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

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

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  • a nomination is unprepared, after at least one reviewer has suggested it be withdrawn.

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

Please do not use graphics or templates on FAC nomination pages. Graphics such as  Done and Not done slow down the page load time, and complex templates can lead to errors in the FAC archives. The only templates that are acceptable are {{xt}}, {{!xt}}, and {{tq}}; templates such as {{green}} that apply colours to text and are used to highlight examples; and {{collapse top}} and {{collapse bottom}}, used to hide offtopic discussions.

An editor is allowed to be the sole nominator of only one article at a time, but two nominations may be allowed if the editor is a co-nominator on at least one of them. If a nomination is archived, the nominator(s) should take adequate time to work on resolving issues before re-nominating. None of the nominators may nominate or co-nominate any article for two weeks unless given leave to do so by a coordinator; if such an article is nominated without asking for leave, a coordinator will decide whether to remove it. A coordinator may exempt from this restriction an archived nomination that attracted no (or minimal) feedback.

To contact the FAC coordinators, please leave a message on the FAC talk page, or use the {{@FAC}} notification template elsewhere.

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

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

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

  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.


International Conference on the Holocaust and Genocide[edit]

Nominator(s): (t · c) buidhe 23:52, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

This article is about a 1982 conference in Israel, the first major conference in the field of genocide studies, and attempts to cancel it by the Turkish government. Their objection? Scholars of the Armenian genocide were invited, a crime that is strenuously denied by Turkey to this day. Turkish diplomats blackmailed Israel by threatening the lives of Jewish refugees, but the organizers persevered and managed to hold it anyway. (t · c) buidhe 23:52, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

1992 Football League Second Division play-off Final[edit]

Nominator(s): The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 22:08, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Some might say this match was the beginning of a new era in English football. A very rich man became a majority shareholder in an unfashionable yet historic club, convinced a Scottish footballing legend to come out of retirement to manage them, spent millions on players and got promoted into this new-fangled ventured called the Premier League. But they weren't finished. Three seasons later they were the champions of England. This isn't where the story began, and certainly not where ended, but it's a pivotal moment in the history of the most-watched football league on the planet, and something which is as unlikely as the Foxes winning the league.... As ever, my utmost attention will be paid to each and every comment, and as Cloughie said about disagreements: "We talk about it for twenty minutes and then we decide I was right." Thanks in advance for any and all interest in this candidate! The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 22:08, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Images appear to be freely licensed (t · c) buidhe 23:54, 18 January 2021 (UTC)


Big fat placeholder. I'll be bigly and fatly commenting here. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 23:21, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Project A119[edit]

Withdrawn by nom (me). Thanoscar21talkcontributions 23:30, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Nominator(s): Thanoscar21talkcontributions 23:30, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

This article is about the US plan to drop a nuclear bomb on the moon. Thanoscar21talkcontributions 23:30, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Coord note[edit]

Hi Thanoscar21. You appear to have made only 1% of the total edits to this article, which goes against the FAC instructions that nominators should be main editors of the article in question. That said, I note the two top contributors, Grapple X and Boundarylayer, haven't been active on WP for a while. Nonetheless I'd be dubious about allowing this nom to continue -- do you have access to all the sources used in article? My thought ATM is it would be better if we dropped this nom for a while and you perhaps teamed up with Hawkeye7, who's made more edits than yourself here and is familiar with this sort of subject. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:01, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Ian Rose, sorry, I must have missed that! I'll drop this, can you close it? Thanks, Thanoscar21talkcontributions 22:05, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
I'm willing to co-sponsor the article. It was Grapple X's project. As far as we could tell, the article contains everything about the project. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:13, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
Hawkeye7, I'm going to remove my name and add yours, if that's okay with you. You can add your sigs once you see this. Thanks, Thanoscar21talkcontributions 22:22, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
Don't do that! I can only co-sponsor a nomination. I cannot be the sole nominator because I already have another article at FAC. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:33, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
All right then, I'll just strike it out and withdraw my nomination. Thanks, Thanoscar21talkcontributions 23:30, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Edict of Torda[edit]

Nominator(s): Borsoka (talk) 07:04, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

This article is about an early example of religious tolerance in Europe. Borsoka (talk) 07:04, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

Thank you for your source review. Please find my comments below. Borsoka (talk) 01:53, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Sorry, I do not understand your remark. Only texts from the Bible are quoted from Erdő's article. Borsoka (talk) 01:53, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
  • This may be a useful source for Aftermath
  • Thank you for your proposal. I will check it. Borsoka (talk) 01:53, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
  • What makes Ritchie a high-quality reliable source? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:38, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Susan J. Ritchie is Associate Professor of Unitarian Universalist History and Ministry at Starr King School. She holds a doctorate in cultural/religious studies from Ohio State University ([1]). None of the sentences in the article are verified exclusively by a reference to her book, save one sentence that presents her PoV. The text of the Edict of Torda in the article is also her translation. Borsoka (talk) 01:53, 18 January 2021 (UTC)


Nominator(s): Heartfox (talk) 02:59, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

This article is about a lesser-known American sitcom that aired on CBS in 1989. I came across it to add television ratings but then discovered the episodes were available online and decided to watch them over my winter break. I have since expanded the article significantly and believe it represents the limited available sources effectively. At 1500 words, it is relatively short, but I believe it is informative and a good example of what a television series FA could look like. This article was promoted as GA earlier today, but because there isn't really anything more to add that I'm aware of, I have no qualms about nominating it for FA at this time. This is my second FAC after The Masked Singer (American TV series) which I withdrew earlier this month and will renominate at a later date. I welcome any and all comments and look forward to responding to them. Thanks! Heartfox (talk) 02:59, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Some of the details in the infobox don't appear to be cited anywhere, such as the camera setup
  • The camera setup is a given as multiple camera angles are used in scenes, rather than one shot like a single-cam. It's also filmed in front of a live audience, unlike single-cam shows. The cameras never move around or follow the actors, unlike single-cam. I couldn't find a secondary source for this.
  • 24 minutes is the run time of all the episodes I watched online. It's also given in the timestamps. I couldn't find a secondary source.
  • Stereo sound is given as the episodes have the chyron "CBS StereoSound Where Available" at the beginning. I couldn't find a secondary source.
  • Concluding run time from watching an episode personally might be reasonable, but I don't agree on the other two - seems like original research to me. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:13, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Removed the camera and sound format from infobox.
  • Fn4: are you citing the credits specifically here, or some other part of the episode?
  • There are secondary sources available for everything in the sentence but ELP Communications, which is only given in the credits. Fn4 is citing the credits. Since everything, including ELP Communications, is cited in the credits, only Fn4 is used (though others could be used for everything but ELP).
  • FN4 is used for more than one sentence... Nikkimaria (talk) 13:13, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
  • FN4 is citing the end credits for all of the times it is used. I have added the time parameter to the reference to indicate this.
  • Be consistent in when you include publisher/locations and how these are formatted
  • Can you point me to an instance of an inconsistency so I know what to look for?
  • For example, you're including a location in FN47, but not FN70 - why? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:13, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
  • It appears that's a mistake. I only meant to give locations when it is not in the work's name. Removed.
  • FN7: is there a reason to rely on a primary source for this? How would someone access this source?
  • It's a ticket I found on Etsy. It's the second image here. This is the only source I could find for the fact it is filmed specifically at Sunset Gower Studios.
  • That seems like an indication that perhaps you shouldn't be including this detail, because a ticket you found on Etsy isn't really a high-quality reliable source. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:13, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Understood; removed.
  • There seem to be quite a few citations to TV schedules in a random assortment of newspapers - could you explain your approach on this?
  • This is a complex thing that deserves a paragraph to explain clearly, so I will do that in an edit very shortly.
  • Here it goes... So the books that are cited (specifically Brooks and Marsh) give an episode airing length from March 20 to June 5, 1989, meaning episodes aired between those dates (this timeline, as described further in this paragraph, includes repeats). However, when looking at the Nielsen ratings for the last episode supposedly on June 5 from USA Today, it has "(r)" next to the title, meaning it was a repeat, not a new episode. From the same source (Nielsen ratings from USA Today on ProQuest), the May 29 episode was also a repeat. On May 15 and April 24, no episodes aired. No episodes aired in irregular time slots either. This caused me to do further research as to why this was the case (how can there be eight air dates but nine episodes listed in TV guides?). A quick search on on May 8 shows that according to some TV schedules, one episode aired, while other TV schedules say a different episode aired (This is further explained in note b. Additionally, there are no such glaring differences for all of the other episode air dates in TV guides). There is no book or other reliable source that I'm aware of with all of the air dates in one place, so episode titles given in the TV listings part of newspapers are used to source the air dates and titles. These titles are cited from newspapers for all but the first and seventh episodes (as the titles were not available in TV guides for those episodes). So for the first and seventh, the next best source, TV Guide, is used. I know this seems complicated but the episode titles are not given in the episode credits or anything else online, so there is really no other option. If you have any further questions about it I'd be happy to answer :)

Also, this isn't a sourcing issue, but at the moment the episode summaries aren't very understandable to someone who hasn't watched the show. For example, "Lisa believes her firing is imminent, but Sarah was referring to Muriel." - referring to Muriel in what way? I would suggest checking throughout that the article is comprehensible to a non-"expert". Nikkimaria (talk) 04:38, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

  • I know it's dumb but I was kind of obsessed with having plot summaries that are all only one line long on my browser. I see how the first summary could be confusing, though (in my opinion) the rest of them are pretty straightforward and just include the main thing the episode is about instead of all the irrelevant events that occurred in between. I just stumbled across the article/series so I am by no means an expert myself lol. I will go over it again tomorrow and change the first plot summary to make it more clear. Please let me know if you find anything else confusing. Heartfox (talk) 05:59, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
  • @Nikkimaria: Thank you for the review! I have responded above to everything but the newspapers and plot summary stuff with honest explanations. I will address the newspapers/plot summaries in an additional response tomorrow. Please tell me how to proceed with the other stuff :) Heartfox (talk) 05:59, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
  • @Nikkimaria: I have responded above. The Sarah–Muriel thing was even a bit confusing for me as well, as it is never explained that Muriel works at the department store with Sarah and that Sarah is her boss until she gets fired by her. I have attempted to rewrite this to make it clearer, and have also revised a couple other of the summaries; please let me know if anything remains confusing. I will explain the newspaper TV schedules momentarily. Heartfox (talk) 22:14, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I have found a secondary source for the stereo sound and added it back to the infobox. It is from FN27 which was already present. Heartfox (talk) 22:56, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Lê Thánh Tông[edit]

Nominator(s): Laska666 (talk) 23:33, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

This article is about Vietnamese king Le Thanh Ton, the last "great" king of classical Southeast Asia. Laska666 (talk) 23:33, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Image review

(t · c) buidhe 00:54, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

  • FYI, the editor was recently reported at ANI[2] (t · c) buidhe 05:38, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Oppose, suggest withdrawal I would suggest taking this article through the good article process and/or seeking a peer review as a first step; unfortunately at the moment the article seems to be well off the FA criteria. Some specific concerns:

  • Given the length of the article as a whole the lead should be considerably longer
  • Some areas are lacking citations, for example the second paragraph of Early life
  • Style problems, including inline external link, hyphens used where dashes should be, repeated wikilinks, etc
  • Issues with neutrality of phrasing, for example in the statement that "The luxury of spending the energy of his youth in study made him the most erudite man of his generation". Nikkimaria (talk) 04:52, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
This is perhaps because this sentence is word for word the same as the source. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:55, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Oppose from Gog the Mild[edit]

Per Nikkimaria I don't think that this is yet ready for FAC. As well as the issues identified above, there is:

  • A lot of duplinking.
  • On the only source I checked, uncomfortably close paraphrasing. "In 1470 Thánh Tông issued a edict against people shaving their heads unless they were legitimate Buddhist monks or temple wardens suggests a suspicion of people seeking to impersonate temple dwellers to avoid field work. Despite this seeming inclination to curb the activities of monks and priests, in 1467, amidst an invasion of crop-destroying insects, the king sent Daoist priests to exercise their occult powers against the calamity; he also ordered that sacrifices be made to "all the deities" to stop the infestation." against the source.

Gog the Mild (talk) 13:19, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Oppose from Hog Farm[edit]

I found the same copyright violations as Gog, to the extent that I almost wonder if "copying and pasting" is a better phrase for that than "close paraphrasing". These copyright violations need cleaned up before the article is taken to FAC. FAC is supposed to be for articles that are ready, not ones that have significant issues. Hog Farm Talk 00:48, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Wie schön leuchtet der Morgenstern, BWV 1[edit]

Nominator(s): Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:10, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

This article is about Wie schön leuchtet der Morgenstern, BWV 1, J. S. Bach's Cantata No. I, which - as you probably know - means nothing chronological, but that it was selected to be No. 1 in the first attempt to print all of his works 100 years after his death. It is a chorale cantata on a beloved hymn. Bach planned a complete yearly cycle of such cantatas for his second year in the Leipzig office of Thomaskantor, but this one, for Annunciation (to Mary that she'd bear a child, so 9 months before Christmas, 25 March) became the last one, possibly because the librettist died. Annunciation was the only occasion during the long period of Lent for which festive cantata music was allowed.

We have already several featured articles on Bach's cantatas, including one about a chorale cantata (Mit Fried und Freud ich fahr dahin, BWV 125). This one had a GA review by sadly missed Yash! in 2016, and a recent peer review with little attention. I'd like this article to be as good as can be because it is linked from the most profound database around Bach's works, Bach Digital, - look for the little blue W here, - please help. - On Wikipedia's 20th birthday, Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:10, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Comments by Ovinus[edit]

I'll take this up, hopefully with comments by tomorrow evening. Ovinus (talk) 22:53, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Overarching comments

  • I'm unfamiliar with naming conventions for Bach's work. In my understanding, "BWV" is an organization/compendium of Bach's music? In that case, shouldn't the article title just be Wie schön leuchtet der Morgenstern and move the hymn it's based on to Wie ... Morgenstern (hymn), since I doubt there is another piece to confuse it with?
    The cantatas are uniformly named since a 2010 discussion. The hymn came first, the cantata was derived. --GA
    Sounds good!
  • I'm thinking about the lead, which was hard for me to fully understand. As an FA I'd like it to be really accessible, but I also understand that this article is one that an excited newbie to Bach chorales (hint, me!!) would be unlikely to visit. Hopefully others can weigh in, but in my mind it should give more context or be organized slightly differently.
    You mean "Bach chorale cantatas". There are practically no chorale tunes by Bach, but hundreds of four-part settings of the tunes of others, which might be called Bach chorales. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:28, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
    Thanks for explaining! Well... as you can plainly see, I'm unfamiliar with all this, but hopefully that will help us make a widely understandable article. Cheers, Ovinus (talk) 15:18, 17 January 2021 (UTC)


  • Bach composed it in his second year as Thomaskantor in Leipzig, where the Marian feast was the only occasion during Lent when festive music was permitted. I think this sentence would be more appropriate for opening the third paragraph.
    I think the extra weight of a cantata performance after weeks of "fasting" should come sooner. --GA
    Sure, but I think we should give some more context for our non-Christian readers. I'll think about this.
  • Is the Marian feast the same as the feast of the Annunciation? In my understanding there are multiple Marian feasts
    It's to avoid repetition, and to explain to those who still don't know that it IS a Marian feast. We could say this Marian feast, if it helps. --GA
    I think "this Marian feast" would be clearer, but I'd be fine with just "the feast".
    "this" taken --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:32, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I think the wikilink to theme should be removed because it goes to something literary, not musical
    At this point, it is the theme/topic in a narrative sense, not a musical theme. --GA
    Oh duh!! Can we just say "The hymn suits..."
  • three vocal soloists maybe three solo vocalists ?
    convince me ;) - we also have the two violin soloists, - how would you call those then? --GA
    A Google ngram shows the two choices have nearly equal prevalence, but I'd prefer the latter for parallelism with two solo violins later in the sentence.
    vocalist redirects to Singing, but then says it's rather used for jazz and popular music, no? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:32, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
    I didn't know that connotation! Okay, keep the original
  • continuo I've heard of "basso continuo" but somehow never heard it shortened to continuo. Would spelling it out in full be fine?
    We don't do that in the other cantata articles. Th uninitiated might confuse it with double bass. We could use b.c. but I'd find that less clear. --GA
    The double bass...? I'll again have to think about the intended audience of this article. It's a prospective FA, so I'd like the lead to be pretty accessible. I'll go over it again after reading the full article.
  • retaining the hymn's first and last stanzas unchanged I think we should make clear that the usual procedures for Bach's second cycle specifically included retaining the first and last stanzas unchanged. As it reads right now, it sounds like the hymn was paraphrased for each cantata, but not necessarily in this specific way.
    We do that in the body. I wonder if the concept of a Bach chorale cantata (linked, and this thing explained in the lead) should be repeated in individual cantata leads (40!), - boring for those who know that, and want to know about this specific piece.
    Sure, but the sentence as it stands is a bit vague on this and leaves the reader (er, me at least) a bit puzzled. How about As usual for Bach's second cantata cycle, the hymn was paraphrased by a contemporary poet retaining the hymn's first and last stanzas unchanged, but transforming the themes of the inner stanzas to a sequence of alternating recitatives and arias. Alternatively, as you say it may not be important to repeat it on each article
    that's more or less what I read, no? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:37, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
    I'm not sure why I quoted so much. The only difference is the removal of the comma after "poet", which grammatically means the entire section portion is usual for the cycle (but is still readable).
    English/American commas will remain a mystery to me. Please, you fix it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:50, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Based on Philipp Nicolai's hymn "Wie schön leuchtet der Morgenstern" (1599) I think it might help readers if we do Based on Philipp Nicholai's 1599 hymn of the same name and not wikilink hymn; I don't think this lead is understandable to those who don't know what a hymn is
    I think a link to hymn might help especially those. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:45, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
  • in a spirit of longing expectation of an arrival "in a spirit of" has a lot of imprecise meanings to me. Could we say "evoking the feeling of longing expectation of an arrival" or "representing the longing expectation of an arrival".
    English is not my first language, I am thankful for guidance in such matters. Spirit still seems to evoke more the "representing", but I may be wrong. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:44, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
  • We should also be more clear for the uninformed that this arrival is the feast. (Right?) So maybe "representing the longing expectation of an arrival—the feast."
    Well, the arrival is not the feast, but will be the announced birth on Christmas. Do we have to say that? ... as in the body --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:44, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
    Oops, I didn't understand that either. I think it's very important for context
  • Last thing for now: crowns the closing chorale. What do you mean by "crowns"?
    Well, perhaps a too literal translation from German, short for what the source has: "In the splendid final chorale, however, the horns are to the fore. Whereas the other instruments move together with the vocal lines, the second horn acts independently and, with its signal-like motifs, lends an air of baroque festive splendour to the concluding strophe". Usually at this point, a closing choral is simple, four vocal parts and the instruments playing with them. This is different. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:59, 18 January 2021 (UTC)


  • Thomaskantor italicize? From what I understand, the Thomaskantor is the director of the Thomanerchor group in particular? I would appreciate if this was clarified
    It isn't. Thomaskantor implies all these duties, at least during Bach's time. I am not sure about italics, - we wouldn't have Generalmusikdirektor italic, no, or in general German titles which have an article (or redirect). --GA
    • Suggestion: In 1723, Bach was appointed as Thomaskantor (director of church music) in Leipzig. He was employed by the town of Leipzig to this position, which made him responsible for the music at four churches and for the training and education of boys singing in the Thomanerchor. The second sentence duplicates some information from the first, so how about In 1723, Bach was appointed as the Thomaskantor in Leipzig, making him responsible for the music of four Leipzig churches and for the training and education of those in the Thomanerchor, a boys' choir group.
    Not convinced yet. The Thomanerchor is one of best-known choirs in the world, - I don't think we need to explain. We wouldn't for The Beatles, I guess. --GA
    I would explain for The Beatles too. Sadly, I've never heard of the Thomanerchor before.
    did you enjoy the article on Thomaskantor then? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:49, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
    I did! It's crazy to me that such an old choir is still singing together. Listened to a 2000 recording of theirs of "Weihnachtsoratorium (Kantate IV)", though I'm not sure where that cantata (?) lies in Bach's life. Maybe we can discuss more on your talk.
  • for these occasions I think we should move the preceding comma and use "for liturgical events" for clarity
    "event" sounds strange for a performance during a church service ;) - changed, and "liturgical" repeated the second time. --GA
  • text and tune Is tune the formal word to use here? What does it mean
    Yes, see link. A hymn tune is a certain melody, to which sometimes several songs are sung. Old 100th, for example. This hymn's tune is also used for other hymns. --GA
  • 25 March, nine months before Christmas Is the nine months important?
    Yes, explaining why celebrated then, duration of normal pregnancy. It could be removed if you feel strongly about it. --GA
    I didn't make that connection... could this be explained?
    It is explained in the lead of Annunciation. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:54, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Wikilink librettist?
    done in lead and here, thank you --GA
  • While the name of the librettist I think "identity" is more appropriate here
    taken --GA
  • his death in January 1725 would explain that Bach lost a competent collaborator and inspiration This feels like a non sequitur or maybe just unrelated. Do you mean "his death in January 1725 would explain the end of Bach's cycle?"
    yes and no, - he could have proceeded with someone else, but seems to have wanted this particular one, - open to suggestions --GA
    How about his death in January 1725—for Bach, the loss of a competent collaborator—may explain the end of the second cycle.
    I change a bit, please check --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:01, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
  • The composer returned to other texts I think we can just say "Bach" instead of "The composer"
    ... but we just said Bach the previous half-sentence --GA
    I'm not hard pressed about this one, but I just like the sound of "Bach" better than "The composer". To be more figurative about this change, why describe him in such banal terms as "the composer"? Face-smile.svg
    What do you suggest? "He" would be ambiguous. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:01, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
    Well, "Bach"?
    done, although repetitive --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:03, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
  • meant so much to him For formal tone, "was so important to him"
    taken, even if - to me - it sounds more commonplace, - my translator also also offers "significant" --GA
  • and in later years added Can we just say "and later added" ?
    I think it might be interesting that it wasn't just writing missing ones the following year but a process over several years, - one here, one there, up to 1735. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:46, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
    I find that fascinating. How about and sporadically, over the next ten years, added ?
    I added some, please check. Next will be that someone will ask for a source ;) - I just looked at the years in the table. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:01, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
    Hahaha, well I think WP:CALC has your back there.

I'll continue the review soon. Cheers, Ovinus (talk) 11:21, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the review! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:19, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Image review[edit]

  • Images are in the public domain (t · c) buidhe 18:10, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Source review[edit]

(spotchecks not done)

  • The number of violins in the infobox doesn't match up with the number in the text
    Do you think the two solo violins should appear in the infobox? --GA
    Could just say "violins". Nikkimaria (talk) 16:50, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
    yes, but a key feature of the sound of this particular cantata are the two solo violins, - please check --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:22, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
  • The 4 subsection is short on sources
    Which one do you mean? Recordings? For more than one cantata, we made a separate article discography. Perhaps that might be an idea here. --GA
    Sorry, not sure how "recordings" ended up in this point - was referring to the subsection titled "4". Nikkimaria (talk) 16:50, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
    My mistake, I looked at the TOC, where 4 is Recordings. Will supply refs. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:27, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
    It has a ref now. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:23, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
  • In the table of recordings, the OCLC links do not consistently support all of the details in the table - for example, the use of period instruments. In other cases the information provided at the link actively contradicts what is in the table - for example the second entry lists a label of Erato, but the link indicates World Record Club and doesn't mention Erato at all
    I was a bit in a rush, - several were reissued. I'll look again. All recordings are sourced to the Bach Cantatas Website, but now we have a critic who doesn't accept that as a reliable source. --GA
    Werner has an entry mentioning ERATO now. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:52, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Why are the Bach Digital links not sorted into subsections of Cited sources, as the other sources are?
    Bach Digital is the source of sources for these works, and should not be hidden somewhere at the bottom. That's what we did in other cantata FAs. --GA
    Sorry, don't follow - it is a cited source and not solely a general reference, correct? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:50, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
    It has a header now. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:23, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
    K. Still not entirely sure why it needs its own header, as opposed to just being a web source like the other web sources. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:16, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
    In older Bach cantata FAs (172, 4), the position was held by scores, sources for the music. In the meantime, we have Bach Digital, where you can see facsimiles of what was handwritten at Bach's time, - that's not any web source. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:25, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
  • How are you ordering book sources?
    I try alpha by author, but made a mistake, fixed, thank you. --GA
  • Why does the formatting of short cites differ between the two Bach Digital sources?
    do you mean the year? We could make it 2021 consistently. --GA
    No, I mean one includes an ID number and the other does not - why? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:50, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
    Both have an ID number now. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:57, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Chapter titles shouldn't be italicized
    you mean I should use "chapter", not "title"? --GA
    In the context of {{cite book}} |title= is used for the title of the book. Since in this case you are using it to cite a chapter, yes, should be |chapter=. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:50, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
    Done for Dürr/Jones and Jones --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:28, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Petzoldt: is this an authorized republication?
    tricky question. I believe that it's more helpful to an English-speaking audience than the German original. I found it in Thomaskantor where it must have been for years. --GA
    I don't disagree that it would be more useful, but unfortunately if it's not authorized our hands are tied as per Wp:LINKVIO. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:50, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Jones: why include page number in both short and full cite?
    I'd like to link to the section about the cantata, and mention those pages in the full cite, but there are other more general facts referenced to other pages. Help? --GA
    I only see one citation to that work, which is to that same page. Are there meant to be others? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:50, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
    Sorry I confused Jones' own book with the translation of Dürr. I now cited two pages, giving the beginning of the chapter as initial link, and using para chapter. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:20, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Why is Zahn including publication location when it was not mentioned for the other sources?
    because Francis Schonken entered that one. --GA
    Yes, well. It does need to be made consistent. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:50, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Terry: link provided doesn't match bibliographic details listed
    same, and I am not sure I understand the question. --GA
    If you click the link provided for Terry, it doesn't go to a work by Terry, it goes to the book by Wolff - in other words, the link is a different work than what is actually being cited. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:50, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
    Sorry, my mistake, that ref came without any link, and when I formatted, I overlooked that. Fixed. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:06, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Bischof: don't see date at link provided. Ditto Dellal, check others
    when a site doesn't offer a date, I use access-date, as done for Bach Digital. --GA
    Using accessdate is fine, but if the site doesn't include a date the citation shouldn't be including |date=. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:50, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
    I am lazy. If date is filled, a sfn ref is easy, if not it needs to be defined. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:27, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
    Sure, but when laziness extends to adding detail to a reference that isn't in the source, that becomes a problem... Nikkimaria (talk) 02:16, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
    done --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:34, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Hofmann should include original publication details
    will search. --GA
    done --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:50, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Schmuck is a dead link and there are no citations to it
    removed, don't even remember how he got there. Thank you! --GA
  • How does atticbooks meet WP:EL? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:08, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
    removed, at least I vaguely remember that some added that years ago --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:29, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Sulayman ibn Abd al-Malik[edit]

Nominator(s): Al Ameer (talk) 04:02, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

This article is about the seventh Umayyad caliph Sulayman ibn Abd al-Malik. He governed Palestine for over ten years during the reigns of his father and brother, founding Ramla, the district's capital until the Crusades. He succeeded his brother as heir apparent in 715, ruling for two years, during which the mass territorial expansion of the Caliphate under his predecessor came to a virtual halt due to increased resistance along the frontiers. It was under Sulayman that the Arabs made their most concerted effort to capture Constantinople, which ended in disaster. Before he died, he appointed his cousin Umar II as his successor, an unconventional choice over his brothers or sons. Al Ameer (talk) 04:02, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Support from Gog the Mild[edit]

Recusing to review. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:33, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

  • "Many had been handpicked by al-Hajjaj and had led the war efforts which brought the Caliphate to its greatest territorial extent, including the conqueror of Transoxiana (Central Asia), Qutayba ibn Muslim, who was killed by his own troops in an abortive revolt at the beginning of Sulayman's reign, and the conqueror of Sind (the western Indian subcontinent), Muhammad ibn Qasim, who was executed." possibly an over-long sentence?
  • Bad habit of mine, broken up. Al Ameer (talk) 22:59, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "from local forces". What is meant by "local forces"? Both in the lead and the main text.
  • I replaced with "indigenous". This may not be the best substitute, but more specific than "local". Al Ameer (talk) 22:59, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "culminating in the sieges of Constantinople of 717 and 718, which ended in Arab defeats." "sieges"; "defeats". I understood it to be a single siege and a singlr defeat.
  • From my understanding of the sources used in this article there were two successive sieges (part of the same general effort, of course). I will look into this further. On this point, and the related one below regarding more details about the siege during Sulayman's reign, I also defer to Cplakidas, who may have some useful information. Al Ameer (talk) 22:59, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Caption: the Ramla photograph - as the caption is a sentence, should it not end in a full stop?
  • Added a period. Al Ameer (talk) 22:59, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Sulayman's mother is red linked in the infobox but not in the text. It should be both or neither.
  • Done, removed redlink. Al Ameer (talk) 22:59, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "At an unknown point, Abd al-Malik made Sulayman governor". Suggest "point" → 'date'.
  • "(military district of Palestine)". Would this flow better as '(the military district of Palestine)'?
  • Good point, done. Al Ameer (talk) 22:59, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "had previously supervised Abd al-Malik's construction of the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem<" I think you mean 'had previously supervised the construction of Abd al-Malik's Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem' or similar.
  • who held him in "the highest regard". The MoS on quotations: "[t]he source must be named in article text if the quotation is an opinion". Emphasis in original.
  • Attributed to source. Al Ameer (talk) 22:59, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
  • What is the best approach here? Removing the conversion template and just sticking with 10 kilometers? Al Ameer (talk) 22:59, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
sigfig is your friend. You happy with how I have tweaked it?
  • "efforts to transfer settlement to Ramla". I don't think that "settlement" is the right word.
  • Revised to "transfer Lydda's inhabitants to Ramla". Let me know if this is better. Al Ameer (talk) 22:59, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "by appointing allied officials," Is there a better word than "allied"?
  • Changed to "loyal". Al Ameer (talk) 22:59, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "Kennedy asserted that the caliph's reign". Upper case C. And elsewhere.
  • Changed in this case and others. Al Ameer (talk) 22:59, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "but was nonetheless dismissed, summoned to Wasit and was tortured to death" The second "was" is redundant.
  • "716/17" → '716 and 717', see MOS:DOB.
  • Revised. In this case, however, the slash means that it was in 716 or 717. Al Ameer (talk) 22:59, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "to besiege the Byzantine capital of Constantinople via land"> I think 'from the land' conveys the sense better than "via land".
  • Could Elias of Nisibis and Abu Mikhnaf be introduced. preferably with some idea of when they were writing?
  • "ṭāʿūn al-Ashrāf". Foreign language words or phrases which are not proper nouns should use the Lang template.
  • Noted, but which lang template? Al Ameer (talk) 22:59, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
Assuming that is Arabic, this one: ṭāʿūn al-Ashrāf.
  • "He also cultivated ties to the religious opponents of al-Hajjaj in Iraq, was financially generous toward the Alids (the closest surviving kinsmen of the Islamic prophet Muhammad), and installed as governor of Medina Abu Bakr ibn Muhammad al-Ansari, a member of the city's pious circles, despite his family's role in the fatal rebellion against the early clansman and patron of the Umayyads, Caliph Uthman (r. 644–656), revenge for whom had served as an ideological rallying point and foundational event for the Umayyad dynasty." I think that this is a little much for a single sentence.
  • Indeed, broken up into three sentences... Al Ameer (talk) 22:59, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "future pretender to the caliphate". Either Caliphate or caliphate should be used throughout.
  • In this particular case, the office of the caliphate is being referred to, as opposed to the entity/empire. I have capitalized "Caliphate" when referring to the entity, should the office of the caliphate also be capitalized? Al Ameer (talk) 22:59, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
No, I see your point. I had missed that. You are correct.
  • Possibly a little more detail on the Siege of Constantinople? At least up to Sulayman's death?
  • Cites 16 and 33 have p./pp. errors.
  • Ahmed and Bosworth need publisher locations.

A very fine piece of work. And you are clearly on top of your sources. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:56, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your review and the many suggested improvements. Most of the points you have raised have been addressed now, with the exception of a few, namely the information about the siege(s) of Constantinople and the two points about the distance conversion and language templates, where I would like further advice. I hope to have those last few addressed asap. --Al Ameer (talk) 22:59, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
Distance tweaked in the article; lang template demonstrated above. That just leaves the siege(s): 1. Are you happy to include a little more detail? 2. Lets both dig into our sources to see to what extent it is meaningful to split the events into two sieges and whether modern RSs do. As you say, Constantine will probably have a magisterial opinion on this. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:41, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the tweak and the tip. As for the siege(s), definitely happy to include more detail, especially as this was a monumental event. I'll look into the sources I have today and am looking forward to what you could find on your end. I also see that Constantine will be leaving comments below, and am expecting his thoughts on this as well ;) --Al Ameer (talk) 19:20, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
My sources all agree that 717-718 was a single siege. Siege of Constantinople (717–718), taken to FA by Constantine, says the same. Do you have anything different? Gog the Mild (talk) 12:49, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
No, the sources I have mention very little about the siege, but none appear to call it two sieges, it just took place over two summers. Eisener, Blankinship have it as one siege, Powers does not mention it in his annotations of al-Tabari. --Al Ameer (talk) 16:10, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
I you want to tweak the text from sieges to siege in the various places it is mentioned, I should then be able to support. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:37, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
Thanks again Gog, the text has been tweaked by Constantine. I will be addressing the points he raised below, but otherwise let me know if there is anything else that should be done. Al Ameer (talk) 21:46, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I still think that you need a little more detail on the siege.
  • "Already from early 716, the Arab commander Umar ibn Hubayra al-Fazari had launched a naval campaign against Constantinople." What happened to the naval campaign.
  • "Sulayman's efforts ultimately failed as the Byzantines repulsed the Umayyad attacks in the early summer of 717 and the summer of 718." This seems a little confused to me. Maybe something like. 'The Byzantines repulsed the Umayyad attacks in the early summer of 717, but Maslama continued to blockade Constantinople's landward approaches. [sentence on naval activity] Maslama renewed the the Umayyad assault in the summer of 717 but was again defeated. He abandoned the siege and withdrew through Anatolia, losing most of his army en route.'

Gog the Mild (talk) 21:59, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

  • I have expanded the section, mostly by copying from the main article about the siege, with some revisions and minor additions, and with a mind toward your proposed structuring of the passage. From my understanding, Maslama's army retreated relatively intact to Syria after the casualties endured during the siege, but the relief army sent to aid him was routed and driven out of Anatolia. Will request Constantine to do a source check for the books I could not access or read. There will be more fine-tuning, but let me know if, content-wise, this issue has now been addressed. I will also be adding one summary sentence about the repercussions of the expedition's failure at the end of the section. I will update you. Al Ameer (talk) 02:51, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
I am content with everything except for the minor suggestion:
  • "The Umayyads' first blockade of the city under Mu'awiya I had failed." → 'The Umayyads' first blockade of the city under Mu'awiya I in 674 to 678 had failed.'
So am happy to support. Great work. Gog the Mild (talk)
Thanks Gog. I intentionally omitted the date since there seems to be credible disputes by historians to the dating of the siege or whether it was siege at all. What is agreed is that the raids and/or naval blockade of the city occurred under Mu'awiya I. Al Ameer (talk) 16:59, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Image review[edit]

  • Pass image licensing looks good to me. (t · c) buidhe 05:08, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

If possible would suggest improving File:The_Caliphate_in_945_(centred_on_the_southern_Caspian_Sea).jpg - it's not clear what is green vs lime green. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:39, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: I lack the know-how to do this, despite it seeming simple enough. How about I crop out the lime green portion at the bottom left corner of the map? Alternatively, I could replace it altogether with this detailed map of the region in question: File:Northern Iran and its surroundings during the Iranian intermezzo.svg. The main benefit of the current map is that it shows the conquest of Tabaristan in the context of the conquests undertaken by Sulayman's predecessors, though this may not be terribly important. Thoughts? —Al Ameer (talk) 02:59, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
Maybe first try Wikipedia:Graphics_Lab/Map_workshop. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:00, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
The request has been made: Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Map workshop#Coloring adjustment for map, per FAC recommendation. Al Ameer (talk) 04:59, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Comments by Constantine[edit]

Glad to see this here, will review over the following days. Constantine 18:01, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

  • I've done some copyedits in the article, feel free to revert/discuss them.
  • My thanks to you and ImTheIP for all of the recent copyedits. Al Ameer (talk) 03:18, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Muslim religious scholars link faqih, if that is what is meant.
  • Done, though linked ulema per its use by the source. Al Ameer (talk) 03:18, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
  • For the transliterated Arabic terms, you should use {{transl|ar|}}, e.g. {{transl|ar|[[shurta|shurṭa]]}}, as this helps automatic parsers of the Wikicode determine what the terms are.
  • I am not sure that "security forces" is the proper translation of shurta; to a modern reader, this implies entities like the FBI or armed police. Perhaps "elite guard"?
  • Yes, shurta is a tricky one, and a term that seems to have evolved a number of times even just in the early Islamic period. I changed it to elite guard as suggested, since this seems like the appropriate use for this case. Al Ameer (talk) 03:18, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Files need alt descriptions
  • Working on this, will update you when completed. Al Ameer (talk) 03:18, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
  • militarist policies link militarism, if that is what is meant here.
  • more effective resistance from indigenous forces add where this happened; as a small conqueror class, the Arabs faced 'indigenous forces' everywhere. What you mean is that they faced increased resistance on their frontiers.
  • I need to look into where specifically the Muslims faced increased resistance tomorrow and will update you. Al Ameer (talk) 03:18, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
  • IIRC, the conquest of Tabaristan and Jurjan was mostly nominal and definitely ephemeral; not only were many local princes like Farrukhan the Great left effectively undisturbed, but the conquest had to be repeated under the Abbasids. This needs to be added.
  • Thank you for bringing this to my attention. I clarified and added context, let me know if it suffices. Al Ameer (talk) 03:18, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
  • On the failure of the siege of Constantinople, I would suggest adding the destruction of the two fleets sent against the city; it was the failure of the naval component that decided the outcome more than anything else. Some context might also be advisable here, after The Caliph's principal military focus was the war with Byzantium, to the effect that Sulayman's campaign was the culmination of two decades of encroachment into Byzantine territories, and the second major attempt to seize Constantinople. It should be easy to mine the article on the siege for whatever details you need (ping me if you need to verify sources).
  • I owe you a debt here, as I indeed went ahead and copied much of the new material from the article, which you mainly authored. I do in fact need you to please verify at least Lilie and Guilland for I am illiterate in German and French ;) Also, if you do not mind, please see Nikki's query below about Lilie being a high-quality RS, as you may be able to offer a better response than me. Al Ameer (talk) 03:18, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I don't have the sources right now, will do ASAP. On Lilie, done. Constantine 20:20, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I remember reading a brief exposition about the emergence of the figure of Mahdi in connection with Sulayman in Patricia Crone's God's Rule - Government and Islam, that would fit in really well here. I probably can send you the relevant pages, if required.
  • Thanks for this tip as well. I incorporated the relevant material into the article. Al Ameer (talk) 03:18, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

That's it after a first pass. Looks like the usual thorough job one has come to expect of Al Ameer son. Constantine 15:09, 16 January 2021 (UTC) PS on the siege/sieges issue, I suspect the sources used considered the two different 'active phases' of the siege as different events; they were not. Maslama and his troops wintered in Byzantine soil, in Europe, but they never abandoned the siege, at least not from the landward side. That's why the quick neutralization of the Umayyad fleets was critical. Constantine 15:20, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Source review[edit]

  • spotchecks not done
  • Some of the details in the infobox, such as burial place, don't appear to be cited anywhere
  • Burial has now been cited. The names of all the children listed in the infobox are cited in Note C. Al Ameer (talk) 04:45, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
  • There is a child mentioned in the infobox and text but not that note - is there a reason for that? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:27, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
  • The note mentions the sons of Sulayman listed by al-Ya'qubi. Muhammad is not mentioned by al-Ya'qubi, but is mentioned as the eldest son to have survived Sulayman, according to an annotation by David Powers citing al-Dinawari in the edited History of al-Tabari. Al Ameer (talk) 17:33, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "Their first attempt to capture the city during Mu'awiya I's reign had failed. " - source?
  • Just added this but forgot the cite. Revised and sourced, now. Al Ameer (talk) 04:45, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Missing full bibliographic details for Guilland 1959
  • This now includes publisher and location, which the other journal citations do not. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:27, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Removed, for consistency. Al Ameer (talk) 17:33, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
  • How are you ordering multiple works by the same author in Bibliography?
  • Chronologically. The Hinds sources have now been ordered accordingly. Al Ameer (talk) 04:45, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Shaban 1970 is missing location
  • Bacharach appears to be a journal publication rather than a book
  • Modified template. Al Ameer (talk) 04:45, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Biesterfeldt is an editorial board member, but the volume credits specific editors who should be included in the citation
  • This will now need to be moved to alphabetical order. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:27, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Ordered correctly now. Al Ameer (talk) 17:33, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Bosworth: what was the original publisher?
  • Apparently, Variorum. I removed “Reprints”. I cannot find anything other than it was published in 1982 by Variorum. I guess the particular link used here was for a reprint (though an original year does not seem to be indicated, so I am assuming it was 1982). Al Ameer (talk) 04:45, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Since the linked source does include "Reprints", it shouldn't be removed from the citation. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:27, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Haldon: edition statement should be separate from title
  • Done. Also a bit confusing to me upon inspection. The title mentions it is the “Revised Edition”, but nothing indicates it was published in a different year than the original year, 1990. Al Ameer (talk) 04:45, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Hawting is a dead link
  • What makes Lilie a high-quality reliable source?
  • I defer to Constantine on this one. I copied information cited to the source from the main article about the Siege of Constantinople (717–718). I do not see why it would not fit the bill. On a related note, I have also requested Constantine verify the material sourced to Lilie and Guilland (see above)—want to make sure all content is still true to the sources after the modifications I made to the copied text. Al Ameer (talk) 04:45, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Can you elaborate on why you believe it to be reliable? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:27, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Can you explain the formatting of the Madelung source? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:39, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Just added this, but at the very bottom of the online article is information about the citation of the article in the print version. Is this ok, or should it be formatted differently? Al Ameer (talk) 04:45, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
  • If you're referencing the online article, the citation should reflect that and not the print version. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:27, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I re-did the reference. Let me know if this works, or please propose the best way. Al Ameer (talk) 17:33, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Comments by ImTheIP[edit]

