Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/March 2024

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) 31 March 2024 [1].

---

Narwhal

Nominator(s): Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 16:37, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

This article is about the narwhal (Monodon monoceros), the closest living relatives of beluga whales. I made some improvements to the article and addressed concerns from the first FAC and second peer review. As is well known, the left jaw of narwhals contains a very long canine tooth. This gives narwhals their distinctive appearance. Because they spend most of the year on the Arctic ice, narwhals are challenging to photograph. I'm not sure why I chose narwhals over all other cetaceans, but something seemed to be driving me, perhaps because they're so unique among cetaceans and I think they'll make a fantastic addition to the mammal list. Regards and thanks for your time. Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 16:37, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Jens

I can only repeat what I said in the last FAC and at the Peer Review – I do not think that that the "European" (now "Alicorn") section meets the FA criteria. It partly relies on a journalist's article (Washington Post) when high-quality scholarly sources are available, to cite information that is contradicted by those scholarly articles (which are cited in the same section). "Alicorn" as section title is too specific, since half of the section is about Vikings. Overall, the section is not comprehensive per FA criteria; the cited sources provide much more, they just need to be incorporated properly. The second paragraph picks some aspects but fails to deliver the big picture in a systematic way. I already said most of those things at the Peer Review. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:23, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

I apologize, but I don't understand what you're saying. All right, let me describe the section so it can be easy to make it FA quality. In the Middle Ages, Europeans thought narwhal tusks were unicorn horns. Thus, the trade is thought to have started about 1,000 AD, when Norsemen and Vikings exchanged them with Europeans. Due its supposed magical powers, the horns were employed for medical purposes as well as gifts to wealthy individuals. However, in the late 1600s, science refuted the unicorn horn notion. Therefore, the Vikings and Norsemen deceived Europeans into believing that narwhal tusks were unicorn horns for a very long time. And I used the Washington Post for the quote. That's all the valuable information the sources had to offer. I hope we are clear. Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 22:39, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Did you read the scholarly sources you cite in that section in detail? For example, what do they say about the origin of the horns (where did the Vikings get them from), and where is the discrepancy with your article? "That's all the valuable information the sources had to offer" – sorry, but no – and again, did you read those sources? Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:54, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

The statements I added are just speculations. One citation stated, "Surprisingly, the question of the origin of the narwhal tusk that circulated in Europe has never been the object of a thorough investigation." Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 06:49, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

And what about the extensive discussion on the question that this very source provides? I can understand that you might not be interested in the culture section and don't want to spend time on those sources, but it doesn't help, without reading them you cannot fix that section. Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:00, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Alright, then tomorrow. I swear I'm never doing this FAC thing again once I get narwhal featured. Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 17:56, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

@Jens Lallensack: Added some more. The source was mainly talking about the theory around Norsemen whale-hunters. Going to sleep now. Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 00:28, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Comments by TompaDompa

I don't intend to do a thorough review, but I'm going to oppose this on (chiefly) prose quality at the moment. A non-exhaustive sample of issues I noted while reading through the article follows:

• "The narwhal typically visits the Baffin Bay, between June and September." — the Baffin Bay? That sounds off to me. Also, why the comma?
  • Fixed
• "The narwhal has been harvested for hundreds of years" – "harvested" seems like an odd word choice.
  • Fixed
• "The narwhal has been depicted in human culture since ancient times." – has it? I don't find this in the body.
  • Removed
• "he accurately designated it as "Monocerote"" – accurately? The meaning of this is not clear to me.
  • Fixed
• "derived from Greek μόνον-δόντι μόνον-κέρατο" – should be transliterated. See MOS:NOTLATIN.
  • Fixed
• "a body length of 3.5 to 5.5 m (11 to 18 ft), excluding the tusk. Males average 4.1 m (13.5 ft) in length; females average 3.5 m (11.5 ft)" – it seems peculiar that the lower bound for the species should equal the female average. Is this correct?
  • Fixed
• "The tail flukes of female narwhals have a sweep-back in the front edges and those of males lack such a characteristic; their tail flukes are curved inwards." – does "their" refer to males or all narwhals?
  • Fixed
• "Its skeletal muscle is designed to withstand" – certainly not. Adapted, perhaps.
  • Fixed
• "a single long tusk, which is in fact a canine tooth" – "in fact"?
  • Fixed
• "forms a left-handed helical spiral" – what is meant by "helical spiral" here—a conical spiral? I tried looking at the cited source to see if that clarifies anything, but I didn't find either "helix"/"helical" or "spiral" there (and only two mentions of "tusk", neither of which say anything about the shape).
  • Removed
    • Okay, but now we have no description of the tusk's shape. The tusks of other species come in various different shapes, so this seems like a rather egregious oversight, especially considering the tusk is the narwhal's "most conspicuous characteristic", as the article says. An image of a tusk is not sufficient; readers who cannot view images, such as those using screen readers, should also get information about the tusk's shape. TompaDompa (talk) 17:15, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
• "The purpose of the narwhal tusk is debated." – "purpose" seems a dubious choice of word. I would use "function".
  • Fixed
• "The narwhal's mouth is toothless; it instead has several small vestigial teeth" – not really toothless, then?
  • Fixed
• "Dive times can also vary in time and depth" – times can vary in time?
  • Fixed
• "in spite of the fact that water depths in these areas are typically deeper" – "in spite of the fact" is typically a needlessly intracte phrasing, and depths being deeper is somewhat repetitive.
  • Fixed
• "which then causes narwhals to subsequently alter their foraging strategies" – "then [...] subsequently" is redundant.
  • Fixed
• "Large quantities of Boreo-Atlantic armhook squid (Gonatus fabricii) were discovered, but this feeding likely occurred outside the summer." – the significance of that last part is not immediately clear to me.
  • Removed
• "averaging 1.5 m (4.9 ft) in length and white or light grey in colour" – I'm guessing "averaging" only refers to the length and not the colour, in which case it would be better to swap this around.
  • Fixed
• "Their reproductive lives on the other hand, remained stagnant." – the meaning of this is not clear to me. This comes in the context of menopause, so I'm guessing it has something to do with that (reproduction of course ceases after menopause)?
  • Fixed
• "while those used for echolocation typically falls between 19 and 48 hertz" – subject–verb disagreement.
  • Fixed
• "Lifespan and mortality" – an odd word choice, methinks; obviously narwhals are not immortal.
  • Renamed
• "Breathing holes in the ice may be up to 1,450 m (4,760 ft) apart, which limits the use of foraging grounds" – "limits the use of foraging grounds"?
  • Yes, the sea ice limits the movement of narwhals, as they need these breathing holes to stay alive. It's like a water source in a desert, you have to be close to it to have a good chance at survival.
    • I understand that they need to stay near the breathing holes. What is confusing to me is the phrasing "limits the use of foraging grounds". TompaDompa (talk) 17:15, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
• "Several cases of sea entrapment were recorded in 2008–2010, during the Arctic winter, including in some places where such events have never been recorded." – had never been recorded before, presumably.
  • Fixed
• "off the waters of Svalbard" – off the waters? Not "in the waters off [the coast of] Svalbard"?
  • Fixed
• "Inuit are able to hunt this whale species legally." – "this whale species" is something of an odd choice of phrasing, and "legally" would seem to imply some sort of significance that is not elaborated upon further.
  • Fixed
• "They are extremely difficult to encroach, and make tricky catches for hunters." – "tricky" is a bit informal.
  • Fixed
• "Almost all parts of the narwhal; the meat, skin, blubber and organs are consumed." – I would say that the semicolon should be a regular colon, but that wouldn't work with how the sentence ends. Surrounding the list with dashes would probably be the best option.
  • Fixed
• I generally don't mind duplicate links much, but there is at least no reason to link harpoon in consecutive paragraphs. There are some other duplicate links that are borderline.
  • Fixed
• "approximately 1,000 AD." – years are not written with a thousands separator (see MOS:BADDATEFORMAT), and "AD" is unnecessary when there are no BC(E) dates.
  • Fixed
• "Hadley Meares, a historian, quoted "The trade strengthened during the Middle Ages, when the unicorn became a symbol of Christ, and therefore an almost holy animal"." – rather unusual way of using the verb "quote".
  • Fixed
• "The price tag of tusks were said to be a couple of hundred times greater than its value in gold per kg." – does "its value in gold per kg" mean "its weight in gold"? If so, just say that.
  • Fixed
• "After being proven that narwhal tusks were antithetical to actual antidotes" – anacoluthon.
  • Fixed

Regrettably, TompaDompa (talk) 22:55, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

@TompaDompa: Fixed all, please have another look. Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 00:24, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Like UndercoverClassicist below, I provided what was from the outset an explicitly non-exhaustive sample of issues, do not wish to get stuck in a WP:FIXLOOP, and stand by my opposition as I think the article still has a ways to go. TompaDompa (talk) 17:15, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

UC

With some trepidation, I am also an oppose for now on prose quality and general polish. This list is not exhaustive but is, hopefully, representative:

• The narwhal is white in color: this isn't really true, since most of the white is covered by markings: you may as well say that labradors are pale pink.
  • Fixed
• and is only vulnerable to predatory attacks from polar bears and orcas: and humans!
  • Added
• The narwhal typically visits Baffin Bay between June and September. After this period, it moves... this sounds as if there's only one of these things. At best, the use of the singular here is archaic.
  • Fixed
• It is mostly found... At the start of a new paragraph, the antecedent should be repeated. There are several examples of this problem throughout.
  • Fixed
• is derived from Greek monódonto monókero,: per least surprise, "Greek" should be "Ancient Greek" (we expect that link to go to the modern Greek language): secondly, transliterated Greek should be given in a transliteration template, thirdly, this isn't (correct) Ancient Greek, or indeed modern Greek. It also isn't given in the cited source.
  • Fixed
• The tusk cannot serve a critical function for the animal's survival, as females—which generally do not have tusks—typically live longer than males. Therefore, it is generally accepted that the primary function of the narwhal tusk is associated with reproduction: therefore is inappropriate here (the second postulate doesn't follow from the first). Secondly, the narwhal's tusk might have a role in sexual selection or similar, but giving it a role in reproduction would be extremely painful.
  • Fixed
• The narwhal has several small vestigial teeth that mainly reside in open tooth sockets which are situated in the upper jaw.: what does mainly mean or modify here?
  • Removed
• Narwhals typically travel further north, to the Baffin Bay between June and September. : the missing comma after Baffin Bay aside, this whole section is very confusing: we've suggested that various populations of narwhals "reside" in different places, but now have them moving en masse in a cyclical pattern between several different places.
  • Explained. See the map in Baffin Bay and Davis Strait.
• calf numbers varied from 0.05% to 5% of the total numbering from 10,000 to 35,000 narwhals, indicating that higher calf counts may reflect calving and nursery habitats in favourable inlets.: this does not indicate that at all: the latter is a hypothesis developed to explain the former.
  • Fixed
• In a 2024 study, scientists concluded that 5 species of Odontoceti evolved menopause to acquire higher overall longevity. Their reproductive lives on the other hand, did not increase or decrease.: this needs a bit of explaining: were pre-menopause whales simply stopping having calves after a certain age, despite retaining the capacity to have them?
  • By "reproductive lives" we mean the period when narwhals are able to conceive.
• The tusks were then displayed in cabinets of curiosities: what does then mean here, and why is tusks plural -- which tusks does this cover, exactly?
  • Fixed
• in addition to the purification of polluted water in nature,: this clause makes very little sense to me.
  • Rephrased
• narwhal tusks were antithetical to actual antidotes: likewise, what does this mean -- it should mean that narwhal tusks somehow stop actual antidotes from working.
  • Fixed
• a growing fetish for the supposed powers of unicorn horns: this is not the right WP:TONE for an encyclopaedia (see especially the term "fetish").
  • Fixed
• Hadley Meares, a historian, quotes: quotes whom?
  • Fixed

I can see that work has gone into the article since its last FAC, but I'm afraid it isn't there yet. It really needs a good review and, I'd suggest, the assistance of an experienced mentor in the preparation stage. I am, of course, open to reviewing this vote, but it will require the article as a whole to be fixed, not only the examples I have picked out here. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 16:47, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

I fail to see how fixing the entire article will make you change your mind, if I'm being completely honest. Rather than on the first day, it would have been better if you had objected on the seventh or whatever. And two opposes in a single day—well, I'll see what I can accomplish. Let me just play COD now. Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 18:00, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

@UndercoverClassicist: Took your advice and "polished" the article prose. How's it looking so far? Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 11:03, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't have a quarrel with most of what's been done above: as I said before, though, the list I gave was a representative sample rather than exhaustive. In the interests of avoiding WP:FIXLOOP, I'll refrain from throwing you another set: I can only repeat my suggestion that the whole article could really benefit from a through look-through, and that it would probably help if that were done with a second pair of non-expert eyes. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 11:46, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Draken Bowser

I enjoyed the read and have no major concerns.

• "..which are typically slow-twitched, allowing for slow yet manoeuvrable motion." The difference between fast- and slow-twitch muscle fibres is explosiveness vs. endurance. While slow is true, stamina should also be stressed.
• "Females, who usually do not have tusks, usually live longer than males.." Remove to avoid repetition, or replace.
• "One or two vertebrae per animal are used for tools and art." Why just one or two? Is their anatomy peculiar or is there a custom of leaving the rest?
• "..entrapment affected around 600 narwhals.." Sounds like a statement of fact. Perhaps it should be rephrased as the number of whales discovered?
• "It is currently unclear how far sea ice changes pose a danger to narwhals." I prefer "to what extent".
• ".. in one case killing up to dozens of narwhals in a single attack." I'd prefer phrasing this as a known limit of a range rather than as an example.

Since the FA-process wisely puts the emphasis on tangible criticism rather than tallying supports I know it's not worth much, but you have my support. Regards. Draken Bowser (talk) 18:09, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. I appreciate it. Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 21:56, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Just to pick a nit, I think you want "twitch", not "twitched". I don't know what the official grammar rule is, but I've always heard it as "twitch". RoySmith (talk) 17:06, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Coordinator comment

Three reviewers feel that the prose is not up to FAC standard. (IMO they are correct, it - still - isn't.) There seems little chance of a consensus to promote being reached without extensive changes, and FAC is not the place for that. I am therefore archiving this. The usual two-week hiatus will apply. I would suggest a visit to GoCER, and perhaps at the article's next visit to PR waiting until reviewers there feel it is ready for FAC before nominating it. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:56, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:56, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

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) 31 March 2024 [2].

---

Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie

Nominator(s): All the Best! Otuọcha (talk) 10:07, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

This article is about Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie, a Nigerian writer, novelist, poet, essayist and statesman. She mostly dominates the use of Igbo in some of her works, like Purple Hibiscus, Americanah, and so many. Relatively, the author has aired so many talks on education, fashion, and feminism.

I started working on this article till it became a GA. It's quite non figurative to say, "African articles are rarely FA". It's best I nominate this for FA, haven met FA criteria. All the Best! Otuọcha (talk) 10:07, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Comments from SusunW

Putting a placemarker here. I am a bit hip deep in real world stuff (101F/38.3C temps and no water. Plumber has the house in disarray searching for the problem, etc. etc. etc.) but will try to get to this, this week. Thank you for your work on Adichie. SusunW (talk) 19:54, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Lede

• "in postcolonial feminist literature" seems like odd phrasing. One cannot be inside the boundaries of literature. Suggest "of".
  • Done
• "Along with" would perhaps better be phrased as "Following" or "After" since they weren't simultaneously published.
  • Done
• "She moved to the United States…" is a really long sentence. Suggest breaking it into two sentences.
  • Done
• Subject/verb agreement is off in "Most of her works…delves", i.e. works delve.
  • Done
• correct spelling "marrige"
  • Done

Early life and background

• Comma needed after 1977
  • Done
• Where was she born? The Nation says Abba, Anambra state in Nigeria, which is in the lede, but Luebering's article for Britannica says in Enugu. Looking at various sources, the weight of the evidence[3][4][5] is that she was born in Enugu and her father was born in Abba. Add it in the body with curated sources and change it in the lede. (I would eliminate The Nation as a source, as we have better high-quality sources)
  • Done: eliminated The Nation too
• Her mother's maiden name of Odigwe should be given, i.e. (née Odigwe) and cited to the obit in This Day.
  • Done
• While looking for high-quality sources for her place of birth, I discovered this source, which gives a discussion about her name and where it came from. From reading it, it seems evident that Amanda N. Adichie was her English name, not a pen name and that "Chimamanda" was created by the author herself in the 1990s.
  • Done
• first use of Nsukka should be linked.
• Remove duplicate links for University of Nigeria.
  • Done
• Neither The Nation nor Luebering give any description of Nsukka or who populates it. If you are going to include this information it needs to be sourced. I am also unclear why you don't simply state that her parents were Igbo, since the biographies all say that.
  • Done: removed relatively all Nsukka
• "James graduated from the University College, Ibadan and thus, met Grace", lose thus, but more importantly, how do we know that's where they met? It is unsourced. His obit confirms he went there, but her obit says she studied at Merit College, in California and later at the University of Nigeria, Nsukka.
  • Done
• "After the declaration for secession" is a phrase, it has no subject or verb and I am completely confused as to what this has to do with the parents' employment. Perhaps a new paragraph is in order?
  • Done: not keep worthy also
• "It will mostly affect", it what? I am very confused by the text from "After the declaration" to "resumed teaching in the campus" and also note that none of it is cited to any source. Are you meaning that "When Chukwuemeka Odumegwu Ojukwu declared secession of Biafra from Nigeria in May, 1967,[6] Enugu became the capital of the short-lived state"? How do you dethrone a village? People are enthroned, but are villages? Are you meaning the village was left leaderless after the death of Nzeogwu? The army – what army, i.e. Nigerian or Biafran? I am assuming you mean to say that "the university staff was forced to leave when the (which one?) army took possession of the campus"? If that is correct, I would end that sentence there and start a new one, "After they left, the troops burnt…research works)." Then start another sentence "It was rebuilt" (by creative professions is unnecessary). How does one "free a war"? Do you mean after the war ended? Or that he "fled during the war"? Where was he during the war? Was he married before, during, or after the war? Seems likely before or during, so where was the family?
• The next two paragraphs are unsourced. And while the final paragraph in this section is sourced, it refers to a minute in an audio recording to which the program description page has no link.

My overall impression from beginning this review is that the article is not yet ready for FA. I would strongly suggest that you withdraw it and submit it for [[7]]. If you choose not to do that and prefer to continue here, I am willing to continue reviewing the rest of the article here, but the coordinators may not prefer that method. She is a significant Nigerian author and I think that it is important that we get the article to the highest possible standard. Please ping me when you have decided which approach you prefer. (Note 2 U's no A) SusunW (talk) 22:51, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

@SusunW: I have decided to withdraw it and re-nominate after peer review. All the Best! Otuọcha (talk) 07:47, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Gog the Mild can you do what needs to be done to withdraw the article so that Otuọcha can take it for more in-depth work at peer review? Thanks! SusunW (talk) SusunW (talk) 12:49, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Will do. As Susun says, a visit to PR should be helpful. If you can find a mentor, which I realise isn't easy, that would also help. The usual two-week hiatus will apply. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:52, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Image review

• Don't use fixed px size

• Make sure all images have alt text

• File:Chimamanda_creative_writing_workshop.JPG: source link is dead

• File:Bookbits_-_2009-08-13_Chimamanda_Ngozi_Adichie-The_Thing_Around_Your_Neck.vorb.oga: don't see given license at source link? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:48, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: I have corrected those fixed px used. All images have "alt" text. For the file, check the page; have archived source, see also [8]. All the Best! Otuọcha (talk) 01:19, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: I was also thinking of that, and to avoid probs. For now, I have removed the file: File:Bookbits_-_2009-08-13_Chimamanda_Ngozi_Adichie-The_Thing_Around_Your_Neck.vorb.oga. Thanks for the review and do well to add other problems. All the Best! Otuọcha (talk) 01:29, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Draken Bowser

Thanks for taking the time to write and polish the article of this prolific Nigerian writer. I unfortunately have two major issues with the article, which I think would take some time to correct.

Firstly, the biography-section is mostly a list of releases and their aftermath. I would like to know more about the writing process leading up to each book. Does she chip away at her drafts slowly or finish them obsessively? Did she conduct interviews or dig into archives for research? Did she go back across the Atlantic to reminisce and set the mood before getting to work? Also, I think the section should be padded with more sentences concerning her life that are not directly tied to her books.

• • Done: fixed per your review

Secondly, I'm missing a section discussing her body of work in its entirety. In an FA-level article on a writer there would usually be a section on overarching themes and writing style based on academic sources. You have started such a section under "Influences and legacy", but it needs to be more comprehensive.

• • Done: fixing more sources

Finally, a few minor suggestions:

• Lead: Add "..which took the lives of both of her grandfathers and was a major theme of Purple Hibiscus and Half of a Yellow Sun." Also maybe change to "She cautions against.."
  • Done: placed on Lead after! (2nd paragraph)
• Education: remove the honorary degrees here, they are essentially awards.
  • Done. Already discussed in the "Award" section. All the Best! Otuọcha (talk) 23:45, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
• Lectures: I'd remove the last quote on Beyoncé under "We should all be feminists". I don't think it's necessary, she endorses B in the previous quote already.
  • Done: saw that also. All the Best! Otuọcha (talk) 02:02, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Best regards. Draken Bowser (talk) 18:24, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

I've been pondering the quotes from critics and scholars in response to her book releases. I think such quotes make more sense in articles on individual novels (or other creative works), where a few can be selected to "represent" the critical reception. The space is much more limited in a biography article and it is likely better to use sources that attempt to summarize the response, and write standard prose. To the extent that there should be quotes from critics and scholars placing them in the section on influences, themes and style, seems more appropriate. Draken Bowser (talk) 20:47, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

• • Ok. Will be doing that right away

For the record, my thinking is along the lines of SusunW. You're improving the article at a remarkable pace! Still, I think it would make a lot of sense to temporarily withdraw, work on the article for as long as you need to address our concerns, and return for another nomination. If you agree, feel free to contact me when you re-nominate. I'd be happy to pick up where we left of. Draken Bowser (talk) 00:21, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

@Draken Bowser:Thanks and will do that. All the Best! Otuọcha (talk) 07:48, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been withdrawn, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:53, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

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) 30 March 2024 [9].

---

Shovel Knight: Specter of Torment

Nominator(s): The Night Watch (talk) 23:39, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

This article is about the second of three downloadable content expansions for Shovel Knight. If you have participated in the video gaming scene since 2014 onwards, you may have heard of Shovel Knight or witnessed his many cameo appearances ranging from independent titles like Katana Zero, to behemoth blockbuster games such as Super Smash Bros. Ultimate. I can affirm that Shovel Knight deserves some of this attention; It has pitch-perfect platforming and is a source of pure nostalgia. Truly the complete package for retrogamers. Specter of Torment would be like the Ninja Gaiden to Shovel Knight's Mega Man, and is an easier but nonetheless fun experience. Inspired by the work done on BioShock 2: Minerva's Den, let's see if I can make a Four Award out of this article. The Night Watch (talk) 23:39, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Support from Vami

Quid pro quo. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 01:07, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Image review

Easy pass. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 01:54, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Source review

All sources reliable. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 01:54, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Spot-check - pass

• [1]: Errors detected. All other instances good.
  • This article does not mention the Darkness meter.

Replaced with USgamer

• • GameSpot said that the game replicated much of what made the original Shovel Knight excellent, At no point does the article use the words "replicated" or "excellent", which is itself non-neutral.

Included in the beginning of the third to last paragraph.

• [2]: Ditto.
  • Neither this nor [1] mention that Specter of Torment is a side-scroller.

Replaced with other source

• • Neither this nor [1] mention that killing enemies fills the Darkness meter.

Replaced with USgamer source

• • Shacknews said that some players would dislike the lack of scale The article uses "scope", not "scale".

Changed

• [3]: All good here.
• [4]: Error detected. All other instances good.
  • GameRevolution felt that the platforming was difficult to understand because it relied upon complicated movement, and felt overall inferior to the original Shovel Knight's. Article notes that the platforming may be hard to learn, but does not call it "inferior" to Shovel Knight.

In the third paragraph of the "Phantom Menace" section, the author says that he prefers the original's style of platforming to Specter of Torment's.

• [5]: All good here.
• [6]: Ditto.
• [7]: Ditto.
• [8]: Ditto.
• [9]: Ditto.
• [10]: Ditto.
• [11]: Ditto.
• [12]: Ditto.
• [13]: Ditto.
• [14]: Ditto.
• [15]: Ditto.
• [16]: Ditto.
• [17]: Ditto.
• [18]: All good here but you should disclose that this is written in Polish.
• [19]: All good here.
• [20]: Ditto.
• [21]: Ditto.
• [22]: Ditto.
• [23]: Ditto.

All matters addressed. I am pleased to support now. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 08:46, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Comments

• "his master, the Enchantress" - presumably the Enchantress is female? In which case she is his mistress, not his master
• Screen shot caption needs a full stop
• "permits him to temporarily float while mid-air" => "permits him to temporarily float while in mid-air"
• "memories of his former life: Before dying" - not a new sentence so no need for capital B
• "causing the floor beneath them to collapse and killing Luan" => "causing the floor beneath them to collapse, killing Luan"
• "back in 2013" - just "in 2013" is fine
• "Among the stretch goals were the addition" => "Among the stretch goals was the addition" (addition is a singular noun)
• "whether the player would move in upward or downward" => "whether the player would move upward or downward"
• "made Curios feel like power-ups rather than as new abilities" => "made Curios feel like power-ups rather than new abilities"
• "and designed many of these rooms" => "and designed many of the rooms"
• "what possible movements that the player would take" => "what possible movements the player would take"
• "The team planned and designed the rooms using cyclical formula" - should be either "The team planned and designed the rooms using a cyclical formula" or "The team planned and designed the rooms using cyclical formulae", depending whether more than one formula was involved
• "but said that other were too similar" => "but said that others were too similar"
• That's what I got! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:14, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you again @ChrisTheDude I believe that I have addressed your comments! The Night Watch (talk) 00:42, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:23, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Elias

Trying to expand my reviewing purview by looking at video game FACs. There is a first-timer whom I am helping and who has their own video game FAC here, so a go at it would be appreciated. of course the "qpq not obligated" caveat applies as always :) will be back with comments ‍ ‍ Elias 🌊 ‍ ‍ ^{💬 "Will you call me?"}
_{📝 "Will you hang me out to dry?"} 00:21, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Misc

• Tighten the prose by cutting words from the following.
  • "of" from "jump off of them"
    • Some instances of this remain
  • "began" from "began development of" -> using "began ... of" is redundant semantically, so do "developed Specter..." instead
  • "decided to" from "decided to completely overhaul" and "they decided to redesign all of them" -> same logic as above
  • "reviewers" from "though some reviewers"
  • "the original" from "As with the original Shovel Knight, players can..."
  • if Curios are similar to Relics in that both are powered with darkness, cut "and are" from "and are powered using a resource.." this also fixes the ambiguity
    • Yet to be addressed

  The Relics are not powered using darkness, so I kept as-is}

  That clears things up. thanks! - e.

  • "in" from "while in mid-air"
    • Yet to be addressed
  • Rewrite to "Green Skull for regaining health, Judgment Rush for teleporting through walls, and Hover Plume for temporarily floating while mid-air" .
  • The comma from "Ocarina of Time, and Ninja Gaiden Black"
  • comma + second "were" from "were recreated as Curios, and were designed"
  • change "intended for a consistent..." to "wanted a consistent..."
  • "back" from "reverted back to"
  • "all" from "all the gameplay concepts"
  • "to be" from "found the platforming to be challenging", "found the levels to be similar", "found the new levels to be familiar", "the bosses to be easier than in...", and "found the game to be too short"
    • the "found..." phrase structure appears pretty close to each other, so vary it a bit
  • "[comma] and" from "felt that the platforming [...], and felt overall inferior"
    • The relevant sentence still needs some tweaking. see below
  • "into" from "helped make Specter Knight into a complex character"
  • "noting from "it was the best story in the series and demonstrated how Yacht Club Games had improved its writing, despite noting its short length"
    • move the "short length" bit to after the "best story" bit; right now it seems like the "short length" descriptor is referring to YCG's improved writing
• MOS:CONFORMTITLE tells us video game titles and publication names should be italicized in the |title parameter of references

Gameplay

• "Specter Knight features a different moveset than the Shovel Knight character focused on mobility: he can run up walls, jump off of them, and attack enemies with his scythe." this wording is ambiguous. clarify that the character who runs up walls etc. etc. is the spectre knight by rewriting it to "and focuses more on mobility"
• readers would better understand the "shovel knight character" is from the previous game if it were written to "Shovel Knight's protagonist"

Plot

• this one's good

Development

• change "an inventory similar to the original Shovel Knight" to "...similar to the original Shovel Knight's" because you are comparing it to the game's inventory, not the game itself
• any reason why treasure in "treasure, shortcuts, and rewards" is singular unlike the other items on the list ?
• Add a comma after 2016 per MOS:DATEFORMAT
• "...purchased the original game. The game..." there's ambiguity. change "the game" to "Specter of Torment"

Reception

• "saying" is grammatically parallel to "highlighting", so remove the comma before "and saying". the current sentence structure stands as "found the platforming challenging [...] and saying" which implies "found" and "saying" are parallel verbs, which they are not
• "The reviewer said that the game was another entry in a great franchise" whos the reviewer exactly ?

