm very grateful for the source. It was most useful. The article would be a few hundred words shorter without it.
Your changes below look good to me, Support on the prose - Dumelow (talk) 09:27, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Lead
  • "The project was the idea of Nicholas and Walter Gervase, father and son and influential local merchants, who travelled the country to raise funds" no mention of travelling in the article, only that they raised a public subscription
    • Leave this with me. I think it's in one of the books. Found it!
  • "continued until the Reformation in the mid-16th century." English Reformation would be a better link here
    • Done.
  • By 1447, the bridge was severely dilapidated and the mayor of Exeter appealed for funds to repair it, and it was repaired again in the 16th century." The article isn't clear if the 1447 repairs went ahead so "repaired again" might be wrong
    • Fair point. Adjusted.
Background
  • "Exeter was founded as Isca Dumnoniorum by the Romans." I think a date (if available) would be helpful to the reader here
    • Added.
  • "Bridge building was sparse in England through the Dark Ages" I think modern historians have moved away from using the "Dark Ages" and I think 1190 is late by any definition of the term. Early Middle Ages seems to be the accepted term for the period (though the period you discuss runs into the High Middle Ages). Happy to hear more opinions on this, though - I don't know a great deal about this era.
    • Altered. Not really my are either but I don't have strong feelings on it.
History
  • "Nicholas and Walter Gervase", plausible redlinks? (Walter, as repeated mayor of Exeter perhaps moreso than Nicholas)
    • Possibly. Walter is probably notable but I feel the chances of someone creating an article are slim. It would probably require a lot of research and remain quite an obscure article.
  • "The bridge is known to have been repaired several times throughout its lifetime." repetition of "time" could perhaps be avoided
    • Done.
  • " Heavitree breccia, a local stone not quarried until the mid 14th century (approximately 150 years after the bridge was built)", not sure the bit in brackets is needed. Can we assume some competence on the readers part in dating?
    • This comes a while after the date of construction, and there are quite a few imprecise dates in this part of the article so I thought it was helpful.
  • "the process was frustrated by Shillingford's sudden death the following year", the last year mentioned was 1447 but Shillingford's death was in 1458 (according to his article). Do we need to introduce 1457 as the year Shillingford spoke with Kemp?
    • Fixed. Must have misread it. Apparently things moved slowly in the 15th century!
  • "An Act of Parliament in 1773 empowered the trustees to repair or rebuild the bridge", this is the first mention of trustees. Do we have any more background to give on this?
    • Now moot with the re-order as suggested below.
  • "completion of a new, three-arch masonry bridge by Joseph Dixon in 1778" again, is Dixon a plausible redlink?
    • Couldn't find much on him, but plausible.
  • "The 18th-century bridge was itself demolished and replaced with a three-hinged steel arch bridge" "three-hinged" arch bridges could use an explanatory link, though I couldn't find any relevant content on-wiki. Leave it with me and I'll see if I can add something somewhere.
    • I defer to your expertise on that one!
I don't remember much from my structural engineering classes but I've created a basic article at Hinged arch bridge - Dumelow (talk) 15:32, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[]
That's helpful, thanks! Added a link. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:13, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • "Repairs and maintenance of the bridge were provided for from the proceeds of land bought by the Gervases at the time the bridge was built," Comes right after a paragraph discussing the modern bridge so could perhaps use "mediaeval" to preface the first mention of "bridge".
    • See below.
  • Ah, I see the third paragraph of "Later history" is where the turnpike trust is mentioned. Personally I think this paragraph, relating entirely to the mediaeval bridge, could sit best as the first paragraph of this section, before the mention of later events. But happy to hear other thoughts.
    • Done. I thought about moving it to the end of the "mediaeval history" section but that created layout issues.
  • "The 20th century engineers", think this should this be "20th-century", as a compound modifier
    • Good catch. This is the sort of thing I normally pick up in FACs!
  • "At this time, Frog Street was abandoned." this is the first mention in the main text of Frog Street so the reader has no idea what it is
    • Added a note.
Architecture
  • "the pointed Gothic style", a link to Gothic architecture might be useful here
    • Done.
  • "St Edmund's was approximately 20 metres (66 feet) long and 5.5 metres (18 feet) with an entrance on the bridge and possibly a second entrance underneath" missing word after the 5.5 metres part, possible wide?
    • Done.
  • "It had a rectangular plan, 54 feet (16 metres) long by 16 feet 6 inches (5 metres) wide." seems to contradict the earlier dimensions of the church, is this inconsistency in measurements, changes over time or do they refer to different parts of the church?
    • Need to double check this.Removed the other measurement as I can't now find it. I'll check the sources again when I've got fresher eyes but that solves the contradiction.
  • "A Seal of the bridge was made for use by the bridge wardens", decapitalise "seal"
    • Done.
  • "or possibly the chantry chapel", you link it later but move the link to here, which is its first mention
    • Done.
  • "during the Dissolution of the Monasteries", our article doesn't capitalise this term
    • Odd, since "Reformation" is used as a proper noun but not worth worrying about.
  • "during the Reformation", link to English Reformation
    • Done.

Comments Support from Tim riley[edit]

Not much from me. This is a delightful article, beautifully written and widely sourced. These few quibbles are all I can come up with:

  • First a point on spelling. Although left to my own devices I prefer to use the spelling "mediaeval" rather than "medieval" I must in conscience point out that using it here does not really conform with Wikipedia's precept that the most widely used spellings should generally prevail. (Needless to say, I can't now find that guidance in the MoS – I can never find anything in the MoS – but I'm pretty sure it's the general rule.) Moreover, using the old spelling sits oddly with using the trendy "CE" instead of the traditional "AD" alongside it.
    • Consensus seems to be in favour of the modern spelling, and it's certainly not worth falling out over!
  • Background
  • "the River Thames, which was completed in 1209" – not the happiest of wording. The River was completed rather earlier than 1209.
  • Indeed it was. Fixed.
  • Construction
  • "Professor W. G. Hoskins" – I think the MoS tells us not to use people's job titles such as "Professor", though no doubt something like "W. G. Hoskins, professor of something at Whatsit University" would pass muster.
  • "The bridge was at least 590 feet (180 metres) long[13] (some studies have suggested the bridge was longer" – perhaps just "it" for the second mention of the bridge?
  • Done.
  • Later history
  • "a public house (pub)" – do we really need a translation? (And in passing, and with no pretence on my part to historical knowledge, are "public house" and "pub" not a touch anachronistic for the mid-18th century? Wouldn't it have been called an inn? But what do I know?)
  • I'm not sure. "Pub" is the term used by the sources. I'm not sure all readers are familiar with the pub, but I've taken out the full term and left the link. Hopefully that will keep everyone happy.
  • "the marsh land over which" – the OED has "marshland" as a single word.
  • Then I defer to the OED!
  • Architecture
  • "St Thomas' Church" – odd form of possessive: wouldn't St Thomas's be more usual? (Here and later in the text.) And you have the more familiar St Thomas's at one point later. I'd standardise on that.
  • Standardised as you recommend.
  • "Dendrochronology (tree-ring dating)" – not sure we need both a blue link and an explanation inline.
  • I think it's helpful. It's an interesting and uncommon term. We shouldn't make the reader click away to find out what it means, but we should let them explore if they're curious.
  • Secular buildings
  • "Bridge chapels were relatively common – relative to what? If you mean 'quite common' or 'fairly common' best to say so plainly.
  • Relative to the number of bridges. But no meaning is lost by removing the word.