Fantastic article. Very well-written and informative. Here are some thing that struck me while reading it:

  • Sulayman resented al-Hajjaj's influence over his brother. Is it known why he resented al-Hajjaj?
  • Great question. This is unfortunately unclear. Hawting (2000) discusses it on page 74. He mentions the mutual hostility between them stemming from al-Hajjaj's desire for al-Walid's son to accede instead of Sulayman, but "whether this was its cause or a symptom is not clear". Before that, Hawting notes that Yazid ibn al-Muhallab escaped prison and took refuge with Sulayman, "taking advantage of the antagonism that existed between al-Hajjaj and the heir apparent [Sulayman]", implying it was already established from early on. Wellhausen notes the hostility existed while Sulayman was still heir apparent. Al Ameer (talk) 19:58, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Among them were the conqueror of Transoxiana (Central Asia), Qutayba ibn Muslim, who was killed by his own troops in an abortive revolt at the start of Sulayman's reign So Qutayba tried to stage a revolt because he got fired?
  • He was a loyalist of al-Hajjaj and supported Sulayman's replacement as heir with al-Walid's son. Following Sulayman's accession, he anticipated hostile action from the new caliph, despite Sulayman's confirmation of him in his post, and revolted. I will tweak the lead since it reads as if Sulayman dismissed him, when it was not the case. Al Ameer (talk) 19:58, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
  • At an unknown date, Abd al-Malik appointed Sulayman governor of Jund Filastin (the military district of Palestine) According to Nur Masalha, Sulayman became governor in 705. That may be wrong though.
  • I am leery of this, it may be a presumption by Masalha. Sulayman was appointed during Abd al-Malik's reign and appears to have been well-established there before his brother's accession to the caliphate. We know there were two other governors of Palestine under Abd al-Malik: his uncle Yahya ibn al-Hakam could not have been governor after 694, as he was reassigned to Medina and afterward led campaigns against the Byzantines until his death around 699 or 700. Although governors of Hims, Qinnasrin and the Jazira were known to lead army campaigns against the Byzantines, this was not apparently a purview of a governor of Palestine. Then there is Abd al-Malik's brother Aban ibn Marwan. It is not clear if he preceded his uncle or succeeded him, though the sources mention that al-Hajjaj ibn Yusuf started his career in Syria as part of Aban's shurta in Palestine, which would have been in the latter half of the 680s. It seems likely Sulayman was appointed after Yahya. None of the sources offer the years of appointment, so I am staying away from it. Al Ameer (talk) 19:58, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
  • About Ramla, Nur Masalha writes: "According to the conventional wisdom, the name Ramla is derived from the Arabic word raml, meaning sand (Palmer 1881: 217). But it is more likely that the new Arab capital was named by Suleiman ibn ‘Abd al‑Malik not for its sand but in memory of Ramla, a remarkable woman who was the daughter of Caliph Mu’awiyya ibn Abu Sufyan, the founder of the Umayyad dynasty. Ramla’s reputation among the Umayyad ruling elite was enhanced by the fact that she also married to a son of Uthman, the third Caliph of Islam (Roded 1994: 57). The likelihood of a major city being named in memory of an important Umayyad woman in the history of the ruling dynasty could easily have been overlooked by the post‑Umayyad almost exclusively male (Abbasid‑leaning) Muslim historians of the Middle Ages."
  • Interesting, but again I am wary of this, as it seems entirely presumptuous on Masalha's part. Masalha may be a high-quality, academic source, but this appears to be way out of his area of expertise. Does make me want to start an article on Ramla bint Mu'awiya, though. Al Ameer (talk) 19:58, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
  • A protege of al-Hajjaj, Qutayba ibn Muslim, whose relations with Sulayman had been antagonistic, was confirmed in his post by the Caliph, but remained wary that his dismissal was pending. In the lead it says he was fired?
  • Yes, I will tweak this in the lead and update you, per above. Al Ameer (talk) 19:58, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
  • The latter was assassinated on Sulayman's orders, and his head was delivered to the Caliph by Habib ibn Abi Ubayd al-Fihri in 715 or 716. That wasn't very nice! Is there some explanation as to why Sulayman had Abd al-Aziz assassinated?
  • Not nice at all. The source used does not elaborate. Upon further research, it appears there are a few different narratives. In EI2's entry on Abd al-Aziz b. Nusayr, it just says "He was assassinated in Seville, where he had fixed his residence, by a certain Ziyad b. Udhra al-Balawi, at the beginning of Radjab 97/March 718, and was succeeded by his maternal cousin Ayyub b. Habib al-Lakhmi." Tabari (used in this article) only says "In this year [715-716] Abd al-Aziz b. Musa b. Nusayr was killed in al-Andalus and Habib b. Abi Ubayd al-Fihri brought his head to Sulayman." Hitti tells of a story that Abd al-Aziz was murdered after Sulayman caught wind of rumors he became a Christian under his wife's influence. Then there's the History of Ibn al-Qutiya (ed. David James) where Sulayman orders Musa imprisoned after the latter's arrival in Syria after some tensions between him and the heir apparent (Musa had been on his way to visit his "benefactor" al-Walid, but arrived after Sulayman's accession) and orders "five of the leading Arabs of al-Andalus", among whom were Ziyad and Habib, to assassinate Abd al-Aziz. Nothing is mentioned of the victim's head being delivered to Sulayman or why exactly the deed was ordered; one may presume it was related to the caliph's tension with Musa. Need to sort all of this out. Al Ameer (talk) 19:58, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

ImTheIP (talk) 23:30, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Thomas Erpingham[edit]

Nominator(s): Amitchell125 (talk) 22:44, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

This article is about Sir Thomas Erpingham, a soldier, courtier, and loyal servant of John of Gaunt, his son Henry Bolingbroke (later Henry IV of England) and grandson Henry V. Erpingham led a full and interesting life, acquired great riches and much power, and was present at the Battle of Agincourt, where as one of the oldest men there, he commanded the English archers. The article has been peer reviewed over the last few weeks (thanks to those involved). Amitchell125 (talk) 22:44, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Gog the Mild[edit]

Placeholder: recusing to review. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:50, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Lead / Ancestry and early life
  • "he served under John of Gaunt". Optional: 'he served under the King's nephew, John of Gaunt,' to give an idea of the status of the position?
Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 13:20, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "was with Gaunt's son Henry Bolingbroke in Lithuania, Prussia and the Holy Land". Optional: 'was with Gaunt's son Henry Bolingbroke on crusades in Lithuania, Prussia and the Holy Land'?
Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 13:24, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "appointed as guardian of Henry younger son Thomas". 1, Is "as" needed? 2. 'Henry's'.
1 Amended; 2 done. Amitchell125 (talk) 13:26, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "impeached as a rebel of the king". I don't think that one can be a rebel of someone, and anyway, isn't "of the king" unnecessary? It seems clear from the context.
Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 13:31, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "whilst Erpingham was praised for his services, Despenser was publicly rebuked." This may be unnecessary detail for the lead.
Agreed, and so removed. Amitchell125 (talk) 13:36, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "appointed Erpingham as Steward of the Household". Delete "as".
Done (but note 'as' is acceptable here in British English). Amitchell125 (talk) 13:42, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "He commanded the archers in the Battle of Agincourt". Give the date
Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 13:45, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "during the main battle". The main battle. What would that be? Maybe 'during fierce hand-to-hand combat fought alongside the King' or similar?
Sentence amended to reflect the fact that TE was not with the king at the start of the battle. There's no evidence he was involved in actual combat. Amitchell125 (talk) 13:50, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "alongside the king". Upper case K.
Not done - see Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Capital_letters#Titles_of_people. Happy to be corrected. Amitchell125 (talk) 13:56, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
From MOS:JOBTITLES: "They are capitalized only in the following cases: ... When a title is used to refer to a specific person as a substitute for their name during their time in office, e.g., the Queen, not the queen (referring to Elizabeth II)"
OK, done. Amitchell125 (talk) 10:07, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "His son Thomas". Delete "His son".
Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 13:58, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "Sir John died in 1370, when Thomas was thirteen." Were they still in Aquitaine?
Curry gives Sir John as dying on 1 August 1370 and buried in the church at Erpingham, Norfolk. Text amended to clarify the point. Amitchell125 (talk) 14:46, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
Early military service
  • Indentured comes up a lot. Could we have either a brief in line explanation or a fuller footnote. (Or, if you want to spoil the readers, both.)[note 1]
Done (both suggestions). Amitchell125 (talk) 10:08, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Lead: "and knighted whilst still in his teens"; article: "The year Erpingham was knighted is unknown, but he is likely to have been at least 21".
Sorted. Amitchell125 (talk) 17:30, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "the earliest known date in which his knighthood is referred to* "in" → 'at'.
  • "the kingdom of Castile". Upper case K.
  • "dominated the duke's life". Upper case D.
  • "the freedom the king" K. I am going to stop mentioning them, read MOS:JOBTITLES, especially the second bullet point, and have a run through the article.
Sorted. Amitchell125 (talk) 18:21, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "but after six weeks their campaign was abandoned." Is it known why?
Explanation provided. Amitchell125 (talk) 20:13, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "travelled in extravagantly expensive style, further enhancing their reputations as pious soldiers." How does extravagance equate to piety?
As it doesn't, I clarified that bit. Amitchell125 (talk) 20:29, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "It is not certain that he went to Aquitaine when he was young." This should be mentioned at the point where you state unequivocally that he did.
Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 20:34, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "and given judicial powers to preserve order in Norfolk in the aftermath of the Peasants' Revolt." Give the year.
Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 09:23, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "Lancaster granted him the Norfolk hundred of South Erpingham in 1386, which was granted for life ten years later". So on what basis was it granted first time?
Issue addressed. Amitchell125 (talk) 14:55, 16 January 2021 (UTC)


  1. ^ In a different article I dealt with the issue with "Derby was appointed the King's Lieutenant in Gascony on 13 March 1345 and received a contract to raise a force of 2,000 men in England, and further troops in Gascony itself. The highly detailed contract of indenture had a term of six months from the opening of the campaign in Gascony, with an option for Edward to extend it for a further six months on the same terms." which hopefully made the term clear from context. I don't necessarily recommend that here, I just wanted to show one way of dealing with it.
Revolution of 1399
  • "for his support for in the struggle" Delete the second "for".
  • "Bolingbroke gained more support in his cause". "in" → 'for'.
  • "duchy of Lancaster". Upper case D.
  • "As he moved across northern and central England. Richard, delayed in Ireland, eventually found ships to cross over the Irish Sea." Should this be a single sentence? Either way it looks as if something is missing in the middle.
  • "the bishop of Norwich". Upper case B. And similarly for any subsequent proper nouns.
This section's comments addressed. Amitchell125 (talk) 15:03, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
Career under Henry IV[edit]
  • Try to avoid one-sentence paragraphs.
  • "duketti". Foreign words should use the Lang template.
  • "French king's' council". Only one apostrophe.
  • "Constable of Dover". Lower case c.
  • "by making them force them to acknowledge him".
  • "the Erpingham Gate". Is there any further information on this? EG, where it is?
  • "benefitted". Single t, see usage notes here.
  • "when it supported the Lords Appellant". Perhaps a brief in line explanation? So a reader doesn't have to read a separate article for the sentence to make sense.
  • "which was presented". "was" → 'were'.
  • "Henry IV awarded the city a new charter ... [new paragraph] ... and the city gained a new charter".
All these points addressed, apart from the one about the Constable of Dover. See here for the official website, showing that it should remain capitalised. Amitchell125 (talk) 19:43, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
Career under Henry V[edit]
  • "he travelled with his father to the English possession of Aquitaine ... Edward III had lost Aquitaine in 1337"[?]
  • "strong infrastructure and amply supply of manpower". The MoS on quotations: "[t]he source must be named in article text if the quotation is an opinion". Emphasis in original.
  • "Henry's inner circle", then "Henry V's campaign". Henry V at first mention, thereafter just Henry.
  • "Erpingham crossed over from England with Henry's army on 11 August 1415, where they landed at the mouth of the River Seine". "where" doesn't make sense unless France or Normandy is mentioned in the sentence.
  • "Erpingham was one of a significant number of middle aged commanders" → 'Erpingham was one of a significant number of middle aged English commanders'. And hyphenate 'middle-ages'.
  • "He is not mentioned in English versions of the events of 1415". 1. Insert 'contemporaneous'. 2. Not at all? Or just not in accounts of Agincourt?
Sentence amended to reflect comment by Curry (2000): "In fact he is not featured in any account of the battle written in England" Amitchell125 (talk) 14:45, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
  • The lead states "Erpingham presided over the surrender of Harfleur and was garrisoned in the town over the winter of 1414–1415." but the second part is not mentioned in the article.
  • "men-at-war". Do you mean men-at-arms?
  • Link men-at-arms.
  • "in comparison with the men-at-war present on the field" Suggestion: 'in proportion to the number of men-at-arms present'.
  • "He positioned them in front and to the sides in front of the English army". I think that I know what you are trying to say, but it is not that clear, and having "in front" twice doesn't help. Leaving aside their being the largest part of the English army and so there are existential issues about their being in front of it/themselves.
  • The block quote: 1. link Jean de Wavrin. 2. I don't think that he wrote that in 1887. 3. "Article Title"?
  • "was ordered to advance the front line of his archers". Just the front line? Did the others stay where they were?
  • "to within range of the French". What range is meant here? In context it reads as if you mean attack range of the French, which you don't.
  • "a group of 200 archers concealed in a meadow began to shoot into the French flanks." I have great respect for Curry, but that seems improbable. Are you quite sure that is what she says? (And why is this single sentence in a separate paragraph?)
As Sumption agrees and is a little more detailed, I've used him. Apparently it's true. Amitchell125 (talk) 20:23, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
  • The paragraph commencing "The main body of English archers then let loose" is not an accurate account of the battle.
@Gog the Mild: The account of the battle (using Curry (2015) in the main) is now as accurate as I can make it, but it may need trimming back. Please let me know what you think. Amitchell125 (talk) 20:14, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I have copy edited a little. Let me know about anything you are not happy with.
Happy with your edits. Amitchell125 (talk) 13:11, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "a distinguishing feature of the battle, and one which forced the French formations to divide into three columns." This either needs an explanation or deleting. I would suggest the latter.
Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 13:12, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "When the main battle began to be attacked by the English" Attacked by the English men-at-arms advancing on foot, or by archers firing from their original positions?
Amended to say it was men on foot fighting at close quarters. Amitchell125 (talk) 13:31, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
  • PS As his role at Agincourt is what he is most famous for, I don't think that relying almost entirely on Curry for that is going to cover "it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature". I mean, it isn't as if there isn't a fair few accounts of Erpingham's role to be surveyed. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:52, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
Sumption used to cite the Agincourt section, I'll check through Barker again to see if I can use her any more. Amitchell125 (talk) 13:10, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "Henry V's army then marched to Calais". Mention that Calais was an English enclave. Link to Pale of Calais.
  • "After his return to England". Do we know when?
@Gog the Mild: the sources disagree—Barker appears to state here that Erpingham was at Harfleur over the winter of 1415/16, but Anne Curry states (2000, p. 73): "The army moved on to Calais and thence to Dover, where Erpingham landed around 16 November." Amitchell125 (talk) 12:37, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
I am not sure that is a disagreement. Do you mean Barker has him at Calais? Gog the Mild (talk) 12:42, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
No, at Harfleur. Amitchell125 (talk) 14:11, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
OK. This may be on a different point: the article. after your account of Agincourt, states "Henry's army then marched to the English enclave of the Pale of Calais, embarked from Calais on 16 November and returned to England.[84] Erpingham was among those 300 men-at arms and 900 archers who garrisoned the town over the winter of 1414–1415"> Is that date at the end correct?
Thanks, now corrected. Amitchell125 (talk) 13:06, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Explain what a "mark" is. I suggest a footnote, in which case feel free to lift note 8 from Battle of Calais.
'Career under Henry V' issues addressed, with a few comments added. Amitchell125 (talk) 20:27, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
Personal life[edit]
  • "he purchased 12 manors from". "12" → 'twelve' to standardise with the other numbers.
  • "He also lost his tenure of lands". Should that be 'He also lost the tenure of some of his lands'?
  • Link Norwich Cathedral at first mention, not second.
  • "after a fire in the city caused serious damage". Is it known when this was?
  • "Erpingham built the east window". I assume that you mean that he paid to have it built?
  • "each dedicated to a noblemen or knights who died without producing an heir." 'nobleman or knight'.
  • The window dedication text needs to be in a block quote.
  • Link Garter stall plates.
  • "Knights of the Garter" Why the upper case initials?
  • Another single sentence paragraph.
All sorted, except that the upper case initials in 'Knights of the Garter' are correct (see the FA on the subject). Amitchell125 (talk) 08:46, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
Appearance in the Henriad
  • Most, if not all, of the straight quoting from Shakespeare needs to go. The first six and last nine lines handle this well.
I did wonder. Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 20:22, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
Refs and sources
  • Note 2: "goes on to gives the men's names". "gives" → 'give'.
  • Cites 96 and 102 should be 'pp.', not "p.".
  • Is there a page range for Curry (2000)?
  • Curry (2015) should be before Curry et al (2010).
  • Several articles are missing identifiers - ISSNs or JSTORs.
'Refs and sources' comments addressed. Amitchell125 (talk) 20:17, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Gog the Mild (talk) 18:55, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi Amitchell125, have you addressed and/or responded to all of my comments? If not, could you ping me when you have? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:44, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
Not all done yet (see my progress here. Amitchell125 (talk) 14:13, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
@Gog the Mild: Many thanks for all your comments above, which I think are now addressed. Amitchell125 (talk) 22:19, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Image review—pass[edit]

Done, thanks for the tip. Amitchell125 (talk) 09:41, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
I can't be completely sure, so I have removed it until I obtain another one that is OK to include. Amitchell125 (talk) 12:59, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
Wikimedia Commons page amended to give the sources for these. Amitchell125 (talk) 13:15, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Other images' licensing looks OK
  • Quotebox from Chronique d'Angleterre is sandwiching the image, contrary to MOS:IMAGELOC. I would use {{quote}} instead so it appears inline, or alternately deleting entirely.
Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 11:34, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

(t · c) buidhe 23:05, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for these comments Buidhe, which I think are now addressed. Amitchell125 (talk) 13:17, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
You're welcome. (t · c) buidhe 05:04, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Aza24[edit]

Please ping me when you and Gog are done above and I'll leave some comments. Aza24 (talk) 01:39, 15 January 2021 (UTC)


  • I'm concerned that the prose here needs considerable work. Some examples:
  • "In July 1399, Erpingham was one of Bolingbroke's supporters who landed with him at Ravenspur, probably at the end of June." If he landed in July, how could he probably have landed at the end of June?
Now sorted. Amitchell125 (talk) 13:21, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "conditions of service and payment were made in agreed voluntarily"
Typo amended. Amitchell125 (talk) 13:11, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "Lancaster granted him the hundred of South Erpingham in 1386, in the form of a fief, or legal right to use the land awarded. [6] for “loyal service to the House of Lancaster”,[28] The hundred was granted for life ten years later"
I've simplified the end of the paragraph. Amitchell125 (talk) 16:33, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Additionally there seem to be quite a few typos in Bibliography, eg "MacMmillan", "Vikng", etc - please check throughout
The errors have now been sorted. Amitchell125 (talk) 13:18, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Some of the narrative is difficult to follow for a non-expert. For example, is an annual income of £20 significant or trifling? Why would the king gain freedom from not having Lancaster around? Where had the peace been made by July 1392?
@Nikkimaria: I've addressed these points, are there other examples you could point me to? Amitchell125 (talk) 22:11, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "Sir Thomas Erpingham's statue (or possibly an effigy taken from his tomb)" - source? Some of the other details in the infobox don't appear to be sourced anywhere, such as the date of his second marriage
Sorted. Amitchell125 (talk) 15:46, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Citation formatting needs editing for consistency
@Nikkimaria: I'm not sure where I'm being inconsistent, could you point me in the right direction? Amitchell125 (talk) 13:27, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
Looks like Aza24 is working on this, will wait until that's done. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:30, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
Nikkimaria, these should be good now, unless you're seeing something I'm not; sorry for butting in Amitchell, I had so extra time when I saw your message on my talk – Aza24 (talk) 20:40, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
  • How does the Vane source meet WP:SCHOLARSHIP? Nikkimaria (talk) 17:15, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
    • Have looked at this, it's on the edge, and can likely be removed without effecting the article negatively. However, it seems silly to do so, since only a single citation is used, and for a doubtlessly uncontroversial quote... Aza24 (talk) 10:58, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
Checking on Vane again (who doesn't seem to be a published author), it's probably best to leave him out. A Google search for "Sir Thomas Erpingham" brings up the thesis if anyone is interested. Amitchell125 (talk) 13:45, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

1987 FA Cup Final[edit]

Nominator(s): The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!), Amakuru (talk), 17:56, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Possibly the most entertaining FA Cup final ever. Two teams going at each other pretty much from minute 1 to minute 120, and trust me, plenty of the tackles would have been yellow, if not red cards these days! Some great goals, an exhilarating match, a triumphant underdog, and if we're all honest, always lovely to see Glenn Hoddle lose. I commend this candidate to the house, along with Amakuru with whom this is a co-nom. All comments will be addressed as soon as practicable, as always. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 17:56, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt[edit]

Would it be better to name the winner in the first sentence? Given how Google previews our articles with a short text, it might be better to state the winner early on.
I'm not so sure, it's the first I've heard of catering for Google searches, and it would somewhat fly in the face of just about every other article of its type I've ever seen or written. But also, when I Google it, there's an "infobox" on the right-hand side which says "Champion: Coventry City F.C." so I guess we already (inadvertently) have that covered! The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:39, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
More soon, busy day and then some.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:28, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "City started as favourites,[8] but the Yorkshire side started better," Can you avoid using the same verb in two different senses?
That's all I have, so I'll Support without further ado.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:08, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
Thank you, Wehwalt, that has been addressed. Cheers for the review and support. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 23:11, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Image review—pass[edit]

Images appear to be freely licensed. (t · c) buidhe 22:20, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 22:37, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Comments by Lee Vilenski[edit]

I'll begin a review of this article very soon! My reviews tend to focus on prose and MOS issues, especially on the lede, but I will also comment on anything that could be improved. I'll post up some comments below over the next couple days, which you should either respond to, or ask me questions on issues you are unsure of. I'll be claiming points towards the wikicup once this review is over.

Additional comments

Additionally, if you liked this review, or are looking for items to review, I have some at my nominations list. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 21:08, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

République-class battleship[edit]

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk) 22:59, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

This article covers a pair of battleships built as part of a large naval program aimed at countering German naval expansion. They were largely repeated with the four Liberté class, and both designs marked a major increase in size and power over earlier French battleships. Both ships saw service during World War I, but little actual combat, and both were reduced to secondary roles by 1919. Thanks to all who take the time to review the article. Parsecboy (talk) 22:59, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Gog the Mild[edit]

Recusing to review.

  • "but Patrie lingered on in her training duties". Maybe "duties" → 'role'?
  • "when she was decommissioned and sold for scrap the following year". I don't think that grammatically you can have "when" referring to 1936, then "and ... the following year."
  • "which marked a significant expansion of the fleet". Suggest 'their fleet'.
  • "Bertin was now in a position"> Delete "now".
  • "15,000 t (15,000 long tons)". This is to a different level of accuracy to your earlier convertion.
  • "and the standard main armament of four 305 mm (12 in) guns in two twin-gun turrets was specified". Was this also to "ensure passage through the Suez Canal"?
  • "on 9 December the parliament approved". "the parliament" seems an odd usage - this may be only to me. Perhaps 'the French parliament' or just 'parliament'?
  • "was to have fulfilled the specified number of six new battleships". That is ungrammatical. (And repetitous.)
  • "though these are sometimes considered to be a sub-class of the République class rather than a distinct class of its own". You switch from "these" to "its". Try 'though these are sometimes considered to be a sub-class of the République class rather than a distinct class of its their own'.
  • What's an average draft?
  • "with République reaching ... 19,898 metric horsepower (19,626 ihp) and Patrie ... 18,107 metric horsepower". 1. Is in known what the design output was? 2. Is any reason known for the discrepancy between the two ships? Nearly 10%!
  • "and was fired at a muzzle velocity of" → 'which was fired at a muzzle velocity of'.
  • "the gun was no longer suitable for use against the latest torpedo boats". Optional: "suitable" → 'adequate'.
  • "Cofferdam": 1. could this be linked to the Naval architecture section? 2. Any chance of a brief in line explanation? It is not a common expression and it breaks concentration to have to follow the Wikilink.
  • "A heavily armored tube that was 200 mm thick"> Was the tube or the armour 200 mm thick?
  • "it was reduced to 20 mm on two layers of". "on" → 'of'.
  • "Tests to determine whether the main battery turrets could be modified to increase the elevation of the guns (and hence their range) proved to be impossible". The tests proved to be impossible? (Which is how it reads now.) Or the tests proved that increasing the elevation was impossible?
  • "the ships received two". Two each?
  • "reinforce the Dardanelles Division fighting Ottoman forces in the Gallipoli campaign; she provided gunfire support to Allied troops fighting ashore". I think that the second "fighting" could be deleted as a given.
  • "until they were forced to evacuate"> "forced" seems a bit PoV. Is that the consensus of historians?
  • "and renamed Yavuz Sultan Selim" → 'and been renamed Yavuz Sultan Selim'.
  • No page range for Caresse?

I enjoyed that. You packed in a lot of technical information in a fairly digestible way. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:15, 13 January 2021 (UTC) "


Nicely done, agree with Gog re digestible technical information.

  • After all the talk about the German Naval Law, both ships served in the Med. I would have thought it made sense to mention the Entente Cordiale and the reason why French policy changed.
  • Given the timing, was that flu the Spanish flu? If so some mention of the death toll would be merited if possible.
  • There is some mention of coal bunkers as part of the armour protection, do you have more detail on that aspect of the design?

ϢereSpielChequers 18:54, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • "Both ships entered service with the fleet in January 1907" - source?
  • The infobox indicates 16 x 65mm, text says 13 - which is correct?
  • The Commons template is overlapping with footnotes
  • FN27 title doesn't match that at source link. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:48, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

1985 World Snooker Championship final[edit]

Nominator(s): Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 18:17, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

This article is about the most famous snooker match of all time. Picture it, it's 1985, Steve Davis has won three world championships and has pretty much won everything else. He's in the final of the 1985 World Snooker Championship, and plays Northern Ireland's Dennis Taylor. Should be a good match? Davis wins the first of four sessions without losing a single frame, and then leads 8-0. It's the first to 18. He misses a green ball, and Taylor goes on a rampage, gets the score back to 13-11 after the third session, but then trails 17-15. Game over? No. Taylor wins the next two and it's a deciding frame. There are 46 legal pots on the table, but it comes down to the very last one. It's all on the final black ball. Both men have a go, and Davis is left with an easy-ish pot. The whole country groans. He misses, and Taylor pots to win his only world championship. 18.5 million people look at their watches, it's 1a.m and you've got work in the morning.

The main article, the 1985 World Snooker Championship passed through to FA last year. This is the only individual snooker match that we have an article on, although I'd say there's probably three or four more that are notable. This one is in a league of it's own, due to holding the record audience past midnight in the UK, and of any show on BBC Two. The match is often credited with the snooker boom of the 1980s and early 1990s. I hope you enjoy the read, and let me know if there is anything I've missed. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 18:17, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Source review by Ealdgyth[edit]

Comments from BennyOnTheLoose[edit]

I may claim points for this review in the WikiCup, if I consider it a substantial enough review.

  • Not all infobox info is cited, e.g. ages.
  • There are a few duplicate links. (Terry Griffiths, pink ball, black ball, David Vine)
  • Background: "The World Snooker Championship is a professional tournament and the official world championship of the game of snooker." How about a reword to show it is the official world championship of professional snooker? (The IBSF World Snooker Championship is also official.)
    • very good point. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 14:25, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
      • I'm happy with the revised wording as per the discussion in Gog's review below. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 17:41, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Background: "final was the culmination of the final" - repetition of "final"
  • "equivalent to £142,666 in 2016" Why select 2016, and what is the source for £142,666?
  • "The match was broadcast on the BBC for the eighth year in a row" - I don't think match is the right word here.
  • The final frame: "the best in the world this year." - not sure if the italicisation is justified.
  • Legacy: "reoccoring" - either recurring or reoccurring. I'm not sure which.
More to follow. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 01:39, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Lead: "Taylor trailed until he tied the match at 17–17." - they were tied earlier too (at 11-11 and 15-15, I think). Maybe reword, e.g. to say that Taylor was never ahead until winning the final frame?
  • Lead: "was contested over several shots on the final ball" - reads as if it was only over several shots on the final ball to me.
  • Lead: "after midnight on 28 April" - I think midnight is usually considered part of the new day, so suggest either reword or omit "on 28 April".
  • Lead: "The match was later released in full" - as the release was in 2006 and the previous sentence refers to a 2010 programme, maybe omit "later"? Reviews of the video say that it is about the final frame, not that it is the full final, so is there a source that states otherwise?
    • Removed Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 16:24, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
      • Reviews of the video say that it is about the final frame, not that it is the full final. Is there a source that states otherwise? Lead still says "The match was released in full". BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 13:53, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Lead: "reoccouring" - either recurring or reoccurring. I'm not sure which.
  • "world number one" - currently linked at second instance.
  • "world number one" and "defending champion" repeated in consecutive sections. Maybe amend the first to mention that he was the top seed as defending champion?
  • Road to the final: "Davis played David Taylor in the second round, but held a three frame lead..." - "but" doesn't seem to fit.
  • Road to the final: "a three frame lead throughout much of the match" - "throughout much of the match" doesn't seem to fit. (Unless at least a three frame lead ?)
    • Changed. You can't say throughout the match, as obviously you can't start 3 frames up. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 16:35, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Road to the final: four of five consecutive sentences start with "Davis..."; two consecutive sentences start with "Taylor played.." and four, including these, with "Taylor..." Maybe reword.
  • Match report: text has "Taylor started the 1985 final with a break of over 50" but match statistics section shows a break of exactly 50 in the first frame.
  • Match report: "after Davis attempted, and missed, a fine cut on the green ball" - I'm not seeing the support for this in the espn source cited.
  • Match report:" Appearing tired and unfocused" - I'm not seeing the support for this in the sources cited.
  • Match report: "Davis appeared the more nervous of the two players and was beginning to make unforced errors" - I'm not seeing the support for this in the espn source cited.
Possibly more to follow. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:39, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for taking a look at this for me BennyOnTheLoose, I've made necessary adjustments. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 16:35, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Support from Gog the Mild[edit]

Recusing to review.

  • "and reason for the surge in the sport's popularity". 'the'?
That's me being over succinct. I think you need 'the' before "reason".
Oh, haha I was very confused by this. Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 17:36, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "is a professional tournament and the official world championship of the game of professional snooker". Is the second "professional" necessary?
    • See Benny's comments. Potential to remove the first professional. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 18:33, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
I much prefer your original wording. Do Benny and I need to step into the car park to have a full and frank review of the nuances of this?
        • There's only one way to find out, fight! I'm happy with whatever version you guys work out. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 17:36, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
          • I'm actually not too hung up on this. The IBSF World Snooker Championship is generally regarded as the world championship for amateurs, but some professionals have been allowed to compete. Also, some amateurs are now allowed into the World Snooker Championship (WSC) by invitation (or by winning specified qualifying tournaments). I think in 1985 it was only members of the WPBSA that could enter the WSC, and really the distinction was between members and non-members rather than amateur and professional - top amateurs earnt more than most professionals. I've looked in the past for a source that says the WSC is the official world championship of snooker and not found one. (Whose authority would it be on, anyway? The World Confederation of Billiards Sports recognised both last time I looked.) I'm not sure what we do in other sports; if calling this the official world championship is within policy then I have no issues. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 19:45, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
I was concerned about the double use of "professional", but that's not a huge deal. Fairly obviously, it can't be described as "official" unless that is solidly supported. At the moment it seems to be sourced to a 1927 newspaper article. Lee, anywhere else supporting "official"? Or less than 94 years old? Gog the Mild (talk) 20:47, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
I suppose not. It's sort of a thing people just know to be true. I've changed to The World Snooker Championship is a professional snooker tournament first held in 1927 and held annually since 1969. which I've sourced. Hows that? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 14:36, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
That works for me. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:55, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "a pre-tournament qualification bracket". Is there a more widely-understood word than "bracket"?
    • Sometimes we use "qualification stage", but there was more than one. I don't want to reuse "tournament" Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 18:33, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
"bracket" is horrible. Almost anything would be better IMO. Not a show stopper, but coming to this cold it was about the one thing which really jarred.
        • I've changed to "competition", which isn't exactly perfect, but I agree better. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 17:36, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "Matches at the event were played as over a series of frames". Has the grammar slipped, or is it supposed to read like that? ("as over")
  • "equivalent to £142,666 in 2016". Why 2016?
    • It's the {{inflation}} template - 2016 is the newest. Happy to remove, but '85 did have significantly different money. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 18:33, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Nope - it says 2019. Personally I always use the "current year" formulation.
        • Oh, ha! I was looking at UK-GDP! Fixed to current year. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 17:36, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "but held a three frame lead throughout much of the match at 6–3" I genuinely don't see what you are trying to say here.
Looks good. It occurs to me that "three frame" should be hyphenated.
  • "Road to the final", the Taylor parragraph: five sentences - one starts "Dennis Taylor", the next four with "Taylor". I know it's tricky, but is a bit of variety possible?
    • Yeah, Benny also mentioned this. I have changed. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 16:42, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "It was Taylor's second final, having previously lost to Terry Griffiths 16–24." Could we give the year?
  • "the middle of the baulk cushion". Maybe 'the middle of the baulk (bottom) cushion' or 'the middle of the baulk - bottom - cushion'?
    • I try very hard NOT to use top or bottom in describing cushions, as on the broadcast it has the baulk at the top of the screen, despite being a bottom cushion. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 18:33, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Good point. I hadn't noticed that.
        • It's a bugbear of me, probably because I watch too much snooker. It's done on commentary all the time "onto the bottom cushion at the top of your screen!"
  • Is the bottom left pocket really known as the "green corner pocket"? If so, it seems unnecessarily technical.
    • Yeah, green pocket is the one nearest the green! I can change if suitable. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 18:33, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
It's horribly technical. I know a little about the sport and I was looking at my hands and trying to visualise where I was standing. But if "top" and "bottom" are confusing I am stumped for better ideas.
Left and right is all about perspective too, which is why it's usually done by colour. I could just say "corner pocket", as which pocket it was doesn't really matter. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 17:36, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
If you are OK with that. IMO it would improve the article.
  • Davis, however, claimed that he was "the best in the world this year." - I started a different query and half way through realised that Davis was referring to Taylor. I think that the context of the quote in the article means that this is not clear.
    • I think I miswrote, it was Taylor who was speaking about himself. I'll change. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 18:33, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "Davis mentions how close he was to being able to pot a pink which he snookered himself on that changed the course of the match". Grammatically this is correct, but it takes a couple of read throughs to work out what is meant.
    • I've simplified this to explain why it's important. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 16:42, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Really good. It brought back some of the tension nicely. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:46, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the review Gog the Mild, I've replied to the above, let me know if it's suitable now. I sadly can't relate, the events here took place several years before I was born. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 16:42, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
A couple of relatively minor comments above. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:03, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for expanding. I've made some replies, it does read a bit better now. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 17:36, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Nice work. An optional comment on the green pocket issue above, I shall engage with Benny when they get back to us. But nothing to hold up my support. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:03, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Image review[edit]

Images appear to be freely licensed (t · c) buidhe 16:12, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

I assume that there are no PD images closer to 1985? Eg, the image of Davies 25 years after the event is not ideal. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:52, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
There is File:Steve Davis Warsaw 16.06.2007.jpg from 2007, but I thought it negligible. Nothing PD that I've found from even the same century sadly. If they exist on flickr or otherwise that's news to me... But please let me know if they do exist! Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 14:23, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
Fair enough. Shame. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:54, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
I couldn't agree with you more. With the current climate, not going to get any new current images either! Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 18:38, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Comments by Epicgenius[edit]

I will leave a few comments shortly. Right now I'll just leave my initial lead comments:

  • I found it somewhat strange that there are thumbnail images in the table of the lead section. It's not a big deal, but quite strange.
  • Davis was appearing in his fourth final, and it was Taylor's second. - I wonder if this may be rephrased because the sentence structure of these two clauses is inconsistent. E.g. "The event was Davis's fourth final and Taylor's second"
  • The climax in the early hours of Monday 29 April was viewed by 18.5 million people in the United Kingdom, which remains a record viewing figure for BBC2 - also as of 2020?
  • The match is often considered the most famous snooker match of all time, and the reason for the surge in the sport's popularity in the 1980s and 1990s despite there not being a single century break.
    • Is the phrase "often considered" applicable to both clauses of this sentence? I.e. "The match is often considered [...] the reason for the surge in the sport's popularity in the 1980s and 1990s".
    • Or does the phrase "often considered" refer merely to "the most famous snooker match of all time"? I.e. "The match is [...] the reason for the surge in the sport's popularity in the 1980s and 1990s". I ask this because I don't see anything about an 80s-90s surge in the text.
  • For those who are unfamiliar with snooker, is the lack of a century break uncommon?
  • It is the only "Crucible" final (i.e. World Snooker Championship final since 1977) not to feature a century break. (A source for this, up to and including 2019, is Chris Downer's Crucible Almanac, 2019 edition, p.187.) BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 14:10, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I see. In that case, it may be worth clarifying that this is rare. Epicgenius (talk) 17:00, 16 January 2021 (UTC)


  • The World Snooker Championship is a professional snooker tournament first held in 1927 and held annually since 1969. - "held" is repeated in close succession
  • The tournament featured a 32 participant - given that this would be an adjectival phrase, it should probably be "32-participant"
  • Steve Davis, ranked as the world number one - a comma is needed after "world number one"
  • He then played David Taylor in the second round holding at least three-frame lead throughout much of the match and eventually won 13–4, after winning seven frames out of eight - this may be a run-on sentence because of the lack of commas, and the comma that is there may not be necessary. I would rewrite this as, "He then played David Taylor in the second round, holding at least three-frame lead throughout much of the match, and eventually won 13–4 after winning seven frames out of eight".