All I got for now . the article is very, very well-written! most of my issues involve concision, which should be pretty easy to address. hope my comments were of help . ‍ ‍ Elias 🌊 ‍ ‍ ^{💬 "Will you call me?"}
_{📝 "Will you hang me out to dry?"} 01:26, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you Your Power! I believe that I have addressed your comments. The Night Watch (talk) 20:25, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

@Your Power just a nudge :). The Night Watch (talk) 21:15, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

My apologies for not attending to this sooner @The Night Watch! i wrote on my talk page earlier that I had big events happening at my school last weekend, so my editing capacities were limited. now that i am back, allow me to do another sweep

• there is still one instance of "jump off of" in the article
• perhaps pipe the entire phrase "jump off them" to Wall jump instead of just "jump" to avoid an WP:EASTEREGG situation
• some "original Shovel Knight" -s can be simplified to just "original game" or "Shovel Knight", where doing so would not create ambiguity
  • compare w/ "objects not featured in earlier Shovel Knight titles [...] developers considered Plague of Shadows and the original Shovel Knight too similar visually", where i think the phrasing is necessary to disambiguate, vs "As part of the Kickstarter crowdfunding campaign for Shovel Knight in 2013 [...] based around three of the boss characters from the original Shovel Knight", where "the original" can be cut just fine
• I initially had no idea what stretch goal meant, so a link to it would be helpful

  There sadly isn't a good wikilink, but I gave a brief explanation they are "additional features for the game to be added if the funding met a certain target"

  There is one at stretch goals; kudos as well for providing a brief explanation. Weirdly enough, linking stretch goal (singular) redirects to Goal setting#Stretch goals, which does provide helpful explanation, but linking stretch goals (plural) redirects to the Kickstarter article, which is a more relevant article but provides zero mention of the term anywhere. Pick your poison - e.

  I'll do the second one, thanks.

• "whichfeatured a character with unique movement" self-explanatory
• as a casual player of video games, i'm more familiar with "platforms" being used to refer to PC, Nintendo, X/S, PS5, etc., so can we pipe "ports" to Video game#Platform?
• "GameRevolution felt that the platforming was difficult to understand [...], and felt overall inferior" GameRevolution was not the thing that felt inferior, no ? change to "felt that the platforming was difficult ... and was overall inferior"
• A similar ambiguity situation with the Destructoid sentence. "Destructoid said that [Specter of Torment] was the best story in the series despite its short length, and demonstrated how Yacht Club Games" add a comma before "despite" to disambiguate that it was Specter of Torment and not Destructoid that did the demonstrating

That will be all! Thank you so much for your diligence with writing the article, whose prose was just as clean and well-written as when I last read it :) ‍ ‍ Elias 🌊 ‍ ‍ ^{💬 "Will you call me?"}
_{📝 "Will you hang me out to dry?"} 03:28, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you again @Your Power, I believe that I have addressed everything. The Night Watch (talk) 03:41, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

for the unstriked comments, it's good practice to have explanations for why some requests weren't addressed. almost there, @The Night Watch. ‍  Elias 🪐  (dreaming of Saturn; talk here) 03:54, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Seems we have only one more left, @The Night Watch. inching so close to promotion! you got this! ‍  Elias 🪐  (dreaming of Saturn; talk here) 06:28, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

@The Night Watch there we go. apologies for procrastinating this, and thanks for reviewing the House of Ashes nom! while I personally feel comfortable with the prose in terms of grammar and flow, I understand the issues raised by MC and GtM below. hence, I am a bit reluctant to support at the moment. when all of the below are resolved, I would be happy to lend it ‍  Elias 🪐  (dreaming of Saturn; talk here) 07:45, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Comments from Mike Christie

• "They completely overhauled the levels of the original Shovel Knight" I can't tell from this whether the new levels are in some sense the same as, or similar to, the old levels, but with a redesign? Or that the new levels are completely new designs? The gameplay section doesn't make it clear either, but from the development section I gather the former is the case. I don't think you need to put all that detail in the gameplay section, but as written it's ambiguous.

I tried clarifying that they are similar. Does this iteration work

• "and reduced the difficulty after receiving criticism regarding it in Plague of Shadows": as written this means they made it easier than the original Shovel Knight, but I think you mean they made it easier than Plague of Shadows.

Removed

• "The team followed a formula for level design based upon Mega Man to avoid disrupting the pacing": I don't know what you mean by "avoid disrupting the pacing". The same phrase is used in the body with more explanation but I don't follow it there either.

  Should I insert a wikilink to pacing to help clarify?

  No, the issue is that I don't see how choosing a level design formula based on Mega Man has an effect on the pacing of the game. Things that disrupt pacing are typically things that slow the player down more than expected. Why would the level design formula's similarity to Mega Man have that effect? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:36, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

  Decided to cut that part about pacing and just said that they followed a formula from Mega Man.

• Suggest adding "moveset" to Glossary of video game terms and linking it.

  Not in the Glossary to my knowledge, may be a good entry

  I know it's not really your problem, but could you add it to the glossary? You could probably write a more accurate definition than I could, and it would allow us to link it here -- it's jargon to non-players and a link would help. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:36, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

  Done.

• "As with Shovel Knight, players can destroy checkpoints to receive a reward, but must travel through longer portions of the level to progress if they die": how about "As with Shovel Knight, players can destroy checkpoints to receive a reward, but if they do, they must travel further through the level to reach the next checkpoint in order to save their progress if they die".

  The checkpoint does not save their progress, it just allows them to respawn in a later portion of the level if they die

  Understood, but I don't think the sentence you have makes that clear. I think a reader familiar with video games would understand it with no difficulty, but it could be phrased more clearly. Isn't the key point that once you've passed a checkpoint, you'll respawn there if you die? So the cost of destroying a checkpoint is that the player must now reach the next checkpoint in order to move their respawn point further along in the game. How about "As with Shovel Knight, players can destroy checkpoints to receive a reward, but will not then respawn there if they die before reaching the next checkpoint"? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:36, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

  Done.

• In the plot section, I think just a sentence or two about the plot of Shovel Knight would help set the stage. From the later discussion in the "Development" section, it appears Specter Knight is a boss in the original Shovel Knight; I think that should be mentioned as well.

  The problem is I don't actually know how to explain it very well in a couple of sentences, maybe a "see also" to the Shovel Knight plot may help. I was mostly basing the self-contained nature of the plot on BioShock 2: Minerva's Den which sends the reader towards the original article for context without filling up the plot section too much.

  I think something is needed. As it stands the first reference to Shield Knight doesn't make it clear he was part of the first game. I agree it's not easy to do because this game is a prequel -- normally one summarizes previous episodes to set the stage. But players of this game will generally understand references to Shovel Knight and its plot, so readers who did not play either game need to get a basic idea of the relationship between the plots. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:36, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Added a little more.

• "which grows in power as he defeats the knights": we haven't yet said he has to fight them, only that he has to recruit them.

  Changed

  My concern here is that "recruit" is not necessarily a hostile interaction, so the reader doesn't realize that Specter Knight is going to recruit these knights by defeating them. How about "instructs her undead servant Specter Knight to fight eight knights in order to recruit them for the Order ..."? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:36, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

  Done.

• "Oblivious to the identity of the Enchantress": does this mean Donovan doesn't realize the Enchantress was Shield Knight? Or that he doesn't realize the Enchantress is evil? From the later plot section I see it's the former but I think that should be clear here.

  Not sure if being evil can be considered an identity, I think it is fine as-is but yes Donovan doesn't realize the Enchantress was Shield Knight.

  I'll have a think about other ways to phrase this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:36, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

  How about "Unaware that the Enchantress was Shield Knight, Donovan accepted the offer ..."? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:26, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

• Why is Specter Knight enraged when he discovers the Enchantress was Shield Knight?

  Changed to "Enraged that he was working for his enemy"

• "Specter Knight goes after the Enchantress through the hole that Black Knight dug into the tower": but surely this hole takes Specter Knight out of the tower, since Black Knight broke in through it? Isn't the Enchantress inside the Tower somewhere?

Changed.

• "The developers designed Specter Knight's mobility after receiving feedback on the movement of Plague Knight, the protagonist of Plague of Shadows. Players complained that Plague Knight's moveset was chaotic and difficult to control, leading Yacht Club Games to design the new protagonist with simpler controls and mechanics. The team deviated from Specter Knight's original flying movement as featured in his boss battle, believing that it would detract from the platforming." This is a bit back-and-forth -- we start with design, then go back to the complaints, then talk about the design again, then go back to the boss battle (presumably in the original game?). How about "Players of Plague of Shadows had complained that the movement of its protagonist, Plague Knight, was chaotic and difficult to control, so Yacht Club Games simplified the controls and mechanics for Specter Knight. The team also dropped the flying movement Specter Knight used in his boss battle in the original game, believing that it would detract from the platforming."

Done

• "The spacing of levels was a constant concern, as the developers did not always know what possible movements the player would take during platforming": what does "spacing of levels" mean? I have never played platform games so this might be standard terminology. Why didn't the developers know what the possible movements were? Do you just mean they couldn't predict what a player would do? Why would that affect the spacing?

Clarified as the spacing and layout of the level mechanics

• "The developers considered Plague of Shadows and the original Shovel Knight too indistinct visually": I don't think you can use "indistinct" in this way. How about "too similar visually"?

Done

• "The difficulty had to be altered to fit the new hub world": this seems like a non sequitur. Why would the developers have to change the difficulty of the game just because the layout was now a hubworld rather than a large map?

  Explained. Does this work?

  That's clearer, yes; I copyedited it a bit -- I hope I didn't screw up the intended meaning. I'm still not entirely clear what is being said, though. I can see that in a game where you're forced through the levels in a certain order, the developers simply have to make sure the difficulty is gradually increasing. If you have a hub and can go anywhere, why can't you have the same range of difficulties? I've certainly played free movement games (Breath of the Wild comes to mind) where I had to learn fairly quickly that parts of the map needed to stay off limits till I acquired more skills and weapons. What exactly was the problem they foresaw if they didn't even up the difficulty levels? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:36, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, that works, thank you. Apparently the developers evened out the difficulty across all of the stages to subvert expectations for the difficulty of each level (some stages were expected to be easy like in the first two games, though the developers decided to make them harder) and make gameplay more interesting. Should I add something along these lines?

• "and the developers reduced the overall challenge after receiving criticism for it in Plague of Shadows": suggest "and the developers reduced the overall challenge after Plague of Shadows was criticized for being too difficult".

Removed that section earlier Done

• Specter of Torment was first announced on ..." we're still in the "Level design" subsection here; you might add a subsection at this point titled "Release" for the remaining couple of sentences. Or make it "Release and reception" and add those sentences to the start of what's currently the reception section.

Moved

• "Specter Knight would have to input several moves together to progress": I think this should be "put", not "input"?

Input is the the correct term, it is very common video game speak for "perform" or "do"

That's it for a first pass. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:23, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you Mike Christie! I'll be addressing your comments sometime tomorrow or on Tuesday The Night Watch (talk) 03:36, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

@Mike Christie I believe that I have addressed most of your comments. The Night Watch (talk) 15:47, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

I've struck or replied to everything above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:36, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

@Mike Christie Did a second pass. The Night Watch (talk) 20:13, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

I've struck a couple more points. I will read through again and think about the remaining points and see if have any more concerns. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:54, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Weak oppose. I've been hesitating over this review for a while. I think the prose could use a copyedit, but if that were the only issue I'm not sure I would oppose. I'm more concerned about some slight imprecisions in the way the source material has been used. For example, "Because players could use the hub to access all of the available levels, unlike the previous two games where the stages could only be completed in a certain order, the team was forced to redesign the easier levels of Shovel Knight and Plague of Shadows to be more difficult, while reducing the challenge of the harder stages." The source for this says "Since Specter of Torment allows you to choose the main levels in any order, some of the more difficult stages in Shovel Knight and Plague of Shadows were tailored to be a bit easier, while easier ones were amped up to be more challenging. This was a fun way to subvert returning players' expectations. Traditionally "easy" stages like Pridemoor Keep gained a harder edge in Specter of Torment." The problem here is "forced": the source describes it as an idea the team had, not something that they felt obliged to do. Another example: "The team used a level design formula taken from Mega Man, where a complete stage would feature 26 rooms and 6 secret areas, allowing players to recognize how far they had progressed." The source has "Each level should have about 26 regular rooms and 6 secret optional rooms. This formula was counted roughly from Mega Man (which has 25 rooms) for Shovel of Hope, and used again in Specter of Torment. A consistent length means that every stage will take a similar amount of time and have a similarly digestible amount of content. Any longer or shorter and the level might drag on or feel like it was missing stuff. Players start to develop a sense of their progress, and rely on it too ("I bet I'm near the end")." The source makes it clear these numbers are approximate, and that the approach was used for both the original game and this one, and explains why this is helpful for the players. An earlier version of this article mentioned pacing at this point; when I asked what that meant (before I read the source) the nominator took out the reference, but I think it's the point of the source, and an explanation was needed. Another example: "The team also dropped the flying movement Specter Knight used in his boss battle in the original game, believing that it would detract from the platforming." The source has "Even at the earliest of planning stages, we knew right away that Specter Knight couldn’t just have mobility like his boss battle from Shovel Knight. Floating around freely with a giant scythe doesn’t lend itself to platforming!" This is more of a nitpick, but though I've never played platforming games it seems we don't need to hedge with "believed" -- a free floating protagonist is incompatible with a platforming game. One more example: "They felt that ... players could be challenged if all the mechanics were combined at the end of the level." The source has "Shovel Knight levels share the same general structure for ramping ideas as classic Mega Man levels. Both typically introduce an idea, complicate it, layer it with other ideas, test the player with a really difficult version of the idea, and then cool down from the idea before starting the next idea. And at the end of the level, right before the boss, all the ideas combine for one really tough challenge!" The source says that this was a design approach in which the mechanics were introduced and then combined at the end of the level for a difficult challenge. The wording in the article is vaguer, and doesn't make it clear that this was a conscious strategy on the part of the designers in order to finish each level at a high difficulty. And it's not clear to me that "idea" and "mechanics" can be treated as synonyms in this way -- though I'd defer to a gamer's judgement on whether that's the natural interpretation for someone who knows these games. I'm sorry to oppose, since I think there's a solid basis for a featured article here, but I've found too many of these minor imprecisions to be comfortable with supporting. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:46, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

I think the minor imprecisions are a byproduct of how tough it is to craft a Development section using almost exclusively interview sources, but I'll go parsing through the sources to make sure they are as precise as possible. The Night Watch (talk) 14:39, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

• First paragraph of Development looks fine to me, source 8 is used accurately.
• Second paragraph of Development "Development of Specter of Torment began after..." Bit that it began after Plague of Shadows is correct, "ambitious expansion" is also correct, added a little more on how they believed that the movement in Plague of Shadows made the levels fun to revisit, but that the levels would feel repetitive on a third play through even if they changed the movement.
• Third paragraph of Development "darker story centered around Specter Knight" looks correct, the material about Plague Knight being chaotic is elaborated upon in source 10 and the second paragraph effectively says that the team received criticism from some players who found Plague Knight too chaotic. I removed the bit about it being difficult to control as it is not explicitly stated in the sources, just that the movement was chaotic. I implemented your suggestion about the flying movement.
• Fourth paragraph: They did indeed take inspiration from games like Prince of Persia and the other two games for how they designed the platforming and slashing movement. There were ways in which they implemented these inspirations in Specter of Torment, and these ways are not mentioned in the article because I believe that elaborating on exactly how they added these inspirations would be too long and excessively detailed. As such, I believe that it is fine as-is simply to say they took inspiration from these games. I slightly altered the bit about the ninja to clarify that the developers wanted him to act like a "grim reaper ninja", and that they included shrikens in his moveset at one point. I also clarified that the difficulties with the slashing movement was not difficulties with designing the movement, but rather communicating how it worked with players and teaching them how to use it.

I think the hard part is that many of the terms in the Development sources are unfamiliar to people who have not played the game, so it is a difficult balancing act simplifying what they are trying to say while also making the prose precise enough to what the sources are saying. @Mike Christie Let's start with these first four parts and see if I am doing this correctly. If not, I think I might withdraw and work on this outside of FAC. The Night Watch (talk) 15:39, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

• A little further: For the fifth paragraph, first sentence is correct, source says that it took them a year to design, test, and balance each of the levels. Second sentence has been clarified to be a bit closer to the source, tell me if I need to rephrase it somewhat. Third and fourth sources are clarified as approximate. Fifth sentence has been altered to be a bit less vague, sixth and seventh sentences has been rephrased somewhat.

The Night Watch (talk) 02:21, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

A brief input Gog the Mild

Seeing Mikes comments, I thought I would have a look myself. I have only read the first paragraph of the lead.

• "a downloadable content (DLC) expansion" - I think I know what that is.
• "the 2014 platform game". Whoosh. Is it a video game? I assume not as you don't say so. So what is it? Bearing in mind MOS:FIRST "The first sentence should introduce the topic, and tell the nonspecialist reader what or who the subject is, and often when or where. It should be in plain English."
• "The expansion is a prequel to the original game, where the player takes the role of Specter Knight". Does the player take this role in the prequel or the original?
• "Gameplay is similar to Shovel Knight". For any reader who has not played Shovel Knight the lead does not describe the gameplay[!]
• "features levels and boss fights that are redesigned from the originals." Similar comment. Never mind what they resemble, could we have a description. And what are "boss fights"?

Sorry, The Night Watch, but this doesn't seem to do what the first paragraph of a lead is supposed to. I can sympathise with Mike's dilemma, which seems to be that you clearly know what you are writing about, but the article is not pitched at a level understandable by a non-specialist audience. It is possible that the curse of knowledge applies. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:06, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

I have formatted the lead similarly to the lead of the FA video game DLC BioShock 2: Minerva's Den. There is a wikilink to downloadable content, there is a link to platform game (yes, a platform game is a video game). I will clarify that the players takes the role of Specter Knight in Specter of Torment, there is a helpful link in Gameplay directing unfamiliar readers to the Shovel Knight article to read about its gameplay (same as Bioshock 2: Minerva's Den). Boss fights are also wikilinked. What else can I do to make the article more understandable without causing redundancy with the other linked articles? I'm a bit confused about your concerns here. The Night Watch (talk) 21:22, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild follow-up ping on the response I raised above. The Night Watch (talk) 23:04, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

A Wikilink is not a substitute for an explanation. 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. The text needs to make sense to readers who cannot follow links." Gog the Mild (talk) 23:13, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Either way, I still don't understand what you want me to explain here:

• Dowloadable content is wikilinked and formatted in the lead just the same as BioShock 2: Minerva's Den. That article's lead offers no explanation other than a wikilink to what DLC is since doing so would be redundant and DLC is a common concept with video games.
• "Platform game" is the same terminology used with multiple other video game FAs, including Katana Zero, Donkey Kong Country, Super Mario World, Super Meat Boy etc. Those articles give no detailed explanation for what a platform game is, most likely because the genre is extremely prevalent. Any given Mario game is a platform game so the vast, vast majority of readers are familiar with the concept.
• "Gameplay is similar to Shovel Knight" this is how the sources themselves cover the subject, and nearly all assume familiarity with the original game. This approach is not unusual since Minerva's Den introduces its gameplay in the lead as "Gameplay is similar to that of BioShock 2, with new enemies and weapons."
• Boss fights are an also extremely well-known concept within video games, we even have articles dedicated to some video game boss characters. Again, I don't know why an explanation is needed in the lead.

What I guess I'm trying to say is that the approach of the article is in line with other video game FAs, and including all those explanations in the lead would be very redundant. I see the points raised above by Mike Christie and I'm still looking to see how to make the article less vague without messing up the wording, but I still don't think any explanations are necessary. The Night Watch (talk) 23:37, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

• Ok. I was hoping that my points would be rapidly grasped and corrected. Thinking them over, reading your responses above, and rereading the lead I think that I am left in an even less generous position than Mike. Although at the moment I don't intend to look at anything other than the lead I will turn this into a formal review, recuse, work through the comments above and the rest of the lead, and see where we are. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:23, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

  @Gog the Mild A problem that I see is that there no precedent for this level of explanation of game mechanics in the lead of any video game FAs so I see a problem. Without a precedent or example of the lead you are looking for, I have no clear idea how to execute your comments to a satisfactory level. Could you give me an example of what you are looking for in the lead? I think you mean that I should explain the gameplay concepts like this: In the lead of First Punic War, there is no explanation for what galleys are. I certainly know what they are but I don't know if the average reader will know.

  The current lead says "The immense effort of building 1,000 galleys during the war laid the foundation for Rome's maritime dominance for 600 years." but with an explanation of what galleys are it would probably read like this: "The immense effort of building 1,000 galleys, warships relying on oars for propulsion which were were a staple of the Roman fleet, laid the foundation for Rome's maritime dominance for 600 years." So I'm guessing you want me to explain each of the gameplay concepts in the lead like how I explained galleys above. So the "features levels and boss fights that are redesigned from the originals" would be reworded to something like "features boss fights, which are battles with difficult enemies and levels that are redesigned from those of the original Shovel Knight game" This just reads poorly and I'm really just confused, sorry, just trying to understand your perspective. I might ask for a third opinion on this one because I feel quite stupid right now. The Night Watch (talk) 19:47, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Support from SnowFire

Side comment

On Mike Christie & Gog the Mild's concerns above: The short version is that I don't think making changes to address them is a good idea, and the article is fine as is. This is a larger topic than just this FAC, though (since something similar came up for the Raichu FAC). To be 100% clear, I agree that FAs should be written as accessibly as possible for a broad audience. But, we also shouldn't needlessly repeat broader-topic material. So to go into it some more...

The essence of WP:SUMMARYSTYLE is being able to spinoff long sections into separate articles to keep the length of the content down to encyclopedia article length, not full book length. The assumption is that, in a dead-tree book called "Shovel Knight", it can be chopped up where a chapter of the book called "Specter of Torment" (or "Plague of Shadows" or "King of Cards", etc.) is a separate article. The nature of this means that there will be some repetition, but there's a limit. Something like saying "the gameplay is similar to Shovel Knight's" is fine; in a book that would mean "flip back to the previous chapter you apparently skipped", and on Wikipedia that means "click the wikilink." The alternative would be having to repeat the same material on gameplay in 6+ different places, which would defeat the whole point of summary style - of splitting up the book to a separate article per chapter, conceptually.

On the general gaming terms topic, there's basically a certain understanding that if a reader is truly, truly clueless on the overall topic, they're going to need to read up on some basics first. To keep the topic on games, broadly construed, if someone doesn't know anything about a particular sport, but they're reading about a baseball shortstop or a cricket wicket-keeper or whatever, it's understood that they need to click the wikilink on baseball or cricket or shortstop first. In practice, we don't describe what a shortstop is on all 20,000 articles on baseball shortstops we have on-wiki. To me, this is analogous to the "platform game" or "DLC" analogy - if a reader doesn't understand those terms, it's valid to expect them to start with reading up on that first. Again, the alternative is to explain platform game across 20,000 individual platform games, equivalent to explaining shortstop or catcher 20,000 times. Or, as mentioned already, the Roman example. If a reader is truly clueless about the Roman Republic, doesn't know what a legate is, doesn't know what the Senate was, doesn't know what a legion is, etc., then yeah, they're going to need to read at least a little on the broader topic first.

I'm hesitant to "call out" other FA articles because there's many ways to skin a cat and I'm absolutely not trying to start a FAR or anything, but to pick a recent-ish FA I supported and personally reviewed the sources on... Croatian Spring frankly requires a decent amount of background knowledge. It was an imposing review, and I consider myself pretty well-informed compared to the wider public. If a random American reader doesn't know who Tito was, doesn't know about the SFR Yugoslavia, doesn't know about Yugoslavia's Federal structure, doesn't know about Croatian nationalism... they need to do a lot of reading first. But that's okay. Trying to include all of that would swell the "background" section to be larger than the entire rest of the article. But the article is on the "Croatian Spring", not "Yugoslav History 101 catch-up", which is already written elsewhere - it'd blur the identity of the article to include it. If we're okay with trusting the audience to be either somewhat interested in Yugoslav history to begin with (hence being at the article at all), or else being willing to do some catch-up, it's fine and Working As Intended. Analagously, I think it's fine to expect a certain degree of "if this isn't enough background, please click on the Shovel Knight article, and if you're really unfamiliar with video games, click on the video game / platform game / DLC / etc. articles."

I may turn this into a fuller review at a later point, just wanted to drop off my two cents here. And to reiterate again, I wholeheartedly agree that articles should be as accessible to readers as possible, so enforcing this is good for when there truly isn't enough background explanation provided. I just think the standard is met here for sufficient background to get a reader up to speed. SnowFire (talk) 22:33, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Review

• Shovel Knight: Specter of Torment is a downloadable content (DLC) expansion for the 2014 platform game Shovel Knight,

I don't see "2017" anywhere in the lede. That seems kind of a strange omission - a casual reader just skimming for dates might think that Torment came out in 2014, too.

Done

• recruiting a group of knights for his mistress

I disagree with Vami IV's (EDIT: ChrisTheDude's) earlier comment on the lede. "Master" is gender-neutral these days, and "mistress" makes it sound like Specter Knight is having an affair and cheating on his wife to a casual reader. Maybe skip the contested word entirely and just say "knights for the Enchantress, the main villain of Shovel Knight"? Up to you.

Done

• features levels and boss fights that are redesigned from the originals.

Is "redesigned" really the best word? I feel like "redesigned" suggests more like Yacht Club edited the original levels, but they're just new levels. Perhaps something like "features new levels and redesigned boss fights"?

Done

• spent four months revisiting and balancing each completed level.

Okay, the lead is fairly short, so I guess there's room, but... is exactly how long the dev team spent on balancing the levels really so important as to be lede-worthy?

Is there anything else that could be lead-worthy? The art design? The character moveset? I agree that it really isn't too vital but I am unsure what else to include

• The team designed Specter Knight to be an easily controllable character after receiving criticism for the movement of Plague Knight

Nitpick: My understanding is that it wasn't the criticism, exactly. It was just that Plague Knight's movement was too hard for a subset of the player base - the devs said that completion stats for PoS were noticeably lower than base Shovel Knight. In other words, it wasn't necessarily the complaints that were instrumental, but rather a "silent minority" sending a danger signal to the devs. Maybe something more like "after feedback that the movement of Plague Knight was too complex?" (EDIT: To expand on this distinction a little, imagine a big MMO developer gets feedback on each patch which always includes a harsh chorus of criticism. However, in this hypothetical, one patch shows player counts drop by 20%, along with the usual criticism, and the dev makes changes in response. While there was criticism here and a change resulted, it wasn't really the criticism that drove the devs, but rather the stats.)

Reworded

• The levels and bosses in Specter of Torment are redesigned versions of their counterparts from the original Shovel Knight

Same feedback here as the lead. Checking the source, GameStop simply says "new level designs". I get that the new levels have similarities (of course they do, they're set in similar regions) but they are genuinely new levels IMO.

Reworded

• The rooms and enemies were often reworked or rearranged, and the team would sometimes consider their plans excessive, abandoning them to focus on creating basic platforming sections.

Optional: As written, this sentence is a bit who-cares. The developers had some ideas that didn't work out, and replaced them? Stop the presses. That sounds like every creative work ever. If there's a more interesting story at the core here or something else that's trying to be communicated, then maybe include that, or rephrase the sentence to get at what was distinctive? But if there's truly nothing to say otherwise, I guess this is fine if uninteresting.