That's my lot. I'll be back in due course to, I have no doubt, add my support. Tim riley talk 20:45, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Thank you Tim! Always a pleasure, and I appreciate your attention to detail. @Nick-D and Dumelow: I believe I've addressed all your comments as well. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:27, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[]
I support the promotion of this article to FA. It seems to me to meet all the FA criteria. Beautifully illustrated, a cracking read, and evidently well and widely sourced. (And I greatly enjoyed reading and reviewing it.) Tim riley talk 19:53, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Symphony No. 4 (Mahler)[edit]

Nominator(s): GeneralPoxter (talkcontribs) 12:29, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[]

This article is about Gustav Mahler's Fourth Symphony -- not his most famous symphony, but certainly a brilliant work. GeneralPoxter (talkcontribs) 12:29, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Image review

  • Don't use fixed px size
  • File:Symphony_No.4_by_Gustav_Mahler,_Cover.jpg: where is that licensing coming from?
  • File:Kaimssaal_duelfer_1895.png: where and when was this first published? Ditto File:Felix_Weingartner_LCCN2014692334_(cropped).jpg, File:First_recording_from_Mahler_Symphony_No.4_Hidemaro_Konoye_Scan10004.JPG
  • File:Mahler_Symphony_No.4_in_G_major_1._Badachtig_Nicht_ellen_(Mahler)_European_Archive.ogg needs a tag for the music, and where and when was this first published? Ditto File:Mahler_Symphony_No.4_in_G_major_2._In_gemachlicher_Bewegung_(Mahler)_European_Archive.ogg, File:Mahler_Symphony_No.4_in_G_major_3._Ruhevoil_(Mahler)_European_Archive.ogg, File:Mahler_Symphony_No.4_in_G_major_4._Sehr_behaglich_(Mahler)_European_Archive.ogg. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:47, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Kererū[edit]

Nominator(s): Ambrosia10, Marshelec & Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:10, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[]

This chonky borb I brought to GA in 2007 but then forgot about it...has then had a very thorough GA review to the point where I reckon it is within striking distance of FA-hood. Thanks to Mover of molehills for going over it with a fine tooth comb. Have at it folks. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:10, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Comments from Aa77zz[edit]

  • consider glossing taonga in the lead - as well as linking - this is a specialized word
I will defer to @Ambrosia10 and Giantflightlessbirds: over the exact best translation as they are locals...otherwise I'll do some reading and guess... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:21, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Complex, commonly translated as "treasure," māori dictionary says: "Treasure, anything prized - applied to anything considered to be of value including socially or culturally valuable objects, resources, phenomenon, ideas and techniques." Dracophyllum 06:37, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Reference 7 - James 1995 - this is a MSc thesis which I haven't found online. This isn't acceptable as a source - better sources are available.
replaced (was harder than I thought!) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:35, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Reference 39 - Dijkgraaf 2002 - this is a PhD thesis. This isn't ideal as a source - is the information available elsewhere? Important results from a PhD thesis are usually later published in refereed journals. PhD theses are not refereed and are often difficult to access.
in process of reading - HANZAB has a huge dump of plant species which is possibly not helpful to include. I have found this which is mentioned in other papers. Will add tomorrow as I need to sleep now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:17, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]
ok added the field guide as a good summary of fruits preferred. The Kelly paper seems to challenge the thesis anyway so have dispensed with it Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:30, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • The article in HANZAB (1996) is available online from New Zealand Birds Online here. Perhaps this can be used to replace the poor references above.
Took me a while to find the link on that one....but now we're in business... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:35, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • NZ birds also has the relevant pages of: Heather, B.D.; Robertson, H.A. 2005. The Field Guide to the Birds of New Zealand. Viking, Auckland
added fruit eaten Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:32, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • A cladogram would be useful. Why is the cladogram on the talk page not included in the article?
laziness. added now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:01, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Distribution and habitat

  • mention local movements - see HANZAB p. 1018, Clout et al 1991 and possibly Powlesland et al 2011 here
added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:03, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Breeding

  • mention that both parents build nest
added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:42, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • how large and what colour is the egg?
added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:42, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • mention that clutches can overlap - incubating on one nest while feeding a chick on another
added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:06, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • at what age do they start breeding?
HANZAB says unknown Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:06, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • how long do the birds live?
added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:55, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Thorsen et al 2004 "Parental care and growth rates of New Zealand pigeon (Hemiphaga novaeseelandiae) nestlings" might have useful info. available here
added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:27, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]

More later - Aa77zz (talk) 14:37, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[]

  • Ref 12 (Falla et al 1979), Ref 16 (Ward 2019), Ref 26 (Robertson & Heather 2017) - the titles of these three references link to the entry at WorldCat. I expect a title link to take me to an open-access version of the article/book. Note that the OCLC number already links to WorldCat.
delinked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:30, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]

- Aa77zz (talk) 16:28, 15 October 2021 (UTC) Lead[]

  • "It is the only remaining New Zealand bird capable of swallowing large fruit..." Not in body of article - needs source.
removed - forgot about lead. that was in body but cited to a thesis and actually challenged by subsequent fieldwork so not strictly true. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:52, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Breeding

  • consider mentioning that these pigeons are monogamous and the pairs remain together when not breeding - the pair-bond probably lasts from one breeding season to the next.(HANZAB))
added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:54, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[]

References

  • Ref 45 Cousins 2010 - a Master's Thesis that should be replaced.
replaced Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:06, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Ref 73 Renganathan 2004 - a Master's Thesis that should be replaced.
removed sentence Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:12, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Ref 78 "Supplementary information for subsistence practices, ..." - needs authors
added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:06, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Refs 21, 22, 23, 61, 67, 79, 84, 86 and 88 are all cites to the website "Stuff". Why is this a reliable source?
It is a website, Stuff, owned by Stuff (company) (previously Fairfax media) so has a reliable publishing pedigree Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:18, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[]

- Aa77zz (talk) 09:43, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Lead

  • The lead is unbalanced - it mostly covers the conservation and the relationship to humans: it contains very little on the behaviour of the bird itself.
breeding and some measurements added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:25, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Figure captions

duly captioned Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:55, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Diet

  • Ref 35 - Bell (1996) - the specific name is misspelled. The page number should be 37 rather than 87. It is a single page - available here. I suggest deleting this reference - there are 3 other cites to support the short text "The kererū feeds on many species with tropical affinities, including the Lauraceae and Arecaceae".
ref removed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:12, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[]

In Māori culture

  • Possibly mention: Walter Buller in his A History of the Birds of New Zealand published in 1888 mentions that large numbers of birds (8000) were snared near Lake Taupō and preserved in their own fat. See: Buller, Walter (1888). A History of the Birds of New Zealand. 1 (2nd ed.). London: Buller. p. 234.
added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:50, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Ref 49 - Best 1977 - this is a reprint of a book by Elsdon Best (1856-1931) that was published posthumously in 1942. (need author-link=Elsdon Best and orig-date=1942)
added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:35, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[]

- Aa77zz (talk) 11:27, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Formatting references - rather than listing changes here I've edited the article myself.

Support - thanks for all your good work. -Aa77zz (talk) 14:47, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[]

thx for the thorough review - article is better for it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:03, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Image review[edit]

  • What is the purpose of including an image gallery?
Wasn't me who added. Removed. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:59, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Suggest adding alt text
mostly done but group image template proving difficult and not sure about movie clips Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:12, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • File:Hemiphaga_novaeseelandiae_spadicea.png needs a US tag, and what's the author's date of death?
added US tag - he died in 1912 Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:09, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • File:The_Great_Kererū_Count_2021.jpg: why is this believed to be CC? The source site has an "all rights reserved" notice
Removed. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:14, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • File:Keulemans,_John_Gerrard_1842-1912_-New_Zealand_pigeon._Carpophaga_Novae_Zealandiae._(one-half_natural_size)._-_J._G._Keulemans_delt._and_lith._(Plate_XXIV._1888)._(21014153784).jpg: can more specific tagging be added? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:40, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[]
you mean adding the US tag? done. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:09, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Comments from Stuartyeates[edit]

  • Remove the image gallery unless those images actually add something to the article.
Removed. Am contemplating adding an image of bird with extended wings to body of text but article is pretty image-heavy as is and not sure it trumps any of the other images alreayd there Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:59, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Suggest changing "Spelling Māori loanwords with macrons—that indicate a long vowel—is now common in New Zealand English." to "Spelling Māori loanwords with macrons—that indicate a long vowel—is now common in New Zealand English, where technically possible." The change is already supported by the references.
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:01, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • It would be great to get an image of a korowai with Kererū feathers, but all of the instututions I checked didn't do CC.
yeah that would be good.....sigh Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:52, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[]