More later. Epicgenius (talk) 16:41, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Prose and spot checks by ImaginesTigers[edit]

Instead of a prose review, I'll go through the article and do some copy-editing. After that's done, I'll spot-check about ten citations at random; any more than five major issues, and I'll do another five. I'm not anticipating any problems, given your prestigious pedigree! Might be tomorrow, but it might be Monday. Bear with. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 01:17, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

I've got access to most of the offline sources if there are any you would like me to have a look at. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 13:58, 17 January 2021 (UTC)


  • "best-of-35 frame match" hyphen should extend to -frame as it's that whole clause which is describing the match.
  • "was culminated" seems odd phrasing to me. I would either go for just "culminated" or "was concluded", but not "was culminated..."
  • "The final took ... with the final..." repetitive.
  • "finishing after midnight. The climax in the early hours " seems like you're saying the same thing twice?
  • " best-of-35-frames" needs consistency with hyphenation and plurals.
  • Do we need thumbnails inside that frame? Why not just put the caption text underneath?
    • Yeah, I've had a play, let me know what you think Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 14:37, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Any reason that R in World Ranking is capitalised in that table?
  • Unclear to me but is that hand-crafted lead table in accordance with MOS:DTT?
    • I've done a full makeover on the table, so hopefully it's better. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 14:37, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "at least three-frame lead " a three-frame lead?
  • "after leading 8–1 after " repetitive.
  • "an over nine hour second session" some hyphenation needed here!
  • "but won 16 of the next 19 frames" no need to repeat frames here.
  • Is the hand-crafted table in "Road to the final" compliant with MOS:DTT?
    • Tbh, I'd totally forgotten about both tables. I have reworked both of these to meet the MOS. The second one could do with some sort of line to seperate it down the middle, but otherwise looks better now. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 16:16, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "strong favourite" according to whom?
  • "Davis' " as I'm sure you know, MOS insists that use "Davis's" or seek to reword if it's awkward. Of course that's junk advice from MOS but dem's da rulez.
    • I did not know that. I don't know much about how this is supposed to work, hopefully Davis's does make sense. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 16:16, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
  • " won the event on three occasions" won the event in..."
  • "having previously" no need for "previously"
  • "followed by a 50+ break" just say what it was.
  • General: I know this is mainly about the "black ball" frame, you cover the preceding 34 frames in about 230 words, 7 words per frame doesn't feel like comprehensive coverage for a featured article.
    • I'm sorry, but pretty much every source I have talks about the main event so-to-speak. Contemporary sourcing pretty much mentions the scores, that Davis was 7-0 ahead after the first session, Taylor won well in the second session. BennyOnTheLoose might have some more info from contemporary sources, but I do remember it being pretty dry Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 16:16, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "62–44 in points," not sure "in points" is required here.
  • "along much of the length of the table" across the middle pocket?
    • I'm not sure I understand, the pot was from one end of the table to the other. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 16:16, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "potted" is used three times in two sentences, might be hard to find alt-words, but the repetition is jarring.
  • "With just the final ball to play" you literally just said "with only the black ball, worth seven points, remaining".
  • "ball to play, Taylor attempted to double the ball " plus this is repetitive use of "ball".
  • Do we have a gloss link for pocket?
  • Not seeing in the prose the date the final started.
  • "whilst" is archaic, I think we use "while".
  • "defeating Cliff Thorburn," no need for Cliff.
  • "The scores for the match is shown ..." are shown?
  • "brackets" parentheses.
  • "whilst" while.
  • The {{dagger}} has an alt-text parameter.
  • Not sure you need three things for winning a frame, i.e. a higher score, a bold text and a dagger. Besides, you use bold in situations where it isn't denoting a winning frame, like who is winning at the end of a session, highest break etc.
  • Is that hand-crafted finals score table MOS:DTT compliant?
  • From a purely visually aesthetic perspective, the different widths columns from frame to frame is quite ugly.
  • " often considered the most famous " by whom?
  • "final moments of the final" repetitive reuse of "final".
  • I'm sure Barry Hearn could be linked.
  • "called Steve Davis" any reason to reiterate his first name here?
  • "a press conference after the event.[9][16] The press conference " repetitive.
  • reoccurring -> recurring.
  • The "most viewed" records seem to be split across the first two paras of legacy, why not keep them together?
    • Actually, it's just the same info repeated, so I've removed Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 16:16, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "where Davis missed the a cut into the corner pocket, Davis stated" -> "where Davis missed the a cut into the corner pocket, he stated"
  • Did Taylor have anything to say on that retrospective show?
    • He did - mostly that was going to have a go at any shot that came up, but I'd have to get my video out to see what he actually said. I don't remember it being particularly quotable. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 16:16, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Ref 30: MOS:DASH.
  • Ref 25 vs Ref 35, Eurosport formatting.
    • They aren't the same on purpose. Eurosport UK is not the same as Eurosport. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 16:16, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Ref 7 publisher BBC Sport.
  • Ref 4 vs ref 8, Everton, Clive or Clive Everton? And he can be linked.
  • What's the strategy on linking publishers/websites/works? Can't work it out.
    • I dislike the links to the publisher/works, so I've removed Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 16:16, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Ref 3 vs ref 12 and ref 40, Snooker Scene formatting.
  • Ref 21 publisher BBC Sport.
  • Ref 22, if via the Times digital archive, where's the URL and where's the sub-only padlock?
  • Ref 23, if that's via ProQuest, where's the URL?
  • Ref 24 publisher BBC Sport.
  • Ref 26, 37: suddenly BBC Sport, but in italics? And ref 46 is BBC Sport...
  • Ref 27 doesn't link ESPN but ref 28 does?
  • Ref 29 should be pp. and using a dash per MOS.
  • Ext link, what is WST?

That's my first quick pass, hope it's helpful, cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 15:51, 17 January 2021 (UTC)


Nominator(s): ~ Elias Z. (talkallam) 12:28, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

This article is about an ancient ruler of the Phoenician city of Sidon. All what we know about Bodashtart is from ancient epigraphical remains that he left as dedication to ancient gods and goddesses … ~ Elias Z. (talkallam) 12:28, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Coord note I'll be recusing from this one, I handled the GAN. -- Ealdgyth (talk) 01:13, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Support by Iry-Hor I know this has already been raised many times over in other cases, but isn't this article simply too short to reach FA ?Iry-Hor (talk) 08:26, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

  • and reliable sources, and if so why/how ?
✓done. You're absolutely right. Eventhough the persons behind these sites are academics the websites themselves amount to blogs. ~ Elias Z. (talkallam) 07:50, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I noted there is an harv error with Elayi, Josette (15 May 2018). The History of Phoenicia. ISD LLC. p. 234. ISBN 978-1-937040-82-6. , which points to nothing in the article, note the anchor: Elayi2018.
✓ done. Sorry for that, fixed ~ Elias Z. (talkallam) 11:51, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Why is ref 6 not in the bibliography and only in the references ?
✓ done. I did not include websites there. I removed websites altogether. ~ Elias Z. (talkallam) 07:50, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
  • References are to be avoided in the lead, unless there are about a controversial statement likely to be challenged immediately by the reader (I think this is MOS).~ Elias Z. (talkallam) 11:51, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
✓ done. Correct, I removed redundant refs. Kept refs for those statements that required verification.~ Elias Z. (talkallam) 07:50, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "dubbed" could perhaps be changed with something more fitting ?
✓ done. can do without it too.
  • "credits for" is not correct because "credit" is the verb here, so it should be "credits with".
✓ done. ~ Elias Z. (talkallam) 07:50, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Several references are not complete or incorrectly formatted. For example, the language (when not English) should be specified as per MOS, publisher and location should be provided in all cases.
✓ done. all cited books have now complete parameters. ~ Elias Z. (talkallam) 07:50, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Bodashtart was a vassal of the Achaemenid king isn't it? If so then this is far from clear in the article, both in the lead and main text. If not, then why does it says so in the navbox at the bottom of the article (Rulers in the Achaemenid Empire) ?
✓ done. Indeed he was, I added this information. His reign could have spanned under two Persian kings. It is verrry difficult to pinpoint the regnal years and Josette Elayi was the one to tackle this gap and provide an updated chronology based on numismatic evidence coupled with other archaeological and extant literary and epigraphic sources. The chronology is on pages 22 and 31. ~ Elias Z. (talkallam) 07:50, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
  • If possible, could you provide translations of the inscriptions in the pictures ? Are they those given in the text ?
✓ done. One of them is fully translated (KAI16 mentioning Yatonmilk). The colored image is of CIS I 4, the one I explained in the body of the article that it was problematic to decipher. I will add some translations in the notes later. ~ Elias Z. (talkallam) 07:50, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Change all links to which is a commercial website and links aren't persistent. Instead provide JSTOR numbers whenever possible, e.g. for Zamora's paper.
✓ done. You're very right, sorry about that.~ Elias Z. (talkallam) 07:50, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I doubt the article comprehensiveness. Just a cursory JSTOR reserach returns 42 articles on Bodashtart but in the article the references are nowhere near that number. Is there really no new info on him in these papers ?
✓ done. no new epigraphic finds, no new coins, no new interpretations till date. I ran another review of the sources. Most of the articles include a cursory mention of the king or cite sources that are already used here. ~ Elias Z. (talkallam) 07:50, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Same remarks from Google Books. There are a lot more reliable sources out there, why not use them rather than online websites ? Iry-Hor (talk) 08:42, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
✓ Done; I reviewed the google books sources. ~ Elias Z. (talkallam) 11:51, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for your thorough review @Iry-Hor:, I will fix the issues you pointed out. I am aware the article is short, I am sorry about that but this article summarizes everything we know about the subject, I will go over the JSTOR articles once more but nothing has been unearthed to add to the body of knowledge. Also please note that there are quite a lot of short FA-status articles; if this one does not cut it please let me know. 🙏 08:52, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi @Iry-Hor: can you please recheck? I think I got everything covered. ~ Elias Z. (talkallam) 13:40, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
Elias ZiadeThanks I think you covered it all convincingly. I will try to look around for more Bodarshtart and if I can't find anything not in the article, I will support, leaving the question of length in the hands of consensus. P.S: I don't receive notifications when you write { { Reply to| instead write { { u| and then the user wikiname (and without the space between the { and the u).Iry-Hor (talk) 16:41, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
EDIT : the lead needs a bit of improvement : as per MOS it must summarize all sections of the article. At the moment the main section of the article is represented by a single sentence of the lead about how he is known from epigraphic sources. Please expand a bit. In addition, the lead can include more useful info such as the identity of successor and predecessor etc. This will also contribute to making the article less short.Iry-Hor (talk) 16:50, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
Iry-Hor I think I got it covered. Thank you for your patience. ~ Elias Z. (talkallam) 12:46, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, the lead is now much better and the article slightly longer in consequence. Furthermore I could not find anything significant that wasn't already in the article so I now believe this to be a thorough rendering of what is known about Bodashtart. I thus support this nomination !Iry-Hor (talk) 13:23, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Image review[edit]

Images are freely licensed (t · c) buidhe 16:11, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Comments by A. Parrot[edit]

The main thing that seems to be missing from such a short article is context. There may not be much to say about Bodashtart specifically, but the article should say more about the political context in which he lived, especially because there's no parent article about Phoenicia in the Persian period, just a section in a larger article (History of Phoenicia#Persian period (539–332 BC)). When the article was nominated, it didn't mention that Bodashtart was a vassal of the Achaemenid Empire. Now it does, but only in the lead, and no other details are given. According to the History of Phoenicia article, Sidon was one of four kingdoms into which the Phoenician portion of the empire was divided; is that accurate? Do you have any more information about it? I know information about that may be sparse, too, but I think you'll need to scrape together whatever information you can find. A. Parrot (talk) 03:57, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Excellent suggestion A. Parrot I'll get to it. ~ Elias Z. (talkallam) 06:28, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
A. Parrot Please take a look now. ~ Elias Z. (talkallam) 14:22, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
Elie plus: It's a definite improvement. I think the paragraph about the interaction with Assyria goes into a bit too much detail, considering that those events were a century and a half before Bodashtart's own time, but given that these events were the prelude to the rise of Eshmunazar's dynasty, I think only slight trimming is needed there. A. Parrot (talk)

Other points:

  • The footnotes should probably go after the numbered citations rather than before them. (I also prefer to label those notes as "Note 1", etc., rather than with letters. It's a personal preference, but the eyes of experienced Wikipedia readers slide over normal citations because they're so ubiquitous, and I think it's a good idea to make footnotes as distinct from citations as possible.) A. Parrot (talk) 19:37, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
✓ done ~ Elias Z. (talkallam) 12:23, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
  • The second paragraph of the lead section needs some splitting of sentences and reworking of punctuation. I suggest putting it this way: The first of Bodashtart's inscriptions, honoring the goddess Astarte, was excavated in Sidon in 1858 and donated to the Louvre. The temple of Eshmun podium inscriptions were discovered between 1900 and 1922 and are classified into two groups. The inscriptions of the first group, known as KAI 15, commemorate building activities in the temple and attribute the works to Bodashtart. A. Parrot (talk) 19:37, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
✓ done ~ Elias Z. (talkallam) 12:23, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
  • If Yatonmilk is called "Prince Yatonmilk", the title should be capitalized, but I think "prince" can just be removed. A. Parrot (talk) 19:37, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
✓ done ~ Elias Z. (talkallam) 12:23, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
  • The last paragraph of the lead is pretty basic information for a monarch, and the name of his predecessor and the length of his reign might instead go at the beginning. The article has already established that Yatonmilk was Bodashtart's proclaimed heir, but if you want to say Yatonmilk succeeded Bodashtart, or that scholars assume that he did so without actually being certain, please specify that. A. Parrot (talk) 19:37, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
✓ I moved the succession part up; the bit of info about Yatonmilk actually ruling or not is cursory. I prefer to elaborate on that in the body and keep it off the lead. Please tell me if this is okay.~ Elias Z. (talkallam) 12:23, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Why was Bodashtart's reign originally dated to the fifth century? What is it about the evidence that caused scholars to reassess that dating? A. Parrot (talk) 19:37, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
There was, understandably, a lot of confusion in attempting to bracket the reign of Phoenician kings. Dunand for example wrongfully surmised that there were two Bodashtarts. It is only by taking into account the wealth of numismatic evidence left by sidoniam mints under the Achaeminids, historical accounts and archaeological finds that scholars were able to piece together an approximative timeline. Previous dates were based on the epigraphic sources solely, by comparing linguistic trends and the way the Phoenician script evolved (the style of the letters). Expanding on this will mislead the readers, I'd rather not include previous conjectures that are not as well researched as Elayi's. Elayi's work in 2006 is generally considered a keystone of the study of Phoenicia under the Persians.~ Elias Z. (talkallam) 12:23, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "…associate him with the reign of his father" is vague. A. Parrot (talk) 19:37, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
✓ done, indeed it is superfluous and unnecessary. What is meant is that he may have been a co-regent since he is mentioned in the inscriptions. ~ Elias Z. (talkallam) 12:23, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
A. Parrot your input is invaluable; I am much happier with the article. Please let me know how to proceed.~ Elias Z. (talkallam) 12:23, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Charles Green (Australian soldier)[edit]

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:04, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Green was the youngest Australian Army battalion commander during WWII, leading the 2/11th Battalion in the Aitape-Wewak campaign of 1945 after previous service in the Middle East and Greece. He is also the only commanding officer of a battalion of the post-WWII Royal Australian Regiment to have been killed on active service (in Korea). The foundations of this article were laid by retired Milhist coord AnotherClown some years ago, but I was prompted by the recent 70th anniversary of Green's death to bring it up to GA then Milhist ACR. Have at it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:04, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Image review[edit]

  • Some of the images are missing alt text
Added. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:01, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
  • File:Coad_and_Green.jpg needs publication info and a US tag
Must have missed that one, actually PD-AustraliaGov. Swapped. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:01, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
  • File:Green_prior_to_the_capture_of_Pakchon_Oct_1950.PNG: does the source provide any more detail on provenance? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:43, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
G'day Nikkimaria, thanks for taking a look. See above. Presumably an official photographer accompanying the US officer in the photo, but I don't have a copy of Bartlett, Norman, ed. (1960). With the Australians in Korea (3rd ed.) to hand to check the page number and caption. Just pinging some likely holders of a copy, @Hawkeye7, Nick-D, AustralianRupert, and Ian Rose:. Otherwise I'll have to pop down to the uni library and take another look. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:01, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
I'm afraid that I don't have a copy. Nick-D (talk) 04:14, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
G'day, PM, unfortunately, I am away from home for a bit so I don't have access to my books at the moment -- I will see if I can get my wife to check, though, or I might be able to get in touch with AC who uploaded it. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:26, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
Bartlett cites it specifically as a "U.S. Army photograph" on the image plates between pages 14 and 15 in the source book. I have added this to the description page now. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:02, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
Thanks very much, AustralianRupert, and whoever provided that info! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:24, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Support from Gog the Mild[edit]

Recusing to review. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:01, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

  • "from the battalion main body". Marginally clunky. 'from the main body of the battalion'?
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:42, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "Green took over command of the 2/11th Battalion in New Guinea which he commanded for several months". Possibly tweak the phrasing?
Hopefully better now? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:42, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "so the battalion did not see action until mid-April. Green and the rest of the 2/2nd Battalion saw action". "... see action ... saw action ..." Optional: a synonym for one?
changed to "did not fight". Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:42, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "a hazardous journey through the Aegean Islands, through Turkey". "through ... through".
varied. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:42, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "Green himself reached the island of Euboea in the Aegean on 7 May, where he met several other members of the battalion, then to the island of Skyro". "then to the island of Skyro" isn't a grammatical fit. Maybe 'who then travelled together to the island of Skyro' or similar?
Yes, fixed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:42, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
  • a "sensitive account". The MoS says of quotations "[t]he source must be named in article text if the quotation is an opinion" (emphasis in original).
As Barter doesn't have an article, I've just ascribed this to his entry in the ADB. Does that work? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:42, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "they were willing to follow him anywhere". Optional: I don't doubt it, but it comes across a bit cliched, even trite.
Substituted a quote from the ADB, which gives me my first opportunity to insert the Australian term "fair dinkum" into an article. Does that work? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:42, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Excellent! Or even dinkum.
  • "at the age of only 25 he was the youngest Australian battalion commander during the war". Why is this part of a sentence about his promotion, rather than his taking command of the battalion.
Yes, out of place. Moved. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:42, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "killed three Japanese that stumbled into their perimeter". "that" → 'who'.
Fixed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:42, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "it was only 552 strong". Maybe give the full and/or original strength? As you do for riflemen.
Dug the figure out of the war diary. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:08, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "were constantly interdicted by the Japanese early on". I realise that you are just summarising the citation, but constant interdiction and interdiction early on seem to be different things.
Reworded. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:03, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "Green was chosen and left Australia for Japan on 8 September,[1] and took over command of 3 RAR on 12 September." I don't think that you can have "and" twice here.
split sentence. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:03, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "only two weeks further training in Japan". Training for Green or training for 3RAR?
the battalion, added. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:03, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "and over that and the following day". "over" → 'during'.
done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:03, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "After mopping up, 3 RAR had suffered seven wounded". That's not grammatical.
reworded. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:03, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "its first fatal casualties of the war". Optional: "fatal casualties" → 'fatalities'.
done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:03, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "on a thickly-wooded ridgeline around the town". It's not impossible, but it is unusual for a ridgeline to be around a town.
fixed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:03, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "following artillery preparation" is verging on jargon, and a little euphemistic. Maybe just 'an artillery bombardment'?
done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:03, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "and despite heavy fire" → 'and despite heavy enemy fire'.
added. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:03, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "following preparatory fire". → 'following preparatory artillery fire. (I assume that was the case?)
yes, done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:03, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "nine killed and 30 wounded". "nine" → '9'.
done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:03, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "cast a pall of gloom over his battalion". Needs in line attribution, see above.
done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:03, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
  • had been "exemplary". And again.
done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:03, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Note a: why the "probably"? Australian War Memorial unequivocally states that he was.
I don't know why Barter says "probably", she is in the minority, so that's why I have stated that he was in the body and included her minority view in the note. Annoyingly, when it ran at DYK, someone insisted on Barter's wording rather than what is the consensus position. I've also changed the mentions of the ADB to Barter. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:03, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Class! (I had only previously come across mention of Green and 3RAR in the autobiography of David Wilson, CO commanding a company of 1ASHR which was also in 27th Brigade. It was a pleasure to read a full account of his career.) Gog the Mild (talk) 19:14, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Gog, all done I reckon. See what you think? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:03, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
I think that even by your standards this is a top article. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:36, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Comments by JennyOz[edit]

Placeholder, just a note to say I hope to review this in next day or so. JennyOz (talk) 15:53, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • The lead says he died the day after being wounded, the text says two days - which is correct?
  • "his career remains an inspiration to serving Australian soldiers" - text supports that this was the case as of 1996, but that was quite a while ago now. Anything more recent to say this is still true?
  • Out in the Cold does have a date that could be included
  • FN70: is there any other source confirming this detail? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:19, 17 January 2021 (UTC)


Nominator(s): Vanamonde (Talk) 22:19, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

This article is about a 1978 science fiction novel that is likely Vonda McIntyre's best-known work. I have spent some time on it, and it recently was given a thorough GA review by Mike Christie, so I think it's in decent shape. All comments are welcome. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:19, 9 January 2021 (UTC)


Image review

  • Don't use fixed px size
    Predated my involvement, but should have caught it; removed. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:24, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Is the cover artist known? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:37, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
    Yes, Stephen Alexander, mentioned in the text; do I need to mention him elsewhere? Vanamonde (Talk) 19:24, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
    Should be included in the media information on the image description page for the cover image. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:38, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
    Now added. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:55, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Source review[edit]

Spotchecks not done

  • Suggest elaborating on note B - I'm assuming that for some reason non-paperbacks are ineligible but would suggest explaining this
    It's not that non-paperbacks were ineligible, but that a book released in both formats in different years got two shots at the award, so to speak. I have tried to clarify. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:24, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
  • FN4: I'm assuming based on what this is citing that Le Guin was the author here?
    Yes, but it's just a quotation, similar to the blurbs on the back of books (indeed, this one also appears on the back of the book); not an article; do you want me to list Le Guin as the author?
    No, but what kind of source is this? Is it a republication of the blurb? A review? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:38, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
    Republication of the blurb. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:55, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
    Suggest either making that clear in the citation, or just citing the blurb directly. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:03, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
    Not to be difficult, but how would I do that differently? It's on a page of the magazine, or the back cover of the book; what else do you add? Vanamonde (Talk) 20:21, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
    You can either just add a note at the end of the citation, or be more formal and include a double citation (cf). Nikkimaria (talk) 23:39, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
    Added a note. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:01, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
  • FN6 is oddly formatted, and what makes this a high-quality reliable source? Vanamonde (Talk) 19:24, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
    To be honest, I'm not sure it is; the author is a dedicated speculative fiction bibliographer, but has no credentials beyond that. I had added it to bolster the isfdb source on a specific detail that nobody else covers, but it's not strictly necessary, so removed. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:24, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Encyclopedia of Science Fiction entries for the most part do have credited authors that should be included in citations
    I am aware of this, but unless I'm missing something, that's not the case for the two entries cited here. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:24, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
    Seems to be - initials listed at the end of the entry body, right above See also. Nikkimaria (talk)
    Apologies for missing this, now added. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:55, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
  • What makes io9 a high-quality reliable source?
    It's run by Gawker media, which isn't a weighty enough source for its own views to be given much space, but has enough oversight that I believe we can assume it's reporting McIntyre's interview accurately. It's only used for her statement about the internal chronology, which is attributed to her. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:24, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
    Gawker is listed as generally unreliable at WP:RSP. Is there an editorial policy or other document outlining the oversight provided? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:38, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
    Gawker, the blog, is listed at RSP as unreliable. Gawker, the parent media company, is not. However, turns out that's irrelevant; io9 and other sites were bought by G/O Media in 2019; G/O media has an editorial policy, here. io9 has its own editors, listed here. @Nikkimaria: is that sufficient? If not, I'll remove it, and the one sentence it's used for. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:55, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
    Since the source cited predates that acquisition, I'd like to see the Gawker equivalent, if there was one. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:03, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
    @Nikkimaria: Not sure there was one. I dug a fair bit on the internet archive, but no go. There's several references to an editorial policy in legal disputes beginning in 2015, but none from 2013. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:21, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
    Would suggest omitting in that case. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:39, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
    Omitted. Can't argue too much with that, I suppose. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:01, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Don't mix {{citation}} with {{cite}}-family templates
    Removed one instance of "citation" Vanamonde (Talk) 19:24, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
  • How are you deciding which works end up in Sources and which don't?
    Necessity, usually. I have been told sfn citations are somewhat harder to follow, because you need two clicks to go to the source, and can't go back up easily; but <ref></ref> are harder to use multiple page-ranges with...I assume by your question that you'd prefer something more consistent, so I have now moved all books and journal articles to "sources"; newspapers and web sources remain in "references". Vanamonde (Talk) 19:24, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
  • FN66 is missing page number. Ditto FN67, check for others
    There were a few others, apologies; fixed all now, I believe. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:24, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
  • FN73: SWFA is publisher not work
    Fixed. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:24, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
  • FN76 is a dead link
    Broken since I used it; added archive url. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:24, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
  • FN85 date doesn't match source. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:37, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
    Typo, fixed. @Nikkimaria: Thank you; I've responded; couple of questions for you. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:24, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
    @Nikkimaria:, I think that's everything. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:01, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Support from Gog the Mild[edit]

Recusing to review. The last time I reviewed one of your articles I ended up rereading half of LeGuin's oeuvre. I have just pulled McIntyre's first two novels off the shelf. I had forgotten I had them!

  • "winning the 1979 Hugo Award, the 1978 Nebula Award, and the 1979 Locus Poll Award". Is there a reason these are not in chronological order? As is done in the main article.
    Oversight...fixed. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:19, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "While her cobra Mist manufactures an antidote in her venom glands". Antidote seems an odd word to describe a tumour treatment. From memory it is not used in the book.
    Well, it's the content of Mist's venom sacs. McIntyre doesn't say antidote, but then she dances around it. I'm using "antidote" broadly; I could say "cure", I suppose, would that help? Vanamonde (Talk) 23:19, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
That would work. Or treatment, remedy, drug, curative, solution. To me, an antidote is used against a poison. I suppose that a tumour could be considered a poison, but it seems a stretch.
  • "and she escapes with a bag of dreamsnakes while North's henchmen are in venom-induced comas. She finds Melissa similarly comatose, and escapes with her." "and she escapes ... and escapes". Is it possible to avoid the repetition? And the implication that she escapes twice.
    I've rephrased; better? Vanamonde (Talk) 23:19, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
Looks good to me.
  • "modern-day physicians use a Caduceus, or staff with intertwining snakes, as an emblem." 1. Why the upper case C? 2. Does this, or any other sources discuss the ancient associations of the caduceus, or snakes more generally?
    Fixed the capital C, a copy-paste error. The source does discuss the meaning of the caduceus, and specifically its implication that its bearer is a messenger of the gods. It's a little removed from the analysis of Snake, so I was hesitant to use it, but I've added a little now. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:19, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "Snakes have a number of other symbolic meanings". It would be nice to have a summary of them without having to click through the link, especially any relevant to the book.
    This is also a little tricky...I've added a fragment, which hopefully helps; but he's devoted much of that section to discussing how widely depictions of snakes vary, and it's hard to pull a short summary from that. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:19, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Consider putting the text on Centre in a separate paragraph.
    In "Themes"? Unless you feel strongly, I'd rather not. The implication is that though the city is named "center", it is at the margin; and this is the sort of linguistic play and symbolism discussed in the rest of the paragraph...
I would still prefer a separate paragraph, but I certainly don't feel strongly about it. So look as you have a coherent reason.
  • Link gigantism.
    Done. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:19, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
  • As the lead gives the years of the various awards, the main article should too.
    Added. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:19, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
  • An aside: interesting pick of three female authors.
    Always hard to pick from a list, but I've tried to name those who are also mentioned in the same breath by other sources too...Vanamonde (Talk) 23:19, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
Well, the one who was thought male until 1977 jumps out. And what about Russ? But this is well off topic.
  • "use of language explored in Dreamsnake also attracted comment. Scholar Diane Wood also praised McIntyre's writing" "... also ... also ..."
    Reworded and trimmed slightly; better? Vanamonde (Talk) 23:19, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "Reception": I am unhappy that there is a section for positive comments; then one which starts with less positive ones but ends with two positive comments. It seems a bit PoV to me.
    Hmm. I've tried not to sort the comments by whether they are positive, but by their content; the reception section (in theory) has a paragraph on recognition; a paragraph on prose; a paragraph on themes/symbology/characterization; and a paragraph on structure/plot/comparison to the short story. So I don't think I want to move material elsewhere, but if the ordering conveys POV (it isn't meant to) I'd be happy to reorder comments; Card, for instance, could go at the end; it's not a negative comment, but it's not terribly flattering either. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:19, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
I don't want to push too hard, I was just flagging up my first impression. If you can jiggle it around a bit without wrecking your thematic order that would be good.
Reorderered slightly. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:00, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

A superb job. A very solid piece of writing. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:06, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, Gog the Mild. Some responses for you to consider. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:19, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
Notwithstanding my minor rejoinders above I see no reason to delay my support. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:36, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
Thank you, much appreciated. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:00, 11 January 2021 (UTC)


Source review by Ealdgyth

  • What makes the following high quality reliable sources?
    • - note per this is a freely editable database. This is like a big no-no to use. Normally I don't get too fussed about one or two more marginable "high quality" sources, but we should not be using a crowd-sourced source.
      Pardon me for jumping on this one; I’ve tried to get an opinion on the ISFDB a couple of times at RSN. See here for example. If consensus is against using it, I can deal with that, but I feel it’s OK for purely bibliographic information. I wouldn’t use it for e.g. dates of birth of authors. To me the main argument in its favour is that SFE3 treats it as a reliable source: it says "The more specialist Internet Speculative Fiction Database is incomparable for its cataloguing of books and stories published", and includes thousands of links to it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:02, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
      On this one, I'm going to go a hard "no" for an FA. It MIGHT be allowable for a regular article but no way it meets the high quality threshhold. And this is the sort of basic bibliographic detail that should be findable elsewhere in better sources. Sorry, but no. Ealdgyth (talk) 01:08, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
      OK, fair enough. I'll stop using it in my own articles and will have to go back and start looking for alternatives for some of my existing FAs. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:52, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
      Vanamonde, I searched for an alternative source for the fact that the book is a fixup of the three stories, and couldn't find one; I did manage to dig up my copy of Foundation 16, which has Brian Stableford's review. Let me know if you want me to email you a scan. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 04:12, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
      @Mike Christie: The Stableford review has been digitized, so I have it; thank you though! I tried quite hard to find a source for the three stories that wasn't isfdb. The only options I can come up with are a) citing Phil Stephensen-Payne, whose website documents that the three stories were incorporated into Dreamsnake (the term "fixup" is covered by SFE), and b) omitting this fact. Ealdgyth would you accept as a source? It's an SPS, but it is run by this man, who is a dedicated bibliographer and is recognized as such. Otherwise, I'm feeling a bit of a Catch-22; the detail is obscure enough that only the aficionados make any mention of it; but because it's known, omitting seems not to be an option. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:36, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
      Stephensen-Payne has editorial control over that site and is a highly respected bibliographer, so I think his site is reliable. SFE3 has an entry on him and describes his website as "a particularly valuable resource". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:13, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
      @Mike Christie: thanks; I'll wait to see what Ealdgyth has to say; if she deems the source insufficient, though, do you think that's a problem for comprehensiveness? Also, when you have a moment, I'd appreciate your own review, if that's alright to ask. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:25, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
      Not a problem; I'll definitely be reviewing; just been a bit busy. If she says no, two other options are possible: does the book give the copyright attribution to the 1978 stories? And do you have the magazines with the stories in? A direct comparison of the text might be evidence. As opposed to a fixup, do you think it's possible that she wrote the novel knowing she could sell excerpts as additional stories before the release of the novel? The late timing makes me think that's possible. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:32, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
      Thanks, I look forward to the review. As to the rest; I think a comparison of the text is viable, I think I was worried it was verging on OR. I don't have the magazines, but I could get them, I suppose. The book does not provide copyright attribution that is sufficient for this detail; it just says "a portion of this book appeared in..." I've worried over the timing for some time; I think it's more than likely it's not a true fixup, in that she probably wrote the novel, and then published excerpts. However, they were published, and the term is used, so omitting altogether seems iffy; and nobody that I have seem comments on it at all. No reviews of the story that I can find, and no reviews of the book mention the stories. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:41, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
      I'm going to say that doing a comparison ourselves is probably verging into OR territory. To be honest, I think the most we can say is what is given on the copyright page - that portions appeared elsewhere. I think without the author specifically giving more detail, it's probably speculation by the various sites/people on why/what happened - that the stories were folded into the novel or that the novel had parts excerpted. Sometimes we're just not going to know everything, and that's okay. Ealdgyth (talk) 01:21, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
      @Ealdgyth: Not to be a pain, but I wanted to make sure you'd seen the question about The reason I ask: Of Mist, and Grass, and Sand was also published in Analog, and was definitely not an excerpt; so the novel's copyright statement doesn't necessarily say anything about the other two; and without that the statement about it being a fixup is meaningless. I can omit it all, but if the bibliography is okay, I don't see why we shouldn't use it. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:21, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
      no need to ping... I watchlist reviews until I say I'm finished or it is promoted/archived. I could deal with as marginally high quality ... as long as its the only source that way.. which if we remove the isfdb it should be. Sorry for the delay, we were late getting in last night and I took some time to think it over. Ealdgyth (talk) 11:27, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
      No worries about the delay; and I'll keep your preferences about pinging in mind. I have replaced the isfdb source, and reworded it to make the text as agnostic as possible with respect to the fixup vs excerpts issue, without wandering into OR. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:19, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
      It is a cooperative publisher, owned and run by the authors it publishes, listed here. As such I think it's as reliable for uncontroversial content. Given the standard we're trying to apply here, though, I've found an alternative, now added; blurb at the head of a McIntyre story in an edited anthology. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:36, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Note that I did not do spot checks or check for formatting, etc. Just reliablity.
  • Note also that I will claim this review for points in the Wikicup.
  • Ealdgyth (talk) 00:41, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Mike Christie[edit]

Support. I went through this at GAN with a eye to FAC, and as a result have little to add here. I just have one comment: you mention "Grum" without explanation in the "Characterization" section. I would either position them in the plot at that point, or add a mention of them to the "Plot" section. Other than that nit the article is in very good shape. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:19, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Mike; your GA review was exceptionally helpful. I have mentioned Grum in the synopsis (she was mentioned before, but not by name). Vanamonde (Talk) 16:21, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

League of Legends[edit]

Nominator(s): — ImaginesTigers (talk) 21:21, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

With millions of daily players, League of Legends is one of the world's biggest games. As I think is often the case, I began editing primarily to fix two articles; one of those was League, and it’s come a long way since then. The game can be complicated, but my hope is that it is digestible for readers and editors who have never played it. The developer, Riot Games, has been busy, releasing two spin-offs since 2019 (with a third, a single-player RPG, scheduled for this year). I want the article to be the best that it can be for anyone wondering: what the f$%k is League of Legends? Although popular, the game also has a famously negative player base, and Riot has attempted to tackle that (with mixed results). This is my first FA nomination, so I have a few people to thank for their advice, encouragement, and helping me to become a (semi-)competent editor. Several of them are not FA reviewers, but I want to thank them here anyway.

Lee Vilenski, for never being frustrated with questions; Eddie891, for his relentless kindness; ferret, for being a bit of a mentor; PMC, for keeping me up when I really should have been asleep; Le Panini for his general can-do attitude; Izno, for fixing that blasted table; SandyGeorgia, for telling me not to be afraid of FAC; Blablubbs, for keeping me hydrated; and finally PresN, for reference assistance.

Also thank you to everyone who participated in the Peer Review. In order: Alexandra, Aza24, David Fuchs, and Spicy. Thanks for reading it (especially if you'd never played). I'm looking forward to the feedback.
ImaginesTigers (talk) 21:21, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Coordinator note - source review and spot checks[edit]

Greetings ImaginesTigers and welcome. That sounds interesting. If time permits I shall review it myself. I would like to flag up that as a first-time FAC nominator this article will require a spot check of its citations as well as the usual source review. This is usual, and in nominations after your first successful one this is likely to be less rigorous, or taken on faith. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:04, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

No problem, Gog! I've seen that on a few other first-time noms while researching, so thankfully not a total shock; still a little scary, though. Let's see if I've been up to the task! — ImaginesTigers (talk) 22:06, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
@WP:FAC coordinators: Hi there! Is there something in particular you're looking for wrt this nomination? I'd be happy to try and call in some favours to expedite the process, if so. If you're just looking for more general feedback, I will just wait :) Sorry to bother you! (A lot of the feedback has been moved to the Talk page, if you're wondering why it’s so short!) — ImaginesTigers (talk) 14:57, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Spotchecks from eddie[edit]

  • Waiting for spotchecks can be a pain, so I'll knock those out. Not intending to review for source formatting or reliability. Eddie891 Talk Work 22:45, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Appreciate it, Eddie! — ImaginesTigers (talk) 00:24, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Hatted comments from Eddie moved to talk page per his request there. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:13, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Wooohooo! Thanks so much, Eddie. I love to hear it :) If you've any follow-ups from my comments, let me know :) — ImaginesTigers (talk) 22:29, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Comments Support from Le Panini[edit]

I was present at the peer review, but only extensively looked into the Reception section. I'm gonna look and give suggestions for the entire article this time around. Waiting for comments can be a pain, so I'll do this early on to keep you busy for... maybe a day. Le Panini [🥪] 00:16, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

A day? You monster—I'm a volunteer! (Just kidding; lookin' forward to it, Panini) — ImaginesTigers (talk) 00:24, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
Not in that since. And P.S., getting my username changed to simply "Panini". Le Panini [🥪] 01:27, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
"Drop the "the". Just Panini. It’s cleaner."
  • "Since its release on October 27, 2009..." Adding the full release date here is redundant, as its already stated in the infobox. This could be changed to "Since its release on October 27, 2009, the game has been..."
MoS/VG says release date should be included in the lead; I think that one of the reasons it’s good to have it there is, if you Google "When was League of Legends released?", it pulls from the lead for a concise answer, but I don't believe Google can pull from info-boxes.
I've looked into it, and searching up when Darius Gaiden came out, it pulls from the infobox. Namcokid47 removed this from PMTOK due to it being unnecessary, so I assume its regular practice.
If it’s regular practice, MOS/VG needs to be updated :p I'll abridge it to "October 2009" for now. That's what Batman: Arkham City and (more recently) BioShock 2: Minerva's Den both do. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 19:51, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
Good call. It looks like all video game article do this. Le Panini [🥪] 12:46, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Experience points is mentioned multiple times in the article. This can be abbreviated using (XP) at its first occurrence.
Thanks! Fixed.
  • The third paragraph is about esports, and the fourth is about reception. I think moving the esports paragraph to the end would make more sense.
Agreed. Thanks!
  • "A massively multiplayer online role-playing game based on League is in development." League of Legends is abbreviated to League here, but this is done no where else in the article. To me, this is off-putting.
You're right; fixed!
  • The simplified map's caption goes into a lot of detail. Some of the info here (such as "The fountains, where players appear at a game's beginning," is explained in the text, and doesn't really need to be specified. This can help shorten the caption a bit.
  • Ultra Rapid Fire is simplified with (URF), but is only used one other time. The other use can be changed to "In the mode,"
Good catch. Done.
  • "Players in a lane "farm"—killing minions to accumulate gold and XP—and try to prevent their opponent from doing the same." Remove the "and" here
  • "...the publishers were confused by the game's free-to-play business model and lack of a single-player model." "Model" is repeated twice here.
  • I think having the list of the original seventeen champions falls under the lines of WP:GAMECRUFT. It would be better if this specified there were seventeen, but not listing them out.
Yeaaaaah. WP:VG told me that the initial roster was pretty vital, but I'm inclined to agree tbh. Readers can look at the citations!
  • "making it one of the highest-grossing games of 2018 behind Fortnite and Dungeon Fighter Online." According to the Wikipedia list linked, it's also behind Arena of Valor.
The source I used doesn't mention AoV. Weirdly, My source is also used on the other page for LoL and Fortnite, but AoV comes from somewhere unless. I've had a look and I can't find much to say that the citation they use for AoV (Sensor Tower) is reliable or reputable. What do you think?
Simplest answer, find a source for it. Another solution, you can easily remove the "behind Fortnite and Dungeon Fighter Online." part if you can't find any sources, and just change the source to "As of August 2018, the game had an active user base of over 111 million players and an annual revenue of US$1.4 billion, making it one of the highest-grossing games of 2018."
I did this earlier, yeah. Seemed easier.
  • "..and contained no political themes." What does this mean? I don't think it's worth mentioning.
It’s basically an elaboration of what came before—there were no political/social themes in the story before. But I agree--the good vs evil bit does the job.
  • I see a lot of em dashes in this article. Is there something these do that a comma can't? Some could be worked out of the article for better reading purposes.
Can you point to any places where they're disruptive? I find that they distinguish parentheses much more neatly than commas do, and I think this might just be a case of style. If others say that the dashes are hurting readability, I'll purge 'em ^_^
But looking back, you used em dashes to respond back to me, so I'm assuming its just how you write. Unless if others have issues with it, I won't get nitpicky.
I love an em dash. I use them constantly in essays, too, but I don't think I ever mis-use them or damage clarity with them. We'll see what others say and circle back to this one.
Thanks for all the feedback so far, Panini. Means a lot. I really like getting feedback for some reason... — ImaginesTigers (talk) 11:42, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
Left some responses and other things I found. Le Panini [🥪] 17:15, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
Other people seem to be dealing with grammar and sources, so I'll lend my support on this one. Good work! Le Panini [🥪] 12:46, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Support from PMC[edit]

Hi Tigers! Glad to see you moving into FA. This is my first time commenting at FAC, so it's possible I'm being too picky for what's expected. I also don't necessarily expect you to make changes every time I point something out, I'm just noting what stands out to me as a reader. ♠PMC(talk) 07:05, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Ahhh thanks PMC! I'm sure your suggestions are great. Let's dive in!
Hatted content moved to talk page

I will probably get into some more for the rest of the article later, but that's it for now. ♠PMC(talk) 07:05, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks so much, PMC. Thanks for doing this. Really great suggestions—I've left a few questions for you above. Getting feedback from people who haven't played is so great. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 11:42, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
Good work on the changes, I'll probably get around to commenting on the rest of the article within the next couple days or so. ♠PMC(talk) 23:11, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
Second verse, same as the first[edit]

You should know that these comments are written without reviewing the rest of the FAC and may be redundant to them; feel free to ignore any that are addressed elsewhere or just mark them as such.