Mike Christie wanted the wording to be closer to the sources, so I tried to make it closer to the source even if it definitely feels uninteresting.

• The initial stages had a high level of difficulty which was gradually reduced as development finished; They attributed the difficulty to skill they gained at playing the game.

Either use a period, or don't capitalize "they". Maybe worth rephrasing some anyway; perhaps: "The developers, after playing the game so much themselves, found it tricky to [[game balance|balance]] the levels. They decided late in development they had made the levels too difficult, and gradually reduced their challenge before release." Or something like that.

Done

• The soundtrack was composed by Jake Kaufman...

Nitpick: Maybe cause for a new paragraph here? I understand the paragraph would only be two sentences long, but it's slightly jarring because the theme of the paragraph is "changes from Plague of Shadows" and suddenly we're talking about a totally separate topic, the soundtrack, for the last two sentences.

Done

• who created most of it while streaming on Twitch.

(Comment, non-actionable) This reads strangely at first, because it makes it sound like Kaufman was creating music on the side while gaming on Twitch, since that's the default assumption of what someone is doing by "streaming on Twitch." Source clears it up though, and I guess it would be too awkward to explain "(and he was just creating music while streaming, Twitch was just the platform, he wasn't also gaming)" or the like.

Reception section for later, perhaps. SnowFire (talk) 04:40, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Reception section commentary:

• and some felt that it built upon the merits of the original game.

"Some" might be over-qualified. It's understood that not all reviews parrot the exact same line, but as long as other reviews aren't actively contradicting a sentiment found in many reviews, I think it's fine to just bring it up as an example of critical response, and remove the word "some".

Done

• GameSpot said... USgamer felt... Shacknews felt... Nintendo Life said...

Very optional because there's disagreement here, but I will just drop off my usual two cents that I personally prefer the wordier style that includes the human author of the review. Yes, it's in the cite, and yes, it makes the flow slightly worse, but it's also more accurate. Humans write reviews, not magazines. (But as already noted, this is a matter of preference, so a thought if you agree with the above, but it's not blocking if you disagree.)

I prefer to not use the names to make the flow better, but I agree that it makes the article more accurate. I wish there was a way to compromise somehow, but alas it was a choice between flow and accuracy.

• The story was considered a highlight

(non-actionable) Side chatter: This is referenced, but dang, game reviewers have no taste. Specter of Torment is about the tragedy of mind control and evil artifacts that go boom and is played seriously, which is the complete wrong call for Shovel Knight. Plague of Shadows plot was way better by embracing silliness more, which fits with the general tone. But if nobody published agrees with me, oh well.

Yeah I agree, Plague of Shadows was way better story wise even if the levels were just the same old-same old.

• Some critics gave attention to the boss fights

Same issue as above - it's understood that by writing "Critics" it does not mean literally every single critic, so IMO the word "Some" is dispensable.

Done

• GameSpot felt that some of the bosses were fun due to their changes to meet Specter Knight's new movement, but said that others were too similar to their previous incarnations.

I don't think this accurately reflects the source. It's implying that only "some" of the bosses were fun and that these were the bosses that were changed the most, but that isn't what GameStop says. I'd rewrite to be closer to GameStop - that they found the redesigned bosses an "enjoyable surprise" and thought that some of the bosses were too similar (but not imply that they weren't fun).

Done

• USgamer considered the bosses easier than in previous games, and Nintendo World Report said that some of the earlier boss fights were frustrating

Is this really an "and" connector? They're contrasting opinions. I understand that it's OR to directly set them in opposition to each other unless one is referencing the other, but maybe "while" would work instead rather than "and"?

Done

• Shacknews said that some players would dislike the lack of scope

Reverse complaint here as GameStop: I think this is too close to the slightly dopey original wording in Shacknews which uses "scope" in a nonintuitive way. Given the next sentence, maybe "some players would dislike the narrow focus on platforming gameplay", which makes more clear the nature of the complaint?

Done

• and was just as competent as the original Shovel Knight.

"Competent" is an unusual choice here - perhaps "excellent"?

Done

Overall, looks good. SnowFire (talk) 16:38, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks SnowFire, I believe that I have addressed your comments The Knight Watch (talk) 03:43, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Support. Excellent work!

The one remaining nitpick from above (not blocking the support because of this, no hurry, but something to maybe improve regardless): If you agree that the length of time the devs spent tweaking levels isn't really that interesting, then I would recommend removing it from the lede, and replacing with basically any other piece of dev information desired. That the levels were specially designed for Specter Knight's movement style? The balance between platforming, combat, and exploration? Jake Kaufman doing the soundtrack? Or even just the total length of time spent developing the game as a whole? Really anything else from the dev section is more "interesting". SnowFire (talk) 00:29, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Comments from PMC

Putting myself down for this. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:21, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, usually I manage comments within a week but I was a bit behind here.

I want to start by addressing Gog's comments. I think it's unreasonable to expect video game articles to be explained in greater detail than any other article just because some readers may not be entirely familiar with the subject matter in general. This level of explanation is not a standard expectation for video game FAs. I have two, Islanders (video game) and Islands: Non-Places, which open with "Islanders is a casual city-building game" and "Islands: Non-Places is a 2016 abstract art game", respectively, a level of detail considered acceptable at FAC. I opened a few other VGFAs at random and none of them had the granularity Gog is asking for here.

Let's compare to other media like films and music. Fearless (Taylor Swift album) has "Fearless is a country pop album" in the lead; The Mummy (1999 film) opens with "The Mummy is a 1999 American action-adventure film". Neither stops to explain what those genres mean, or what a studio album is, or a cursed mummy, and nor should they; that's the job of the articles on those concepts. Straying outside the limited realm of popular media, Night Watch's galley example is a salient comparison. A reader not well-versed in ancient naval warfare may not be entirely certain of what a galley is, but it's a common term in the subject area and we shouldn't have to grind the article to a halt to interject an explanation for them. Same here with common terms like boss fight and platform game.

Okay, enough on that, let's get to the real review. All comments and suggested wordings are open to discussion or disagreement.

Lead, gameplay, plot

• "They created new levels...each completed level" - repetition of level. This may be unresolvable given the limited amount of terms for "level" available, but worth pointing out
• "the evil Enchantress" - lead mentions she's Shovel Knight's villain, but the body doesn't
• "forward through the air, upward or downward" - maybe "move through the air, forward, upward, or downward"? Right now it's odd that one direction comes first
• "Progressing through the game..." I would move this sentence to the first paragraph, as it doesn't make sense tacked on to a paragraph about Curios/Relics
• No gripes with plot summary

Development to Character design

• "character with unique movement" I'm not sure I love this phrasing. "unique movement abilities" maybe or "unique movement skills"? Willing to hear your thoughts.
• "The team felt that the movement of Plague of Shadows" this reads slightly awkwardly to me. "movement in" maybe, or "character's movement in"
• "surmised" feels unnecessarily formal here, IMO "thought" (or similar) would do just as well without being overly formal
• "The wall jumping was inspired by 3D action games such as Prince of Persia" - this link/phrasing is a bit problematic, because you've linked to the entire Prince of Persia franchise, of which several games are not 3D. Unfortunately the source doesn't specify which exact POP game they were taking inspiration from. I might adjust the phrasing to something like "3D action games such as those from the Prince of Persia franchise".
• Also, that source says the wall climbing was also inspired by Ninja Gaiden, but our article only mentions it as inspo for the slash movement
• "The developers wanted Specter Knight to act like a "grim reaper ninja", at one point included shurikens..." grammar's off here. "including shurikens" would be the easiest fix
• "a UI element" this is opaque. If you're going to keep "UI", it should be written out fully as "user interface", and linked. However, I'm not sure that's the best phrasing - it's not really clear what a "user interface element" in this context. I would also simplify the explanation of the results. I might go with something like "adding an icon to objects that could be slashed, indicating the angle the player would move upon attacking".
• "They further allowed Specter Knight to fall slower" - "They slowed Specter Knight's fall speed" or "Specter Knight's fall speed was slowed" might be tighter
• I would split the Curios into their own paragraph
• "allowed them to be" - again, can tighten to just "made them"

Level design

• This is the portion of the article I have the most issues with. It feels disorganized. Each paragraph should contain information about one idea, but you're a bit all over the place.
  • Para 1 discusses balance of level mechanics, difficulty balance, and development time
  • Para 2 discusses level mechanics and difficulty balance
  • Para 3 discusses new objects and new art, and then goes back into difficulty balance
• Some parts of this section are repetitive as a result
• "Mega Man" links to the franchise as a whole but the text sort implies it's a specific game. Since the devs don't specify which Mega Man game they counted from, I would say "the Mega Man franchise" just to be safe.
• It may be hard to write around this, but the phrase "the team" appears in four successive sentences in Level design and it can be a little repetitive
• "The rooms and enemies were often reworked or rearranged, and the team would sometimes consider their plans excessive, abandoning them to focus on creating basic platforming sections." I think you could tighten/clarify this phrasing. Something like "During development, the team often reworked or rearranged rooms and enemies, sometimes abandoning complex ideas in favor of more basic platforming sections." maybe.
• The way you talk about "balance" in the first paragraph is a bit ambiguous. First it's about the balance between different aspects of the game, while later you switch to using "balance" to mean balanced difficulty, without really making that obvious to the reader. The easiest fix is probably to use a different word for the first aspect - a "consistent mix" of elements maybe.
• As for the use of "balance" to mean balanced difficulty, I might slightly expand to say something like "tricky to balance the difficulty of the levels".
• The two paragraphs you have about level design feel like they repeat themselves a bit. You have multiple separate sentences across these two paragraphs talking about how the devs adjusted the difficulty of levels over time. You could probably cut down or merge some.
• "As a result, the team created" - I don't think you need "as a result" here.
• "They used background art to convey information about gameplay mechanics, indicate secret rooms, and further the narrative." this is really interesting but you don't expand on it at all - how is this done?
• Any further info about the 3DS version's new art? What kind of new art?

Release and reception

• This section is largely great. It's thematically-organized, properly summarizes reviewer thoughts, and reserves quotes for only the most significant or interesting statements. I have some organizational complaints, but overall this is quite good.
• Para 3 uses the word "moveset" in 3 successive sentences, which could probably be written around
• Para 4 could probably be split where level design is mentioned, as that's a separate idea
• Also in Para 4, you open with discussing how the platforming received praise, but then finish the idea with a review that complains of it. I might revise the opening sentence to hedge slightly - "The platforming received similar praise from most reviewers" for example
• Again Para 5 could be split. You have story elements and then you swing over into boss fights, and then into game length. Those are separate ideas. Possibly you could get away with combining level design and boss fights, since those are related in the sense that both involve reworked elements of the original game. Then you could probably leave length with story, as the story determines the length.
• Para 5, "liked the narrative" feels like filler. Maybe "praised the narrative for being "surprisingly tragic"", which would tie it together better
• "Critics gave attention to the boss fights" I would say mixed attention, since it seems to be split between praise and complaints.

Okay, done at last. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:19, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you PMC! I'll get these comments done sometime tonight. The Night Watch (talk) 20:14, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Coord note -- This has been open over two months and has yet to gain consensus to promote; I note also that NightWatch has had to step back from WP so resolution of outstanding concerns won't be possible for a while. Wishing NW the best and hoping they'll be back in due course to revisit the article and perhaps bring back to FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 20:43, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 20:45, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

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) 29 March 2024 [10].

---

Protocol Wars

Nominator(s): Whizz40 (talk) 17:28, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

This article is about... a long-running debate in computer science which occurred from the 1970s to the 1990s, when engineers, organizations and nations became polarized over the issue of which communication protocol would result in the best and most robust computer networks. This culminated in the Internet–OSI Standards War in the 1980s and early 1990s, which was ultimately "won" by the Internet protocol suite (TCP/IP) by the mid-1990s and has since resulted in most of the competing protocols disappearing. Whizz40 (talk) 17:28, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Image review

• Suggest adding alt text

• Don't use fixed px size

• Captions need editing for MOS compliance (and would suggest checking the article text as well)

• File:Donald_Davies.jpg: where is that licensing coming from?

• File:Bob_Kahn_1969.jpg: why is this believed to be public domain?

• File:Battle_For_Access_Standards.png has an inadequate FUR. Ditto File:Internet-OSI_Standard_War.jpg, File:Vint_Cerf_IP_on_Everything.jpeg

• File:First_Internet_Demonstration,_1977.jpg: where was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 05:14, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the comments, Nikkimaria. Apologies for the delay in responding. I am being held up by a heavy workload in the last couple of weeks and the next couple of weeks, plus family commitments and a bereavement in the extended family. I will come back to this in early April. Whizz40 (talk)

Comments Oppose by Ceoil

The article has great potential for a gripping story, but assumes too much knowledge on the average readers behalf. As an older person who was connected from the mid 90s, I read with interest for the first few sentences, and then lost grip; TCP/IP, PTT, DoD? Not suggesting you dumb it down, but can you please explain the meaning of the terms, and their relative importance, so the non comp-sci readers know what the issues and dynamics were. Ceoil (talk) 01:15, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Here are a sample of places that could do with trimming of detail for clarity, or oppositely use wiki-links, or explainers so the lost can get grounding'

• Separately, proprietary data communication protocols also emerged....wiki proprietary and legal trademarks
  • Linked "proprietary" to proprietary software. Whizz40 (talk) 14:49, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
• Why does The first use of the term protocol...occurred in April 1967 need four refs
  • Reduced down to three; four was unnecessary. Whizz40 (talk) 14:49, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
• AT&T in the United States and the postal, telegraph and telephone service (PTT) in the United Kingdom, the General Post Office (GPO). The incumbent utility companies had a monopoly on communications infrastructure -
  • Reworded this sentence. Whizz40 (talk) 14:49, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
• Licklider, Baran and Davies all found it hard to convince incumbent telephone companies of the merits of their ideas. - Innovators found it hard to convince the incumbent monopolies to innovate (or some such)
  • For this sentence, I still prefer the original wording. Whizz40 (talk) 14:49, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
    • Fine. Ceoil (talk) 14:55, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
• Also, between users of the best effort service, use of network resources does not enforce fairness, for any definition of it - Any definition of best effort service
  • we have the unexplained terms "fairness" and then the weird add-on "for any definition of it".
    • Clarified the wording in relation and added a couple of references. Whizz40 (talk) 14:49, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
• On the ARPANET, the starting point for connecting a host computer to an IMP in 1969 was the 1822 protocol - punct
  • Reworded this for ease of reading. Whizz40 (talk) 14:49, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Its an enjoyable if for now confusing read - but I don't think much heavy lifting is left. More later. Ceoil (talk) 02:15, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

• For accessibility for a lay reader, brief explainers on terms such Packet switching, internetworking, dynamically routing, distributed networks, etc would be v. helpful
• In the early 1960s, J. C. R. Licklider proposed the idea of a universal computer network while working at Bolt Beranek & Newman (BBN) and, later, leading the Information Processing Techniques Office (IPTO) at the Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA, later, DARPA) of the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD). - do we need his CV
• Only use a person's full name after first mention[11]
• Keep with either the "United States" / "United Kingdom" or "US" / "UK".
• Still only scanning, will read full through shortly. Ceoil (talk) 23:56, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

• Hi Ceoil, I hope that things are good with you. If you are coming back with further comments then in the next few days would be good, as this is in danger of timing out. Cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:15, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

• Hi Gog, will revisit in coming days. Ceoil (talk) 19:57, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose for now. For probably good reasons, the nominator isnt in a position to engage atm, weeks old comments above remain unresolved, with no indication of a timeline for closing out. Its certainly not ready now; maybe the article will be worked on and returned at a more convenient date. Ceoil (talk) 03:36, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Sohom

I want to take a look at the article at a later date. Sohom (talk) 03:24, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi Sohom Datta, you may wish to consider doing that sooner rather than later. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:15, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

On it, I'm not a subject matter expert when it comes to networking, but I do have some background knowledge of modern network protocols in the OSI model.

Lede

• Define "packet switching" in the lede
• The lede really isn't selling the article too well here, the first paragraph is probably fine, the rest is a bit of word salad especially if a person is not familiar with the protocols being mentioned. I would personally try to keep jargon to a minimum in the lede. (For example, instead of "X.25", try mentioning what was different about the standard)

Background

• Please provide a simplified background section where you give a brief outline of the topic and explain the context and potentially broadly talk about the protocols involved. (This used to be optional, but now is generally recommended by MOS:CS)

Packet switching vs circuit switching

• Why do we have 5 citations for the third paragraph?
• The heading of this section talks about two technologies, packet switching and circuit switching. However, the section effectively does not mention circuit switching at all (the only mention of it is in the last sentence of para 3). As a reader, I'm left confused wrt to what "circuit switching" is and why it was considered a viable competitor to packet switching at all (besides the fact that AT&T uses it)

Datagrams vs virtual circuits

• As a reader, this section starts out great, describing the two technologies and then mentioning the advantages and disadvantages of each. However, there is no mention of datagrams once we start talking about the events occuring during this "war", as a uninformed reader I'm confused as to why datagrams is even mentioned.

TCP vs CYCLADES and INWG vs X.25

• Don't create external link to RFCs, desribe what you need and move on. The average reader of this article is not going to be interested in the exact RFC spec of a protocol.
• There were two competing proposals, one based on the early Transmission Control Program proposed by Cerf and Kahn Probably use the TCP abbreviation here.
• Even in this section, I'm losing track of who/which group supported what. The first paragraph mentions that CYCLADES used virtual circuit networks, but partway through the section we learn that it's creator was a strong advocate of datagrams?
• I would suggest trying to look for more coverage of the virtual circuit camps. You've dedicated 7 paragraphs to covering the people advocating for datagrams, but only 3-4 for the virtual circuit camp.

Common host protocol vs translating between protocols

• LGTM, no issues

DoD model vs X.25/X.75 vs proprietary standards

• Ditto, this section looks good if a bit jargonny, which seems unaviodable.

I'm going to stop the review here for now to give some time refute/address my points. As I see it right now, the article's "Early computer networking" section needs some major restructuring, triming and/or content-addition to be compliant with the FAC criteria surrounding completeness (as I read them). (that being said this is my first FAC review so feel free to let me know if I went wrong somewhere) Sohom (talk) 21:30, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Coordinator note

This has been open for more than three weeks and has yet to pick up a support. Unless it attracts considerable movement towards a consensus to promote over the next three or four days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:15, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

This is still some way from gathering a consensus to promote, so I am going to archive it for the nominator to work on the issues raised off-FAC. I look forward to seeing it back here in due course, although the usual two-week hiatus will apply. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:30, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:30, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

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) 27 March 2024 [12].

---

Pocinho railway station

Nominator(s): V.B.Speranza (talk) 17:13, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

This article is about one of Portugal's most significant railway stations. Situated in the northeast region of the country, it holds huge importance for local residents, especially considering the closure of many other railway stations in the area. The centenarian Pocinho station remains operational and flourishing, providing direct access to Porto for regional residents and facilitating tourist visits to the renowned Douro wine region.

V.B.Speranza (talk) 17:13, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Image review

• Avoid sandwiching

• Suggest adding alt text

• Captions need editing for grammar

• File:Rede_Complementar_ao_Norte_do_Mondego_-_GazetaCF_372_1903.jpg needs a US tag

• File:Station_Pocinho.jpg: what's the copyright status of the artwork? Nikkimaria (talk) 05:19, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Drive-by comments

• The capitalisation of "Line" is inconsistent.
• The lead should be expanded.
• One sentence paragraphs, such as the first one in the description section, should be avoided.
• There are some duplicate links within the same section, such as Douro River and Mêda.
• Some of the links within see also should not be there as per MOS:NOTSEEAGAIN.

Steelkamp (talk) 05:57, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Oppose from TAOT

• Overlinking and duplicate wikilinks are completely out of control
• Grammar and writing are in serious need of improvement to meet FA standards.
• The article conflates the history of the station and the history of the lines that it is on frequently. The 21st century section hardly says anything about the article's subject and this is also an issue in other sections. Most of the article is off-topic, which by itself would be reason for me to oppose. This is supposed to be about the train station, not the Sabor line or the Douro line.
• The article fails to distinguish between the noteworthy and the routine (some kids being arrested for spray-painting a train is not something that is notable for the article)
• WP:PROSELINE is omnipresent
• Frequent one-sentence paragraphs belie a lack of organization
• Fails WP:NOTTIMETABLE
• Lead section fails to adequately summarize the body

I could keep going, but suffice it to say this is not ready for FAC. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:40, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Coord note -- In light of TAOT's comments in particular, I'm going to archive this and recommend peer review after working on improvements, before another try here at FAC. The FAC mentoring scheme is also an option. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:56, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 23:56, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

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 FrB.TG via FACBot (talk) 27 March 2024 [13].

---

American robin

Nominator(s): LegalSmeagolian (talk) 18:57, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

This article is about the American Robin, a medium-sized passerine bird of the true thrush native to the Americas. This article has been a GA for a very very long time and meets the FA criteria. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 18:57, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Question from Tim O'Doherty

@LegalSmeagolian - have you ever edited this article? Tim O'Doherty (talk) 20:44, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

No, I have watched it grow and develop over the years though as robins are my favorite bird - I think it has reached the level where it could be a FA. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 21:13, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

OK. Have you contacted any major contributors prior to this nomination, per WP:FAC? Tim O'Doherty (talk) 21:14, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

ooooooops. Happy to withdraw the nomination under the direction of a FAC coordinator and resubmit once the major contributors have been contacted. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 21:19, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

@FAC coordinators: ↑ Nikkimaria (talk) 00:21, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Jens

I do not think that the article is as comprehensive as required by the FA criteria. For example, the "Behavior" section misses many aspects, including antagonistic behavior, territoriality, sexual behavior, roosting etc. I strongly suggest to list the article at WP:Peer Review before bringing it to FAC. Feel free to ping me for more detailed comments or sources. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:48, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been withdrawn, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. FrB.TG (talk) 07:28, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

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) 26 March 2024 [14].

---

Cross-site leaks

Nominator(s): Sohom (talk) 00:24, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Say you clicked on that sketchy link that you shouldn't have clicked on, what's the worst that could happen ? This article seeks to answer that exact question by providing a technical introduction to an age old attack that has recently drawn some interest in the academic web security community.

A product of 4 months of almost-continual effort, this article has recieved a extensive GA review from RoySmith and has subsequently been peer reviewed by TechnoSquirrel69. This is my first time nominating an article for the featured star, and I would love to hear any feedback comments that y'all might have -- Sohom (talk) 00:24, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

JimKillock: Support

Extended content

I think it is great to be making articles like this of a good standard. I am sure it is well researched and accurate given the review you have done. However, technical matters like this are very hard to make accessible to an average reader, and I have to say, I really struggle reading this, although I consider that I have a basic lay knowledge of how some of these things might fit together. that said, it also seems a particularly challenging topic to convey in simple terms. The introductory (lead) section is what really matters here. If this can explain the basic concept well enough, then the other sections may be comprehensible. You might want to see if you can try explaining it in reply here, in an over simplified manner, to see if that gives a guide to the edits needed make this sufficiently readable by a general reader. Hope that helps. Jim Killock (talk) 20:00, 17 February 2024 (UTC) @JimKillock Thank you for taking the time to review the article :) As you mentioned, the topic is pretty technical which limits how simple some parts of the article can be. I've done some reworking of the prose of the lede at User:Sohom_Datta/csl, let me know if this makes it any better (I can try and simplify it further if you want). Sohom (talk) 03:05, 20 February 2024 (UTC) @Sohom Datta Better, especially the first paragraph, but further simplification is needed. Your lede audience is someone who knows nothing about the topic, for instance perhaps your grandparents, or aunts and uncles. (Apologies if they are in fact all software engineers!) (See WP:TECHNICAL and WP:EXPLAINLEAD which seem to guide towards "do simple first, then complicated after". These also give links to text simplicity checker tools, which rate the new text as within the 20% most complicated on Wikipedia, or as "PhD" level texts.) For instance: To perform a cross-site leak attack, the attacker must find at least one URL in a victim website that provides at least two different responses based on the website's previous interactions with a user and identify at least one way in which they can distinguish between the two responses. This is a lot to take in, if you are new to it. There are around five or six different ideas to comprehend within it. Perhaps it would be better to step through the process, with one concept per sentence? An alternative way of presenting the information might reduce the technical explanation in the lead to a very basic statement, and give a noddy-level step through for people like me as the first section. (Post script: this is suggested in the MOS links above.)Jim Killock (talk) 08:08, 20 February 2024 (UTC) @JimKillock Is the latest version of User:Sohom_Datta/csl better? I've broken down the second paragraph, added a inline example and broken a few more of the longer sentences up. :) Sohom (talk) 06:48, 21 February 2024 (UTC) @Sohom Datta Definitely getting there. I'll ask questions until I can readily understand it perhaps. What do you mean by "response" in this sentence? For instance, on a search page, an attacker might find one response when a search yields results and another when there are no results. (A lay reader would assume the "response" was the search result.) Then in the following sentence, what causes an information leakage issue or "side channel"? Why does information leakage aid an attack, or how does it? Jim Killock (talk) 07:34, 21 February 2024 (UTC) @JimKillock Sure, no problems, feel free to ask any questions :) - In this case response should mean the HTTP responses sent to the browser, however mentioning that requires that we go of on a tangent explaining "HTTP". Since the "search result" abstraction is not incorrect, I'm not too keen on doing anything here. But a "search result" is naturally going to give a different "response" if it is for a different search term, which is what you imply here. However the http response seems to be different for another reason? This is why it seems confusing. --Jim Killock (talk) 21:47, 23 February 2024 (UTC) The HTTP responses are different because the search results are different. Imagine a attacker is trying to attack your Gmail account using this technique, the attacker would analyze gmail and find that the website has a search endpoint. They would then pick two queries (say "dog" and "ggdkjsvkjfdsgfdjkgjfdsdj"). They know that "ggdkjsvkjfdsgfdjkgjfdsdj" will always return a empty response. Given this, the attacker will then identify a information leak by which they can differentiate a empty response from a non-empty response. Once they do that, they are able to make the two queries, and if both responses are empty, they know that you don't own dogs, else they now know that you own/talk about dogs. Hope that cleared up the confusion. Sohom (talk) 18:14, 24 February 2024 (UTC) - This is more difficult, and a good question. There is no particular cause for these information leakages, they are inherent to the way the web works and are a result of design choices that were made during the early years. This is touched upon in some detail in the "Background" and "Mechanism" section of the article. IIRC, they are things like, http responses and JS etc allow the website to ask (or is told by dewfault?) things like what browser version, plug ins, language, fonts, etc are being used. Are there other relevant examples? An example or two would help. --Jim Killock (talk) 21:47, 23 February 2024 (UTC) You are confusing Browser fingerprinting with Cross-site leaks. The most common example of a information leakage issues in a cross-site leak context would be the leakage of cache information across websites (a different website caches images and then you check if a specific image is cached). Another example I like to give is that of a website timing how long another website (say Wikipedia) takes to return a login page. If it takes particularly long, you can infer that the login page redirect somewhere else, and so make the inference that the user is logged into Wikipedia. Sohom (talk) 20:13, 24 February 2024 (UTC) - Again, this is another really good question, I've struggled to explain this in a succient way in the lede, but these information leakages are necessary since they bypass the Same-origin policy (there is some discussion about this in the "Background" section). Under normal circumstances, browsers will block attempts by websites to query information about other websites rendering this attack ineffective. Let me know if the changes work :) Sohom (talk) 15:37, 23 February 2024 (UTC) Improvements for sure. Perhaps it would be helpful to draft a simple explanation as not being part of the lede as a first step, so we don't conflate the parameters of a lede with the need of the average reader to be given a simple overvew? And then it can aid the lede draft as you would have the basic level guide ready? --Jim Killock (talk) 21:47, 23 February 2024 (UTC) @JimKillock Sure, I've answered your questions above, let me know if you need further clarification. Sohom (talk) 16:24, 25 February 2024 (UTC) I will re-read your background section and see if I can understand better. Jim Killock (talk) 22:43, 25 February 2024 (UTC) The current draft is better, but it is still hard to follow; your explanations here are very helpful, but I think it will take a long time to answer my questions in this way to the point I understand it sufficiently to be able to suggest edits or improvements to the text. So I'm doing a bit of background reading elsewhere to see if I can get an overview into my mind. Another step you could take is to read WP:TECHNICAL and WP:EXPLAINLEAD and produce a simple explanation based on those for the "general reader" audience, without regard to where it goes for now. Jim Killock (talk) 08:53, 26 February 2024 (UTC) @JimKillock Let me know if the rough summary at User:Sohom Datta/csl's 2nd paragraph is any better? Sohom (talk) 19:27, 2 March 2024 (UTC) Yes this is much better. The example is very well explained and I would hope accessible to a much broader range of readers. There is something missing after this. You say: To execute the attack, the attacker tricks the victim into visiting a website they control, where the exploit is delivered. This often involves phishing or luring the victim to click on a seemingly harmless link. It is hard to relate this back to the prior explanation: the attacker has learnt about different responses, and you have explained how to observe these, but not why these differences matter to an attacker, nor why phishing is needed to deliver the attack. Jim Killock (talk) 11:36, 4 March 2024 (UTC) @JimKillock I've cleaned up User:Sohom Datta/csl a bit more. I've removed the reference to phishing since it seems out of place and provided more context on how the attack can be used to find more information about the user. Sohom (talk) 23:53, 8 March 2024 (UTC) @Sohom Datta Closer still :) But I am not sure you can cut all the information about the way the attack is delivered. You had: "To execute the attack, the attacker tricks the victim into visiting a website they control, where the exploit is delivered. This often involves phishing or luring the victim to click on a seemingly harmless link." This didn't seem complete, but the user needs to understand a little of the mechanism used. Therefore on a read through of the current text, these two questions came to to me: A line is needed to explain the method by which the attacker gets to watch gmail queries in the victim's browser: they could try to find a search URL which returns a HTTP response based on how many search results are found for a specific search term in a user's emails. [SOMETHING NEEDED HERE: about what the attacker has done to be able to cause the searches to be made from the browser, if that is possible, that is more that "information leakage issues"] The attacker can then use information leakage issues At the end, perhaps give an example of the kind of revealing search the attacker might want to find out about, and what the value of that might be. eg, is this about prurient interest, emails from banks? Improving phishing attacks as the attacker knows who you bank with? Jim Killock (talk) 07:49, 9 March 2024 (UTC) @JimKillock Let me know if the latest version is better :) Sohom (talk) 01:44, 10 March 2024 (UTC) @Sohom Very, very nearly there. Thank you very much for bearing with me on this. The order of things needs to be simplified a little (sorry as I have probably caused this problem). In particular, you open up the idea of using Gmail time responses in para 2 sentence 2, but don't explain why this might work until para 3 sentence 3. These ideas belong together for the reader, even though they don't in terms of the sequence of the attack. Otherwise they won't understand para 2 and will stop reading. After "had any emails containing the query string" I think a really basic example would be satisfying for the reader who has made the effort to read this, and is unsure if they have understood. Something like "The query could be for 'Yourbank PLC', 'Divorce Solicitors', 'husband having affair', for example." Please use better examples especially if these can help with understanding concepts further in the article. :) Jim Killock (talk) 07:00, 10 March 2024 (UTC) I wasn't able to reorganize the attack in a manner where those two sentences were close to each other. I've instead moved the papargraph break to a place where it is obvious that both paragraphs need to be read to understand the attack. (I think?) Similarly, I'm a bit uncomfortable with making up queries that are not supported by any paper. I've instead opted to add a footnote clarifying what types of information are queried and cited a source for that. Sohom (talk) 16:57, 10 March 2024 (UTC) @JimKillock Let me know if the changes work. (They are in the lede of Cross-site leaks) Sohom (talk) 16:58, 10 March 2024 (UTC) @Sohom I think it's fine for now. Someone else needs to look and review at this point - I am now too familiar with it to be of much help - and you are probably bored of hearing from me! A fresh reader can assess whether it hits the mark I think. but for me this is sufficient for me to make a recommendation to support on the basis that it is now much clearer to a first time reader. Jim Killock (talk) 18:07, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Supporting on the basis of an edited simplified introduction, but I recommend that other non-technical editors have a read and make their own assessment and give advice. This is a difficult topic to ensure there is a basic, top-level version accessible enough for WP's general audience. --Jim Killock (talk) 18:11, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Coordinator note