- Stuartyeates (talk) 03:12, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Funk[edit]

  • I'll have a look soon. Should Norfolk pigeon be merged into here, as is usually the rule for subspecies with short articles? FunkMonk (talk) 16:35, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]
was sort of distinctive subspecies. Will look at content of both. Have incorporated the date and cause of extinction, and differences in plumage as the salient points. A merge discussion can take place later (given the distinctiveness there is a case for a separate article which is best discussed in a structured format) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:29, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • There are some duplinks (not counting those in the cladogram).
removed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:21, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • The alt text has replaced the caption in the second image.
fixed now I think....? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:28, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • The video thumbnails seem a bit uninteresting, you can pick a specific frame with the parameter I've used at for example thylacine in the video under description.
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:28, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • I see the article is a bit crammed, but always good to show the egg[4] when we can?
what would you propose removing...? This is tough.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:28, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[]
I saw you ha a double image with the juvenile and the video before, perhaps make it with the egg instead? FunkMonk (talk) 05:33, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[]
egg added now (removed 2nd kuelemans lithograph) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:13, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Bold its name in the cladogram?
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:42, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • I agree there could be a photo showing spread wings, but as you say, the article is a bit crammed. Perhaps under distribution?
see above Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:28, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[]
looking but not sure - original name combination to be for wompoo pigeon but not listed as junior synonym for Ptilinopus, which I think it is - need a source. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:18, 21 October 2021 (UTC)Reworded now - Megaloprepia is Ptilinopus, still looking for where Carpophaga should go..I think Ducula but I can't find any references (!) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:09, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • "with the end of the genus name Carpophaga introduced by English naturalist Prideaux John Selby in 1835" This is a bit confusing, as it reds as if Selby used the name for this species, so you should specify if it was for another.
have reworded this Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:51, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Link Columba?
You mean one of the ones in the binomial names? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:18, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Either that or somehow work it in like "was first placed in the genus Columba as C. novaeseelandiae" or similar? FunkMonk (talk) 22:36, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[]
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:13, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • "The extinct Norfolk pigeon (H. n. spadicea)" Could specify subspecies for clarity.
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:18, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • "The kererū is a large arboreal pigeon weighing 550–850 g (19–30 oz),[25] and can be" That can be? Not sure, but seems incongruent now.
tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:18, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • "Details on the extinct Norfolk Island subspecies are scant" But does this apply to its plumage, considering many specimens are preserved?
the original wording was the ssp. was "poorly known" - but you are right it is misleading as is. Will move that elsewhere Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:30, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • "Kererū make occasional soft coo sounds (hence the onomatopoeic names)" I think it should already have been stated the name is onomatopoeic when you discussed the common names then.
I didn't add that source so just removed it. I haven't seen that written elsewhere so will look Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:53, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • "Kererū remains have been recovered" Specify if these are fossils.
just changed to "bones" as simpler Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:20, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • "Although sedentary, kererū move can move" Double move.
move removed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:53, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • "travelled up to 100 km." Convert?
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:42, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • I think one of these photos[5][6] of fighting individuals would add more to the article than the low quality feeding video, and it would work to both show the wings spread and behaviour.
Agreed Dracophyllum 05:40, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[]
I agree too - and changed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:46, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • "kererū are able raise" Able to?
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:33, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Mention the word subspecies in the caption of the image showing the extinct one?
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:33, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • "They are only restricted by moulting" How does this restrict them?
I think because of energy requirements and ability to forage for young, but not clarified in this source. reworded to "They do not breed when moulting" Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:51, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • You give scientific names for plant species, but not animal species mentioned.
This seems to be the last unanswered point. FunkMonk (talk) 18:29, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[]
oops - on it... think I got 'em all... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:45, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • "On Norfolk Island, the subspecies was last seen in 1900" Add "the local subspecies" for clarity?
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:33, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • " The reason for the kererū's iridescent green-blue and white plumage is because" Add "according to this legend"?
added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:36, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • "New Zealand pigeon: A History of the Birds of New Zealand, Buller, 1888" Link Buller?
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:33, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • "along with moa, extinct New Zealand quail" Since both are extinct, perhaps say "along with bones of the extinct moa and New Zaland quail"?
reworded --Gertrude206 (talk) 00:08, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Everything looks good to me now. One last comment, maybe the first two images should swap their alignments (left/right) so that the birds look towards the text rather than away from it?
aaargh - if I right-align the lithograph, it will be displaced downwards on wider monitors (left-aligning the chick is ok). I thought for a moment you meant swapping the chick image and lithograph but that takes the chick away from its reference text...frustrating. You're not bothered by image displacement? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:13, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Just to show what I mean, on a small screen it would look like this:[7] FunkMonk (talk) 06:23, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[]
okay switched now 12:09, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Support - everything looks nice to me now. FunkMonk (talk) 13:48, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Battle of Hayes Pond[edit]

Nominator(s): Indy beetle (talk) 22:58, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[]

This article is about a January 1958 clash that erupted in Robeson County, North Carolina U.S. between Lumbee Native Americans and a band of Ku Klux Klan members. Long story short, a white supremacist KKK organization, led by a certain James W. "Catfish" Cole of South Carolina, decided that it would be a good idea to burn crosses to intimidate the 30,000-strong Native American community in triracial Robeson and then follow up with a highly-publicized nighttime rally in a cornfield to denounce race mixing. About 50 Klansmen attended the rally, as did a few hundred well-armed and rather annoyed Lumbees. After a 30-minute shouting match the Lumbees opened fire, striking a few Klansmen and sending Cole fleeing for his life into a swamp, leaving behind his wife and children. They then stole all the Klan regalia, including the cross which was to be burnt, and went into town to celebrate. The national news had a good laugh about it—a photo of two Lumbee wrapped in the KKK banner made a full page in Life magazine—while the local authorities, quite annoyed by all the trouble, indicted Cole for inciting a riot and sent him to prison. A recent campaign video by a Congressional candidate that recounts these events went viral at the beginning of this month. It's one of the more celebrated incidents in the Lumbee timeline and overall a great historical curiosity. The article just passed GAn and I think it would be great to be a FA in time for its anniversary on January 18, 2022. -Indy beetle (talk) 22:58, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[]

  • Image licensing looks good (t · c) buidhe 23:48, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Comments by Z1720[edit]

Non-expert prose review.

  • "between members of a Ku Klux Klan (KKK) organization" Organization might be redundant here, as the article already calls them a Klan, but I'm not sure.
    • Some people call the KKK an organization of itself, but this is rather misleading. It's really an overarching set of ideas and customs shared among different formal organizations. There were multiple KKK organizations active in the South and in North Carolina in 1958, and this clash only involved one of them, the North Carolina Knights, as the article goes on to explain.
  • The lede says, "The clash resulted in the rally breaking up" while the infobox says, "Klan rally disrupted". Personally, I like disrupted better, but regardless these need to align.
    • Changed lede to say "The clash resulted in the disruption of the rally".
  • "In early 1958 Cole decided to focus his efforts" -> In early 1958 Cole focused his efforts
    • Done.
  • "a group of people who had their origins in various other indigenous peoples" -> a group whose origins were various other indigenous peoples
    • Done.
  • "driving throughout the county in a truck outfitted with a loudspeaker, broadcasting their plans." -> driving throughout the county in a truck outfitted with a loudspeaker, to broadcast their plans.
    • Done.
  • "and some discussed the situation and decided to try to disrupt the meeting." -> and some decided to try to disrupt the meeting. I don't think it's important to add that they discussed the situation, as trying to disrupt the meeting implies that they discussed a plan first.
    • Done.
  • "In 1830, the United States government began a policy of Indian removal, forcibly relocating Native American populations in the American South further west. Native Americans in Robeson County, North Carolina, were not subject to removal." It seems weird to mention something that didn't happen to the group, and I'm not sure why it is important for the reader to know this.
    • I suppose it isn't intrinsically relevant to this story, but it's somewhat important to understanding the Lumbee tribe overall. They're the largest Native American population east of the Mississippi in the US, and within NC the only other tangible native communities are the very small Haliwa-Saponi people and the few Cherokee in the mountains who escaped removal. In essence, a large Native American community in the South was/is a very unusual thing (thanks to the 1830 removal) and it allowed for the development of the unusual tripartite segregation.
      • If this information is here to outline the unusual circumstance of the area, then this should be explicitly stated. Currently, it is unclear why this information is in article. Z1720 (talk) 00:45, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]
        • @Z1720: I think I've done a better job of weaving this fact into the narrative, have a look. -Indy beetle (talk) 03:26, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • "In the early 1950s, some led by D. F. Lowry" Who is D. F. Lowry? A short explainer might be necessary.
    • A Christian minister; added.
  • "approximately 10 miles from Pembroke." Add Template:Convert to convert the units to km.
    • Done.
  • "and used this to recruit new members across the state with some success.[61] Across the state, Klan leaders " across the state is used two times in close succession. Recommend rephrasing one.
    • Revised.
  • "In the decades following newspapers in North Carolina periodically cited" -> "Newspapers in North Carolina periodically cite"
    • Revised.