  • to ensure no strategy dominated - probably being picky, but "no one strategy" maybe?
  • Done!
  • Maybe split the paragraph? I realize it would make two stubby paragraphs rather than one nice chunky sized one but currently you're discussing two topics, patches and employees, in one.
  • This definitely looks ugly, but done!
Revenue model
  • an achievement system to tally champion-specific milestones, purchasable with Riot Points - I don't understand this. What are players buying here?
  • I don't really know what to do with this one... I've added a wiki-link to Achievement (video games); does that help? It really is just a system that tracks champion-specific milestones. How many times you've killed an enemy with X ability, that sort of thing. I've just had a look and I can't reliably source any examples
  • Okay, now I understand that the system as a whole costs you points to unlock but I still don't think the sentence communicates that very clearly (at first I read it like you paid for each individual achievement). I think achievement systems are common enough that you could get away with just wikilinking it and not explaining it in detail, so trimming it down to something like: "an achievement system that could be activated with Riot Points" might be better for clarity.
  • Done!
  • paid to play the game - I assume this means "paid for cosmetics etc", but the wording makes that unclear.
  • Fixed!
  • client-based game standard - what is a client-based game? this is the first instance of that phrase in the article and it feels jargony. At the very least it ought to be a bluelink.
  • This was a suggestion from the source review, but Eddie had told me to change it back and I said nah it’s fine and left it, so I've put it back to "industry standard"
  • Are there any sources that dispute or update Weidemann's 2014 analysis?
  • Nope!
  • Well, that blows :P
  • I would swap the order of the last two sentences so you go from "large player base" -> "111 million players" -> "3 billion hours".
  • Good catch.
  • As this section goes into post-release revamp of the lore and talks about hiring writers etc, maybe it could be merged with the Post-release section above to create one larger section? It just seems odd to have two separate-but-related subsections.
  • I actually think this is necessary. Some people will come to this article looking for a section about the plot, and anchoring it to "Post-release" just doesn't feel right to me. The section was a compromise over a previously existing aspect of the article—a huge heading called "Setting" that was poorly sourced and unsustainable. If it’s okay with you, I will not do this one
  • Yeah fair enough
  • Ryan Scott was critical of the grind required for non-paying players to unlock key gameplay elements - maybe this would be undue, but this isn't mentioned at all in the monetization or gameplay sections. Are key gameplay elements still locked behind grinding and paywalls for new players? I was under the impression that there's no pay-to-win and the only paid content is aesthetic in nature.
  • This was only a thing at release and doesn't exist anymore
  • Is it possible to make that clearer, even if you have to footnote it? Otherwise it gives the impression that it's still in the game, which is confusing. Same with the mention of it in the reassessment section.
  • Done in both places
  • with key features missing - do we know what ones?
  • Yeah, the next two sentences mention that there was a promised in-game store that wasn't available; GameStar refused to carry out their review because of it
  • Is that it though? An in-game store doesn't strike me as a "key" launch feature; I wouldn't call a game underdeveloped for not having it.
  • In 2009, it was a pretty big feature. The fact that the game went free-to-play absolutely sunk Heroes of Newerth. Riot mentioned skins and customisation in a big press release, and it really was hyped by the press and on forums. People were hugely disappointed that it wasn't there.
  • But that's not "key features" plural, that's one promised feature that they biffed. The current wording sounds like they pulled a No Man's Sky, but what you're saying here makes it sound much different.
  • I have deleted "with key features missing"
  • with IGN's explaining - I don't think this needs the 's
  • Oop's. Fixed!
  • GameSpot from 6 to 9 - is there a typo in your dates for the sources for this? Both say Oct 2013 but one is labelled a launch review, which would be a bit late by then. Also might be worth specifically noting the increases came after several years (vs weeks or months)
  • The GameSpot thing is a database error. They migrated their database, but it was originally published in October or November 2009. This is well-documented as a problem with GameSpot's reviews from that period; you can check the WP:VG archives. I can't tell exactly when it came out, so I don't want to specify a year because I just don't know, unfortunately. Bad issue, I know, but GameSpot are a high-quality, reliable source otherwise
  • Oh, that's fucky. Okay, no problem.
  • Is it possible to find a citation for any particular champion that's a focus of the gender-based design criticism? Commons has a lot of League cosplay pics (Commons:Category:Cosplay_of_League_of_Legends), and I wonder if we could include one as an example of the so-called horny Clash-esque designs. I know it sounds like I'm being horny on main here trying to get cosplay pics into the article but I think it's a relevant illustration of a major design critique (that is, how many of the female designs in LoL conform to a "skinny hot girl in tight or revealing clothes" archetype).
  • I've added one!
  • Again the unlock rate is mentioned, but is never discussed previously. Can we mention it earlier, maybe in gameplay?
  • It doesn't exist anymore, and I've tried to keep the gameplay section free from anything that is likely to change. It’s only the core gameplay: very few names of buffs, monsters, things that Riot can (and does) change regularly. The unlock rate is also not gameplay; champions are acquired by playing and completing "missions", but this is a recent change, and I can't source it :( Riot have changed the way champions are unlocked many, many times
  • Right, I was under the impression it was still in the game, which is why I asked. See my comment about the earlier mention of it though.
  • Working on this! Let me know what you think.
  • Now that the other thing has been footnoted (and clarified that it refers to a separate annoying system of unlocks) I think this can be left alone.
Player culture
  • I recognize that this is probably a sourcing issue, but you have one sentence about how nasty the player base is, and then immediately pivot to Riot claiming it's just a small portion having a bad day. To me, this sounds like total corporate horseshit, and I'm curious to see if there are any reliable sources that dispute Riot's rather charitable perspective. I'm also curious if there's any that discuss the psychology of why people are such dicks about LoL, and maybe if it's actually valid that they are worse in LoL compared to other esports games like Starcraft or Overwatch. (I have zero intention of opposing if this isn't available, I just want to know if it is)
  • I've fixed the sentence you're having problems with, because of very similar feedback from Eddie. I wish there was more to dispute or support Riot's statements, but - for what it’s worth - I think I agree with it. Players do just have bad days and act out, and in team-based games it is really common. It happens in Overwatch, too (in my experience), but I've never played StarCraft. I'll add that these problems don't exist in Riot's non-team games (TFT is played by one player alone). I think it’s just a bigger issue in LoL because of the game's size
  • Okay, fair enough!
In esports
  • This is a good top-level summary for a section that has a spinout article.
  • have outperformed those of physical sports - can you clarify if this means at specific events, over a specific period of time, or something else? Or maybe give an example or comparison? As written it verges on claiming that LoL esports viewership exceeds all physical sports worldwide, which I'm going to assume is not the case.
  • Done! Similar feedback from Eddie, too.
  • Riot sells sponsorships and streaming rights to its leagues is redundant to The company sells streaming rights to the game, no?
  • Yep! It’s even the same reference. I think I've just moved things around and not deleted the worse bit (the part without the example). Fixed.
  • Fixed!
  • League of Legends: Wild Rift is an version of the game - typo, and may want to clarify that it's upcoming or still in beta
  • My plan was not to mention it at all because I might forget to update it. The sources will be much stronger once the game's officially released. Thoughts?
  • I think it's probably better to mention that it's not out yet, but I wouldn't oppose based on that alone, and I'm not going to press it.
  • game was a single-player - should probably be "will be" since it's unreleased
  • I think I disagree here. The third and final game to be announced was the RPG, and the game will be a single-player, but the language that currently exists seems right to me
  • Yeah I see what you mean.
  • The third and final contradicts the Dec 2020 announcement of the MMORPG; maybe reword to "the third game announced at the anniversary" or something similar?
  • Yeah, that's what it should have said (Eddie said the same!), fixed :D
In other media
  • Could this section be folded into Spin-offs to reduce header clutter? You could have "Spin-offs and other media" as your top-level, then Games, Music, Comics, Animated series as your secondary headers. Not a hill I'd die on.
  • This is a great idea—let's die on this hill together. Done!
  • Yeah! Done, second paragraph (I don't want to de-link heavy metal)
  • Is it plausible to get the K/D/A promo image from that article in here, since the article discusses the fact that the band is promotional for the virtual cosmetics?
  • This was initially in, but was removed at peer review because it failed as free use
  • Ah, c'est la vie.
  • Is there any update for the Comics section? Did the Marvel collab announced in 2018 actually go through?
  • It did, and the article originally included details, but I had to delete them because Dot Esports was considered not high quality enough in the source review :/ I can't find replacements
  • This is a primary source, but it at least confirms that the comics did come out; I think it's reasonable to use it to verify that.
  • Unfortunately, Eddie has been rejecting anything that came out even 2 days prior to something coming out, and this was pre-release :/
  • Changed my mind, there was a later source to confirm it, I bow before your colossal galaxy brain — ImaginesTigers (talk) 05:30, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Ahh, nice!

Okay, that's as much nitpicking as I have for now. I know it looks like a lot combined with my original comments, but I'm not here to fail you, and I am willing to be flexible on the majority of it. An article of this scope is a monumental undertaking, and you're dealing with a lot of commentary and a lot of sourcing and research, so take your time and don't worry about a speedy response. ♠PMC(talk) 06:27, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Your feedback was great! I have left some comments (things I didn't change/need further advice on), but I don't think they were among the most pressing ones. Some great feedback—thank you! :D — ImaginesTigers (talk) 23:14, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
Appreciate the responses, and I will now change to support :) Excellent work on this overall, Tigers. ♠PMC(talk) 05:44, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
Thanks a lot PMC. You've left a couple other comments but I'm going to sleep now & deal with them tomorrow :] I really appreciate you taking the time, and all the feedback you gave. The article is much better for it — ImaginesTigers (talk) 06:50, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
Just a note for the coords that the two minor outstanding comments have been dealt with, and I am reaffirming my support. ♠PMC(talk) 00:49, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Support by Ovinus[edit]

And I thought you'd take a break after four Million Awards...! I'll be reviewing the article soon, hopefully before Tuesday. For the record, I have never played nor seen the game (beyond a few short clips whose complexity confused me to no end). Ovinus (talk) 10:11, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Hey, Ovinus! Like I just said to PMC, feedback from non-players is so crucial for this sort of game. I really appreciate you taking the time to do this, and I'm looking forward to it. As for a break? The grind can never stop. There are articles that need fixin' :) — ImaginesTigers (talk) 11:42, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
Hahahaha, I admire your vitality! Ovinus (talk) 18:40, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

(Resolved comments moved to talk page.)

That's basically it from me! A great article. As Gog the Mild noted I think it would have benefited from a copyedit; such edits comprise basically 90% of my notes here, but as a reviewer I don't think I'm supposed to touch the article. Peace, Ovinus (talk) 23:58, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Ovinus I just want to offer a very sincere apology along with an even more sincere thank you. It would have been really easy—and completely fair—for you to oppose on the grounds of it requiring a copy edit. Jumping straight from PR to FAC without giving it a thorough read-through (and second pair of eyes) was, in hindsight, a huge mistake—one that, if I do any more FANs, won't be repeated. I really appreciate you taking the time to do this; it was more generous than I deserved. Regarding not touching the article, I don't mind that you didn't make the changes yourself—I learned things I wouldn't have learned just by reviewing the changes—but I have been copy-editing FARs, so I hope that isn't true and I don't get in trouble. Thanks again, Ovinus. Drop me a message when your article is ready (whether at PR or FAC). — ImaginesTigers (talk) 02:56, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
Oppose?? The article is great and written very well—I just had a few line edits. Plus I don't have a particularly good command of English and apparently don't like commas. You'll notice I incorrectly used "comprise" a few hours ago, heh! Sorry if I sounded harsh or was intimidating. I'll take a look over your replies tonight or tomorrow morning. Cheers, Ovinus (talk) 03:03, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
:( Thanks, Ovinus. Looking forward to your replies. Sorry again about all the work. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 13:19, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
I have collapsed most of the things and the comments that remain are those left to address (or just chatter/responses that don't need action). I'll probably re-read the article once in a week or two. I'd like to express my gratitude that you're working on such an important article in terms of viewership. While I admire those make featured content on comparatively obscure topics, I particularly admire those who bring forth highly visible articles. Maybe that's just an excuse to be more picky, knowing how many eyes will see your work, I dunno. But thank you. Ovinus (talk) 05:51, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
Ovinus: Sorry about the delay; another editor brought some glaring issues with Player culture to my attention so I was fixing them urgently. All done now. The kind words are appreciated; it’s nice that you noticed. I'm going to keep it up, but I will be moving off the video game subject for a while. I just picked League as a good first FAC because I know the subject well. Thanks again, and looking forward to anything else you can add. Given that you are mostly done, it might be a good time for me to perform the Gog Summoning Ritual? Just waiting on Eddie finishing up the spot checks now, so I think the article should be pretty stable (pending any new reviewers). — ImaginesTigers (talk) 17:14, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
The ritual requires a blood sacrifice ImaginesTigers. That or cake. Either works. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:19, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
I have a knife to hand. A cake, I do not. The choice, made; my fate, sealed. — ImaginesTigers (talk)

Hahaha, I can't tell if that's some literary allusion. On a walk today I thought of something: does LoL spread players among games by language/skill level? Or is it completely random? I don't know if that's sourceable, or even worthy of inclusion. The other thing was whether the "Game modes" section header is needed. Cheers, Ovinus (talk) 05:11, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

@Ovinus: Sorry; I didn't see this until everything was moved onto Talk. So first answer is yes/no. Language specifically, no; the client separates players by regions so that network delay doesn't cause problems. Europe has one server; North America another, and so on. Originally there was a fair amount of server info in the article but I had to remove the vast majority of it. Stuff from the early days of League's servers just isn't easy to find now, unfortunately. RE: skill level, yeah. It’s mentioned in the first paragraph of Summoner's Rift (there is no ranked queue for ARAM). Players are matched with others within the general vicinity of their rank (it’s well-known among players that game quality goes down late at night, for example, and some players have used that to climb quicker). Not really sourceable, though. RE: headers, good point! I've gone ahead and done that. I do like the "scope" that that heading provided, keeping things contained, but I think it’s still implicit. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 06:17, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
Actually, while we're on the topic, there is another area I'm aware of that's absent. Riot Games isn't the only publisher of League of Legends. A company called Garena oversees the game for the South-East Asia region. It’s a really bizarre situation, and one Riot clearly regrets. Unfortunately, impossible to source. I've spent hours and hours looking in total, and I haven't been the only one. Another WP:VG editor on the Discord joined in the search, and there was just nothing that would pass the HQ RS requirement. The only place it’s mentioned in the article is the infobox, because I can't even find information about when that happened (it was very early in League's lifetime). Beyond this FAC, I will continue to look. I have a source which mentions a falling out Riot had with a company to oversee the European servers. I know the company is called Goa, a video game-focused subsidiary of Orange, but the HQRS I have that mentions it... doesn't even name the company. I could probably still find a way to mention it in Post-release, though, but doing it without being able to mention the company is weird. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 06:28, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
Interesting! I guess Riot has done a good job concealing it. Ovinus (talk) 10:19, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
@ImaginesTigers: I went through the article again. Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I see some your responses to my comments that aren't reflected in the article. For example, "random effects" is still there, and "Kotaku's reviewer, Brian Crecente," is still there. "Downloadable content" wasn't put back in as you said. Have you just not gotten to it, or maybe it's VisualEditor related? Let me know; while I could note what I find, I'd rather not repeat myself. Cheers, Ovinus (talk) 09:35, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
Also noticed that "The lead designer of social systems, Jeffrey Lin" is repeated twice in the Player culture section. I think before supporting I'll have to go through the article again and make sure that it's stable. Ovinus (talk) 09:39, 17 January 2021 (UTC) Edit: From what I can tell the comments I made most recently (after collapsing my resolved comments) were the only ones not actioned on. They are above. Maybe you didn't press save? Not sure about the Jeffrey Lin thing though, so I shall go through once more after we figure this out. Ovinus (talk) 09:57, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
I indeed did not press save. Fixed the ones you've mentioned above. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 15:42, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
Alright, supporting on prose, neutrality and on comprehensiveness. I can't think of any missing salient info that I haven't brought up and confirmed to be un-sourceable. Amazing job!! Cheers, Ovinus (talk) 15:58, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
Thanks a lot, Ovinus :) If you notice anything else, don't be afraid about hitting me up—on the Talk, or on my Talk, or on Discord. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 16:01, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Support from Gog the Mild[edit]

Recusing to review. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:02, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for picking this up, Gog! — ImaginesTigers (talk)

Resolved issues moved to talk page. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:50, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Take 2[edit]
  • Lead: "The game is available for Microsoft Windows and macOS." I can't seem to find this in the main article.
  • I can't find a great place for it. There isn't enough high quality sourcing to sustain a "release" subheading unfortunately, and development just doesn't feel right. One source is enough to cover both, so I've added it to the infobox.
The lead is a summary of the main article. If its not in the main article, it can't go in the lead. Or the infobox.
I guess I can put it in post-release.
That would seem sensible.
  • "with each team occupying and defending their own half of the map". Maybe something like 'with each team defending their own half of the map and attempting to attack their opponents'. Or have I got that wrong? No, I see it at the end of the paragraph. Any reason why these two, similar aspects are separated by a lot of detail on gameplay?
  • I don't know what you mean here. The context of them battling at the end involves minions; I can't make this change without restructuring a lot. It took so long to write this because of how interconnected all the systems are -- moving the sentence I think you mean would confuse the reader instantly (if you mean Players in a lane kill minions to accumulate gold and XP ("farming") and try to prevent their opponent from doing the same.
OK. It's not how I would phrase it, but it's your call, not mine.
  • Suggest that all uses of " level up" are replaced by 'gain levels'.
  • A control+f returned one result, so that one was easy!
  • "one of the enemy team's inhibitors are destroyed". "are" → 'is'.
  • Thank you. Fixed!
  • "These monsters requires multiple players to defeat and grant special abilities to its slayers' team." "its" → 'their'.
  • And "requires" -> "require", too. Whoops! This was a suggestion from Ovinus :p
  • "players must be vigilant in avoiding enemy abilities". I can't quite work this out. And so far as I can, I don't see why it especially applies to ARAM.
  • The map is very narrow, so abilities are (comparatively) harder to avoid. In Summoner's Rift, the map is very large, and you have a lot more freedom to move around.
So maybe 'players need to be more vigilant in avoiding enemy abilities than in Summoner's Rift'?
BOLD SO YOU CAN FIND NEW COMMENTS EASIER. I don't know. Eddie has been pretty strict about me saying things that aren't directly corroborated by the source so far. Honestly, I'm having some difficulty with feedback (generally, not you in particular—please don't misunderstand!) like this because Eddie has been really strict, but a lot of the feedback is asking for clarifications that I'd be happy to do but aren't within the source. The source says: The close-quarters nature of [ARAM's] map requires players to move efficiently and with quick reflexes so as to avoid enemy abilities. It doesn't mention SR at all.
Eddie is very strict like that. They should do more source reviews. Hint. OK. Whenever a reviewer asks for something which can't be collaborated they should immediately back off. This may, of course, lead to a different discussion. Eg around "just because you can source it, doesn't mean it has to be in the article".
I can live with what is there as a reasonable paraphrase of the source.
  • "Jew was intimately familiar with DotA". Optional: a different word to "intimately"?
  • Let's go with "very"
  • "to ensure no strategies dominated". Not certain, but possibly that should be 'strategy'?
  • It isn't more accurate, no, but it will throw readers who haven't played the game off less for sure, so I'll make this change.
  • "Larger changes often occur at the end of each competitive season." Maybe 'Larger changes often occur at the end of each competitive season, which lasts a year.'?
  • Not supported by the source. I remember your frustration with this earlier, so I've just removed it.
Your call, but it seems important, so if all that can be supported is what was there before, feel free to put it back in. I will have to live with my frustration.
BOLDING SO YOU CAN SEE THIS. I can put it back. I understand that it’s frustratingly unclear on what that means...
As I said, your call. I think that we can both see pros and cons, and it is "your" article, so you get to decide.
  • "writing character biographies of a few paragraphs in length". Does "in length" add anything?
  • "League of Legends received generally favorable reviews", When? Perhaps 'On initial release League of Legends received generally favorable reviews'?
  • I've just looked through other video game FAs, and I can't see any that do this (1, 2, 3, 4). This wasn't me cherry-picking; I just picked several out of Featured articles#Video games. It isn't spelled out in the Manual of Style, but the first thing under Reception is always the reception at the game's release (or slightly after). I've looked at movies, too, and I always can't find any precedent (1, 2). If you insist, I will implement with light grumbles
I really don't care what other articles say. And this is by no means a deal breaker. But the immediately prior paragraph starts "In September 2014, Riot Games rebooted the game's fictional setting ..." I honestly thought that the "generally favorable reviews" referred to this reboot until quite some way into the section. I don't see why it is an issue to you, but if it is, leave it; I have seen worse tripwires in FAs.
Added it :)
  • "was available from purchase from retailers" "from" → 'for'.
  • Oops!
  • "even for those who purchased the retail version". What is a "retail version"? I thought that it was free to play.
  • It was a limited edition that I can find nothing about other than this review, and the League of Legends wikia :p
  • "problematic bugs". Delete "problematic", what other sort is there? OK. I see your comment above. What does the source actually say?
  • The source says: LoL has some bugs, however, and not the type to induce lulz. I ran into a number of sound looping problems during the game – nothing that would cause crashes, but really irritating to say the least. I also ran into some occasions where attacks would simply… stop. For no reason evident. Bizarre, and frustrating. The game managed to eschew any major crashes though, so for the most part, I was able to play games to completion. I do stand by problematic here; he even references that bugs can be funny ("induce lulz"), but that they weren't game-breaking. I think "problematic" is a good word for that. That said, I've changed it to "frustrating" :)
Bleh! OK.
  • "The expansion of the champion roster". When did this happen.
  • Constantly! I've updated Post-release with some info about that. An accidental omission!
  • "the game's recommendations "might as well be required items"" This makes no sense to me.
  • I think I fixed it!

It looks to be in much.. better shape than when I first went through it. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:54, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

We know who to thank for that (hint: it’s only 20% me). — ImaginesTigers (talk) 23:06, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
Looks like we are nearly there. A couple of responses above, and note my three comments in green in my first review. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:57, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
@Gog the Mild: Ah, sorry, I made the edits for those yesterday but replying slipped my mind because they were separate. Thanks for all your hard work on bringing the article up to scratch. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 23:48, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
  • OK. Supporting. You have seemed a cheerful and responsive nominator, for which thank you. I hope that the experience hasn't been too harrowing for you, you certainly seem to have had a lot thrown at you. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:55, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
  • My fault for not copy editing! Thanks a lot, Gog. Feel free to post on my Talk when you have an active FAC (I don't check WP:FAC, so you'll have to tell me). — ImaginesTigers (talk) 15:43, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
  • @Gog the Mild: Do you think I should ping the other co-ords? Or just be patient and wait for more reviews? :) — ImaginesTigers (talk) 18:30, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
Up to you, but you will almost certainly be told that it won't be promoted until it has been at FAC for longer. If you want to nominate a second FAC you can ask my permission. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:41, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
@Gog the Mild: I want to start proper work on Dracula but feel like I can't really get stuck in until this is over, one way or another; I find it hard to juggle multiple things. I understand that the process has to be lengthy, but it has killed my momentum. I'll just wait for more reviews. In trying to be responsive I've burned myself out a bit. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 18:51, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Source review by Ealdgyth[edit]

Hi there, Ealdgyth! So this is what a source review is. I've been really carefully curating the sources on this page for a long time, so I have reviewed your cheat sheet, and I am ready to explain. Let's take them one by one.

Firstly, InvenGlobal. I've purged both instances: the first was supporting a statement already confirmed by a stronger source (PC Gamer), and was added by someone directly following a big announcement (as happens with big franchises like this), so sorry about that. The second was citing Julia Lee as an executive producer. This was my first big project as a new editor... I purged most of the info-box when I started, but had left in Lee's interview because of the interview exception. Although it might be permissible to say who she is, I see now that she's an executive producer and, per WP:VG's Infobox doc, executive producers shouldn't be listed in info-boxes. Struck.

SuperDataResearch is owned by Neilsen. They are frequently reproduced by major, reliable gaming outlets, including Polygon, Kotaku, and IGN, and by non-video games outlets, like The New York Times and The Washington Post.

Dot Esports are weird! Surprisingly niche, but very well-established in that niche. To just name a few to give you a sample of their pedigree, they are regularly quoted by Reuters (1, 2), Wired, Polygon, and PC Gamer. A former writer for ESPN, Jacob Wolf, made an appearance in The Washington Post for moving from ESPN to Dot Esports. You can even see some of his writing on League for ESPN in the Gameplay section of my nomination :)

Rift Herald. This might be a controversial one, but I hope not? In the early stages of this article, I purged every instance of them I could find. I've softened a bit since then, permitting two references. I'll explain: Rift Herald is a publication of Polygon, and its staff members—including the writer of the article cited to RH, is an employee of Polygon, with a Polygon email address. If you scroll to the bottom of their home-page, their Ethics Statement is Polygon's own. I think their use in the article is incredibly sparing; it’s providing a direct example of what was mentioned before—that Riot Games' behavioural team focuses on rewarding good behaviour, rather than punishing bad (citing a major system which does just that).

The YouTube link... Total disclosure, I was super new when I added that (as opposed to now, when I'm just a little new); it was supporting a music video's view count, but that was a bit pointless without context. I've replaced it with a reliable source and added some more context to convey more info to non-gamers.

And finally, despite its horrendously tacky name, that giant: How reputable is it? Well, it’s owned by the same company as Eurogamer, Rock Paper Shotgun, USgamer, all very reliable sources for video games. Their reporting been reproduced by those outlets, but let's assume there's a COI there, and ignore them. What's left? There's NME, Engadget, Gematsu, Kotaku, IGN, The Verge, GameSpot, Ars Technica, GamesRadar. Non-gaming press includes the newspapers WS County Times, (Diario AS), and The Washington Post (1,2).

Thanks for the cheat sheet! I hope it meant this wasn't as painful as it might have been. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 02:32, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Just a quick note to say "yes, I've seen this". today was ... bouncy and we're getting up early again tomorrow so i don't have time to actually reply until the morning when we get on the road and hopefully i'll be able to set the laptop up and work. today was too bouncy. Ealdgyth (talk) 01:53, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
No problem! I drove a lot today, and I feel utterly depleted... Looking forward to when you get back to it, but there's no rush—you arrived way quicker than I anticipated! — ImaginesTigers (talk) 02:12, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
I'm not persuaded by Dot.esports. The others work fine, but I'm not seeing how dotesports is meeting the high quality bar here. It might barely pass the plain WP:RS standard, but we are looking for higher. And it's used a LOT in the article. Ealdgyth (talk) 11:52, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
@Ealdgyth: Thanks Ealdgyth! If you look at the peer review I did, you can see right at the beginning that I knew Dot Esports was going to be a problem. I was able to replace the vast, vast majority of them, but what was left in felt hard to remove... That said, there isn't much I can do about it, if they need to be struck. I'll try again to find replacements, but chances are that I'm going to be unsuccessful. League's modern state isn't really covered by the mainstream press. Worried about comprehensiveness. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 12:41, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, so if you look at the second paragraph of "Player culture", I really can't back up that Riot's anti-toxicity measures have been criticised at all without Dot Esports. That isn't a problem of comprehension, but due weight. First FAN, so any advice would be appreciated. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 12:43, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Removed, minus 2. One is only using them to cite that some sources mention that the game will be released on Switch, and others don't—Riot has said nothing either way, so they're only in the footnote as an example of a publication mentioning the Switch. The other one explains, in a little more detail, why Riot got an Emmy for the 2018 League of Legends World Championship (an AR, CGI dragon). I can remove both of these too, but they're the ones I think would be really useful to keep... Let me know what you want. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 12:56, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Hey, Ealdgyth. All but one references to Dot Esports have been purged. Just hoping your thought on Fn 116's attached note (which is where the last remaining instance is). Thanks for all your help ^_^ — ImaginesTigers (talk) 15:06, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

All dealt with - unwatching now! Ealdgyth (talk) 12:52, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Image/Content review by Lee Vilenski[edit]

I'll begin a review of this article very soon! My reviews tend to focus on prose and MOS issues, especially on the lede, but I will also comment on anything that could be improved. I'll post up some comments below over the next couple days, which you should either respond to, or ask me questions on issues you are unsure of. I'll be claiming points towards the wikicup once this review is over.

  • File:League of Legends 2019 vector.svg - is derived from a crop of File:League of Legends Wild Rift logo.svg, however this suggests that this item is the defacto logo used for the game. There is no caption in the infobox, a quick google search suggested that there is more than one styling of this. I would suggest adding a caption to say that this is the logo from 2019, or just from the expansion, or whatever. Threshold of originality seems fine. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 16:52, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Done! They use multiple different logos for different things, so I've gone with "Variant of logo from 2019"
  • Ty
  • Name updated! Thanks.
  • Ty

All in all, just need a caption for the original image. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 16:56, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Done :] Thanks, Lee.
  • League of Legends (abbreviated LoL or League) - could we do "abbreviated as" or "abbreviated to"? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 17:03, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
  • The abbreviation is actually used nowhere in the article, and was a remnant from a previous iteration -- I've just removed it. Sources refer to them as either but, honestly, it’s never going to be confused. Had a look at previous VG FA's and even games with much longer names don't always have abbreviated forms. — ImaginesTigers (talk)
  • free-to-play, and is monetized through purchasable character customization. - and isn't right, try but. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 17:03, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I don't think I agree with this one. I'll wait and see if any other reviewers flag it up before changing it. — ImaginesTigers (talk)
  • competitive scene pipes to a redirect. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 17:03, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
  • The North American league is broadcast on cable television sports channel ESPN. In 2019, the League of Legends World Championship had over 100 million unique viewers, peaking at a concurrent viewership of 44 million, with a minimum prize pool of US$2.5 million. - reorder these sentences, the World Championship is a much bigger thing than the regional league. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 17:03, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Done! Good point.
  • I've been taught to use quotations to indicate informal language, which top-down is, but I've dropped 'em! — ImaginesTigers (talk)
  • Nah; it isn't a quote. It’s just not formal English, so was being denoted with "these". — ImaginesTigers (talk)
  • Could we merge "There is no jungle area." with the prior sentence? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 17:10, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Good point. Fixed!
  • Seventeen champions were available upon the launch of the beta. - MOS:NUM should really be 17. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 17:10, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
  • MOS says: Avoid beginning a sentence with a figure, so I've jiggled the sentence around to use the figure. Thanks!
  • Indeed, seventeen is also a figure. Good work. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 18:57, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
  • a free-to-play collectible card game, - same. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 17:10, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Free-to-play had already been linked, so makes sense to cut this one.
Additional comments
  • Due to some changes above Blizzard and esports is now a OL. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 17:10, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Fixed!
  • One ref error: VanOrd, Kevin (October 17, 2013). "League of Legends – Retail Launch Review". GameSpot. Archived from the original on May 22, 2016. Retrieved January 2, 2021. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "GameSpot" defined multiple times with different content. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 17:10, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Fixed, I think. I'm not seeing the ref error, so please let me know if I fixed it :] — ImaginesTigers (talk)

In addition, as you seem to need an image review, I can take a look at these too. If you liked this review, or are looking for items to review, I have some at my nominations list. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 16:48, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, Lee! For this, and for the original GA :p — ImaginesTigers (talk) 17:58, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
Only a couple minor points, but supporting unless someone else pops up with something. I'd forgotten I'd done the original GAN review. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 18:57, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
Thanks again! — ImaginesTigers (talk)

Hi Lee Vilenski, at the risk of being picky, is that a support, or are you still undecided? (You haven't boldened "supporting" and you have made it conditional, so it is hard to tell.) And is the image review a pass? Cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:16, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Sure, I didn't actually think I had to enbolden, but yeah, pass for both parts. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 22:23, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
Lee Vilenski: Strictly, you don't, but it does make my job a lot easier. And you had written "supporting unless ...", so I was not entirely sure. Thanks for clarifying. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:28, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Pepi I Meryre[edit]

Nominator(s): Iry-Hor (talk) 15:12, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

This article is about Pepi I Meryre third pharaoh of the Sixth Dynasty of Egypt in the 24th century BC, who faced many challenges yet became one of the most important Old Kingdom pharaoh. This is this article's second FA nomination: it has received a thorough copy-edit by Twofingered Typist since its first FAC. In addition, all changes advocated by wikipedians during the first nomination have been implemented, including a layout change. I am pinging users who supported or participated in the first FAC: Aza24, A. Parrot and Dudley Miles.Iry-Hor (talk) 15:12, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Image review—pass
buidhe THe book was published in 1907, I updated the wikicommons info with a web-access and publication year. In addition, the author, Eugene Grébaut, died in 1915.
  • Other licensing looks OK (t · c) buidhe 16:47, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Comments by A. Parrot, including a Source review[edit]

  • If I remember correctly, you generally write in British English, but that isn't consistent here; "center" instead of "centre", for instance, appears several times. (As an American, I'm not likely to catch all the Americanisms).
Done for all instances of center and for americanisms wherever I could catch one.Iry-Hor (talk) 10:21, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I think it's more usual and more intuitive to place notes after ordinary citations, rather than before them. Notes are like separate passages of text, and they often have citations of their own, so they shouldn't come between the text that precedes them and the citations that support that text.
You mean like this ?Iry-Hor (talk) 10:25, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean. But to clarify, you put, e.g., Note 6 before Citation 51, even though Citation 51 seems to be supporting the passage that comes immediately before Note 6. A. Parrot (talk) 08:51, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
Done A. Parrot Ok I had totally misunderstood you and thus had inverted the order of the footnotes and references sections at the end of the article, now back into normal order. For the footnotes' placement in the text, it is now done throughout as you advocated.Iry-Hor (talk) 12:48, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "He was the son of the founder of the Teti dynasty…" I'm not as familiar with the sources on the Sixth Dynasty as you are, but I've never seen it referred to this way. Since the name "Sixth Dynasty" is mentioned in the previous sentence, you could say "He was the son of Teti, the founder of the dynasty…"
Fixed this was written during the copy-edit and I did not catch it. I have changed it back to the right version.Iry-Hor (talk) 10:21, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "The Sixth Dynasty necropolis at Saqqara was used as a stone quarry from the New Kingdom until the end of the Late Period with the dismantling of the necropolis' monuments resuming later in the Mamluk era of the Middle Ages when most of Pepi's pyramid complex was destroyed." This sentence needs simplification, and the two phases of the dismantling aren't significant enough that they absolutely need to be in the lead. Perhaps "Pepi's monuments began to be quarried for their stone in the New Kingdom, and in the Mamluk period they were almost entirely dismantled."
Done I agree with you, this wasn't crucial info. I modified to your sentence.Iry-Hor (talk) 10:21, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "According to the Byzantine scholar George Syncellus, Africanus wrote the Aegyptiaca mentioning the succession…" The wording here is rather opaque.
Fixed, another sentence changed during the copy-edit which I did not catch. Now changed back to the original "According to the Byzantine scholar George Syncellus, Africanus wrote that thee Aegyptiaca mentioned the succession "Othoês → Phius → Methusuphis"", unfortunately the way the Aegyptiaca is known is as byzantine as Syncellus !Iry-Hor (talk) 10:21, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
  • The paragraph about the Sed festival is somewhat unclear. When it says "The festival had a considerable importance for the king," is it simply establishing general background about the nature of the Sed festival, or did Pepi emphasize his festival more than other kings did? Similarly, it's not 100% clear that "…the state administration seems to have had a tendency to mention Pepi's first jubilee repeatedly in the years following its celebration…" is meant to indicate something that was unique to Pepi's reign.
Clarified the former sentence regards all kings of the Old Kingdom period, as the source explicitly says "every king" (although in the context of Old Kingdom archaeology); while the latter is specifically for Pepi. I wrote : "The festival had a considerable importance for Old Kingdom kings. [...]As further evidence of the importance of this event in Pepi's case, the state administration seems to have had a tendency to mention his first jubilee repeatedly...".Iry-Hor (talk) 10:21, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I'm uncertain about the organization of sections on politics and economics. The politics section seems to be a catch-all section for major events of Pepi's reign, and the "politics and power play" title for one of its subsections creates redundancy. Moreover, that subsection deals with administrative matters that seem to have some overlap with the subsection on domestic and economic policies.
Unfortunately, I do not know which is best. The current layout was suggested by Dudley Miles in the first review. Do you have a proposition ?Iry-Hor (talk) 10:21, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
I see. I think you could retitle "Politics and power play" as "Provincial administration", or something similar, and move the first sentence of "Domestic policies" into it (as that section is about domestic economic policies, which that sentence doesn't address. A. Parrot (talk) 08:51, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
Done we will see if someone else raises the problem of the layout once again. I hope we can converge to a consensus.Iry-Hor (talk) 12:49, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "…he desired political appeasement in times of troubles." "Appeasement" doesn't seem like the right word here.
Actually this is the exact word used by the source. I would thus prefer to keep it.Iry-Hor (talk) 10:21, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
OK. A. Parrot (talk) 08:51, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "…see this as highly unlikely and outright extravagant respectively…" "Extravagant" is a strange word to use for a hypothesis, though something like "outlandish" might work.
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 10:21, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "…the concepts of family and power were still close, that is the bureaucracy had not replaced the family in the business of government." A bit awkward; maybe something like "the government was still dominated by the royal family [or "powerful families"?] rather than the bureaucracy."
The source is talking more broadly about the notion of family and not just about the royal family. He is saying that family / bloodlines are the primary factor in determining professional status, duties and allegiance. Also, "not replaced the family in the business of government" is almost word for word the way the source phrases it. From the context of the source, I take it to be a general observation on the organisation of Egyptian society at all levels of power in the time of Pepi.Iry-Hor (talk) 10:21, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Hm. Maybe it could say " the time of the Sixth Dynasty, government was still shaped by family relationships more than by the bureaucracy", or similar. A. Parrot (talk) 08:51, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
Done I wrote "...government and power was still largely determined by family relationships rather than by bureaucracy."Iry-Hor (talk) 12:52, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I'm assuming that "for the first and last time until the 26th Dynasty some 1800 years later" means Nebet was the first woman to be a vizier, but the text doesn't actually state that.
Clarified yes I clarified this: "for the first and last time until the 26th Dynasty some 1800 years later, Khui's wife Nebet, a woman, bore the title of vizier of Upper Egypt".Iry-Hor (talk) 10:21, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
I think it could still use some adjustment. Perhaps: "The political importance of these marriages is further demonstrated by the title held by Khui's wife Nebet, that of vizier of Upper Egypt. She was the first woman to hold such a title and the last until the Twenty-sixth Dynasty some 1800 years later." A. Parrot (talk) 08:51, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
  • The spelling of Coptos/Koptos is inconsistent.
Fixed to Coptos everywhere.Iry-Hor (talk) 10:21, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
  • It's best to specify that the temple of Min is thought to have benefitted because it was the same region that Khui's family was from.
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 10:21, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
  • As I said at the Unas FAC, I dislike the use of "Bedouin" to refer to the desert dwellers in dynastic times, as the term is generally applied to Arabs, an ethnic group that probably didn't exist at this time. "Semitic people" is all that needs to be said here.
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 10:21, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "…the Egyptians did invade their opponents…" sounds strange, and I think the whole sentence could be reduced to "The Egyptians campaigned up to what was probably Mount Carmel or Ras Kouroun, landing troops on the coast using transport boats."
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 10:21, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "Weni reports the destruction of walled towns…" This sentence feels a bit awkward. I suggest "Weni reports that walled towns were destroyed, fig trees and grape vines were cut down, and local shrines were burned."
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 10:21, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Ka is treated inconsistently: sometimes capitalized, sometime lowercase and italicized.
Fixed.Iry-Hor (talk) 10:21, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "The close association between Ka-chapels and temples…" I think clarification may be needed here. I'm irked that no Egyptologist seems to have supplied a definition of the difference between a temple and various other religious buildings that are often called something else, and the distinction is particularly a problem in the Old Kingdom, when the tradition of massive buildings dedicated to deities didn't really exist. "Temples to deities" might be better here than simply "temples".
Done, now that you point this out, it is true that a Ka chapel is a temple after all ! I think the sources make it clear that a Ka chapel is really a small room with a naos housing a statue of the Ka of the person being venerated. I believe this is what they mean by Ka chapel, as opposed to an entire temple dedicated to a deity. But I haven't seen a discussion of the difference between both concepts, although I haven't specifically looked for it either.Iry-Hor (talk) 10:08, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
  • What does "…the consolidation of the Heliopolitan cults at the time" mean?
Fixed here in the sense of strengthening, I wrote so.Iry-Hor (talk) 10:35, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
  • It says the necropolises of Merenre and Pepi II border Pepi I's complex, but looking at a map, the pyramids of Merenre and certainly Pepi II look like they're a sizable distance from that of Pepi I.
Actually, this is not what the text says: "Pepi I's mortuary complex was neighbored on its south-west corner by a necropolis built during his own reign and those of Merenre and Pepi II". It says only that next to Pepi I's pyramid is a necropolis built during his own reign and those of Pepi II and Merenre. But this necropolis is not the same as the necropolises built around Merenre's and Pepi II's pyramids. Indeed, from the sources, it is rather clear the necropolis around Pepi I's pyramid was being actively built during his reign and those of his sons. Is the sentence not clear ? Iry-Hor (talk) 10:57, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Yes, it's a bit ambiguous, but fortunately it can be fixed with just a tweak: "the reigns of Merenre and Pepi II". A. Parrot (talk) 08:51, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 12:52, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "The tombs of Meritites and Ankhsenpepi III, both built after Pepi's reign, and tombs from later periods of Egyptian history in the necropolis are not discussed here." This kind of self-referential remark (Wikipedia talking about what Wikipedia is about to discuss) is generally not found in regular article text, and it's not clear why one would expect these tombs to be discussed here.
These tombs are really in the midst of the necropolis of Pepi I and are always talked about at the same time as the other tombs of the necropolis in the sources. Yet, they are subsequent to Pepi I's reign and thus cannot be described in details in this article as the sources all do (because the typical source on the subject isn't specifically about Pepi I but rather about his necropolis). Thus, a reader acquainted with sources could be surprised. In fact, looking at e.g. the German wikipedia, we find that they included these later tombs in the article as the sources do, but I don't think this is right other than in passing, as this article is on Pepi I.Iry-Hor (talk) 10:57, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
OK. A. Parrot (talk) 08:51, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "Vertical columns of inscribed hieroglyphic text…" I think this sentence would be better if split, so that the part about the paint and its symbolism is its own sentence and the location of the text is established first.
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 10:57, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "…the activities of lime makers…" I know what this means, but most readers won't. A. Parrot (talk) 22:38, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
Clarified.Iry-Hor (talk) 10:57, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

A. Parrot Thanks for this first round of comments !Iry-Hor (talk) 10:57, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Source review

Almost all sources are impeccable, and the few that one might question are mostly straightforward descriptions of artifacts. I have a couple of small points, though. Lehner's Complete Pyramids was published in 1997, and I don't think it received a new edition, so the 2008 date must be a mere reprint, which I wouldn't count as a publication date. My other question is about Bongioanni and Croce: what are their qualifications? Is the book authorized by the museum? (Hawass would be an RS, but he only contributed a preface to it.)

