Wikipedia:Featured article candidates

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

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

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

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  • a nomination is unprepared, after at least one reviewer has suggested it be withdrawn.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

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

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

Table of ContentsThis page: Purge cache

Featured content:

Featured article candidates (FAC)

Featured article review (FAR)

Today's featured article (TFA):

Featured article tools:

How to nominate an article

Nomination procedure

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

Supporting and opposing

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

Nominations[edit]

Chinatown MRT station[edit]

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

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

I've Just Seen a Face[edit]

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

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

Image review

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

Capture of Sedalia[edit]

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

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

Gog the Mild[edit]

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

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

  • "He sent side raids to Glasgow and Sedalia. One of these brigades". "these brigades"; what brigades? You have only mentioned raids.
    • Reworded
  • "One of these brigades, led by Brigadier General M. Jeff Thompson of the Missouri State Guard led a brigade". Repitition of "led"; repetition of "brigade".
    • Down to one usage of each
  • "significant Union movements". What was significant about them?
    • Removed word
  • "and quickly overwhelmed its approximately 830-man garrison. After paroling or releasing their prisoners" To my eye there is something missing in the middle, if only 'capturing most of them' or similar. The lead contains very little about the topic of the article.
    • I've added several more sentences about the battle to the lead, is this better? Hog Farm Talk 03:45, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • "bouncing around in various places before landing in Marshall, Texas". {{WP:INFORMAL]]?
  • "The Union gained control of in March". Where is this place "in"?
  • "Price decided to abandon the attempt against St. Louis". "the attempt", what attempt?
  • Lead "Price soon needed supplies, weapons, and remounts"; body "Price, needing weapons and supplies".
  • "Missouri State Guard Brigadier General M. Jeff Thompson's Confederate brigade of Brigadier General Joseph O. Shelby's division". Genuine question, does "Confederate" add anything here?
  • The first paragraph of Battle is long. Maybe break after "had moved towards the west"?
  • "Two redoubts and some rifle pits defended the town." I am not sure that inanimate objects can defend. Consider rephrasing?
  • "were driven back into town and scattered". Maybe swap the order?
  • "reported capturing hundreds of weapons and wagons of "goods suitable for soldiers" ... reported capturing a number of weapons and some military goods".
  • "captured almost 2,000 mules and cattle". It seems odd to conflate these. Does the source not differentiate?
  • Add JSTOR for Geise.

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

Image review

    • @Nikkimaria: - replies above on two kinda tricky items, will do the others shortly. Hog Farm Talk 03:30, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Truce of Calais[edit]

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

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

Comments Support from Tim riley[edit]

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

  • Lead
    • "a truce agreed to by King Edward III of England and King Philip VI of France" – do we need two prepositions here? "to by" would be better as a simple "by" in my view. I don't say we're in "what did you choose that book to be read to out of from for?" territory, but a trim would be nice, I think.
      Trimmed.
    • "had lost all of its territory in France" – unnecessary AmE-style "of". There are three more such later, all of which would be crisper without the superfluous "of".
      Oh dear. Perhaps I should give up and just write in AmE? Joke! Joke! Four of's excised, hopefully the four you had in mind. (I use "of" 203 times!) And now added to my pre-FAC checklist of words to watch, just after "due to".
      All fine now, me judice. Tim riley talk 15:58, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Background
    • "the English Crown had controlled the Duchy of Aquitaine … By the 1330s this had been reduced to Gascony" – what is "this" that had been reduced? The duchy or English holdings?
      Ah. Good niggle. Changed to "these holdings". Does that fix it?
      Certainly, in my view. Tim riley talk 15:58, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Truce
  • "a temporary cease fire" – a ceasefire is one word according to the OED.
    A recent innovation it seems - [1], but changed.
    You're right: the older citations in the OED hyphenate it or make it two words, but since the 1960s the noun (though not the verb, of course) seems to have been one word as a rule. Tim riley talk 15:58, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • John II
    • "13 knots ([convert: unit mismatch])" – needs attention.
      A passing stranger has helpfully fixed it. Apparently "kn" is not a unit of measurement. Who knew?
      I have never hitherto seen you as Blanche DuBois, depending on the kindness of strangers, but full marks to the passing stranger nonetheless. Tim riley talk 15:58, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[]

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

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

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

Image review

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

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

Uskok-class torpedo boat[edit]

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

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

Image review

  • File:Torpedo_boat_tc_1.jpg needs a stronger FUR, and suggest switching to the generic fair-use tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:14, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Farran Zerbe[edit]

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

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

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

Comments from Usernameunique[edit]

Early life

  • By many accounts — Suggest rephrasing this (and making an appropriate adjustment in the next sentence) to something like "By many accounts, including as told by Zerbe in his later years,"
  • silver French 50-centime piece — Anything to link to?
  • John P. Lupia III — Worthy of a red link?
  • the story Zerbe told in 1903 — What were the circumstances?

Numismatist of the world's fairs

  • In the first years of the 20th century, Zerbe began to show his traveling exhibit, "Money of the World" — Generally speaking, this section is fairly hazy on how Zerbe got started, and gained traction, in the coin-collecting world. I realize that much of this may be lost to time, but are there any more details that could be added?
  • Some collectors lent items for the exhibit and could not get them back — Why?
  • he felt was justified — He felt, or he claimed?
  • he also sold them mounted in spoons, jewelry and other items — I realize there are a lot of images in the article already, but is there a good one of one of these items?
  • When he was not busy with his duties — What duties?
  • and found the New Orleans Mint temporarily not striking coins — I'm not really sure what this means. How did he "find" it not striking coins?
  • a profit of about $16,000 — What is that in current dollars? {{inflation}} should help.

President of the ANA

  • Zerbe aided those affected by the earthquake — How?
  • After serving three years, with Zerbe as first vice president ... with Henri Buck as first vice president ... with John Henderson as first vice president — It's "First Vice President" (capitalized) above.
  • setting a membership goal of 3,000 — How many did it have at the time?
  • There were complaints — By whom?
  • got the membership to approve a dues increase to improve The Numismatist — Even though the ANA wasn't responsible for the publication?
  • President Theodore Roosevelt appointed Zerbe to serve on that year's Assay Commission. — May as well give a brief description of the Assay Commission.
  • a "long price" for the periodical — No further details, I assume?

1915 Panama-Pacific International Exposition

  • the coins and medals — does this include just the Panama–Pacific commemorative coins, or were the medals separate?
  • the Mint's exhibit — The Mint also had an exhibit, or is this referring to Zerbe's exhibit?
  • Zerbe was present at the San Francisco Mint for the first ceremonial striking of the octagonal $50 piece — When?
  • He felt ... and felt ... who he felt — Overuse of the same verb. More importantly, however, we can't know how Zerbe felt; we can know only how he said he felt.

Later years, death and appraisal

  • returned to the road and exhibitions — What does this mean?
  • Lesher Referendum Dollars — Worth a red link?
  • Bryan money — Worth a red link?
  • America's influence for peace — What does this mean?
  • a paper from Farran Zerbe ... Zerbe's letter — Paper, or letter?
  • and by two brothers — Might be worth mentioning any siblings in "Early life".
  • Oglivie deemed him — Not yet introduced, so a full name and brief description should be given.
  • His noteworthy achievements have truly earned him the title, 'Dean of American Numismatists'". — If this is a full sentence, the period can go inside one or both of the quotation marks.

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

Seventy-Six (novel)[edit]

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

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

Image and source review[edit]

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

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

Harry S. Truman 1948 presidential campaign[edit]

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

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

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

Image review[edit]

  • Caption grammar could use some improvement
    • Keep in mind that captions should end in a period if a complete sentence, and otherwise not. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:33, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[]
      • Tried.
  • Instead of "See caption", suggest "refer to caption" for alt text
  • Don't duplicate between caption and alt text
  • Don't use fixed px size
    • Removed the fixed px size, but the info-box image now appears unnecessarily large. Can we fix it? – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 13:44, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]
      • I moved the alt to its specific parameter, see Special:Diff/1050616001. If you wikilink the file, it will typically display at full size, but if you just pass in the name the infobox should automatically resize to fit. Zetana (talk) 22:30, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • File:Harry_S_Truman,_bw_half-length_photo_portrait,_facing_front,_1945.jpg: why specifically is this believed to be PD?
    • The image record on the Library Of Congress states "No known restrictions". Also, it was published in 1945, so maybe {{PD-US-no notice}} should also apply.Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 13:44, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]
      • The image descriptions states that it was "copyrighted" in 1945. Is that not the case? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:33, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • File:Harry_S._Truman's_1948_Democratic_presidential_primary_result.tif: it doesn't seem that the colours in the legend quite match up with the colours in the actual image? See MOS:COLOUR
  • File:Alben_Barkley,_pensive_(cropped).jpg is missing link to the LOC image record
  • File:Eubie_Blake_-_Just_Wild_about_Harry.ogg: commons:Commons:Hirtle_chart#Sound_recordings suggests this would not yet be PD
    • And yet it is a featured sound! Removed for now, will add after 75 days (on Jan 1, 2022). – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 13:44, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • File:Political_Cartoon_by_Jim_Berryman,_"Down_by_the_Station"_(cropped).jpg: why is this believed to be a US government work?
    • Changed to {{PD-US-no notice}}. Truman Library claims it to be in PD. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 13:44, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • File:Truman-Dewey-polls-1948.jpg: in what paper(s) did this cartoon appear?
  • File:Deweytruman12.jpg needs a stronger FUR. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:55, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    • Tried. I do want to note here that there are three images of the same incident on Commons. I had discussed about copyright status of those images here, and it was concluded that they should be deleted from commons. There is a deletion request underway. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 13:44, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]

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

Colin Robert Chase[edit]

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

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

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

Image review

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

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

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

1998–99 Gillingham F.C. season[edit]

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

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

image review

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

Benedict Joseph Fenwick[edit]

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

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

Operation Sportpalast[edit]

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

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

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

Image review

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

Comments by Wehwalt[edit]

  • It might be good to state the general locality where the operation took place in the lead paragraph.
More soon.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:04, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]


Support from Iazyges[edit]

Old Exe Bridge[edit]

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

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

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

Image review

  • File:Exeter,_1563.jpg needs a US tag, and any idea why the version at the given source has a copyright notice at the bottom of it?
  • File:Exe_Bridge_(1780).jpg needs a US tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:49, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Nick-D[edit]

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

  • 'mediaeval' seems a bit old-fashioned
  • "The mayor, John Shillingford, appealed for funds to rebuild it. " - can you say when this was?
  • "bridge estate grew to a considerable size and the records show that it leased 15 shops on the bridge, and over 50 other properties elsewhere in Exeter, including mills and agricultural land, all providing an income for the maintenance of the bridge" - mentioning 'bridge' three times in a sentence is probably a bit much, even for an article on a bridge ;)
  • "Parts of the mediaeval bridge were exposed by German bombing during the Second World War." - can you say how? (e.g. was this when buildings in the city were destroyed?) Nick-D (talk) 03:07, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Dumelow[edit]

