Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/August 2022

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 31 August 2022 [1].

WAP (song)

[edit]
Nominator(s): —VersaceSpace 🌃 01:55, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a song that needs no introduction. The song that angered parents across the globe. Number-ones across the world. Easily one of the most controversial songs in recent times. Dare I say the most controversial? I nominated this article for GA status in June, and my nomination was reviewed by MaranoFan, who passed the article after I tended to their suggestions. I requested a peer review in July, which included two helpful points from Czarking0. Now, it's August, and I'm nominating "WAP to become a featured article. I've worked to make this article as complete and concise as I could on my own, and now I'm ready for the community's opinion.

This is my first featured article candidacy, so do let me know if I've done something incorrectly. Thank you. —VersaceSpace 🌃 01:55, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fixing ping to User:Czarking0. —VersaceSpace 🌃 01:57, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from ErnestKrause

[edit]

Some comments and concerns which I've seen in the article nominated.

(1) The song is well known and the lyrics are explicit, however, you appear not to link or discuss the Wikipedia article for explicit lyrics. Was there a reason for this.

I thought it would be a violation of WP:OVERLINK. Also, there is no Wikipedia article for that topic. It's a redirect to Parental Advisory. Not a big deal though, I'll just wiki-link it now. —VersaceSpace 🌃 15:44, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(2) Regarding the theme of explicit lyrics, this genre is well established in rap for at least 2-3 decades, however, you do not discuss the difference between explicit lyrics used for political opposition and explicit lyrics used for sexual intents. The song you are nominating makes no secret about which version of explicit sexual lyrics are being used in the song.

This one has confused me a bit. Why would this difference be established? —VersaceSpace 🌃 15:44, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(3) There is no Lyrics section in the article. Because of the nature of the Lyrics, it seems that there should be at least a little more about the content. To start with there is the monotonously repeat back-up lyrics from start to finish in this song "There's some whores in this house" which seem to have reliable sources discussing them. A Lyrics section would be a good place to discuss this, as well as the main lyrics of the song, in addition to the back-up lyrics.

Is a composition section not sufficient for this purpose? If you'd like, I could add a paragraph about this there. —VersaceSpace 🌃 15:44, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(4) History. There is a long tradition of explicit sexual lyrics in rap and funk which might be mentioned in the history section of this article which is presently not covered. Rick James did "Superfreak" several decades ago, and a decade ago there was "Sweat" by Snoop Dog. Are you saying that none of the reliable sources covered this at all?

Can you explain why this would be covered in an article specifically about "WAP"? I'm certain this is described in numerous reliable sources, but I fail to see why it's relevant for this article. —VersaceSpace 🌃 15:44, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(5) Your Impact and Legacy section looks like it might also be done by separating the Impact part into the Reception section which comes earlier in your article and possibly combining the Legacy section with the Covers section of the song which is currently directly above it, "Cover versions and legacy".

I'll merge the prose into the reception one. However, the quote, I feel doesn't fit in with the cover version section. I'm going to remove it; if you object to that I'll re-add it. —VersaceSpace 🌃 15:44, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(6) In the Music video section, can you align the Synopsis title with the actual text. There is currently a left side image which seems to separate the text from its section title.

Fixed. —VersaceSpace 🌃 15:44, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(7) For the video section, was there any discussion in RS about the selection and use of model types used in this video. The models do not look like 'Victoria's Angels" models, though they are not quite 'plus' sized models either. How were they described by RS? Was the selection process discussed by RS?

Everything I've seen about the casting of the music video is limited to the cameo appearances from the rappers and singers. I've checked through RS and haven't found anything about this part of the music video, though I could have missed something. I will note that inclusiveness of this sort is far more common these days. —VersaceSpace 🌃 15:44, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(8) There is a significant social discussion in the press about movie rating and media ratings to protect children from obscenity and prurient content; is it making more comment about this in this article. For example, many parents are sensitive to R-rating, and do not let their children go to these movies. Similarly for explicit sexual song content.

For this one I'd like you to go more in depth. I see your point, but I don't know what you want me to do. —VersaceSpace 🌃 15:44, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(9) I'll need to agree with Nick's comments below as well; there seems to be a issue with how comprehensive your list of RS for the article has been. I've already asked for some more RS above, and Nick is stating below that there are at least a half dozen to a dozen more scholarly RS to be found on Google Scholar; also you might want to look at JSTOR, Web-of-Science, and the other more conventional search engines to find sources. The 'comprehensiveness' issue is going to be an issue for this kind of FAC nomination.

(10) I'm still not sure about the question of why the article does not have a conventional Lyrics section and a conventional Music section. The Lyrics section I've already made some comments about above, and a Music section also seems absent here which would tell me which key the song is written in, what the metronome setting is for the song, if there are any key changes, how many key changes, etc. This seems an important thing to add to this article.

Let me know if there any of these items listed need more elaboration. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:13, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@ErnestKrause: thank you for a swift review. I've implemented a few suggestions of yours; thank you for those. I have asked a few questions, if you could answer those. Again, thanks for your comments. —VersaceSpace 🌃 15:44, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Adding comments #9 and #10 above. See Nick's comments below as well. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:04, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Drive by comments by Nick-D

[edit]

Four observations:

  • The really noteworthy thing about this song is it's explicit lyrics. The article dances around this, and doesn't really describe what the song is about.
  • The 'Reaction from conservative figures' section seems to be limited to views from two obscure political figures in the US and a prolific trollish commentator only: is this really the worldwide reception, and what makes these views so noteworthy they require a detailed section?
  • If these people's views are worth noting, where's the discussion of the song by feminists and progressives? A lot of women aside from music critics found it empowering, yet this doesn't seem to be discussed.
  • A search of Google Scholar suggests that there are some academic works on the song that don't seem to have been consulted yet: [2] (though at least some of the works look to be by students so may not be RS) Nick-D (talk) 11:21, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Nick-D: Two things about point four: I'm having trouble distinguishing between reliable and unreliable sources in this area, furthermore I've only found one that would add something to the article which is not already covered by reliable sources. The one I found is this: WAP through a gender lens. I haven't looked at JSTOR or other databases, but most of these works do seem to be made by students. —VersaceSpace 🌃 17:17, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Drive by comments from theleekycauldron

[edit]
  • "Credits from Tidal" shouldn't be in the article body – seems that, at the very least, should go in a footnote (if preserved at all)
  • Is there a reason to link to the songwriter as Belcalis Almanzar rather than her stage name, Cardi B?
  • The Guardian should be linked
  • Why is Personnel all the way at the bottom? That seems like an odd place to leave it – also, shouldn't it be in the ibox?
  • The second paragraph in "Background and release" looks a little skinny – can it be moved or beefed up?
  • I think the censored version can take up a bit more space...
  • The ellipses in the second paragraph of "Critical response" give an impression of tone where there isn't (see "full off... detail") – can the quotes be cleaned up a little?
  • Is BET a high-quality reliable source? Particularly for the amount of space its information takes up...
  • "The following is a selected list of publications." in Accolades should be removed – wikivoice doesn't reference itself
  • "Political commentator Ben Shapiro was widely mocked for his sarcastic reading of the lyrics to 'WAP'." Seems like a caption for the article body – can this caption instead talk about when this photo was taken?