A. Parrot This is a good question: I actually do not know, I thought the book seems legit and I can't tell more precisely as I don't own a copy of it. I don't find anything on how this book could be crackpot stuff. It is on oclc, owned by Trinity College, Dublin's Library for example. Two of the contributors Amenta, Alessia and Araldo De Luca have a bit more publications including at least one conference proceedings from Egyptology. Croce, Maria has a few more similar books presenting museum collections. Bongioanni has written books on Egypotlogy see here. Also the list of editors/authors for the book is not the same on Amazon and oclc.Iry-Hor (talk) 18:19, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

I also spot-checked 25 citations, and although most checked out fine, there are a few problems. I've labeled the citations based on how they were numbered at the time I made this edit. A. Parrot (talk) 04:21, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

  • 17a: The source mentions the decree in Coptos and Iput's pyramid, but it does not mention inscriptions in that pyramid.
Fixed. I added a reference to a source mentioning the inscriptions and more. I would have like to say even more by I don't have access to Grajetzki's Ancient Egyptian Queens: A Hieroglyphic Dictionary, so I used another, less exhaustive source.Iry-Hor (talk) 17:27, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
  • 17c: This fact is found on page 78, not 76.
Ok thanks for updating. Weirdly on my version it is p. 76, however it is probably an overseas edition and not the one in ref list so I think it best to keep p. 78 as you changed.Iry-Hor (talk) 18:10, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
  • 35: Strudwick 2005 p. 353 says "great of affection" but doesn't use the Egyptian "weret-yamtes". The Egyptian term might be mentioned elsewhere in Strudwick (I can't access a full preview of the book and can't tell). The article text should probably explain the meaning of the Egyptian words.
Fixed Indeed Strudwick does not say "weret-yamtes" at all, but directly translates the title as you pointed out. I updated the text in consequence, gave another ref for the untranslated version "weret yamtes" and also pointed to Strudwick's footnote 25 on p. 377 which emphasizes that this is a title and not a name and that her name is purposefully lost.Iry-Hor (talk) 18:10, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
  • 106: I can't find this on page 151, and the organization of the book doesn't make it easy to find where the conspiracy might be mentioned.
I don't understand: to me it is on p. 151 of the document (in the source link, click 04prosopographical register dynasties I-X.pdf) and watchout p. 151 of the document is actually p. 171 in any pdf viewer.Iry-Hor (talk) 18:10, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
  • 125a and b: 125a can be deleted, as text supported by 125b, which has an identical page range, comes immediately after it. However, "The Hatnub inscription may simply show that Manetho made an error…" isn't supported by that citation.
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 18:10, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
  • 159: The citation should be expanded to include page 132 as well as 133.
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 18:10, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
  • 200: This quotation should be attributed.
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 18:10, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
  • 205: The source supports Pepi's connection with Hathor, but not that "son of Hathor of Dendera" was found on numerous vessel, just one example (which is on a different page, p. 144).
Fixed you are right and the ref is correct in e.g. footnote 32. The ref here supports the "including vessel found abroad", for the "numerous" part, I have added several sources showing or mentioning vases from various parts of Egypt where Pepi hold the title of son of Hathor, Lady of Dendera. One of the sources explicitely says that many such vessels have been foundIry-Hor (talk) 18:10, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
  • 251: 251b can be deleted, as the citations at the end of the paragraph, including 251c, together seem to support the two last sentences of the paragraph.
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 18:10, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley[edit]

  • "who ruled for around 50 years during the second half of the 24th century BC". This does not make sense. You cannot rule for around 50 years in a period of 50 years. It also contradicts the infobox, which says "or early 23rd century" and most of the estimates are below 50 years. I suggest "around 40 years at the turn of the 24th and 23rd centuries BC".
Fixed but with "over" rather than "around". Virtually all the recent sources are centered on 50 years of reign for reasons explained below.Iry-Hor (talk) 11:24, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "likely around five decades, in the second half of the 24th century BC or early 23rd century BC". This also needs amending to say "likely around 40 years in the late 24th century / early 23rd century BC".
Updated I wrote "over 40 years" though as explained below: this is because some of the slightly older sources have not yet integrated the debate that followed the publication of the Hatnub inscription which probably talks about Pepi's 50 year of rule.Iry-Hor (talk) 11:24, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "Several difficulties accumulated during Pepi's five decades on the throne" I suggest "Several difficulties accumulated during Pepi's reign"
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 11:14, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "making both Khui's wife Nebet and her son Djau viziers" You could link to Vizier (Ancient Egypt). This article implies that there was only one vizier at a time. Were they viziers jointly or successively?
In general, there were multiple viziers simultaneously, as the article implies in several places such as "the viziers Inumin and Khentika, who served both Teti and Pepi I" or when the article says there were viziers in Upper Egypt but not in Lower Egypt. However, the article does say explicitely that Nebet and Djau were viziers successively, presumably because they belonged to the same family and in this case the parent (Nebet) was the original recipient of the title, while the son only inherited it.Iry-Hor (talk) 11:14, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
  • If a queen is thought to have conspired to make her son heir, should her son not be listed as another probable son of Pepi?
Well these are suppositions: the cause and objective of the conspiracy is not mentioned by Weni so nobody really knows. The sources do not credit Pepi another son in consequence, they just conjecture that this is possible.Iry-Hor (talk) 11:14, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
  • 'Length of reign'. This discussion is contradicted by most of the reign length estimates in the infobox, which as commented above are shorter. You need to discuss the shorter estimates - or delete them if they are not worth discussing.
Fixed I have updated the content to make this clear. This has to do with the reading of the South Saqqara stone in 1995 and 1997, which seems to mention Pepi's 50 year of reign and the subsequent debate in Egyptology. Older sources tend to credit him a shorter in consequence, while the more recent the longer. Most estimates are over 40 years, while the most recent center on the range 49-50+.Iry-Hor (talk) 11:20, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "The circulation of high officials in key positions of power occurred at an "astonishing" pace" This is unclear. Do you mean that they only served for a short period or that they circulated between different positions?
The source means both : they were awarded various charges in quick succession and changed positions regularly after serving what Garcia deems to be short terms.Iry-Hor (talk) 11:14, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I meant were they appointed and sacked or were they moved to different positions? You imply the latter in your reply but this should be clarified in the article. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:25, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
Done. I clarified, however I hope I am not saying something wrong now. The source does not attempt to make statistics on who might have been sacked vs who simply changed position. We do know that some weren't sacked but assume numerous duties one after the other since we can see the many charges they held throughout the course of their careers in their tomb biographies (see Weni).Iry-Hor (talk) 09:32, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I see that A. Parrot commented while I was drafting these comments, and would add two comments on his comments. 1. I have copy edited the quarry text since he queried it. 2. The use of "likely" to mean "probably" is another Americanism.
Changed likely to probable/probably.Iry-Hor (talk) 11:31, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Dudley Miles Thanks for your comments !Iry-Hor (talk) 11:31, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "shows that the person of the king was no longer untouchable" Why no longer untouchable? His father was murdered.
Fixed removed "no longer", this was meant to be understood as a comparison with times prior to Teti/Pepi I.Iry-Hor (talk) 08:44, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
  • There is the same problem with the new version. The murder had already showed that the king was not untouchable. Also, if the nature of her crime is not known, how do they know that it was a conspiracy against him? Why not adultery or an assault on someone else? Dudley Miles (talk) 16:19, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
Dudley Miles Well Weni was appointed as a special judge by the king himself and there is little that a queen could do that would lead to such a trial if not a direct attack against the king (here parallels with Ramses III's reign come in mind). Furthermore, I emphasize again the conjectural nature of the murder of Teti and of the conspiracy involving Pepi's vizier. In fact the one involving this queen is the only one with direct solid contemporary evidence even though we do not know what she did (a source sees this as evidence that she did something really grave). In comparison, Teti's murder is reported only by Manetho and the other conspiracy is pieced together from controversial evidence by Kanawati. This is why I want to keep the sentence or another meaning the same thing: because the source referenced to here recognizes that we know little for sure about these (possible) conspiracies. But the accumulation of hints demonstrates that something was probably off for the king at the time, hence the source conclusion that this shows the king was no longer untouchable. Of course if you think it is a given that Teti was murdered, then it is weird to point out that the king seems no longer untouchable. But such certainty is nowhere to be found in this article ! I conclude from this that the article is not cautious enough about the uncertain nature of Teti's murder, so I emphasized this (see the changes). Remark that this "no longer untouchable" (quoting the source directly) was the one conclusion from this source on this matter!Iry-Hor (talk) 15:52, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Hmm. Well I find the reasoning unconvincing, particularly the parallel in the reign of a New Kingdom king, but you are the expert. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:40, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Iry-Hor (talk) 15:26, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

  • "for the first and last time until the 26th Dynasty some 1800 years later, Khui's wife Nebet, a woman, bore the title of vizier of Upper Egypt". This sounds a bit odd. We do not need to be told that Khui's wife was a woman. Maybe "for the first and last time until the 26th Dynasty some 1800 years later, a woman, Khui's wife Nebet, bore the title of vizier of Upper Egypt"
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 08:44, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "Pepi grants exemptions to the people serving in the two pyramids of Sneferu". This is confusing as it appears to refer a town's two pyramids but Sneferu links to a pharaoh. I suggest "Pepi grants exemptions to the people serving in two pyramids dedicated to Sneferu" The following quote refers to "these two pyramid towns" Which towns?
Clarified, actually it should read "people serving in the two pyramid towns". To understand this, you have to know how royal tomb building functioned in the Old Kingdom. In fact close to each pyramid a small town was built early in the first stages of planing to house the workmen and all the people require for work to advance properly: bakers, beer-makers, water-carriers, scribes etc. These towns perdured after the construction of the pyramid itself, as they would continue to house craftsmen, priests, builders and the like. There were a lot of pyramid towns in Egypt, notably next to Sneferu's Bent Pyramid but also in Giza and most certainly in Abusir as well. I have added a footnote to explain the concept with a wikilink.Iry-Hor (talk) 08:44, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "The Egyptologist David Warburton sees such perpetual tax exemptions as capitulations by a king confronted with rampant corruption." No change needed but this seems to me very dubious. Strong kings have often granted such concessions to favourites.
Yes I agree I find the argument a bit misconstrued in the context of Pepi's reign. That said Warburton is also pointing out the problem that such repeated exemptions pose on the long term: all kings since the 5th Dynasty did at least some of that, so that towards the end of the Old Kingdom period, the amount of land under direct royal control and which would be available to levy tax was reduced to next to nothing. In addition, it seems that at least some of the exemptions granted by later 8th dynasty kings were nothing more than an official recognition of a de facto existing state, whereby people would have long stopped to pay anything to the king and the king would tell them they have the right to do so.Iry-Hor (talk) 08:44, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
  • You are inconsistent whether to hyphenate 'Ka chapel'.
Fixed all now hyphenated.Iry-Hor (talk) 08:44, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
  • You do not link the first usage of Ka.
Fixed.Iry-Hor (talk) 08:44, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
  • The link to [[Ancient Egyptian conception of the soul#kꜣ "double"|Ka]] is wrong. It should be [[Ancient Egyptian conception of the soul#Ka (vital essence)|Ka]]
Fixed.Iry-Hor (talk) 08:44, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
  • As Ka is so important in the article, you should explain it (which you do not unless I have missed it) as well as linking it.
Done Added a footnote at the point where Ka appears the first time in the text.Iry-Hor (talk) 08:44, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "Pepi I's mortuary complex was neighboured on its south-west corner by a necropolis built during his own reign and the reigns of Merenre and Pepi II." What does "was" mean here, that the necropolis no longer exists?
Fixed you are right it should be "is".Iry-Hor (talk) 08:44, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
  • " The tombs of Meritites and Ankhsenpepi III, both built after Pepi's reign, and tombs from later periods of Egyptian history in the necropolis are not discussed here." This should be in a note, not the main text.
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 08:44, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
Dudley Miles All done so far !Iry-Hor (talk) 08:44, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
  • " in the same fashion as royal pyramids since the reign of Djedkare Isesi" it would be helpful to add the approximate number of years earlier.
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 18:55, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
  • You are inconsistent how to spell Ankhsenpepi or Ankhesenpepi.
Fixed well spotted thanks.Iry-Hor (talk) 18:55, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
  • You are inconsistent whether serdab is capitalised.
Have you fixed it already ? Because all instance of serdab have no upper case first letter in the current version.Iry-Hor (talk) 18:55, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
  • My mistake. I should have said italicised. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:36, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Is it assumed that the pyramid of Ankhsenpepi I has disappeared?
  • "in the necropolis throughout the end of the third millennium BC until the Middle Kingdom". "throughout the end of the third millennium BC" sounds odd. I would delete.
  • "Later, during the reign of Ramses II, some sort of restoration works" I would delete "sort of" as vague and colloquial.
  • ""recalled his proprietor for posterity". I do not understand this.
  • "The royal annals bear the mention of the feast of the union of the two lands" This sounds odd. Maybe "The royal annals mention the feast of the union of the two lands".
  • "A pyramid town is a [for workers] who built the pyramid". Again odd. Maybe "Pyramid towns are areas of accommodation for workers who build pyramids" Dudley Miles (talk) 16:28, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Jens[edit]

  • Consort, wives, queens: these terms are used as if they mean the same, but I guess they don't?
They do mean the same in this context, and are used interchangeably to avoid repetitions.Iry-Hor (talk) 10:57, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
I would always use the same term for the same thing. Because readers have to assume that different terms refer to different things if they are not sure what they mean. I think this is just confusing, and repetition is the lesser evil. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 11:44, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
Well then by the same token, shouldn't all synonyms of a word be avoided ? I propose to include a footnote explaining that the terms designate the same thing here instead of putting everything back to one version.Iry-Hor (talk) 12:41, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
Within the same text, definitely. See e.g. [4]. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 13:16, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
I'm not sure a footnote will be of help here. The footnote would have to be attached to the first mention of one of the synonyms, in this case "consort". When first reading "consort", the reader thinks he knows the word, and reads on without clicking on the footnote. Then he encounters the other synonyms, thinking "hey, wait, were there different hierarchies of wives in ancient Egypt, the queen being the highest, maybe?" At this point, he has already read past the footnote (and may have forgotten it exists in the first place). I think this confusion is unnecessary and avoidable. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 13:23, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
Jens LallensackFixed I wrote "consort" everywhere I could instead of queen or wife. The word "queen" was retained in certain places where it cannot be avoided, for example the name of the pyramids of Pepi's consorts are always "queens' pyramids" and "queens' necropolis" in the sources and so it is in the text. I hope the current state is ok for you.Iry-Hor (talk) 15:52, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
Perfect, thanks. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:03, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
  • and succeeded by Merenre I Nemtyemsaf – "was succeeded by"?
Fixed.Iry-Hor (talk) 10:57, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
  • made in celebration of his first Sed festival. – Maybe state this celebrates the 30 year jubilee right away? All the background information on this festival comes quite late, would be great to have this explanations earlier.
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 10:57, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Examples can now be found in museums throughout the world: – I think it is nonstandard to refer to figures this way. I would simply provide a list of examples to make the text as independent from the figures as possible.
If this is acceptable to you, I would prefer to keep this, although I recognize that this is non-standard. Yet this is not against the MOS usage as far as I can tell.Iry-Hor (talk) 10:57, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
This is ok with me, I just wanted to mention it. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 11:44, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
  • said Pepi's father's own bodyguards assassinated Teti. – I think "Pepi's father" and "Teti" are the same person? If so, it is highly confusing to use different names for the same person this way.
Fixed.Iry-Hor (talk) 10:57, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
  • identity and his relationship to the royal family remain uncertain. – Make clear it refers to Usherkare, that does not become clear.
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 10:57, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
  • as he reused the blocks for his own mortuary temple – It does not become clear what the evidence is for this reuse.
Clarified. Blocks inscribed with pieces of reliefs mentioning the queen were found inside the walls and rubble used to built the motruary temple. This indicate that these blocks were taken from their original context (which was thus dismantled) only to be used as infill (construction material) in a new building.Iry-Hor (talk) 10:57, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Horus name – link/explain?
Done wikilinked.Iry-Hor (talk) 10:57, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
  • the fact that for the first and last time until the 26th Dynasty some 1800 years later, Khui's wife Nebet bore the title of vizier of Upper Egypt. – That means that Nebet had the title again 1800 later, when she was already dead?
Actually, the sentence does not read as you have written: rather it reads "for the first and last time until the 26th Dynasty some 1800 years later, a woman, Khui's wife Nebet, bore the title of vizier of Upper Egypt." which I think make it clear that it is the fact that it was a vizier woman which was unparalleled for 1800 years.Iry-Hor (talk) 10:57, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
In my version which I read offline (maybe two or three days old) "a woman" was not at the place where it is now. Now, this makes sense. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 11:44, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
Ah I see, this is because the sentence was modified several times by the copy-editor, myself and the two reviewer Parrot and Dudley Miles.Iry-Hor (talk) 12:41, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
Jens Lallensack Ok, I am looking forward to the rest of the review!Iry-Hor (talk) 10:57, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
  • In parallel with these developments, Pepi decreed tax-exemptions to various institutions. – The previous sentence was about developments in the preceding dynasty, so they cannot be "in parallel"?
  • In parallel with these developments, the consequences of the long-lasting cults of Old Kingdom pharaohs during the New Kingdom are apparent in the Karnak king list. – Here I also don't understand the "in parallel with these developments" part, especially since "are apparent" is presence, so how can they be in parallel? Maybe remove that part if it isn't adding much.
  • For example, the Bubastis ensemble of Pepi I – Where is this ensemble located? Can it be linked?
  • canopic chest – I have no idea what this could be; can it be linked or explained?
  • link Pyramid texts in body.
  • Pepi's consort Mehaa was buried in a pyramid on the south-west corner of Pepi's enclosure wall – dot missing
  • Archaeological evidence shows that these activities continued in the necropolis throughout the end of the third millennium BC until the Middle Kingdom. – bit repetitive as already mentioned in the pyramids section
  • The buildings are described in great detail, especially in the "Necropolis of Pepi I", where each queens pyramid has a separate heading. I wonder if this is excessive detail, as it is not directly about the figure. I feel this information is better placed in the Pyramid of Pepi I article (where one can already find it); using summary style here would significantly improve reading experience (the article feels quite wordy at the moment).
  • As a follow up from the note above, I'm wondering if there is undue balance, since the pyramid texts (the longest of the Old Kingdom) are only discussed with a few sentences while there is more than a screen page on the necropolis. Aren't the texts more significant? For example, the content of the texts could be discussed. To be clear, I'm not requesting that such information is added to an already long article; I'm just asking why the buildings are described in such detail while the texts are not.
  • That's it from me, a very good read. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:03, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

James A. Doonan[edit]

Nominator(s): Ergo Sum 04:35, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

This article is about a Jesuit from the Southern US who taught at several Jesuit colleges and led Georgetown University, where he saw the completion of its flagship building. Ergo Sum 04:35, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Hog Farm[edit]

  • I'll try to take a look over the next couple days. Might claim for wikicup. Hog Farm Bacon 04:57, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "James Doonan was said to frequently recount a story of the time he was present at a High Mass in Baltimore, when word of the approaching Union Army caused the congregants to leave and take up arms. As a staunch supporter of the Confederacy, he was aggrieved at being forced by the Union Army to bear arms on their behalf and act as a sentinel for several hours" - Cited to p. 374 in the source, but some of the material is on page 373 as well, so both should be in the page range.
    • Done. Ergo Sum 02:57, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment only, no action needed - I find the preceding story a little odd, because Baltimore was under Union occupation for almost the entire war, but it's supported by an RS and could have happened during a brief span in 1861. It caught my attention, at least.
    • I'm no expert in the Civil War. I'll leave that to the experts to sort out. Ergo Sum 02:59, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "This was interrupted in 1868 by a year of teaching," - Where?
    • Clarified. Ergo Sum 03:06, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "Bishop John J. Keane, Catholic University's first rector,[17] attempted to resolve this dispute by unsuccessfully offering to purchase Georgetown University,[18] tendering this proposal to Doonan" - Chronology is a little unclear for this - implied to be 1887, but never directly stated. If this offer didn't occur in 1887, can you provide the year it did occur in?
    • I'm not able to deduce a precise year from the source. Ergo Sum 03:10, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Is it known what he did in Detroit?
    • Clarified that he also taught philosophy in Detroit. I can't determine at which institution, but if I were to speculate, it would be at Detroit College. The source is silent on this, though, so I'm leaving it out. Ergo Sum 03:27, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "Doonan then returned to Philadelphia, where he suffered a stroke, causing partial paralysis" - Is this in 1896 or 1897?
    • The source does not specify what year he went to Lourdes or returned to Philadelphia. Ergo Sum 03:30, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "In 1906, he returned to Georgetown" - Is this a reference to the university, or to Georgetown (Washington, D.C.)?
    • Clarified. Ergo Sum 03:31, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Is cause of death known?
    • No. Ergo Sum 03:36, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
  • The Find A Grave external link gives his name as Jacobus Doonan, and this old source mentions a Jacobus Doonan that was also born on November 8, 1841 and entered studies in July 1857. So was Jacobus Doonan a reasonably valid alternate name? The FAG reference is ignorable, but the other is an old 1860 Jesuit catalog, so that may be something worth mentioning. The picture on FAG supposed to be of his tombstone shows it reading the name "Jacobus A. Doonan". Probably worth a passing mention or a footnote if you can find a decent source for it.
    • Jacobus is just the Latinzed form of James. For Jesuit documents that were written in Latin (including the gravestone), they just Latinized James. This was done with most first names in old Latin documents (ecclesiastical or otherwise). Ergo Sum 03:37, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I don't think Doonan is really what Category:People of Georgia (U.S. state) in the American Civil War is designed for. His ACW connection is rather fleeting.
    • Touché. Ergo Sum 03:38, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

That's it from me, I think. Nonexpert here, so I'm addressing the prose more than anything else. An interesting read. Hog Farm Bacon 03:31, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, Hog Farm. Ergo Sum 03:39, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
Support on prose. Hog Farm Bacon 03:30, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Image review[edit]

  • Alt text shouldn't be identical to caption - if there's nothing else to say just refer to caption
    • Improved the alt text. Ergo Sum 03:51, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
  • File:James_Doonan_portrait.jpg: when and where was this first published?
    • I have not been able to find it published anywhere, so I have update the license accordingly. Ergo Sum 03:53, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
  • File:Cannon_Healy_Hall.jpg: as per the Flickr tag, is more specific tagging available? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:59, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
    • Not that I can discern. Ergo Sum 03:56, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Nikkimaria, I have added one more photo to the article. Would you mind reviewing that one? Ergo Sum 03:56, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

New image is fine. However, for the unpublished portrait: I see the archivelink source claims "all rights reserved". Do you know the basis for that claim? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:15, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
In the past, it's seemed that the Georgetown University archives sets all image copyrights as "rights reserved" by default until someone gets around to reviewing it. Since the copyright tag was changed from rights reserved to not reviewed, I would imagine that's what happened here. (As an aside, I haven't come across an image in the GU archives that does have an actual copyright evaluation).

Support from Gog the Mild[edit]

Recusing to review.

  • "during which time he oversaw the completion". Delete "time".
    • I don't know if that's grammatically correct. The which would be referring to "president" which isn't a temporal concept or "1882 to 1888" which isn't a noun. Having "which" refer back to it strikes my ear as a bit unusual. Ergo Sum 05:47, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "and construction of a new" → 'and the construction of a new'.
    • Done. Ergo Sum 05:48, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "He also acquired the two cannons in front of Healy Hall." → 'He also acquired the two cannons which are situated/placed in front of Healy Hall.'
    • Done. Ergo Sum 05:49, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "having reduced the university's burdensome debt" → 'reducing the university's burdensome debt'.
    • Done. Ergo Sum 05:49, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "He was the son of Ellen Doonan (née Barry) and Terrence Doonan, an engineer and wealthy railroad official and one of the first Catholics in Atlanta; Terrence was entrusted by the local priest with keeping the parish records until a pastor was appointed, and in his home, the first Catholic baptism in Atlanta was performed." A very long sentence. Suggest a break where the semi colon is.
    • Done. Ergo Sum 05:53, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
  • " after which time he returned to Washington". Delete "time".
    • Done. Ergo Sum 05:53, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "for his philosophical studies. His studies were paused" Could this be rephrased to avoid "studies" twice in three words?
    • Changed one "studies" to "study." Similar but at least slightly different. Ergo Sum 05:54, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "In September 1875, he went to Frederick". Is it known what he did in Fredrick?
    • The source does not indicate this. Ergo Sum 05:57, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "During a portion of this time"> Which time?
    • Rephrased. It should be clearer that for part of his time as a professor at Georgetown, he was VP and prefect. Ergo Sum 05:56, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "he was able to reduce the significant debt"; "he would eventually leave office with a greatly reduced debt." This seems to say the same thing twice.
    • Indeed. Rephrased. Ergo Sum 05:59, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "which along with the Dove brought the first settlers" Suggest "brought" → 'carried' to avoid repetition of "brought".
    • Done. Ergo Sum 05:59, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "instead, they had been a part of Lord Baltimore's expedition" I think you mean 'in fact', not "instead". Also, another long sentence, consider breaking it.
    • Done. Ergo Sum 06:01, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "Doonan first taught philosophy". Delete "first".
    • Done. Ergo Sum 06:03, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "in such subjects as". In UK English that would be 'on', not "in".
    • One of those trans-Atlantic divides. I believe "in" is the standard preposition here in American English. Ergo Sum 06:03, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "Doonan then returned to Philadelphia, where he suffered a stroke," Is it known either when he returned or when he suffered his stroke?
    • Unfortunately not. The source doesn't elaborate on when he went to Lourdes, returned, or suffered a stroke. Ergo Sum 06:04, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Cite 23 should be 'p.', not "pp.".
    • Fixed. Ergo Sum 06:04, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Gog the Mild (talk) 13:48, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, Gog the Mild. Ergo Sum 06:05, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Nice work. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:28, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

1985 Tour de France[edit]

Nominator(s): Zwerg Nase (talk) 16:13, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

This article is about the 72nd running of the Tour de France, the most prestigious cycle race in the world. It was promoted to Good Article last May. All comments are much appreciated! Zwerg Nase (talk) 16:13, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Gerald Waldo Luis[edit]

  • Suggest the addition of alt texts on images
  • Suggest archiving sources.


  • Short descriptions must be started with capital letters.
  • Link yellow jersey? They're an uncommon term.


  • Suggest using Template:Main instead of the current hatnote.
  • Not familiar with the Tour de France, but why is a person referred to as a "team"? Sounds weird.
can you indicate where this happens? I read the section twice, and could not find what you refer to... --EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 15:47, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Pre-race favourites

  • "had won the 1984 Tour de France" --> "had won the previous Tour de France".
  • "Panasonic–Raleigh" is linked in the second mention; should be linked in the first mention.

Route and stages

  • "Summit of the Col du Tourmalet, the highest point of elevation during this year's Tour"-- suggest changing "this year's" to "the 1985", as "this" may sound like "the current year" aka 2021.
  • Italicizing "en route" is not needed,
  • In the table's header, suggest switching positions of ref 38 and 30. Feel free to do this or not, I'm sure it's just my OCD triggered.

Race overview

  • Suggest making the display text of the second main article as "Stage 12 to Stage 22", as the prefix "1985 Tour de France" has been stated in the first main article.

I'll have more on this later. Currently writing something for Signpost, so am shifting simultaneously. GeraldWL 15:49, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Sportsfan77777[edit]

I'll get to this in the future... Sportsfan77777 (talk) 07:12, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Image review

  • Suggest adding alt text
  • File:Bernard_Hinault_(1982).jpg: don't see the given licensing at the cited source. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:03, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
@Nikkimaria: The license is given in the original image here, which links to here, where the Creative Commons licence is under "Auteursrechthebbende". Why the cropped image has CC 3.0 instead of CC 1.0 of the original, I do not know. I am not an expert on those licences unfortunately, so I am not sure if there is anything wrong with that. Zwerg Nase (talk) 13:15, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
The larger issue is the source image has different licensing conditions (CC0) than the image here (CC BY-SA). Nikkimaria (talk) 13:54, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
@Nikkimaria: Yeah, that's what I meant, but I am unsure what one can do about it? Can I just change the licence in the cropped image? Or do I have to use the original? Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:06, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
Unless there's a specific reason why the cropped image is different, then yes, you can change it. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:05, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Love for Sale (Bilal album)[edit]

Nominator(s): isento (talk) 00:03, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

This article is about an unreleased album by the singer-songwriter Bilal, recorded in the early 2000s at Electric Lady Studios during the height of the studio's Soulquarians era. A darker, experimental departure from the neo soul music of his first album, Love for Sale was resisted by the singer's record label and controversially shelved after an unfinished mix leaked online in 2006, changing the course of his career while becoming a cult classic among black-music fans. This article was recently (and thoroughly) reviewed by Kyle Peake for good-article nomination, making it ready for review here, in my opinion. isento (talk) 00:03, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Support from Kyle Peake[edit]

This article looks to be in amazing shape, having only improved if anything since my review that helped improve it to a strong degree! It would be not only incredible, but also deserved of Isento for this article to become a FA. --K. Peake 06:17, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Source review by Ealdgyth[edit]

  • Note that I did not do spot checks or check for formatting, etc. Just reliablity.
  • Note also that I will claim this review for points in the Wikicup.
  • Ealdgyth (talk) 14:40, 5 January 2021 (UTC)Ealdgyth (talk) 13:38, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
    • Thank you for the comments. Please keep in mind that much of the coverage of this topic has been in the purview of black publications, which historically have less resources and visibility compared to mainstream counterparts ([25], [26]). Along with the decline in journalism during the 2010s encouraging established/already-credible writers/publishers to self-publish more. And that with the more marginally-reliable sources, I used them in the case of interviews with musicians relevant to this article's subject. isento (talk) 14:50, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
      • I checked WP:FACS's section on high-quality sourcing, potential concerns, etc... The primary sources -- interviews -- are used in accordance with secondary literature on the topic, and all in all, the sources are the best available on this topic. isento (talk) 17:53, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
Do you have any follow-up comments @Ealdgyth:? isento (talk) 17:38, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
I have struck some above, but the problem with interviews isn't being primary but the reliabilty of the actual interviewer and the site publishing the interview. See User:Ealdgyth/FAC cheatsheet#New FAC stuff for some helpful advice. I am sensitive to the fact that this isn't an subject area that is going to have big academic tomes written on it, but we do still need to be mindful of the FA criteria as well as the general WP:RS policies. Ealdgyth (talk) 20:49, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for that reference @Ealdgyth:. I believe I've demonstrated criteria described at your page for most of the above sources, with more commentary added since. But please take me through them, one by one, if more is needed to make a better determination. I don't think any of them fall into the adage "Not everything you read is true", if the question about the interviews is whether they were accurately recorded or not, or if they are even real to begin with. isento (talk) 17:14, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
I've struck a few more but the others I'm not persuaded by. Ealdgyth (talk) 13:15, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
Okay, I understand. I would like to continue examining each of the rest further one by one, with additional research, and respond to your reservations. isento (talk) 03:03, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

I'll throw in Gearslutz, which is listed in the Bibliography as an "interview" but is in fact a page from an online chat forum. EddieHugh (talk) 23:22, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Support from DMT biscuit[edit]

Comment from Vmavanti[edit]

This person isn't a jazz musician. My guess is R&B, not jazz. I request that references to jazz be removed unless reliable sources proving he is a jazz musician can be found. Thanks.
Vmavanti (talk) 05:57, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Have you read this article, or even the singer's? There are reliable sources attributed to those references to jazz. And nothing refers to him outright as a "jazz musician". isento (talk) 06:05, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
In your edit summary you called my comment "misguided". I would like to hear you defend that accusation in specific detail. The infobox says "jazz". I would like to see that removed. He isn't a jazz musician and this isn't a jazz album. If you put "jazz" in the infobox, you are saying this is a jazz album. It isn't. It's an unreleased R&B album by an R&B musician. This is a typical Wikipedia article where a fan tries to elevate something insignificant merely by insisting it is significant. It's a mistake to love protocol more than common sense. "On occasional trips to the city's jazz clubs with his father, he witnessed the working habits and lifestyles of musicians, which inspired him to pursue music seriously." What habits? What "lifestyles"? What does "language" refer to in "music theory and language". What does "connecting with" mean? That's slang. "Buzz" is a slang term that has no place in Wikipedia. Why is it a contract "from" Interscope rather than contract "with" Interscope? Was it a gift from them? Or was it a deal, an exchange? Why use "tenure" in "tenure at Interscope"? How did they "pressure" him? "I was trying to come from a jazz perspective." What does this mean? "Expand his fanbase" is slang. Why neo-soul rather than soul? Is this album soul, neo-soul, R&B, or jazz? It can't be all of them. Choose. And that's merely sentences after talking about his "alternative-rock style demos". Where they alternative rock demos? And how is that different from alternative rock "style" demos. I could go on.
Vmavanti (talk) 13:38, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
There's been a considerable influence/merging between/on hip hop/r&b from jazz and vice versa in the last decade. Bilal's contributions to the seminal jazz album To Pimp a Butterfly and his work with Robert Glasper certainly underline this. No Swan So Fine (talk) 13:07, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
It's telling that in your attempt to explain you fall back on slashes and vague references to imaginary, hybrid forms of music that lack names or definition. One of the jobs of an editor is to replace ambiguity with clarity. It's your opinion that To Pimp a Butterfly is a "seminal jazz album". We don't deal in opinion on Wikipedia. We deal in boring facts. If you are interested in opinions, movements, causes, idealism, romanticism, and boosterism, you shouldn't be editing on Wikipedia. This isn't a jazz album. It's dishonest to hint/suggest/imply that it may be/might be/could be/influenced by/wants to be/smells like/was in the same room as...jazz.
Vmavanti (talk) 15:11, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
When we write about art on Wikipedia, the only 'facts' we can cite are other peoples opinions. Wikipedia is inherently an idealistic project. "Imagine a world where the sum etc...". Every time someone says of an album 'that's not jazz', that when the next musical revolution begins. No Swan So Fine (talk) 09:06, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
"When we write about art on Wikipedia" — You're not writing about art. You are writing about R&B music. Artists uses paint brushes. "the only 'facts' we can cite are other peoples opinions"— Wrong. I don't know where you got that idea but you should drop it. Wikipedia is not in the opinion business. Facts differ from opinions. Facts actually exist and thus don't need limp quotation marks around them suggesting that they do not. You should be writing facts, not quoting opinions, no matter what the subject of the article. "Wikipedia is inherently an idealistic project" — To the degree that Wikipedia continues to exist as a reference work, an impartial encyclopedia, this comment is wrong. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. It's not the place to inject your opinions or your feelings about life. "Every time someone says of an album 'that's not jazz', that when the next musical revolution begins"— This is another arbitrary, frivolous remark that really doesn't mean much of anything. It's irrelevant to this article and irrelevant to Wikipedia. Let's not make virtues of ambiguity, ignorance, confusion, hope, and wishful thinking.
Vmavanti (talk) 01:28, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Coord note -- I was pinged on my talk page to look at this discussion. There seems to be a lot of focus on whether the artist is considered a jazz musician or not. That's a concern for the artist's article, not for this article. The focus here should be what reliable sources say about the album. If reliable sources consider the album jazz, or to have jazz elements, then noting this would be reasonable. I can't see why someone not considered primarily a jazz musician couldn't create an album with jazz elements, and if the sources support that contention then so be it. The point is that the article should reflect the sources without undue weight being applied, IOW if the term jazz keeps coming up in the sources, I'd expect to see the term prominent in the WP article. If the term is less prominent in the sources then one would expect it to be less prominent in the article. Our opinions as WP editors on an album's genre or styles matters not a bit, what RSs say does. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:50, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree that it's possible for someone who isn't a jazz musician to make a jazz album. It's possible. But I can't think of any examples off the top of my head. Linda Ronstadt's albums weren't jazz. Steve Miller? Almost. Rod Stewart? Uh, no. Jay Geils pulled it off. There's a difference between "lightning" and "lightning bug". There's a difference between "jazz" and "jazz influenced". I have seen the latter many times. Usually it means puffery, promotion, and pretense—particularly if the musician in question is approaching the end of life or looking for work. I'm not here to sell albums. I'm not here to sink albums.
Vmavanti (talk) 19:42, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

The genre field in the infobox "should include the music genre(s) that best describes the album. It should come from a reliable source and also be stated and referenced in the body of the article" (Template:Infobox album#genre). I don't see a source cited that clearly states 'this is an X album', for "jazz fusion", "blues rock" or "avant-garde" (is this really a genre?), and I haven't looked for the others. I see "inflections", "closer to", "arrangements drawn from", "perspective", "directions of"... even the "progressive jazz" line is "began displaying Bilal's love affair with progressive jazz and electric rock" in the source. There's an impressive array of sources, and they're saying, overall, that this is something unusual, original, influenced by lots of things, and that it's not of a particular genre (or genres)... which suggests that the infobox shouldn't contain these things. EddieHugh (talk) 00:02, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Image review[edit]

  • Blue Note image is missing alt text
  • File:Love_for_Sale_-_Bilal.jpg: not convinced this is sufficiently original to warrant copyright protection - it's not really "cover art" so much as a default press design, if I understand correctly? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:25, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
@Nikkimaria:, I've added the alt text. Yes, it is a default press design. I inquired about this topic in August at the albums project talk page and was advised this was the best option. What course of action should be done if it doesn't warrant copyright protection? isento (talk) 19:29, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

The Heart of Thomas[edit]

Nominator(s): Morgan695 (talk) 01:03, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

This article is about Moto Hagio's seminal manga series The Heart of Thomas, noted as one of the earliest manga in the shōnen-ai (male-male romance) genre. Much of this article is sourced from User:Lady freyja's excellent article written for the French Wikipedia (fr:Le Cœur de Thomas), which itself is a featured article. I improved this article after avoiding The Heart of Thomas for many years; though I write primarily about manga and LGBT topics on Wikipedia and recognized the series' influence in the medium, I falsely assumed it was merely another dated schoolboy romance narrative. Only upon reading it for the first time last year did I realize how incorrect my assumption was, and was able to appreciate what a truly compelling narrative The Heart of Thomas is. The Heart of Thomas is currently a good article (review here), and is queued to appear on DYK on January 13 (nomination here). This is my second featured article nomination, following Stucky (fandom). Morgan695 (talk) 01:03, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Comments by Tintor2 (talk) 01
52, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Nice article. I hope it becomes FA considering the project doesn't have that many. I'll try to find any issue before giving the support:

Leaving my Support. Good work.Tintor2 (talk) 14:06, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Heart_of_Thomas_Moto_Hagio.jpg: source link is dead, missing info on copyright holder, and FUR needs improvement
    • Updated source, added copyright holder, improved rationale.
  • File:Demian_Erstausgabe.jpg is incorrectly tagged and missing information on the original source
    • I corrected the source information, can you clarify how it is tagged incorrectly?
      • Under US law creating a simple reproduction of a 2D work does not garner a new copyright, so the uploader would not be able to release the work under a free license in the US. (Depending on where they are the tag may be valid for that country). This needs a US tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:41, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
        • Tag added.
  • File:Birch_Little_Lord_Fauntleroy_add_Titre.png: if this is to be hosted on Commons, it needs to include copyright information for the source country as well as US
  • File:Emil_Wolff-Eros-Mutter_Erde_fec.jpg needs a US tag for the sculpture.
    • I have added a US tag.