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

Lead
  • "The project was the idea of Nicholas and Walter Gervase, father and son and influential local merchants, who travelled the country to raise funds" no mention of travelling in the article, only that they raised a public subscription
  • "continued until the Reformation in the mid-16th century." English Reformation would be a better link here
  • By 1447, the bridge was severely dilapidated and the mayor of Exeter appealed for funds to repair it, and it was repaired again in the 16th century." The article isn't clear if the 1447 repairs went ahead so "repaired again" might be wrong
Background
  • "Exeter was founded as Isca Dumnoniorum by the Romans." I think a date (if available) would be helpful to the reader here
  • "Bridge building was sparse in England through the Dark Ages" I think modern historians have moved away from using the "Dark Ages" and I think 1190 is late by any definition of the term. Early Middle Ages seems to be the accepted term for the period (though the period you discuss runs into the High Middle Ages). Happy to hear more opinions on this, though - I don't know a great deal about this era.
History
  • "Nicholas and Walter Gervase", plausible redlinks? (Walter, as repeated mayor of Exeter perhaps moreso than Nicholas)
  • "The bridge is known to have been repaired several times throughout its lifetime." repetition of "time" could perhaps be avoided
  • " Heavitree breccia, a local stone not quarried until the mid 14th century (approximately 150 years after the bridge was built)", not sure the bit in brackets is needed. Can we assume some competence on the readers part in dating?
  • "the process was frustrated by Shillingford's sudden death the following year", the last year mentioned was 1447 but Shillingford's death was in 1458 (according to his article). Do we need to introduce 1457 as the year Shillingford spoke with Kemp?
  • "An Act of Parliament in 1773 empowered the trustees to repair or rebuild the bridge", this is the first mention of trustees. Do we have any more background to give on this?
  • "completion of a new, three-arch masonry bridge by Joseph Dixon in 1778" again, is Dixon a plausible redlink?
  • "The 18th-century bridge was itself demolished and replaced with a three-hinged steel arch bridge" "three-hinged" arch bridges could use an explanatory link, though I couldn't find any relevant content on-wiki. Leave it with me and I'll see if I can add something somewhere.
  • "Repairs and maintenance of the bridge were provided for from the proceeds of land bought by the Gervases at the time the bridge was built," Comes right after a paragraph discussing the modern bridge so could perhaps use "mediaeval" to preface the first mention of "bridge".
  • Ah, I see the third paragraph of "Later history" is where the turnpike trust is mentioned. Personally I think this paragraph, relating entirely to the mediaeval bridge, could sit best as the first paragraph of this section, before the mention of later events. But happy to hear other thoughts.
  • "The 20th century engineers", think this should this be "20th-century", as a compound modifier
  • "At this time, Frog Street was abandoned." this is the first mention in the main text of Frog Street so the reader has no idea what it is
Architecture
  • "the pointed Gothic style", a link to Gothic architecture might be useful here
  • "St Edmund's was approximately 20 metres (66 feet) long and 5.5 metres (18 feet) with an entrance on the bridge and possibly a second entrance underneath" missing word after the 5.5 metres part, possible wide?
  • "It had a rectangular plan, 54 feet (16 metres) long by 16 feet 6 inches (5 metres) wide." seems to contradict the earlier dimensions of the church, is this inconsistency in measurements, changes over time or do they refer to different parts of the church?
  • "A Seal of the bridge was made for use by the bridge wardens", decapitalise "seal"
  • "or possibly the chantry chapel", you link it later but move the link to here, which is its first mention
  • "during the Dissolution of the Monasteries", our article doesn't capitalise this term
  • "during the Reformation", link to English Reformation

Symphony No. 4 (Mahler)[edit]

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

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

Image review

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

Kererū[edit]

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

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

Comments from Aa77zz[edit]

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

Distribution and habitat

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

Breeding

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

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

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

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

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

Breeding

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

References

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

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

Image review[edit]

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

Comments from Stuartyeates[edit]

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

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

Funk[edit]

  • I'll have a look soon. Should Norfolk pigeon be merged into here, as is usually the rule for subspecies with short articles? FunkMonk (talk) 16:35, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]
was sort of distinctive subspecies. Will look at content of both. Have incorporated the date and cause of extinction, and differences in plumage as the salient points. A merge discussion can take place later (given the distinctiveness there is a case for a separate article which is best discussed in a structured format) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:29, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • There are some duplinks (not counting those in the cladogram).
removed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:21, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • The alt text has replaced the caption in the second image.
fixed now I think....? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:28, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • The video thumbnails seem a bit uninteresting, you can pick a specific frame with the parameter I've used at for example thylacine in the video under description.
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:28, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • I see the article is a bit crammed, but always good to show the egg[2] when we can?
what would you propose removing...? This is tough.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:28, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Bold its name in the cladogram?
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:42, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • I agree there could be a photo showing spread wings, but as you say, the article is a bit crammed. Perhaps under distribution?
see above Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:28, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Battle of Hayes Pond[edit]

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

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

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

Comments by Z1720[edit]

Non-expert prose review.

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

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

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

Funk[edit]

  • Looks interesting, will have a look soon. FunkMonk (talk) 17:40, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • "was later covered by Pete Seeger" Present him too?
    • Done.

Source review - pass[edit]

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

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

William Utermohlen[edit]

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

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

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

Comments from zmbro[edit]

  • Make sure all sources are archived. See quite a few that aren't
  • The Oscar ref isn't indented when every other one is
  • Still isn't on my screen. – zmbro (talk) 18:56, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Wall Street Journal should be the website/work not the author/in the url title; same for Huffington Post and a few others
  • I went and reverted this, it caused some issues with the {{sfn}} template. Realmaxxver (talk) 17:32, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • It shouldn't... – zmbro (talk) 18:56, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • The Guardian should be capitalized
  • Is Animation Magazine reliable?
  • Are all urls by Utermohlen, Patricia from www.williamutermohlen.org? If yes that should appear as the website for every use

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

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

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

Croatian Spring[edit]

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

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

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

Image review

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

Low (David Bowie album)[edit]

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

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

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

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

Support from Cas Liber[edit]

Taking a look now....

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

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

Casliber Thanks for the kind words! Queries taken care of. – zmbro (talk) 19:39, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[]
(chuckle) I recall an interview with Bowie years ago where he reminisced about him and Iggy leaving LA to get away from drugs and then chuckling about Berlin (the implication was something like out of the frying pan into the fire..)...but you got me to listen to the album which I'd never done before and it was good. kudos/all good on comprehensiveness and prose. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:24, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Support from Aoba47[edit]

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

Image review

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

Vuelve (album)[edit]

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

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

Image review

  • Don't use fixed px size
  • Might the article benefit from a non-free sample?
  • File:DracoRosa3.jpg: source links don't appear to be working. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:22, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Comments from Aoba47[edit]

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

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

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

German destroyer Z51[edit]

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

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

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

Comments by Indy beetle[edit]

Initial comments:

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

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

Source review - spotchecks not done. Version reviewed

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

Cerro Blanco (volcano)[edit]

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

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

Image review

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

Comments[edit]

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

Calderas and lava domes:

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

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

Viatkogorgon[edit]

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

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

Image review[edit]

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

HF[edit]

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

Will do this in a couple chunks

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

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

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

Support from Cas Liber[edit]

Looking over...

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

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

Thanks, I'll try to think of what to replace "conservative" with, and have answered the other points, sadly with no solutions. FunkMonk (talk) 13:01, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Answered the rest. FunkMonk (talk) 17:17, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Jens[edit]

I already had a look during the Peer Review, and here are my comments for the rest of the article:

  • an intercentrum (placed between the centra, or "bodies", of the vertebrae) – Not sure if this is correct. Primitively, a reptile vertebra consist of three elements: The neural arch, and below it, the intercentrum in front and the centrum behind. Those are often still retained in the atlas and axis. I would explain it like this: "placed in front of the centrum" (and avoid "body").
I've removed that entire sentence, as it didn't seem to be so unique, and hard to understand anyway. FunkMonk (talk) 17:37, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • the atlas (the second neck vertebra) – The atlas is usually the first (C1) and the axis the second (C2). There may be an additional small ossification, the proatlas, in front of the neural arch of the atlas, but that doesn't count as a vertebra as far as I know.
Removed. FunkMonk (talk) 17:37, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • As in other gorgonopsians, the atlas (the second neck vertebra) had isolated neural arches, … – I think this is common everywhere, not just in gorgonopsians?
Removed. FunkMonk (talk) 17:37, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • and lacked integration with the centrum of the axis (the third neck vertebra). – I can't understand this.
Removed, the source didn't specify further. FunkMonk (talk) 17:37, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • The zygapophyses (the articular processes that connected adjacent vertebrae) of the axis were horizontal but became more vertical, beginning by the third vertebra – As you are speaking about all of the neck vertebrae, maybe say "were horizontal in the axis but became more vertical beginning by the third vertebra"?
Took your wording. FunkMonk (talk) 17:37, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • and were vertical in side view, though they were inclined rearwards, – are they vertical, or are they inclined? This is contradictory. Do you possibly mean "though their rear margin was inclined"?
Changed back to pre copy-edit wording: "The neural spines became somewhat taller beginning at the second third part of the thoracic region, and were vertical in side view, though in the hind part of this region they were inclined rearwards and their front edge became convex (showing the transition from thoracic to lumbar vertebrae)." FunkMonk (talk) 17:37, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • The position of the zygapophyses would have restricted sideways curve at the base of the tail – can't follow here
Changed "curve" to "movement". Source says "curvature". FunkMonk (talk) 17:37, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Any reason you give angles in degrees for the tail vertebrae but not for other vertebrae? If this should be consistent, I think that just removing them would be an option since the text is already quite detailed.
It's the only places it was given, but removed. FunkMonk (talk) 17:37, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Thanks, I'll have a look after the weekend. FunkMonk (talk) 17:17, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Addressed the above, Jens Lallensack. FunkMonk (talk) 17:37, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Source review[edit]

  • You and I differ on this, as I recall, but I prefer using full first names when possible. It can be a real pain to try to figure them out after the fact.
I wouldn't say I disagree, but it can be hard to be consistent (which is often demanded) since some papers don't provide the full names of the authors, but I've managed to find them here. FunkMonk (talk) 00:41, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • For works with multiple authors, I suggest using the "name-list-style = amp" parameter. It's not required by any measure, but the ampersands look nice and do a good job of breaking up the author names.
Added. FunkMonk (talk) 00:41, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • #2: Any identifying number, such as a DOI, ISSN, or OCLC?
I believe the Russian Paleontological Journal is now defunct, so no such luck as far as I can see. FunkMonk (talk) 00:41, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Not defunct apparently, but still can't find those identifiers. FunkMonk (talk) 00:45, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • #4: Ditto.
Same as above. FunkMonk (talk) 00:41, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • #5: Ditto. Also, it looks like the link links to only an abstract.
This one I could find an ISSN for, but removed link to abstract. FunkMonk (talk) 00:41, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • #10: Same as #2 & #4.
Nothing I could find, also that journal. FunkMonk (talk) 00:41, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Antón 2013: Is the "1st ed." necessary? That is, is there a second edition that this is distinct from? If yes, why is the first edition being used instead of the second?
Removed. FunkMonk (talk) 00:41, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[]

This version looked at. FunkMonk, nits above. --Usernameunique (talk) 00:37, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Thanks, answered the above. FunkMonk (talk) 00:41, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Legend Entertainment[edit]

Nominator(s): Shooterwalker (talk) 18:21, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[]

This article is about a video game company that had a good run in the 1990s, mainly in adventure games. They were heirs to the highly acclaimed interactive fiction studio Infocom, and showed early signs of impact with this successor company. But they were always lesser known compared to Sierra and LucasArts, who competed in the same space, before the adventure game market collapsed in North America in the late 1990s.