Elias

Per a message in my talk page, I'll take a gander at this article in due time. Not to beat a dead horse's skeleton, but I echo the concerns of those that commented before me - for a song so widely popular, you'd expect the article to go more in depth on the lyrics in particular. Will leave more comments soon ‍ ‍ Your Power 🐍 ‍ ‍ 💬 "What did I tell you?"
📝 "Don't get complacent..." 12:49, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, but until the lyrics issue is addressed, I will have to oppose on the basis of criteria 1b (comprehensiveness). The article's "reception" section as it stands is good and goes real deep into the various facets of the song's critical response. The part about US conservatives' response to it, in particular, is well-done and in-depth. But this section cannot shine to its full potential if readers do not know all the important things to know about the lyrics. Though I do not want to simply oppose and leave the nominator with no starting material to improve the article - I've found a couple of sources like this, this, this, this, this, this, and this, among others, that talk about the lyrics in some way. Best of luck with improving this article. ‍ ‍ Your Power 🐍 ‍ ‍ 💬 "What did I tell you?"
📝 "Don't get complacent..." 04:10, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose by indopug

[edit]

Others have mentioned the lack of analysis about the lyrics, but there's also a near-complete absence of discussion about the music. What's there just lists genres ("hip hop, trap, and dirty rap song") and scare quotes ("raunchy", "throaty" and "staccato"), without explaining anything to the lay reader. I think significant further research, writing and editing are needed—beyond the scope of an FAC.—indopug (talk) 15:58, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Gerda

[edit]

You invited me, and what you'll get is the view of someone who never heard the song, nor knew the names of the artists. I'll write as I read, leaving the lead for last. Ignore anything that has just to do with my ignorance. I intentionally still didn't listen to the song nor watch the video, to see what I get about it from the prose. I will, however, watch after a first round. - Best wishes for dealing with family emergency, which is of course more important than any of this. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:18, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

When you return, fell free to reply to individual bullets with just a short signature, signing a round of answers completely only once with the last reply. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:32, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

First sentence

  • ""WAP" (an acronym for "Wet-Ass Pussy") is a song by American rapper Cardi B featuring Megan Thee Stallion." For someone knowing nothing, that presents explicit lyrics before anything else was said, and doesn't introduce two women performers. The name Cardi didn't ring a "woman" bell, and what is featured didn't even ring a "person" bell, it could have been an instrument, a style, - you name it. Yes, two women are pictured on the cover, but that could be purely decorative. Please give more information (before providing the longer text, please, first say it's a song!) unless you think people unfamiliar with artists of the American scene should not be served.

Infobox and TOC

  • make obvious in the infobox that Cardi also co-wrote the lyrics (that name in brackets, or only that name)
  • I'd expect a section Song text and composition, saying Song vs. the later Video, and separating a description from Production, expecting it before Production actually.
  • Is Worldwide the right term for "the rest of the world"?
  • I find the TOC too long but don't know where to prune (and may be the only one).

Background

  • At this point, I'd expect some background info about the two women without having to look up their biographies. (When I write about a Bach piece, I don't begin at his birth, but explain when and where he held which position, as background for the work.) That's standard for FA, I believe.
  • I don't need the calculation that 3 days later is August 6, - one or the other.
  • Discussing needs for censoring makes little sense before knowing more about the lyrics.
  • Speaking of women by their first name only (Megan) is regarded as respectless in classical music, - that's different when a stage name (Cardi B), - perhaps explain the use of Megan as you would introduce an abbreviation?

Production

  • The quote box attracts looking there first, and it's many words about almost nothing (it seems), by another person I don't know, - at least a link please, but I could happily do without it.
  • Please split the section in a description and production details (as mentioned in TOC). The abbreviation has nothing to do with production, and I'd wish for more details about text and music. That there's a sample, for example, needs to be said here.

Critical

  • Is it "WAP" or WAP? Probably a question that should have occurred to me sooner. I don't know. As a term of only three letters, It doesn't really need quotation marks, no? But if so, then please consistently. Once I'm asking, would "wap" be used and understood in normal talk, meaning what it stands for? (... should have occurred to me sooner ..., - if yes, please make a note of that, footnote perhaps)
  • link The Guardian, please
  • I find some of what the "critics" say quite repetitive, - do we really need word for word, or could it be summarized?

Reaction from conservative figures

  • How about Reaction from conservatives - I'm not happy with "figures" for real people, but again, that's perhaps just me.
  • Please clarify from the start that Brown is not a "conservative figure" but someone who replies.
  • refs are out of order (27,22 as I read), - please check generally

I need a break. I moved two of the images (below, in video), making one larger and one smaller, trimming also a caption, - no need for the whole story if it's just a woman pictured. - Generally: images in featured articles should have the parameter "alt" filled with a description of what the image shows as if telling a blind person. Compare other FAs (for example C. J. Cregg) for how to achieve not too short but also not too long. More generally: images should not have fixed image sizes, but use "upright" factors. Both (alt text and no fixed size) are accessibility features. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:32, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

General

[edit]
  • BTW, I'm on a family emergency trip to the Dominican Republic, so thanks to everyone for the responses, however I may not be able to tend to them as fast as I'd like to. —VersaceSpace 🌃 23:17, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Noted, and I hope all goes well. Given this circumstance and the comprehensiveness issues raised above, best we archive this now and allow you to continue to work on it at your own pace, after which I'd suggest engaging with those reviewers who expressed concerns, before re-nominating. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:19, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 31 August 2022 [3].

Texas A&M University

[edit]
Nominator(s): Buffs (talk) 17:40, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Texas A&M University and has sought extensive feedback through previous FACs/FARC. Feedback and mentorship has been requested from literally every FA mentor listed (in most cases to no avail). While I still contend that previous discussions were prematurely closed, I still jumped through all the hoops as requested and have requested clarification (again, to no avail) from both objectors and the closing clerk. Lastly, I feel that there are some demands that have inappropriately been requested in previous FAs with no clarification given despite numerous requests; clarification/outside opinions on those matters would be appreciated.

I respectfully contend that Nick-D's opinion below be discounted as he apparently feels that the subject is not worthy of FA: "it's focused on the experiences of only white able bodied men who live on campus at this university". To the contrary, the student body was largely male, white, and on-campus for over two thirds of its current history. By definition, 2/3 of the history will contain that. If such an objection is allowed to stand, it is a slap in the face of history as a whole. We are literally more concerned with repressing facts over boosting information about minorities and women (which smacks of a political agenda). Furthermore, I've responded to a litany of his requested changes; the vast majority resulted in minor changes to the article and some resulted in questions that were almost universally unanswered. It is impossible to address such vague objections without further clarification.