This has been open for more than three weeks and has yet to pick up a support. Unless it attracts considerable movement towards a consensus to promote over the next three or four days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:11, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild Any suggestions on where I might be able to attract more reviewers? This article more on the technical side, and a lack of regular reviewers would be expected, since the subject matter (CS/Privacy) is pretty different from most regular FACs (Not that that's a bad thing) :) Sohom (talk) 23:46, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

@Sohom Datta: I've listed the article at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews needed. Like I mentioned to you earlier today, I'll see if I can come around for another review myself this weekend. Maybe you could also try reaching out to some of the devs on the Wikimedia Discord? —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 01:47, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

I've notified the Computer Science and semi-active Computer Security Wikiprojects (I should have done this earlier). I don't think the devs on Wikimedia Discord are my best bet, but I'll reach out and see what I can do :) Sohom (talk) 23:45, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

My boilerplate advice is

Reviewers are more happy to review articles from people whose name they see on other reviews (although I should say there is definitely no quid pro quo system on FAC). Reviewers are a scarce resource at FAC, unfortunately, and the more you put into the process, the more you are likely to get out. Personally, when browsing the list for an article to review, I am more likely to select one by an editor whom I recognise as a frequent reviewer. Critically reviewing other people's work may also have a beneficial impact on your own writing and your understanding of the FAC process.

Sometimes placing a polite neutrally phrased request on the talk pages of a few of the more frequent reviewers helps. Or on the talk pages of relevant Wikiprojects. Or of editors you know are interested in the topic of the nomination. Or who have contributed at PR, or assessed at GAN, or edited the article. Sometimes one struggles to get reviews because potential reviewers have read the article and decided that it requires too much work to get up to FA standard. I am not saying this is the case here - I have not read the article - just noting a frequent issue.

Gog the Mild (talk) 20:06, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Comments from TechnoSquirrel69

A little late, but saving a spot here. I'm not able to get to the review this weekend, but I'll try to get back here with some comments as soon as time permits. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 21:05, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

@Sohom Datta: It seems that time did not permit, unfortunately. However, I'm officially back; have a review! Citation numbers from this revision.

Media review

• File:XS-Leaks Attack Steps.svg is freely licensed and tagged accordingly.
• File:Histogram of cross-site leaks cache timing attack example.png is freely licensed and tagged accordingly.
• Code blocks included in the article are taken from Van Goethem et al., which is freely licensed. The text is appropriately attributed.
• Media review passed.

Other comments

• So I think the entirety of footnote 4 is unnecessary. The attribution for the code is already given in the references, and if it contains an error of some sort (which I'm not pretending to understand, just assuming), then it should be silently corrected. This is kind of clarification is useful for editors, but I'd expect it more in an HTML comment than in the actual article.
• There are a bunch of citations where you've duplicated part of the URL in the |website= parameter. It's much more useful and consistent to identify the name of the website or entity and link to the article about it if possible. For example, in citation 2: |website=developer.mozilla.org → |publisher=[[MDN Web Docs]]. Also, use italics only when referring to the name of a publication (The Daily Swig) and not just for every website (Medium), similarly to how the name would be treated in running prose.

Done, lmk if I missed any

• In citation 15: lose the underscore.

Done

• In citation 28: Add the author, remove "Cybersecurity news and views".

Done

• There are a few other citations also missing authors.

Should be fixed, lmk if I missed any

I'm doing a more detailed review of the prose, which I'll add here once I'm done. Let me know if you have any questions in the meantime! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 21:59, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

@Sohom Datta: Alright, we talked in much more detail earlier, but I'll just summarize my feedback here for the record.

• A reader needs additional context for the subject matter, which takes the form of explaining how the system is supposed to work before getting into how to exploit it.
• Don't dumb down the content, try to abstract it so readers can understand the general concepts without needing specific knowledge of all the moving parts. When you do have to get into technical territory, make sure to contextualize it in plainer terms.
• The diagram in § Background is confusing and borderline illegible. The article is probably not well served by it, so consider options to replace it or remove it altogether.

—TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 04:04, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Comments from Mike Christie

I'm not a security expert but I do have some technology background so I'll see if I can provide some useful comments.

• The first thing that strikes me is that the lead is too long for the size of the article -- it's almost 25% of the length of the body. I would cut at least a quarter of it; it only needs to summarize and point to the content in the body.

  Most of the bulk of the lede comes from a detailed, simplified example of a how a attack is performed. (Which was something JimKillock wanted) Would it make sense to merge that with the Mechanism section?

  Per your comment below, I think moving some of the detail to the "Mechanism" section would work well. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:02, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

let me know if the current version is any better. Sohom (talk) 00:32, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

• You link to information leakage twice in the lead.

  Fixed

  Still there -- you link from "leak information" in the first paragraph and "information leakage" in the third; I was going to remove the second link but realized you might prefer to keep that one. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:02, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

• Looking at File:XS-Leaks Attack Steps.svg, I suggest adding a little more to the caption explaining the sequence. Perhaps add "Here the attacker can deduce that the victim is logged in to the vulnerable site".

  I've expanded some of the captions.

  That does help. How about using the "upright" param to increase the size of the image a bit? It's not readable without clicking through on most screen sizes. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:02, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

• Just making sure I understand the mechanics: client-side Javascript sends a request to victim.leak, which replies; the body of that http response is hidden from attack.leak by the browser, but the http header of the response is returned to the Javascript's execution context, which means it can be forwarded to attack.leak. Is that correct?

  Mostly, the HTTP header is not returned/read by the attacker, but some of the effects of the Content-Disposition header can be observed by attack.leak. (https://xsleaks.dev/docs/attacks/navigations/#download-trigger gives a nice overview of the attack).

  I can see the types of attack are so numerous that it's not feasible for you to list every single one. However, the detection of downloads seems like it is a clear enough example you might consider adding a mention of it to the "Other techniques" paragraph. And is what you say about the Content-Disposition header a generally true statement for most of the attacks? If so it seems like that's a technical detail that ought to be mentioned. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:02, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

I've elected to remove references to the download attack in the new diagram per the new feedback.

• Have there been any known instances of this attack in the wild?

  None that have been documented in RS.

  It's hard to source a negative but I think we should say this if we can source it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:02, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

I've not been able to find any sources that prove the negative, the closest RS comes to describing in-the-wild instances are Terjanq's and Luan Herrara's attack. :( Sohom (talk) 00:32, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

• In the last paragraph of the lead, "traditionally", "modern" and "more recently" imply a time frame; can we put dates on these? "Until the 2010s" and "since about 2020", or whatever the sources would support. Otherwise the language is going to date relatively quickly.
• "Cross-site leaks allow attackers to break this cross-origin barrier, which is inherent in web app contexts": The previous sentence described the barrier as preventing arbitrary execution, so I think "break" is too strong here -- really it's a read-only breach. How about "Cross-site leaks allow attackers to obtain information despite [or through] this cross-origin barrier". And what does "which is inherent in web app contexts" add that hasn't been said in the previous sentences?

  Removed the last part, and reworded the rest

• "To perform a cross-site leak, the attacker must identify and include at least one state-dependent URL in the victim app." This makes it sound as if the attacker is including something in victim.leak; what I think you mean is "To perform a cross-site leak, the attacker must identify at least one state-dependent URL in the victim app for use in the attack app".

  Done

• "To demonstrate ... is taken": suggest "The following example of ... demonstrates a common scenario of ..." -- I think the "is taken" wording sounds a bit strained.

  Done

• Just out of curiosity, and to see if I understand the mechanism properly, if the attacker used an icon loaded from their own network, wouldn't that give them more specific information than timing a CDN icon return to see if it was cached

  Yes, that would definitely give the attacker more information (and make the attack easier), but in this case, the assumption we are making is that the attacker cannot tamper with the content of the victim website, just make requests to it

  Right -- I'd misunderstood the mechanism. Rereading I don't think more is needed; I just misread it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:02, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

• Suggest expanding "iff" and unlinking it; no need to abbreviate to that level.

  Done

• "but used an amplification technique in which the input was crafted to extensively grow the size of the responses, leading to a proportional growth in the time taken to generate the responses, thus increasing the attack's accuracy". What would we lose if this was shortened to "but used a technique in which the input was crafted to grow the size of the responses, leading to a proportional growth in the time taken to generate the responses, thus increasing the attack's accuracy"?

  Done

• "Since 2020, there has been some interest among the academic security community to standardize these attacks." Suggest "Since 2020, there has been some interest among the academic security community in standardizing the classification of these attacks".

  Done

• You might consider changing to {{Use Oxford spelling}} instead of {{Use British English}}, since you're using "-ize" endings.

  Done

• "... for which there is no established, uniform classification. These attacks are typically categorized by ...": seems contradictory.

  I guess I want to emphasize "established" and "uniform" in the previous sentence.

  OK. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:02, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

• "As of 2021, researchers have identified over 38 leak techniques that target components of the browser, and new techniques are discovered due to ongoing changes in web platform APIs": I'm not sure what the second half of this is saying. Does it refer to discoveries that post-date the 2021 list of 38 techniques? Or is it a general statement about how new techniques can appear?

  It's a general statement on how new techniques appear.

  Could we make this "As of 2021, researchers have identified over 38 leak techniques that target components of the browser. New techniques are typically [or often] discovered due to ongoing changes in web platform APIs"? Assuming the source supports this? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:02, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

• "timing attacks could infer cross-origin execution times across embedded contexts": what does "across embedded contexts" mean?

  "Embedded contexts" would be mostly iframes (and other more obscure framing techniques)

  OK -- I think that's fine as is; I'm not a web developer but I think anyone familiar with the field would have no trouble with this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:02, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

• "showed the Performance API could leak": "Performance API" needs a link or a footnoted explanation; I assume it's one of Chrome's APIs but that should be clearer.

  Added

• "In contrast, if the handler onerror is triggered with a specific error event, the attacker can use that information to distinguish between HTTP content types, status codes and media-type errors": again just checking my understanding -- wouldn't this information already be available in the http status code?

  Yes it would, but the browser would not allow cross-origin pages to access the http status codes

  OK -- this is the same question as above about the Content-Disposition header; I hadn't understood exactly what information is allowed to be seen by the browser, and was assuming some aspects of the status were directly visible. I think in the mechanism section some statement that incorporates what you've told me in answer to these two questions would be helpful. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:02, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

• If the sources give enough information, what could the "global limits" reveal? And is this section different from the last sentence of "Timing attacks" which talks about a pool party attack? (And is it "pool party" or "pool-party"? You have both.)

  This section is not different from the last sentence, these attacks have been categorized by Knittel as both timing and as part of the new "global limits" type. The paper dicussing pool-party attacks uses the "pool-party" convention, I'll stick with that.

  I think it would be helpful if the reader knew in the global limits section that the previously mention pool-party attack was an example of this type of attack. Perhaps in the timing attacks section add something like "this is an example of a global limits attack"? Or the reverse: in the later section mention the earlier timing attack as an example. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:02, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

• "an attacker could leak whether or not a Cross-Origin-Opener-Policy header was set": can we say what this would reveal to the attacker?

  So, the presence or absence of a header doesn't reveal much on it's own. However, it's a mechanism to tell two responses apart. Ditto for the one above.

• Suggest linking "stateless" to stateless protocol.

  Done

• "By disallowing the embedding of the website in untrusted contexts, the malicious app can no longer ...": needs rephrasing; as written this says it's the malicious app that is doing the disallowing.

  Rephrased

• Am I right in thinking that the Fetch metadata headers do nothing by themselves, but require the targeted app to take action depending on their content? So they enable a defence but are not in themselves a defence?

  Yep, they enable a defence but they are not defences in themselves (it allows for disallowing specific "risky" requests)

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:16, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

@Mike Christie Thank you so much for the review. I've implemented most of the feedback and left a few inline explanations.

I'm a bit confused regarding the lede (a lot of the bulk comes from implementing User:JimKillock's (courtesty ping) suggestions regarding simplified overview of the topic for general readers). I wonder if moving some of the example related content into the "mechanism" section would be a good idea :) Sohom (talk) 04:55, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi both, take a read of

• WP:TECHNICAL: It is especially important to make the lead section understandable using plain language, and it is often helpful to begin with more common and accessible subtopics, then proceed to those requiring advanced knowledge or addressing niche specialties.
• WP:EXPLAINLEAD: For these reasons, the lead should provide an understandable overview of the article. While the lead is intended to mention all key aspects of the topic in some way, accessibility can be improved by only summarizing the topic in the lead and placing the technical details in the body of the article. … In general, the lead should not assume that the reader is well acquainted with the subject of the article. Terminology in the lead section should be understandable on sight to general readers whenever this can be done in a way that still adequately summarizes the article, and should not depend on a link to another article.
• WP:ONEDOWN A general technique for increasing accessibility is to consider the typical level where the topic is studied (for example, secondary, undergraduate, or postgraduate). … The lead section should be particularly understandable, but the advice to write one level down can be applied to the entire article, increasing the overall accessibility. Writing one level down also supports our goal to provide a tertiary source on the topic, which readers can use before they begin to read other sources about it. Writing one level down also supports our goal to provide a tertiary source on the topic, which readers can use before they begin to read other sources about it. In terms of the example, For example, a long-winded mathematical proof of some result is unlikely to be read by either a general reader or an expert, but a short summary of the proof and its most important points may convey a sense to a general reader without reducing the usefulness to an expert reader.

I think a simple lead and then layering the basic description afterwards would fit the above from the WP:MOS, but you would need to take care that the lead itself remains comprehensible to an "average non-technical reader". Jim Killock (talk) 07:48, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Arbitrary break: Sohom

@JimKillock, Mike Christie, and TechnoSquirrel69: (also @Joereddington: who left some comments at WikiProject Computer Security :) I've rewritten the lede and the background. I've elected to remove the detailed description of the attack from the lede (the example and description have been moved to the mechanism section) and instead provide a brief overview of the salient aspects of the attack. The background section has been expanded to provide some context on why a attacker might want to perform the attack and explain the impact of the same-origin policy in a better way (it also goes into detail about the ideal way everything should work). The confusing drawing in the background+mechanism section has been replaced with a much better and simplified diagram that does not include references to the download identification attack. (after a lot of feedback from Technosquirrel69) Sohom (talk) 00:32, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks - I think the shortened lead approach can work well here, and entirely agree with it being moved; however, the current lead contains a lot of unexplained concepts which are of course broken down in the background you wrote. If this wasn't Wikipedia, I would add a sentence to guide the unitiated to hold on (eg, "a simple explanation of the process is provided below"). Also if this wasn't Wikipedia I would suggest removing more of the potentially confusing and not fully expanded concepts in order to ensure the reader doesn't feel they've lost the thread and stopped.

Given all that may break the rules, I would aim for a very simple over-view up front along the lines of: In a cross site attack, the user is duped into visiting a malicious website, that asks the users' browser to get information from another web service, like a search engine, without the user knowing about it. Because the other web service was "asked" by the users' web browser, it complies with the request. The malicious website can then learn something about the user's relationship with the web service, through things like the length of time it takes for a request to come back, or the amount of information the web service gives to the user. While the malicious website cannot read the information from the web service directly, as it is collected by the user in their web browser, the malicious website can make accurate inferences that reveal specific facts about the user.

You could even incorporate here or perhaps in the background section: For example, the attacker could ask your browser to search a web based email service. The attacker would then pick two queries (say "dog" and "ggdkjsvkjfdsgfdjkgjfdsdj"). They know that "ggdkjsvkjfdsgfdjkgjfdsdj" will always return a empty response. Given this, the attacker will then observe the difference when your browser gets an empty response versus a non-empty response. Once they do that, they are able to make the two queries, and if both responses are empty, they know that you don't own dogs, else they now know that you own or talk about dogs. Jim Killock (talk) 04:58, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

I've tried to simplify the language of the first portion of the lede and incorporate some of your suggestions. Let me know if it works now. Regarding the rest, I have reservations about including the exact example (which I had outlined previously). However, I've incorporated a part of the text in the Mechanism section. Sohom (talk) 16:44, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

I understand the reluctance, and I've no wish to keep pushing my own view here. But I would ask you if you can honestly say that per WP:EXPLAINLEAD and WP:TECHNICAL that the "lead section [is] understandable using plain language", consistently does "not assume that the reader is well acquainted with the subject" and that "Terminology in the lead section [is] understandable on sight to general readers".

The recommended tool hemingwayapp is giving the lead a rating of "Grade 14 Poor. Aim for 9. and says "11 of 28 sentences are very hard to read".

Personally I think it is possible to make the introductory remarks simpler, which was my aim in writing a few lines to show how it could be approached. And when asked casually, you have yourself given me very good and impressively clear simple explanations. Jim Killock (talk) 20:59, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Coordinator note 2

This has been open for nearly six weeks and has attracted a lot of comments but only declarations of support. It currently feels more like a PR than a FAC. There still seems a way to go to achieve any consensus to promote so I am to put it to bed now and ask that further work take place away from FAC with discussion on the article talk page, or possibly PR. I anticipate seeing it back here soon, although the usual two-week wait applies. You can of course again ping the reviewers to comment at the next FAC. Cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:33, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:33, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

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 FrB.TG via FACBot (talk) 25 March 2024 [15].

---

Yugoslav submarine Mališan

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:22, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

This article is about a dinky little midget sub that was built by the Italians for harbour defence and anti-submarine warfare tasks in WWII, but was incomplete at the time of the Italian armistice in September 1943, and ended up being handed over to the Italian Social Republic (rump fascist Italy) by the Germans after capture and completion. Captured by the Yugolavs at the end of the war, they repaired and commissioned her for use as a training boat. In 1953 she became a museum boat (a long way from the sea in Zagreb), and she was recently refurbished. There has been some controversy about returning her to her Italian colours and markings rather than retaining her Yugoslav ones. Have at it! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:22, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Image review

• Suggest adding alt text. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:30, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Done, thanks Nikkimaria! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:37, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

RoySmith

• The lead says "Malisan ... was a CB-class midget submarine", but that's only hinted at in the body. It should be stated explicitly somewhere, probably as the first sentence of Design and construction"

Done. Thanks. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:50, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

• Given that you use "harbour", I assume you want {{Use British English}} up top.

Australian English, but point well made. Added. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:50, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

• "The inner pressure hull contained..." that makes it sound like there's an inner pressure hull and an outer pressure hull, which I don't think is what you intended.

Quite, removed "inner". Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:50, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

• "the steel used for the outer hull was not of high quality and highly prone to rust." how about, "the steel used for the outer hull was poor quality and prone to rust"

Much better, done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:50, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

• " Early boats of the class were deployed to the Black Sea in mid-1942 where they had some successes against submarines of the Soviet Black Sea Fleet." This is out of place in a paragraph that talks about the construction details.

Fair enough, moved. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:50, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

• "the Caproni company in Milan[2] – better known as an aircraft manufacturer": This sounds like Milan was an aircraft manufacturer; rephrase to make it clear you're talking about Caproni.

Sure, done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:50, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

• "The boat measures 15 m (49 ft 3 in) in length", simplify to "The boat is 15 m (49 ft 3 in) long"

Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:50, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

• Related to the previous, be consistent about past vs present tense, generally throughout the article.

I don't think that is possible logically, as some things remain current (such as her length), other things (such as her propulsion of draught) are in the past, as she is no longer powered and no longer sails. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:50, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

• "powered by a total of 308 batteries" -> "powered by 308 batteries"
• "which were located under the control room and were charged by" -> "which were located under the control room and charged by"
• "The maximum speed achieved by the boat was" -> "The maximum speed was", I think everybody can figure out that it's the boat's speed that's being referred to.
• "surfaced and 6 kn (11 km/h; 6.9 mph) when underwater", drop the "when"
• "When surfaced, at a speed of 7.5 kn (13.9 km/h; 8.6 mph) the boat had a range of only 450 nautical miles (830 km; 520 mi), at 5 kn (9.3 km/h; 5.8 mph) her range was 1,400 nmi (2,600 km; 1,600 mi)" I'd suggest rewording this as "Running at full speed on the surface, the boat had a range of 450 nautical miles (830 km; 520 mi); at 5 kn (9.3 km/h; 5.8 mph) this increased to 1,400 nmi (2,600 km; 1,600 mi)"
• "When submerged, at a speed of 3 kn (5.6 km/h; 3.5 mph) the boat had a range of 60 nmi (110 km; 69 mi)." Likewise, I'd say "Submerged, at 3kn (...), the range was 60 nmi (...)"
• For all of these specifications, it would be useful to provide comparisons to other contemporary designs.
• "She was completed in Milan by March 1944", did Caproni complete the work, or did another builder take over?
• "it was forced to return" Return to where?
• " Her crew surrendered but were later killed by the JA along with other members of the Xª MAS.[7]" It's not clear what "along with" is joining. Are you saying "the crew and other members of the X MAS were killed" or "The JA and other members of the X MAS did the killing"?
• "Mališan was commissioned into the JRM in 1953, and they used the submarine for training ..." -> "In 1953, Mališan was commissioned into the JRM, who used it for training ..."

I'll probably make another pass later, but that's what I see on a first read. RoySmith (talk) 03:14, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

PS, I would add that you need MOS:ALT texts for all images, but I see that Nikkimaria already said that, so I'll just say that you should listen to her :-) RoySmith (talk) 03:51, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

This is done now, thanks. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:37, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

One other thing I noticed; reading over the MilHist assessment the question was brought up about how the batteries were charged. While "batteries ... were charged by running the diesel engine on the surface" isn't wrong, it would be more correct to say they were charged by (for example) an alternator driven from the diesel engine. Diesel engines don't produce electricity, but they can (and almost always do) drive an alternator, dynamo, or some other kind of generator. In fact, given that there's an electric motor on the same shaft, I wouldn't be surprised if that motor doubled as a generator when the diesel was running, and maybe even served as the starter motor for the diesel. If there's a WP:RS which speaks to this, it would be useful to go into some detail. If not, then what you've got now is fine.

If you can find it, relevant details would be the battery voltage, capacity in AH (amp-hours), and how long it took to recharge. If you can find something that says what the battery chemistry was, include that; I'd be astounded if it was anything other than wet cell lead-acid, but if not, then even more interesting to include. RoySmith (talk) 00:13, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

https://www.maritimequest.com/warship_directory/italy/pages/submarines/cb_20_data.htm claims Malisan had the 100 HP electric motor you say was only on previous boats of this class. That site also has different numbers from you for submerged speed and submerged range. Any idea why the discrepancy? RoySmith (talk) 16:09, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

@Peacemaker67 I haven't seen any responses, so pinging you to make sure you're aware of the above review. RoySmith (talk) 20:18, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, I’ll get right into this! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:05, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Volcanoguy

• The submarine had been on display for almost fifty years. Given that this article mainly uses double digit numbers in numeral format, fifty would probably better off as 50 for consistency. Comments welcomed FAC here. Volcanoguy 18:05, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Comments by Pickersgill-Cunliffe

Will take a look after the above comments are actioned. Give me a ping once you're finished! Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 12:11, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

• I'm wondering if I should review, but responses seem to have stalled, Peacemaker67? FunkMonk (talk) 14:25, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

  @FAC coordinators: To be honest, I'm wondering the same thing. I reviewed this a month ago but @Peacemaker67 doesn't seem to be working on it much. RoySmith (talk) 14:37, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. FrB.TG (talk) 14:37, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

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) 21 March 2024 [16].

---

Illmatic

Nominator(s): Davest3r08 >:) ^(talk) 13:52, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

This article is about Illmatic, the debut album of American rapper Nas. It was recorded between 1992 to 1993, and covers topics such as poverty, gangs, and desolation. Although the album was released to initially low sales, it was well recieved by music critics and was later certified 2x platinum in the United States and gold in the United Kingdom and Canada. It also renewed interest in East Coast hip-hop/rap and is considered a landmark work of the genre. This is my first nomination at WP:FAC, and, if everything goes well, I will nominate this article for TFA on April 19 of this year, the album's 30th anniversary. Davest3r08 >:) ^(talk) 13:52, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

I would have to oppose and recommend withdrawal based on the cleanup tag in the accolades section and multiple unreferenced sentences. Heartfox (talk) 20:30, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Actually, you're right. I should do that first. I withdraw my nomination for the time being. — Davest3r08 >:) ^(talk) 20:49, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

As the nomination is still open, I'll add a comment. At a glance, this article looks very long. WP:XTools tells me that it is in excess of 11,000 words of readable prose (see here), not counting tables and the such. This is almost certainly too long, and I would advise seeing what can be done to get it down to a more manageable length before renominating. TompaDompa (talk) 23:16, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been withdrawn, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 01:16, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

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) 19 March 2024 [17].