A lot of these types of articles slip through the cracks because the subjects were effectively "gone" by the time the internet hit mainstream. But I see these types of subjects as essential to Wikipedia's mission to preserve knowledge, as readers would otherwise have to cobble the story together from various online and offline sources. I've done the work of assembling those sources, and I believe the article is very well-sourced, thorough, and complete. I also recently completed a peer review to get it ready for FA. (Big thanks to IceWelder and Urve for their reviews.) The last FA was closed on a procedural issue when I jumped the gun, but I'm confident the article meets the FA criteria as is. I'll continue to work on this to help it reach even higher standards. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:21, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Image review[edit]

  • Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods
  • Suggest adding alt text. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:19, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Comments from IceWelder[edit]

I haven't found the time to re-review the article yet. Please ping me if I don't by Sunday. IceWelder [] 12:23, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[]

The Trundle[edit]

Nominator(s): Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:43, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[]

This article is about an archaeological site in Sussex that contains an Iron Age hillfort and a Neolithic causewayed enclosure. Causewayed enclosures were new to archaeology in the 1920s and it was one of the first to be found and excavated, and also one of the first archaeological sites to be identified by aerial photographs, now a standard procedure. This is the third causewayed enclosure site I've brought to FAC; the others, for comparison, are Knap Hill and Whitehawk Camp. Thanks are due to Dudley Miles, who provided a thorough talk page review. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:43, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Image review[edit]

  • Some images are missing alt text
    Added. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:47, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • File:Open_Street_Map_Chichester_District.png: is there a link to the OSM source, and is the uploader the sole contributor at that source?
    No idea -- this image predates my involvement with the article. The uploader hasn't been active in eight years. I've removed the map. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:47, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • File:The_Trundle_aerial_photo_1925.jpg: what does the source say about the provenance of this image?
    Crown copyright. See here for a page image; it's the first page. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:47, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • File:St_Roc's_Hill_1723_from_William_Stukeley's_Itinerarium_Curiosum.jpg needs a US tag. Ditto File:St_Roche's_Hill_Sussex_by_T_King_from_William_Hayley_Mason_Goodwood_1839.jpg
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:47, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • File:The_Trundle_annotated_1928_and_1930_dig.jpg: can the caption be expanded to provide more detail on what the different abbreviations refer to? Ditto File:The_Trundle_east_gate_1930_excavations_annotated.jpg.
    The first one does try to do that; is there anything you think it's missing? For the east gate, the abbreviations are discussed in the text. I could add "see text for an explanation of the abbreviations" if that would address the issue; I guess I assumed that a reader would look to the text for explanations. I don't think it would be worth trying to put all the information in the caption -- it would be long enough to look quite ungainly. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:47, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    TD and CI are mentioned, but what are they? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:02, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    Added an explanation of CI through CIV to the caption. I don't see a TD -- do you mean TT? TT is described in the caption. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:22, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Nikkimaria (talk) 15:19, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Thanks; replies above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:47, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Comment[edit]

I'm very exited to see this article at FAC; Mike's edits have been cropping up on my watchlist and it's been great to see the article improve so much. I hope to find time read the article properly, but on the subject of the sourcing the article looks to be using the best available sources. I do have one (trivial) question at this stage. Is there a particular reason Eliot Cecil Curwen's name is written as E. C. Curwen in the body of the article whereas other archaeologists and historians are given their full names rather than initials (eg: Hadrian Allcroft, Owen Bedwin, Stuart Piggott)? Richard Nevell (talk) 20:29, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[]

  • I gather his father’s name was also Eliot, and I would guess that’s why he was nearly always “E.C. Curwen” when publishing articles. I figured it was better to give his name as he would give it professionally. I think, but I’m not certain, that he was known as Cecil, not Eliot, so I would want to make it “E. Cecil Curwin” if we do change it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:44, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    It didn't help matters that Eliot and Eliot Cecil both conducted fieldwork together and wrote about it! E. C. Curwen's papers in the Sussex Archaeological Collections on the work at the Trundle credit him as E. Cecil Curwen. In case this article is changed in this article that might be the way to do it, as you suggested, but I can't say I'm fussed either way, I was just curious! Richard Nevell (talk) 20:50, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    I missed that; I thought he was E.C. in the SAC articles. I’m not near my books at the moment but will check this evening and will make the change then. I’ll like to stub an article on E.C.; I believe there’s an obit of him in one of the archaeology journals but have not laid my hands on it yet. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:58, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    Done; thanks for the heads up on that! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:06, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Comments by Dudley[edit]

  • As Mike says, I have previously reviewed this first rate article. I have a few minor comments on re-reading it.
  • The word "site" seems to be repeated rather often, including six times in the short second paragraph.
    It's a hard word to avoid! I've had a go at rewording that paragraph and one other where it was frequently used; is that better? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:47, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • " In a few cases enclosures that had already been built continued to be used as late as 3300 to 3200 BC." I am not sure you need "that had already been built".
    Agreed; reworded. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:47, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • "parliament". This is usually capitalised when referring to a particular parliament. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:36, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:47, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Support from Cas Liber[edit]

Placeholder - need to sleep now but will look tomorrow (in several hours) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:59, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[]

  • A descriptor for E. Cecil Curwen? Ditto William Crawley, William Hayley Mason and O. G. S. Crawford.
    Added for Curwen and Crawford. Cawley's a politician and the text says he was speaking in Parliament, so I was hoping we could leave this to the reader to deduce. Mason was the librarian of the nearby Goodwood estate, according to the frontispiece of his book, but I don't think it adds anything to say who he was. Or I could put it in a footnote? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:57, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[]
valid points Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:02, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • What's a foxhole?
    A hole dug for defensive military purposes. I've linked to our article on it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:57, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Pity we don't have a drone shot of the place...
    It is indeed! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:57, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Actually unless I am missing something, I don't get a sense of what is immediately around the site - is it in fields, a suburb or what?
    The sources I have don't describe the surroundings beyond saying that the racecourse is next to it. If you're curious, search Google Maps for "Goodwood Racecourse" and then look a little to the west and you'll see the distinctive shape of the ramparts. I don't think I can add much to the article without a source, though. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:57, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Otherwise looks good on comprehensiveness and prose. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:46, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Thanks for the review. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:57, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[]
And for the support! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:49, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[]

CommentsSupport from PM[edit]

G'day Mike, great article. A few comments:

Lead
Body
  • perhaps "an iron age hillfort"→"an Iron Age hillfort" and link Iron Age? Not sure what your approach is to linking in the lead and again at first mention in the body
    Done; I generally try to do exactly that, but am not always consistent about it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:41, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • there is some tension between the description of causeway enclosures as being built "from shortly before 3700 BC until about 3300 BC" (is this just in the British Isles) and "from before 4000 BC in northern France, to shortly before 3000 BC in northern Germany, Denmark, and Poland. The enclosures in southern Britain continued to be built for at least 200 years (after when?), and in a few cases they continued to be used as late as 3300 to 3200 BC." perhaps it could be more clearly explained what period they were built in the southern British Isles?
    I'll have to look at this later this week -- I'm away from most of my sources at the moment. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:17, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    I've reorganized this a bit and I hope it's now clearer. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:27, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • if Iron Age in linked at the beginning of the Body, then the link at the beginning of the third para of the Background should probably be dropped
    That one links specifically to the British Iron Age so I think it's worth keeping. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:42, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • perhaps "least four circular or partly concentric circular ditches"
    I'm not sure about this -- "partly" is intended to refer to shape of the ditches, since a spiral isn't really a circle, and since the shapes are not fully known. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:17, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • perhaps "Concentric with this is a second ditch that lies a short distance outside the innermost ditch"
    Done, with some associated rewording. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:48, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • "This part of the site" which part? The "further early earthworks"?
    The entire causewayed enclosure, at least in its original incarnation. Clarified. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:48, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • link Gibbeting
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:28, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • "were built during the World War II"
    Fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:28, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • should neolithic have an initial capital? There are several instances of this.
    All should now be fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:28, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • consider moving the link to sherd to Glossary of archaeology#potsherd and link at first mention
    Much better link; done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:28, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • For crouched burial suggest linking Burial#Body positioning
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:28, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • link phallus?
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:28, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • link Rescue archaeology to rescue excavation
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:28, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • "There was at one time a gibbet on the Trundle; it appears on an OS map in 1813, but had been removed by 1825." is partially redundant, I would describe the gibbet fully when first introduced, then just mention the gibbet in connection to the grave at this point
    Well spotted; done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:28, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Sources (not a source review)
  • a few sources could do with an ISSN or OCLC identifier to assist with verification
    Added the OCLCs to the books without ISBNs. I haven't added ISSNs to journals before; is there an online search that will find them, like worldcat for OCLC numbers? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:17, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Worldcat should provide the ISSNs. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:19, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Done. There are a couple of sources with no ISSN still; these are archaeological reports issued at irregular intervals and I don't think any identifier exists for them. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:09, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]
No worries as far as I am concerned. The source reviewer may wish to follow up. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:28, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]

That's all I have. Nice work. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:06, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Thanks for the review. All but one responded to above; I'll ping you when that one is done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:17, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Peacemaker67: last point now replied to above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:27, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Great stuff Mike. Supporting. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:59, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Thanks! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:05, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Source review[edit]

Spotchecks not done. Version reviewed

  • What's the difference between FN1 and FN27?
    Now merged (one pre-dated my involvement with the article and I didn't notice they were identical). Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:23, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    The "research records" part should be split into a work title parameter rather than as part of |title=. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:03, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    What's the parameter you have in mind? I looked through all the cite web params and didn't see anything that would work. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:08, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    Could do |work=. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:08, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    I had tried to find that and was surprised to see that there is no "work=" param in the VE interface. I just tried again and realized after checking the {{cite web}} documentation that the parameter is called "website"; presumably "work" is an alias that would need to be tagged in some way to appear in VE. Anyway, done; and I deleted the publisher parameter (as suggested by its documentation) because it was redundant with the work param filled out. Pinging WhatamIdoing: am I right in thinking that searching for "work" in VE's cite web edit dialog ought to find the website parameter? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:59, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    If you're in the "Add more information" section, then yes: any parameter/alias defined in TemplateData on the template's /doc page should be searchable. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:37, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    Thanks. Turns out I already had "Name of the website" included but empty, so searching for "work", which I hadn't known was an alias, found nothing. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:13, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • FN74 is missing author, and why include location here but not FN73?
    Author added; I took location out as I understand it's not needed for newspapers but can re-add for both if necessary. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:35, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    No location is fine, but the same query now applies to retrieval date. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:03, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    So it does. Fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:08, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Missing full source details for Cunnington
    Added. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:35, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Fn30: does this source have chapters or any other means of identifying a location? (And what do we know about this publisher?)
    It has chapters in Google Books but unfortunately the search that finds the relevant text gives no information about the page it's found on. This is one of those annoying Gbooks that has no pagination. The original publisher was Robert Scott in 1920. I have been assuming that the modern edition is just a photographic reprint as is usually the case for this sort of thing, so it's the reliability of the original publisher that's the issue. I found this page which implies they published travel writing. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:48, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    Suggest expanding the citation to make it clear that this is a reprint. Does a GBooks link go directly to the page of interest? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:03, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    I tried putting "1920 edition, reprinted" in the "edition" field, but that comes out as "1920 edition, reprinted (ed.)", which isn't really right. I took out the cite template and formatted it manually; if you know of a way to do something like that in the cite book template please let me know. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:08, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    Looks like "Reprint of 1920" produces a reasonable output for that parameter? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:08, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    It does; done. Thank you. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:59, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Check alphabetization of Sources
    Fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:23, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Healy or Healey?
    Healy; fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:23, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Piggott has an incorrect publisher name (I'm guessing this error came from Worldcat?)
    The OCLC record linked to says "Cambridge: University Press". The book itself says "Cambridge/At the University Press/1954" on the title page, and "Published by the syndics of the Cambridge University Press" at the top of the verso, with "Printed in Great Britain at the University Press, Cambridge" at the bottom. I thought about making this "Cambridge University Press", but of the three declarations only one says that, so I decided to go with "University Press". Were you likewise thinking it should say "Cambridge University Press"? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:59, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    Yes. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:35, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    OK, changed to "Cambridge University Press". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:13, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Wedgwood: publisher doesn't match information at that OCLC.
    Not sure what to do about this, except perhaps to remove the OCLC. The edition I have was "especially created in 1997 for Book-of-the-Month Club by arrangement with Deborah Owen Ltd". I couldn't find an exact match so I picked the one that I knew was a book club reprint as the best guess. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:59, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    How sure are we that a different reprint will have eg the same pagination? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:35, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    Not. I've removed the OCLC. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:13, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Nikkimaria (talk) 23:09, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[]

For these last two I'll have to wait till later this week when I'm back with my books. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:48, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Nikki: Now replied to everything above, though with at least one question. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:59, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[]

UEFA Euro 2020 Final[edit]

Nominator(s):  — Amakuru (talk) 06:48, 8 October 2021 (UTC); The Rambling Man[]

This article is about the final of Euro 2020, the football tournament which took place a few months ago (even though it's 2021!). As someone from England, this was a tough one to write about - it was first major final that the team have reached in my lifetime, and with England holding the lead into the second half it looked for while like it might be our year. It wasn't to be though, the curse of the penalty shootout struck again! Italy were a great team though, and played really well throughout the tournament, so that's the way it goes. As ever, all feedback welcome and I'll be happy to return the favour with a review for anyone else who needs one. Just let me know!  — Amakuru (talk) 06:48, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Image review — Pass[edit]

Would be listing every image in the article, and adding my concerns (if any)

Alt text seems fine.
Most of the images are default sized, except the info-box image, which probably needs to be fixed.
All images seem relevant here.