Other discussions not mentioned above

Oppose

[edit]

My comments in the most recent FAC do not seem to have been addressed. For instance, the article still doesn't discuss the integration of women and minority students (though room could be found for a a full para on the women's basketball team!) and the para on the statue continues to use evasive language that privileges the views of the university's administration. As a spot check, the statement that "The event received worldwide attention during World War II, when 25 Aggies held a brief Aggie Muster during the battle for the island of Corregidor" is not supported by the source, which refers to this receiving attention only in the US. Nick-D (talk) 11:00, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • "the article still doesn't discuss the integration of women and minority students (though room could be found for a a full para on the women's basketball team!)"
    Based on this feedback, I've added two more sentences in the history section explaining the integration of women/minorities in the 70s (the whole 140 year history is summarized into ~60 sentences). Given the overall impact, I think that, in addition to the other half dozen sentences in the history section, 10% of the history section is appropriately balanced good and bad.
    Yes, the women's basketball team (which, perplexingly, is part of the "discuss the integration of women..." you asked for above...I mean, I'm really confused here.) has enjoyed a long string of major success. As such, 4 sentences outlining 30+ years in the athletics section is appropriate. I'm not sure what you want. Less on the Basketball team? More?
  • "the para on the statue continues to use evasive language that privileges the views of the university's administration."
    I've repeatedly asked you what "evasive language" you are alleging and you have yet to clarify in 9+ months. The paragraph summarizes this situation in 3 sentences:
    1. the climate under which there was controversy
    2. the official university position prior
    3. the protests, counterprotests, and the ultimate decision by the university
    I'm very hard pressed to see what else you'd like to see added/changed. It isn't "administration heavy" by any stretch of the imagination. An informal student senate survey (which most everyone acknowledged was statistically questionable based on its sampling methodology based on poor student sampling...those with strong negative feelings responded at significantly higher rates than the general student population and there were poor controls on who could respond [more than one student came forward claiming they'd tried to respond to the survey to oppose any action only to find they'd allegedly submitted a response already]) showed that the student body opposed the statue's removal by a ratio of 2:1, but the results were highly striated on racial lines. I've asked you for further clarification in the past as to what you think should be added/what should be changed. I cannot address a point that is so vague. Could you perhaps be more specific? Give me a sentence or two that would illustrate the shortfalls/the changes you want? If you want me to include the unscientific student poll, I'll be happy to do so, but I don't think it changes anything substantive in the paragraph.
  • "As a spot check, the statement that 'The event received worldwide attention during World War II, when 25 Aggies held a brief Aggie Muster during the battle for the island of Corregidor' is not supported by the source, which refers to this receiving attention only in the US."
    While the Houston Chronicle is read worldwide, I'm not going to quibble over that: changed to nationwide. Buffs (talk) 16:16, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose from Gog the Mild

[edit]

Recusing to review. Oppose and recommend withdrawal.

This is the first time I have looked at this article, US education not normally being my thing. But I thought this FAC may benefit from fresh eyes. I still haven't read all of it, as it seems clear to me that this is not yet ready for FAC. I could go on at some length about specific points and areas, but I shall stay with those used by Nick-D above. I note in passing that the nominator's responses to Nick-D's very clear and clearly made points (to my eye, coming across them and the article for the first time) puzzle me. I am unsure if the responses are deliberately evasive or reflect, somehow, genuine bafflement as to the points being made. Neither bodes well for a constructive exchange of opinions leading to promotion.

  • The para on the statue does seem to use "language that privileges the views of the university's administration."
    As I've asked repeatedly, can you please specify what it is that you feel meets that criteria? I'm happy to rewrite it. Buffs (talk) 20:32, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The paragraph in which the erection of the statue is covered also seems PoV: eg "well-respected Confederate Brigadier".
    "well-respected" is the exact verbiage of the source. Would it be better to place it in quotes? Buffs (talk) 20:32, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The source is The Bryan-College Station Eagle, a local daily newspaper. Would remove the verbiage. Ceoil (talk) 10:33, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, out of respect, I've deleted it, but I'm confused. Why would a local newspaper's reporting be a reason to exclude something, especially something that was a local opinion at the time? Perhaps I'm missing something here. Buffs (talk) 20:09, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • In this paragraph there is a longer sentence on the statue than on the first admission of women, which would seem to cry out for some background and context; come to that, whether any women ever did attend classes. (And if so, how many, when and whether on an equal footing?)
    "whether any women ever did attend classes" apparently you skipped the lead which states that the institution is currently coeducational.
    Material in the lead should also be included in the article body. Ceoil (talk) 10:44, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm a little concerned that you haven't read the article. My point was that the answer to the specious query "whether any women ever did attend classes" was certainly in the article right from the very beginning.
    A few quotes from the article:
    • Enrollment expanded again in the 1960s under the leadership of President James Earl Rudder. During his tenure, the school desegregated, became coeducational, and dropped the requirement for participation in the Corps of Cadets.
    • Initially, women were permitted to attend classes only as "special students," but were not permitted so seek degrees. In 1893, Ethel Hudson, the daughter of one of the faculty, became the first woman to take classes; in 1899, two of her sisters, Sophie and Mary Hudson did the same. Though not envisioned explicitly as an all-male school, over time it became a de facto all-male institution and led to a decades-long debate as to the role of women at the school. Under pressure from the Texas Legislature, in 1911 the school allowed women to attend classes during the summer semester
    • Over the coming years, Texas A&M augmented and upgraded to its physical plant and facilities while diversifying and expanding its student body by admitting women and minorities. Additionally, membership in the Corps of Cadets became voluntary beginning in the fall semester of 1963. Initially, the decision to admit women made the student body very unhappy. Though initially resisted and some minor efforts persisted for several decades, the positive impact of these changes was rapid. By 1972, on-campus housing was dedicated for women and the student body elected its first black student body president in 1976.
    • The women's basketball team has one Southwest Conference Tournament championship, one regular season Big 12 Conference championship, two Big 12 Tournament championships, and two SEC Tournament championships, most recently in 2021. As of 2022, the women have advanced to sixteen NCAA Tournament appearances including fourteen consecutive seasons, winning the National Championship in 2011. They have also competed in the WNIT twice, winning that tournament in 1995.[262] The women's team was coached by Gary Blair from 2003[263] to his retirement in 2022.[264] His replacement, Joni Taylor began coaching the team in March 2022[265]...As of 2021, the women's soccer team, formed in 1993, has been in every NCAA Tournament appearances since 1995.[268] The women's volleyball team is a frequent qualifier for the annual NCAA tournament including thirteen consecutive NCAA Tournament appearances from 1993 to 2005.[269][270] Texas A&M also fields teams for men's and women's swimming and diving, men's and women's golf, men's and women's tennis, cross country, track and field, softball, baseball, and equestrian[271]
    Buffs (talk) 20:14, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still in this paragraph "Enrollment doubled to 467 cadets". As of what date? And doubled from what number and when? The last mention of numbers is "Enrollment climbed to 258 students in 1881 before declining to 108 in 1883". 467 is four times 108, not a doubling. What is the difference, if any, between "students" and "cadets"?
    The number of cadets doubled under his tenure. I think that's pretty implicit from the given sentence (before he arrived: x, after: 2x). I don't think we need to specify a number, but I will be happy to do so if that's your hangup (please clarify if I'm missing something). There is no effective difference between "cadets" and "students" at this point in the school's history. Buffs (talk) 20:32, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "had a separate Board of Directors". Why the upper case initial letters?
    It is a governing body established by the state; a proper name similar to the US Senate. (see WP:MOSCAP) Buffs (talk) 20:32, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "During his tenure, many Aggie traditions were born, including the creation of the first Aggie Ring." Re "Aggie Ring" (why the upper case R?) see MOS:NOFORCELINK "Do use a link wherever appropriate, but as far as possible do not force a reader to use that link to understand the sentence" and "Do not unnecessarily make a reader chase links: if a highly technical term can be simply explained with very few words, do so." To most readers this sentence will mean little without chasing the links.
    Again, capitalized as a proper name. Rephrased as "class ring" is more prevalent. Buffs (talk) 20:32, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the college was saved from potential closure by its new president Lawrence Sullivan Ross". How? What did he do?
    Expanded Buffs (talk) 20:32, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "to emulate the traits of Ross". Which were? And/or were perceived to be?
    I feel like you're asking to be much more specific than is necessary for the article. I could add "soldier, statesman, knightly gentleman" (the words on the base of his statue), but the sources only state they sent their sons to "Be like Ross". It doesn't specify what the specific attributes were that they were attempting to emulate. We don't speculate. We use WP:RS. I can't give you what isn't there. Buffs (talk) 20:32, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "During his tenure". Which is not given.
    It is. He started in 1891 and served until his death in 1898. Buffs (talk) 20:32, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I had intended to cover Nick-D's other two points, but I feel that the non-exhaustive examination of the one near-random paragraph adequately illustrates why I think the article is not yet ready for FAC. Note that if all of the points above were addressed this would not change my mind; almost every paragraph has similar - and/or different but equally egregious - issues.