---

Tornado outbreak of March 13–15, 2024

Nominator(s): ( ͡°( ͡° ͜ʖ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)ʖ ͡°)͡°) (talk) 17:06, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

This article is about a tornado outbreak that occurred not too long ago, on March 13-15 of this year. I think it should be featured (or at least attempt to be featured) because of the immense amount of detail put into every paragraph, the proper use of images (although not many, they are quality), and how quick the article came together. It was a draft yesterday, and today there's now about an hour-long read. I don't think I've honestly ever seen so many Wikipedians come together in one day and form an article this quickly. ( ͡°( ͡° ͜ʖ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)ʖ ͡°)͡°) (talk) 17:06, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Comments by Epicgenius

Looking at this quickly, this page seems quite far from FAC status. There are a bunch of issues:

• Several of the paragraphs are unsourced.
• There is a citation needed tag in the "Confirmed tornadoes" table as well.
• The "Confirmed tornadoes" section seems very disorganized. For example, the first three subsections are about specific dates, but the last two subsections are about two specific tornadoes. For some reason, only the two strongest tornadoes are given subsections here, but both sections have several paragraphs. For the other tornadoes, they're only mentioned in the table. Is there a reason why this is the case?
• Many of the sources seem to be WP:PRIMARY sources from the National Weather Service. For this to even be a good article, you would need a lot more secondary sourcing, such as newspapers and magazine articles, and/or reports published after the fact.
• There seems to be missing information about the tornado outbreak's impact and aftermath. For example, in which ways did the outbreak damage local infrastructure, affect the community, etc. There is a "Non-tornadic effects" section, but that just talks about hail and rain.
• Finally, and I just realized this now, this article is about a tornado outbreak that took place less than a week ago, so it's not likely to be stable at all. This is one of the main criteria outlined in WP:FACR.

Sorry, but I have to oppose this FAC. I really strongly suggest withdrawing the nomination and first sending this article through the peer review process. – Epicgenius (talk) 23:29, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Also, I noticed that this FAC was never transcluded properly on the WP:FAC page. Pinging the @FAC coordinators: . – Epicgenius (talk) 23:31, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Yea, sorry, I posted the FaC and read about the passage of time section, I honestly don't think it should be a featured article. I don't know if there's a way to delete the FaC request? Thanks :) ( ͡°( ͡° ͜ʖ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)ʖ ͡°)͡°) (talk) 10:57, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

No problem. Hopefully the @FAC coordinators: don't mind another ping. Epicgenius (talk) 15:03, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been withdrawn, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:16, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

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) 17 March 2024 [18].

---

Cataract surgery

Nominator(s): · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 08:42, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

This article is about one of the most common elective surgical procedures of all time, the only effective treatment for a disability that affects almost all people who live long enough, that is highly effective with a very high success rate, and has a history going back to antiquity, but is very variable in accessibility and cost depending on where one is. The sort of thing a lot of people will look for on Wikipedia. I think I have covered all the most important aspects, and most of the more interesting aspects, but more eyes will find more errors and omissions. I am less concerned with FA status than with improving the article, so I may debate or request clarification for changes that I do not understand or do not agree with. Please feel free to make small changes that are likely to be uncontroversial if it will be less work than explaining them. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 08:42, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Source age

Peter, you probably don't have any idea how much I admire your results here. This is an impressive achievement and much needed. I point this out because I'm planning to complain that some of these sources are a bit elderly compared to the ideal. I suggest specifically:

• Faust (1984) could be removed (unless it's there as a historically important paper?).
  • but Altman et al. (1985) is a historical paper supporting a historical statement, so it's okay.
• Toczolowski (1993) should probably be replaced (for the definition) and is probably unimportant for the history.
• Mathey (1994) should probably be replaced.
• Thim (1993) could be removed.

From the present century, about 20% of the sources are 15+ years old. Without reviewing each one individually, this is unlikely to be ideal. We are usually hoping for sources from the last five years and willing to settle for sources within the last 10. The problem with older sources is that it's never easy to tell whether they're just "older" or if they're also "outdated". For example, "The pupil is checked for dilation using eyedrops; if pharmacologic pupil dilation is insufficient, procedures for mechanical pupil dilatation may be needed during the surgery" cites a 20-year-old (primary) source. Has anything changed since then? Maybe there's a new second-line drug available? Or maybe not? A 20-year-old source leaves me wondering; a recent source would help me trust that the information is up to date.

WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:03, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

• Faust(1984) mentions the origin of the term hydrodissection, at least in this context, so of some historical interest, but probably not important enough to keep if it bothers people. The term seems to be in general use, including in other applications, and the procedure appears to remain basically the same for this application, though there may be slight variations in technique outside the current scope of this article. I have found a more recent primary source mentioning importance and describing a variation of the technique which I have added (Tas 2018). Yanoff and Duker (2009) remains a better general description. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 04:13, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
• Toczolowski (1993) gives the best description of the technique that I was able to find, and as it is not generally used for cataract surgery any more, recent articles may not exist. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 04:36, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
• Thim et al (1993) removed as redundant. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 04:44, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
• There are alternatives to eyedrops for dilation of the pupil, which I have now mentioned with a reasonably recent reference. I don't think this is often needed, but worth mentioning. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 06:55, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
• Mathey (1994) has been replaced by Han (2019) and Biswas and Batra (2020).· · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 07:36, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
• For several citations I have used a combination of a reference to a relatively old medical textbook as a high quality secondary source and a more recent journal article mentioning the matter as background information as a more current source. I think this is a reasonably practicable method of managing the problem when I have do not have access to more recent textbooks. Currency and completeness will always be difficult to establish in a developing field, and are among the reasons for the FAC process which hopefully make it worth the effort. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 06:23, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Tweaks needed

The article is listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Database Report (the figure is the number of moss code hits):

• 8 - Cataract surgery - "procedure,anterior", "cararact", "epinucleus", "hydroexpression", "advanved", "phacosandwich", "phacosection", "faciitated"

Some seem to be technical terms; there are a few typos, but I don't think a full copyedit is required. Good luck and all the best, Miniapolis 16:52, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

• Miniapolis, Thanks for the list, It seems like all the actual typos have already been fixed (thanks to those who did that), and thanks for your good wishes. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 15:13, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
  • Dhtwiki fixed them; I was in the middle of a huge copyedit, and couldn't get to it. All the best, Miniapolis 19:53, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Coordinator note

This has been open for three weeks and has yet to pick up a support. Unless it attracts considerable movement towards a consensus to promote over the next three or four days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:16, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

So it goes, · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 08:34, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Apologies, but this is clearly not moving towards a consensus to promote, and so I am archiving it. The usual two-week hiatus will apply. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:58, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:58, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

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) 14 March 2024 [19].

---

Midnights

Nominator(s): Ippantekina (talk) 10:43, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

This article is about the tenth studio album by Taylor Swift, an American singer-songwriter. This album garnered monstrous sales and was a #1 hit in many countries, and its Album of the Year win at the 2024 Grammy Awards received some contrarian commentary, although I personally find this album a pleasant listening experience. I believe this article is comprehensive, has depth, and is reliably sourced. I look forward to any and all comments. Regards, Ippantekina (talk) 10:43, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Image review - passes

• File:Midnights - Taylor Swift.png

  The album cover in the infobox. Use obviously makes sense in the article. The image is properly licensed, sourced, and has alt text.

• File:Antonoff in Tucson (cropped).jpg

  Use makes sense in the concept and writing section as most of the standard edition tracks were written with him. Source link is dead, the licensing is fine, and the image has alt text.

• File:Aaron Dessner at Way Out West 2014.jpg

  Image also make sense in the concept and writing section. Properly licensed, sourced, and has alt text.

• File:Taylor Swift The Eras Tour Midnights Era Set (53109799784) (cropped).jpg

  Use of the image fits the article, properly licensed, and sourced, but alt text needs to be re-written completely.

• File:Taylor Swift at the 2023 MTV Video Music Awards (1).png

  Use makes sense, properly licensed, sourced, and has alt text.

The next two things, although are not images, I'm including them here since they are files:

• File:Taylor Swift "Lavender Haze" sample.ogg

  Song sound sample: the inclusion makes sense in the article, it passes WP:SAMPLE, properly licensed, and sourced.

• File:Midnight Rain by Taylor Swift (sample).ogg

  Another song sample: Use in the article fits, passes WP:SAMPLE, is properly licensed, and sourced.

Overall, things are mostly fine, but there a couple minor things that need cleaned up. -- ZooBlazer 18:58, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

I replaced the Antonoff image and added ALT text to the Eras image. Thanks for the file review! Ippantekina (talk) 09:21, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

New image added:

• File:Antonoff at Radio Station.jpg - Replaced the above image of Antonoff. Everything looks good. Source link is dead, but this one has a working archive link.

With that said, I'm happy to pass the image review. -- ZooBlazer 03:36, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

@FAC coordinators: due to an increasingly busy schedule irl, I'd like to withdraw this FAC. Hopefully I'll get back to it when I resume my Wiki life :P Ippantekina (talk) 02:07, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been withdrawn, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 02:16, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

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) 11 March 2024 [20].

---

Change UK

Nominator(s): Lankyant (talk) 02:27, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

This article is about a break away centrist political party in the UK which had a lot of hype to begin with but soon disbanded. Article meets the FAC criteria Lankyant (talk) 02:27, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Image review

• Suggest adding alt text

• What's the benefit of so many slightly different logo images?

• Don't use fixed px size

• Almost all of the image source links are dead. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:40, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Daniel Case

Printing out a hard copy to take a look at and lightly copyedit if needed ... Will be back in a few days or so. Daniel Case (talk) 05:43, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

OK ... I'm back finally. UC's review below actually makes some of the same points I wanted to make, but that does not mean I needn't write this.

This article has some commendable aspects. It's very meticulously sourced although it needs a few citations, as tagged and noted below. The prose is, while I did have some issues with it, at least continuously grammatical.

It's good that we make a serious effort in telling what was ultimately an amusing sideshow to the serious of Brexit, an event that was in so many ways Brexit in nanocosm: a group of people broke away from a much larger one, expecting to bring more discontents with them, but they didn't, and shortly they began feuding among themselves. Ultimately nothing much, and probably nothing good, came of it, except for moving Labour more firmly to supporting Remain and perhaps proving that the kind of vague centrism that they espoused as the cure for Britain's political problems was the cause of them.

But while I think we could say it's a good article in its current form, it has a ways to go before it becomes featurable. Some specific reasons for this below:

• As I noted below, the name. Change UK was the middle in the sequence of the three the group went by. It was neither what it was established as, nor what it appeared on the ballot as. So why have we chosen it as the article title?
• It does not tell us the full story.
  • We begin with the emergence of TIG in February 2019. However, a decent browse through the sort of newspaper stories used as sources finds, among others, this BBC story and this BuzzFeed News story. Both tell of what the article narrative should have started with: the mounting dissatisfaction with Corbyn's leadership among moderate Labourites that led to secret meetings of as many as 50 MPs in a Sussex farmhouse, their disagreement about whether to remain a pressure group within Labour or split off, and Tom Watson's political heroics in talking all but eight out of leaving (Had some double-digit number left, à la Limehouse, things could have been different). Learning that helped my understanding of the TIG story. Not knowing it from the article hurts the reader's.
  • I have been trying to find this since I read the article but I recall reading a great sort of retrospective in some newspaper talking to one ex-Tigger about how what really wrecked things was the European elections. Put simply, they didn't expect to have the opportunity, and when it presented itself, they were never all on the same page to begin with about whether to field candidates (Didn't help either that they couldn't really agree on a permanent leader, either). When they did decide to, it forced many processes they had been expecting to have the time (i.e., until the election) to complete onto an accelerated timetable, and as often happens in that circumstance exacerbated personal conflicts to the point that it was no surprise about half the members left right afterwards.
  • I recall also reading another story in which another former Tigger believes the Lib Dems were out to destroy them from the get-go. You have to remember (and maybe this is in the story somewhere) that the Lib Dems had only begun to recover from 2015 then; the 15 or so seats they held were not too many more than TIG. A steady TIG growth spurt would have led them to quickly overtake the Lib Dems, possibly with some Lib Dems defecting, and led to TIG/Change supplanting the Lib Dems' brand as the Sensible Centrist Third Party, likely permanently. Cable and the party couldn't have that, obviously, and so it seems that future historians may find that at a time when it was the strongest voice for Remain, the LDP prioritized shivving its strongest potential ally at the expense of blunting Brexit.
• I concur with Nikkimaria in questioning why so many iterations of the party logo (such as it is; see below) are necessary as images in the article. I realize there aren't a lot of other things we could see images of, especially given that all the MPs who ever were in the party are pictured in the table near the end of the article, but four different images that are mostly of the same black-and-white stripes with some different words in black type next to them do not begin to offset that paucity of pictorial possibilities.
• What I find the strangest choice in writing this article is its structure. We get the history of the party, such as it is, in terms of its members. Then we get another history of the reaction. Then another one on the local officials who joined or considered joining TIG.

  Just why is it necessary to tell these narratives in parallel? In what other article on a political party, even an equally short-lived one, do we do this? In certain movies like Go, this sort of thing makes sense and works to the viewer's benefit, but I don't see the advantage here.

  As I noted below this is most directly responsible for the article repeating information, sometimes three times, it only needs to offer the reader once. It also leaves the reader disoriented, suddenly going back in time, and then doing it again, trying to remember what from the previous take might be relevant to what they are reading now. It would be much better if it were written the usual way, with only one chronology incorporating all aspects of the story.

• Lastly, to add to UC's observation about the limitations the almost exclusive use of contemporary news reportage places on the narrative, I offer some of the following sources that could easily be used to improve the article, in addition to those linked above, by offering some analysis both during and after TIG's brief flowering.
  • Tony Blair's early support.
  • Early TIG skepticism from The Daily Mirror, noting that none of the breakaway members were noted for any great vision or ideas, and including an embedded clip of Umunna unable in an interview to say what, if any, current Labour position he disagreed with.
  • An LSE blog post from early April 2019, before even the European election debacle pointing out the failings of TIG as "a group of elected representatives in search of a movement" and their general apparent lack of interest in really engaging the electorate.
  • A Wired article on how terrible TIG's branding was. The article already inadvertently demonstrates this by using all the (barely) different versions of the logo (Maybe we should put them in one {{multiple image}} box). The only thing the logo accomplished was making the name look moderately not so terrible (I have to admit I thought the name was sort of contradictory ... if you're independent, why are you part of a group? How can you really be part of one? ("'WE ARE ALL ... INDEPENDENT!' 'I'm not!') In the end that concern was correct as they all turned out to be more independent than group).
  • Party executive director Nicola Murphy (the one staffer they kept after the European elections. Maybe it's a bad sign to begin with when you have almost as many staffers as members without yet having contested a single election) offering [21] her positive take on TIG one year later.
  • Ditto Stephen Bush in The New Statesman, arguing that TIG's breakaway made it impossible for Labour to keep having it both ways on Brexit, which probably contributed to the Tory margins in the election.
  • Christine Berry at OpenDemocracy saying the same thing and additionally noting how TIG demonstrated that the sort of nebulous centrism it espoused was ill-suited to the public's mood.
  • Novara Media's July take on how the fact that many of the original Tiggers subsequently became lobbyists afterwards shows what hacks they were to begin with (and repeating the same observation that by leaving the Labour Party they made the hard Brexit they opposed that much likelier).
  • Finally, per CR's speculation that books should certainly be available by now, indeed they are.

I had originally intended not to take a position on this FAC, since I wanted to see if the nominator was willing to work on making what I believe to be necessary changes. But after reading UC's critique and investing the time necessary to make mine, and noting that the nominator has not been terribly active since making this nomination, I believe it is best for this article that we end this FAC now so the needed work of improving the article can be done without regard to deadline.

I therefore join UC in opposing this nomination. Daniel Case (talk) 07:59, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

UC

• The article is inconsistent as to whether Change UK is singular ("its eleven MPs") or plural ("appointed former Conservative MP Heidi Allen as their leader").

British English would treat it as plural, no? That first one might be my fault. Daniel Case (talk) 21:14, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

It depends: a matter of taste, really: in general, the more we want to think of them as a united group, the more likely we are to use the singular; conversely, the more we think of them as a loose-ish collection of individuals, the more likely we are to use the plural. However, within an article, we generally want to go with one or the other. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 21:16, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

• A couple of typos stick out: Rather than forming a party, they referring to themselves; the centre-keft Liberal Democrats, Liberal Democrats leader, the Lib Demis

And even I missed those. How horrible of me! Or (worse), they're probably from my rewrites of certain passages. Daniel Case (talk) 21:14, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

• In the sources, we're inconsistent about whether to use sentence or title case for article titles.
• Some terms need explaining for a non-UK audience: e.g. Brexit, Remainers.

Well, I understood them, but then again I don't count since I've worked on a few British-politics articles both pre- and post-Brexit. Daniel Case (talk) 21:15, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

• We've used the abbreviation "Lib Dems" without spelling out that it's the Liberal Democrats. I would generally avoid it except in quotation, per WP:NOTPAPER.

I sort of thought that readers would feel as though we thought that they were idiots if we did a parenthetical "Lib Dems" after "Liberal Democrats". Given how frequently they have to be mentioned in this article, I didn't feel like spelling it out every ... single ... time.

Generally we should have some guidance Daniel Case (talk) 21:14, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

We should certainly do it the first time, but to me, there are two good reasons to abbreviate: either you want to create a chatty, insider-y tone, or you're a paper source that has limited ink and space. Neither applies to us, so I'd use The Liberal Democrats on every mention: just as we wouldn't normally talk about the Tories, the GOP etc etc. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 21:17, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

I do wish we had some explicit guidance on this. I can understand not using "Tories" regularly (in neither UK or Canadian articles) but for a term that's so obviously derived from the full term, there is less possibility of reader confusion as there would be with "Tories" for those unfamiliar with its usage as the more colloquial term for members of the British and Canadian Conservative parties (here in the US, it's used only historically, for Loyalists during the Revolution ...)

This of course also creates the issue of what to do when that term is used in a quotation where we don't otherwise use it in the article text. I suppose one could avoid that portion of the quote, if possible, but what about where it isn't possible?

But we're getting away from the subject at hand here ... Daniel Case (talk) 04:55, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

I think we do have explicit guidance, at least for FA: the criteria require that the article be "comprehensible to an appropriately broad audience". We also have MOS:JARGON and WP:POPE: the latter is strictly an essay, but certainly counts among the regularly-cited norms of good writing on here. All of these would say to minimise jargon and insider language where it adds little, and to explain it where it adds something of substance. In a quotation, we should keep terms as they are: we can always add an EFN if we think they're likely to be unclear, or bracket (Lib Dems) after the first "Liberal Democrats" in the article. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 07:42, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

• During the period when it's formally "Change UK – The Independent Group", we sometimes refer to it simply as "Change UK", and elsewhere spell out the whole name. I'd suggest abbreviating consistently after first mention, but we need to pick a lane.

This is one of the problems I had when copyediting it, agreed. The group/party changed its name three times, not always by choice, and I'm not even sure that this is the best name for the article. Daniel Case (talk) 21:14, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

• There's an unresolved CN tag, and a Who? tag.

Which I left. Daniel Case (talk) 21:14, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

• On sourcing: practically everything seems to be sourced to news articles from the time. It's surely been long enough that at least some of this whole debacle has been covered in retrospective articles, books etc?

There are indeed a lot more good sources, including a couple of books, and I will enumerate some of them in my critique when I get to writing it (which I would have a few days back, but for an unusually busy and exhausting weekend. Daniel Case (talk) 21:14, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

• stand a full slate of candidates: this is an example (though not the only one) of political jargon that should be expressed more concretely for a general audience. See, for example, the top one for the Scottish constituency. Later, we have the amendment fell, which I'm not sure is even the usual jargon (I'd expect failed, but better as was voted down, was rejected or similar).
• There are a couple of long run-on sentences: see e.g. The Muslim Council of Great Britain and anti-racism charity Tell MAMA condemned the selection of a third candidate, Nora Mulready, who they said had conflated Islam with terrorism and legitimised the far right; this was dismissed by Mulready and Change UK as a "smear campaign"

There were more of these before I did my copyedit, believe me. Daniel Case (talk) 21:14, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

• We've got Rachel Johnson's interview in The Times cited to the Mirror. The Mirror isn't generally viewed as a WP:HQRS: why not track down the original to be sure that it hasn't quoted her out of context?
• Some of the tenses are a bit unclear, especially when talking about events which were then in the future (but no longer are): see e.g. A week later, interim leader Heidi Allen suggested that the party might not exist at the next general election and hinted at the formation of an alliance with the Liberal Democrats., Between the European Parliament polling day and the count, with the Liberal Democrats expected to have done much better in the vote than Change UK, Umunna said that he thought a pact between Change UK and the Liberal Democrats at the next election "would be sensible"

Well, I made those changes. "Might" is perfectly fine, I think, when you're talking about a state of affairs which at the time a statement was made was believed to be possible. "Expected to have done much better" is a more specific example of the same ... that was at a point when the votes had been cast but not fully tallied, and thus Umunna's statement was plausible (as it wasn't after the votes had been tallied). How would you suggest phrasing them? Daniel Case (talk) 21:14, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

• Even separate from the concern about in-cycle news coverage, there are some primary sources cited (e.g. the application to the electoral commission), which don't appear to add much and seem at odds with WP:PRIMARY.
• False titles are generally considered journalistic in UK English: there are several in use here, particularly and most strikingly Prime Minister and Conservative leader Theresa May.

I don't think that's a false title in the sense that the article you linked to is saying (i.e., the sense George Carlin once poked fun at, where, say Martin Luther King is or at the time was (in the American press, anyway) almost always referred to as "the slain civil rights leader", and other terms were commonly used like "reputed mob figure". Leader of the Conservative Party is, after all, a formal position and title, one that if the party wins the election the holder becomes PM, and if not they usually get to ask the PM six questions every Wednesday. Perhaps "Leader" should have been capitalized? Daniel Case (talk) 05:06, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

I think that's an interesting topic but not quite the one I was driving at (or the subject of the Wiki article). There's a New York Times article here on the topic:

We try to avoid the unnatural journalistic mannerism of the "false title" — that is, using a description or job designation with someone’s name as if it were a formal title. So we don’t refer to "novelist Zadie Smith" or "cellist Yo-Yo Ma." ... Often we settle on “the cellist Yo-Yo Ma” or “the British novelist Zadie Smith” as the deftest approach to such descriptions ... [or, better, m]ake it “Best Buy, the electronics showroom.”

On the question of leader/Leader, MOS:PEOPLETITLES is the guide: there is a system here. I must admit to finding it pretty confounding at times, but we definitely want leader in this context. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 07:34, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

• In April, an unverified internal Change UK memo leaked: we need to think about the phrasing here: if it wasn't real, it can't leak, and yet by saying "unverified" we're refusing to confirm that it was real.

I get the feeling, having gone over so much of the prose and refined it, that the nominator/writer didn't feel particularly adventurous in deviating from their journalistic sources. Daniel Case (talk) 21:14, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

• Quite a few examples where MOS:IDIOM needs to apply for cliché or everyday metaphors: see e.g. Change UK had thrown away opportunities in the European elections by not pooling their strength

I had eliminated some of this, but really couldn't think of a better way to phrase that at the time. Daniel Case (talk) 21:14, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

• There are a few points where readers might need reminding of the dates, in particular that everything happened in 2019: see for instance the "Funding" section.

Well, as it was before my copyedit the article often repeated the date in consecutive sentences. And by date, I mean the full day, month and year. I think I said in one of my edit summaries that since the party came and went in the same calendar year, a lot of that restatement of even "2019" is unnecessary.

That section has one of the few events from outside that year, so I agree maybe we should distinguish the earlier events once. Daniel Case (talk) 21:14, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

• There's quite a lot of repetition: for instance, we learn at least twice that Gavin Shuker was convenor and Chuka Umunna was spokesperson.

One of my complaints as well. I attribute this to the unusual narrative structure of telling the story from four different perspectives. I got rid of some of this but I still would like to hear the nominator's explanation.

I also note that "convenor" was originally spelled with an "-er" ending the second time it appeared, which doesn't suggest a great deal of care when preparing the article for this nomination. Daniel Case (talk) 21:14, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

• We're inconsistent as to whether the the in The Independent Group for Change is capitalised.
• Labour councillors in over ten councils: how many, exactly?
• There were further resignations from Labour ... and by Conservative councillors ... It is unknown how many of these councillors supported TIG/Change UK. Given the last part of this sentence, I must question what all of these resignations are doing in an article on Change UK: it sounds as if we're adopting the party's own (generally rejected) narrative that it represented the only way of saying "none of the above".

And since the cited source is paywalled, without access to it (and hitting reader view doesn't work on this one), we cannot tell whether the source supports this. At least I can't. Daniel Case (talk) 21:14, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

• European People's Party-: use an endash after multi-word prefixes, per MOS:DASH.
• There's an interesting-looking article cited in Further Reading: could that be integrated into the body text as a whole? It doesn't really cite any other academic treatments of Change UK, but it might be a good starting point to find out if there have been any more.

I should take this occasion to point out that some of the noted copy issues are on me, due to my recent copy edit meant to trim down a lot more repetition than was there before. Daniel Case (talk) 03:02, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm going to oppose at the moment: I think the article could certainly be brought up to FA standard, but it isn't there yet. Unresolved maintenance tags, in particular, tell me that the requisite preparation hasn't been done before nominating. I am very happy to revisit this vote if and when changes are made.

You forgot to sign your remarks, though. Daniel Case (talk) 21:14, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose. You can’t bring things to FAC with tags on. That’s before a number of other issues that have been enumerated above. - SchroCat (talk) 22:16, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

  In fairness to the nominator (who seems to have, for some reason, edited minimally since making this nomination), those tags weren't there when they nominated it—I added them during my copyedit, as noted above, in the expectation that the nominator would be taking an active interest in the article and swiftly addressing issues reviewers raised. Daniel Case (talk) 06:21, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

More than three weeks in, no sign of a consensus to promote and no engagement from the nominator. I am going to archive this. The usual two-week hiatus will apply. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:06, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:06, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

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) 11 March 2024 [22].

---

On Her Majesty's Secret Service (novel)

Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 13:18, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

OHMSS is one of my favourite Bond novels (and a favourite among many of the other Bond cognoscenti too). It's got a ridiculous plot, a semi-cliched bad-guy with an overblown mission to destroy Britain, and Bond beating all the odds and getting the girl - until the stomach punch at the end. All well-written and enjoyable tosh. Both Phlsph7 and Tim riley were good enough to provide constructive criticism at the PR, but any further comments are welcome. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:18, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

UC

Driving by for now, expecting to expand to a full review later on. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 13:41, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

• Would File:On Her Majesty's Secret Service (8).jpg be a better image for Lazenby -- it's closer to the time and from the filming of the adaptation?

• Much better! Thanks for that - and I look forward to your comments, as always. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:47, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

• with over 60,000 books sold in the first month, double that of the previous book: not quite grammatical: double the total sales or similar?
• After meeting him in disguise and discovering his latest plans, Bond attacks the centre where he is based: is Bond or Blofeld based there?
• Fleming developed Bond's character further within the book: I think further really needs some point of reference: further than what? Equally, I think it would be fine to simply cut the word.
• While driving to Britain: from where? Suggest "driving back from...", as you couldn't (then) drive all the way to Britain from anywhere.
• at the gambling table: I think at a gambling table is less flowery (cf. for example he was slain by the sword vs he was killed with a sword). Do we know the game?
• Tracy is the daughter and only child of Draco: could cut daughter and as obvious, given that we've used she and her for a while now. Would also help with repetition of daughter later.
• genetically-inherited: isn't this a tautology? Suggest picking one.
• atop Piz Gloria: according to the article, Piz Gloria is a restaurant: do we mean a (fictional) mountain by the same name?

  Sort of the same thing. The fictional alp was Piz Gloria, as was the fictional building, as it the restaurant that was named after the film was set there. - SchroCat (talk) 20:22, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

  I would clarify ("atop Piz Gloria, a fictional mountain," or similar): this is a rare case where the link necessitates more explanation rather than less. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 07:20, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

  Fair enough: done. - SchroCat (talk) 08:48, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

• of their livestock and food allergies: suggest allergies to food and livestock, as he wasn't curing them of their livestock.
• Bond mounts an air assault: what does this mean, exactly?
• He followed his usual practice: does the Faulks and Fleming citation explicitly link this practice to OHMSS?