Those are my thoughts. Please ping when ready for a second look. Z1720 (talk) 15:44, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[]

  • @Z1720: I've responded to your comments. -Indy beetle (talk) 00:38, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    • Comment above regarding the 1830 policy of relocating Native American populations. Z1720 (talk) 00:45, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Funk[edit]

  • Looks interesting, will have a look soon. FunkMonk (talk) 17:40, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • "was later covered by Pete Seeger" Present him too?
    • Done.
  • "and a commitment Protestant Christianity" Commitment to? And link the religion?
    • Fixed grammar, Protestantism is linked further up.
  • Link mongrelization to something?
    • Linked miscegenation, since that seems to be what Cole was concerned about
  • "One Klansmen went into the offices" Klansman?
    • Fixed.
  • "them to advertise" I assume this should be American English, advertize?
    • Fixed.
  • "Accounts of how organised" Likewise, perhaps check throughout for inconsistent spelling.
    • Fixed.
  • "frequently criticised" Again.
    • Fixed.
  • "They were confidant" Confident?
    • Fixed.
  • "Well, you're ain't gone talk" is this grammatical error intentional? Add sic?
    • [Sic] added, such is the Lumbee dialect.
  • "gathering in front the police" In front of?
    • Fixed.
  • Is it appropriate to use the term "Indians" outside direct quotations? For example "was an armed confrontation between members of a Ku Klux Klan (KKK) organization and Lumbee Indians". Isn't the term "native American" the preferred term now?
    • More generally, Native American is the preferred term nationally, but lots of sources still refer to the Lumbees as the "Lumbee Indians" (that's why I used the term). See for example Malinda Maynor Lowry's books (Lowry is a Lumbee historian) or this 2020 article from The Fayetteville Observer. I think "Indian" has become an internalised part of the Lumbee identity, and thus it shouldn't be seen as impolite.
  • "ran stories on clash" On the?
    • Fixed.
  • "the armed black resistance to the KKK in Monroe in 1957" Any article to link?
    • No article at this time, though the Williams article which is linked does describe the incident in some detail.
  • " Cole appealed his case and was freed on bond, but lost the appeal the following year and was sent to prison." and "In early 1959 Cole was arrested in South Carolina for posing as a private investigator and shortly thereafter lost his appeal in North Carolina for the riot charge and was imprisoned.". Isn't this the same info repeated in short succession? Consolidate?
    • Revised first part to read Cole appealed his case and was freed on bond pending its reconsideration.
  • "a song about incident" About the?
    • Fixed.
  • Link racial segregation in intro.
    • Done.
  • Link Native Americans at first mention in intro instead of second.
  • Support - looking nice to me now. FunkMonk (talk) 20:15, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Source review - pass[edit]

Will start soon. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 18:31, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]

  • There is a mix of location usage for sources, standardize.
    • Done for the books, as is standard practice.
  • I've used Hyphenator to fix the hyphens of the ISBN's listed.
  • For standardization, you may wish to move the newspaper and website cites to the Bibliography section and citing them only with author/name and year.
    • I honestly don't see much utility in that; the advantage of sfn is it gives you enough info you need to know to verify the material without giving you too much every time. This is helpful when there's a need to recall lots of different page numbers without citing the entire book/thesis/journal article every time, or when citing the page in the context of a very large work. These newspaper articles run at most two pages, thus there's not much differentiation between the whole article and the exact page on which the info could be found.
  • What makes Scalawag Magazine a reliable source?
    • It's a small magazine with a political bent but it has an editorial staff. More importantly, the author of that particularly article is historian and college professor Malinda Maynor Lowery, and two of her books (published by university presses) are cited in this article. She says in the article that it is largely based off the research she did for one of the books.
      Willing to accept on her merits, even if hosted by a source that may not pass as HQRS on its own.
  • Have no objection to other sources as reliable, although the LumbeeTribe source would struggle to pass as "high-quality". Substitution of it with one from the Robesonian or one from Indianz, of generally higher quality, would fix the problem. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 19:36, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    • Well, that website is the official website of the Lumbee Tribe organization; I couldn't think of what would be a better source for information about passed resolutions of the Lumbee Tribe's governing body.
      I would suggest the switch, but I will accept Lumbee Tribe.
      • Added The Robesonian, but I've kept the Lumbee Tribe. -Indy beetle (talk) 17:18, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Comments from Therapyisgood[edit]

  • Very well written, just from reading the lead.
  • In 1835 the "In 1835" is a bit of an Easter egg.
    • I'm not sure where else to link the consitutional convention, since that is the closest we have for an article on the 1835 NC Constitution, though I could replace the normal constitution link.
  • Klansmen in robes with burning cross. This photo was probably taken on January 13, 1958 in either St. Pauls or Lumberton. caption needs a reference.
    • That information came with the photo, which comes from the official Flickr page of the North Carolina State Archives where it was posted here.
      • Then that needs to be cited. I won't throw a cn template on it, but it should be cited. Therapyisgood (talk) 16:31, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • In 1954 the United States Supreme Court issued its decision in the case Brown v. Board of EducationIn 1954 the United States Supreme Court issued its decision in Brown v. Board of Education'
    • Done.
  • "burnt" or burned?
    • Fixed
  • they should "take [their] time" in breaking up a clash. who should take their time?
    • His deputies. I thought that would be implied, since Sheriff McLeod wouldn't be giving anyone else orders.
  • The Klansmen responded by calling the Lumbees "half-niggers" can you link the n-word?
    • Done.
It seems from reading about the Lumbees that they have partial African ancestry as well. Could that have something to do with the provocations of the KKK (and this slur)? Could be added if that's the case. FunkMonk (talk) 23:58, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • @FunkMonk: Info added about mixed ancestry. That probably had something to do with it, as well as Cole's complaints about "mongrelization". I do think some white supremacists during that time believed that the Lumbee weren't really Indian at all, they were simply a bastard community of white swamp people and runaway slaves, but I have yet to have found a scholarly source drawing a direct link between that and this event. Maybe one shall turn up. -Indy beetle (talk) 00:35, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • The video went viral on the internet. the source says the video went viral but doesn't say how many views or engagement it got. Perhaps a bit circular. Can you find anything on views? Therapyisgood (talk) 15:56, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    • Replaced with different source which says at least 5 million views.
  • @Therapyisgood: I've responded to your comments. -Indy beetle (talk) 23:53, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[]

William Utermohlen[edit]

Nominator(s): Realmaxxver (talk) 19:41, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[]

This article is about the artist who drew the self portraits with Alzheimer's disease. In the past two months I have expanded this article from this stub to a Good article and now here, where I hope to make this article my first featured article. Realmaxxver (talk) 19:41, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Comments from Buidhe[edit]