I recommend withdrawal, a thorough visit to PR and another to GoCE. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:26, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I asked for clarification almost 3 months ago from you so I could address any shortcomings, but you chose to provide no feedback until now. No one to-date, has brought up the concerns you brought up despite the review of (by my count) about 60 people. Almost all were easily corrected and were at least arguably accurate, but, you wanted more specificity, so I obliged. I've added the additions you sought, but the article is getting increasingly/inappropriately long. Previous reviews complained about the length. When you say "add more" and others say "shorten it" and both of you say "...or it doesn't get my FA blessing", it's a no-win situation. This idea that it needs to go through two more processes seems more than unnecessary for trivial and easily fixed changes. If you could be so kind as to clarify and let me know whether I've addressed your points, it would be appreciated Buffs (talk) 21:39, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: "I am unsure if the responses are deliberately evasive or reflect, somehow, genuine bafflement as to the points being made. Neither bodes well for a constructive exchange of opinions leading to promotion."
Let's just WP:AGF and assume the latter "genuine bafflement". When I've asked either Nick or you for clarification (multiple times), your response has been silence. There is no "constructive exchange of ideas" when I'm the only one who responds. That isn't an "exchange"...but it isn't because of me... Buffs (talk) 19:42, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There's not much for me to respond to here to be frank. I have noted that my comments in the previous FAC weren't addressed, and you are arguing that most of the examples I've given above aren't correct in response. The same thing happened in the previous FAC and peer review, with you taking this approach with several editors who'd left comments. Nick-D (talk) 09:57, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Nick-D: Of the three points you made above, I made changes for two. "...you are arguing that most of the examples I've given above aren't correct in response." is an objectively and abjectly false statement or is intentionally misleading. If those changes are not sufficient, what more do you want? Let me be succinct with the remaining point: what in that paragraph is "evasive language" or "privileges the views of the university's administration"? I'm not seeing it.
Of the 5 points your brought up in the previous review, I have made changes for two of them and asked for clarification on the other three (which you never provided):
  • women and students from a minority background -  Done In the history section alone, from my quick count, of the ~60 sentences, 9 focus on this alone: 15% of the school's history. I'm not sure what else you want. It also doesn't focus on what white men did either, just the student body as a whole. The amount of controversy is proportionate with the history of the school.
  • over-emphasis on the experiances [sic] of the minority of the student population who live on campus What they do off campus is no different from any other person in the area. From my perspective, you are asking "what do they do when not associated with the University?" in an article about the University. This seems to be the opposite of the subject at hand: the school. If I am misunderstanding this, can you please clarify?
  • the more unusual aspects of the university, most notably its militaristic flavour and range of rather old-fashioned 'traditions' In addition to the intro and history, there are 3 paragraphs in the article dedicated to the Corps of Cadets and a whole article about it as well; these include criticism. There are 5 paragraphs and and article about traditions as well. Perhaps an explanation or a sample of pseudotext would make is clearer: "Traditions blah blah blah, however, they also blah blah"? I'm not sure what you're expecting here. Can you please clarify?
  • The article contains boosterism, and is not neutral. Where?
  • Covid vaccine info. Removed the entire paragraph per WP:RECENTISM
I am perplexed as to your response and lack of clarity. Please just answer the questions I posed. Buffs (talk) 15:36, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's exactly the confrontational approach which I noted is really unhelpful. I'm a hard oppose here, and won't be engaging further. Nick-D (talk) 09:13, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Nick-D: If a point-by-point request for clarification "is really unhelpful", imagine how I feel when you (effectively) say Oppose and give vague reasons you refuse to clarify. I can't address these if you won't make it clearer because I don't understand what you think is wrong. Without such clarification/discussion, I feel your concerns should be dismissed. Lastly, asking questions for clarification is not a "confrontational approach".Buffs (talk) 13:48, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I left a detailed peer review upon your request, and you didn't address my comments there (I noted that I would be an oppose in any FACs as a result). Subsequent comments have received the same response, with other editors getting a similar treatment. To be frank with you, your approach here is wrong headed: experienced editors are leaving you good faith comments noting fairly serious concerns with the article's suitability for FA level, but instead of acting on them you are trying to argue that they are wrong. You seem to have some links to this university, and I'd suggest that you develop articles on topics you can be more detached from. Nick-D (talk) 10:18, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I most definitely addressed your comments there (as noted there and above). I had followup questions as well. You didn't respond (still haven't). Buffs (talk) 16:52, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: Sorry to have taken up space in your section. Do my responses effectively address your concerns? Buffs (talk) 13:52, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: Are you going to reply? I respectfully find that you suggestion to take it to PR is more than a bit of joke. I've already contacted literally every single active Wikipedian (all 35) who have expressed a willingness to give a PR. You want me to roll to GoCE, fine, but that's not really an objection. Buffs (talk) 18:31, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note -- clearly we're still at an impasse with this nom so I'll be archiving it shortly; I realise there was a PR earlier this year, continuing any discussion on the article talk page might be another route to a future re-nom. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:48, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Buidhe via FACBot (talk) 23 August 2022 [4].