Great, Pass for image review. The only issue to far too minor to prevent it for passing the review. Would appreciate your comments for this nomination. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:12, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Kavyansh.Singh thanks, much appreciated. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:20, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Comments Support from ChrisTheDude[edit]

  • "beating final debutants England" - this reads a bit oddly, like they were the last team ever to debut. Maybe change to "first-time finalists"?
    Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:25, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • "in terms of European Championship titles, it put Italy level with France" - on how many titles?
    Done. (Although we did already say it was their second title further up).  — Amakuru (talk) 22:25, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • "UEFA announced the tournament would be held" => "UEFA announced that the tournament would be held"
    Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:25, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • "Wembley also hosted every final of the FA Cup since the White Horse Final of 1923 (excluding 2001 to 2006, when the stadium was being rebuilt)" - I think "Wembley also hosted every final of the FA Cup from the White Horse Final of 1923 until it closed in 2000" might be more elegant
    Well that's not quite the same thing, as we're also saying that the FA cup final has been at Wembley since 2007. I have reworded a bit anyway.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:25, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • "They two sides" => "The two sides"
    Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:25, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • "behind the 35-match streak of Brazil (1993–1996) and Spain (2007–2009)" => "behind the 35-match streaks of Brazil (1993–1996) and Spain (2007–2009)" (assuming the Spain one was also 35)
    Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:25, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • "the only other final they have reached" => "the only other final they had reached" (then it won't need changing if they reach another)
    Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:25, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • "Ciro Immobile and Lorenzo Insigne scored two further attempts" - slightly odd wording, simply saying "two further goals" would be better I think
    Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:25, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • No need to use Immobile's full name again in the next sentence
    Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:25, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • "The 2020 final was Kuipers' ninth international" - should that say "The 2020 final was Kuipers' ninth international final" (or some better way to word it to avoid the repetition of final)? The current wording makes it sound like it was literally only the ninth international he refereed.
    Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:25, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • "replacing the 4–2–3–1 formation [...] to..." - either "replacing with" or "changing to", but not "replacing to"
    Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:25, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • "including one who lost a tooth and another suffered a broken hand" => "including one who lost a tooth and another who suffered a broken hand"
    Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:25, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • " a low shot on the half-volley" - link half-volley to somewhere appropriate?
    Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:25, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Link substitution?
    Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:25, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Link corner?
    Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:25, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • "bringing on the attacking player Bukayo Saka in place of Trippier" - need a comma after this to close the clause
    Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:25, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • "England free kick in injury time reached Stones" => "An England free kick in injury time reached Stones"
    Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:25, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • "The Football Association interim chairman Peter McCormick OBE" - either "The Football Association's interim chairman Peter McCormick OBE" or "The interim chairman of the Football Association Peter McCormick OBE"
    Done. (I've chopped the OBE too).  — Amakuru (talk) 22:25, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • "The majority of English players immediately removed the runners-up medals from their necks." => "The majority of English players removed the runners-up medals from their necks immediately after receiving them." - at present it reads like Eder brought the trophy on and the England players at that point took off medals we hadn't been told they were given
    Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:25, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • "Čeferin also handed the trophy to Italian captain Chiellini" - why "also"? What else did he do?
    I have moved this point earlier in the paragraph and combined it with the medals.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:25, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • "a parade in Rome the day after the final on 12 July, attended by thousands, the team travelled from the Villa Borghese gardens to the Quirinal Palace." - comma after thousands should probably be a semi-colon
    I've split it into three sentences.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:25, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • "England players Saka, Sancho and Rashford, were subjected" - no reason for that comma
    Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:25, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • The Rashford mural has its own article, which could be linked
    Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:25, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • "Johnson also hoped the Britain and Ireland's proposed bid" => "Johnson also hoped that Britain and Ireland's proposed bid"
    Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:25, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • What's a "digital mural"?
    I don't know what it is technically, but that's the term most sources seem to be using. Can you think of a better way to phrase? Not seeing an appropriate link either.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:25, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Merge the two tiny paragraphs under "UEFA investigation"
    Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:25, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Don't articles on major international finals normally have a section on the reaction/comments from the press in the relevant countries?
    I've added a pargraph on this. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 20:06, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • That's what I got - nice read overall (other than the bad memories, obviously)! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:02, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[]
ChrisTheDude I think, between us, we've got to all your comments, thanks! Do let us know if there's anything else. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 20:06, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Support from Cas Liber[edit]

Looking now....I made these tweaks - looks fine on comprehensiveness and prose Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:26, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Comments from Edwininlondon[edit]

I have made a few minor edits while reading through, ones I thought were not controversial, but feel free to revert if I was wrong. My comments so far:

  • only for their last three --> that is two "only for" constructions in consecutive sentences
    Tweaked.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:39, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • I would expect global audience numbers in the lead
    Added (and to the body too, since it wasn't there)  — Amakuru (talk) 21:39, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • I would try to add some press analyses of the game in the lead
  • London Borough of Brent --> too much detail, just London suffices I think
    Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:39, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • A bit odd to have the article not start with the Background section
    I've moved it to the top. I've also added a boilerplate paragraph which is also found at UEFA Euro 2016, describing the competition and its format.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:20, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • caption: I would add London
    Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:39, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • in which Germany defeated the Czech Republic 2–1 after extra time via the golden goal rule --> we are really deviating here from the topic. At the very least the golden goal rule bit is superfluous
    I've chopped the whole scoreline.
  • Wembley also hosted every final of the FA Cup since the White Horse Final of 1923, with the exception of those between 2001 and 2006, when the old stadium had closed and the new stadium was being built --> off topic
    Reduced.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:39, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Special conditions, including ... --> the verb is quite far away from the subject. Just a matter of style but I'd say: Special conditions applied to the supporters from Italy, including ..
    Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:39, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • once in 1966, as hosts --> that was already mentioned, so I'd drop at least ",as hosts" (and then tweak the next sentence)
    Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:39, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Despite the final taking place in London, Italy were the "home team" for administrative purposes. --> this is in the wrong position I think: it breaks the flow of past achievements. There also probably should not be a paragraph break here
  • they beat Yugoslavia in 1968 after a replay --> why bring this up again? Just a few lines before it syas "taly won the European Championship in 1968"
    Chopped the whole sentence.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:20, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • having previously been eliminated in the semi-finals on two occasions, in 1968 (by Yugoslavia) and in 1996 (by Germany) as hosts --> again feels unnecessarily repetitive, having been described in the 1st paragraph
    Gone.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:20, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • first at a major tournament since winning the 1966 FIFA World Cup as hosts --> "as hosts" feels again repetitive
  • against Greece in 2004 and Portugal in 2016 --> repetition of the years seems unnecessary and with Portugal mentioned twice it gets a bit tricky to follow. Would it not be simpler to say something along the lines of "England also became the third nation of the 21st century to play in a European Championship final as hosts after Portugal in 2004 and France in 2016. Both previous hosts lost their respective finals, Portugal against Greece and France against Portugal"
    Yep, sure. A lot of this guff was in the article before I came to work on it TBH, and I wouldn't have included it myself so happy to prune!  — Amakuru (talk) 22:20, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Apart from Italy's aforementioned --> I'm not so sure about that aforementioned: many other things have also been mentioned before, so why use it here?
    Removed.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:20, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Something to consider: In the 20th century, three host countries made it to the final and all won (Italy in 1968, ...)
    Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:20, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Italy sought to win a major tournament for the first time in 15 years, their last major triumph being victory in the 2006 FIFA World Cup Final at the Olympiastadion in Berlin on penalties against France --> too much detail for my liking, straying off topic, plus it was already mentioned in 1st paragraph
    Removed.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:20, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • This tournament success --> A bit curious ... is the success referring to winning the final?
    I've removed this too. It's pointless trivia.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:20, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • major tournament --> duplication of tournament in same sentence
    Gone.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:20, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Three of their four competitive meetings at major tournaments resulted in Italy wins in the group stage of UEFA Euro 1980 --> should there not be some punctuation after wins?
    I have inserted a colon.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:20, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • record of ten wins out of ten --> other countries have done this as well, or is it a record for Italy itself?
    I don't think this was meant to be a "record" as in a superlative, more that it's just a "record" of their performance. I've reworded for clarity.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:20, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Italy then beat Wales --> repetitive construction after "Italy then beat Switzerland"
    Reworded.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:20, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Italy dominated their quarter-final --> according to whom?
  • equalised for Spain to level --> isn't that a bit double up?
    Reworded.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:20, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Also in Group D --> also repetition
    Reworded.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:20, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • qualification rivals Czech Republic --> perhaps overuse of rivals here: they just happened to compete for top spot in qualifying, but not really rivals in the Scotland sense.
    Removed that detail.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:20, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • a difficult 1–0 win over Croatia --> according to whom?
  • Germany at Wembley in the second round --> elsewhere this is called the round of 16
    Reworded.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:20, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • to see England qualify for a first European Championship final and a first final of any major tournament since 1966 --> already mentioned
    Trimmed.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:20, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Elizabeth II, UK prime minister Boris Johnson --> why mention Mr Johnson's job but not Elizabeth's?
    Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:20, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • wishing them good luck in the final --> what about the Italians? We need something for neutrality
  • Prematch: I'm missing a subsection describing the experts' expectations, the coaches' views, etc. And even the dreaded bookmakers had probably something to say

More later. Edwininlondon (talk) 15:59, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[]