Image review—pass
  • If the source country is the UK, the lead image cannot be free in the US. Because of URAA, it would only be free was public domain in the source country in 1996. Simple enough to swap in a non-free rationale.
Added fair use rationale. Realmaxxver (talk) 20:59, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • File:William Utermohlen - The Birth of Venus.jpg Paintings are not necessarily published. Even if publicly exhibited, that does not count as publication under US law. There is not a good fair use rationale for this painting as it is not mentioned in the article.
  • The non-free portrait seems to have a good fair use rationale. (t · c) buidhe 20:30, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Removed image and nominated for deletion. Realmaxxver (talk) 20:59, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Other comments
  • The end of the article has several very short sections, which isn't ideal for readability. One option could be to merge "Critical reception" with the "Alzheimer's disease and death" since all the reception seems to be about these works in particular. Alternately, you could rework the critical reception and "in popular culture" into a "legacy" section. (t · c) buidhe 20:36, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Did Suggestion two. Realmaxxver (talk) 20:59, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[]
I also went and turned "Critical reception" and "In popular culture" into subsections. Realmaxxver (talk) 19:37, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Comments from zmbro[edit]

  • Make sure all sources are archived. See quite a few that aren't
  • The Oscar ref isn't indented when every other one is
  • Still isn't on my screen. – zmbro (talk) 18:56, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • I wasn't sure what you exactly meant, but I changed the title parameter from "The 92nd Academy Awards: 2020" to "The 92nd Academy Awards - 2020". (diff) feel free to specify. Realmaxxver (talk) 22:00, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[]
I understand what you mean now. done. Realmaxxver (talk) 09:35, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Wall Street Journal should be the website/work not the author/in the url title; same for Huffington Post and a few others
  • I went and reverted this, it caused some issues with the {{sfn}} template. Realmaxxver (talk) 17:32, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • It shouldn't... – zmbro (talk) 18:56, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • The Guardian should be capitalized
  • Is Animation Magazine reliable?
  • Are all urls by Utermohlen, Patricia from www.williamutermohlen.org? If yes that should appear as the website for every use

That's what I got so far. – zmbro (talk) 12:55, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[]

  • All isbn books need locations of publication; (UK) isn't good enough
  • Going along with Tom Kitwood On Dementia: A Reader And Critical Commentary, are their names Clive Baldwin and Andrea Capstick? Because Baldwin Clive and Capstick Andrea doesn't seem right.
  • Boicos, Chris is missing a website/work
  • Ditto "Portraits of the Mind"
  • Not fully sure what you mean, but i changed it to "The Works of William Utermohlen — 1955 to 2000" Realmaxxver (talk) 20:11, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Based on source formatting this isn't ready for FA yet. But that can obviously change. – zmbro (talk) 18:56, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Comments from Therapyisgood[edit]

  • 1957-1990 should have an ndash for a year range, so 1957–1990.
  • "Wall Street Journal" in the authors section should be "The Wall Street Journal". It should also be italicized.
  • Because of this, I have also changed the value in the {{Sfn}} templates which used that source. Realmaxxver (talk) 23:10, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Why link "The Times" in the references but nothing else (ie why not link The Wall Street Journal, Huff Post,. etc?)
  • I would like to say that The Times was not the only author/work which I linked, but: Done. Realmaxxver (talk) 23:02, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Born and raised in South Philadelphia, Utermohlen earned a scholarship at the Philadelphia Academy of Fine Arts in 1951. after caps
  • A lot (but not all) of the works in the "References" section need italics. Just to name a few: Deadline, New Statesman, The Huffington Post
  • Huffington Post should be The Huffington Post, and it should be italicized. Note: For the references section, you should say Huffington Post, The and not The Huffington Post so the ordering can stay the same of the references
  • shortly after completing his military service caps
  • which he had gained from his service in the Vietnam War. earlier you say he just served his military service in the Caribbean?
  • That claim came from this version, made before I edited this article. I have replaced it with "Caribbean" for now, but I might have to check if any sources say that he served in the Vietnam War (I did find these sources and also this source, page 8, which say that the War series references Vietnam, but it never says that it was influenced from personal experiences). Realmaxxver (talk) 20:30, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • In 1957 he graduated from the art school which art school?
  • I figured it was a bit redundant to repeat the name of the art school (Pennsylvania Academy of Fine Arts), but done. Realmaxxver (talk) 20:30, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Italicize New Statesman in the notes
  • Done, also italicized NBC because of consistency. Realmaxxver (talk) 21:13, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • the Mummers Cycle what was this? Can you explain?
  • Already described in the next paragraph: "The Mummers Cycle is based on the Mummers Parade of Philadelphia,[20] but in a letter from November 1970, Utermohlen stated that the Mummers Cycle was also created as a "vehicle for expressing my anxiety".[21]" Realmaxxver (talk) 21:13, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • And by 1975 don't start sentences with "and"
  • Utermohlen also used this technique to make two portraits of his wife no need for "also"
  • Changed "also used" to "would use" Realmaxxver (talk) 21:13, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • The Nudes series date back as early as 1953. then why have you listed the "Nudes" year as 1973–1974?
  • I should note that while the artworks were made as early as 1953, It was most active from 1973-1974. I have made an {{efn}} note to clarify. Realmaxxver (talk) 21:13, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • a 2001 paper from The Lancet, period, not comma
  • Comments under a 2012 article by the Huffington Post described that Utermohlen's self portraits "takes us into the mind of an Alzheimer's victim". we don't comment on Internet comments, please remove
  • Articles with a live URL should use the |url-status=live parameter, such as the NBC reference.
  • Overall, a lot of stubby paragraphs. Do you think you could combine some? Therapyisgood (talk) 14:29, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Croatian Spring[edit]

Nominator(s): Tomobe03 (talk) 18:07, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[]

This article is about a period in history of Yugoslavia and Croatia marked by a peak in a wider and longer-lasting conflict between centralisation and decentralisation of Yugoslavia. The period saw a rise in Croatian national sentiment and nationalist forces framing their objectives around economic issues of (de)centralisation. At the same time, those advocating decentralisation embraced (to a degree) support from the nationalists. Actions of the leadership of the Socialist Republic of Croatia drew response from Croatian Serbs and caused ethnic tensions. The period ended when the Croatian leadership was removed from power following an intervention by Yugoslav president Josip Broz Tito. Croatian Spring and associated events had a significant impact on the final years of Yugoslavia. Tomobe03 (talk) 18:07, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[]

  • Looks pretty solid. I copyedited the article several months ago and it looks like it's improved since then. I may have more to say later. (t · c) buidhe 18:58, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Image review