Elon Musk

[edit]
Nominator(s): ~ HAL333 02:20, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Elon Musk is the 14th most visited article on Wikipedia. This FAC is about about a year and a half in the making, and the article has been a GA since last June. Hopefully this nomination will have its supporters, but I know it already has at least one "oppose". Cheers! ~ HAL333 02:20, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Let us do it! A lot of work has gone into the article. QRep2020 (talk) 02:57, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We don't count a BLP's assessment of their own biography, due to the obvious conflict of interest. (t · c) buidhe 05:48, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I was joking..... ~ HAL333 17:56, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: I respect the amount of effort HAL333 and QRep have put to this article, but I do think that it is a bit of a hasted nomination. Some sections are a bit too short, such as in the "Neuralink" and "The Boring Company" sections. There's also too much short paragraphs that are 1-2 sentences long and a bit of a liberal use of quotations (especially at "Wealth" section). Overall, I think this article is a solid GA, but I think that a bit more work is needed to be done for the article to be of FA-quality. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 04:22, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have expanded the Neuralink and TBM sections. Also, paragraph length is irrelevant unless it impacts comprehensiveness, which I believe it does not. ~ HAL333 18:39, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
After skimming through the "Leadership" and "SpaceX" sections, plus with my concerns above, I don't feel comfortable for the article to get promoted. The SpaceX section focuses way too much at Starlink while not much is talked about Starship, though both have similar level of ambitiousness, while the "Wealth" section is a mess. Prose is not excellent and certainly not featured-quality yet. Sorry to say this, but I suggest a withdrawal to allow more time to polish the article. The article should only be nominated again once everything is absolutely satisfactory. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 14:30, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Steelkamp

[edit]

Will look at this now. Steelkamp (talk) 10:07, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • There are many duplicate links.
Is there a bot I could use to find these? ~ HAL333 17:52, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@HAL333: - click "highlight duplicate links" in the left-hand side bar..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:20, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think you have to install User:Evad37/duplinks-alt.js for that. Steelkamp (talk) 07:24, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Steelkamp: oh OK. I don't recall doing that, so I just assumed it was a feature everyone had. I must have installed it when I was half asleep LOL -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:26, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are a few instances where there are more than three footnotes in a row.
  • many of whom are in states in which he has a vested interest. What does this mean?
He has vested interests (i.e. Tesla and SpaceX assets) in those states/countries. ~ HAL333 17:52, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Musk has also been described as having a "charm offensive" to woo China and its markets for Tesla. How does this go under politics?
  • What is a registered independent? Seems oxymoronic to me, but maybe this is a thing in American politics.
Yeah, in some American states you can register as an independent. I'm one myself. ~ HAL333 17:52, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • In 2022, Musk said that he could "no longer support" the Democrats, ... Do we know the reason he can no longer support the Democrats?
Added. ~ HAL333 17:52, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Musk criticized then-president Donald Trump for his stance on climate change and after joining Trump's two business advisory councils,[304][305][306] Musk resigned from both in 2017 in protest against Trump's decision to withdraw the United States from the Paris Agreement. Prose could be improved.
  • and that COVID-19 were inflated. This sentence doesn't really make sense.
Fixed. QRep2020 (talk) 00:20, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • refused to close the Tesla Fremont factory in March 2020, defying the local shelter-in-place order. In May 2020, he reopened the Tesla factory, defying the local stay-at-home order, and warned workers that they would be unpaid and their unemployment benefits might be jeopardized if they did not report to work. First sentence says the factory did not close, then the next sentence implies that the factory did close at some point. Also, did Musk or Tesla suffer any legal issues as a result of this.
Fixed. And there were no legal issues.
  • Musk eventually bought and donated medical devices that hospitals noted were BiPAP and CPAP machines. Seems like weasle words.
  • In 2012, he announced a divorce from Riley. In 2013, Musk and Riley remarried. In December 2014, he filed for a second divorce from Riley; however, the action was withdrawn. WP:PROSELINE.
  • Musk has made multiple cameos and appearances in films... Change this to Musk has made cameos and appearances in films... Or is this saying he made multiple cameos and appearances in all the following films listed?
  • Link Yale University.
  • Infobox image appears to have no alt text.
All other comments addressed. ~ HAL333 17:52, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Steelkamp have you read the WP:FAC instructions? Why are you using templates like tq? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:08, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I was unaware of that. I've removed those templates. Steelkamp (talk) 02:32, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Guerillero Page Six has been removed, but I'm confused about Wired. Which ones need to be removed? ~ HAL333 01:09, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment

[edit]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 22 August 2022 [5].

Chibi-Robo! Zip Lash

[edit]
Nominator(s): CaptainGalaxy 23:22, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the 2015 video game Chibi-Robo! Zip Lash, which was developed by Skip Ltd. and published by Nintendo for the Nintendo 3DS. The game departs from the series previous entries' 3D adventure genre roots by being a 2D sidescroller instead. The game was developed with the hope that it could save the series; however, fans often cited it as the cause for the death of the series after Zip Lash was a critical and financial failure. I created this article back in 2020 as I was surprised it didn't already have one and have since raised it to be a GA last year. Thanks to a peer review by Panini! and having a copy edit recently finished, now I hope to get it promoted to FA status; as well as get it to become my first article elevated to FA status. CaptainGalaxy 23:22, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose by Lazman321

[edit]

Sorry Captain Galaxy, but this article is not ready for being a featured article. In my spot check, I detected too many verification issues for this article to pass candidacy, along with at least three non-high-quality sources being used in the article. Not to mention, during my spot check, I also noticed other problems in this article such as the atypical first sentence (First sentences in video game articles are often formatted as either "[TITLE] is a [YEAR] [GENRE] game developed by [DEVELOPER] and published by [PUBLISHER]." or "[TITLE] is a [YEAR] [GENRE] game developed and published by [DEVELOPER/PUBLISHER]."), instances of awkward prose (e.g. "Some reviews said the game has underused the levels' surroundings and has 'no real sense of scale' compared to Chibi-Robo's height."), swapping between past and present tense in the reception section, a comma after a semicolon, inconsistency in linking works in citations, etc. This article cannot be considered a featured article by its current condition. Don't feel discouraged though. This certainly has potential, and with enough work, this can become a featured article. I might be willing to take another look at this article if you go through this article again and fix any issues I have raised or you notice. Lazman321 (talk) 23:45, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well over three weeks in, no movement towards a consensus to promote and an outstanding oppose: I am afraid that this one has to be archived. The usual two week rule will apply.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 22 August 2022 [6].