  • Domestically, he officiated the KNVB Cup final in 2013, 2016, 2018 and 2021, as well as the Johan Cruyff Shield in 2009 and 2012. --> straying off topic here I think
    Removed.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:17, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • (one win, one draw and two losses) --> why mention this? If I were Kuijpers I would not be happy be with this as this suggests that I influence who wins or not
    Removed.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:17, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • who suffered an Achilles injury in Italy's quarter-final win over Belgium --> was already mentioned so no need for this
    I've trimmed it a bit.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:17, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • to see whether he could participate --> and, could he?
    No. I've reworded.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:17, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • I miss the mention of the Italy coach here in the Team selection section
    Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:17, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • wing-backs --> link? (plus I thought that wing backs were a 5-3-2 thing, not a 3-4-3 thing, but I must admit I can't keep up with all these numbers)
    Linked. As for the 5-3-2. yeah that's what I thought too, not that I'm any sort of expert on this. The source does seem to confirm that it's both 3-4-3 and that there were wing-backs, however].
  • Two hours before the final, footage --> shouldn't that be "Footage from two hours before the final showed "
    Amended.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:17, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • without paying for a ticket --> maybe I'm a bit over picky here but this suggests to me that normally people pay on the spot for a ticket. Perhaps "without having paid" or simply "without a ticket"?
    Amended.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:17, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Huge crowds --> not being a native speaker I'm not sure so just checking, but isn't huge a word one would find in the tabloids whereas Large would be more appropriate in an encyclopedia?
    Yes, correct. Amended.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:17, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • The Football Association said it would conduct a full review --> has the rview been completed and published?
  • started at 19:45 --> instead of adding local time (19:00 UTC) in the Match section, it is better to do that here, at the first use of time
    Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:17, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • The national anthems of each -->not really part of the Closing ceremony
    Not sure where else it belongs, so I've expanded the scope of the section with an "and anthems" added.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:17, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Both sides took the knee before --> Should this not be expanded on and given its own subsection, given the controversy about this prior to the final?
    What controversy was that? According to the Guardian report, both sides took the knee and it passed without incident. Seems a bit WP:UNDUE to make a big thing of it.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:17, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Notable spectators --> seems a bit light on Italians, which may have been the case of course
  • The match kicked-off --> I'm not so sure about that hyphen
    Removed.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:17, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • rainy conditions,[88] in front of 67,173 spectators,[88] --> although helpful for the person who will do a source review, it is a bit intrusive for the average reader: nicer to put the refs at the end I'd say
    Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:04, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Luke Shaw image: is there not one of him in an England kit?
    I don't think so, I can't find one anywhere. I have swapped the image for a much closer crop (without Man Utd badges visible) and more recent (though less good-quality) pic - the original was from 2015 and he doesn't really look the same any more!  — Amakuru (talk) 09:04, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • a cross into the penalty area, but his cross --> any way to avoid the duplication of cross?
    Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:04, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • the attacking third --> this may be getting a bit too cryptic for the average reader
    Reworded.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:04, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • into the England box --> box might be a bit too colloquial. Penalty area is what you use elsewhere
    Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:04, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Italy kicked first in the penalty shoot-out --> was there another toss for this? who won and what did they choose?
    Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:04, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • stuttered run-up --> link perhaps?
    I don't think there's a link to that. I've removed it, since it probably isn't necessary and is a bit of a POV comment perhaps.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:04, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • sudden death --> link
    Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:04, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Post match: what did the coaches say? Perhaps a few players' views as well
  • Johnson also hoped that the Britain and Ireland's proposed bid to host the 2030 FIFA World Cup had not been derailed by the scenes of crowd trouble at the final --> this should probably live in the UEFA Investigation section
  • Broadcasting and viewership --> anything on who the analysts were in Italy (just to avoid any UK bias)?
  • around 73.7% --> interesting mix of rough estimate ("around") and accuracy (decimal point)
  • of the market share --> is that of all people in the country? or all watching TV that night?
  • what about global or European wide audience numbers? That really should be mentioned for this type of event
    Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:04, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]

That's it from me. Edwininlondon (talk) 13:54, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Red (Taylor Swift album)[edit]

Nominator(s): TheSandDoctor Talk 04:46, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[]

With the recording of this album, America's Sweetheart experimented and blurred the line between country and pop, producing what is widely considered one of the best albums of the 2010s; the next album in her chronology turned her into a fully-fledged pop machine. While I think it's ready for the bronze star, I'm open to any suggestions concerning possible improvements so that the article could reach its full FA potential. TheSandDoctor Talk 04:46, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Image and media review (pass)[edit]

Apologies in advance as I will likely only have time to do an image and media review. My comments are below:

Addressed comments
  • File:Taylor Swift - Red.png: The WP:FUR is completed and the image has appropriate WP:ALT text and a clear purpose in the article.
  • File:Taylor Swift Speak Now Tour 2011 4.jpg: I would recommend that you add WP:ALT text for this image.
    Good catch, added. --TheSandDoctor Talk 04:58, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • File:Joni Mitchell 1983.jpg: The source link for this image goes to a HTTP 404 error message. You could replace it with an archived version if this image is no longer up for whatever reason.
    Good catch. Done. --TheSandDoctor Talk 04:58, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Everything with File:Taylor Swift GMA (8114363291).jpg and File:Taylor Swift 2013 RED tour (8588016225).jpg looks good to me, but I do wonder if two Swift images in the "Release and promotion" section are entirely necessary, especially since one is already used in the "Recording and production" section and the album cover technically counts as one. It just feels rather repetitive to me. I personally think the tour one is rather low-quality and does not particularly add much to this article.
    The GMA one is definitely important. I do like the RED tour image there personally speaking and think the quality isn't a big factor at the thumbnail size, but am not married to it and open to removal. --TheSandDoctor Talk 04:58, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    Thank you for the response. I will leave this up to other editors. I do not really see the need for a second picture of Swift in the same section, and I do not think the tour image in particular adds anything to the reader's understanding. However, this could just be a matter of personal preference so it would likely be best to see how other reviewers view this. Aoba47 (talk) 19:48, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[]

I will look at the audio samples tomorrow if that is okay with you. I participated in the peer review for this article and while my questions and comments about the audio samples were answered there, I still want to make sure that I thoroughly review them again. I hope you are doing well and staying safe. Aoba47 (talk) 03:56, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[]

@Aoba47: All good! Take your time, I greatly appreciate you doing the media review as the source and media reviews are definitely the trickier ones to get done haha. It is very greatly appreciated; I didn't even think you'd still be around to do any of this haha. --TheSandDoctor Talk 04:58, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • I am just glad that I can help. I know this is not too much, but I just wanted to try and contribute something. Aoba47 (talk) 22:29, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • The audio samples all have clear WP:FUR and roles in the article.
  • I have some prose concerns for File:IKnewYouWereTrouble.ogg's caption. It reads rather awkwardly to me, particularly since there's so much information put into a single sentence. This phrasing, Swift's most radical sonic innovation on the album, seems off to me. I get what you mean (i.e. this was the biggest change for her), but it seems awkwardly phrased. I do not think "innovation" really works here, but maybe it's because I find that word so over-used to the point that it has become meaningless.
    @Aoba47: How would you recommend this be reworded? It matches the article prose. --TheSandDoctor Talk 19:08, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    I would recommend brainstorming a few idea. I'd at least change the innovation part as I find that to be awkwardly worded and the part of the caption that I kept coming back to with uncertainty. Aoba47 (talk) 19:36, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    @Aoba47: How about "sonic development" or "most significant change on..."? Admittedly, I think "innovation" fits rather well haha. --TheSandDoctor Talk 20:10, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    I personally do not think "innovation" works in this context. However, in my opinion, that word has been over-used. The "most significant change on..." idea seems more direct and transparent to me. Aoba47 (talk) 20:34, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    @Aoba47: Actioned with a slight twist: "Regarded by critics as Swift's most significant sonic change on the album,...". I can take out "sonic", I just felt it possibly fits a bit better to answer the inevitable "what type of change?" question that readers/editors could hit with. --TheSandDoctor Talk 20:56, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    Looks good to me. Thank you for addressing this. Aoba47 (talk) 21:56, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • For File:Taylor Swift - All Too Well sample.ogg's caption, I would clarify who views this song as the album's emotional centerpiece.
    Done. --TheSandDoctor Talk 19:08, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • The caption for File:BeginAgain.ogg looks good. The prose is a tad wordy. You could slightly condense about finding hope after having endured emotional distress to about finding hope after enduring emotional distress, but otherwise, it is good and does a good job defending its use in the article.
    Done. --TheSandDoctor Talk 19:08, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[]

This should be the end of my image/media review. Everything with the audio samples themselves looks good, and I just have some prose issues with the captions. Once these points have been addressed, I will pass this review. Aoba47 (talk) 21:32, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Thank you for your patience with this review. This FAC passes my image and media review. Best of luck with the nomination! Aoba47 (talk) 21:56, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Thank you for your review, Aoba47! --TheSandDoctor Talk 17:19, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Support from DMT[edit]

I've issued now relevant comments on the peer review and I am satisfied it meets FA criteria. DMT Biscuit (talk) 16:21, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Thank you for your review, DMT Biscuit! --TheSandDoctor Talk 19:08, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Pamzeis[edit]

Placeholder for now. I'm not a Swiftie (that is how you spell her fanbase, right?) and I will try not to screw this up. Ping me if I don't leave comments by Sunday! Pamzeis (talk) 04:03, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[]

@Pamzeis: Pinging per your request above. --TheSandDoctor Talk 05:27, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Comments from Jim[edit]

This isn't a topic where I normally review, so I can only assume that the content is typical for popular music FAs, it certainly looks comprehensive, and I couldn't really see any significant grammatical issues. Some comments

  • "red" emotions that resulted from the unhealthy romance she experienced during the album's conception. Its songs discuss the complex and conflicting emotions ensued from lost romance.—repeats of Emotions and romance could perhaps be avoided
  • It additionally includes several songs Swift wrote and expected to include on the 2012 album.—Not sure additionally is necessary, and had expected might be better
    Done. --TheSandDoctor Talk 15:34, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • hoping to "learn from them"* and her "comfort zone". Not sure why these standard phrases merit apostrophes
    Removed. --TheSandDoctor Talk 15:34, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • American singer and actor Lauren Alaina cited Red as an album that changed her life—not sure why this particular piece of hyperbole merits a mention, unless it really did change her life, in which case we need to be told how
    Read the source and she seemed to say that about a lot of artists without citing how. Removed. --TheSandDoctor Talk 15:34, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • We don't normally accept Amazon as a ref, and in fact a script I use has shaded it as a generally unreliable source, why do you consider it acceptable here?
    @Jimfbleak: I have that script as well, but 1989 (Taylor Swift album) was promoted with them and uses them in the same context (citing that they were released in that country with that version, not for other fact checks or anything controversial). The entire release history sections would most likely have to go without Amazon in both of them. --TheSandDoctor Talk 15:34, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • the last two refs have Chinese titles, don't we normally use trans-title to provide the English equivalent?
    Resolved. --TheSandDoctor Talk 15:34, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Again with the last two refs, one has (in Chinese) the other doesn't.'
    Resolved. --TheSandDoctor Talk 15:34, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:29, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[]

  • SandDoctor, thanks. You don't seem to have addressed the first of my bullet points above, but that seems easy to fix, so I'll now Support Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:14, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Source review - pass[edit]

  • Sources are high quality. I consider the use of Amazon acceptable for release dates, as opposed to buyer feedback.
  • No formatting issues.
  • No dead links.
  • Spot checks: 69, 70, 112, 150, 151, 239, 257, 255, 256 - all okay (but see below)
  • 255, 256: Archive goes to a CAPTCHA. Replace the useless archive.org archive links with the archive.today ones.
    Done. --TheSandDoctor Talk 03:09, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:31, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Thank you for your review, Hawkeye7! --TheSandDoctor Talk 03:09, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Support from zmbro[edit]

  • Looks good to me. Happy to offer my support. – zmbro (talk) 19:44, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Thank you for your review, Zmbro! --TheSandDoctor Talk 03:09, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Hoodoo Mountain[edit]

Nominator(s): Volcanoguy 15:44, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[]

This article is about a volcano in northwestern British Columbia, Canada. I am nominating this for FA because it's a comprehensive account of this relatively obscure volcano. Hoodoo Mountain is one of the four volcanoes comprising the Stikine Subprovince which forms part of the Northern Cordilleran Volcanic Province in northwestern North America. Volcanoguy 15:44, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Image review

  • File:Hoodoo_Mountain.jpg: it looks like the source has an NC license? Ditto File:Hoodoo_on_Hoodoo_Mountain.jpg, File:North_side_hoodoo_mountain.jpg, File:HoodooMountain_South_Side.jpg
    • The creator uploaded them with a free license. Volcanoguy 01:29, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[]
      • Do you have a link for that? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:53, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[]
        • I've removed these images and replaced them with NASA satellite imagery. Volcanoguy 03:05, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • File:Hoodoo_Mountain_topographic_map.jpg: when was this first published?
  • File:Rift_xsection.png: what's the source of the information presented here? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:59, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    • Added source. Volcanoguy 05:14, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Support by Eewilson[edit]

Support. I no longer Oppose moving this article to FA. All issues I have brought up have been resolved by the nominator. See my comments at the bottom of this section. Eewilson (talk) 06:34, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]

OLD - This article is too technical for the average reader to understand. The nominator has admitted such and has refused to simplify even the Lead. I do not have faith that those and related changes will be addressed and am stopping my review here (see the end of my comments) with an Oppose. Eewilson (talk) 01:47, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[]

LOL! Don't be a hypocrite. I could say the same for your FAC. It uses a lot of terms I'm not even familiar with. Volcanoguy 11:59, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Comments welcomed FAC here or on the article Talk page. Eewilson (talk) 22:29, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Hi! It looks like this had a good GA pass recently, so hopefully this review won't take too long. I'll see what I can find that has been missed.