  • Suggest scaling up the map
  • File:Aleksandar_Ranković_(1).jpg: the given source doesn't seem to match up with this image. When and where was this first published?
  • File:Deklaracija.jpg: the Croatian tag wouldn't cover the artwork in the middle of the page, and it's unclear why PD-self would apply
  • File:Savka_Dabcevic_Kucar.jpg is tagged as lacking description
  • File:Oton_Ivekovic,_Dolazak_Hrvata_na_Jadran.jpg: when and where was this first published? Ditto File:Franjo_Tudjman.jpg, File:Milka_Planinc.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:35, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Thanks for the review. I plan to quickly fix those images that are comparably simple to get in order and (temporarily) remove others until issues concerning them can be addressed. I need some feedback though for a couple of them:
(1) Would it be better to cut out just the non-PD artwork from the Deklaracija.jpg and keep the rest of the page in the image or cut the image in such way that only the relevant article and newspaper title are in it? Apparently the artwork is not a part of the article.
If that is possible that would fix the Croatian tag issue. The PD-self issue is still a question. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:49, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]
That's certainly possible. I believe the uploader misunderstood the "self-made" work as referring to the uploaded file. I see no other reasonable explanation.--Tomobe03 (talk) 15:58, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]
(2) Oton Ivekovic...jpg has in its description the year of publication of 1905 and according to the Croatia PD notice works of known authors who died before 1949 became PD in 1999 (i.e. after 50 years). Iveković died in 1939, so the 50-year period expired on 1 Jan 1990 or at least on 1 Jan 1992 after the 1991 Croatian Copyright Act came into effect - in time not to be covered by 1 Jan 1996 URAA application. I see the commons page has the two PD tags and 1905 date, so I'm not sure what else needs be added in that case. Could you please advise?
Is 1905 the year of publication, or the year of creation? If the former, in which country was this published? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:49, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]
That's year of creation (in Austria-Hungary at the time). In 1905-1908 Iveković worked as an art teacher in a Zagreb high school and then moved on to lecture at the Art Academy of the Zagreb University, and it is reasonable to assume the work was created and first exhibited in Zagreb considering his academic position. Since it is an oil on canvas, what would constitute its publication?--Tomobe03 (talk) 15:58, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Under US law exhibition alone does not constitute publication - there's an explanation here. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:56, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Oh thanks, that clears up things a bit. If I understand correctly Circular 1 referred to in the document you pointed out, specifically "How Long Does Copyright Last?" on p.4, a non-published, non-pseudonymous/anonymous, not-made-for-hire work receives US copyright protection for a period of author's life plus seventy years. Pseudonymous/anonymous or works-for-hire receive 95 years protection starting from publication or 120 years protection from creation (whichever is shorter) in the US, but this is not such work since author is known and the work was not commissioned. If I got everything correctly, that would make this particular work US-PD since 1 Jan 2010 because Iveković died in 1939. (Under Yugoslav copyright law, the copyright expired after life+fifty years so the work became PD on 1 Jan 1990 in Yugoslavia.)--Tomobe03 (talk) 07:46, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Is this work non-published? What is the first publication that can be confirmed? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:28, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]
I'll see what instances of (presumably lawful only) publication can be found. I have no idea right now - not even sure how would any successor to the copyright go about it in communist Yugoslavia. Perhaps they published in the West. I'll get back to you on that one.--Tomobe03 (talk) 16:23, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Just to check - I should be looking for an exhibition catalog or an art review containing a reproduction/photo of the painting, right?--Tomobe03 (talk) 16:26, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]
I did some more digging: According to Circular 40 publication of a work of art is achieved only when multiple reproductions are created and publicly distributed. While the particular painting (and others of similar topics by Iveković) were likely reproduced in late 1960s and early 1970s due to their popularity, I'm not aware of any participation of Iveković's heirs in that, none of it has any impact under Article 103(a) of USC Copyright Law or Article 3 of Croatian Copyright Act unless done lawfully, i.e. with consent of the copyright holder. Considering the Circular 40, that would mean the work of art is unpublished unless demonstrated otherwise - and I can find no evidence of any lawful publication. Consequently, per Cicular 1, the work became PD on 1 January 2010 under the US law (and 20 years earlier per Yugoslav copyright law).--Tomobe03 (talk) 23:38, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]
(3) Aleksandar_Ranković_(1).jpg is a better quality version of a PD image - I've updated the Commons info in that case. Could you please take another look at that one?
That's fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:49, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]
I'll get to others shortly.--Tomobe03 (talk) 08:56, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Replaced Tuđman image with a different one of him. While I'm convinced the photo in the JNA uniform was taken pre-1967, I'm unable to reliably determine if it was published at all. Until this changes, another image will do, I trust. Also replaced Planinc image with image of the monument/bust in Metković since it is explicitly mentioned in the prose. Moreover, after some searching of images of Milka Planinca, I'd say the image previously used in the article was taken in 1980s and could not have been PD - although I could not reliably determine its publication date.
I'll fix the Deklaracija image (under 1 above) (by cropping) and Savka Dabčević-Kučar description shortly (after some more googling it) and get back to you.--Tomobe03 (talk) 20:03, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Cropped the Deklaracija image. I have also located another image [8] which I'd love to use instead of the existing image of Dabčević-Kučar. I spotted it in this [9] newspaper article, and if its caption is right, it was taken in 1969 or 1970, but I have not been able to find its publication date yet, but I'm working on that.--Tomobe03 (talk) 20:51, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Added a brief description of Dabčević-Kučar image for now. My local library does not have a copy of the above book so I'll see if I can get a Zagreb-based editor to check that source. I'll wait for the the verification before swapping the images of course.--Tomobe03 (talk) 19:46, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Low (David Bowie album)[edit]

Nominator(s): – zmbro (talk) 18:49, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[]

This article is about... David Bowie's 1977 album Low, an album widely considered his greatest and with good reason. Side one is full of incomplete songs while side two is full of ambient pieces. Sometimes compared to Radiohead's Kid A, it's easy to understand why critical reception was so divided initially (though not commercially, to the label's surprise). Nevertheless, the influence this album left was almost immediate. Without this album, we wouldn't have Joy Division or the majority of post-punk. In my opinion, this album really is an experience. I've worked all year on this article and fully believe it's ready to become featured, especially after a thorough PR, copy-edit, and GAN. I'm looking forward to any comments or concerns. Happy editing. :-) – zmbro (talk) 18:49, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Procedural note -- I don't know how I missed this earlier but, Zmbro, per the FAC instructions you're only permitted one solo nom at a time, unless your current nom is very close to promotion (i.e. source and image reviews plus several reviews supportive of promotion) and you've checked with a coord about a second. Usually we simply remove out-of-process noms but as this one is a few days in and has reviews, we'll let it go, but remember next time pls. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:12, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Ian Rose My apologies I was not aware. I'll keep that in mind from here on out. Thanks. – zmbro (talk) 14:27, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Support from Cas Liber[edit]

Taking a look now....

After years of drug addiction and personal instability while living in Los Angeles... - not fond of "personal instability"...maybe just "burnout"? or leave out altogether (as implied by drug addiction)?
Removed that part.
was at the end of my tether physically and emotionally and had serious doubts about my sanity. - this is used twice - once at end of Background and inspiration section and then (split) in 2nd last para of Recording and production' section.
Wow you're right, that's embarrassing. Removed the second one.
Low is noted for its unique drum sound - not a fan of "unique" here as strictly speaking just about everything is unique..or it isn't "unusual" or maybe leave out an adjective altogether...
'Unusual' works.
Bowie was flattered by the symphony and gave unanimous praise to it, - a single person can't give "unanimous" praise. Need another adjective.
Just removed it since "gave unanimous praise" is already used earlier.
Retrospectively, Low has received critical acclaim - this is redundant if you stick a "later" in the next sentence
Removed that and partially reworded per FA Aftermath (Rolling Stones album)

Above are just quibbles really - a nice read and comprehensive. Within striking distance of FA-hood. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:35, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Casliber Thanks for the kind words! Queries taken care of. – zmbro (talk) 19:39, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[]
(chuckle) I recall an interview with Bowie years ago where he reminisced about him and Iggy leaving LA to get away from drugs and then chuckling about Berlin (the implication was something like out of the frying pan into the fire..)...but you got me to listen to the album which I'd never done before and it was good. kudos/all good on comprehensiveness and prose. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:24, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Yeah, something like "I moved from the coke capital of the world to the smack capital of the world", wasn't it...? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:04, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Support from Aoba47[edit]

  • I support this FAC for promotion based on the prose. I had participated in the peer review for this article, and all of my concerns were addressed there. Best of luck with this FAC and have a great rest of your week! Aoba47 (talk) 23:28, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Image review

  • Are there any better-quality replacements for File:David_bowie_05061978_01_150.jpg and File:Stephen_Morris_performing_with_New_Order,_2012.jpg?
  • For the first no. That's literally the only photo of Bowie from '77–'80 that WP has. – zmbro (talk) 18:50, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • For the second, the only photos of him available are here, and I don't think many of those are better than the current one. Please let me know if you think otherwise and I'll change it. – zmbro (talk) 18:50, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • File:David_Bowie_Breaking_Glass.ogg: given the length of the original, this exceeds the guidelines set out in WP:SAMPLE. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:27, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Nikkimaria My bad. I uploaded a shortened audio clip of only ten seconds that solely highlights the drum sound. – zmbro (talk) 18:50, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Comments by Ian[edit]

Recusing coord duties to review...