Would also suggest cleaning up citation formatting before someone does a source review. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:21, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

  • @Nikkimaria: I have attempted to address the issues raised. Image usage tagging is not my area of expertise, so specific guidance on what is needed to make these images admissible would be appreciated. Can you also clarify what you mean by cleaning up the citation formatting? Morgan695 (talk) 04:38, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
  • There are currently a lot of inconsistencies in how sources are being formatted - some books have locations while others don't, some short citations don't link correctly to the full source, some journals include publishers and others don't, etc. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:42, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
  • @Nikkimaria: Response above on images; I'll get started on formatting the references. Morgan695 (talk) 18:26, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Comments by Figureskatingfan Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 05:38, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

By request; I reviewed this article for DYK, and suggested that Morgan695 bring it here. I'm glad you're going to be working on standardizing the refs. I have a general comment: as per WP:PARAGRAPH, many of your paragraphs are too short. I think you could combine many of them, with better transitions. I think you could combine the first two paragraphs in the subsection "Production", since both are about Hagio's friendship with Takemiya, and how it affected Hagio's choice of genres. I'd also combine the two paragraphs in the subsection "Editions", making it into one longer paragraph, like this: Upon its conclusion, Shogakukan collected The Heart of Thomas into three tankōbon published in January, April and June 1975; they are respectively numbers 41, 42 and 43 of the Flower Comics collection. The series has been regularly re-printed by Shogakukan. In the West, The Heart of Thomas was not published until the 2010s. On September 14, 2011, Fantagraphics Books announced that it had acquired the license to The Heart of Thomas for release in North America. The single-volume hardcover omnibus, translated into English by Rachel Thorn, was released on January 18, 2013. I think these are things you could do throughout the article, to make the prose tighter and more encyclopedic. Other than that, which is easily fixable, this is a beautiful article, with lots of potential. It could be the rare Wikipedia article that could make an impact, and serve as an example of other articles like it. Ganbatte! (Hope that's correct.) Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 05:38, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Drive-by-comments from LM150

  • I recommend using a full stop after this sentence: The series was originally developed by Hagio as a personal project that she did not expect would ever be published;
  • "It inspired multiple subsequent works" - don't need "subsequent" here
  • "with a total of 33 weekly chapters" - don't need "a total of" here
  • "The film was subsequently adapted into a novel" - don't need "subsequently"
  • "but as a sacrifice in order to free Juli’s repressed emotions" - don't need "in order to"
  • "Hagio initially relocated the setting of the story to an all-girls boarding school; she ultimately decided the environment was too restrictive" - might sound simpler as: Hagio relocated the setting of the story to an all-girls boarding school, but decided the environment was too restrictive.. Thanks LM150 13:02, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Coments by Gabriel Yuji

It seems a very good work. The most eye-catching aspect of it is the shorteness of "Reception and legacy". Surprisingly, there's only one review of the 2013 release (done by Welker—and in regards to citing him, there are two different "Walker 2015", the Mechamedia article and the University Press of Mississippi book, so you should distinguish them by naming them diferently [like Walker 2015a and Walker 2015b]). Did you take a look at other reviews by Anime News Network [30] (one of them by famous Jason Thompson [31]), ComicsAlliance [32], Comics Worth Reading [33], Fantasy Book Review [34] (seems like a blog, but reviewer Sandra Scholes used to write for ActiveAnime, which is fine, according to our WikiProject), Hooded Utilitarian [35] (reviewer Ng Suat Tong is contributor of The Comics Journal), Manga Bookshelf [36], and Publishers Weekly [37]. I don't know if you have already consulted these sources; if yes, you can ignore my commentary (but at least it will be registered here). If no, although I know scholars are preferred over common reviewers, maybe they can be useful to write at least a paragraph with an overall assessment by English-language critics. Last but no least, since you translated parts of it from the French FA counterpart (as you say), according to WP:TFOLWP, the inclusion of this template in the talkpage for atributtion would be nice. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 16:59, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

I've distinguished the Welker sources and added the translation attribution page. Thank you for gathering the reviews; I'll ping you when I've expanded the section. Morgan695 (talk) 20:28, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
  • @Gabriel Yuji: I've expanded the article with some reviews. I intentionally didn't include the Ng Suat Tong review; while I think it would be valuable to include a dissenting review, Tong is something of an Armond White-style professional contrarian, so I'm generally not convinced his analysis is valuable. Morgan695 (talk) 20:29, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Dimple Kapadia[edit]

Nominator(s): ShahidTalk2me 23:20, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

This article is about an Indian actress who was recently seen in the Hollywood blockbuster Tenet. Many people who saw her for the first time in this film didn't know this lady has quite a career behind her. It's hard to find high-quality articles about Indian actors from her era owing to the limited coverage found online compared to publications in the west. This is this article's second go at FAC; last time it actually had a fair share of support, but it ended up becoming a mess. But it proved to be good for the article; I've spent time to improve it, digging in the archives to find the best sources available, including books and scholarly journals, adding more information, and polishing the prose, as recently done with the help of an independent copyeditor from GoCE. I think it is much better now. Needless to say, I'll be happy to address constructive comments. Best regards, ShahidTalk2me 23:20, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Comments by Lee Vilenski[edit]

I'll begin a review of this article very soon! My reviews tend to focus on prose and MOS issues, especially on the lede, but I will also comment on anything that could be improved. I'll post up some comments below over the next couple days, which you should either respond to, or ask me questions on issues you are unsure of. I'll be claiming points towards the wikicup once this review is over.

  • Lede sentence should cover the main aspect of the article. I think her place of birth is important here. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 20:03, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
  • In the same year, - this reads like she maried at 14! Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 20:03, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
  • she married the Indian actor - "the" is superfluous. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 20:03, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
  • This was a request by another reviewer who said British English requires articles. I applied it across the board. Let me know if you suggest removing it anyway. ShahidTalk2me 21:10, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
  • The lede seems a bit all over the place - just seems to be a shortened history section. I'd much rather see that she won X many awards, and then a summary of her media image, etc Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 20:03, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
  • The media image is incorporated into the summary of her career - namely her initial roles relying on her beauty, mention of her sex appeal, and her desire to expand her range and prove her mettle as an actor. The lead is a summary of her career and it is a chronological one because honestly she is hardly even known for anything other than her film career. When not acting, she is not known for engaging in any special off-screen activity and is not in the public eye. I agree that in some cases the mention of awards is better off summarised in one line. It's just that in this case the awards fit really well into her career description, and there aren't that many of them, like in the case of, say, Meryl Streep, where it's almost impossible to make a readable lead with all her individual awards mentioned. ShahidTalk2me 21:10, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
  • She took on more serious parts of troubled women in films ranging from mainstream to neorealist parallel cinema, and received acclaim for her performances in films including Kaash (1987), Drishti (1990), Lekin... (1991), and Rudaali (1993).[2] - I don't think this is contentious enough to warrant a citation in lede. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 20:03, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Was requested by another reviewer before. If someone else suggests to remove it, will do so. ShahidTalk2me 21:10, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I think the lede needs more on her standing in the industry, rather than a list of things she was in. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 20:03, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
  • (Update from the 14th of January: Hi, Lee Vilenski - I've expanded the lead now to include better description of hr roles, reception of her work, and so on - the lead is still rather chronological because everything fits just fine into this structure, but I think it is more representative and gives the readers a better sense of her work and standing in the industry) I was very careful not to make it rely on too much puffery and have a balanced lede where everything is within context. Her status as a leading actress of Hindi cinema, her beauty and critical acclaimed roles are there, but attached to her work. From my experience with FAs on actors, it is better to let the achievements speak for themselves, and that's what I tried to do here. ShahidTalk2me 21:10, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Bombay (present-day Mumbai) - you don't need to explain what it is now. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 20:18, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Where is the DOB sourced? The two sources don't mention 1957 at all. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 20:18, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Gujarati businessman Chunibhai Kapadia and his wife Bitti, who was known as "Betty" (1939–2019 - why is her details important? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 20:18, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
  • She is the only one whose details exist. Removed anyway. ShahidTalk2me 21:46, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Agha Khan - our article is at a different title. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 20:18, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Linked and clarified. ShahidTalk2me 21:46, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
  • As an infant, Dimple was given the name Ameena (literally, "honest" or "trustworthy" in Arabic) by Aga Khan III, although she was never referred to by it. - what does this even mean? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 20:18, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
  • She is the eldest of four children; her siblings—all of whom have died—are sisters Simple (also an actor) and Reem, and a brother, Suhail. - were. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 20:18, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
  • marriage was her "biggest high" during this period - what does this mean? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 20:18, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Clarified, since this is a quote this should be clear now. ShahidTalk2me 21:46, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Kapadia retired from acting after marriage and gave birth to two daughters - you haven't actually mentioned acting up until this point. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 20:18, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
  • despite reaming separated - sp. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 20:18, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Revised to "despite not having reunited". ShahidTalk2me 21:46, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Dimple Kapadia filmography being a see also seems weird. Why don't we have a section on this in this article? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 20:28, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
  • This is the standard now on FA articles, if you insist I could add another section anyway. ShahidTalk2me 21:46, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
  • It starred Kapoor's son Rishi Kapoor as Raj Nath, the son of a wealthy Hindu businessman, and Kapadia was given the title role of Bobby Braganza, the teenage daughter of a Christian fisherman from Goa. The story follows the love affair between Raj and Bobby in the face of his parents' disapproval of their relationship due to class prejudice - I don't see how this has anything to do with her. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 20:28, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Since this was the first role of her career and to this day perhaps the film she is most associated with, we thought there was room for more detail of the plot. This version was actually worked out by several editors in the previous FAC - since the core issue of the film is class prejudice and a love story between a Hindu and a Christian, we thought it was crucial to mention the other star's role to the understanding of her character. ShahidTalk2me 21:46, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
  • by which time Kapadia was married. - at this stage, it's been noted she was married to death. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 20:28, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
  • In 2008, the web portal ranked her performance in Bobby as the fourth-best female debut of all-time in Hindi cinema: "An elfin little girl with big, lovely eyes, nobody quite portrayed innocence as memorably as Dimple in her first outing. She was candid, striking, and a true natural ... here was a girl who would redefine glamour and grace, and make it look very, very easy indeed." - web portals don't talk. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 20:28, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
  • The film was chosen as India's official entry - pipes to a redirect. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 20:28, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
  • A review by Asiaweek appreciated the film for its "polished narration and masterly technique" and labelled Kapadia "a delight" - newspapers don't speak either. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 20:28, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
  • noted, "Dimple, caught between a friend and lover, performed solidly and memorably, grounding the two male leads and making the film work." - similar. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 20:28, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Other films released before Saagar include Manzil Manzil (1984), Aitbaar (1985) and Arjun (1985). this should be mentioned before Saagar then. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 20:28, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Totally agree. Done. ShahidTalk2me 21:46, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your valuable comments so far, Lee Vilenski. ShahidTalk2me 22:35, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Additional comments

Additionally, if you liked this review, or are looking for items to review, I have some at my nominations list. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 18:34, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Comments by Yashthepunisher[edit]

  • Why are there refs in the lead?
  • It was requested by a past reviewer because these are strong claims. ShahidTalk2me 10:22, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
  • The word 'picture' sounds informal. Why not replace it with 'film'?
  • Done, although I'm not sure it's informal. ShahidTalk2me 10:22, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
  • 'At age 15, she agreed to marry the actor Rajesh Khanna.' This sentence is a bit unclear. Was it an arranged marriage or love?
  • It wasn't an arranged marriage, that's why I wrote "agreed" and concluded with "after a short courtship" so readers know it was fully voluntary. ShahidTalk2me 10:22, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
  • 'Movies' should be replaced with 'film' since the former is pretty informal.
  • Changed across the board except for cases where it's called for, like road movie. ShahidTalk2me 10:22, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Yashthepunisher (talk) 06:51, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your comments, Yashthepunisher. Regards, ShahidTalk2me 10:22, 10 January 2021 (UTC)


Nominator(s): Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:00, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

A quite spectacular dinosaur, described only recently. I tried hard to make it as accessible as possible, and look forward to comments! Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:00, 2 January 2021 (UTC)


  • I did the GA, so for now I only have some suggestions for additional sources. And then I wonder if, since you mention the semicircular canal head posture theories, if it should be stated some studies have doubted this idea? I'll come back later if it needs further reviews. FunkMonk (talk) 20:50, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
Added some ambiguity, let me know if you think we need more. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 10:37, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
  • There's this probably useful conference abstract: TOOTH FORMATION TIMES AND REPLACEMENT RATES IN BAJADASAURUS PRONUSPINAX[38] FunkMonk (talk) 20:52, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
Ok, added a paragraph now. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 10:37, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Here's a Spanish press release about it by conicet[39], which may have some additional info. This one in English also seems to have interviews with the authors:[40] FunkMonk (talk) 21:15, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
Nothing new inside it seems. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 10:37, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Regarding size estimates, I assume that the "Dinosaur Facts and Figures" book[41] is new enough to have an entry on this genus, but I don't remember whether we concluded it was reliable enough or not? FunkMonk (talk) 21:02, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
I do not consider this as a high-quality reliable source, because it is obviously a book for children. I wonder what does @Nikkimaria: think about this; can this book be used as a source in Wikipedia? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 10:37, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
A major problem with these books is that they create a precise estimate, to the meter if not decimeter, for EVERYTHING. This includes isolated teeth, unguals, and the like. I seem to remember that their willingness to tooth-scale sauropods was one of our main reasons for deciding that these books weren't reliable sources (although they've unfortunately taken over much of the dinosaur size page, it seems). --Slate WeaselT - C - S⟩ 13:32, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
Using a children's book as a high-quality source is always going to be questioned. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:20, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
I gather this is a clear "no". Thanks. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:58, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
  • This article[42] states it "hit the headlines" for it spines, which could maybe be a way to cite that it became well-known immediately after its description? Personally I think it's interesting to note how the press reacted to the discovery, and that almost every headline mentioned its "mohawk". FunkMonk (talk) 21:15, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
Very good point, added! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 10:37, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
  • One thing I asked at the end of the GA which I'm not sure I ever figured out is whether info from the supplemental pdf has been included too? FunkMonk (talk) 06:39, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
I took that into account, but there is barely any useful info inside there. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:12, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Esculenta comments[edit]

This is a placeholder; I'll come back for a full review later. Some quick MoS-related comments:

Thanks for taking a look! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 10:37, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
  • the citation formatting could use a bit of tidying. Some examples:
  • lacking page numbers: Ref#2, #9
  • inconsistency with formatting of author initials; compare “Hallett, M.; Wedel, M.” to “Harris, JD; Dodson, P”
  • are book titles in title case or sentence case?
  • doi missing for Ref #8
  • specify language for Ref #15. Esculenta (talk) 01:34, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
I did a general clean-up now. Hope I got everything. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 10:37, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Image review[edit]

Images appear to be freely licensed. (t · c) buidhe 23:10, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Support from Gog the Mild[edit]

  • Could we be told how old the genus is in the opening paragraph of the lead.
  • "from the Early Cretaceous epoch"; " from the Early or Middle Jurassic to the end of the Early Cretaceous". Both from the opening paragraph. Appears 1. repetitive, 2. inconsistant.
  • Hmm … just removed that part, since I felt that it gets a bit off-topic.
  • "bifurcated". Possibly follow with '(two-pronged)'?
  • Thanks, I generally don't know which terms are easy to understand for native speakers and which are not. Added. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:57, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Link gracile.
  • "The only specimen was excavated ..." As this is the start of the main article, I feel that a proper reintroduction may read better. Perhaps something like 'The only specimen of the dinosaur genus Bajadasaurus was excavated ..."?
  • "The site of discovery". Should that be 'The site of the discovery;>
  • According to Google Scholar, "site of discovery" has 1.760 hits but "site of the discovery" only 1.100. But maybe that is science jargon? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:57, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Either could be correct, depending on the rest of the context. Nevertheless, I am surprised at that ratio. Regardless, IMO, skipping the definite article is poor grammar.
  • "near the western banks". Is that in US English? "banks" plural reads oddly to me.
  • Link anteriorly.
  • Link process at first mention.
  • "As all sauropods". Should that be 'As with all sauropods'?
  • "roughly reaching sizes of present-day Asian Elephants". 1. Maybe 'roughly reaching the size of present-day Asian Elephants'? 2. Lower case e.
  • "Long bifurcated neural spines" Again, a bracketed explanation of bifurcated may help many readers.
  • Caption: "whose similarly elongate neural spines". Should that be 'elongated'?
  • My English isn't good enough here – changed. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:57, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "The skull includes most of the skull roof and braincase" reads oddly, especially as the start of a section. Perhaps 'The fossilised skull', or something else to clarify that you are not writing about Bajadasaurus skulls in general.
  • "Its overall built was gracile." "built" → 'build'.
  • "was wider than high". Optional: → 'was wider than it was high'.
done. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:57, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "Its rear surface was not wider than its neck, different from Amargasaurus and Dicraeosaurus." → 'Its rear surface was not wider than its neck, which was different from Amargasaurus and Dicraeosaurus.'
  • "likely had 44 teeth in total." I am struggling to add the numbers to 44. Either in the article or in Gallina et al. Could you help me out?
Heck, of course! I can't count it seems. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:57, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "as typical for dicraeosaurids" → 'as is typical for dicraeosaurids'?
Ok, changed. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:57, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Link surangular
    did that! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:57, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "characteristic for the group". Perhaps 'characteristic of the group'?
    changed. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:57, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "due to its unstable position"> Perhaps a word or two of explanation as to what this means?
    reworded. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:57, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "vertically oriented neural spine of second neck vertebra" → 'a vertically oriented neural spine of the second neck vertebra'.
  • "Moderate damages would result in the break-off of the horny tips". 'damage' singular, I think.
  • "while the sight of most other sauropods" Maybe "sight" → 'vision'?
  • "furthermore" → 'further'.
  • "At its top, it is separated by the overlying Agrio Formation". Should that be 'At its top, it is separated from the overlying Agrio Formation'?
  • "mya". MOS:ACRO1STUSE says "an acronym should be written out in full the first time it is used on a page ..."
  • done.
  • Several references lack identifiers. Eg ISSNs or JSTORs.

That was a thoroughly good article and an enjoyable read. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:31, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Happy to hear that – thanks for reading, and the review! All of these are addressed now. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:57, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
One minor point above, but I don't see why that should hold up my support of this fine article. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:04, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
Many thanks Gog! That minor point is fixed now as well. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:36, 7 January 2021 (UTC)


  • "Bajadasaurus sported bifurcated, extremely elongated neural spines extending from the neck vertebrae" I didn't realize you meant it had giant spikes coming out of its neck until I saw the reconstruction scrolling down   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:47, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Changed to "extending from the neck" to give the hint, does that make it better? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:57, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "The foremost side", or "anterior". I thought "front" would be more accessible than "anterior". Is there another alternative? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:57, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Why do you show the cladogram from the 2019 study instead of the 2020 one?
That's a good question. (I think that I was thinking that, but forgot to ask.) Gog the Mild (talk) 21:04, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

  User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:47, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm not feeling strongly about this. But newer is not necessarily better, and in this case, the 2020 paper includes some controversial taxa that influence the topology of the cladogram as a whole, but not everybody agrees that they belong within the group in the first place. I thought it might be nice to have the cladogram of the original description. But ok, will replace it later. And many thanks for the reviews, will get to those comments soon! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:13, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
I don't know about Dunkleosteus77, but I was asking an open question, not trying to hint that you had made the wrong choice. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:18, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Perhaps both cladograms could be shown side by side, like in Elasmosaurus? --Slate WeaselT - C - S⟩ 00:20, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
OK, added the second cladogram now. Unfortunately that will not last long, a new one may appear each year. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:36, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Slate Weasel[edit]

I'm not sure if I'll have time for a comprehensive review, and I'm still getting the hang of FAC reviews, so I don't know how long this section will be. I do know that I added about a paragraph to this article once, but that was awhile ago, and it has been re-written and expanded since, so I think that I'm sufficiently uninvolved with the article. Here are a few things that jump out at me:

  • The Paleoenvironment section is only one paragraph long. This is awfully short for an FA; I'm wondering if this could be upped to two? Surely there's info out there on the non-dinosaurian biota of the formation?
I did search for it, and searched again today, but nothing about the non-dinosaur fauna appeared. This formation appears to be understudied, and only the dinosaurs got some limited attention so far, and only fossils from the type locality. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:36, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
Ah, if sources are lacking, I suppose that, unfortunately, there's not much we can do. --Slate WeaselT - C - S⟩ 01:20, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "the Early Cretaceous epoch" - While technically correct, this is rather unusual for dinosaur articles, perhaps change to "the Early Cretaceous period"
I just added "epoch" to indicate to the reader that the Early Cretaceous is a time interval. "Period" would be technically incorrect since the period would be the Cretaceous as a whole. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:36, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
Hm, perhaps we'll have to change the standard then! --Slate WeaselT - C - S⟩ 01:20, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "The genus is classified as a member of the Dicraeosauridae," shouldn't this be "The genus is classified as a member of Dicraeosauridae," (without the "the")?
Hmm, Google Scholar tells me that both forms are in use for family names (I checked with Tyrannosauridae). Native speakers tend to prefer the "the" though. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:36, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "and its environment resembled a braided river system." Was it not actually a braided river system?
Good point, fixed! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:36, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

I'll see if I can add more about the article body over the next few days. --Slate WeaselT - C - S⟩ 00:41, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Looking forward to that! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:36, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

On the history section:

  • Perhaps spell out what CONICET means?
  • I wonder if the information about the formation could be located next to the information about the locality, and that about the museum next to the part in the lab. It feels a bit awkward right now.
Good suggestion, done! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:27, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Dinosaur and genus are not linked on first mention. Then again, I don't think that anything would be lost by removing them here.
Now linked. I had added those following a reviewer suggestion above. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:27, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

I'll see if I can get in something on description tomorrow. --Slate WeaselT - C - S⟩ 01:20, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

  • "most of the skull roof and braincase, the pterygoid bones of the palate, as well as" I think an "and" is missing here
I don't see it, can you help me? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:27, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
It should be located before "the pterygoid bones", although that does sound a bit clunky. The problem is, at the moment, "as well as" is being substituted for "and" in a list, something that I'm not sure is possible, and making it seem like the skull roof & braincase could be the pterygoids. Perhaps "The preserved skull includes most of the skull roof and braincase, the pterygoid bones of the palate, parts of the upper jaws, and the lower jaws, and and is therefore the most complete skull of a dicraeosaurid known to date." might work? --Slate WeaselT - C - S⟩ 22:06, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Angular should be linked (perhaps also glossed, same with surangular)
Linked. They are explained already I hope (saying "bone", and "of the hind part of the lower jaw")
Might be good to specify that the angular is the lower bone, though, and the surangular the upper. --Slate WeaselT - C - S⟩ 22:06, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Perhaps mention keratin in the text?
  • "the probably sixth of Brachytrachelopan," The probable sixth?
Fixed. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:27, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Sorry I forgot about this yesterday. Here are some notes on classification:

  • "which is named after the whip-like tail" Perhaps pluralize tail?
  • Link US and Tanzania
I intentionally restricted myself to the genera recognized by the two studies discussed. Those two genera have been proposed as Dicraeosaurids by a single study but this does not seem to be widely accepted yet. I'm not sure if it will help the reader to include this detail that is not pertinent to the article. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:12, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
Fair, these two taxa are rather tenuous. --Slate WeaselT - C - S⟩ 21:53, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "Bajadasaurus therefore occupies a slightly more basal position within Dicraeosauridae than indicated by Gallina and colleagues." This makes it sound like this study's definitive, but I doubt that this will be the last word on the subject, considering that Gallina et. al.'s topology had been recovered by many previous analyses. Perhaps add "in their study" after "Dicraeosauridae" to clarify?
Sure, this was not indented. Reworded.

And palaeobiology:

  • Optional: "soft part anatomy" -> "soft tissue anatomy"
Hmm, "soft-part anatomy" is the common term used in the field, and as long as readers can understand it, I would prefer to keep it.
  • "horn sheath" Shouldn't this be "horny sheath" like elsewhere, as these structures weren't horns?
Corrected. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:12, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "Gallina and colleagues suggested that the spines of Amargasaurus and Bajadasaurus might have been 50% longer than indicated by their bony core." - Was there any particular reasoning for this figure? Since the previous examples were 100% and 25%, this just seems random at the moment.
They cite an upcoming paper, which has not been published yet. I adjusted the wording slightly, including the word "speculating".
  • "Due to its forward bent" -> "Due to its forward bend"?
Of course.
  • "how frequently teeth are shed and replaced" Perhaps specify that this is specifically about Bajadasaurus. Also, "are" should probably be changed to "were", given the context.
  • Optional: "in the dentary; these values are similar" -> "in the dentary. These values are similar"

Hopefully this is helpful! Palaenvironment will come either later today or tomorrow. --Slate WeaselT - C - S⟩ 15:25, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Sure it is! Thanks for those throughout comments so far! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:12, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
  • While still redlinks, the Quintuco and Picún Leufú Formations could probably be linked, given that Mendoza Group is, too.
Ok, linked.
  • "At its top, it is separated from the overlying Agrio Formation by an unconformity (sedimentation hiatus) that has been dated at 134 mya (million years ago)." What exactly does the date here refer to, the Agrio Formation, Bajada Colorada, the unconformity or something else? Also, it seems like a unconformity's a boundary between layers, not a layer itself.
Very good point. I don't think you can directly "date" a unconformity in the first place. I guess those dates were rough estimates. I think it is better to remove that date, and did so. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:31, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "tetanurans" currently links to a genus of fly
  • Link theropod

And that's all from me! It's mostly just issues with links for this section. --Slate WeaselT - C - S⟩ 21:53, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, you found a lot of ugly errors. All done now. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:31, 15 January 2021 (UTC)


Found just one, which I fixed. Note that there are a lot of dublicates just because of the cladograms.
  • Image captions, complete sentences need full stops.
done. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:57, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I would expect to see citations in numerical order e.g. "deinonychosaurians.[18][2] -> deinonychosaurians.[2][18]"
Puh, this would be quite a tedious effort, and after moving sections around we would have to do the same again. In principle, this is something that the wiki software should take care of, if we want it. I usually order them so that the most important (which the reader should look up first) comes first. I find this more practical than the alphabetical order, whose benefits seem to be limited to aesthetics. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:57, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Author initials are sometimes spaced, sometimes unspaced, I would expect that to be consistent.

The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 10:53, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

I couldn't find any initials that are separated by spaces, can you help me? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:57, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
Paul, G. S. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 16:34, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
Not sure how I could miss that. Fixed now. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:36, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Vanamonde[edit]

Reading through now, please feel free to revert and discuss any copyedits. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:52, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

  • "single large block of rock and bone wrapped in plaster." unless I'm much mistaken, it was extracted as a single block of rock and bone, and subsequently wrapped in plaster; suggest rewording; also, plaster is worth linking.
The plaster is indeed applied before extraction. You first dig around the block to separate it from surrounding rock as best as possible, and then you apply plaster to the top and sides of the block. When it is hard, the block can be heaved up (and separated from the basement) with heavy equipment, and the plaster will make sure it won't break apart. I reworded to make this a bit clearer. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:44, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I suggest scaling up the Nature figure; the map isn't legible. Also, wondering if it would be best cropped into two images, as the labels aren't very legible either.
I scaled it up. However, I would argue that with default thumb size, images in Wikipedia are almost never legible, you always have to click to read something (the other images in this article included). Splitting them up, maybe yes, but then they will take more space and I'm not sure where to put them! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:44, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
I don't feel very strongly about it; most figures in science articles try to cram a lot into a small space, which is often not ideal for WP. Here, it's not enough of a problem for me to make a deal of it. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:31, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Wondering if "Bajada Colorada locality" is a phrase used in the sources; if not, you could omit "locality" and make the sentences about it more concise.
I'm worried that without "locality" it will be confused with the rock unit "Bajada Colorada Formation", so keeping "locality" improves clarity I think. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:44, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
That's a reasonable explanation. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:31, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
  • On my screen, the Nature figure and the reconstruction stack, leading to a very oddly placed section header; could the nature figure move (assuming you don't split it, as I suggest above)?
Moved it up, hope it is better know. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:44, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I disagree that "bifurcated" needs clarification in the text, but as you've received a comment above asking you to put it in, I won't hold you to this.
removed to avoid excessive amounts of glosses; Wiktionary link should do the job. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:44, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
  • As above, "gracile" needs linking or explanation. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:44, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
done. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:44, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Does "top view" have a specific meaning in paleontology? If so, it should be linked or explained; otherwise, "viewed from above" or similar would be more idiomatic, I think
"Top view" is some awkward term we "invented" to avoid the actual technical term, which is "dorsal view". I took your wording now. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:44, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
  • " featured a rearwards extending process" unless I'm mistaken, "process" here is not the common English usage, and should be linked or explained.
linked. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:44, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "Of the first neck vertebra, the atlas, only the upper elements, the atlantal neurapophyses, are preserved"
Is this sentence unclear? I don't see the issue. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:44, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
Apologies, I intended to comment on this sentence and then fixed it myself, but neglected to remove this comment. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:31, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Purely out of curiosity; why do we refer to many traits as autapomorphies of the genus, rather than synapomorphies among the species in the genus? Not a problem, just curious if there's a technical subtlety I'm missing.
Because in paleontology, we usually work with genera as the terminal taxa. In dinosaurs, species can rarely differentiated, and are almost always somewhat controversial. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:44, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
I see, that makes sense; thank you. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:31, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
  • When discussing the spines, you switch from singular to plural; " it was only comparable", "their base..." - be consistent.
It was actually speaking of the halves (plural) of the spine (singular). Reworded now to make that clear. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:44, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "Gallina and colleagues recognised seven additional dicraeosaurid genera" This raises more questions than it answers...I'm assuming they're doing this by reclassifying previously known fossils, but it's not obvious if they are instead describing them. Also, how many genera were previously recognized?
I added one more introductory sentence to make this clear. The number of genera varies from study to study, and in Gallina's study, its eight genera which they think belong with the group. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:44, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I don't like "advanced" as an explanation for "derived"; unless I'm much mistaken, folks try to avoid that term these days; how about "more recently diverging from a common ancestor", which is wordy but less prone to misinterpretation?
I don't like that either actually, took your wording now. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:44, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "synapomorphies (anatomical features shared with other members of the group)" this isn't a sufficient explanation, surely; they're shared derived features?
Good catch. Reworded. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:44, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "In this analysis, Bajadasaurus therefore occupies a slightly more basal position within Dicraeosauridae than indicated by Gallina and colleagues" confused by this too; I haven't read the sources, but relying on your versions of the cladograms, Bajadasaurus doesn't seem to be more basal in either; the 2020 tree simply includes more taxa, relative to which Bajadasaurus is basal; but unless those taxa are placed elsewhere in the 2019 tree, is it not incorrect to say that the trees are placing Bajadasaurus differently?
The source specifically says this. And Bajadasaurus is indeed more basal in the second cladogram I think, as it is basal to Suuwassea and Lingwulong, unlike in the first cladogram. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:44, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
This is entirely a misreading on my part, apologies; I thought I had carefully compared the taxa used in each, but I did not, evidently. This is fine. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:31, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I'll defer to others on this, but the classification section seems to me a little too heavy on background; not much of it is specifically discussing the placement of Bajadasaurus; it's instead a discussion of the phylogeny of the family.
There is nothing more to add, but we can shorten of course. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:44, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
I think you could look into shortening where possible. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:31, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
I removed one sentence for now that could be regarded excessive detail unrelated to Bajadasaurus. I'm reluctant to remove more, because 1) I think the general information helps the reader as it provides background, and 2) a reviewer above requested that I add even more such stuff, which I declined; it appears to me, therefore, that opinions differ here. Let's wait what others think. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:39, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "acting as what was compared to a fence to deter predators" very awkward about "and could therefore have been a barrier to predators"?
Took your wording. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:44, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

That's everything from me; I found this quite interesting. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:56, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: Thanks for the comprehensive review, and the copy edit (I adjusted a few of your edits, hope this is fine, if not lets discuss). Please let me know if there is anything else to do. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:44, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
I'm happy to support, all my comments have been addressed. Your adjustments look fine. I have one suggestion to consider going forward, about the classification section, but that doesn't preclude a support from me. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:31, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
Thank you! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:39, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • I see the "~140–134 Ma " claim in the lead and infobox, but those specific numbers don't appear in the body and don't appear to be sourced
Added to the body now. This is simply a translation of "late Berriasian to Valanginian", for readers unfamiliar with the geological time scale. The official numbers are published in a table [43], which we could cite, of course. However, we would need to cite that same source in literally every paleontology article, and I don't quite see the benefit. Please let me know what you think here; it will be easy for me to add this source. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:44, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
Nevermind; now found a direct source and added it. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:12, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
  • FN5: could you provide any more information on the original source for this?
Added detail. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:44, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
  • FN16: is a link to this source available? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:46, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
Yes, added. Thanks for the source review. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:44, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

1876 Scotland v Wales football match[edit]

Nominator(s): Kosack (talk) 20:24, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

First FAC nom on the first day of a new year! This article is about a football match played between Wales and Scotland in 1876. The match was the first fixture ever played by Wales and the first time Scotland had played against a team other than England. The result proved to be rather one-sided in favour of the more experienced Scots, but the match set the groundwork for, among other things, the start of the British Home Championship. This was taken to GA a few years ago, but I've spent sometime expanding and fine tuning and think it's in pretty good shape for a run at FAC now. As ever, I look forward to any comments. Kosack (talk) 20:24, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Comments from TRM[edit]

Well, I'm going to take a stab at this one, call me old-fashioned but I like the look of it and this soccer thing piques my interest glands. More soon. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:52, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Not keen in the repeat of 1876 in the opening sentence. I know these are notoriously difficult to start but if it's possible, we probably should avoid the repetition.
    I did wonder about this but couldn't think of a better way. What's your thoughts on removing the year from the date, as 1876 is already mentioned earlier in the sentence? I did consider that but wondered if it would be clear enough? Kosack (talk) 14:26, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
    It's a tough one. I would perhaps consider bringing the "first Welsh international" factoid to the opening sentence to make a logical sentence? The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 11:41, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
    @The Rambling Man: I've reworded a bit. Kosack (talk) 15:13, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "international fixture ... international fixture " can this be avoided as well?
    Reworded. Kosack (talk) 14:26, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "their opponents inexperience" shouldn't that be "their opponent's inexperience"?
    Done. Kosack (talk) 14:26, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Link "headed" in the lead to Header (association football).
    Done. Kosack (talk) 14:26, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
  • James Lang has his article at Jimmy Lang, not James Lang (footballer).
    Done. Kosack (talk) 14:26, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Perhaps infobox should say "around 17,000" for attendance per the article.
    Done. Kosack (talk) 14:26, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Maybe worth noting The Oval is a cricket ground too.
    Done. Kosack (talk) 14:26, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Was it rugby or more specifically rugby union?
    Judging by the wording of the source, I think union. Added. Kosack (talk) 14:26, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Wrexham is an A.F.C.
    Done. Kosack (talk) 14:26, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "advertisement" you previously used advert, but I prefer the longer version so I'd go back and adjust advert to advertisement.
    Done. Kosack (talk) 14:26, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "that a Welsh team be formed from Welsh men" is the first "Welsh" necessary?
    Removed. Kosack (talk) 14:26, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "told "The Field" that " should be italics and no quotes.
    Done. Kosack (talk) 14:26, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "for the tie and " I've been told the use of "tie" in its various footballing contexts can be confusing, particularly for our US readers....
    Reworded. Kosack (talk) 14:26, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "captain of Swansea" which Swansea?
    Added. Kosack (talk) 14:26, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Spacing around the ellipses appears too long for me, just one non-breaking space normally before, or after if no text before the ellipsis.
    Done. Kosack (talk) 14:26, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Wrexham is overlinked.
    Done. Kosack (talk) 14:26, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
  • As is Wrexham A.F.C. But the quick use of Wrexham (the town) and Wrexham (the AFC) might be mildly confusing, so suggest some cunning reword.
    Reworded. Kosack (talk) 14:26, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Very little discussion of Scotland in the "The challenge" section.
    By this point, Scotland were entering their seventh international fixture, so they were pretty well established at this point. Other than accepting an invitation to play, they didn't have much major preparation to do really. Kosack (talk) 14:26, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
  • " from English club, Oswestry were" not Oswestry Town? and I would have a comma after the club name.
    The sources only state Oswestry, and the Town article doesn't give an indication of when the extra name was added. Period players of this time use Oswestry, such as William Davies (footballer, born 1855) which reasons that the club went on to add Town at a later date. Kosack (talk) 14:26, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "of Oxford University was" bit easter egg this one, I wasn't expecting it to link to the football team, more the university itself.
    Done. Kosack (talk) 14:26, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Link Formation (association football).
    Done. Kosack (talk) 14:26, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "programme.[36][21]" preferably numerical order.
    I saw this about three times and still forgot to go back and change it! Done now. Kosack (talk) 14:26, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Link kick off.
    Done. Kosack (talk) 14:26, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "3:40pm" should use a non-breaking space before pm (or p.m.)
    Done. Kosack (talk) 14:26, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
  • William Evans is overlinked.
    Done. Kosack (talk) 14:26, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "goal bound shot" goal-bound.
    Done. Kosack (talk) 14:26, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "side when,[34] around" feels like a really odd place for a citation...
    Moved. Kosack (talk) 14:26, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Link cross.
    Done. Kosack (talk) 14:26, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Link dribbling.
    Done. Kosack (talk) 14:26, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "involved England and" England overlinked.
    Done. Kosack (talk) 14:26, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I would put "tournaments" into the pipe so it's not just linking the year easter eggy.
    Done. Kosack (talk) 14:26, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Ref 12: G.A. -> G. A.
    Done. Kosack (talk) 14:26, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

That's it for a first pass. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 11:47, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: Thanks for the review. I've addressed most of the points above and added comments to a couple, in particularly the first sentence issue. Let me know what you think. Kosack (talk) 14:26, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Image review[edit]

Images are appropriately licensed, but I would suggest slightly scaling up the size of the match report. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:09, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

I've enlarged the image somewhat, let me know if it's enough. Kosack (talk) 14:30, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Whitehawk Camp[edit]

Nominator(s): Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:41, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

This article is about a Neolithic causewayed enclosure in Sussex. This is the second in what I hope will be a series of these articles; the last one was Knap Hill. Causewayed enclosures are a very early relic of the British Neolithic, dating from about the first half of the fourth millennium BC; nobody knows exactly what they were used for, though there are plenty of theories. The article has benefitted from a very thorough and helpful review by Dudley Miles, and also from a local editor, Hassocks5489, who took some local photos including the one used in the infobox. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:41, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Image review[edit]

  • Suggest adding alt text
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:53, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
  • File:Whitehawk_camp_sketch_1821_Skinner_British_Museum_Add_MS_33658_f._68.jpg: when/where was this first published?
    Good question; I assumed it was nineteenth century because my source didn't say. Have dug a bit and I think it must have been 1830 1930, since our article on Skinner lists his journal as having been partly published in 1930 and gives a range of BM MS pages that includes this one. I think that makes it PD-UK and I would need a fair use tag. It's currently on Commons, so if you agree I will tag it for deletion there and upload it here as PD-UK with a FUR. You didn't mention File:Whitehawk camp sketch from east 1821 Skinner BM Add MS 33658 f. 68.png; I assume the same will apply there? That's not on Commons yet so if you agree I will change the licence and add a FUR. Is there an age limit for this rule, by the way? Any ms. in the BM prior to Gutenberg has not been "published" unless an image is republished in a printed work? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:53, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
    Which PD-UK tag would you want to use on the first? On the second, there's a pre-1926 publication listed, which would make it PD in the US; if you're wanting to move it to Commons you'd just need to sort out UK status. On your last question, which rule are you asking about an age limit for? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:30, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
    • For the first, I mistyped 1830 for 1930, so it's {{PD-UK}}, I think. I'll upload it locally, get it deleted on Commons, and add a FUR. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:33, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
      That tag would have this be PD under URAA, would it not? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:01, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
      In c:File:UK non-Crown copyright flowchart.pdf I think we're following the left-hand path all the way down, which means it became public domain in the UK in 2000 since publication was in 1930. That's after the URAA date. Following c:Commons:Hirtle chart, I think we're in "Works First Published Outside the U.S. by citizens of foreign nations", in the pre-1978 section, in either the second or third case (I strongly doubt it was ever published in the US but can't prove it). That means 95 years after 1930, so 2025. Am I misinterpreting these? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:03, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
      As there is an author listed, why would we be following the left-hand "author unknown" path?
      I'm starting to think I have some sort of learning disability for image rules; I keep misreading things. OK, so it's Yes/Yes/No/Yes/Yes, and copyright expired in 1980, so then it's public domain in the US according to that table. But the Hirtle chart, which I would use to figure out the commons licence template to use, seems to disagree -- or am I misreading that too? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:46, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
      If it was PD in the UK in 1980, in the absence of US publication or copyright renewal I would expect it to fall into the first category of "Works First Published Outside the U.S. by citizens of foreign nations", in the pre-1978 section - PD before the URAA date. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:56, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
      I've changed the licence to {{PD-1996}} for both: [44], [45]. I think that completes everything you pointed out in both the image review and source review; thanks again for your patience. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:47, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
    • For the second, that attribution is my copy-paste mistake; it was not published in that 1912 source. I took it from a 2001 source but as with the first, it would have been in the 1930 edition of Skinner's diaries, so PD-UK, delete from Commons, and a FUR. I'll do both these today unless you tell me otherwise. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:33, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
    • I meant, for example, suppose a hand-copied ms. from the 12th century is first printed in a book this century, does that still fall under copyright, even though there is no artwork, just writing, because it's hand-written? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:33, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
      Have a look at the "Never published, never registered" section here. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:01, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
      Since Skinner died in 1839, if these rules had been effect in 1909 his work would have become public domain at that time. I assume that these rules came into effect after 1930 so Skinner's work is under copyright still? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:08, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
      Sorry, I don't follow - is there a previous rule you're looking at? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:57, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
      In the section you pointed me at it says "Unpublished works|Life of the author + 70 years|Works from authors who died before 1950" which I took to be the applicable case. This rule, if it had been in effect in 1909, would have made Skinner's work public domain, wouldn't it? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:46, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
  • File:Whitehawk_camp_aerial_view_1930_Williamson.jpg: what is said in the source about the provenance of this image?
    The only statement is beneath the caption, where it says "(Reproduced by permission of the Controller of H.M. Stationery Office.)". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:53, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
  • File:Whitehawk_camp_excavation_plan_1929_and_1932-1933.png needs a US PD tag. Ditto File:Whitehawk_camp_excavations_1929_and_1935.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:35, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
    Having now read more image policy, I now realize that if something is UK-PD it still needs a fair use tag. I would like to keep these as they are clearly very useful, but I don't think I can come up with a FUR that would work and also keep them at a scale that makes them readable. They won't be PD in the US until 2034, since the author died in 1938, unless I am misinterpreting the rules (always possible). Do you agree? If so I'll tag them for deletion. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:53, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
    The given tags would put UK expiration after the URAA date. Unless there is another reason for them to be PD, or simultaneous US publication, you are probably correct that they are non-free in the US. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:30, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
    • These are so useful to the reader that I reduced them to under 100K pixels and put in FURs; they're not very readable at that scale but I think they're still helpful to have. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:33, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Source review[edit]

Spotchecks not done

  • Be consistent in whether you employ "et al" for three-author works
    Fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:53, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Use pp. and dashes for multiple-page citations, and be consistent in whether there's a comma after the date
    Fixed, I think. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:53, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
  • FN39: work parameter is not needed
    Removed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:53, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
  • FN40: don't need to repeat "Culture24" so many times
    I removed the "work" parameter; the attribution at the web page is to "Culture24 Reporter", which is effectively no attribution -- I could remove that too if you think it's necessary. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:53, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Missing full source information for Allcroft 1908, Williamson 1929
    Added Allcroft; the two Williamson cites were an error; they should have pointed to Williamson 1930. Both are fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:53, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
  • FN47: don't include work as part of the title
    I'm not sure what you meant here but I think this edit is the fix you're asking for. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:53, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
  • FN52: source link gives a more specific work title; date format should be consistent
    I fixed the date. The title tag in the target page is "Bosing - Oxford Reference", which repeats the publisher, so I'd removed it as unnecessary. I've restored it -- I assume that's what you're looking for? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:53, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
    No - Oxford Reference compiles entries from a number of different reference sources, and this one in particular is from The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Archaeology. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:30, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
    OK; have changed the work to that. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:22, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
  • FN95: the Centre is a publisher here, not a work
    Fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:53, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
  • No citations to Drewett. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:35, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
    Removed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:53, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Nikkimaria, thanks, as always; sorry this was a bit of a mess. I think I've cleared up almost all the points but there are a couple of questions above for you. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:53, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Have read through your edits to the citations to try to learn from them, and read some of the documentation, e.g. here; I hadn't realized that "website" and "work" were synonyms for cite web and cite news; that will save me from some errors in the future. Thanks for the help. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:22, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley[edit]

  • Almost all my concerns have been dealt with, but I have a few further comments.
  • "The site has been scheduled as an ancient monument." This is not quite right. The Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979 defines an ancient monument as a scheduled monument or "any other monument which in the opinion of the Secretary of State is of public interest by reason of the historic, architectural, traditional, artistic or archaeological interest attaching to it". It would be more accurate to say that the site has been designated as a scheduled monument.
    I used your phrasing. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:48, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I think I previously raised the question of whether Neolithic is capitalized. You are still inconsistent on this.
    Sorry; fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:48, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
  • In the 1929 section you say that material in the ditches had been washed in, but for 1932-33 remains had been deliberately buried. Is this different areas or different interpretation? Dudley Miles (talk) 17:21, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
    I've reworded the 1929 section to make it clear that Sygrave is talking about a specific layer, found in all three excavations, which produced the most finds. The "deliberate burial" mentioned in the 1932-3 dig section refers only to that particular skeleton. Is that clear enough with the current wording? I don't really want to repeat Sygrave's assessment in all three pre-war dig sections -- I put it in the first one because Sygrave is specifically contrasted to Curwen's comments there, and with the new wording I hope the reader will understand it applies to the following sections. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:48, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Support from Gog the Mild[edit]

Placeholder. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:04, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Perhaps link earthwork?
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:45, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Link palisade
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:45, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
  • If only for my information, what is a "pulling-up ground"?
    At the end of a race, the horses gradually slow down and stop; they pull up, in other words. The pulling up ground is where they pull up. If you look at this Google Maps image in satellite view, you'll see a long dark green rectangle running more or less north/south, cut by Manor Hill Road. That's the pulling up ground. If you follow it north, that's the racecourse itself. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:45, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
I did look at a map, and it had me scratching my head. I can now unscratch. As it were. Thanks. Mike.
  • Link rescue dig
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:45, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "It was found to date to the Bronze Age". It would be helpful if the approximate boundaries of this period were given.
    See comment below about the Bronze Age. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:45, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "to create tools such as points" "points" links only to points used as projectile weapons. Is that what you intended?
    Yes; the source only says points but that's the usual meaning in archaeology. The source says "These splinters would usually then be removed and worked into finer tools such as points." I think it would be OK to make this "projectile points" in the article if that would be clearer. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:45, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
As it seems that the reference to "points" is actually entirely to 'projectile points', then yes, I think adding 'projectile' in the article would be helpful.
Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:00, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "the reconstructed face of the woman found in the 1930s excavations". Maybe 'the reconstructed face of the woman whose remains were found in the 1930s excavations'?
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:45, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Link allotment gardens.
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:45, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "Scheduled Ancient Monument". Should the initial letters be lower case.
    I checked usage in the Times and it is generally lower case, so I've changed it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:45, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "arrow head"; I think that you can have either 'arrow-head' or 'arrowhead'.
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:45, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "including pigs and cattle". Either 'including pig and cattle' or 'including those of pigs and cattle'.
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:45, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "British Bronze Age" is mentioned 2 times and "Bronze Age" 5. What differentiates them?
    The Bronze Age starts with the use of bronze and ends when iron starts being exploited, but this doesn't happen at the same time everywhere, so the dates of the Bronze Age depend on where you're talking about. (See {{Bronze Age}} for some example dates.) That's why there's a difference between the British Bronze Age and the general term Bronze Age. For Bronze Age Britain our article says c. 2500 BC to c. 800 BC; I'd have to check a couple of sources to be sure that's the latest usage but it's about right. However, see the first section there about the disagreements about the boundary. I originally didn't mention the Bronze Age at all, and just gave dates, but Dudley felt it was important to draw the distinction since I did mention the Neolithic, and I think he was right about that -- the southeastern ditch may not have a Neolithic origin, and not saying Bronze Age but giving dates would imply those later dates were in the Neolithic. What do you think the best approach is -- just use "Bronze Age", and put some of this detail in a footnote? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:45, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for that. There are probably several ways of approaching it that would work. Off hand I would favour using "British Bronze Age" throughout and footnoting the period this specifies at first use. I would be inclined not to include the information on the dating of the period varying geographically, although if you felt that it may aid a reader's understanding I certainly wouldn't object.
I decided to go the other direction; I've changed all the mentions to just say "Bronze Age", and added a footnote to the first mention giving the dates of the Bronze Age in Britain. I feel that's the most concise way to do it. The sources generally just say "Bronze Age" since they assume readers know about the variation in dates, so this way I can follow the source style without needing to mention the variation of the dating in other areas. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:00, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Several Sources are missing available identifiers. Eg, Alcroft (1916) (ISSN 0143-8204).
    I added OCLC and ISSN numbers in some cases, but not where there is already an ISBN or DOI; do you feel they're necessary in those cases? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:45, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
No. If there is an identifier available I like to see it, but one per source seems sufficient.