  • Spell out units on first use in lead and first use in prose (using abbr=off in the Convert template).
    • 25 km (16 mi) in lead
    • 1,850 m (6,070 ft) in lead
    • 30 km (19 mi) in Biogeography
    • 900 m (3,000 ft) in Biogeography
    • 500 mm (20 in) in Climate
    • 15 cm (5.9 in) in Subfeatures
    • 1,008,109 kg (2,222,500 lb) in Mining
    • 4,348,814 g (153,399.9 oz) in Mining
  • The final three images have full sentence captions and should end with a period (full stop).
    • Added the periods but I don't see the need to spell out units. Also spelling out certain units in the article and leaving others how they are isn't very consistent. Volcanoguy 01:29, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[]
      • See MOS:UNITNAMES (ital mine): "In prose, unit names should be given in full if used only a few times, but symbols may be used when a unit (especially one with a long name) is used repeatedly, after spelling out the first use (e.g. Up to 15 kilograms of filler is used for a batch of 250 kg)." Eewilson (talk) 01:34, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[]
        • Okay but most of those units are used several times in the article. What if I spell out all units? Volcanoguy 11:03, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[]
          • What I read from that MOS is that you probably should do that if there are only a few, like in this article. So that should work fine. Thanks for being open to it. Eewilson (talk) 13:13, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[]
            • I have spelled out all units throughout the article. Volcanoguy 15:40, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[]
          • Convert template's abbr parameter default is, counterintuitively, to spell out the input unit but not the output unit in parentheses. In order to spell out both, you have to use abbr=off. I'd be glad to make that change. You have done a tremendous amount of work on this article this year, and I agree with your GA reviewer's comments, but please bear with my nitpickiness. Eewilson (talk) 22:20, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Not finished. Just stopping for now. Eewilson (talk) 00:07, 12 October 2021 (UTC) FAC[]
  • Lead: reviewing for simplification of lead prose (accessible to as broad an audience as possible per MOS:INTRO and MOS:LEAD in general). As a non-geologist, I am finding it necessary to click on many of the Wikilinks in the Lead which could send the reader away from the article. Here are some suggestions.
    • Not sure "Canada–United States border" needs a Wikilink.
      • I've changed this to "Alaska–British Columbia border". Volcanoguy 04:36, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    • Instead of linking "icefield," how about just putting "area of interconnected glaciers" in the Lead?
      • "Icefield" is a pretty general term for a large area of glacial ice. Volcanoguy 04:00, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    • "The volcano was constructed during six stages beginning about 85,000 years ago..." Could "stages" be replaced with something like "stratographic stages"? The simple word "stages" makes the reader question why it's linked, then sending them to a surprise location (MOS:EASTEREGG).
      • I've unlinked "stages" because I don't think it's necessary. Also it may have been linking to the wrong article. Volcanoguy 03:35, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    • "...each evolving from eruptions of phonolitic or trachytic magma." Could this be reworded for clarity so the reader can understand that "phonolitic" and "trachytic" mean types of rock? I suggest "...each evolving from magma eruptions of phonolite and trachyte rock." That way, the reader knows we are talking about rock and would not have to click into the individual articles to understand what kind of rock unless they wish. As it is, with the adjectives, they would have to have some background in geology.
      • Reworded. Volcanoguy 05:24, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    • "Most of these eruptions were effusive in nature and deposited the lava flows..." Perhaps "Most of these eruptions consisted of a steady flow of lava..." saving the term "effusive" for later in the article and directly linking "lava" to Lava.
      • Reworded. Volcanoguy 05:24, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    • "However, some pyroclastic rocks are also present, indicating at least one period of explosive activity." to "At least one period of explosive activity occurred indicated by the presence of pyroclastic rocks [or rock]."
    • Can the following be trimmed and combined into one sentence, removing the term "seismicity", perhaps saving it for later? Most of us understand that "seismic activity" means the ground is moving somewhere, but "seismicity" is more technical. Current text: "No historical eruptions are known at Hoodoo Mountain but periods of seismicity have been recorded there since at least the mid-1980s. The presence of seismic activity indicates that Hoodoo Mountain still poses potential hazards to the surrounding region and that future eruptions are possible." Perhaps instead write: "Although no historical eruptions are known at Hoodoo Mountain, there have been periods of seismic activity since at least the mid-1980s, indicating possible future eruptions and volcanic hazards."
Bottom line with the lead is it's a struggle for a lay-reader to get through paragraphs one and two, but paragraph three is a breeze and still gives good information. Perhaps the first two can be simplified with some of the suggestions I've made and and likely others you can think of. That's all for now. Eewilson (talk) 23:26, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[]
I'm sorry to say this but geology isn't for everyone. The simplicity of Wikipedia is one of the reasons why I have been thinking about retiring as it's "unfriendly" those who write about technical subjects. With that said I'm not making any major changes to this article. It seems as if Simple English Wikipedia has been forgotten about. Volcanoguy 01:18, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[]
That's unfortunate as this could be a great article given a bit of attention in this area. This article may qualify for Template:Technical. Wikipedia is not a textbook repository nor is it a technical manual. Articles do need to be understandable to the average reader, and the Lead needs to be a step down from that. I Oppose this becoming a Featured Article. Eewilson (talk) 01:47, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[]
By your logic your FAC may also qualify for Template:Technical. If you take a look at other FA volcano articles you'll see they all pretty much use geological terms non-geologists aren't familiar with. Its a geologic article and therefore uses geological terms. That's pretty ordinary. Volcanoguy 11:59, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Technical terms are expected to be kept for later in the article. The Lead needs to be in layman's terms followed by an easing-in to technical terms, with short explanations of their meaning. See Wikipedia:Make technical articles understandable. Eewilson (talk) 22:29, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[]
I don't find the "stages" and "icefield" a problem - the layman's understanding of the term is good enough for the former, and your explanation of "icefield" is too long and would probably make experts scratch their head. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:31, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[]
In the lead, I'm trying to avoid the reader having to struggle past technical terms, including clicking on them. I have no attachment to my suggestions, and if certain ones won't work, then of course there could be alternatives. The idea is not to blow the reader away. I think some lead cleanup in this area could do some good, then easing into other prose so as not to be obscure to the average reader. It's not an easy thing to do, and I am willing to keep going. The problem is that Volcanoguy said they were not making any major changes to the article. I understand that, nor would I want to make them if it were in the same situation. It doesn't seem realistic, though, not to expect changes to have to be made in order to take a good article to great. So with Volcanoguy's absolute statement, it seemed no progress could be made. Jo-Jo Eumerus, what do you suggest? Eewilson (talk) 12:16, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[]
The solution I use for jargon is to add footnotes, like on Antofalla. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:09, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[]
@Eewilson: I'm sorry for my earlier comments. I thought you meant technical terms shouldn't be used in the article at all (which is nearly impossible) but it seems you were just referring to the lead. After thinking about it for a bit I'm gonna try and fix the problems you have brought up. Lots of them are actually quite simple to improve. Volcanoguy 03:20, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]
@Volcanoguy: Thank you for that. Ping me here when you get it changed. This is a very interesting article and subject. I had no idea there were so many volcanos in Canada, and your dedication to them does us all a great service. Wikipedia can seem like a thankless place, especially during reviews when it seems like all things are criticisms. Eewilson (talk) 03:34, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]
@Eewilson: I've gone through all the points you have brought up. Volcanoguy 06:15, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Looks great. I think the lead is welcoming and will make the average reader want to go further now. I had already read the rest of the prose and found no issues with it, nor did I see any POV. I read and skimmed it just now and haven't changed my opinion on that. Thank you for your willingness to step back and take a look at the suggestions I made. I Support based on my review of technical, Lead, prose, and POV. Eewilson (talk) 06:34, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]

@Eewilson: Thanks! Since you seem to have an interest in this subject, I can notify you of more FACs if you like. Volcanoguy 16:19, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]
That would be great. Thanks! Eewilson (talk) 16:23, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]

My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic[edit]

Nominator(s): Pamzeis (talk) 13:20, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Dear Princess Celestia... (that joke's probably not funny anymore)

If you were on the Internet during the early 2010s, then chances are you've heard of this little girls' "toy advertisement" or, more likely, their fandom: the "bronies". While some might find it unsurprising these days, it was hugely unexpected that adult men would get attached to a show about singing, pastel ponies designed to sell toys to the point that it became one of 2011's best Internet memes (that's not just me, look it up). Really, this show is great. Don't question that.