  • Copyedited down to Side Two -- although it's really down to being time for bed where I am, it seems appropriate given the album's celebrated dual structure to stop the first part of the copyedit at this point.
  • My initial impressions are that we could cut some detail, and paraphrase or lose a few quotes with which the article is laden. Both these issues are understandable given the amount of literature on the album and its importance in the Bowie canon but we need to summarise a bit more I think. I'll sleep on it and come back with further edits to the rest of the article and suggestions for cuts or paraphrases overall.

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:20, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Vuelve (album)[edit]

Nominator(s): Erick (talk) 13:55, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Co-nomination with آرمین هویدایی and Tomica. This is my first non Luis Miguel album article in a long time. I worked extensively along with the editors mentioned and am tackle ready to tackle this for FA. Whatever issues the article presents, I am ready to address and any questions that might need to be answered. Erick (talk) 13:55, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Image review

  • Don't use fixed px size
  • Might the article benefit from a non-free sample?
  • File:DracoRosa3.jpg: source links don't appear to be working. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:22, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Hi Nikkimaria, how does the media files look now? I uploaded two samples, each one to represent the uptempo and slow tempo tracks of the album, respectively. I used the tracks that were not released as singles so I don't have to justify its inclusion on this article in addition to their usage on the article about the song. If two samples are not suitable and one of them has to go, which one would you recommend keeping? Erick (talk) 16:01, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Can you elaborate on the FURs, particularly the purpose of use item? That would help justify having two. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:05, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Comments from Aoba47[edit]

For transparency, I had participated in the last peer review for this article. My comments are below:

  • I have a question about the following sentence: Vuelve is a Latin album composed of 14 songs, consisting mainly of "red-hot" Latin dance numbers and "melodramatic" pop ballads. This specifically defines the genre as Latin dance, but the infobox only includes Latin. Shouldn't it be the more specific Latin dance since this is brought up in the above sentence and in the lead, and would be a more useful descriptor than the more generic Latin identifier?
  • I have a question about the translations. Apologies if this is rather obvious. I have not worked with materials from other languages so I am not familiar with this. A majority of the Spanish titles are translated, but there are a few instances, such as A Medio Vivir and "Marcia Baila", that do not have this. Shouldn't it be consistent for each Spanish title?
  • In the "Critical reception" section, there are three instances in which the star rating is included in the prose. This is an example, The Los Angeles Times' Lechner gave the album three-and-a-half out of four stars. I do not find this rating to be particularly useful in the prose. It is already in the professional ratings box, and I think the prose is best left to actually discussing what is in the review. I'd remove the star ratings from the prose for all three instances.
  • What is the structure for the "Critical reception" section? Right now, it reads more like two paragraphs with reviews somewhat randomly listed without any real rhyme or reason. See WP:RECEPTION if you would like a good resource on how to write a reception section.

Great work with the article. I do not that many notes for the article, and once everything has been addressed, I will be more than happy to support this FAC for promotion. I hope that this review encourages other editors to look at this FAC as it has fallen rather down the list (at least at the time of me typing this out). I hope you are doing well and staying safe! Aoba47 (talk) 02:45, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Thanks for the comments as always Aoba47. I've addressed everything but the last part and I'll admit I was taken back a bit since this I never had this problem on my past FACs. One idea I have is the first paragraph would be for what critics liked about the album and the second paragraph what critics didn't like about it. This would be consistent with the opening lead since the overusage of ballads was criticized and would be useful on the second paragraph. Erick (talk) 00:55, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Thank you for your response. To be clear, I did not mean for the final comment to come across as rude or offensive. I greatly admire your work on Wikipedia, and you have done a great job with this article. With the last comment, I was more so asking about your approach for this section, and I should have worded that more clearly. I was just somewhat uncertain of this section was structured. For instance, there are three critics who dislike "No Importa la Distancia" (i.e. Promis, Burr, and Tarradell), and it may be beneficial to organize these critiques together. I think your idea of separating the positive reviews into one paragraph and the negative into another makes sense to me. Please let me know if you have any further questions about this. Aoba47 (talk) 03:10, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[]
@Aoba47: Oh no no no, I greatly appreciate your feedback and I'm actually glad you brought that section up. This will help for future FACs. I should've said "surprised", instead of "taken back" and I do apologize if I came across as offended. Erick (talk) 07:19, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • I just wanted to make sure. Let me know when you have revised that section. Aoba47 (talk) 14:20, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[]

German destroyer Z51[edit]

Nominator(s): Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 23:04, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[]

This article is about a planned class of Destroyers for Nazi Germany. Notably, the first to use diesel engines. After a long period of development, including four different models, only one was built, and launched unfinished to make room for submarine construction near the end of the war. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 23:04, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[]

  • Image review—none used. I believe that if there are no free images, it would be possible to use a non-free image to illustrate the subject. (t · c) buidhe 16:00, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    @Buidhe: I have reached out to the owner of www.german-navy.de to ask for permission to use the image of the ship from their page. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 17:18, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    That's good but I believe all permissions have to go through c:COM:VRT (rebranded OTRS team). (t · c) buidhe 17:24, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Comments by Indy beetle[edit]

Initial comments:

  • At first, these changes were made with the goal of being able to match or exceed French and Polish destroyers, but later it was necessary that these destroyers be able to match British destroyers . Match in what respect? Displacement? Speed?
    From memory, the source isn't super clear but I believe the general gist is that a German destroyer should have a 50-50 shot at defeating a British destroyer in a one-on-one, and should always win against French and Polish destroyers. I'll check again. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 16:08, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    So basically match them in combat? -Indy beetle (talk) 08:33, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    @Indy beetle: yes. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 19:45, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • The motors encountered initial problems with teething Is there a Wikilink which could explain the teething concept?
    Need to review the source, as I look at it its possible I misunderstood the "teething problem" metaphor as a literal problem with the motors teething. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 16:08, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]
      • So, problems with the gears working? -Indy beetle (talk) 00:16, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[]
        @Indy beetle: While searching for a link I came across the idiom of "teething problems", similar to "growing pains", to describe initial issues in new developments, which had me concerned I had misunderstood the source and taken it as a literal issue with the teeth of the motor when the authors were using the idiom and the actual motor teeth may not have been the source of the problem. Looking at the source it describes "initial teething problems", so I believe it was a literal issue of the teeth lining up with each other, as it makes little sense to put initial and teething right next to each other, especially when talking about something that actually has teeth. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 02:37, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • The number of 5.5 cm guns was increased to three, grouped about the after funnel. The aft funnel?
  •  Done
  • However, Germany surrendered on 8 May 1945, before U-234 could reach its target, and she therefore surrendered herself to USS Sutton, in the western Atlantic, on 14 May 1945. Were the schematics handed over the Allies or were they destroyed before the surrender?
    Source doesn't cover it but I doubt the Germans had the presence of mind (or interest) to destroy the plans. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 16:08, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]

-Indy beetle (talk) 23:13, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Version reviewed

Pass. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:28, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • How are you ordering Works cited?
    Fixed; I'm treating Motor Ships as if the first letter of the title (n) was the first letter of an authors name, other alphabetical issues resolved.
  • Don't use postal abbreviations, per MOS:POSTABBR
    Fixed.
  • Motor Ship link gives a different publisher than indicated here. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:20, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    Fixed OCLC; WorldCat gives the publisher as Temple Press, whereas Google Books gives it as the industrial press. I'm inclined to side with WorldCat, unless there are objections.