Nice! Gog the Mild (talk) 20:33, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:45, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
Gog the Mild (talk) 18:58, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by PM[edit]

Interesting topic. Will start my review shortly. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:54, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

I am acutely aware I know nothing about such things, so my review is largely about comprehensibility and prose, and I may ask some odd questions
  • I'm left wondering what "At least two ditches touch the outermost circuit from the outside" means. Perhaps break it down a bit and mention that they run at tangents from the outer circuit?
    I removed the word "tangent" from the lead per an earlier review, but I think it's not the word that's the problem, it's just a hard thing to describe. I've reworded the lead to avoid mentioning their position altogether; I think it would be distracting to make this clear enough in the lead, and it's covered in the body. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:24, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
  • link football pitch, very much a UK thing
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:24, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
  • would it be accurate to say "a Bronze Age ditch was discovered, and the construction was paused to allow an excavation, run by Miles Russell."?
    I'd rather not phrase it exactly that way since at the time it was discovered nobody knew what it was, and Russell most likely expected it to be part of the Neolithic site. He suggested it may have been a Bronze Age recut of an originally Neolithic part of the site, but again I think that's too much detail for the lead. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:24, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
Can we go with an alternative though? It is still not great, could we just drop the Bronze Age bit because it is too complex for the lead to explain Russell's conclusions? You have already established that some of the contents of one of the external ditches was radiocarbon dated to the Bronze Age, and that was the ditch Russell excavated, but I agree there is no real need to go into that in the lead. How about "In 1991, during the construction of a housing development near the site, one of the ditches outside the outermost circuit was uncovered (or "located"), and the construction was paused to allow an excavation, run by Miles Russell." Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:09, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
I like that wording; done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:57, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Radiocarbon dating is duplicate linked
    Removed, along with a couple of other duplicates -- I'd forgotten to run the dupchecker script. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:24, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
  • The Description section would benefit from the insertion of the year (and month if available) it was "discovered" early on in the section
    If you mean when the site was discovered, there's not a date for that. It's been close to human settlement for literally millennia. I would imagine that by a few hundred years ago it was thought to be the remains of a Roman camp; that was a common description for Neolithic sites, since antiquarians knew nothing of the Neolithic and often adhered to Biblical dating. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:24, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
I really mean "described" in an modern archeological sense. When was the first report or paper describing the camp published? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:08, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Sorry, misunderstood you. Sygrave helpfully specifies that Skinner was the first, so I've reworded to say so. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:44, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
  • it would helpful to the reader to know how long each ditch is, or at least the diameter of the outside ditch, also indicate in what order you are numbering the ditches (inside to outside?)
The dimensions of the site are provided here. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:54, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Thank you! Very helpful; I hadn't found that. Done. And the numbering is addressed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:10, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
  • R.P. Ross Williamson in the lead and Ross Williamson in the body? Also after introduction, just use Williamson thereafter
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:24, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
Suggest R. P. Ross Williamson at first mention in the body. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:01, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Oops. Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:34, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Once introduced in the body, just go with Curwen thereafter
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:24, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
  • what is Jon Sygrave's expertise?
    He's an archaeologist; added. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:24, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
  • link Miles Russell at first mention in the body, and say what his expertise is, then use just "Russell" thereafter
    Linked. He's an archaeologist, and the first mention of him is to say that he is running an excavation; do you feel it's necessary to give his profession at that point? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:24, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
I thought he might be an anthropologist, but if you think it is clear enough, fine. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:58, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
  • are Whitehawk style and Ebbsfleet ware notable?
    For a redlink? I don't think so; I'm not knowledgeable about Neolithic pottery but I did have a quick look and couldn't find enough to justify a redlink. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:24, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
  • link Mesolithic (is there a better target for British Mesolithic?)
    I went with Prehistoric Britain#Mesolithic. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:24, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
  • link Stitching awl is that is what is meant
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:51, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I wonder if the sentence beginning "The camp is one of only..." would be better located in the Description section? In fact the last two paras of the Interpretation of other finds from the Neolithic site probably belong there, as they really aren't about interpretation
    Three separate reviewers complaining about this tells me I need to fix it. I went with a suggestion of Vanamonde's, below; they're now in a separate section, at the end. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:19, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
  • when did it become a scheduled monument? Or should it be "scheduled ancient monument"?
    1923; this is mentioned in the lead and body both. I used the wording Dudley Miles suggested, above; he's written more about this sort of thing than I have. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:51, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
I defer to Dudley's greater knowledge, but we currently have "Scheduled monument" in the infobox and "scheduled monument" (in 1923) in the lead, but "scheduled ancient monument" at fn 46, then "scheduled monument" at fn 98. I think it should just be consistent throughout. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:22, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
I made it "scheduled monument" in all cases. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:34, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
  • link football pitch
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:51, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
  • suggest "the inner and second ditch"→"first and second ditches" (as you will have numbered them earlier)
    This edit is my attempt to address this. I've made it clear at first mention of numbering that it starts in the middle, and changed a couple of other wordings to suit. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:51, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
  • several duplicate links, Brighton Racecourse, Windmill Hill, Avebury, Trundle (hill fort)
    I think I got them all. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:51, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
  • link Section (archaeology)
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:51, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
  • link Peterborough ware
    Already linked, I think? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:51, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
  • link Archaeology South-East
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:51, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
  • could you add a brief sentence fragment about what the gathering Time project was?
    I reworded; you're not the only reviewer to comment on this, so I guess it was unclear. I see the way I had it said the radiocarbon reanalysis project was performed by Gathering Time, as if the project was only one thing Gathering Time did; in fact Gathering Time is the name of the book in which the results of the academic project were published, so it's a convenient shorthand for the project. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:58, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
  • radiocabon
    Fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:51, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
  • you could add author-links for the authors like Russell who have articles
    Missed this one; now done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:10, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

That is all I could find to quibble about. Great job on this. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:33, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

PM, I think I've now addressed all your points. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:11, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Great stuff, excellent job on this Mike. Supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:13, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
Thanks! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:10, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Vanamonde[edit]

Everything at FAC seems to be outside my niche these days, so might as well try my hand at this. I know next to nothing about this topic, so I'm mostly reviewing for prose. Feel free to revert my copy-edits. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:59, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Does "football" need a link in the lead, given the, er, divergent uses of the term?
    Can't hurt; done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:18, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Does the date on which it received monument status warrant mention in the lead? Without that, the date is only given far down in the body, after the first two allusions to this status.
    Good idea; done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:18, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "The earlier sites were mostly found on chalk uplands" This could be read to mean they date to an earlier time, and I don't think that's the intention?
    Reworded. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:18, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I'm not an archaeology editor, and am unfamiliar with the conventions, but the last three sentences of "site and interpretation" seem to change the topic quite abruptly.
    You're not wrong. These sentences predate my involvement with the article, and I've struggled to figure out the best place to put them. I think they're only marginally notable, though the sentence about the reconstructed face does seem worth keeping. Would it solve things to eliminate the "first scheduled monument in Sussex" sentence and the one about the film installation? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:18, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
    Honesty I think all of it is worth could make a very short section at the end, something like "protection and presentation", and collect these sentences and others about legal protection there? I don't feel too strongly about it, but would prefer a section to where they currently are, and would prefer keeping them to removing them. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:06, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
    That's an excellent solution. I made it "Preservation and presentation" and moved it to the end. How does that look? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:20, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
    Looks great, thank you. Also provides a locus for any new information on the topic, should it be found. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:32, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "Eventually the site became legally protected" could we say when?
    The sources are not exactly clear about this. Piecing things together, it appears that the 1923 designation as a scheduled monument should have provided legal protection, but this does not appear to have been enforced; Sygrave says in his review something to the effect that the designation didn't prevent development continuing, and Williamson's 1930 paper refers to the site's designation under the Ancient Monuments Act as "a measure which draws attention to the desirability of a protection which it is itself unable to give". By the second excavation it seems the bureaucracy started to work and permission was needed. This is not explicit in the sources, so I don't think there's much that can be added, but how about if I make it "the designation did not yet provide the site with legal protection against development" in the 1929 section? That sidesteps the question of whether the act should have provided protection, because there's no question that practically it did not at that time. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:18, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
    Yes, that would help with the flow, I think. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:06, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:04, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
  • " a now-superseded classification that attempted to identify individual cultures within the Neolithic which has since been overturned" slightly redundant, it seems to me..
    Deleted "now-superseded". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:18, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Can you link "awl"? there's a few options which is why I haven't done it myself.
    I linked to stitching awl which is the most likely. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:18, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Can "pulling-up ground" be linked or explained?
    See the explanation I gave Gog, above; unfortunately that's not in the sources. However, since you're the second person to ask, I searched again, and have found a source I can use to define "pulling up" in a footnote, which I hope is enough. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:18, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
    I guess it's one of those things everyone is supposed to know...Vanamonde (Talk) 19:06, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I know our conventions around this are sometimes odd, but 'drawn by the Rev. Skinner in 1821" seems to me an unnecessary honorific, as elsewhere where he's mentioned; and even at the first use, I'd prefer something like "John Skinner, vicar of [place]"...
    The sources all use "Rev.", I think; I haven't checked them all. But I think it's fine to remove it and have done so. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:18, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Perhaps link "Roman occupation"?
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:18, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
  • The Gathering Time project could use a brief explanation, I think.
    The first sentence of that paragraph was intended to be that explanation -- is there something that you think it would help to add? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:18, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
    I think I'm left wondering where the project is coming from; is it a non-profit, a university, a corporation, an undergraduate actitivities group? You have explained what they do, but not who they are...Vanamonde (Talk) 19:06, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
    I reworded a bit in response to a similar comment from Peacemaker67, above. I can't find a third-party description of it to use as a source, so I'm stuck with what the book says about itself. The acknowledgements section starts by saying "This project owes its execution and completion to its cofunders, the Arts and Humanities Research Council and English Heritage." So it's a project, and a book. I would guess that it evolved from an idea by the editors, Whittle, Healy, and Bayliss; they probably got a grant and a book contract and away they went. Is there more that could be said here? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:10, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
    In that case there's probably not much to be done; you could possibly omit the name entirely, and just refer to it as a 2011 study, titling the section the same way as the others; that way there's fewer questions popping up in a reader's mind. That's a suggestion only, though, I don't have a strong opinion. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:32, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Is there a reason "RCHME" is abbreviated?
    Just that it's that way in the sources; I had to dig a bit to find what it stood for, in fact. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:18, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
  • A possibly obvious question that may not have an answer; why was the entire site not investigated when the first big digs occurred?
    Resources, I'm sure, though there's no statement to that effect. The excavation was done by the local archaeology club, which might actually have been fairly well-funded, but a big dig costs a lot of money and labour. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:18, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Similarly, why was the site not given legal protection earlier?
    See my comments above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:18, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

That's it from me; my comments are essentially all prose nitpicks, but this was a very easy read. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:59, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks; I think I've responded to everything above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:18, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support, and a few responses for you to consider above. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:06, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Comments from JM[edit]

A brilliant topic! I've really enjoyed reading through Midnightblueowl's articles on similar topics. (Note to directors: I am taking part in the WikiCup.)

  • I'd recommend against the comma in the first sentence.
    Removed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:31, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
  • First sentence: "Whitehawk Camp is the remains of a causewayed enclosure". Lead image caption: "Remains of Whitehawk Camp". Remains of remains?
    Fair comment. I made the caption "Part of Whitehawk Camp...". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:31, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
  • This is a bit of a bugbear (as it is for most philosophers) but you use "imply" a lot when, strictly speaking, you mean something like "suggest". I won't insist on anything, though.
    I think non-philosophical usage allows this; Chambers (my goto for British English) gives "suggest" as the first meaning of imply, in fact. I'd like to leave these as they are if you're OK with it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:31, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
    Yes! Josh Milburn (talk) 19:13, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "of the plain bowl or decorated bowl types; these are the earliest form of Neolithic pottery" Forms plural, surely?
    Yes; done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:00, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "The high volume of pottery found of this type" I wonder whether "The high volume of pottery of this type found" might be clearer.
    Yes; done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:10, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Do the final two paragraphs in the "interpretation" section really belong there?
    Moved to a new section at the end; both the previous reviewers complained about this too. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:31, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Stopping there for now -- dinner in the oven... Please double-check my edits. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:08, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Repetition of "site" in the first para of the 1929 section
    Reworded. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:10, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
  • File:Whitehawk camp excavation plan 1929 and 1932-1933.png This image page is a bit all over the place. If it's PD, it does not need the non-free use rationale, and there needs to be a clear explanation of what makes it PD. If it's non-free, it needs a non-free copyright tag, and it should not have the PD tag. However, if it's non-free, I am going to have object. If this is there as a map of the site, it fails NFCC#1, as we could create (and indeed have) a free plan of the site. (It also possibly fails NFCC#2, but let's not get in to that.) If it's there to show Curwen's map, it does not fail NFCC#1, but it does, I think, fail NFCC#8. (If the image is PD in the UK but not in the United States, then it counts as non-free for our purposes, I believe.)
  • Ditto File:Whitehawk camp excavations 1929 and 1935.jpg.
    Re both the above: the creator of both images died in 1938, so they're PD in the UK. They are not PD in the US. I am even worse at image policy than I thought; Nikki patiently helped me with these above, but perhaps I didn't get all the way to the end of the maze. So I would need a FUR to use each of these. The reason to let the reader see them is to get an understanding of the complicated layout of both the site and the excavated area. I was under the impression that tracing a copyrighted map does not produce a free copy, so I don't think it's the case that a free copy that gives the reader the same understanding can be created. If we don't think it's important for the reader to understand reasonably accurately the layout of the ditches and digs, then yes, these have to go, as far as I can see. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:10, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
    You are right that tracing a map would not produce a free copy. But you could surely produce your own map, or you could request one at Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Map workshop (I note that "Technical maps (archaeology, city closeups, etc.)" is something explicitly mentioned on that page as an example of what the Wikipedians there do). In any case, if these images are non-free, I think they're going to have to go. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:13, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
    I've removed them. I'm not sure what could be done that would be accurate enough to be useful without something equivalent to tracing -- what are you thinking the graphics workshop could do? A freehand copy? I'd be unwilling to use a freehand copy in the article unless I was confident it would not mislead the reader, and I can't imagine that any artist could manage an closely accurate copy purely by eye. Still, if you think there's not enough justification then they need to go. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:28, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
  • (I've not looked at the other images.)
  • Lots of proper nouns in the later sections (e.g., para 2 of the 1991–2010 section). Any worth redlinks?
    One now bluelinked, thanks to Peacemaker67; I don't think any of the others qualify. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:10, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Again, please double-check my edits. I'm a bit worried about the image situation. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:42, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

All replied to bar one, re pottery; I want to read a couple of things before I reply to that one. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:10, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Josh, all done now. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:00, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Thanks; pleased to see the non-free images gone. I'll get back to you soon. Josh Milburn (talk) 14:28, 13 January 2021 (UTC)


  • Image captions, check fragments don't have full stops.
    Done; the only one I saw was in the infobox. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:41, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "were The Trundle" ->" were the Trundle".
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:41, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
  • The following terms are inaccessible to a non-expert reader:
    • sally port
    • saddle
    • round barrow
    • long barrow
    • sherds
    • Beaker
    • RCHME
    • Electrical resistance survey
    • Bayesian analysis
      All of these are linked, but I can see that some of them might benefit from either a footnote in the text or even a parenthetical explanation. I don't want to clog up the text with too many parentheses, though -- the links are intended to help out users in just this way. I'd suggest that RCHME and Beaker don't need more than the existing link, since the former is just an acronym and there's some additional context for the mention of Beaker ware in the article already. I also think "sally port", which is a military term rather than an archaeological one, is a definition that a reader will be able to get very quickly from the link, and "sherd" seems possible to deduce from the context of its first use. I propose to add parenthetical notes for "resistivity survey" and "Bayesian analysis", and footnotes for the barrows and "saddle". Is that enough, do you think? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:51, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
      I think the links are okay as they stand, but being objective and applying a (new) common standard across FACs, I'm looking at terms that I personally clicked on to understand. I may not represent the "average reader" as I have post-graduate degrees but it looks like nowadays all such things must be explained in the article one way or another. It may be that the general reader needs even more explanation, or perhaps I know less than the general reader about this topic, but those are the ones I had to click on to fully understand. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!)
      OK. I'll add a couple of explanations per my note above. I'd be interested to hear from other reviewers what they feel needs further explanation within the article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:22, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
      TRM, I was about to start on these, but I realized I don't know what you mean by "(new) common standard"; has something changed in the MoS? Or is there some other guideline page that has changed that you're referring to? Is this something I should be familiar with as a reviewer? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:56, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
      MOS:LINKSTYLE bullets 9 through 11. In the past it never seemed to be a problem to link plain English terms, but now it is insufficient and is being enforced. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 07:30, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
      Added footnote for both types of barrow. Still looking at the others. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:48, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
      Added footnote for resistivity survey. I think those are the most important ones; I'm going to hold off on the others till we get some more responses at the WT:FAC discussion. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:01, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
      Sure, no problem. The major issue here is the purely subjective nature of what does and what does not need to be further explained within the article itself. I'm just looking for a level playing field. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 10:10, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
      A level playing field does seem like a reasonable request. Having looked at them all again, I think, unless you feel strongly about it, that the three ones I've addressed are all that need it -- I think the others are inferable from context, as much as is needed for comprehending the sentences they're in. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:38, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Ref 29 should be pp.
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:41, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 11:01, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Support from mujinga[edit]

I already gave commments on a previous version, I'm really impressed to see the state of the article now! Just gave it a read through and only have a couple of comments:

  • references 62 and 63 are currently inside a bracket, should they be outside it?
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:29, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Stone Age Quest is mentioned in the article so does it need an external link (not really fussed either way)
    I think you missed it? There's a link at the very end of the article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:29, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
I meant it the other way round! If it's mentioned in the article should it have an external link? Mujinga (talk) 12:38, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
I see what you mean -- I think it's OK. If we had an article on the game (unlikely) I'd say link to that and remove the external link, but as it is I think it's fine. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:44, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
fine by me Mujinga (talk) 13:41, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
yeah i think that's prob best. further, now I'm looking at map images in Sygrave (November 2016) maybe the original image is showing the small part that points north in figures 19 and 20 Mujinga (talk) 13:41, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "is little more than a track" this is true on the camp side of the hill, but on the other side of the hill Whitehawk Hill Road still exists
    I cut the phrase, as I don't think I can source anything more specific; does that work? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:48, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
sure, that works Mujinga (talk) 13:41, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
  • in Sources, the Sygrave report (A Report on the Outcomes of the Whitehawk Community Archaeology Project, Including a Post-Excavation Assessment and Updated Project Design (Report)) has report twice and should it be enclosed in apostrophes?
    The format comes from the {{cite report}} template, so I'm hesitant to change it -- I usually assume those templates comply with whatever the consensus format is supposed to be. The "(Report)" is generated by the template too. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:50, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
i was wondering if it was a template issue, seems like it would be a common "bug" to have report twice but i don't see a way to stop it appearing in the template info. Mujinga (talk) 13:41, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
  • note4 says "The road is named Manor Hill; it was built to connect a housing estate to Freshfield Road nearby" - I'm not seeing something to back that in pages 9-11 of Sygrave (November 2016). Page 17 of the same source says "Manor Hill linked Freshfield Road with the new residential developments on the south eastern flank of Whitehawk Hill and Whitehawk Bottom." The new estates would have been Whitehawk and Manor Farm
    On page 11, section 2.2.7, Sygrave says "In 1934 a proposal was put forward to construct a new road to connect the newly built Manor Farm estate with Freshfield Road". I think that's enough? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:52, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
ah! just what i was looking for and did not see, thanks for the answer Mujinga (talk) 13:41, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "The camp is one of only twelve known examples of a causewayed enclosure from the Windmill Hill culture in Britain and one of three known to have existed in the South Downs. It predates Avebury and Stonehenge by up to 1000 years.[98] The camp was the first scheduled monument in Sussex.[98]" - These claims (one of 12, three in south downs, first monument in sussex) might be true but aren't backed by the current source (I think this is an older part of the page). " predates Avebury and Stonehenge by up to 1000 years" feels a bit close to "predate later stone age enclosures like Stonehenge and Avebury by up to 1000 years" Mujinga (talk) 12:39, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
    I went back through the history, and the first sentence was in the very first version of the article, unsourced. I've cut it, along with the Stonehenge/Avebury sentence; the dates are given in the article and just because everyone knows about Stonehenge and Avebury I don't think it's necessary to compare every early archaeological site to them. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:59, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
ah, it was so close to making it to the frontpage :) Mujinga (talk) 13:41, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Changing "comments" to "support". Great work on this article Mike Christie, I look forward to seeing it on the mainpage. As a last thing, I enjoyed reading about the "chalk artefact with regular grooves". Imagine if Curwen was right and the ancient denizens of the hill were chess-playing cannibals! Mujinga (talk) 13:41, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
    Thanks! Yes, every time I look at that I wonder what on earth it was for. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:12, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Shake It Off[edit]

Nominator(s): (talk) 18:04, 30 December 2020 (UTC); TheSandDoctor

This article is about a song that does not need an introduction (probably). This song was so huge back in the day that it was the most annoying thing to appear on earth. Looking back, though the song may appear silly, it was a cultural reset for catapulting Ms. Taylor Swift to superstardom.

While this remains one of my least favorite songs on the album 1989, I ventured to expand the article on a song that attracted much praise and criticism alike. To ensure an encyclopedic tone, I wiped out any source considered gossip blogs/fanzines, and squeezed my resources from the Wikipedia Online Library to find peer-reviewed material. Nominating this to FAC may be the boldest thing I have done on this site, so I am honored to co-nominate with TheSandDoctor, who has helped with prose issues. Any comment would be much appreciated, (talk) 18:04, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Support by Nick-D[edit]

I liked this song when it came out, but am close to deleting it off my iPod as it hasn't aged well. I like it more than 'Bad Blood' though, which is the lowest point of what's an otherwise very good album. My musical tastes aside, I'd like to offer the following comments:

  • "which Swift marketed as her first pop album that eschews the country pop sound of her previous repertoire" - bit clunky
  • Reworded, (talk) 08:32, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "Contemporary critics received "Shake It Off" with moderate reviews" - this is unclear - changing to active voice would help
  • Reworded, (talk) 15:51, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "They found the song's dance-pop production catchy, but lamented that the lyrics were not up to par with Swift's traditional vivid songwriting" - was there really a consensus on this as this suggests? (I also doubt that Swift was widely considered a strong songwriter as this suggests - it seems she's taken on this mantle only with her latest couple of albums). The later section of the article notes a range of views.
  • She had been considered by critics as first and foremost a songwriter thanks to her country background (she was the youngest songwriter on Rolling Stone's 100 Greatest Songwriters of All Time). As The Guardian reviewed, "She’s a gifted writer, but Shake It Off doesn’t show off her talent." This however may not be representative of all reviews, so I'll try to rephrase it. (talk) 08:41, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Is there any commentary which discusses this song in the context of the various (many?) songs Swift has written responding to her critics? It seems to be a strong theme in her career, including the (IMO) wretched Reputation album.
  • There is some info on the song's theme and that of "Mean", Swift's 2010 single. Reputation seems to be more related to "Blank Space" (according to this interview), (talk) 15:51, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "having sparked speculations of new music via her social media accounts" - clunky
  • Reworded, (talk) 08:32, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "A day following its impact on US radio stations" - unclear
  • Reworded, (talk) 08:32, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "Despite Swift's announcement of abandoning country" - clunky
  • Reworded, (talk) 08:32, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
  • " Media publications pointed out potential references to other cultural events" - weren't these pretty explicit references? Please also change this to active voice.
  • Could you clarify what you mean by active voice? (talk) 08:32, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Active voice - in this case, something like "The video made a number of references to other areas of popular culture" if sources support it. Nick-D (talk) 08:54, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Swift didn't really explain the inspirations behind the video, so I think it is factually incorrect to deem the references explicit, (talk) 15:51, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
  • What Swift said or didn't say is irrelevant if reliable sources made the connection - a problem with these kinds of articles is that editors are afraid to go beyond the (often vapid/PR) utterances of pop stars. I'm fairly clueless about pop culture, but was able to spot references in the video. Nick-D (talk) 00:13, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Reworded, (talk) 05:57, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "earned accolades at professional awards. " - clunky
  • Reworded, (talk) 08:32, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "At the 2016 BMI Awards, the song was one of the award-winning songs that helped Swift earn the distinction of Songwriter of the Year." - this is unclear. Is the criteria for this BMI award that the songs have to have received other awards or similar as this suggests?
  • No.. the BMI awards songs for songwriters and publishers without specific categories. Reworded, (talk) 05:57, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "Retrospectively, critics have considered "Shake It Off" an effective opener for Swift's 1989 era, which transformed her image from country to mainstream pop" - this isn't supported by the source, which is the views of three NME writers who don't say it reflects broader views
  • Attributed to NME, (talk) 06:15, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "While the article was of comedic purpose" - overly formal/academic
  • Removed, (talk) 06:15, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
  • An interesting element of the #Tay4Hottest100 issue which was discussed in the Australian media was that a cover of the song by the (all male) band Milky Chance recorded for Triple J was eligible, while Swift's original version wasn't - this might be worth noting.
  • Interesting. I am finding coverage on that, (talk) 05:57, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
  • It's also likely worth noting though that the #Tay4Hottest100 campaign was basically bad faith - as Triple J had never played the song (as it sits outside its scope of highlighting 'alternative' music, especially by Australian artists), it was always clearly ineligible.
  • I find it funny that although it was ineligible in the first place, JJJ stayed silent until the last day of the poll (but in the announcement they listed a dozen of reasons, which did not say about this).. (talk) 06:10, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
  • " the #Tay4Hottest100 campaign had overwhelmed the Hottest 100 for 2014—over 7,341 Hottest 100 posts over the past 30 days related to Swift, compared to 230 related to Chet Faker" - this is unclear - what was overwhelmed? As the Hottest 100 attracts very large numbers of votes, 7341 would have been a drop in the ocean for the IT system, etc.
  • Given the report by SMH I think 7k is a fairly large number for the event... or maybe they were sensationalizing it (which I assume not), (talk) 05:57, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Are there any updates on the lawsuit by Sean "Sep" Hall and Nate Butler since October 2019?
  • Apparently the suit has stalled. I'm curious about what's going to happen next as well, (talk) 08:32, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "to which Swift expressed her approval on social media" - change to active voice
  • Reworded, (talk) 08:32, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Do we need the 'Cover versions and usage in media' section? It seems like few of these versions were ever commercially released (the Milky Chance version noted above was released by Triple J, ironically)
  • Per WP:SONGTRIVIA some mentions may be notable if they are discussed by media publications. I would like to re-examine this section if the consensus is to remove non-commercial releases, though, (talk) 08:32, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Very successful and iconic songs like this always attract tons of covers, so listing each performance seems like overkill. I think that the appropriate bar to set here is where the cover is itself a significant element of that artist's work rather than something they performed once while on the radio or TV. Nick-D (talk) 00:16, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "In the video, the students hold support sings encouraging each other to act kind" - it is not clear what this means, and the grammar seems off. Nick-D (talk) 05:32, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you very much for taking time reviewing the article. I have replied to your concerns per above (except concerns regarding the information included in "Covers and other usage" section, which I am awaiting further discussion on whether to excessively cut it down) (talk) 02:50, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

A couple of further comments:

  • I've made some edits to simplify wording - please check that these are accurate.
  • "After having sparked speculation about new music on social media, Swift appeared on The Tonight Show Starring Jimmy Fallon on August 13, 2014, where she announced a live stream via Yahoo! on August 18, 2014." - this is hard to follow - was she on The Tonight Show, or a Yahoo stream (5 days later?). Nick-D (talk) 10:32, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Slightly reworded. Thank you for your comments, (talk) 03:30, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Support I'd still prefer to see the Cover versions section get the chop, but I think that the FA criteria are met. Nice work with this article. Nick-D (talk) 09:41, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your support and review, Nick-D! --TheSandDoctor Talk 05:40, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Image review[edit]

  • File:Taylor_Swift_-_Shake_It_Off.ogg has an incomplete FUR
  • No - there shouldn't be any "na" fields. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:11, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
  • File:Funny_Face_(1957)_trailer_featuring_Audrey_Hepburn.jpg: have you verified there was no copyright notice in the original? Nikkimaria (talk) 17:40, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I believe for U.S. movie trailers published between 1925 and 1977 there is no copyright notice, (talk) 03:42, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
  • What is your source for that? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:36, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
It says here that Trailers for movies released before 1964 are in the Public Domain because they were never separately copyrighted. The law at the time granted the owner 28 years to file a copyright registration, though a little more digging might be needed. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 22:30, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Comments by Ceoil[edit]

As apposed to Nick-D, this music is not my cup of tea at all, in fact never heard of it until this nom and spent 30 seconds listening on YouTube before turning off, but then again its not meant for my demographic/age profile, grumble, grumble. Nonetheless, the page is mostly good enough on prose, and would like to see it suceed. Here are some suggestions:

  • which Swift marketed as her first pop album that eschews her previous albums' country pop sound - who uses the word "eschews" in 2021
  • @Ceoil: Changed to "abandons" (talk) 03:47, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
  • for digital download worldwide - worldwide digital download (this is a wording preference only)
  • traditional vivid songwriting - source for "vivid"... and do you mean "earlier" rather than "traditional"
  • @Ceoil: Reworded the whole thing, (talk) 03:47, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
  • 2010s-decade-end one too many dashes here
    @Ceoil: Fixed. --TheSandDoctor Talk 00:18, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
  • She included "Shake It Off" on the set lists for two of her world tours, the 1989 World Tour (2015) and Reputation Stadium Tour (2018). "Shake It Off" has - vary the wording with "the song" in the second instance of "Shake It Off"
    @Ceoil: Done. --TheSandDoctor Talk 00:21, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Why is "Favorite Song" capitalised. I know its an annual award, but a not enough of one to be a proper noun
  • I believe awards categories are normally capitalized, (talk) 03:47, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
  • In "Background", the red in Red incorporates various is left unexplained
  • Could you clarify? (talk) 03:47, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
Red incorporates various pop and rock styles Red what now? You just need to link or better explain Ceoil (talk) 04:35, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
  • @Ceoil: It is the album, (talk) 05:48, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Remove renowned from "with renowned Swedish pop producers Max Martin and Shellback"
    @Ceoil: Fixed. --TheSandDoctor Talk 00:18, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Billboard's Jason Lipshutz considered it a sign of a "bold foray into the unknown", with which Swift could experiment - "in which Swift..."
  • "Shake It Off" won awards at professional awards.
    @Ceoil: Reworded. --TheSandDoctor Talk 00:18, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Similarly The single and music video received accolades at award shows catering to popularity and commercial performance - would cut this altogether as the following sentances make the statement moot. Ceoil (talk) 00:22, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Would severely trim the very long "see-also" section so it doesnt seem like a random rag-bag. First by trimming anything already linked above, then by cutting links to long and very broad lists; ie those that are not directly germane. Ceoil (talk) 00:28, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "Credits and personnel" should be Credits only.
  • Sources look mostly good, from first look, only dont recogonise
  • @Ceoil: It is the website for SloTop50, Slovenia's singles chart, (talk) 06:11, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
  • The sub-heading "Cited literature" comes across as pretentious; no offense as edit on pop culture also often, but from a scan its far from literature ;) Better rename as "sources", or "further reading", or some such
  • @Ceoil: Changed to "Bibliography" (talk) 03:43, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
  • More later. Ceoil (talk) 00:10, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your comments so far. As Nick-D mentioned above, the "Cover versions and usage in media" section needs to be trimmed. I would like to have your comments regarding this as well, (talk) 05:49, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I don't care much about Nick-D, but grand. Please however let me know when you have addressed or refuted the points above, so I can resume. Ceoil (talk) 05:57, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I have responded to your points above, (talk) 06:11, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
  • For the record, the replies are far from complete. Ping when they are. Ceoil (talk) 06:16, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
I see all addressed. The page is beautifully written; nice work. Support Ceoil (talk) 07:36, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
Thank you so much for the review and kind words, (talk) 02:48, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Comments by Heartfox[edit]

Maybe it's just my eyes but I found it hard to differentiate between the * and the ^ in the certification template. Do you know why it can't use another symbol like # ? I may or may not read the article/leave comments if I have time. Heartfox (talk) 06:49, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

The template for certifications is automatically generated ({{Certification Table Entry}}). I think * and ^ may be hard to distinguish for certain people... so maybe a discussion at the Template talk page should help, (talk) 08:50, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Support by DMT biscuit[edit]

  • "Shake It Off" is an uptempo dance-pop song... → It is an uptempo dance-pop song... Having two repetitions of Shake it off underneath each other is clashing and ugly. DMT biscuit (talk) 02:09, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
    I am not sure I follow? These two quoted bits are two sections apart and it is necessary to repeat the information—which the second instance rewords slightly—as the lead is supposed to reflect the content in the page and have its citations etc in the second mention. The article alternates between "the song", "it", its proper name, and "the single" with some frequency. --TheSandDoctor Talk 02:42, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
  • The lyrics are about... → The lyrics describe... DMT biscuit (talk) 02:09, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I am dubious if "describe" is a good word choice. (talk) 07:19, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Don't know how I feel about naming NME and COS in the lead. Possible undue weight. This is per your discretion. DMT biscuit (talk) 02:09, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Considering that this song was featured on decade-end lists by only two publications, I think it's fair to include their names here. 07:19, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
  • which incorporates... shouldn't this be past tense? DMT biscuit (talk) 02:09, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
  • The sentence is talking about the album's music, so present tense makes sense to me. (talk) 07:19, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
  • repertoire → discography... Repertoire is a bit pretentious. DMT biscuit (talk) 02:09, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Reworded. (talk) 07:19, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Is there any commentary on the bridge's content. If no, I'm sceptical of its inclusion. DMT biscuit (talk) 02:09, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "The magazine Drowned in Sound described "Shake It Off" as "undoubtedly ... the most significant cultural event" since Radiohead's 2011 album The King of Limbs." Hindsight is 2020 and perhaps I'm too biased to speak but King of the Limbs wasn't a particularly significant cultural event. This bit strikes me as a bit fan-esque. It is, of course, the assertion of a writer not the article, so that can be reason for it to stay. Just something to consider.DMT biscuit (talk) 02:09, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Probably Radiohead was significant to the magazine (which is supposedly indie-centric) (talk) 07:19, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Yeah Ok. As i said that was the writer's opinion; the article doesn't exist to validate it. DMT biscuit (talk) 09:55, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
  • In the United Kingdom, "Shake It Off" peaked at number two...In the United Kingdom, it peaked at number two...Per the first comment. DMT biscuit (talk) 02:09, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Reworded. (talk) 07:19, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Very good work; just needs a little bit of tinkering. DMT biscuit (talk) 02:09, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Update: Support: The few issues i found have been addressed or given justified explanations for their inclusion. DMT biscuit (talk) 09:55, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your review :) (talk) 10:17, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Coord note How is the image review looking @Nikkimaria: And has there been a source review and spot checks? Ealdgyth (talk) 22:39, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Still not thrilled with the sample's FUR; otherwise good on images. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:42, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
I have requested for a source review at WT:FAC. (talk) 09:44, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Source review – Pass[edit]

Will do soon – Aza24 (talk) 23:32, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

  • retrieval dates missing for: refs 7, 29, 64, 73, 244
  • language parameter for ref 205, 203, 67, 165, 199, 236?
  • ref 131 missing author(s)
  • ref 140 should be "pp."
  • for ref 199, Hung Medien seems to be the publisher, "" could be put as the work or website I would think
  • ref 207 isn't in a template so the formatting is showing up differently
  • no other issues I could spot there
  • since amazon (ref 28) is generally considered an unreliable source, and the place you use if already has another ref, do we need it here?
  • the Paul Zollo (ref 14) is a medium post, though I would assume he's well regarded enough to qualify as reliable here – perhaps link to his page to minimize any doubts of reliabillity
  • nothing else stood out as concerning to me; seems to all be from reliable news sources or statistical web information. Best - Aza24 (talk) 22:51, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Thank you very much for the source review. I believe I have addressed your concerns accordingly. (talk) 02:29, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
Looks good, thank you! Pass for source review. Aza24 (talk) 20:48, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Danger: Diabolik[edit]

Nominator(s): PatTheMoron (talk) 06:17, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

This article is about a 1968 movie by Italian horror master Mario Bava - based on an enormously popular Italian comic series, it underwent a troubled production history due to changing producers, directors and actors multiple times before hitting the big screen, where it did okay but not spectacular business, especially compared to its "sister" movie, Barbarella, which was made by many of the same people. Like many of the films that would come to influence the likes of Austin Powers and other spy spoofs, it was largely forgotten until the 1990s saw its home media and MTS3K revival, before being left to rot in out-of-print purgatory during the 2010s in the wake of the MCU and the Dark Knight Trilogy, before slowly and surely coming back to Blu-ray this year, given that most of Bava's other films (including many of his less significant works) have received the HD treatment and that it has influenced the likes of Edgar Wright. I believe that the article is FA-worthy because it now covers many of the bases that Andrzejbanas initially had difficulty finding info and sources for, and more fully accounts for Bava's work on the film, as well as its legacy, critical standing and influence. PatTheMoron (talk) 06:17, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

  • Comment - Just making sure if you let Andrzejbanas know you nominated this article he worked on. I've asked for permission to nominate others work before. GamerPro64 16:57, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
Hi GamerPro! PatTheMoron has discussed it with me by the by. I'm totally comfortable with this. :) Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:11, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Source review by Ealdgyth[edit]

Removed. Andrzejbanas (talk) 12:21, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
I've removed this one. DVDBeaver is self-published home video review site, and should not be used. Andrzejbanas (talk) 08:25, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
I've removed this one. Similar to DVDBeaver. Andrzejbanas (talk) 08:25, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Image review

  • Suggest adding alt text
  • File:Diabolik_(caverna).JPG: given that what's pictured is a set design and this is a screenshot from a film, I don't think the current tagging is appropriate or sufficient
  • File:Diabolik_e_Eva_Kant.JPG: similarly, not sure this would qualify as a simple photograph vs art. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:47, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Those images were from the Italian page and on Commons. I thought it would be a waste to not use them to illustrate some of the article's points, although I can see the argument being made that the tagging might not as helpful as I intended. Any ideas, Andrzejbanas? PatTheMoron (talk) 08:15, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

  • A photo in Mario Bava: All the Colors of the Dark actually does show Bava preparing the matte painting for that scene, but I'm concerned that putting that particular image in the article may be copyright-unfriendly, which is why I've leant towards the already-used screenshot. PatTheMoron (talk) 08:30, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
Just because something is in commons, doesn't mean we should try and squeeze all the use we can out of them. Often images are of low quality and can't really illustrate a point very well. Having them isn't make or break for the article honestly. Andrzejbanas (talk) 08:31, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Comments by GamerPro64[edit]

Gonna review this now.