But we're not talking about the show's quality. We're talking about this article's. Hopefully, it can exemplify Wikipedia's best work but it may not. This article has gone through four featured article nominations prior to this one, all nominated by different editors in the first half of the last decade. Ten years since the article's first nomination (intentional), let's try again. This is my first featured article nomination so I'm very nervous :P. I'd like to thank Wingwatchers, SNUGGUMS and Z1720 for commenting on the article's most recent peer review and all those who commented on reviews and nominations before that... (how do I end this?) Pamzeis (talk) 13:20, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Per WP:FILMCAST, can citations be added to the cast section? Wingwatchers (talk) 04:02, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Um... what? Firstly, this is not a film list; secondly, it says citations are only needed for uncredited roles, which aren't present here (seriously, even "Gravy Boat" is credited). Pamzeis (talk) 04:40, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[]
@Pamzeis, I am only suggesting that adding them would be sohow conveniently helpful, I guess that's optional. Wingwatchers (talk) 04:45, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[]
How so? Pamzeis (talk) 06:46, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Well, switching topic.., ref #12 is permanent deadlinked and there isn't an archive link attached to it. Wingwatchers (talk) 23:33, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Yeah, I've removed it as it's not necessary anyways. Pamzeis (talk) 06:50, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Hi, Wingwatchers. It has been almost a week since you left your last comment, and I was wondering whether you were going to leave more or were in a position to support or oppose? Neither is obligatory, of course. Thanks. Pamzeis (talk) 09:04, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Well, I would have to see the final results and comments. Wingwatchers (talk) 16:08, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Space Shuttle Challenger disaster[edit]

Nominator(s): Balon Greyjoy (talk) 09:20, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[]

This article is about the 1986 disaster during the launch of the Space Shuttle Challenger that killed all 7 astronauts aboard. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 09:20, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Support with regard to FA Criterion 1A. Graham Beards (talk) 13:09, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Image review[edit]

  • Suggest adding alt text
  • File:RogersCommission-v1p57_cropped.jpg: if I'm understanding correctly, the Rogers Commission as an entity is separate from NASA, and therefore this should not have a NASA tag
    Tag changed. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 06:45, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • File:Challenger_explosion.jpg: neither of the Photo ID links are working for me, and the Flickr link has an NC license. Is there an alternate link?
    I dug around on NASA Images and couldn't find one; I think the only option is to use it under WP:FAIR. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 07:39, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    From the FP nomination I found this, which looks like the original source, not copyrighted. I would suggest to revert to the original image, though, or state clearly that this is an edited version. —Kusma (talk) 08:07, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • File:Booster_Rocket_Breach_-_GPN-2000-001425.jpg: none of the source links appear to be working. Ditto for File:STS-51-L_Recovered_Debris_(Burn_Marks_on_the_SRM)_-_GPN-2004-00004.jpg, File:Space_Shuttle_diagram.jpg and File:Rogers_Commission_members_arrive_at_Kennedy_Space_Center.jpg, as well as the source image for File:Challenger_breakup_cabin.jpg
    Added new links for STS-51-L_Recovered_Debris_(Burn_Marks_on_the_SRM)_-_GPN-2004-00004.jpg and File:Rogers_Commission_members_arrive_at_Kennedy_Space_Center.jpg. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 09:34, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    Where is "File:Space_Shuttle_diagram.jpg"? Balon Greyjoy (talk) 07:48, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    It was in the navbox that was removed per below. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:53, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • File:Challenger_Memorial1.JPG needs a tag for the memorial itself
    I'm a little confused; are you asking for the license info to be added to the permission parameter? Balon Greyjoy (talk) 07:39, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    No - the licensing given is that of the photographer, but the memorial itself could potentially qualify for copyright protection, and the US does not have freedom of panorama, so a separate tag is needed to cover the copyright of the memorial. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:53, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    I couldn't find the license for the memorial; I removed that photo. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 05:44, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • File:CCCP_Buran.png: don't see that licensing at given source.
    Removed that navbox. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 07:39, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Nikkimaria (talk) 01:23, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Comments by Eewilson[edit]

I am reviewing spelling, punctuation, grammar, sentence structure, and related things. It's a long article, so likely to take it in pieces.

  • Explain or link "aft" - or "aft field joint attachment"
    Looks like it's already linked. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 06:39, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    Not in the Lead. That's where I was looking. Eewilson (talk) 07:29, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    Linked. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 11:00, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • "The exact timing of the death of the crew is unknown;" The exact timing of the deaths?
    Fixed. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 06:39, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    Check. Eewilson (talk) 07:29, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Should Morton Thiokol be hyphenated or unhyphenated? Shouldn't it be consistent throughout the article?
    McDonald's book doesn't use hyphens; I've standardized the article to "Morton Thiokol". Balon Greyjoy (talk) 09:36, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    Check. Eewilson (talk) 07:29, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Is "lift off" two words or a compound word?
    "liftoff" is a compound word in the Merriam Webster and Oxford dictionaries. Standardized to one word. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 09:38, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    Check. Eewilson (talk) 07:29, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • "Each field joint was sealed with two rubber O-rings around the circumference of the SRB and 0.280 inches (7.1 mm) in diameter." Unclear sentence.
    Reworded. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 11:41, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    Check. Eewilson (talk) 07:29, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • "extruded" - clarify or link to Wikipedia or Wiktionary
    Linked. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 11:54, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    Check. Eewilson (talk) 07:29, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • "tang and clevis" or "tang-and-clevis" - hyphenated or not? Might depend on usage. Check it.
    According to McDonald, it is a hyphenated word. Only use in the article of an unhyphenated version is when describing how the tang and clevis bent away from each other. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 11:43, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    Check. Eewilson (talk) 07:29, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • "Joint rotation, which occurred when the tang and clevis bent away from each other, up to .052 inches (1.3 mm), which reduced the pressure on the O-rings and weakened their seals, making it possible for combustion gases to erode the O-rings." This needs a little tweaking to be an actual sentence.
    Changed wording. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 11:51, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    Check. Eewilson (talk) 07:29, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • "Verification/Certification Committee" - is that the actual name of the committee and can you specify with whom the committee was associated? Was it independent? Did it consist of NASA employees? Morton-Tiokol?
    It's the actual name (p. 125 of the Rogers Commission). I added that it was a NASA committee. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 11:39, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    Check. Eewilson (talk) 07:29, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • "further tests on joint integrity, to include testing in the temperature range of 40 to 90 °F" The comma after integrity can be removed.
    Removed. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 11:52, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    Check. Eewilson (talk) 07:29, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • This sentence has some confusing pronoun/noun and verb tense usage, thus making it unclear: "McNair and Resnik would deploy the Shuttle-Pointed Autonomous Research Tool for Astronomy (SPARTAN) satellite, which has previously flown aboard Discovery in June 1985, would photograph the comet for two days and then be recovered and returned to Earth."
  • "Additionally, Onizuka planned to observe and photograph the comet from Challenger flight deck." Either "from Challenger's flight deck" or "from the Challenger flight deck".
  • "Based upon O-ring erosion and blowby that had occurred in warmer launches" What's a "blowby"?
  • Wow, this whole event was a sad circus of error and hell. I will never forget it. :( Continuing later...

Eewilson (talk) 01:19, 12 October 2021 (UTC) FAC[]

  • I don't see where the acronym "SSME" is spelled out the first time it is used.
  • Spell out "max q" as "maximum dynamic pressure (max q)" the first time it is used so the reader doesn't have to click the link to understand the term. Also "g-force," "apogee,"
  • Acronym "LOX" at "LOX tank" needs to be spelled out first time.
  • "...until the range safety control officer initiated their self-destruct charges..." It is unclear here who and where the range safety control officer was.
  • "middeck" hyphenated or one word?
  • "but this system would not have been usable during an explosion during ascent" See if you can change one of the "during" to a different word
  • "All nine joints on each SRB were disabled, which many of the broken sections subsequently breaking into smaller pieces." Something is wrong with this sentence.
  • Resnik's remains were not recovered or were not identified? No mention of her burial. If this is the case, perhaps that should be mentioned in the Funeral ceremonies section.
  • I made some minor cleanups.

Without source review, it appears factual without POV or OR. I did not study the relevance of any of the prose, any needs for editing or rewrite, or sources.

Eewilson (talk) 15:17, 12 October 2021 (UTC) FAC[]

Second Battle of Cape Finisterre (1747)[edit]

Nominator(s): Gog the Mild (talk) 09:50, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[]

A typical naval battle from the age of sail. It was of some importance at the time, but seems to have been largely escaped detailed scholarly scrutiny. Which means that the article is short, but that I believe that it contains pretty much all there is to be said about the battle. Fresh from GAN I believe that this meets the FAC criteria, but stand ready to repel boarders. Gog the Mild (talk) 09:50, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Image review[edit]

  • Suggest adding alt text
Added.
  • Don't use fixed px size
Fixed.
  • File:Henri_Francois_Des_Herbiers_de_l_Etenduere.jpeg needs a US tag
Fixed.
  • File:Gravure_francaise_sur_combat_naval_1747_(cropped).jpeg needs a US tag and more details on the original source - it appears the credit line is for the reproduction?
Is the statement on the original "Published ... 1781" not sufficient? (Bottom left.)
  • File:Trois_vaisseaux_francais_captures_a_la_bataille_du_cap_finisterre_oct_1747.jpg: where was this first published?
Is the statement on the original "{Published ... 1751" not sufficient? (Bottom right corner.)

Nikkimaria (talk) 12:00, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Nikkimaria, all addressed, but a couple of queries I would value your opinion on. Gog the Mild (talk) 00:34, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[]
For both of those statements... to be honest even after you've pointed them out, I can't read them! Can you quote them in full? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:38, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[]
"File:Trois vaisseaux francais captures a la bataille du cap finisterre oct 1747.jpg" reads "Published according to Act of Parliament [June 1 of] 1751". {Square brackets indicates that the resolution is poor enough that I am partially guessing as to the text.]
"File:Gravure francaise sur combat naval 1747 L Etanduere.jpeg": to be frank, it is at the limit of what I can make out. I can strain and see what I want to, but the bits I can be sure about are "[unclear word] per [unclear word] 1 1751". But note that the agency which sells prints of exhibits on behalf of the French national museums attributes it to 1751 - [5].
Hi Nikkimaria. I can make out one, but am struggling with the other - not helped by my rusty French. (My usual translator is on holiday.) Is what I have above sufficient, or will I have to delete one or both? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:27, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Why not just go by what the museums say here? For the first image, the Royal Greenwich Museum says that it was made January 29th 1751.[6] For the second image, the Réunion des Musées Nationaux-Grand Palais dates it to 1781.[7] It also claims the image resolution is 4471 x 7024px, which if it could be opened at that resolution should mean the text would be legible. The bottom right text of that image says 'Gravé par Hubert'. Perhaps Hubert-François Gravelot? François Hubert. The style is very much like some his works that can be seen here. I can suggest that the bottom left tells us who made the design ['Dessine'], but I cannot, as yet, make out who that might be beyond 'Gra...t'. As I write this, Eureka. Look at this one, Dessine par Graincourt ; Gravé par Hubert' and the date is 1780, a year earlier. That is Antoine Graincourt. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:26, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Just an added note that I've mistaken Gravelot for another François Hubert.[8] My bad. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:59, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[]
The tagging in use relies on publication date rather than creation date - if a site gives only "date" it's hard to tell whether it was or was not published at that time. If the image itself says it was published at that time then it's fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:37, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[]
"File:Gravure francaise sur combat naval 1747 (cropped).jpeg" regretfully removed, which resolves the outstanding issue. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:51, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Comments Support from Tim riley[edit]

Splendid stuff. Crisp, clear and highly readable.

Thank you Tim. I do find these smaller topics a refreshing change of pace.