Tahmasp I

[edit]
Nominator(s): Amir Ghandi (talk) 08:09, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about... Tahmasp I, the second (and my favourite) Safavid Shah of Iran. The article has been under copy edit, and I had put it under a peer review (unfortunately, nothing came out of it) but I'm confidant that this article (unlike my other two unsuccessful nominees) is ready to promote as a Featured article. Amir Ghandi (talk) 08:09, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

image review

  • File:Tahmasp_I.png: why is this believed to be CC?
It seems the person who cropped it from the original (which itself was a cropped version from this one), wanted to emphasis that they grant full permission for usage of the image, should I change it?
Yes - a simple crop is unlikely to meet the threshold of originality. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:58, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done
  • File:Khalili_Collection_Islamic_Art_TLS-2714-back.jpg needs a tag for the original work. Ditto File:Iran,_Qazvin,_Safavid_period_-_Shah_Tahmasp_I_(1514-1576)_Seated_in_a_Landscape_-_1917.1078_-_Cleveland_Museum_of_Art.tif, File:Flag_of_Shah_Tahmasp_I.svg, File:Qazvin_-_Chehel_Sotun.jpg, File:Khalili_Collection_Islamic_Art_qur_0729_fol_1b-2a.jpg, File:Coin_of_Tahmasp_I,_minted_in_Shiraz.jpg
Um, I don't really know what the tag for the original work is, can you please give me a link for an image that has one?
Here are a couple of examples from current FACs: File:Sculpture_"Asia"_at_main_entrance_to_Alexander_Hamilton_U.S._Custom_House,_New_York,_New_York_LCCN2010720093.tif and File:Queen_Victoria_proof_double_sovereign_MET_DP100383_(cropped).jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:58, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done, though you might want to take a look to check of I've done anything wrong. Amir Ghandi (talk) 05:23, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Shah_Tahmasp_holding_court,_attributable_to_Mu'in_Musavvir,_Safavid_Isfahan,_circa_1670_A.jpg needs a US tag. Ditto File:Sueleymanname_nahcevan.jpg, File:Elkas_Mirza.jpg, File:Tahmasp,_Humayun_Meeting.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:09, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done Amir Ghandi (talk) 05:04, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

First look by Johnbod

[edit]
  • The article is perhaps rather short for an FA on a 50 year reign.
All major events of his reign are addressed, what remains is some minor events that happened during those major ones. I expended the Georgian campaigns section. But really there's nothing left unsaid about his reign.
  • The English needs touching up.
I enlisted it for a Copy Edit.
  • Lower down, there are overlong paras that need splitting.
Done.
  • My interest and knowledge of T is as a patron of the Persian miniature - until he wasn't. The article doesn't seem to use any refs by art historians except Soudavar (and Canby, not used to ref material on art). "Tahmasp has been called the greatest Safavid patron" is true, but not best referenced to a general historian. Little about major commissions, or the artists he employed.
Expended the section with references to Canby and Marianna Shreve Simpson. Despite searching, I still can't find a source by an art historian that summarises Tahmasp reign. Most of them analyse the works created during this era, which I believe would be too long and somewhat irrelevant for this article.
  • Doesn't seem much on Persia's place in the developing Eurasian strategic balance over this long period.
It seems Tahmap's lasting legacy was more internal than his father before him and his grandson Abbas the Great. Especially regarding the religion and how he changed the Safavid ideology towards one of zealousness.

Johnbod (talk) 16:21, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, @Johnbod:. Just a question, should I wait for more of your comments or should I address these ones? Thanks. Amir Ghandi (talk) 03:20, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Address these, please. Johnbod (talk) 23:33, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Johnbod:, hi, I addressed all of them. Any thoughts? Amir Ghandi (talk) 21:38, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ Streusand 2019, p. 191.
  2. ^ Simpson 2009.
  3. ^ Mitchell 2009b.
  4. ^ Canby 2000, p. 49.

Comments by Dudley

[edit]
  • You should explain what the territory of Iran was then. It was obviously much larger than the modern Iran
Done
  • "painters, calligraphers and poets and painting himself". This is unclear. Do you mean that he was himself a painter or that he painted a self-portrait?
The former; I rephrased it. Amir Ghandi (talk) 04:24, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Tahmasp is known for his religious inclination, allowing the clergy to participate in legal and administrative matters." This is vague. You mean that he was a hardline Shi'ite?