  He said it was the practice he followed for all his books. - SchroCat (talk) 20:22, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

• where in Britain biological warfare would be most effective for which crops: I'd give this another look for prose style.

  I've put it into F's own words instead. - SchroCat (talk) 20:22, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

• Fleming was taken with the film's female lead: suggest a rephrase per MOS:IDIOM (a reader might be forgiven for thinking they were kidnapped!)
• The communications academic Jerry Palmer sees the point of accepting a different convention of a thriller: I don't quite understand the grammar here: it sounds as though Palmer is saying that F. didn't break conventions as such, but rather choose to follow/prioritise a different set of genre conventions (that is, of a thriller rather than a conventional adventure story).
• Fleming remembered the incident and it was used for Bond's escape from Piz Gloria: better as Fleming used the incident as the model for... or similar: one, it would be surprising if he forgot it, two, he could hardly have used it if he didn't remember it, three, active voice is to be preferred over passive, ceteris paribus.
• examining the Asiatic races: perhaps appropriately, the terminology here reads as a bit dated and, well, eugenics-y to me. I get that it's appropriate for the Nazis' own terms, but it's in Wikivoice. Something like "an institute for research into so-called 'race science'"?
• a Chief Gunnery Officer named McLachlan: decapitalise, I think: "Major Jones entered the room" but "Jones was a major in the Welsh Guards", per the ever-confusing MOS:PEOPLETITLES.
• The name Hilary Bray was that: italicise or quotes per MOS:WORDSASWORDS (it's the name we're talking about, not the person by that name).
• Lanne-Mirrlees had Spanish antecedents, generally born without earlobes and: comma after earlobes, but I must admit to not fully understanding antecedents: ancestors? Are we implying that Spanish people generally don't have earlobes?
• a fact also used by J. K. Rowling for the naming of her character Draco Malfoy.: I know a Bond source quotes it, but I'm not convinced this is really in place in this article: I can see an argument for it in Drake's, or in Malfoy's, but not here, unless we think JKR took it via Fleming.
• Why is Pol Roger italicised? It isn't in the eponymous article.
• We might consider changing the title of this subsection to "Plot and character inspirations": I'm not sure characters' names and backstories really qualify as plot.

Done to the end of "Plot inspirations": more to follow. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 18:08, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Many thanks UndercoverClassicistl all either done or addressed above. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 20:22, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

• A thought now: would "plot and character inspirations" be any worse as "inspirations"? Brevity is a virtue.
• about Bond and his character: simply about Bond's character?

  It covers his character and his habits, rather than just his character. - SchroCat (talk) 10:04, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

  Fair enough (though, then, Bond's character and habits)? I'm not sure that the division implied by the text between Bond and Bond's character is really, well, real. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 15:05, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

  "Bond's character and habits" is much better - fits the bill completely. - SchroCat (talk) 15:14, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

• visiting the grave of his former lover Vesper Lynd, which he did every year: the tense of he did read slightly oddly to me: suggest something like: "it is revealed that he has been doing this every year since her death". Not as concise, granted.
• The emotional side: better as this emotional side, I think.
• "values [that] are both anti-humanist and anti-Christian. Bond is the greedy and predatory id to M's "pleasure-hating and grumpy" super-ego.: quote marks are awry here.
• Do we really need the title of Amis's work? We haven't given it for the others.
• The amount of alcohol Bond drank in On Her Majesty's Secret Service rose compared to previous books: present tense for fiction: perhaps simply Bond drinks far more alcohol in OHSS than he does in previous books?

  All done, except the second point, about which I'm happy to discuss further. - SchroCat (talk) 14:30, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Midway through "Characters" at the moment. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 08:54, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

• Chapman ... observes that part of her role in the book is to act as "a traditional—and culturally problematic—male fantasy of women's sexuality: does "culturally problematic" here mean "from Fleming's point of view", "from the perspective of F's culture" or "to readers in 2024"? I think a bit of expansion here would help.
• Is her single quote to Bond (really) the only way in which this character (a self-destructive damsel in distress, "saved" by Bond's romantic charms) is culturally problematic?
• identifies the character of Marc-Ange Draco as an example of those characters: verbose: consider lists M-A D among...
• The war reference is a method used by Fleming: I imagine this is only half of the story: presumably, it's not the fact that he was in the war, but that he was on the right side of it?
• Bond could no more have killed him than he could have killed, well, Tracy: there seems to be something a little more going on here than simply noting his good looks -- I'm sure someone has picked up the homoeroticism here, or worked more generally on that theme in Bond?

  It's not homoerotic: in this particular case it's about the 'spirit' of the Draco, rather than his physical looks. For the others, it's Fleming's shorthand of beauty=good/ugly=bad. One or two people have addressed it, but no-one (as far as I've read) has made a connection to homoeroticism before. - SchroCat (talk) 16:21, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

• Suggest linking "Irma la not so Douce" to Irma la Douce, to help readers get the joke.
• Le Chiffre and Mr Big (Mr.?) are introduced on second mention, as are the other characters (e.g. Drax) in the same sentence.
• or what he describes as : Bond or Synott?
• The literary critic Meir Sternberg observed: we've generally done scholarship in the present tense so far: I'd continue that here.
• Link Pinaud to Édouard Pinaud (or consider making a redirect)?
• to produce "a speed of narrative, which hustles the reader past each danger point of mockery": it sounds as though this quote belongs to Burgess, but it turns out not to be fully attributed at all: the MoS says that all quoted statements of opinion should be attributed in text.
• With the Faulks and Fleming citation: I assume we're generally citing Faulks' introduction rather than the story by Fleming? In which case, using |contributor= and |contribution= to indicate that would be useful.
• It would be amusing to reverse the old fable—first to rescue the girl, then to slay the monster: is there an echo of the "George and the Dragon" motif from the last Bond FA?

  To my OR eye, yes, definately. There is in pretty much all the Bond stories, but Panek doesn't refer to it, and the others that normally do (Black and Benson), don't for this novel. - SchroCat (talk) 09:31, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

• Reinforcing the availability of food and drink within the story, : I'm not clear on what this clause means or adds in context.
• McDermid thinks the threat in the novel has even more resonance for British readers: twenty-first century British readers or similar?
• Benson identifies gambling as one of the novel's themes, as it is in Casino Royale and Goldfinger: not quite grammatical (better as "states that gambling is a key theme of the novel, as it is...")
• the plot starts with Bond alone, voluntarily and prior to meeting Tracy, and ends with him alone, involuntarily after her murder: I found this paragraph a slightly tough going for clarity. This particular sentence would be better as the plot starts with Bond alone, voluntarily, prior to meeting Tracy; it ends with him alone, involuntarily, after her murder.
• The gambling scene at the beginning of the novel ... Bond then gambles by: I think we need to be clearer that the second use of gamble is metaphorical (MOS:IDIOM, perhaps).
• the individualism is also present in Bond's allies: I'm not sure this is quite grammatical.
• the remainder were signed and marked 'For Presentation': MOS:QUOTE would like double quotes here, or italics if you prefer.
• The artist Richard Chopping undertook the cover art: suggest changing one art/artist to illustrator/illustration to avoid the repetition.
• after Fleming changed publishers from Viking Press following The Spy Who Loved Me; the book was 299 pages long. It was the first of Fleming's novels listed in The New York Times Best Seller list: this could be read as meaning that TSWLM was 299 pages long and listed as an NYT bestseller.
• The novel was published in America in August: give a year here.
• I would spell out NID in "Critical reception": it's been a while.
• Could wiktionary link pro forma?
• Similarly, could link willing suspension of disbelief
• There are a few points throughout where information might be better moved into a footnote, as you have for Mortimer's innovations: Cox's pen name, for instance, perhaps the breakdown of those 280 copies of the first edition, possibly the brackets about the other two novels with economic disruption.

  Not Cox – it's only there to explain why the reference is under the name Iles, so adding another footnote is a bit excessive. I think the 280 is better where it is. I've done the others. - SchroCat (talk) 09:28, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

• Panek sees aspects of fables in many of the Bond novels, often associated with the villains—Fleming describes Le Chiffre as an ogre: this is not quite the same thing: Panek has gone from talking about fables to talking about fairytales: fairytales are often fables, but not all fables are fairytales. Suggest linking some or all of these fantastic creatures.
• What exactly does "air assault" mean in the plot section?

  I think this one is clear: it's an assault by air. I think most people will grasp it's meaning, but I've linked it to assist. - SchroCat (talk) 17:16, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

That's me for now: as ever, I hope at least some of the above is useful. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 16:56, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

• All excellent, thank you. I'm working my way through the last two tranches at the moment. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 17:16, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

• I think I've done all these now, but happy to relook if there are still any issues. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:27, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Support from PMC

Nice to see this as a bluelink. Comments to come within the week, hopefully. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 13:51, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Technically this is within the week! :)

Lead

• Spy Who Loved me had a footnote in the lead listing all the Bond books, why not do the same here? (I see it's used farther down)

  Still to do this one. - SchroCat (talk) 08:34, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

• "over 60,000 books sold" copies maybe? since you repeat "book" in the sentence's final clause
• The italicizing of James Bond as a series isn't consistent (not just in this article; it appears to be inconsistent across the project, which is a nitpicky complaint that isn't strictly relevant to this FAC)
  • "Ian Fleming's James Bond series": no italics, which is in line with it as a descriptive title, but it is inconsistent with the title of that article (also not italicized in the infobox). But at the end of the paragraph, "James Bond film series" does have italics.
  • At the very least even if we don't sort the entire James Bond series italics thing project-wide, we should be consistent in this article (for what it's worth, I don't care which you go with)
  • As a side note, I realized at the end of the article that we only link James Bond the series in the lead and the infobox, never in the body. Deliberate?
    • OK, I've italicised for consistency. The MOS on the point was (when I last bothered to look at it), confusing and self-contradictory, which is probably why the usage varies across WP, as different people will have interpreted it accordingly. - SchroCat (talk) 08:34, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
      • Yeah, it's one of my least-favorite MOS sections.

Plot

• If Bond doesn't believe Spectre exists anymore, why does he care about Blofeld?

  Because he is still an arch criminal who committed a major crime. - SchroCat (talk) 08:34, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

• He subsequently meets her at a gambling table, where he saves her from embarrassment and dishonour by paying the gambling debt she is unable to cover.
  • Gambling twice in one sentence
  • Not sure both "embarrassment and dishonour" is necessary, I think one or the other would suffice
• "following day Bond follows her" swap one for a synonym?
• I'm not sure the detail about Bond killing the Spectre ops is necessary, unless he usually doesn't kill people? It doesn't seem to come to much later so could probably be removed

  Only to show that a. there's a reason why they're not following him; and b. it's a life and death chase and he's prepared to kill. I can take it out if you'd prefer though?

  Eh, it's not my favorite but it's not a dealbreaker

Background

• Is Pearson p. 398 a typo or am I just looking at a different edition? The one I'm looking at has this info on 308 (if it helps, it's here if you want to link in the bibliography)

  That's a different edition to mine, which def has it on page 398. - SchroCat (talk) 08:10, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

• I'm not entirely sure the source supports the sentence as written. Pearson writes that Fleming took "as much trouble as ever", but doesn't say how much trouble that was. At the least I think we could use a citation to another place where he discusses having trouble with other works, to support that this was an ongoing thing

  Fair enough. Reworked. - SchroCat (talk) 08:10, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Development

• I might mention the avalanche in the plot, since it comes up here also
• Like UC, I'm a bit hung up on the earlobes thing. The source says it's one particular family. Could we clarify that, because right now it sounds like we're saying all Spaniards lack earlobes.

  I've removed the 'Spaniard' bit - it's a superfluous detail. - SchroCat (talk) 08:35, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

• Done down to here for now (except where said otherwise); the rest to follow. - SchroCat (talk) 08:37, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

• "Fleming also used historical references..." I think this sentence might bear splitting at "and"

  Don't you think the two short sentences look a bit stubby like that?

  I'm of two minds. It is a bit stubby split up, but together I don't love how it flows. Not worth wringing hands over though.

• The final sentence of para 1 under Characters might work better in para 2, which discusses Bond's decline after Tracy's death in more detail
• "alcohol intake has been estimated" by who?
• "over four times the advisable" advised under what guidelines?
• "The character of Tracy is not as well defined " written in wikivoice but appears to be Benson's opinion.
• "The sociologist Anthony Synnott observes..." does he have any analysis of why this might be, or what it implies?

  Only in terms of it being a literary shortcut "Attractive=good; good=attractive Vvs Evil=ugly; ugly=evil". I've moved around and merged the relevant paras slightly so this is clearer. - SchroCat (talk) 13:52, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Style and Themes

• Para 1 of Style mentions "the hooks" as though the reader has been introduced to them, but they get introduced in para 2. I assume a casualty of revisions at some point, but could we reorder things?
• for Themes, "in the other two" feels redundant, since we've already said there's 3 and we're about to list 2
• "Reinforcing the availability of food and drink..." This sentence feels like it could use some simplification, especially with the semi-colon. "Book" and "novel" appear twice each. I feel like you could drop/revise the first clause entirely, or reduce some of the details in the second half, or split the sentence. If it were me I would go with something like "The literary analyst Elizabeth Hale considers the novel "one of the more food-oriented Bond books". Its extensive descriptions of meals, drinks, and culinary philosophy reinforce the theme of food as a luxury."

Publication and Adaptations

• Minimal griping in Publication. In Reception, some of the logic for paragraph breaks is a little unclear. Why is Boucher's negative review paired with Doolittle's positive one? (Side note: I love getting to use "bemoan" or "complain" in reception sections. It's a nice change from "blah blah everyone loved it".)
• In Adaptations, it's odd that we don't link to the James Bond film series

Okay, that's all I got. I may have to start reading Bond books now, if I'm going to keep reviewing these :) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:20, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi PMC, I think I've covered all these now (except where stated otherwise) - although please let me know if I've missed any, of if you want to talk through any further! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:29, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Hello Schro! Looking good to me, anything remaining is personal preference and nothing to hold things up over. Another great piece of work from you. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 09:42, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks PMC - much obliged as always,. I'll have another look at the 'historical references' sentence and see if there's anything better that can be done (probably, but it needs to sit in my subconscious for a while first!) Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:53, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Ian

I'd like to have reviewed The Spy Who Loved Me, as I've read it and felt it was rather better than just an honourable failure, but time was against me. OTOH, OHMSS is one of the best books (and films), so I'll recuse coord duties and try to copyedit and offer a few comments shortly, and revisit as and when I can... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:00, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

• I find the two sentences beginning In common with Fleming's other Bond stories... a bit too much for the lead. The previous sentence is important but I'd have thought it could be incorporated into one of the other paragraphs.
• Fleming thought his script was the best book he had written up to that point. -- Can we say "draft" rather than "script"? The latter term has filmic connotations that I think would confuse...
• Check if you’ve linked on first use all the Bond villains you mention under Characters.

• I have now, although only the major ones with their own article. The rest (Draco, Bunt, etc) all go to a list page, so I've not bothered with those. - SchroCat (talk) 14:32, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

• Successive sentences: Black sees... Hale sees... -- Can we vary?
• For Black, the individualism is also present in Bond's allies, particularly Draco, who is able to help Bond attack Piz Gloria because of his own and Bond's individualism allows the two men to help each other for a good common cause. -- Aside from the "of" being ungrammatical and two "helps", I'm unsure from this just how their individualism helps them make common cause...
• The artist Richard Chopping once again undertook the cover art for the first edition. -- "Once again" might not be so helpful for the uninitiated, perhaps describe him as Fleming's usual first edition cover artist or some such?

That's it on a first run through -- great to see the Bond books' journey from GA to FA being resumed. I'll hold off support until a few others have had their say and we see how the prose settles down, and the image and source reviews occur (which I could undertake time permitting, we'll see) -- anyway well done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 20:33, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

• Cheers Ian. I didn't think you'd be able to miss out on two Bond reviews on the trot! Your comments all sorted in these edits. Happy to work on them again or discuss the above. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:32, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

  No prob, and your changes all look good although I wonder if we can still improve the Black/individualism bit. How does this work for you: For Black, the individualism is also present in Bond's allies, particularly Draco, who is prepared to help Bond attack Piz Gloria in part because of their shared rejection of authority. To explain, I thought the last bit of the previous version was a bit repetitive, and I chucked in "in part" because I think Draco would do almost anything to help Bond in return for effectively saving Tracy (up to that point!), not just because of their shared "values" -- of course if Black doesn't support "in part" we'd have to lose it. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:14, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, I think that's within the constraints of the sources. - SchroCat (talk) 17:15, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Image review

• Suggest adding alt text
• File:On_Her_Majesty's_Secret_Service-Ian_Fleming.jpg: source link is dead. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:30, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks as always, Nikkimaria. Both these points addressed. - SchroCat (talk) 11:22, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Airship

My favourite film, and a great read too. Will comment in the next week. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:01, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Vanamonde

I haven't read this one, but I look forward to reviewing it. Comments to follow, feel free to disagree with any copyedits I make as I read.

• "After changing the formula and structure of the previous novel" I suspect what you mean is that the previous novel differed from its predecessors in the series, but as written it sounds like Fleming revised the structure of the novel while writing.

  Yep, agreed: reworked. - SchroCat (talk) 12:02, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

• You mention the film series before where it's first linked and glossed, I suggest moving the link and gloss up

  Done - SchroCat (talk) 12:02, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

• "suicidal" as an adjective without further explanation sticks out a little; also "While returning to Britain ... while driving" in the same sentence. Given the later mention of a suicide attempt, you could shorten, I think.

  Yep. Struck 'suicidal' and reworked a little. - SchroCat (talk) 12:03, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

• "coup de deshonneur" I don't know if this is a common enough expression to leave without translation. I might be wrong.

  I've added a translation, but it's not a literal one, which would be a "blow of dishonour" which doesn't really work. The French use coup + noun for a number of sayings, all with a slightly different meaning for 'coup', from the violent to the mundane 'un coup de téléphone' for a telephone call. I'll think about whether it is worth taking out the phrase entirely to avoid the problem. - SchroCat (talk) 12:02, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

  Went with taking it out instead. A search for the term only shows it connected with this book, so its obviously not a common term. - SchroCat (talk) 09:02, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

• "the experimental change in format in The Spy Who Loved Me" I think it wouldn't hurt to explain, if possible in a few words, what the change and what the usual format were.

  OK, added in the major change at the start of this, which makes it much clearer.

  Thanks for your thoughts so far, Vanamonde93. I'll be glad to hear any others you have. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:25, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

• Belatedly resuming...I had to google "Union Corse", which isn't a bad thing, but the definition I'm given - generic Corsican organized crime - leaves me confused as to "Draco's Union Corse". I dropped a link into the text in one spot, but perhaps it should be moved up, too?

  The UC is already linked and introduced in the first reference (which is in the plot when Bond meets Draco). - SchroCat (talk) 07:07, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

• Sentence beginning "Although he was often a formulaic writer..." isn't incorrect AFAICS but is long enough that I'm getting a bit lost...I wonder if it's as simple as dropping the comma between novel and Fleming, but other solutions could be devised.

  So it is, missed that. Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:12, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

  comma dropped. - SchroCat (talk) 07:11, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

• You don't mention M until "Inspirations"; while anyone familiar with Bond ought to know the character, a link and gloss seems appropriate

  He’s linked and introduced in the first para of the plot. I’ve added a second link in Inspirations, but does it need another introduction too? - SchroCat (talk) 07:11, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

• "...anti-humanist and anti-Christian". Bond is the greedy and predatory id..." I have no quarrel with these descriptors if the source uses them but there's nothing in the plot that makes it obvious to me why they're being used; if possible, I think an example or two would be nice.

  They’re definitely in the source, but unfortunately Mortimer gives no samples we can include. - SchroCat (talk)

• A suggestion only; the "characters" subsection is on the longer side, you could consider making "characters" and "inspiration" sections and adding some subsections to "characters". I'm not certain "characters" fit entirely under "development" in any case, though of course some inspiration is discussed.

  I'm mulling this one over a bit. where do you think subsections should go in the Characters (sub)section? Obviously Bond would be one, but would you think just one for "Others", or make it more granular than that (a section per character seems like overkill, for example). - SchroCat (talk) 15:31, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

  "Bond" and "others" could work, or perhaps something like "Bond", "women characters", "appearance", and "villains". Entirely optional in any case. Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:12, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

• The second paragraph of "themes" draws together many very disparate elements. I wonder if it's possible to do a little more to tie it together: having not read the sources, I don't know if it's possible. Might the sources support something about how many of those themes or motifs (is gambling a theme?) are shared across Bond novels, for instance?
• "It was the first of Fleming's novels listed in The New York Times Best Seller list" This surprises me; the previous books were popular, were they not? Is there further context?

  It was a slight surprise to me too, but the source is clear ("On Her Majesty’s Secret Service, was the first of his novels to appear on the New York Times bestseller list, where it had a good run in hardcover."), but that's all it says, unfortunately. - SchroCat (talk) 11:13, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

• Borrowing from Mike Christie's excellent essay, and what I learned therein; I wonder if more can be done to organize the reception section. For instance, comparisons to other Bond novels crop up in multiple paragraphs, as does material about Bond's character.
• I confess I'm unable to understand the summary of Kirsch in the last paragraph; we hear that he thinks it a landmark, and what the harbingers of that landmark, and of the significance of it; but not actually what makes it a landmark. What am I missing? Also: "qualities in fiction which all but submerged in the 20th-century vogue of realism and naturalism": should this be "qualities in fiction which are all but submerged in the 20th-century vogue of realism and naturalism"?

  No, we quote the source correctly, but I'll add in the "are" to make it more grammatical. - SchroCat (talk) 11:55, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

  First part of your comment still to be dealt with - SchroCat (talk) 15:28, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

• I did a cursory sweep for sources and found no obvious omissions; much of the scholarly material seems to have focused on the films. That said, there is a lot of analysis of the storyline in the film, that one would assume to be applicable to the novel as well. I'm looking at "For Her Eyes Only" in particular and it's analyses of Fleming's female characters. You already cite it, but has three more chapters on this film alone: I wonder if a little of that material could be worked in without turning this article into a coatrack.

  I will have a look, but even despite the film and book being close in many respects, there are significant differences between the two. As a general rule I ignore all the material about the films, as they are very different, despite superficial similarities. - SchroCat (talk) 11:06, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

  That's fair, and I certainly cannot insist that you add sources that don't touch on the novel, but I think it's worth looking. I wonder if any comparisons are made, for instance, that could be worked in. Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:12, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

That's everything from me; I expect to support on prose and comprehensiveness once my comments are handled. I found this an engaging read overall, with considerable detail. Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:18, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Support from Tim riley

My quibbles were thoroughly addressed at the peer review, and on rereading for FAC I find nothing else to raise. The text is an excellent read, seems comprehensive, is neutral in tone, well sourced, balanced, and resourcefully illustrated. Happy to support the elevation of the article to FAC. Tim riley talk 09:43, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

• Many thanks, Tim! - SchroCat (talk) 11:56, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Comments by voorts

TK. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:38, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Excellent work. Some comments follow. Source review to come. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:52, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

General comments

• I've made some minor copy edits throughout.
• During their Christmas lunch, M tells Bond of an old naval acquaintance, a chief gunnery officer named McLachlan. This was Fleming using the name of a former colleague of both his and Godfrey's in the NID, Donald McLachlan. – Sentences like this can be rewritten to remove unnecessary information and for concision. For example: Fleming named an old naval acquaintance of M after his and Godfrey's former NID colleague, Donald McLachlan. The reader of this article doesn't need to know about the Christmas lunch or the rank of McLachlan, particularly since the Christmas lunch isn't described in the "Plot" section. See a few of my copy edits for examples.
• Note f: Good lord.
• "Bond is threatened with what, for an international cad, would clearly be a fate worse than death: matrimony" – I'm dead.
• This section done. - SchroCat (talk) 12:30, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Lead

• and made a determined effort to produce a work that adhered to his tried and tested format. – The reader is unlikely to know what the "tried and tested format" is, so a brief description here would be helpful; e.g., "to his tried and tested format, villain of the day schlock" (not my real opinion; I love the Bond books). I notice the same issue in the lead of The Spy Who Loved Me.

  It's a summary: if people want the details, they can read on. - SchroCat (talk) 12:54, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

  I disagree. Assuming that this is meant to summarize the "Style" section, more needs to be said in the lead per MOS:INTRO, as the style of writing is an "important point" in the article. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:06, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

  That’s fine, you’re allowed to disagree, but we’re already in line with the guidelines, given we summarise the body already. If people want more, they can read in. - SchroCat (talk) 06:37, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

  I don't think it's within guidelines. That sentence appears to be the only summary of the "Style" section in the lead, and it doesn't adequately capture what's written in that section. voorts (talk/contributions) 14:10, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

  It is within the guidelines. There is nothing that says we have to regurgitate most of the body in the lead, particularly when most of the section does not contain lead-worthy information. - SchroCat (talk) 14:22, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

  All I'm asking for is a one sentence summary. There's an entire section in the article on the topic of Fleming's style. The lead should briefly summarize what that section says. voorts (talk/contributions) 14:39, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

• received broadly good reviews – Replace "good" with "positive"; good is too vague. Also, summarize the tenor of those reviews as discussed in the body of the article; e.g., "received broadly positive reviews, with critics praising its tone and twist ending" (I'm writing this before reading the "Critical reception" section, so I don't know what the reviews actually say).

  I've added "positive", but that's all we can summarise adequately, given the positive reviews were on on different points. - SchroCat (talk) 12:54, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

  I would add something like: with critics praising Fleming's characterisation of Bond, resonance with current events, and writing style. I think that broadly captures what the reviews state. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:06, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

  I’m happy with how it is, I think. - SchroCat (talk) 17:02, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

  Would you be willing to add a shorter summary? voorts (talk/contributions) 01:07, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

  No. part of the problem is that trying to find common themes (as you have done), ends up with a soup of misleading OR. Your wording is not an accurate reflection of what the critics said. I think less is more is the better order of the day here. - SchroCat (talk) 06:43, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

  It's not OR; the lead is supposed to summarize and describe what the article says, and that involves a measure of editorial discretion. If you follow Vanamonde's suggestion above of organizing the critical reception section by theme, then I think it would be quite easy to write a lead sentence that summarizes what the general themes across the reviews. voorts (talk/contributions) 14:04, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

• The "Background and writing history", "Development", "Style", and "Themes" sections all need to be summarized in the lead, and the plot summary in the lead receives too much weight.

  Added - SchroCat (talk) 13:07, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

• Moved from below: On Her Majesty's Secret Service is one of three Bond novels to deal with the disruption of markets and the economy, in this case Blofeld's planned disruption to the food supply by bioterrorism. The theme of food and drink is referred to throughout the novel, with Bond's meals and drinks being described in detail. – I would add in a mention of the fact that this would have resonated with British audiences given recent food insecurity. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:50, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

  Not lead-worthy. - SchroCat (talk) 00:15, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

  I think it's an important point; the first half of the first paragraph in the themes section deals with that issue. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:06, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

  It’s a threat to the food chain: it will always resonate with people. I’m fine with the summary as is. - SchroCat (talk) 06:35, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Plot - done

• The redirect for Sir Hilary Bray goes to a list of Bond characters without any particular summary of that character. I recommend removing as it is likely to confuse readers.
• to visit Blofeld's lair atop Piz Gloria, a fictional mountain in the Swiss Alps – Clarify that it's a fictional mountain based on a real location; I was initially confused by the wikilink describing the real restaurant.

  It’s a fictional building, based on a fictional mountain. The restaurant of the name was built long after the book (and unconnected to it) and was only so named after OHMSS was filmed there. - SchroCat (talk) 20:52, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

  In that case, I would remove the wikilink per WP:EASTEREGG. Piz Gloria can then be moved to the "see also" section as follows: Piz Gloria – restaurant on a mountaintop named for Blofeld's lair voorts (talk/contributions) 21:28, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

  I foresee spending too much time removing other people’s addition of the link at a later date, but OK. - SchroCat (talk) 21:34, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

  I think you could also add an endnote stating that for the film, they used the restaurant while it was under construction, and that it was then named for the mountain upon opening. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:50, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

• This section done. - SchroCat (talk) 11:41, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Inspirations

• Lanne-Mirrlees produced the family arms for the character. – This is already said in the background section.
• Fleming made some mistakes in the novel, such as Bond ordering a half-bottle of Pol Roger champagne; Fleming's friend Patrick Leigh Fermor pointed out that Pol Roger was the only champagne at the time not to be produced in half-bottles. – This detail seems a bit trivial.