A few minor prose quibbles:

  • Lead
  • Rear-admiral Edward Hawke – in our WP article, and more importantly in the OED – there is no hyphen in "rear admiral" – same for later hyphenated rears.
I doubt it not. But in 1747 it was. Hawke would have been scandalised to have been referred to as a "rear admiral" and would have had the miscreant swabbing decks. If they were lucky. Obviously this is reflected in the sources. It is the normal convention (I believe) to refer to people by the ranks and titles they held at the time, parentasising explanations as necessary. Although 'rear-admiral (rear admiral)' seemed unnecessary!
I see "Rear Admiral Ogle" and "Rear Admiral Haddock" in the government journal The London Gazette 29 March–1 April 1740, but in the same paper's report of the battle (26 October 1747) the commanding officer is "Rear-Admiral Hawke". Applying your precept, with which I agree, you need to capitalise both bits of "Rear-Admiral" if using the contemporary title. I've had a swift rummage in the archives and all the London papers from around that date capitalise both bits, and the majority use the hyphen. – Tim riley talk 07:12, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Ah, caught! I cannot explain why I have used the contemporary hyphen, also used in modern sources, but not the second upper case initial, also used in the modern sources. Strange how our habitual usages trip us up. Thank you for being alert. Done. (I note that I have done this in one of the cations! I am officially an idiot.)
Speaking as a fellow idiot, I should say there are a lot of us about, but we do some good nonetheless. Tim riley talk 20:16, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • The War of the Austrian Succession (1740 – 1748) – unspaced en-dashes rather than spaced?
Arrrgh!
  • anticipating they would likely be lost – if this article is meant to be in BrE, the Americanism "would likely" ought to be amended to "would probably"
I keep doing that!
  • provide significant supplies – significant? what did they signify?
Does the OED not have a meaning of "Having a noticeable or major effect"? (Source: Wiktionary) [Not done. Further discussion invited.]
Plain Words on significant: this is a good and useful word, but it has a special flavour of its own and it should not be thoughtlessly used as a mere variant of important, considerable, appreciable, or quite large … it ought to be used only where there is a ready answer to the reader's unspoken question 'Significant, is it? And what does it signify?' In 'A significant number of Government supporters abstained', 'There was no significant loss of power when the engine was tested with lower-octane fuel', this question can clearly be answered; but the writers of the following had no such significance in mind:
  • Even after this ... reduction the size of our labour force in (a particular factory) will remain significantly larger than it was a year ago. (Appreciably)
  • A significantly higher level of expenditure must be expected on libraries etc. (Considerably)
  • After the low proportion of commitments in respect of new dwellings during the fourth quarter there was a significant upturn in January. (Marked)
In the last example the upturn (or increase) might, it is true, have been significant; but the context shows that it was not, and no one is going to give the benefit of the doubt to anyone who writes of a low proportion of commitments in respect of new dwellings. – Tim riley talk 07:12, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • if necessary gains in Europe could be exchanged – I'd be inclined to put a comma before "gains"
Done.
  • The British tried to …taking advantage of its naval superiority – plural-v-singular clash
Oops.
  • Prelude
  • Hawke was tasked …Hawke was given detailed orders – perhaps just "he" the second time?
Done.
  • Battle
  • The French were sighted by the British squadron eight days after sailing, off Cape Finisterre, early on the morning of 14 October – ambiguous: perhaps something on the lines of "Eight days after sailing, the French were sighted by the British squadron off Cape Finisterre early on the morning of 14 October."
Done.
  • which had sailed … which they were rated – perhaps a "that" for one of the two?
I have deleted the second "which".
  • each of them had their mobility restricted – singular-v-plural clash. Perhaps "had its mobility…"?
I would have used 'her', but I have decided to avoid the howls of outrage.
  • due to damage to their rigging – In AmE "due to" is accepted as a compound preposition on a par with "owing to", but in BrE it is not universally so regarded. "Owing to" or, better, "because of" is safer.
Interesting. Selecting a volume at random finds the venerable Jonathan Sumption, Lord Sumption using the term 51 times in this sense in just the third volume of his magisterial history of the Hundred Years' War. But only 28 in the fourth. May I suggest that in this, possibly unique, case your source may be a tad behind common usage?
Jonathan Sumption, with his charming views on the value of the life of a woman with cancer and his dismissal of our anti-Covid measures as "collective hysteria and governmental folly", is not a man I'd be inclined to emulate. The current (2015) edition of Fowler acknowledges that in the 21st century this use of "due to" is widely seen, but reminds readers of Fowler's comment that it is the practice of the illiterate. The Guardian's style guide gives the traditional view that it should only be used when it is the complement of the verb 'to be', and could be replaced by 'caused by'; "otherwise, use 'owing to' or 'because of'." – Tim riley talk 07:12, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Not like you to tackle the man rather than the ball Tim. (You can probably imagine my views on Sumption's opinions in general, but I have almost always found his expression of them clear, logical and insightful.) It was the first hefty e-volume to hand written by a respected (or perhaps not) academic historian.. Regardless, while I tend to taking Fowler as strongly indicative rather than definitive, if the Grudian Style Guide is with it then I surrender. "due to" replaced and I shall endevour, probably with incomplete success, to avoid it in future.
Hmm, while not wholly convinced, you raise more than enough doubts for me to substitute it in this case and to make a mental note to be more cautious with it in future.
Probably a losing battle, I fear, against the American take-over of the Queen's English, but one fights the good fight. Tim riley talk 20:16, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Aftermath
  • were not self sufficient – the OED hyphenates self-sufficient
Hyphenated.
  • France recovered her colonial possessions which had been captured by the British in return for withdrawing – I think you need to fence the subordinate clause off with a comma before "which" and another before "in".
It seems to me that one is only required after "British, which I have inserted. But I stand ready to corrected.
  • Afterthought – if the colonial possessions we're talking about were not all France's colonies, I think perhaps "that" (commaless) rather than "which" is needed – restrictive-v-non-restricted.
Do you mean not all in the sense of some being Spain's, or not being the totality of France's?
The sentence means either that the British had captured all France's colonial possessions but gave them all back in return for the withdrawal, or that the British had captured some of France's colonial possessions but gave them back in return for the withdrawal. It is the difference between a non-restrictive and a restrictive clause:
  • France recovered her colonial possessions, which had been captured by the British, in return for withdrawing.
  • France recovered her colonial possessions that had been captured by the British, in return for withdrawing.
But for clarity it might in any case be better to rejig the sentence:
  • In return for withdrawing, France recovered her colonial possessions, which had been captured by the British.
  • In return for withdrawing, France recovered her colonial possessions that had been captured by the British.

(There are some ardent opponents of the passive voice who would insist that "which/that had been captured by the British" should be "which/that the British had captured, but it isn't a point on which I feel strongly.) – Tim riley talk 07:12, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[]

It may - ok, it most certainly is - due to (oops!) my pig ignorance of the finer nuances of English grammar but those look synonymistic (sic) to me. So I have gone with "In return for withdrawing, France recovered those colonial possessions that had been captured by the British" feeling that the important distinction you wish to be drawn may be better grasped by a reader with this. If I have merely further mangled the prose, please don't hesitate to say.
You have it spot-on now, in my view. Tim riley talk 20:16, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[]

I'll look in again once you've had the chance to ponder the above. – Tim riley talk 18:17, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Thank you Tim, I believe that I have mentioned before that I feel better once you have gone through any of my articles. All of you comments addressed, a few even with less than full agreement! Gog the Mild (talk) 21:34, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Disagreeing with you is nearly always fruitless, but it is so educational I feel unmotivated to stop. Thank you. And I should employ you as a research assistant! Fancy a collaboration? I have had my eye on Battle of Quiberon Bay for a couple of years now. The French language version is excellent, while ours is not. (The "Battle" section is entirely based on a 1907 source, except for some 1867 intrusions.) To a large extent this FAC and Battle of Lagos, which you also reviewed, are practice runs for Quiberon Bay.
Any hoo, your further points now addressed. I await continuing broadsides. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:42, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[]
No further broadsides. As a proud holder of the Queen's Award for Cowardice, I do not write articles on military or naval history, but I am very happy to add my support for the elevation of this excellent article to FA, and I look forward to seeing it enliven our front page. Tim riley talk 20:16, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[]

HF - Support[edit]

  • "while Its colonies were left to fend for themselves" - Lowercase its
Done.
  • Can it be briefly said in a sentence or two what the War of the Austrian Succession was fought over?
I had thought that the name of the war may be sufficient, but now unpacked a little further.
  • I think it would be helpful to indicate where exactly Cape Finisterre was
This turned out to be surprisingly difficult. See what you think of the revised first sentence of the "Battle " section.
I think that works. (I would have personally guessed that Cape Finisterre was the location, without that clarification). 20:17, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
  • "252 merchantmen and others" - I'm assuming #251 was the Indiaman and #252 was Castor. But Castor is only directly mentioned in the listing of ships at the end. Should she be mentioned in the prose as well, as the 252nd ship?
Good point. You assume correctly. (Separately listing one Indiaman and a single frigate, neither of which were engaged, in the infobox seemed a bit much.) Done.
  • Sources and images look fine
I am assuming that this doesn't constitue a full source review? Or does it?
No, but I will do one. Hog Farm Talk 20:17, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Excellent work, as usual. Hog Farm Talk 05:04, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Thanks muchly for the review, the insightful comments and the kind words. All addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:04, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Source review - pass[edit]

  • Sources all appear to be reliable
  • Anderson needs the location
Added.
  • page 320 here says that the battle was fought well to the north of the cape itself, is that useful?
The battle was fought here, while Cape Finisterre is here. So, yes, well to the south. But the battle isn't named after that Cape Finisterre, it was named after the sea region Finisterre, a vaguely defined area to the west of the French department Finistère, the western part of Brittany. I could give you lots more OR if you want, but the sources don't go any further.
BTW, two naval orientated RSs give a different account of why Hawke was first off Spain and then intercepted the French much further north.
  • Not finding any major sources that aren't represented.
Did you find many sources at all?
Not really. I found the item linked above, a single paragraph in a different work by Black, and some primary source papers by Hawke. Nothing that would really be useful here. Hog Farm Talk 22:10, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Looks good on sourcing. Hog Farm Talk 20:26, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Thanks again Hog Farm, you are having a busy day on Wikipedia. See above. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:04, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Support from Mr rnddude[edit]

  • Any particular reason for Fougueux to be the only ship of the line not to be either blue or red linked?
My sloppiness. Now red linked/
  • In return for withdrawing, France recovered those colonial possessions that had been captured by the British, in return for withdrawing from her gains in the Austrian Netherlands (modern Belgium) - Repetition in italics, I'd drop the first instance and remove the comma.
Done.
  • ... when the French King would prove reluctant ... - Nitpick, but you could just use simple past tense here.
True. Done.
  • Herbiers did succeed in his objective of protecting the convoy, of the 250 merchantmen, only seven were captured - Pretty sure this is a comma splice
Second comma removed.
  • The balance continued to the West Indies, but, warned of their approach, the British Leeward Islands Squadron under Commodore George Pocock was able to intercept many of them in late 1747 and early 1748 - Forgive my ignorance, but I don't know what the meaning of this sentence is. What does it mean for the balance to continue to the West Indies and whom are the British intercepting? I assume 'balance of the war', but does that mean that the West Indies was having more impact than the campaign in mainland Europe?
"of the convoy" added to clarify what the subject of "the balance" was. (As the previous sentence was "Herbiers did succeed in his objective of protecting the convoy, of the 250 merchantmen only 7 were captured." I had assumed it clear that "the balance " referred to the other 243 ships.)
  • ... varied from 74 to 50 ... vs ... variously rated for 56 to 80 guns ... - Why the switch from high-low to low-high?
Ah. Good spot. Standarised.
  • ... which made it difficult for the French navy to provide substantial quantities of supplies or to militarily support to French colonies - Either 'or to militarily support French colonies' or, more preferably, 'or military support to French colonies'.
Oops. Sorted.
Cheers for that. I am off line for few days. I’ll get to it as soon as I’m back. Gog the Mild (talk) 08:49, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Thanks Mr rnddude. All addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:03, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • I have one additional comment on second read-through. The lede and article body state 250 merchant ships/merchantmen, while the IB states '252 merchantmen and others'. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:04, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Ah, that must be Content and Castor. Perhaps, for clarity, '250 merchantmen and 2 others'. Because I read it to mean 252 merchantmen and others rather than as 252 merchantmen and others. If the emphasis makes clear what I'm saying. Also, since the 2 others are part of the escort fleet, should they not be with the 8 ships of the line, i.e. 8 ships of the line and 2 others. Rather than as part of the merchant ships. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:10, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[]
I take your point. I was trying to be concise for the infobox, but clearly at the expense of clarity. Now spelt out.
Thanks again Mr rnddude, good additional point. Addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:31, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Moving to support as all comments I had have been addressed. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:37, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Query for the coordinators[edit]

Ian Rose, @WP:FAC coordinators: three supports - two of them non-MilHist - source and image reviews and ten days since nomination. Can I launch another? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:54, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Ian Rose, @WP:FAC coordinators: Two weeks in now? Gog the Mild (talk) 10:31, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[