Yes, rephrased the line. Amir Ghandi (talk) 04:24, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Although contemporary Western accounts were critical, modern historians describe him as a courageous and able commander who maintained and expanded his father's empire.[1]" This is referenced and I do not see it in the main text. The standard Wikipedia method is to have referenced statements in the main text and an unreferenced summary in the lead.
The first part is sourced later on the article; but I'll remove the source just in case.
  • "ending the Qizilbash worshiping his father as the of Messiah". This is ungrammatical and confused. Qizilbash should be explained and linked.
Done.
  • "Tahmasp's father, Ismail I, became shah of Iran in 1502". This needs expansion. You need to spell out that he created Iran and who ruled the area before.
Done.
  • "Unlike his ancestors, Ismail believed in Twelver Shia Islam and made it the official religion of the realm." Presumably you mean that his ancestors were Sunnis, but you should say so specifically.
Actually what I meant was Sufism. Done anyways.
  • " The Uzbek victory, during which Najm was executed". He was executed during the battle or afterwards? Executed by the shah or the Uzbeks?
Captured during the battle and then executed. Amend it.
  • "The following year, Ismail appointed the Diyarbakr governor Amir Soltan Mawsillu as Tahmasp's lala (tutor) and governor of Balkh.[16] This was done to replace the Shamlu and Mawsillu governors of Khorasan, who did not join his army during the Battle of Chaldiran in fear of famine.[17] Placing Tahmasp in Herat was an attempt to reduce the growing influence of the Shamlu tribe," This is unclear. Why should an appointment to Balkh replace one to Khorasan and what is the connection with Herat?
Both Balkh and Herat are located in Khorasan.
Done Amir Ghandi (talk) 07:31, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Ismail appointed Div Sultan Rumlu as Tahmasp's lala, and the governorship was given to his younger son Sam Mirza Safavi." How could Sam Mirza be governor when he was only four years old? Presumably the appointment was nominal but then why mention it?
Its important to mention that Sam Mirza was nominally the governor of Khorasan because later on the Regency section of the article, its mentioned that Herat was conquered by Uzbeks but they allowed Sam Mirza safe return to Tabriz.
  • "During the civil war, the Uzbek raiders temporarily seized Tus and Astarabad". Your treatment of the Uzbeks is unclear. You refer here to "the Uzbeks" as if they were a specific faction, but above to a raid by Uzbeks, implying that they were a tribe some of whom launched raids. You do not link Uzbeks at their first mention in the lead. You need to link and explain them there. Presumably they were a tribe living outside Iran, unlike the other factions which were internal to the country?
Every time the Uzbeks are mentioned its regarding the tribes who dwelt in Central Asia and raided Iran. Also, I have linked Uzbeks in the lead in the sentence "Tahmasp also had conflicts with the Uzbeks over Khorasan".
Done; added a whole paragraph in the Background section dedicated to the Safavid and Uzbek conflict. Amir Ghandi (talk) 09:11, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mawsillu is not linked at first mention.
Done.
  • "Hossein Khan raided the camp, killed Chuha and replaced him". What camp? You have not previously refer to one.
Further explained it.
  • "In 1528, Ubayd reconquered Astarabad and Tus". You have not said that they lost it.
The source doesn't say when they lost it, but it said that they temporary seized it. So I guess they either abandoned their seizures and were drove out.
  • "fighting the Habsburgs and the siege of Vienna". As there were several sieges of Vienna and this was not the most famous one, maybe [[Siege of Vienna (1529)|attempting to conquer Vienna]].
Rephrased it to "unsuccessfully attempted to Seize Vienna"
  • "Suleiman sent Olama Beg Takkalu with 50,000 troops under Fil Pasha". Sent him where?
The source says "Olāma Beg Takkalu returned to Persia in 1532 with an Ottoman patron, Fil Pasha, and 50,000 troops." Amended it.
  • "tried to obtain support from Gilan". It would be clearer if you spelled it out as Gilan province.
Done
  • "Suleiman tried to lead another campaign against him. Tahmasp primarily attacked his rearguard" "Suleiman led another campaign against him. Tahmasp attacked his rearguard" woudl be simpler.
Done
  • "These terms, in circumstances favourable to the Safavids, were evidence of a decisive victory by Tahmasp." It is not clear why they were favourable to Tahmasp as, apart from access for pilgrims, you list concessions by him.
Added "Moreover, this treaty enabled Iran to consolidate its forces and resources, while its western provinces were able to recover from war" per this source.
  • "He also had the governor of Tbilisi, Golbad, converted to Islam." This is an odd wording. No one can order conversion if the proposed convert refuses.
Forced conversion exits though.
  • Ditto with "and had Levan of Kakheti swear fealty to him".
Reworded it.
  • "the 1535 appointment of Qazi Jahan Qazvini, who brought diplomacy beyond Iran by establishing contact with the Portuguese". "extended" would be a better word than "brought".
Done
  • "the Shiite dynasties of the Deccan" "the Shiite Deccan sultanates" might be clearer.
Done
  • "With new foreign relations, the first extant Safavid letters to a European power were sent in 1540 to Doge of Venice Pietro Lando with the Venetian ambassador Michel Membré". I would leave out "With new foreign relations" as it says the same as the next phrase. Also, do you mean that there was already a Venetian ambassador at the Safavid court? If so, you should spell this out.
"If so, you should spell this out" Done, explained it further.
  • "since the extent to which his beliefs influenced Safavid religious policy is rooted in Persian Shia Islam." This is ungrammatical and unclear.
Amended it.
  • "and was enough self-aware to not face the Ottomans directly in the battlefield" This is ungrammatical and unclear.
AMended it.
  • " however, his personality would appear in a more favourable light when, in spite of his piety, he would forgo of taxes of about 30,000 tomans as a violation of religious law". This is unclear. Why in spite of his piety? Are you saying that religious law required him to collect the taxes? It is also a personal view, not impartial.
Amended it.
  • The coinage section should be further up, not at the end.
Done
  • I misread it. You seemed to be quoting Roemer, but I see now that you are quoting Mitchell. Quotes should always be attributed inline to a named author e.g. start the note The historian Colin Mitchell writes: "A more appealing explanation... Also, when you have quotes within quotes they should be distinguished by using single quotes " for the whole quote and ' for internal quotes. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:49, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Done Amir Ghandi (talk) 15:01, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note

[edit]

This has been open for four weeks and has yet to pick up a support. Unless it makes considerable movement towards a consensus to promote over the next two or three days I am afraid that it will have to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:16, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 12 August 2022 [7].

Oswald Boelcke

[edit]
Nominator(s): Georgejdorner (talk) 20:21, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about...the progenitor of fighter aviation tactics, Oswald Boelcke. As one of the world's first flying aces, he ran up a string of 40 victories to become the world's leading ace before dying in an accident. As leader of one of the world's original fighter squadrons, he mentored many other aces. He is also considered the father of the German Air Force, which honors his legacy. His manual of tactics is still taught in aviation training.Georgejdorner (talk) 20:21, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]

Given the discussion above I will need to oppose on images. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:47, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • This opposition is unwarranted. NikkiMaria has issues with Wikimedia Commons, which is the source of the article's graphics. She hasn't given any suggestions or guidance for me to improve the situation. There cannot be a fair assessment if it is subject to unwritten rules by whim, but NikkiMaria's oppostion is based on such.
  • How about another assessor stepping in to make an assessment based on actual criteria? I would love the chance to consider suggestions for improvement.Georgejdorner (talk) 23:19, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The relevant criterion is WP:WIAFA#3: Images must follow the image use policy, which specifies that you can prove images claimed to be PD are PD. As noted above, this would require evidence, eg. that an image tagged as life+70 was created by someone who died over 70 years ago. Pinging @FAC coordinators: for input. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:26, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, Nikkimaria is right. The image must be public domain or freely licensed by the copyright holder, AND the licensing must be correct and supported by appropriate evidence. It's not enough to hypothesize that someone probably died long enough ago to make it public domain. (t · c) buidhe 03:32, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not a question of right or wrong. It's a question of my being mystified by my fellow editors. Apparently, I cannot rely on using graphics from Commons for some inexplicable reason(s), but am required to have suitable illustrations. And no one is giving me so much as a hint of a solution.Georgejdorner (talk) 04:30, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The nominator seems to be misunderstanding how the acceptability of an image at FAC, or even on Wikipedia, is decided. Nikkimaria isn't. The guidelines do not seem "mysterious" to me and Nikkimaria seem to have pointed out the most relevant ones and, on a skim, to have interpreted them correctly. Their last comment seems to summarise policy well. Buidhe is more experienced than me in this area and their comment above is a good succinct summary of the situation. Georgejdorner, with apologies for being blunt, you are wrong. Reread the policies and the FAC criteria and see if you can come up with ways of proving the acceptability of the images, or replacing them with acceptable ones. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:51, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Gog. The images need to be provably free to use, or to have good fair use rationales. There are many images on Commons that aren't useable in FAs. (I've actually just done a lot of work into a copyright investigation that has resulted in quite a few CSA navy files getting deleted off of Commons. Hog Farm Talk 16:11, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I assumed in good faith that all Commons images were usable. And, based on my many past assessments, I expected a fair opportunity from other editors to correct any shortcomings before a ruling was made. I even expected I might get a bit of help if needed. I did not expect instant rejection, hostility, and after the fact explanations.
How about a ruling on which of the illustrations are acceptable? That way, I can remove unsuitable ones.Georgejdorner (talk) 19:23, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note

[edit]

Leaving aside the images issue, this has been open for three weeks and has yet to pick up a support. Unless it attracts considerable further attention over the next three or four days I am afraid that it will have to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:49, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If this nomination is archived, does that mean it can never be considered for Feature Article status?Georgejdorner (talk) 20:39, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all George, some featured articles were nominated several times before gaining the bronze star. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:04, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
George, this is going to time out soon. See if you can't round up another reviewer or two. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:35, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie

[edit]

I've copyedited a bit; please revert if you disagree with any of the changes. I can find little to quibble with. Just one question:

  • "World War I having begun on 4 August": per our article, 4 August is the day the Germans invaded Belgium, but war between various participants had already been declared, starting 28 July.