  A number of the sources all refer to, so I think we're best off doing so too. - SchroCat (talk) 11:32, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

  There's only a citation to one source at the end of that sentence. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:08, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, because it only needs one. - SchroCat (talk) 17:02, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

  I don't feel strongly about removing this, but I would move it to after the sentence about Pinaud in the Style section. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:17, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

  It’s not about style, it was an error during the novel’s development. - SchroCat (talk) 00:06, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

  Okay. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:08, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

• This section done, except where commented on. - SchroCat (talk) 11:41, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
• As with all his Bond books, Fleming used events or names from his life in his writing. – Is this claim supported by ref 23? voorts (talk/contributions) 18:55, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

  Not entirely. It’s a summary of many parts of the article. - SchroCat (talk) 00:07, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

  Could you add a cite to a reliable source that states that Fleming "used events or names from his life" in "all his Bond books"? voorts (talk/contributions) 01:05, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

  No, because it doesn’t need one. I’ll strike the line in the lead instead to remove the problem entirely. - SchroCat (talk) 09:00, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

  I wasn't asking for it to be stricken from the lead; I was asking for a relevant cite in the Inspiration section, since it isn't supported by the ref that follows it, ref 23. voorts (talk/contributions) 13:57, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

  What was there before was a reflection of the section (rather than one single sentence based on a single reference). As you don’t agree with that, I’ve taken it out. - SchroCat (talk) 14:27, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

  I don't disagree with it. I don't see where in the rest of the article it discusses what Fleming does in other books, so I think the phrase "As with all his Bond books" requires verification. If you can find a cite that substantiates that, please feel free to add it back in. voorts (talk/contributions) 14:38, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Characters, Style, Themes, and Critical reception

• There are some MOS:SAID issues throughout. For example: "points out", "observes", "notes", etc.

  I think the terms we use are OK. - SchroCat (talk) 20:48, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

  "Point out", "observe", and "note" are all expressly listed in MOS:SAID. I think the sentences can be rewritten to avoid using those words. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:12, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

  I’m happy with the wording, thanks. The MOS is a flexible guideline, not a fetish that needs to be followed to the letter, particularly when we’re looking at good writing. - SchroCat (talk) 17:03, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

  I've taken a look again and the instances they're used are fine. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:12, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

• McDermid thinks the threat in the novel has even more resonance for twenty-first century British readers than it would have done at the time of publishing, with public awareness of the BSE outbreak in the 1980s and 1990s and the foot-and-mouth outbreak in 2001. – I would change this to early-21st century British readers, since this analysis was written in 2006 and I would guess that awareness of events in the 80s-00s have dwindled.

  As we’re not even quarter of the way through, isn’t this still early 21st century? - SchroCat (talk) 20:48, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

  Earl-21st century was the wrong phrase; I meant mid-2000s and then change the "has" to "had". voorts (talk/contributions) 22:56, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

  I'd disagree in limiting it just to the mid-2000s (the BSE crisis still has some resonance now), so reworked in a different way. - SchroCat (talk) 11:37, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you. That looks good. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:12, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

• and very much reliant on his abilities – remove the "very much".
• The release of the bowdlerised series – I think "bowdlerised" should be removed because it is not from a NPOV, as it takes a side in the political debate over removing purportedly insensitive materials from books by implying that it is a form of censorship.

  It’s not NPOV and isn’t taking a side. - SchroCat (talk) 20:48, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

  Our own article has The term bowdlerization is a pejorative term for the practice; Cambridge say that the term is "often disapproving". Perhaps "expurgated"? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 08:28, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

  Voorts, the removal of words from a book because they may cause offence is censorship, pretty much by definition. That's not a problem, and there is nothing wrong with censorship per se. Even if we use UC's suggestion of "expurgated", that's still censorship - again pretty much be definition. We're not taking sides by saying that this has happened.

  UC, I wouldnt trust our own article as far as I could throw it - the opinion that it is "a pejorative term for the practice" is completely unsupported by the source. In terms of dictionary definitions, the OED (a far superior work than Cambridge - sorry, couldn't resist the dig) makes no reference to the 'tone' behind its use. I note that Cambs has "often, which isn't the same as "always" or "only". - SchroCat (talk) 09:06, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

  I think "often" shows there's a chance some readers would consider it pejorative. Fair point regarding censorship. I'd be happy with UC's suggestion of expurgated. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:13, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

  Im happy with "bowdlerised". - SchroCat (talk) 17:07, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

  "Revised" would be more neutral. Would you accept that? voorts (talk/contributions) 18:16, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

• described by John Pearson as "throughout an avid anti-Bond and an anti-Fleming man" – Add the word "later" before "described"
• was again damning, although even he admitted that "you can't argue with success". – Replace "again damning" with "critical of the novel" and delete the rest of the sentence; "although even he admitted" is editorializing. The "you can't argue with success" can then be moved to the end of the paragraph, stated more neutrally.

  I'll rework, but repeating "he said" for each of these makes it bloody dull to write, let alone to read. - SchroCat (talk) 11:37, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you. That looks better. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:13, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

• This section done, except where commented on. - SchroCat (talk) 11:41, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
• Bennett and Woollacott agree. Bennett and Woollacott need to be introduced here. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:04, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
• For the block quote describing Irma Brunt, is there a citation to a secondary source that you can add that analyzes this particular description? voorts (talk/contributions) 19:15, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

  It’s already there. - SchroCat (talk) 00:11, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Source review - passed

Review of this version.

• Some of the books have archive.org links while others do not; could you please confirm that you have linked to all books that are available via archive.org?

  Where the correct version is there, yes, I think so. - SchroCat (talk) 22:46, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

• While not required, I think it would benefit readers to wikilink to The James Bond Dossier and The James Bond Bedside Companion, as well as at least the first instance of each book publisher. In Journals and magazines, News, and Websites, a few of the entries already have wikilinked journal/newspaper/website titles. If you prefer no wikilinks, that's fine too, but there should be consistency.

  Im never convinced on WL on books - it confuses and annoys if people think they’re being taken to an online copy of the book. I don’t link publishers - there’s no point. - SchroCat (talk) 22:46, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

  Fair enough. I noticed that The Guardian and BBC were wikilinked, but nothing else was, so I removed those two. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:54, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

• Chapman 2015: The publisher says "London New York".

  I’ll check in the morning, but I seem to remember that’s what the edition says. - SchroCat (talk) 22:47, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

• Griswold 2006: AuthorHouse is a self-publishing company, and all I've found about Griswold are a few blog posts praising him for his book. I don't see an indication of adequate fact-checking or evidence that Griswold would be considered an established expert.

  Griswold's work is classed as an approved reference book by Ian Fleming Publications, the family company of Ian Fleming and holders of the copyright to all Fleming's works. The work has been accepted by Raymond Benson, continuation author of Bond novels from 1997 to 2003 and writer of The James Bond Bedside Companion as a serious source and has been cited in academic works, such as Biddulph, Edward "Bond Was Not a Gourmet": An Archaeology of James Bond's Diet Source: Food, Culture and Society: An International Journal of Multidisciplinary Research, Volume 12, Number 2, June 2009. The question was also raised Reliable sources noticeboard, who are happy enough, given the background). – SchroCat (talk) 22:46, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you. Griswold is indeed a subject matter expert. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:52, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

• Biddulph 2009: set the url-access parameter to subscription.
• Vinciguerra 2019: set the url-access parameter to limited.
• Simpson 2023: set the url-access parameter to limited.
• Mouriquand 2023: Is there a reason this is under the Websites sub-heading rather than News?
• Moved from below: I know some of the newspapers (such as The New York Times) share archived versions of their old stories online. Can you search to see if links to those are available. Although not required to pass FA, I think it would be useful to readers to add links to the ProQuest or Newspapers.com versions for articles that aren't available through their original publishers. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:50, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

  I’ll pass on this. It’s of zero use to anyone who doesn’t have subscriptions, which will be the overwhelming majority of our readers. - SchroCat (talk) 18:16, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

  It also helps editors who might want to access those sources for other articles, but again, your call. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:09, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

• Moved from below: Some of the journals have ISSNs while others do not and Vinciguerra has an ISSN while none of the other newspapers do. I would just remove them since they're not particularly useful. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:50, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

  Fair enough. Removed. - 18:19, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

That's all I have for now. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:26, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Additional comments were moved from here to the appropriate sub-sections. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:50, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

• Can you separate out these comments into the source review and your other review please? - SchroCat (talk) 17:45, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

  Yes. One moment. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:47, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

  Done. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:50, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Comments from HAL

This is also my favorite Bond novel, so staking out a spot. Commons imminent. ~ HAL333 19:52, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been withdrawn, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:08, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

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 FrB.TG via FACBot (talk) 9 March 2024 [23].

---

Seven (1995 film)

Nominator(s): Darkwarriorblake (talk) 15:35, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

This article is about the 1995 crime thriller Seven/Se7en by David Fincher. An important and influential film that revived Fincher's career and helped Brad Pitt from movie eye candy to serious actor. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 15:35, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Trigger warning, while I'd love as many reviews as possible please bear in mind that Seven does touch on a lot of dark topics so it's something to consider before reading about it if you have any particular sensitivities. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 15:48, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

1. A better picture for both David Fincher and Kevin Spacey would help.

2. In the legacy section, perhaps find a prop of the box they used in the film.

3. A sound sample of Howard Shore’s phenomenal score.

Other than that, excellent article. I saw the movie because of your work on the article. Excellent film. Hdog1996 (talk) 19:58, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Hdog, I will take a look at these. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:34, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Comments by TompaDompa

I'll take a look. It will likely take a bit longer than usual. TompaDompa (talk) 16:06, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

I've decided I'll do it piecemeal rather than all at once, so I'll start with a few comments below and add more as I go on. TompaDompa (talk) 19:21, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

General comments

• I'll state for the record that I really dislike mixing explanatory footnotes and bundled references under the same heading of "Notes".

• To be fair I do too, I just don't know how to do it any other way, I have tried a few different methods without success such as the "group" function, so if you know the answer I'm happy to implement it. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:33, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

I have tweaked it for you. Is this what you wanted? Gog the Mild (talk) 20:08, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

I do believe that's what Tompa meant, thanks so much Gog. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:34, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

It is indeed. TompaDompa (talk) 00:45, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

• As usual, photos of actors should ideally be from as close in time to the movie as possible. This assumes that there are good images to use, of course.
• There are several instances of em dashes being surrounded by spaces. Em dashes—like these—should never be spaced.
• The article is very heavy on verbatim quotes, to the detriment of the overall prose quality.

• Sorry I didn't notice these, the current pictures were the oldest and best quality (and facing into the article) ones I could find. THere are ones from the year of release for Pitt but the quality is atrocious and Spacey but he's facing right which doesn't work with the current layout. In his favor he doesn't look drastically different in the used picture. I have done my best to reduce and translate to prose the bigger quotes, the ones I've now kept are ones I think add value or can't be translated without it coming across as my opinion, but again I'm open to suggestions. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:14, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

• There is a fair amount of what I would characterize as trivia, and a fair amount of listicles used as sources.

• This is difficult to assess since it's subjective, what you consider trivia I might find an interesting part of the process. I know some sources may be in a list format but I do generally go to appropriate lengths to make sure the sources I use are reliable and have discarded really great references that say exactly what I need the source to say because I couldn't reliably defend them at this stage. Like Screen Rant is about as low as I'll go and I generally only use that for character descriptions/cast section (not casting) because there's a 90% chance it will have an article like that for every popular film, and outside of reviews you're unlikely to get a character description, especially outside of the main cast. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 14:38, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Lead

• "It stars Brad Pitt, Morgan Freeman, Gwyneth Paltrow, and John C. McGinley." – that seems off. McGinley has a much smaller role than the other three and there is of course a conspicuous omission that I can only assume is intentional.

• Yes this is based off the poster billing so it matches the infobox (I'm not sure why of all the characters McGinley is given such billing, he must have had a great agent) whereas Spacey was deliberately not credited for obvious reasons. I have tried to be faithful to the credits as intended but am open to suggestions. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:33, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

• "Despite their efforts, Fincher, eager to prove himself after a career setback, read Walker's original script, sent to him by mistake, and committed to directing the project on the condition that the ending remained intact." – rather choppy.

• Done as: "Fincher, determined to re-establish himself after a career setback, was mistakenly sent Walker's original script and, convinced of its merit, committed to directing the project if the original ending remained intact." Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:33, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

• "It remains influential in filmmaking, inspiring many imitators of its aesthetic, style, and premise of detectives investigating serial killers with distinctive methods and motives." – "remains" seems like the wrong word here, if nothing else because it may get dated. "Has been" would be better.

• Changed Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:33, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Plot

• "Doe momentarily holds Mills at gunpoint but soon flees." – Lord Vetinari, in the 1989 Discworld novel Guards! Guards!, makes a good point about the word "momentarily": it is useful if you want to make people unsure whether you mean "immediately" or "briefly". Equally, this means that the word should be avoided if such ambiguity is not wanted.
• "hundreds of notebooks revealing Doe's psychopathy" – I am not convinced "psychopathy" is the right word here. I would avoid being too specific about what the notebooks reveal about Doe.

Done, I could sadly never get into Discworld. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 16:56, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Cast

• It is well-documented that Spacey is not named in the opening credits (or the promotional material), but instead appears first in the end credits. This should be mentioned somewhere in the article (not necessarily in this section, though that is one option).
• "who Doe disfigures" – whom.

  Done. The credit issue is discussed in detail in the Casting section so don't worry it is present, I try to avoid repeating information since it tends to get called out a lot during review that it should be focused in one section ideally. Plus with the formatting of the cast section a long spiel about the credits just would look out of place. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 16:56, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

  I'll clarify for the record that I think Spacey's name appearing first in the end credits (to compensate for not appearing at all in the opening credits, is the way I've usually seen it described) should also be mentioned, not just that his name is omitted from the opening credits. TompaDompa (talk) 22:21, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Production

• "which proved sufficient enough" – "sufficient enough" is tautological.
• "the bleak "head-in-the-box" conclusion, in which Tracy's severed head is delivered in a box" – either use the label or describe what happens. Not both.
• "Pitt joined Seven on condition the head-in-the-box ending was retained" – be retained.
• "He also insisted that Mills killed Doe" – kill Doe.
• "Walker said to change the dark tone of the ending would change the core of the story." – said changing.
• "Pitt had established himself as a credible film star" – "credible" does not seem like the right word here.
• "Kopelson was aware of Pitt's popularity and importance to Seven's potential success" – saying that he was aware of it turns an assessment into a fact, and this doesn't seem to be in the cited source?
• "Fincher preferred Paltrow but those involved believed" – "those involved"?

I've made these changes here, the Paltrow one I have tried an alternative since the "everyone" is vague, let me know how you feel about it. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:24, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

• "Assistant director Michael Alan Kahn recalled at the start of filming that Fincher was worried about bringing his vision for Seven into reality." – this seems like a rather inconsequential detail? The article is very lengthy at almost 10,000 words, and I can't say I see what this adds.
• https://www.shortlist.com/news/30-facts-about-se7en does not strike me as a high-quality source.
• "Cinematographer Darius Khondji named the crime thriller Klute (1971), as a significant influence" – why the comma?
• "He breathed rapidly between scenes to make himself hyperventilate on camera." – I'm not sure I understand what this means.
• "He breathed rapidly between scenes to make himself hyperventilate on camera." – this seems like a rather minor detail, no?
• https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/25-deadly-serious-facts-about-seven-129302690047.html does not strike me as a high-quality source.

1. The Michael Alan Kahn part was from a much longer quote I trimmed down from above comments but I don't think it's something easy to parse so I've reduced it to just establishing who he is.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 14:38, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
2. I'm not sure why not, ShortList is a long established publication turned digital with an International presence, an editorial team, the article is written by a staff writer not a freelancer, and it's owned by Future plc which is a massive and very long-running publisher. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 14:38, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
3. I think this is just left over from me removing/reducing a quote. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 14:38, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
4. He deliberately breathed as fast as he could to cause himself to hyperventilate leading to the very panicked breathing in that scene, but I guess this can just be considered acting so I've removed it. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 14:38, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
5. Per above Darkwarriorblake (talk) 14:38, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
6. Per point 2, Yahoo is Yahoo and Yahoo Movies was a subset of that. I know it's in a list form but that's part and parcel of articles designed to attract views to an easily digestable article rather than some long prose. If there was a mention they'd pulled the trivia from IMDb or something I would invalidate it myself but I don't know of any issue with Yahoo Movies as a source. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 14:38, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

• "Fincher and Pitt refused to compromise on the head-in-the-box ending" – this is ambiguous: did they disagree and refuse to compromise with each other or were they in agreement and refused to compromise with a third party? I can infer that it's the latter, but this should be rephrased to remove the ambiguity altogether.
• "the studio agreed extra time and funding if the scenes were deemed necessary" – ungrammatical. Is a word missing?
• "The opening credits were scripted [...] scenes of Somerset looking at the wallpaper piece had to be cut." – unsourced.
• "About $15 million of the budget was spent on below-the-line costs." – I reckon this means nothing to most readers, both in the sense that I think they literally don't understand what this means and that I think that it bears no significance to them as they lack a frame of reference to put this into context (is this a typical amount/proportion or not?).
• "brass, percussion, piano, and trumpets" – trumpets are brass instruments.
• "inserted sounds on the outside of each frame" – this is a somewhat confusing way of describing it (I gather this is diegetic sound emanating from offscreen?) and the literal interpretation of "each frame" seems rather unlikely.

1. I have reworded this as " Fincher and Pitt both refused to compromise with the studio's request to replace the head-in-the-box ending"Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:09, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
2. I have reworded this as "the studio agreed the provision of extra time and funding for additional scenes if they were deemed necessary." Is this what you meant? Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:09, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
3. OMG I have no idea what has happened here, the ref has been missing since I brought all this over and it's not been noticed, good eye. Sorted Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:09, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
4. I don't know if the amount is notable, but we don't often get a breakdown of costs so I thought it was interesting since I wouldn't have figured that crew such as gaffers, lighters and makeup artists (more likely makeup artists though) would cost $15 million or $33 million budget. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:09, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
5. Fixed Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:09, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
6. reworded as "inserted frequent diegetic background sounds, such as rain or screaming, to create a psychological impression that terrifying things are occurring off-screen" Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:09, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Design

• "Fincher was infleunced" – typo.
• "Many of the film's interior scenes were underexposed to create a stark contrast, which made the exteriors stand out more." – I'm guessing the "stark contrast" is to the exterior scenes, rather than within the frame? In that case, saying that the exteriors stand out more is redundant.
• "The final scene with Mills, Somserset, and Doe" – typo. Should be "Somerset".
• "The final scene with Mills, Somserset, and Doe, had inconsistent lighting because the actors were always lit from behind by the sun regardless of their placement in the scene, which Khondji described as "never realistic in terms of continuity"." – if we already describe the lighting as inconsistent, there is no need to quote Khondji saying that it presents issues with continuity.
• "regular headaches" – ambiguous. Regular as in normal or as in frequent?
• "Pitt would flick some roaches off Mack between takes" – seems like extraneous detail to me.
• "The set was wrapped in plastic to contain the insects." – seems like extraneous detail to me.
• "the sloth victim, (MacKay)." – I understand that this uses the convention of "Character (Actor)", but both the comma and the fact that the character is described rather than named makes the parenthetical more than a bit jarring. I would either rework this or remove the actor's name from the sentence entirely (the name appears in the next sentence).
• "96 to 98 lb (44 to 44 kg)" – looks a bit silly.
• "The appliances were painted" – this is a rather unusual sense of "appliance", which typically means some kind of machine or similar.
• "veins were airbrushed onto MacKay" – what the source says is "skin airbrushed a deathly white with veins highlighted".
• "The process took up to 14 hours, requiring MacKay to begin at 5 am for filming at 8 pm." – that's 15 hours. I suppose there could be an hour for lunch or whatever that explains the discrepancy, but I couldn't even find this information in either of the cited sources in the first place.
• "MacKay described filming the scene as "real heavy-duty", and was left "breathing very hard and crying"." – I think the description of the process in the rest of the paragraph rather speaks for itself.

1. Fixed Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:09, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
2. I've re-read the source and reworded this to the best of my understanding. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:09, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
3. Done Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:09, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
4. Removed Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:09, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
5. Fixed Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:09, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
6. Removed Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:09, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
7. I've kept this one, I do find it an interesting aspect of the scene we don't see on camera that these were real cockroaches and they had to wrap the set in plastic to contain them. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:09, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
8. Removed the actors name, the comma was just an error and shouldn't have been there Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:09, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
9. Fixed, I've removed the converter template and just said "about 44kg" Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:09, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
10. Changed Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:09, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
11. Changed Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:09, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
12. I've slightly reworded this to say he was in the chair at 5 to be ready BY 8 and I found the missing source. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:09, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
13. Removed Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:09, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

• "To secure the film's release, several scenes of Bottin's effects work had to be cut." – should probably be clarified who objected (the studio? the MPAA?).
• "This helped establish the character and his threat earlier in the film because Doe does not appear until Seven's final act." – awkward phrasing.
• "Fincher wanted Mark Romanek to direct the sequence, being a fan of his music video for "Closer" and sharing similar design sensibilities but Cooper secured the role because of his previous experience on similar title sequences." – seems to me there should be a comma before "but".
• "manually added scratches, tears, and pen marks direct to the film negative" – directly?

1. Clarified Darkwarriorblake (talk) 14:33, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
2. Clarified Darkwarriorblake (talk) 14:33, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
3. Clarified Darkwarriorblake (talk) 14:33, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
4. Clarified Darkwarriorblake (talk) 14:33, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Release

• "Seven was released in the United States and Canada on September 22, 1995." – this needs some kind of qualifier as the premiere was a few days earlier in the US, as mentioned in the preceding paragraph.
• "the number-one film of the weekend, ahead of the debut of Showgirls ($8.1 million), and To Wong Foo, Thanks for Everything! Julie Newmar ($4.5 million), in its third week of release." – mentioning the number two film is rarely relevant. Number three, basically never. This applies to later weekends as well, of course.
• "Seven had the highest-grossing September opening weekend of its time, replacing 1991's Freddy's Dead: The Final Nightmare ($12.6 million)." – hardly a major box office record.
• "The successful opening was credited to the marketing campaign overcoming audience skepticism and Pitt's popularity with males and females—although a higher percentage of the opening audience were male—and a lack of competing action films." – this uses the construction "[...] credited to the marketing campaign overcoming X and Y and Z". I believe the intended reading is "[...] credited to Y and Z, and the marketing campaign overcoming X". The more intuitive reading is "[...] credited to Z, and the marketing campaign overcoming both X and Y".
• "Pitt's popularity with males and females" – I would definitely avoid using either "male" or "female" as a noun when referring to humans. It's also a bit odd to refer to both like this (why specify gender in the first place, then?). I would also note that Pitt's popularity with female viewers (or more specifically teenage girls) has been mentioned previously, his popularity with male audience members has not heretofore been noted.
• "Mitch Goldman had preponed the release date" – "prepone", while a perfectly logical construction analogous to "postpone", is from what I can gather only standard in Indian English and thus non-standard in all other varieties including the American English used for this article.
• "the ninth-highest-grossing film of 1995 behind [...]" – way too much detail for this article. I would say it's sufficient to link 1995 in film as is already done, but these are not even the worldwide figures but the US and Canada ones.
• In general, the box office section needs to be clearer about worldwide versus regional figures and put the former first (WP:Worldwide view).
• "making it the seventh-highest-grossing film worldwide behind [...]" – way too much detail for this article. Linking to 1995 in film as is already done is sufficient. It should also be made clearer that this is specifically 1995 films.

1. Clarified Darkwarriorblake (talk) 14:33, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
2. It's just the format I usually employ, it allows for natural linkage and provides context about its competition, its a minor amount of wording. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 14:33, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
3. To paraphrase Jack Sparrow, "But it IS a record". I think being the highest opening weekend of any September opening is notable. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 14:33, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
4. Clarified Darkwarriorblake (talk) 14:33, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
5. Clarified Darkwarriorblake (talk) 14:33, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
6. Changed Darkwarriorblake (talk) 14:33, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
7. Changed Darkwarriorblake (talk) 14:33, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
8. I try to write articles in a chronological format, I put the worldwide at the bottom as a summary of what came before, it doesn't make sense, to me, to give the total and then start breaking them down. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 14:33, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
9. Changed Darkwarriorblake (talk) 14:33, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Reception

• "The violent content of Seven was generally negatively received." – the source says that the movie "received generally negative reviews for its violent content", which I think falls under WP:LIMITED. I bring this up for a different reason, however: this is a case where the analysis of trends within critical reception is directly sourced to an external source making that analysis. This should ideally be the basis for the entire section—outside sources making general statements on the overarching trends in the critical reception. Individual reviews can absolutely supplement this by providing additional details, but we must take care not to WP:ANALYSE the data ourselves.
• "Audiences polled by CinemaScore gave the film an average grade of "B" on a scale of A+ to F." – this seems a bit out of place in a section otherwise about critics' response to the film.

Thanks Tompa, I'll get to this asap, can you ignore the themes section for now because I'm reworking it based on other comments. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:59, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

1. I'm not 100% if you're saying I AM analysing others, I just group content together and say who said it. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 14:33, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
2. Moved to box office discussion of fans. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 14:33, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Post-release

• This section is a bit odd to me. The heading, for starters, does not give me a clear indication about the contents. I also don't find the subheadings "Home media" and "Other media" to be altogether enlightening. I also find the structure rather unintuitive; why are soundtrack releases and home video releases grouped (semi-)together like this? It would make more sense to me to give the home video releases in chronological order in one subsection and the soundtrack releases in chronological order in another.
• "A bootleg recording of the score, featuring additional tracks, was released in the late 1990s." – I have to ask, because I genuinely don't know: do we generally list bootleg soundtrack releases?
• "A bootleg recording of the score, featuring additional tracks, was released in the late 1990s." – any particular reason not to specify 1998 (as the source does)?
• "A two-disc special edition DVD that was released in 2000 introduced additional features including a remastered picture scanned from the original film negative [...]" – while I would certainly describe deleted scenes, commentary tracks, storyboards and so on as "features", I don't think things having to do with image or sound quality (or mixing, or whatever) should be described as such.

1. It covers events post-release of the film, typically this would also include analysis as well but that section seems too big to contain within it. Soundtrack and home video are just home media, vhs, cd, dvd, LP, whatever. I typically group soundtracks separately in the same section but the last FA review said to group them chronologically so that's what I've done in this scenario. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 14:33, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
2. It's the earliest known release of the soundtrack, a bootleg on its own wouldn't be notable. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 14:33, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
3. I didn't see the side bar with the exact date, I just went off the body text saying late 1990s Darkwarriorblake (talk) 14:33, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
4. Changed Darkwarriorblake (talk) 14:33, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Thematic analysis

• "Author Amy Taubin" – our article on Taubin describes her as an "author and film critic"; the latter seems more relevant here, if a gloss is needed. If it would be accurate to describe her as e.g. a "film scholar", that would be even more relevant.
• "Richard Dyer compared the near-constant rain to films such as Blade Runner (1982), as a near-inescapable presence, which in Seven can represent sin seeping into every gap." – this sentence kind of switches direction rather suddenly after the first comma. It is very difficult to parse once one starts to actively think about the sentence structure.
• "Somerset has not stopped caring but has become as apathetic as those around him because of the futility of his efforts." – this seems very self-contradictory. If somebody has become apathetic, they have stopped caring. I might suggest that what Somerset displays would be better described as resignation than apathy, but then that would be me saying so rather than the sources.

Saw your comment about being in the process of reworking this section at this point. TompaDompa (talk) 23:22, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

• I've applied the changes requested here conscious the section is wildly different now. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 14:33, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Legacy

• "Seven is now regarded [...]" – we should generally avoid "now" and similar phrasings.