Cerro Blanco (volcano)[edit]

Nominator(s): Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:23, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[]

This article is about a volcanic caldera in remote northwestern Argentina. It is well known for three reasons; firstly, the wind-formed landscape at Campo de Piedra Pomez that has been used as an analogue terrain for Mars and is also a local tourism destination. Secondly, for its major eruption 4,200 years ago that distributed volcanic ash across the region. Third, because satellite images have seen that the caldera is actively deforming to this day. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:23, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Image review

  • Suggest adding alt text
  • File:Cerro_Blanco_volcano_(AVA_Granule_L1B_20000916145757).jpg: source link doesn't appear to be working. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:38, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    Done and added an archive. Given the notice on this page I think this may work again in the near future. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:52, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Comments[edit]

Placeholder for non-expert prose review. Will try to start this soon. Moisejp (talk) 04:43, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Calderas and lava domes:

  • "The Cerro Blanco caldera is about 6 kilometres (3.7 mi)[1]–4 kilometres (2.5 mi) wide": Does this mean the width ranges from 4–6 kilometres? Or possibly different estimates or different interpretations of what is included in its boundaries? This point is not very clear. Also, should the 4 come before the 6?
    It's a width range from disagreeing sources, which is why each dimension has its own source. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:30, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • I'm not sure if there are conventions for this in geographical-related articles, but I think if it were me, I would probably write the following differently:
  • "13 by 10 kilometres (8.1 mi × 6.2 mi) caldera" → possibly "13- by 10-kilometre (8.1 mi × 6.2 mi) caldera" or "13- by 10-kilometre (8.1-mi × 6.2-mi) caldera"
  • "a 2.7 by 1.4 kilometres (1.68 mi × 0.87 mi) wide lava dome" → "a 2.7- by 1.4-kilometre (1.68 mi × 0.87 mi) wide lava dome" or a 2.7- by 1.4-kilometre (1.68-mi × 0.87-mi) wide lava dome"
  • "1.2 kilometres (0.75 mi) wide and 20 metres (66 ft) deep vent" → "1.2-kilometre (0.75-mi) wide and 20-metre (66-ft) deep vent"
The hyphens are possibly discussable, but I'd argue that in cases like these where there's a noun (caldera, dome, vent) following the unit of measure (kilometre, metre) then the unit of measure should be singular. Unless there are regional differences regarding this point, in which case the regional difference is of course valid. (Just to be clear, the instances I'm talking about here are only the ones where there is a noun following. In "6 kilometres (3.7 mi)[1]–4 kilometres (2.5 mi) wide" above there is no noun at the end so the s on kilometres is good and definitely no hyphen is needed.) Moisejp (talk) 04:28, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Honestly, the main reason why there aren't hyphens is because {{convert}} does not automatically add them. I am agnostic on whether to add them. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:30, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: {{convert}} can indeed automatically add them: {{convert|1.2|km|mi|adj=mid|abbr=off}} → 1.2-kilometre (0.75-mile). Volcanoguy 06:23, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Hi Jo-Jo. I'm really sorry, but something has come up in real life and I need to break off this review and take a Wikibreak. I appreciate the source and image reviews you've done for me in the past. I hope to continue reviewing some of your articles in the future when my life has gotten less busy again. Best of luck on your article. Best wishes, Moisejp (talk) 00:33, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Comments from Volcanoguy[edit]

I will be reviewing this in a bit. Volcanoguy 21:13, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Viatkogorgon[edit]

Nominator(s): FunkMonk (talk) 02:09, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[]

This is the first FAC about a stem-mammal (formerly known as "mammal-like reptiles"), specifically a gorgonopsian, the first group of animals that evolved saber-teeth. This is a pretty inconspicuous member of the group, and since it was only named in 1999, it doesn't have the same kind of heavy taxonomic baggage as other, more famous gorgonopsians, and was therefore easier to write about, so most if not all the relevant literature is covered here. FunkMonk (talk) 02:09, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Image review[edit]

Changed to 4.0, I think 3.0 was used earlier on the site. FunkMonk (talk) 02:20, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • File:Viatkogorgon 2 .png does the own work claim cover the human figure shape? Reverse image search indicates that the same drawing occurs elsewhere on the web. (t · c) buidhe 02:13, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[]
It's by NASA, from the pioneer plaque, therefore PD US government, I've now tagged it as such on Commons. FunkMonk (talk) 02:20, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Site works for me now, the image is figure 8 in the article. FunkMonk (talk) 02:26, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[]
While they are similar, each have their own, mutually exclusive qualities. The one in the taxobox has less glare, so looks visually better, but it is also angled a bit, so the bones get foreshortened. The one under description is uglier, but is more head on, so the bones are more visible. One day we might get better photos so both can be replaced. FunkMonk (talk) 02:26, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[]

HF[edit]

Will take a look at this. Hog Farm Talk 14:23, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Will do this in a couple chunks

  • Was Ivakhnenko involved in the discovery of the holotype, since it was named after him and he seems to be active in this field since he described the assigned specimen?
None of the sources say anything about the circumstances around its excavation, or about why he was honoured, unfortunately. I think he was just important in the particular field. There could possibly be some sources about field work in Russian out there, but nothing I can find or read. FunkMonk (talk) 01:42, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • "a more poorly developed greater trochanter (a site for muscle attachment)" - would greater trochanter itself be a better link?
Linked fully, not sure what happened there... FunkMonk (talk) 01:42, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • "In 2018, Kammerer and Masyutin stated that while the early evolution of gorgonopsia is poorly understood. " - sentence fragment
Seems a period was added during the copy-edit, changed back to "In 2018, Kammerer and Masyutin stated that while the early evolution of gorgonopsia is poorly understood, Viatkogorgon and Nochnitsa expand the knowledge of gorgonopsians from the middle Permian or earliest late Permian of Laurasia" etc. FunkMonk (talk) 01:42, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • "articular bone has become the malleus ear bone.[12])." - stray ). at the end
Removed. FunkMonk (talk) 01:42, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Sources appear to all be reliable and well-formatted.

Anticipate supporting. Hog Farm Talk 20:53, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Thanks for the review, addressed the above. FunkMonk (talk) 01:42, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Nonexpert support. Hog Farm Talk 13:59, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Support from Cas Liber[edit]

Looking over...

  • Not sure that Saber-toothed cat is the best target article for sabre-teeth but not sure of other options here.
Yeah, I've argued for years on the talk page of that article that the title should be changed to something more inclusive, because "saber toothed cat" in modern usage really only refers to members of the Machairodontinae, (which therefore already have an article), whereas the article covers the saber-toothed niche/ecomorph as a whole, regardless of whether the bearers are "cats" or not, and that is also how it is mainly covered in the literature. But most non-palaeontology nerds seem to be attached to this popular term, so it has been hard to get a sensible vote through. But also due to the lack of an alternative term which is anywhere as catchy. "Saber-toothed ecomorph" is just hard to sell. FunkMonk (talk) 12:55, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Yeah I don't think anything is actionable at this point I guess - beyond the scope of this FAC.....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:51, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Given the assumption the complete specimen is a young individual and a larger (though poorly preserved) skeleton is found, there hasn't been some sort of assumption of larger dimensions of the critter?
Nothing, and I'm pretty surprised the larger specimen has only been mentioned in passing in one paper. Perhaps it will come when the postcranium is redescribed. A problem with this taxon is that the holotype skeleton (seemingly with a cast of the skull) is on a perpetual tour around Europe along with other Russian specimens, so hard to study... FunkMonk (talk) 12:55, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • While they were abundant, they were morphologically conservative. - "conservative" a bit jargony. Better to write in plain English what it means here
Tried with "morphologically similar", the best fit I could think of. FunkMonk (talk) 17:17, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[]
"Varied little in (basic/overall) (shape/morphology)"? 23:51, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll try to implement a variation of that in my next round of edits. FunkMonk (talk) 00:05, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • So there are no assumptions about what the paleoenvironment was at all?
I'll see if I can find more, but the article says, cited to the most recent source (2018) "These mudstones were possibly deposited from suspension in standing water bodies on floodplains or shallow ephemeral lakes, that remained flooded for short periods of time, but the exact environment has not yet been determined." FunkMonk (talk) 13:01, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Added a bit of context to that section, but there is not much more to come by. FunkMonk (talk) 17:17, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Otherwise not seeing any deal-breakers. Prose is dense but many terms and phrases are as plain as they can be. Comprehensive and within striking distance of FA status Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:58, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Thanks, I'll try to think of what to replace "conservative" with, and have answered the other points, sadly with no solutions. FunkMonk (talk) 13:01, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[