The article seems in excellent shape and I expect to support, perhaps after another read through. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:47, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Many thanks for the copy editing. None of your edits harmed anything, and most were useful. As for the date in question, I deleted it; in its context, it was a mere detail.Georgejdorner (talk) 18:39, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Support. I saw the discussion of images above; if you don't mind a bit of outside advice, I would suggest that you don't wait for a response from an image reviewer, but instead remove anything that you can't be certain is usable. The job of an image reviewer at FAC is only to assess whether the images pass -- they tend to do a lot of image reviewing and aren't necessarily available to help you resolve the problems, but they will point out what the problems are. You're certainly right that it's a pity one can't rely on Commons, but I can assure that's happened to many other FAC nominators -- you just have to shrug and remove the unacceptable images, or, if you're confident that the image is in fact acceptable, you have to be able to show that. Best of luck with this nomination. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:24, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Non sequiturs are not objections. Objections I can answer. Statements repeating information I have already read...what's to answer?
      I felt as though I walked against the grain into a revolving door and got slapped in the face. And I didn't even know the door was there.Georgejdorner (talk) 21:34, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Buidhe via FACBot (talk) 9 August 2022 [8].

Nuremberg trials

[edit]
Nominator(s): (t · c) buidhe 01:43, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think you probably know what the article is about! This million-level article will likely be the second to last FAC from me for quite a while assuming it meets with your approval. I want to thank Ealdgyth and Dhtwiki for helping get the article FAC ready. (t · c) buidhe 01:43, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Suggest adding alt text
  • File:RIAN_archive_2251_Destroyed_Stalingrad_does_not_give_up.jpg: source link is dead
  • File:Men_with_an_unidentified_unit_execute_a_group_of_Soviet_civilians_kneeling_by_the_side_of_a_mass_grave.jpg: when and where was this first published? Ditto File:Monowitz_prisoners_unload_cement_from_trains_for_IG_Farben.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:32, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • For both of these the source says it's public domain and notes "Source Record ID: 338-Cases Tried--box 514--file 000-21-2"—indicating it was evidence in a case, and therefore published during a trial. (The second one is actually "I.G. Farben Case, Def. Ex. 10", so it was known to be an exhibit in the IG Farben trial). (t · c) buidhe 03:53, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Brigade Piron

[edit]

Buidhe has done a great job with this article and has improved it hugely. I do have some comments, however, which I think are worth considering:

  • I think there is possibly too much emphasis on the Soviet perspective at the expense of the Americans and, in particular, the British and smaller European allies. I understand the reliance on Hirsch but this does not reflect, as far as I understand it, the scholarly "mainstream" view.
    • I can see how it might seem unbalanced at first glance, but the reality is that the four organizing powers did not play an equal role. I had to cite a second-tier source (Tusa & Tusa) in order to cover basically anything of the British prosecution case due to dearth of sources. I think the French section already covers the main points and other countries played only a negligible role in the trial. If there is a section that needs expanding, it is probably the American one, but I'm not really sure what additional information if any the reader would benefit from in that section. (t · c) buidhe 06:45, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not sure I understand. If the coverage is imbalanced, that is a problem in its own right isn't it? My understanding of the scholarly consensus is that the Nuremberg trials were, in effect, an Anglo-American project and driven, as you say, by the Americans. It is good that we cover the Soviet aspect in line with revisionist scholarship but this should not distract from the main point. For the British, can you access this? On the contribution of smaller states, see this. —Brigade Piron (talk) 10:35, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm going to try to access the Musa source. None of the general sources that I counsulted indicated a significant role of Poland so I am skeptical of WP:DUE in this article. (t · c) buidhe 17:32, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        To add to this, it's not doubted that Poland was important to the UNWCC. Fleming's book would be a good source in that article, but the UNWCC was of limited importance to the Nuremberg trial (t · c) buidhe 04:56, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think some detail on the pre-war legal context would be helpful. In particular, there is plenty of discussion of the influence of the Leipzig trial in reliable sources. A basic introduction to the context of the law of war would be helpful (considering the context of 19th century attempts to limit the severity of conflict and, for example, regulate military occupations) - remembering that our readers will be interested in the law as well as the history.
    • Not sure about this. The Leipzig trials had some indirect influence for example pushing some to support an international trial while making the British skeptical of a judicial solution. However, I believe that mentioning the trials without other factors that were more important according to RS would be undue weight. Whereas discussing all the relevant factors would lead the background section to become bloated (see Sellars chapter 2 for the full story). I think I should slightly expand information about law of war + crimes against humanity in the legal basis section, which I will try to do over the next few days. (t · c) buidhe 06:45, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • What other factors do you mean were more important? On the point about the French, the opposition to the common law concept of conspiracy is notable and, unless I have missed it, currently omitted. —Brigade Piron (talk) 10:34, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        According to Priemel the conspiracy charge was promoted by US and not popular with the other three powers. This is already covered in the article. As for factors that were important, according to Sellars motives behind the British stance included avoiding another fiasco like Leipzig, but above and beyond that concern that trials would impede the process of restoring order in Europe (more specifically, that trials could lead to lynching). Many of their legal advisors believed that existing international law was insufficient to the task. If we cover all of this, that would seem to me to be disproportionate emphasis on the British motives (considering that they were not the primary mover behind the trials anyway). In the whole chapter Leipzig is only mentioned once, in relation to the British motive. Priemel also briefly mentions that some legal experts supported an international trial to avoid having defeated states try their own nationals, but it's a very brief mention among a lot of other factors. (t · c) buidhe 04:41, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I personally think the two pictures in the "origins" section could be dispensed with or, at least, reduced to a single image better integrated with the text. At the moment, they merely seem to illustrate themes in the wartime period and the captions do not tie them in. Remember that "Images must be significant and relevant in the topic's context, not primarily decorative." (MOS:PERTINENCE)
    • I am also strongly against irrelevant images but disagree that these images are irrelevant.
      • Can you explain it? What do they add except as generic depictions of war damage and mass killing? At the least, one is sufficient unless they are tied in explicitly with the text. —Brigade Piron (talk) 10:34, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it not worth saying something about the conceptual origins of crimes against humanity (as the article currently does about crimes against peace)? Hersch Lauterpacht and Raphael Lemkin probably deserve a mention in a footnote at the very least (it is embarrassing that we do not have an article for Murray C. Bernays!)
  • I also think that Reaching Judgment at Nuremberg (1977) should be cited somewhere (it is old but described as essential reading as recently as 2020).

Many thanks, and well done on the improvements already made! —Brigade Piron (talk) 20:02, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm closing this as withdrawn because I really don't have the time to work on it now. The usual 2-week period will apply.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Archived_nominations/August_2022&oldid=1107685170"