  • "Although De Laurentiis set aside $3 million with which to make the film, the final budget came to only 200 million lire." What does that mean in terms of the exchange rate of US dollars and Italian lire? GamerPro64 03:38, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Older nominations[edit]

Edvard August Vainio[edit]

Nominator(s): Esculenta (talk) 22:48, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

This article is about a prominent Finnish lichenologist, arguably one of the most important historical figures in this somewhat esoteric field. I've been working on it for about half a year, when I started it from a redlink. In that time, I've obtained and read all of the important sources about this man, save for two short Finnish-language articles I could not obtain, which have been listed in "Further reading". The article has been through a GA review, and several temporally spaced rounds of copyediting by myself and offline colleagues. I've used another recently promoted, somewhat related FA biography as a template to help guide me during the construction of this article. Having read the WP:MoS, I think it adheres quite closely to the recommended styling (although I'm happy to be further educated on things I've missed or misinterpreted). Thanks for reading. Esculenta (talk) 22:48, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Comments on Finnish geography etc.[edit]

Hi, I don't feel confident enough to be a reviewer as I know nothing about this field, but I read this with interest after spotting it in the FAC list! I'm Finnish and speak Finnish as my first language, and therefore thought that I could offer my help with anything related to Finnish history, geography, spelling etc. in the article. There were a couple of things that I spotted:

  • "Edvard was one of several children of parents Carl Johan Lang and Adolfina Polén, both of whom were bailiffs." – His father was, but his mother wasn't. I doublechecked what the source said, as it sounded strange that a woman could have a held such a position in the 19th century.
  • I misinterpreted the source – now fixed. Esculenta (talk) 22:25, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
  • "In the early 1860s, Carl Johan was transferred to the municipality of Hollola near Lake Vesijärvi in southern Finland, and the family settled into a farm near Laitila." Hollola and Laitila are quite far from each other, therefore it seems that there is a typo here or some sort of a misunderstanding. 'Laitila' is a fairly common name, so it's possible that a part of Hollola was called that? In any case, I would double-check the sources.
  • Rereading the source, it seems that maybe the farm itself was celled Laitila? I've changed the text to indicate that it was close to the border of Asikkala. Esculenta (talk) 22:25, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
  • "the plant and cryptogam floras of Tavastehus"— Tavastehus is the Swedish name for Hämeenlinna. I would double-check which is the more commonly used name in English, but at least English WP's article uses Hämeenlinna rather than Tavastehus.
  • Changed it so it's aligned with English WP. Esculenta (talk) 22:25, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Apart from that, looks very good! Feel free to ask if you have any language-related questions, I can try to clear things up. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 20:25, 29 December 2020 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

Thanks so much for reading, you have caught some errors that would have been very difficult for me to find! Esculenta (talk) 22:25, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
Happy I could be of assistance! One more thing I was wondering: what is the significance of Lake Vesijärvi to Vainio's life and career? Most Finnish municipalities are in the vicinity of at least one lake, therefore I think it needs to be clarified why this lake in particular is mentioned. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 12:47, 2 January 2021 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3
Several of the sources I used mention this lake, so I thought I should also. To add more relevance to this article, I added mention of the fact that Norlinn and young Vainio went on their botanical excursions in the area surrounding the lake. Esculenta (talk) 16:13, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Vainio_1924.jpg: what is the status of this work in the US? Ditto File:Matkustus_Brasiliassa._Kuvaus_luonnostaja_kansoista_Brasiliassa_1888_cover.jpg, File:Evard_August_Vainio.jpg
  • Added PD-US-expired to both. Esculenta (talk) 21:01, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
  • In the first case, the publication listed is after 1926 - was there an earlier publication? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:22, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Not that I'm aware of. I've switched to PD-1996. Esculenta (talk) 00:56, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
  • 70 years after a publication date of 1934 would put expiration after the URAA date. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:22, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Ok, I figured out that my original Finland-PD tag was incorrect (this is not a "work of art") and I've switched to the correct PD-Finland50 tag. So it became PD in 1984, and makes the URAA deadline (I think). Esculenta (talk) 05:22, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
  • File:HU-main-building-1870.jpg needs a US tag, and if the author is unknown how do we know they died over 100 years ago?
  • Added PD-1996. I added the publication date of the original source (Jan 1 1989), to show it meets the second requirement of this tag (published before 1 March 1989). Esculenta (talk) 21:01, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
  • File:Johannes_Müller_Argoviensis.png: if the author is unknown how do we know they died over 70 years ago?
  • We don't, so I switched to tags PD-France (anonymously authored photo published in Paris 70+ years ago) and PD-US-expired. Esculenta (talk) 21:01, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
  • File:William_Nylander-2.jpg needs a US tag and author date of death. Ditto File:Thore_Fries_x_Emil_Österman.jpg
  • For the first, author is unknown, so I replaced PD-old with both PD-Finland50 and PD-US-expired. Couldn't find the death date for the second, so I swapped out this image for one in which the photographer's death year is known (1950); I guess the "life plus 70 years or fewer" requirement of the PD tag is met as of today. Esculenta (talk) 21:01, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
  • File:University_of_Turku_1922_pic4.jpg needs a US tag and publication details. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:05, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I added a PD-US-expired tag. Couldn't find publication details, but the photo is from 1922 (depicting the official opening of the university) so it clearly meets the creation + 50 years part of PD-Finland50. Esculenta (talk) 21:01, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
  • If you can't find publication details, how do you know this was published before 1926? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:22, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Poking around, I found this image in the University of Turku archives, but their licensing isn't Wikipedia friendly. So I swapped for a similar image that's CC-BY-4.0. Esculenta (talk) 00:56, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Mike Christie[edit]

I'm copyediting as I read through; feel free to revert anything you disagree with.

Your copyedits are great! You appear to have a much better grasp than me at trimming unnecessary verbiage. I will study the diffs and try to better apply this technique to my own writing. Esculenta (talk) 16:35, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Thanks! Watching my prose get improved by scores of other editors here at FAC has certainly helped me, but I also think it's very difficult to copyedit your own prose. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:31, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
  • which became a heavy burden for him in his academic circles: it only becomes clear what this refers to once this part of his career is covered in the body of the article. Suggest "which led to his ostracism by the Finnish scientific community".
  • from all continents, including the Arctic and Antarctica: you say this both in the lead and the body. I know what you mean, but the Arctic isn't a continent and I think it would be best to find another way to phrase this.
  • Left out the continents and phrased more generally: "... other collections from all over the world" Esculenta (talk) 16:35, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Why is the "Later life" section before the "Education" section?
  • An artefact of early article development. I have placed it more chronologically. Esculenta (talk) 16:35, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Vainio married Marie Louise Scolastique (née Pérottin): annoyingly, I don't think there's a standard way to present the names of women in sentences about their marriage, but I think this is not ideal -- I assumed "Scolastique" was her surname and it took me a second to realize I was wrong. I would just make this "Vainio married Marie Louise Scolastique Pérottin".
  • I was so confused by the Lang/Wainio/Vainio changes that I quit reading the article linearly and searched it for the explanation. I think you should refer to him as "Lang" until he changes his name, or else the first time you use "Vainio" in the body explain -- even if only in a footnote -- the chronology of the name changes. And since he was Wainio for a long time we should make that clear before using "Vainio", too.
  • I've placed a footnote after the first usage of Vainio in the article text, and changed the instances of Vainio to Lang in the early life section. I contemplated similarly changing the Vainio's to Wainio's but figured it might be too confusing to the reader (indeed, it was confusing to me as I was trying to change them and remember what his name was at the time). So I haven't used the Wainio spelling in the article text, other than to explain the orthographical changes. Esculenta (talk) 16:35, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
    I've been thinking about this some more, and I have a further suggestion, though I don't think there's an ideal way to handle this so I'm open to other ideas. The two goals are that the lead has to make it clear he held all three names, and the reader should not be confused as they read through. I think this might work:
    • Add note 2, about his name, to the lead sentence -- I would suggest putting it before or after the current footnote 2. That allows the reader to see a more detailed explanation immediately if they wish, without interrupting the lead.
    • Expand note 2 to explain the logic of the usage in the article -- something like "His family name was originally Lang; in 1877 he adopted the Finnish name Wainio, first written with a “w”, which was a common practice at that time in the Finnish language. In 1919, he adopted the modern spelling Vainio. In this article he is referred to as Vainio for events after 1877, as this is the name by which he is known within lichenology."
    • Currently note 2 follows the first use of his name. I think we have to have something in the text itself. How about "During his time as a graduate student, Vainio, who had by now given up his original surname,[note 2] published two works on the cryptogams of Finland"?
  • I think this is a great solution, and although I struggled with figuring out how to correctly name a footnote for resuse, I think this diff implements your idea. Esculenta (talk) 14:59, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Also, a pedantic note: you have né Lang until 1877 in the lead, but he was né Lang after 1877, technically. How about "Edvard August Vainio (né Lang; Wainio from 1877 to 1919; ..."? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:06, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Pedantry is welcome – changed to your suggestion. Esculenta (talk) 14:59, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
  • against either the long traditional Swedishness or the attempted Russification of his country: wouldn't "both" make more sense than "either"?
  • MoS requires either unspaced em dashes or spaced en dashes in running prose; you have multiple examples of both -- please make them all one or all the other.
  • Changed to consistently unspaced em in the article text. Esculenta (talk) 16:35, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
  • In one of Nylander's publications,[30] eleven new species were described based on the collections of "E. Lang". Since something similar happened with Nylander's 1870 publication that credited Lang, I would make it clear that this was the second time Nylander had done this; I had to go back to the "Early life" section to be sure this wasn't a duplicated mention of the first instance.
  • In these publications, Vainio determined the lichen material he collected from the Vyborg region: I'm not familiar with this use of "determined"; is it standard in the field to mean identification, or analysis? If so I'd suggest glossing it or substituting less specialized language.
  • Sure, changed to the more accessible phrasing "analysed and identified". Esculenta (talk) 16:35, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
  • gave him the qualification of a docent and his teaching rights: suggest "qualified him as a docent and gave him teaching rights".
  • With the help of grants from the university, Vainio made several scientific expeditions abroad around this time. Since this is a new section, there's not a good referent for "around this time". Perhaps "early in his career"?
  • What do you mean by "collecting excursion"? You use the phrase twice in the "Work abroad" section. I would have thought this meant a trip to a location to collect specimens, but it appears from the article that Vainio and Gounelle were staying at the Santuário do Caraça and did not go anywhere else. Perhaps something like "The French entomologist Pierre-Émile Gounelle stayed at the monastery while Vainio was there, and some of their collecting work was done together"?
  • I'm using it the sense of "a short trip to collect specimens", but have used your wording above in the second instance in the "Work abroad" section. Esculenta (talk) 16:35, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
  • and suffered a sandfly infestation: I don't think "infestation" is the best word. Perhaps make it "He ended up spending a night in a wet, sandfly-infested cave without food, water, or a way to make fire." Then make it "sandfly larvae" in the sentence about his recovery.
  • with about 1600 collections packed in five large crates: surely this should refer to samples, not collections?
  • Few non-specialist readers will understand "exsiccatae"; I'd suggest giving a parenthetical definition.
  • Do we need to mention Regnell at all? We've listed three other Nordic scientists as examples.
  • he later became known infamously for his erroneous views on the nature of photobionts: suggest either "he later became infamous for his erroneous views on the nature of photobionts" or, perhaps better, "he later became known for his erroneous views on the nature of photobionts" or "known for having held"; "infamous" is a bit strong for encyclopedic tone.
  • So firm is the public conscious: can you confirm this is a correct quote? "Conscience" would make more sense than "conscious" here.
  • I corrected my faulty transcription. Esculenta (talk) 16:35, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "For many significant details on the world's Cladonia's, ...": shouldn't this be "Cladonias", without the apostrophe?
  • Thanks for reminding me of that, I've fixed the error. Esculenta (talk) 14:59, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

That's everything I can see on a read-through. A remarkably detailed and very thoroughly researched article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:29, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Thanks very much Mike, I'm grateful for the improvements. Esculenta (talk) 16:35, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Support. The last couple of points above have been taken care of. A fine article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:51, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Suzanne Lenglen[edit]

Nominator(s): Sportsfan77777 (talk) 19:35, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

This article is about Suzanne Lenglen, one of the first global superstars of tennis. Lenglen was virtually unbeatable, winning 287 out of the final 288 matches of her career. She gained immense popularity through her balletic playing style and vibrant personality, and first drew attention to herself by winning a World Championship tournament a few weeks after turning 15 years old. Her popularity forced Wimbledon to move to a new venue more than twice the size of the previous one to accommodate all of the fans who wanted to see her play. While still in her prime, Lenglen spurned amateur tennis to turn professional. She was the first top amateur player to turn professional, kickstarting the professional era. In one year of professional tours, Lenglen made more money than Babe Ruth in the year Ruth hit a record-setting 60 home runs.

A former featured article from the Stone Age of FAC reviews, this is your chance to get a former FA back to featured status and to review one of the most vital articles in tennis history. If passed, this would be my third FA; here are the first two: Kim Clijsters (also tennis) and Erin Phillips (Australian football). Sportsfan77777 (talk) 19:35, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Image review[edit]

I think resolved, but not confirmed yet. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 21:42, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

  • File:Suzanne_Lenglen_1922_(instant)_(cropped).jpg: when/where was this first published, and what is the author's date of death?
    • The publication date on BnF/Gallica is listed as 1922, and the author is an agency (Agence Rol), not a person. I think the Template:PD-old tag may not be the correct one. (The rights on Gallica are listed as "public domain".) Does Gallica have its own public domain tag (such as Template:PD-GallicaScan?), or is there a broader one related to the EU or France (such as Template:PD-EU-no author disclosure)? A bunch of the other images below have the same issue. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 22:53, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
    • Or is it even simpler than that and do the Gallica images listed as "public domain" (with the author as Agence Rol) just count as Template:PD-author? Sportsfan77777 (talk) 23:11, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
      • Only if Gallica is the copyright holder - are they? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:16, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
        • I believe BnF/Gallica owns the image itself. (They own all of Agence Rol's collections, and Agence Rol merged with other agencies in 1937.) Does that mean BnF/Gallica also owns the copyright? (or alternatively, does no one own the copyright because Agence Rol is gone?) Sportsfan77777 (talk) 04:04, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
        • Separately, I found Template:PD-BNF as a tag option. Would that alone suffice, or does it also need a US tag? Sportsfan77777 (talk) 04:04, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
          • That tag would suffice for French status, but it would need a separate tag for US. Owning the images does not automatically mean one owns the copyright. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:35, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
            • Okay, then would the PD-BNF plus the generic PD-US work for all of the Agence Rol Gallica images from before 1925 (all but one)? Sportsfan77777 (talk) 16:52, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
              • Assuming they were all published, not simply created, before then. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:21, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
                • Gallica says they were published before then. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 03:50, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Ditto File:Suzanne_Lenglen,_Elizabeth_Ryan,_1914_(light).jpg
  • Ditto File:Suzanne_Lenglen_playing_baseline_1914_(cropped)_3.jpg
  • Ditto File:Suzanne_Lenglen_1920_Cannes_(cropped).jpg
  • File:1919_wimbledon_final_(instant)_(cropped).jpg: as per the UK tag, image description should specify research to verify anonymity
    • If the image was published in a newspaper and the author wasn't specified in the newspaper, does that suffice? Sportsfan77777 (talk) 22:53, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
      • Was it credited in any other source? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:16, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
        • The National Portrait Gallery has a restored version of the same image, and they state the photographer is unknown. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 04:04, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
          • I would suggest adding this information to the image description page. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:35, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
  • File:Mlle_Lenglen_et_Brugnon_(cropped)_2.jpg: when/where was this first published?
    • France 1921. (I'll switch the tags to PD-BNF + PD-US, and clarify the publication info.) Sportsfan77777 (talk) 16:52, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Ditto File:Mallory_and_Lenglen_1921_St_Cloud_(cropped)_2.jpg
    • France 1921. (I'll switch the tags to PD-BNF + PD-US, and clarify the publication info) Sportsfan77777 (talk) 16:52, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Not resolved yet. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 21:42, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

  • File:Mary_Browne_%26_Lenglen_(Tennis)_LCCN2014710151_(cropped).jpg when/where was this first published?
    • US 1926. (I think the two for this one should suffice, and clarify the publication info) Sportsfan77777 (talk) 16:52, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
  • File:Suzanne_lenglen_1920.jpg: what is the author's date of death?
    • As the image was published in Lenglen's book (that she wrote), would it be correct to say that Lenglen is the author? (If yes, she died in 1938.) Sportsfan77777 (talk) 22:53, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
      • Is there any attribution in the book? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:16, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
        • Yes, I just noticed! It was by the Maull and Fox company (which was taken over in 1928), but not Maull or Fox themselves because they were already dead. Would Template:PD-UK-unknown make sense here with no individual author identified? Sportsfan77777 (talk) 04:04, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
          • Yes, but as above you'd need to include evidence of research into anonymity. Was the author identified in any other source? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:35, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
            • Okay, I found that the firm was continued by Fox's son Herbert Fox (1870–unknown) and Frederic Glover (who joined in 1890). Does it suffice to assume that neither lived past 80 years old (to use the Template:PD-old-70 tag)? Sportsfan77777 (talk) 16:52, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
              • Commons uses commons:Template:PD-old-assumed for cases where the author's date of death is unknown but reasonably assumed to be over 70 years ago, but only for works published over 120 years ago. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:21, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
                • I just realized the book was published in the US (and I can't find the photo published anywhere else). In that case, would just a regular PD-US tag suffice (since it was published in 1920).
                  • Was the book only published in the US? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:28, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
                    • The publisher was based in the US. I imagine the book was circulated elsewhere, does that affect anything? Sportsfan77777 (talk) 17:40, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
                      • If it were simultaneously published elsewhere that might affect things as far as Commons goes, but if it was published US and only circulated elsewhere - and assuming you're corrected that the photo was not published elsewhere - that's fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:27, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
  • File:Lenglen_Wills_Match_of_the_Century_1926_2_(instant)_(cropped).jpg needs a US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:45, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
    • Silly question, but is the PD-US tag for images published before 1925 or for images published at least 95 years ago? (because the 95th anniversary of this photo is less than two months away) Sportsfan77777 (talk) 16:52, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
      • At the moment it's 1925, in a couple of days it'll be 1926 - the turnover is start of year, not the exact anniversary of publication. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:21, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
        • Okay. As an alternative, would Template:PD-1996 apply to this image? (I see it was used for Maurice Ravel, which has a similar state in that it is also listed as public domain on Gallica, and has no identified individual author.) Sportsfan77777 (talk) 03:50, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
          • 1926 +70 would put this after the URAA date. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:28, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
            • Okay, I replaced this image with a non-free one that I believe to be fair use. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 17:40, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
              • The "unique historic images" tag is intended for cases where the image itself is the subject of commentary, not just what is depicted - eg. Tank Man. It's not clear to me that that is the case here. Suggest replacing that tag and expanding the fair-use rationale, particularly as regards purpose of use - what do readers gain from seeing this image over and above just being told that they thought the match was over when it wasn't? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:27, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
                • Hmm, I picked that image in particular because I thought it was a unique historic image where the image itself is what's important and the subject of commentary. Is it within reason that a sports photograph could be a unique historic image? Or is the issue that I didn't discuss the image in the prose? If the latter is the case, I reworded the section to mention the image. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 05:03, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
                  • It is conceivable that a sports photograph could be a unique historic image; I'm just not convinced yet that this one is. The text notes that photographers captured this moment, but I'm not seeing commentary rising to the level of "transformative" as per the tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:51, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Comments by Amakuru[edit]

  • Early life and background:
    • "Several years after Suzanne was born, her father sold the omnibus business and relocated the family to Marest-sur-Matz near Compiègne in northern France in 1904" - were the selling of the business and the relocation separate events? If so, it would be worth separating them out so it's clear. And if they're actually part of the same event, then we should chop either "Several years after..." or "in 1904", since both indicate a point in time.
      • I don't know exactly when the selling of the business happened. Changed it to "her father sold the omnibus business, after which he relocated the family". Sportsfan77777 (talk) 05:46, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
    • "Nice Lawn Tennis Club" - we have an article for this, so link to it
    • "loved to play diabolo" - it may be just me, but "loved to" doesn't quite sound like formal encyclopedic language. Is that what the sources says? Could consider "enjoyed" instead.
    • "through attending tournaments on the Riviera where the world's best players" - a comma after Riviera might help the flow a bit here.
    • "the world's best players would compete" - just "the world's best players competed" would be preferable.
    • "Having played the sport recreationally in the past, he bought Lenglen a racket from a toy store" - are his playing in the past and the fact that he bought her the racket specifically linked? If not, could either split it up, or rephrase to something like "He had played the sport recreationally in the past, and he bought..." or similar.
    • "to practice with friends" - since the article is tagged as British English, this should be "to practise", I believe.
    • "She quickly showed enough skill for tennis to convince her father to get her a proper racket within a month" - was the previous racket not a proper one then? Toy stores might also sell such things, so if the previous one was actually a toy then maybe say so. Also, should be "skill at tennis"?
      • Clarified the second one was from a tennis manufacturer. "skill at tennis" Done. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 05:46, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
    • "Three months later in September, Lenglen" - a comma after "later" I think, as "in September" is an appositive phrase.
    • "a proper tennis court" - second use of "proper" this paragraph... not totally convinced it's an encyclopedic word, and could change at least one of them to something else.
      • I feel like alternatives (e.g. real, actual) would be less encyclopedic. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 05:46, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
    • "the singles handicap event" - a link might be useful, to aid readers in understanding what this is
    • "towards the end of the fall" - "autumn" in British English
    • "They only showed restraint in their criticisms when she was sick, leading to Lenglen becoming comfortable with being ill" - I'm not quite sure what this means. Did she fake illness in order to avoid their criticism?
      • Sort of, but more like "it was not clear whether she was actually sick". I added "That trait made it difficult for others to ascertain whether Lenglen was sick when she was showing symptoms." Sportsfan77777 (talk) 05:46, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
  • 1912-13: Maiden titles:
    • "Lenglen entered her first open singles event" - does "open" mean non-handicap? A link or clarification might help
      • Changed to "standard", and clarified "standard non-handicap" at the beginning of this section. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 06:05, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
    • "After her opponent defaulted" - a link of some sort would be useful, so unfamiliar readers can know what this means
    • "not won a title" - "failed to win a title"?
    • "a tie" - link to what this means?
      • I actually don't think we have an article on this. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 06:05, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
    • "Nonetheless, when Lenglen returned" - why is this "nonetheless"? I'm guessing maybe you mean that "winning one match" in the prior event was a bad thing, in which case probably add in "only one match" or similar.
    • "She won her next event in Lille as well. Both titles came within a few weeks of her 14th birthday" - might work better as a single sentence with a comma rather than two short sentences.
    • "the latter of which by default" - any reason why?
      • No, it was more common to default at that time for reasons that would be considered "non-serious" by today's standards. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 06:05, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
  • More to follow! I'm impressed with the article so far anyway, so I'm likely to support.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:40, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
    • "South of France Championships" - link
  • 1914: World Hard Court champion:
    • "Cannes" - link, as it's the first mention
    • "was regarded as a huge surprise" - should probably say by whom
    • "Wimbledon" - link
    • "Racing Club de France" - link
      • I think the article is more for the club rather than the actual facility. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 06:31, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
    • "where she only lost three games" - "in which she lost only three games" sounds better
      • Split in two: "Nonetheless, she won three matches to make the final against Germaine Golding. She defeated Golding for her first major title, losing only three games." Sportsfan77777 (talk) 06:31, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
    • "when she had already lost" - maybe "given that she had only lost"?
      • Done (assuming you didn't mean to change "already"). Sportsfan77777 (talk) 06:31, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
  • World War I hiatus:
    • Can't see any issues here.
  • 1919: Classic Wimbledon final:
    • "in the challenge round" - although we've already introduced the "challenge round" concept, we're generally calling the event "the final" in this section, so would make sense to clarify
      • I think the statement from the 1914 section establishes that the challenge round is the final: "The format gave the defending champion a bye until the final match, known as the challenge round." Sportsfan77777 (talk) 06:40, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
  • 1920: Olympic champion:
    • "Ryan was able to defeat Lenglen in mixed doubles at Cannes in windy conditions" - should probably say who the partners were
    • "was also a rematch of the previous year's final" - should probably drop the "also", as it's a bit repetitive
      • It refers to the fact that both the singles and doubles finals were rematches. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 06:40, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
    • "only losing three games" - not sure why, but I feel like "losing only" is more formal than "only losing". There are quite a few examples of this, so maybe go through and change them all.
    • "after their opponents withdrew prior to the match" - I assume "the match" means a bronze-medal playoff, but probably worth clarifying
  • More to follow.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:58, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Only singles defeat post-World War I:
    • No issues with this section at all, looks great.
  • Start of 179-match win streak:
    • "and only lost twelve points" - change to "and lost only twelve points"? Not sure why, but as above this rings better.
    • "who had defaulted against her in the United States" - wondering if this is really necessary here... we know that she defaulted from above, and it's not directly relevant to Lenglen's easy win the following year. Up to you though.
    • "to end Lenglen's amateur career" - this sounds slightly odd, as if it was the streak which ended her career. Could maybe consider "which lasted for the remainder of he amateur career" or similar.
      • Changed to "This tournament began a 179-match win streak that Lenglen continued through the end of her amateur career". Sportsfan77777 (talk) 20:16, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
  • 1923: Career-best 45 titles:
    • "with a mixed doubles loss to Ryan and Lycett" - I don't think we know who her partner was in this event?
    • "She faced the most adversity in the final" - in which event? Presumably the singles, but should say so.
    • "However, while partnering with Jean Washer, she was defeated ..." - again, clarify the event. Guessing mixed doubles.
      • It's clear from them facing Ryan and Lycett. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 20:16, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
  • 1924: No major titles:
    • "she also did not win a major tournament in a year where majors were held for the first time since 1913" - the wording here is quite confusing. Initially I thought this was saying that there had been no major tournaments played since 1913, and it was only when I noticed that this did not tally with the mention of Wimbledon in previous paragraphs that I figured out the real meaning!
      • Changed to "she also did not win a major tournament for the first time since 1913 aside from her hiatus due to World War I" Sportsfan77777 (talk) 20:16, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
  • 1925: Open French champion
    • The lead uses the terminology "Open French champion", but the body does not use this exact term. Presumably "open" means open to international players in this context (in contrast to the now-replaced usage of open to mean a non-handicap event earlier in the article). Maybe match up the title and the wording in the body somehow?
      • I changed the "non-handicap" from "open" to "standard" above because I don't think "open" is actually used that way. "open" is commonly used to indicate "open to internationals". I was hoping that was clear from "the inaugural edition open to international players". The title is really "open French champion", but the "open" is capitalized because it's the first word. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 20:16, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
  • 1926: Match of the Century
    • "retiring" - is this the correct terminology? Moving from amateur to prefessional wouldn't seem like a retirement to me, but I guess if that's what everyone says...
      • I think it's fair to say "retiring from amateur tennis to professional", just as one might "retire from professional tennis to become a coach" today. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 20:16, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
    • "After the linesman clarified the shot was good and a delay of at least several minutes to clear the court" - the two parts of this conjunction seem to be a verb and a noun respectively, which doesn't sound correct. Probably best to change to "After the linesman's clarification that the shot was good and a delay..."
    • "Wills's season was cut short when she needed to have her appendix removed following her second round victory at the French Championships"
  • More to follow.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:16, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
  • United States tour (1926-27):
    • "an offer of 200,000 francs to turn professional in America" - (1) this should probably be either "the US" or "the United States"; (2) is there a reason why she was offered a francs contract the previous time, but a $ contract this time?
    • "The singles matches were almost best-of-three sets" - should this be "almost all"?
    • "after Lenglen became ill and had decided to play" - mixture of tenses here... should be either "after Lenglen had become ill and decided to play..." or "after Lenglan became ill and decided to play..."
    • "an attendance of 13000" - should have a comma in the number as it's five digits per MOS:DIGITS. Ditto "10000".
    • "from ticket sales between $1.50 and $5.50" - doesn't seem to quite scan. Maybe change to "sales of tickets priced at" or similar.
  • British tour (1927):
  • Aftermath:
    • "Lenglen was widely criticized for her decision to turn professional" - this seems to be a case of WP:WEASEL, as this wide criticism is not attributed to anyone. Can we give some examples of who criticised her?
    • "criticized" - British English does actually optionally allow for "-ize" endings, but it should be consistent. Further down the article I see "organised" and "organising", so make it consistent one way or the other.
    • "Paul Féret was reinstated"- just Féret will do, as we already introduced him further up and referred to him as Féret already as well.
  • Lenglen vs. Mallory:
    • "The strengths of her game were..." - whom does this refer to, Lenglen or Mallory?
    • "When they first faced each other in the final of the 1921 World Hard Court Championships" - think there should be a comma after "other", as I think they only met in the 1921 final once 😊
    • "Unlike in their previous match" - previous sentenced started "Like..." which makes this sound slightly repetitive.
    • "Her health prevented them from playing doubles together at the tournament" - again, is this Mallory or Lenglen, and was there a real prospect of their playing together? The last sentence of the previous paragraph talks of them playing against each other at doubles.
  • Lenglen and Ryan:
    • Is there a reason this sub-section uses "and", whereas the previous one uses "vs."?
    • "at a handicap event at Monte Carlo" - "in Monte Carlo" might work better to avoid repetition of "at"
    • "twentieth such title" - since we say "19" in digits in the prior sentence, might be better to say "20th" here.
    • "third greatest female player" - probably insert a hyphen in "third-greatest"
  • OK, will pause again there. This is a long article to get through! Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 14:37, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Footnotes:
    • (d) - we've said "U.S." elsewhere rather than "US" so make it consistent.

Placeholder for TRM[edit]

Nice work, I'll add some comments in due course. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 11:34, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

  • The Rambling Man It looks like you maybe forgot about this? If you don't intend to review it, it should probably be put on the urgents list for additional reviews. (t · c) buidhe 00:47, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
    No, I didn't forget about it, cheers. While others are making substantial comments, there's no point in reviewing as there may well be duplication of effort. Chill and I'll get to it when I'm ready. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 09:07, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

1997 Football League First Division play-off Final[edit]

Nominator(s): The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 10:33, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Once again, another candidate on the most valuable single football match on the planet. Worth a read, used an official video to enhance the game summary, which includes an almighty BANG when Don Hutchison falls from a great height and dislocates his shoulder. Hopefully it's all up to scratch having just passed WP:GAN thanks to a review from Casliber. As ever I'll endeavour to get to any comments and queries on the candidate as soon as I practically can. Cheers in advance for your time and consideration. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 10:33, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:52, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Cheers. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 22:53, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Comments Support by Kosack[edit]

  • Final is capitalised in the article title, but not the infobox title. Is that intentional?
    Fixed. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 09:02, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
  • The "which was" in the first sentence is probably unnecessarily elongataing the opening. As a comparison, the 1998 final does away with it?
    Fixed. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 09:02, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
  • "before be adjudged to have crossed the goalline", I'm guessing this should read "being"?
    Fixed. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 09:02, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
  • "Their advantage last just four minutes", minor adjustment needed.
    Fixed. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 09:02, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
  • "and had losing the previous season's final", sentence doesn't quite work.
    Fixed. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 09:02, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
  • "running out of his area and kick the ball into touch", same again.
    Fixed. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 09:02, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Was Kachura replaced due to injury? Might be worth noting if the source supports it as it seems strange for United to sub off their top scorer in the first half with no explanation.
    Welllll, if you watch the match replay, he jogs (un)happily off the pitch, the commentators "speculate" that it's related to a "niggling hamstring injury" as he leaves, but later there's more speculation over whether it was purely tactical. So, I left it...! The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 09:02, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
    No worries, I guessed it would be along those lines but was just wondering. Kosack (talk) 18:47, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Linighan needs linking in the match details section as he isn't mentioned prior to this. He's also listed as Linigham in the following sentence.
    Fixed. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 09:02, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
  • No captain icon for the Sheffield United side?
    I haven't found an explicit source for that. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 09:02, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
    Got it, Holdsworth. He introduces the team before the match, and although he's not wearing an armband (that I can see) I think that's sufficient. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 09:06, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Other than a few minor points noted above, this another article in great shape. Kosack (talk) 22:49, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Kosack thanks, I've responded above. Cheers, The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 09:02, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
All of my comments have been addressed, happy to support. Kosack (talk) 18:47, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Oppose by Gog the Mild[edit]

  • "while the clubs placed from third to sixth place in the table". Either delete both "from" and "place", or rephrase to avoid "placed ... place".
    Rephrased. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 14:06, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "The top two teams of the 1996–97 Football League First Division season gained automatic promotion to the Premiership, while the clubs placed from third to sixth place in the table took part in play-off semi-finals; Sheffield United ended the season in fifth position, one place ahead of Crystal Palace." I think this is trying to do too much work for a singe sentennce.
    Rephrased. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 14:06, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "Sheffield United ended the season in fifth position, one place ahead of Crystal Palace. The winners of these semi-finals competed for the final place for the 1997–98 season in the Premiership. Wolverhampton Wanderers and Ipswich Town were the losing semi-finalists." It may just be me, but this reads a bit arse about. Consider naming the four semi-finalists first, then saying what happened to them.
    Rephrased. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 14:06, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "Winning the final was estimated in the media to be worth up to £10 million to the successful team." I realise that this is the lead and a summary, but a non-aficionado is likely to assume that this is the match prize money.
    It's how it's discussed in the RS. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 14:06, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
Does that mean that you don't believe that non-footballing readers will be mislead? Or that you think they may be but are content for this to be the case as the RS is similarly misleading?
It's not misleading at all, it's just not explicit about how that money is won. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 23:05, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
I believe that it would improve the article if it were explicit in this respect.
The RS say what the article says. And it's factually and verifiably correct. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 19:39, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
And, as I am sure you are aware, I am not addressing any of those points. Perhaps you would care to address the one I am making?
Well not really, I can't make up stuff that I don't have RS for. The reports used all have that terminology, along the lines of "winning the match is worth around X to the victorious team". That's how it's phrased for the citations for this year. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 19:34, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "made an early change". Again, seems in-group language to me. And "early" and then stating when smacks of redundancy. Perhaps 'Sheffield United replaced Pyotr Kachura with Gareth Taylor midway through the first half' or similar?
    Early is important because making a seemingly tactical substitution midway through the first half is unusual. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 14:06, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "for the London club". As it is not obvious to a non-football fan that Crystal Palace is/was in London and the club's location has not previously been introduced, this doesn't, IMO, really work. I don't personally see what it adds and would suggest deletion.
    The reader literally goes on in the next sentence to read "Crystal Palace's victory marked the first time a club from London..."
Err, that's my point. Once the reader has been told that Palace are "a London club" you can refer to them as such and expect a reader to understand. But not before. Not even a sentence before.
Ok, I tend to assume the reader will use context provided, but okeydokes, reworded. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 15:10, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
See my comment below on the use of Wikilinks.
I understood that the text of an article should explain itself and that Wikilinks were there for readers who wished for more detail on a topic or term, not to provide a basic understanding of the text. Eg Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking#General points on linking style says, among other things:
  • Do not unnecessarily make a reader chase links: if a highly technical term can be simply explained with very few words, do so.
  • Do use a link wherever appropriate, but as far as possible do not force a reader to use that link to understand the sentence.
  • The text needs to make sense to readers who cannot follow links.
I'm sorry, I simply don't agree that we need to explain in every article that uses the term away goals rule what it means. Similarly two legged tie and aggregate score, these are all English terms and they are certainly not "highly technical". The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 23:05, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
I'll give you a counter-example: e.g. 1st Missouri Field Battery. This, for some reason, feels obliged to describe in a footnote what is meant by the common English word "bore" yet leaves our readers to guess at what is meant by Trans-Mississippi Department, James rifle (not even a rifle!), 6-pounder smoothbores, "case shot, and canister", rifling, caissons, etc etc. I've read the article and I'm happy that the relevant linking provides a sufficient way of me working these all out, but I don't think FAs should now be forced to come with a glossary of terms attached. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 07:46, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
I am unsure how how another nominated article "feels" is relevant to this point.
It's about consistent expectations across featured articles. The examples given above are way more technical than "aggregate score" (for example) which is a dictionary definition. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 19:42, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
I do not believe that a non-specialist reader should be required to work out what the prose of an FAC means. I believe that the section of the MoS I quoted above supports this
I'm not going to add footnotes for phrases which are wikilinked and are actually plain English. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 19:39, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
It would indeed be preferable for the text to be clear in line to a non-expert, to terminology being explained in footnotes.
I am left unsure whether you are arguing that "leg", "on away goals" and "yellow card" or "booking" are 'plain English', or that there being a Wikilink for each allows 'working these all out', or both. Or one for some and t'other for others? I am trying to get to grips with why you feel the current prose is acceptable - I am entirely open to being persuaded - but am struggling, which is quite probably due to my slow rate of comprehension, to get to grips with just what you are saying. Any chance of explaining for each of these why you feel that the current situation is broadly comprehensible and why each meets the three points above from the MoS? Cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:36, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
My acid test is that I have been through dozens of these reviews and not one single reader, be them football aficianados or otherwise, has found a single issue with the linking to explain plain English terms. I won't be adding countless footnotes to explain terms that are linked and which, to what appears to me to be the vast majority of readers, fully comprehensible. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 19:34, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
Ah. When I first read it I assumed that you were including any appearances as a player. "was making his twelfth appearance as a manager at Wembley Stadium" or similar would avoid this potential misunderstanding.
If the above suggestion were to be adopted, this would, I think, be clear(er).
Well then there'd be complaints about the repeat of manager. It's clearer now, but probably not as plain as you would like it. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 23:05, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
Indeed not. It is still not clear what constitutes an "appearance".
It says "the first of his managerial appearances at the national stadium, in which he led Everton to " so if that's not clear, I don't know what else to say. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 19:39, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
I'll keep the discussion at first mention then.
  • "Kevin Muscat won the ball which fell to Dyer". I don't follow this. If Muscat won the ball, how did Dyer end up with it?
    He won the ball in a tackle and the ball ended up with Dyer. That's why the video is linked, so it can be verified. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 14:40, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
What you have just written is clear to me. Why can the article not read similarly, to spare the likes of me having to watch the video in order to understand the text?
Because the way I wrote it above is hardly engaging prose. I could make it "... won the ball but it fell to Dyer ..." if you think that makes it clearer? The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 23:09, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
I do, it would.
I've added "then" to make it clear what the sequence of events was, but in general I'm not going to write down basic dumb prose I'm afraid. It's supposed to be engaging. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 19:39, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
That seems clear to me. Thanks.