• Changed Darkwarriorblake (talk) 14:33, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

• "one of the best thriller [...] films ever made" – I really don't think the sourcing is up to snuff here. Collider says it "is widely regarded as one of the best thrillers in recent memory". IGN puts it at #5 on their top 12 list (and it's explicitly theirs). Time Out similarly puts it at #18 on their top 100. Elle puts it at #100 on their top 103 (that for some reason only goes up to #102, and if they are intended to be ranked I think it might be switched around?). Esquire includes it on a seemingly-unranked (?) list of 63. Collider (again) is right out as it is based on IMDb data. Looper puts it at #84 on their top 98. This does not add up to stating that it is regarded as one of the best thriller films ever made in WP:WikiVoice. None of the lists make any assertion to represent any kind of consensus view (discounting the IMDb-derived one), and the first Collider source notably includes the qualifier "in recent memory".
  • I've reworded and enhanced the sources, I didn't notice one used IMDb data, but I feel like between your comments here and at John Wick that you may have a specific requirement that to be considered one of the best it has to appear in the top 3 or somewhere around that? I'd again argue that if you're on a list of the best, you're one of the best. There are over half a milion films apparently in existence since the beginning of cinema so being in the top 102 is still an accomplishment and unless it's worded as "among the top 3" or "the best or second best thriller of all time", that the wording does support it. While I understand why you'd prefer multiple sources polling thousands of experts, that's just not realistically achieveable especially when reducing to a specific genre. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 14:33, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
    • I wouldn't use coming in at #84 as an example of being considered one of the best, nor would I use a list in Elle as an example of being considered one of the best in this field as it is a rather marginal source when it comes to film criticism, but the main issue here is that this is just a bunch of examples. Individual opinions are a dime a dozen—we want some kind of statement on the consensus view. This need not come from a source that has conducted a formal survey, any kind of statistical analysis, or really anything that "proves their work", so to speak—an expert on the subject making a statement to that effect would likely suffice. It's the difference between a film critic such as Roger Ebert saying "I consider it one of the best", which counts for little, and him saying "among my fellow critics, it is considered one of the best"—which counts for a lot. TompaDompa (talk) 10:13, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

      I don't know if you've checked the changes I already made but there is no "best" or "great" anymore, I've rephrased it entirely. That said, outside of Citizen Kane and Casablanca and it's rare ilk, it's not likely or easy to find sources saying a specific thing, and I do refer to FrB.TG's comments on John Wick that when we have a dozen reliable sources saying a thing, then it's a reasonable statement to make. I understand you have different standards in this regard but it doesn't invalidate the references used. That said, please check the reworded phrasing here because it has been completely reworded to remove usage of "best" or "great" despite the sources saying such, same for the best movies made, the entire section has been rephrased and additional sources added. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 17:08, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

      There's an adage that says that the plural of "anecdote" is not "data"; likewise, the plural of "opinion" is not "consensus". We can summarize multiple independent subjective assessments in some cases ("critical reception was mixed" is usually okay if there are multiple positive and negative reviews, but not always—we have to be careful not to cherry-pick the reviews), but in many cases that amounts to WP:SYNTHESIS. A weaker claim is more likely to be okay than a stronger one, a summary where the total number of possible sources to use is low is more likely to be okay than one where there are very many sources that could be used, a less controversial claim is more likely to be okay than a more controversial one, and so on. A statement as strong as being one of the best in its genre, in a field as wide and high-profile as this, really needs to come directly from the sources.

      Changing it to having been mentioned in a positive context by multiple sources does not solve the issue, it only turns it into a different kind of problem: why are we noting that the film is mentioned by a bunch of sources on different topics? Do high-quality sources on Seven mention that it appears on various "top X" lists? Do high-quality sources on Seven describe some kind of critical consensus on its relative position among films of various types? If the answer is no, then neither should the article.

      Being mentioned by sources on other topics counts for very little, because there is an inherent selection bias: what about the sources that don't mention it? Case in point: the Sight and Sound poll, the most prestigious film poll there is. There have been six polls since the film's 1995 release: one each by critics and directors in 2002, 2012, and 2022. It does not appear on the 2002 critics' poll. It does not appear on the 2002 directors' poll. It does not appear on the 2012 critics' poll. It does not appear on the 2012 directors' poll. It does not appear on the 2022 critics' poll. It does not appear on the 2022 directors' poll. How do we weigh that against the various lists the film does appear on? We don't—we leave it to the sources on the film itself. TompaDompa (talk) 18:37, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

      Those are rankings of the best films of all time, a claim the article isn't making, from people selecting both prestigous and, let us face it, pretentious films. And one of them, The Wizard of Oz, has only 5 votes to place it on one of the lists, here I have 15 individuals and/or groups, including Sight and Sound's publisher, saying "This is a notable thriller" and a poll of 2120 industry professionals calling it one of the best of all time, a claim I have buried further into the section. It's also mentioned in the article that Seven was highlighted by the BFI's Film Classics. I don't even particularly like Seven but its enduring legacy is not questionable and the text in the article has been watered down to basically say "it appeared on some lists", the claim isn't extreme nor is it unsourced and I'm finding it very unfair that while I make great strides to acquiesce to your requested changes you have remained immovable on this point on both Seven and John Wick because you don't agree with the sources used, even if they are reliable sources, and despite input from a third party. The end result is, as much as I appreicate your input, you're effectively blocking me from promoting any article if it notes its reception in a particular genre even if I rephrase it into the blandest effective terminology I can. It is not incorrect to say that publications have highlighted it as a genre entry, there are no claims saying it is citizen kane. Gog the Mild, is there a method in which I can request a third party input on this matter? FrB.TG has previously agreed with my stance on John Wick's nomination but I am happy that if a separate third party agrees the wording in this section is unreliable and verifiable then I'll flat out remove it. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:29, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

      Fraid not. FAC doesn't work like that. If you can't agree or compromise a reviewer states why something is not in line with the FAC criteria, the nominator briefly states why it is and the closing coordinator takes both into account when the time comes. It's why we get the big bucks. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:54, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

      Ok, then I ask that you please consider what I've said above Tompa. Based on the references in place at the moment I don't understand why "Various publications have referred to Seven as a standout entry in the thriller,[ak] crime,[al] and mystery genres.[am]" this is untrue and not verifiable but if you can please help me reach a compromise so I can gain your support and move this article onward I would be appreciative. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:18, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

      The short answer is that it's not about whether it's (strictly speaking) true, but whether it is due.

      I bring up the Sight and Sound polls not because I think they should be cited in the article, but to illustrate my point about appearing versus not appearing on lists. I know the article doesn't make any claim about it being one of the best movies overall, but not appearing on those lists is also part of the film's legacy. That other crime/mystery/thriller films such as Vertigo, Psycho, The Godfather, North by Northwest, and M appear on the Sight and Sound lists while Seven does not indicates that the latter is a second-tier film rather than a top-tier one. Can we raise that point in the article? No, it would be WP:ANALYSIS (unless we have sources explicitly making that same point, of course). But it demonstrates that only considering the lists on which the film does actually appear gives a skewed impression of its overall standing in the field. I'm not saying you have cherry-picked the sources, mind you—I'm saying this is a direct result of looking at sources on different topics that happen to mention the film and attempting to summarize them rather than looking at sources specifically about the film that have made that assessment for us. Examples can be used to illustrate a broader point, but they can't serve as the basis for that broader point—that's WP:SYNTHESIS. If I may quote the essay WP:CARGO, which lays out a similar point (albeit in a different context): The raw data can be examples, that demonstrate the analysis. [...] But simply amassing huge piles of them doesn't make an analysis. What makes an analysis is finding the works of experts in the field who have done analyses of the raw data, and then condensing and summarizing their published analyses into the article. (Collecting raw data and then producing our own novel analyses of those data is, of course, original research that is forbidden here.) When it comes to assessing due weight in cases like this, we cannot rely on the examples because we inherently cannot take the counterexamples properly into account.

      I'm not trying to keep these film articles from being promoted to WP:Featured article status, I'm trying to make sure they are in line with the WP:Featured article criteria and our WP:Core content policies. Part of this is that analysis of trends concerning subjective opinions about the film needs to come from high-quality sources making that analysis. One possible example of such a source could be a film expert making a statement about the general consensus on the film within the field, as suggested above. Implying trends by collating examples/raw data is not sufficient, both for reasons of WP:Improper editorial synthesis and WP:Due weight. In other words, my suggestion is not primarily to attenuate what the article says, but to strengthen the kind (not amount) of sourcing. TompaDompa (talk) 14:58, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

      This is an aside at this point but based on what you are saying, if Gone with the Wind appeared on four out of five Sight & Sound Best film lists then the absence of Gone from the Wind from that 5th list ultimately invalidates any claim that it is one of the Best films. At the same time, the Hollywood Reporter poll of Best Films alone has a sample pool larger than some of the Sight & Sound ones, so by this logic then Seven must be one of the greatest films ever made. Is Seven going to appear on multiple best of all time lists? No, it's content is too disturbing for some, but Best Thriller? It's frustrating that the sources say exactly what the text is saying and the issue is the sources used when no basis has been established for them being poor quality, unreliable, or unable to establish an opinion no different to Roger Ebert or Ted the intern at Sight & Sound. That said, I have removed all mention of even the basic "hey this thriller stands out a bit" from the article now. This must now be sufficient? Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:21, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

      TompaDompa Darkwarriorblake (talk) 10:46, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

      I think we might be talking past each other at this point. We at least seem to be getting no closer to reaching a mutually satisfactory solution here. TompaDompa (talk) 17:08, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

      Have you checked the article TompaDompa? I've literally removed the content you're talking about now altogether along with the reliable sources that went with it. The point of contention no longer exists in the article in any form. There is no best/great/standout/top thrillers, crimes, or mysterys, it's gone. I have done as you've asked. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 17:34, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

      In short: I have indeed looked at the article again after the removal of this particular piece of text, and my overarching concerns with this section remain. Our different viewpoints as to how such content should be covered—in large part consisting of differing perspectives on the assessments-of-consensus versus examples-of-opinions axis—seem irreconcilable. TompaDompa (talk) 19:10, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

      Ok. I appreciate your input TompaDompa, I do, I think it has helped improve the article, but I really think you should consider rescinding your oppose at this point (and I don't mean you need to support it), the article doesn't fail the Featured Article Criteria because we disagree on coverage. This is ultimately your opinion as other articles have gone through this nomination process with similar coverage with approval of other editors. I've now removed any credit of the film in any way outside of single opinions and reliable sources making general statements as you have requested, some contemporary comments on the film's lasting reception, the THR poll which is a larger pool than the Sight and Sound polls and was voted for by industry professionals and I've mentioned some public voted polls, being explicit on what each one is. It's fine if you would do the section differently but you cannot say that I have not acquiesced to every change you have requested and yet you're still finding fault. It's a very unfair approach Tompa. You don't have to support but at this point, after I've cut the original text from 10000 to just over 8000 (something your oppose is based on, again noting the Thematic Analysis expansion has taken it back up), I've removed all the big quotes (something your oppose is based on), replaced the sources (something your oppose is based on), and removed content when I couldn't find better sources. I have done everything you have asked of me and everything you have opposed over, I don't see how you can still justify an oppose at this stage. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:48, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

      We're already in a WP:FIXLOOP, and I don't know if I can get you to understand what the problem I see here is, but I'll give it another shot: WP:FACR 1c mandates that the article be "a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature" where "claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported by inline citations where appropriate". What do high-quality sources on this movie have to say about its reception and how it has evolved over time (i.e. the content that goes in the "Legacy" section, and more specifically the "Critical reassessment" section)? I still don't know that, and neither does anybody who reads the article, because those sources are not cited there. Removing things that shouldn't be included is only half the job. Fundamentally, analysis of trends concerning subjective opinions about the film needs to come from high-quality sources making that analysis—data points alone don't cut it. TompaDompa (talk) 23:33, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

      You're just moving goalposts at this point, I've done as you asked but new issues keep popping up. There is commentary on Seven having an enduring appeal and why, that it's been recognized by notable critics, that its had works written about it, that it's groundbreaking, that its a landmark, that its reception has changed and it is now generally praised in part for the reasons it was initially criticized. And that is after removing 20+ reliable sources calling it among the best/greatest in its genre purely because you didn't find them reliable. Now you want sources that cover the evolution of its reception from 1995 to date. If such sources existed in a capacity where I could have found them then I'd have used them, as it is you're saying it fails 1c because of references we cannot say exist. You cannot read the section as it is now and not get the impression that it is an enduring and impressive film and some of the reasons why. You've mentioned our viewpoints being irreconcilable above but my experience across two nominations now is that I have to do what you want and that is the compromise, there's no give on your end. The key word is viewpoint and as has been mentioned several times, while you may do something a different way, it doesn't mean the way it is is wrong. This is despite feedback from one of the coordinators and precedence set in recent previous nominations. I feel you've been unfair regarding this based on personal opinion of the content rather than the content itself and I will be raising it on the FAC talk page because personal opinion shouldn't be blocking multiple nominations, deliberate or not, with no obvious intention to compromise. This is meant to be a hobby and I've done the work but it's becoming a really miserable experience that isn't worth the time and cost invested. Thanks for your time. Bye. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 00:17, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

I get that you think I'm being unfair, but I don't think so (if I did, I would act differently so as to not be unfair, obviously). The bar for WP:Featured article status is very high. Not only does WP:FACR 1c require a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature, specifying high-quality sources, but the Template:FAC-instructions also state that "Nominators must be sufficiently familiar with the subject matter and sources to deal with objections". This means that nominators need to identify the core sources on the topic (or at least a decent sample of them, depending on the topic itself) and get a reasonably good grasp on what they say, at least broadly. That's quite a lot to ask regardless of topic, but for some topics it's worse than for others—for a topic like this, where there are a lot of lesser-quality sources, it can be an immense undertaking. It still needs to be done, however. The article needs to accurately reflect the body of literature on the topic. And I want to stress here: on the topic. If asked, nominators should be able to say what the central sources on the topic that have been consulted are and how the current state of the article reflects their coverage.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but maybe those other articles you refer to should not have been promoted. You say that one "cannot read the section as it is now and not get the impression that it is an enduring and impressive film and some of the reasons why", but then we're not supposed to get an impression like that if high-quality sources don't make such a point. That's crafting a narrative. The conceit of the section we're discussing here is that there is something to say about this aspect—but if the sources don't provide the necessary analysis, we cannot imply it. I have given an example of what would be a suitable source. When I speak is irreconcilably different viewpoints, what I mean is that your interpretation of the WP:Featured article criteria and our WP:Core content policies appears to be that this is an acceptable way of constructing such a section, whereas mine is that it is not. TompaDompa (talk) 08:12, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Not to put too fine a point on it, but you're implying that all those other editors either did not know what they were doing or do not know the rules as well as you believe you do. When I discuss a lack of compromise this is the kind of thing to which I am referring, where you refuse to believe that maybe you are not necessarily 100% correct when multiple other editors have agreed in favor of things you have not. It's not a might makes right situation, but when multiple reviews have taken place by experienced editors it may be at least somewhat worth reviewing if you are being too intransigent about the matter. I have not crafted a narrative, I've identified reliable sources and expressed the opinions made therein in a summarized form, but you continue to find fault with the references used despite them being no different to the Sight & Sound ones you exemplified earlier. As I've stated, I have bent and contorted to meet your requests, you have refused to bend even in the face of alternate opinions and precedent recent examples. I have done everthing possible to make your desires real but you keep broadly critiquing the section regardless of the sources or content to the point that I could get a personal note from God and I believe wholeheartedly your response would be, to paraphrase the Dude, "well, that's just like His opinion, man." Can you give me an example of an article that does what you actually want here or are you basing your view on as yet unrealized expectations you have arrived at independently? Darkwarriorblake (talk) 12:16, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

A passing comment: Wikipedia not being a reliable source, how something was or was not done in another article or a previous nomination carries no weight. It may be useful or helpful in various ways, but does not on its own establish a precedent. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:45, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

In the event that my interpretation is found to be too much of an outlier compared to other editors', the coordinator will simply discount my objections based upon it.

While not perfect by any means, and I have only taken a comparatively cursory look at it, the "Reception" section of the Casablanca (film) article is much closer to what I'm talking about. It begins with commentary on overarching trends from a source making that analysis, a couple of illustrative examples, and a (partial) counterexample brought up by a high-quality source. There is also a subject-matter expert (Roger Ebert) commenting on the consensus viewpoint; I am much less impressed by the inclusion of another expert (Leonard Maltin) providing their personal opinion.
The standards may be high, as they should be for WP:Featured articles, but they are not unattainable. What I'm asking is analogous to the advice given by WP:MEDRS: Cite review articles, don't write them. TompaDompa (talk) 21:51, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

It should work that way but it doesn't. The Supports at John Wick were ignored because your oppose was given higher value due to your standing in this particular community. When I questioned why it had been closed without explanation the comments acted like I'd ignored every point of your review instead of having responded to 99% of it and us just disagreeing over the reception section (prose as well but that wasn't insurmountable). I'm not sure why WP: MEDRS would be applied to pop culture items, medical science documents are going to be almost universally academic or specialist journals which are going to be considered more reliable but as we've discussed the sources used are reliable, even if you would prefer even more reliable. They're subject expert sites written by subject matter experts. I am reading the section on Casablanca and it just appears to be what I've done here but as largely quotes instead of prose? I assume it's because of who the quotes are attributed to? There's also no narrative crafting, if I could find a negative opinion on it I'd add it but it even gets praised for the violent content nowadays because it tells instead of shows. I'm not sure if you think I'm omitting references to paint a brighter picture but I just literally Google or Google Scholar "'Se7en' AND ('reception' OR 'critical' OR 'legacy' or 'enduring' or 'critici')" or something similar and open every viable link, I'm not cherry picking references. I wrote Ghostbusters II and that article shits all over its reception. And I like that film. I think, going forward, you need to be more realistic about how much coverage something with more broad appeal like Casablanca is going to get compared to a bleak R-rated film like Se7en. The Shawshank Redemption has loads of coverage about how it found a new life on TV and notable people praising it, Se7en was a blockbuster it didn't need to find a new life and it's not going to be shown regularly at film festivals, be screened during finals at Harvard, or be the most played film on TV because it's just not, it's too likely to offend at least portions of its audience. Casablanca has "play it again, Sam" (misquoted) and the whole speech about getting on the plane or regretting it, Se7en has a severed head in a box and a woman killed with a bladed dildo. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 12:58, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm flattered to be thought of as having a high standing in the FAC community, but I don't think that's the case. It wouldn't surprise me if most people here have no impression of me one way or the other.

WP:MEDRS doesn't apply to non-medical content, but the same principle applies (everywhere, really), which is why I said it is analogous. That principle is relying principally on secondary sources that summarize the overall state of knowledge/consensus/et cetera in the field, rather than relying on primary sources/examples/data points. The latter can and should be used for flavour, but not as the foundation. That's the main thing about the Casablanca article that I'm trying to elevate here: using sources that speak about the critical consensus rather than only presenting a set of individual viewpoints.

I have brought up a few instances above and below where I think this article on Se7en does a pretty good job when it comes to this aspect, and they are worth repeating here. Firstly, "The violent content of Seven was generally negatively received." is cited to a 17 October 1995 article by Bernard Weinraub in The New York Times which makes that same point. That's a very good source to use—it's in a highly reputable publication (I am not familiar with the specific journalist, so I won't comment on whether the same applies there or not) and it speaks directly about the overall critical consensus. The only thing I can think of that can be said against it is that it is from fairly shortly after the film's release and it would have been even better with a source that was further removed in time from the film's release, but that's really a minor point. Secondly, "A 2014 poll of 2,120 entertainment industry professionals by The Hollywood Reporter ranked Seven the eighty-fifth-best film of all time." is cited to what is, as far as primary sources go, a very good one to use as it aspires to represent some kind of consensus within the industry. TompaDompa (talk) 18:20, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Are we talking about the Enduring popularity section on Casablanca because it just seems to be a list of quotes and individual opinions outside the opening paragraph. I think I get what you're saying at this point but pop culture items and medical articles are not going to be the same, a medical article is going to give a definitive answer, it's unlikely to find a pop culture source that specifically says the words I want it to, i.e. "Directors, filmmakers, kings, queens, and emperors have called Se7en the greatest film ever made, threatening death on those who disagree". It's just unlikely and certainly not what I've come across in hundreds of sources. I am reworking the section based on this Casablanca one, though I doubt I'll have the time to finish before this is closed now. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:02, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't know if pings work on sandbox pages TompaDompa but I've done this User:Darkwarriorblake/Seven (1995 film) and I just want to know if this is what you are asking for? Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:17, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Not really, no. It looks like you aimed for a chronological rundown of critical reception? That's not the lesson to take away from the Casablanca article. The sandbox is still mostly a collection of individual opinions with little to no sourced analysis of overarching trends. The penultimate paragraph in particular is just a laundry list of people. It's also a bit difficult to evaluate the sourcing as most of the references are empty. TompaDompa (talk) 22:12, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

I give up. The Casablanca Enduring Popularity section is just a list of quotes and opinions, I cannot see any analysis of trends at all. Go further down the article and it's lists of greatest films of all time from Empire and Time magazine which is what I already had in this article. What I have done is chronological, identifying a consistent trend of opinions (to be clear I haven't SOUGHT a trend of consistent opinions I am saying I found every source I could and from them the opinions was consistent) as early as I could find, to date, with a changing criticism regarding Spacey, from reliable sources and/or notable people demonstrating a long-running trend of opinions with all hyperbole stripped out even when the sources call it a best thriller plus individual notable people from the Sight and Sound list you linked who voted for Seven in that same poll. The sources are all numbered immediately below the text. This is explicitly the Casablanca section but done well without the over reliance on quotes and to your specificiations. EDIT: I've sorted the references. EDIT MORE: I also renamed the section from critical reassessment because the critical reception hasn't really changed and that wasn't clear to me in references previously available. It was generally well-received then, it's well received now. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:39, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

The first sentence of the "Reception" section is Casablanca received "consistently good reviews". That's commentary on overarching trends from a source making that analysis (though I have been unable to access the source to verify the quote). It later says In the decades since its release, the film has grown in reputation., an example of analysis about how the reception has evolved over time, which appears to be sourced to this documentary about the film (I have also been unable to access this source to verify it). Further down, we have Roger Ebert, wrote of Casablanca in 1992, "There are greater movies. More profound movies. Movies of greater artistic vision or artistic originality or political significance. ... But [it is] one of the movies we treasure the most ... This is a movie that has transcended the ordinary categories." In his opinion, the film is popular because "the people in it are all so good" and it is "a wonderful gem". Ebert said that he had never heard of a negative review of the film, even though individual elements can be criticized, citing unrealistic special effects and the stiff character of Laszlo as portrayed by Paul Henreid., a subject-matter expert (Roger Ebert) commenting on the consensus viewpoint (here I have been able to verify the first quote only). TompaDompa (talk) 17:11, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

I can make up any statement you want as long as you can't access the source to verify it Tompa. It's unrealistic to hold back or oppose an entire nomination because there isn't a specific quote available summarizing the entire critical reception of Seven from 1995 to date and not every article is going to blurt out a consensus, and when it does you tend to consider those sources unreliable based on what seems to be a personal assessment. I think you're approaching what is a pop culture article from the mindset of a... I don't know, a scientific or technical subject, but the text I've created (I need to fix a few references but that happens when you're pulling 42 new sources and condensing it down to less than 800 words) has statements from people, including Ebert and reliable and/or notable sources stating factual opinions, but for some reason, these opinions, though in greater and more reliable number that Casablanca and avoiding all but the best sources I could find, are not equal. Ebert commenting on Seven is not as good as Ebert commenting on Casablanca. Nor is the BFI, The Hollywood Reporter, The Independent, the Los Angeles Times, Time Out, or Empire. Whether I've wittled the text down, made the text more modest, diminished any accomplishment in any way, as with John Wick, it has not been sufficient to even remotely satisfy your request for this one single section to the point that I'm now satisfied you were never willing to be satisfied with any answer I gave. It's fine, we move forward, hopefully I will have the opportunity to gain some supports from other editors here before its untimely shuttering. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:52, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Not the only thing my oppose is based on. It may be a popular culture topic, but it's not a niche or obscure one. It's a 1995 film for which Rotten Tomatoes lists 87 critics' reviews and IMDb lists 162. I don't think it's unreasonable to ask that overall critical reception trends be summarized by the sources rather than editors here; I might feel differently about a book from the 1800s where only a handful of reviews are able to be found. Ebert commenting on Seven is indeed not as good as Ebert commenting on Casablanca, because with Casablanca Ebert is commenting on the critical consensus whereas with Seven Ebert is giving his own personal opinion (I said this above too: It's the difference between a film critic such as Roger Ebert saying "I consider it one of the best", which counts for little, and him saying "among my fellow critics, it is considered one of the best"—which counts for a lot). Making the text more modest (or diminishing accomplishments) is not an end in itself – accurately reflecting sources is (if, for instance, sources say that Who Killed Captain Alex? is widely considered the best Ugandan film of all time, so should our article on the film). That goes both for the strength of the statements and their relative weight. I understand the desire to outline how the critical reception has been in the years since the film's release, but if the sources barely discuss it then the same should go for this article (that would make it a WP:MINORASPECT). TompaDompa (talk) 16:32, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

It should probably be noted for the record that there is some parallel discussion to be found at User talk:Darkwarriorblake/Seven (1995 film). TompaDompa (talk) 02:02, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

• Crime – same thing, really. Comic Book Resources for some inexplicable reason considers it a "crime epic" and gets their data from IMDb. Looper puts it at #15 on their top 55. Paste puts it at #9 on their rather-more-narrow top 50 serial killer films.

• Per above, I've improved and added references Darkwarriorblake (talk) 14:33, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

• Mystery – same thing, really. Esquire includes it on their unranked top 25 list of murder mystery films (a more narrow category than mystery films). Glamour puts it at #33 (though I'm unsured if it is meant to be ranked) on their top 63 list. Looper puts it at #10 on their top 60. Marie Claire includes it on their unranked top 48 list of, again, murder mystery movies. Slashfilm puts it at #1 on their top 30 list of murder mystery movies. Time Out puts it at #17 on their top 40 list of murder mystery movies.

• Per above Darkwarriorblake (talk) 14:33, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

• "Some publications have listed Seven among the greatest films of all time." – strictly speaking true, but overselling it to a fair degree, I'd say. Total Film readers put it at #15 out of 100 in 2006. Similarly, Empire readers put it at #30 out of 100 in 2018. Time Out staff put it at #87 out of 100 in 2023. Finally, "Empire readers, Hollywood actors, actress and key film critics" voted it #134 out of 500 in 2008.

• As with the above IMDb reference, I didn't notice the reader-voting involvement, if it says Top whatever by publication the assumption is it's theirs, so I have specifically and clearly re-worded this to what I think is a fair assessment. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 14:33, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

• "A 2014 poll of 2,120 entertainment industry professionals by The Hollywood Reporter ranked Seven the eighty-fifth-best film of all time." – this is a good example of a list that actually does aspire to represent some kind of consensus. Whether it does a good job at it or not could perhaps be discussed, but this is the kind of source to look for.

• Per above, they're great when they come up but they're few and far between. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 14:33, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

• "Seven is included in the 2013 film reference book 1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die" – it's not a 2013 book, though there is a 2013 edition. To the best of my knowledge, it has been included in every edition of the book. I also have to question whether this is WP:DUE, considering that the book does not exactly have a reputation of being particularly selective when it comes to what films are included (as might be expected from the high number of entries, of course).

• It's been a while sinec I read it but it's broken down by decade if I remmeber correctly and covers like all of cinematic history? 100 films from each decade doesn't seem substantial and it being mentioned in the publication is notable. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 14:33, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

• "He and Paltrow became romantically involved before the film's release, and Pitt would work again with Fincher on films such as Fight Club (1999)." – this phrasing rather makes it sound like the two things are connected.

• Changed Darkwarriorblake (talk) 14:33, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

• "Pitt would work again with Fincher on films such as Fight Club (1999)." – well, it's that one and The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (2008), separated by almost a decade. They're not exactly a recurring collaborative duo like Martin Scorsese and Robert De Niro, is my point.

• This was 25% of Fincher's filmography until the release of The Killer but I've changed it. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 14:33, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

• "Seven inspired many filmmakers, and is considered influential on crime-based films and television shows that replicated its grim aesthetic, body horror imagery, lighting, and the premise of disenchanted detectives pursuing criminals with distinctive killing methods and motivations, including Kiss the Girls (1997), The Bone Collector (1999), Along Came a Spider, The Pledge (both 2001), the Saw series (2003), and television series Prodigal Son (2019–2021)." – this is a very lengthy sentence that would almost certainly be improved by dividing it into several shorter ones. The list of examples is also rather lengthy; reducing the number of examples and focusing on the best ones would similarly likely be an improvement

• Changed Darkwarriorblake (talk) 14:33, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

• "faith-based horror, supernatural, and apocalyptic mystery films" – "faith-based", when used in these contexts, is a borderline euphemism. It basically always means "religious", and more specifically "(mainstream) Christian".
• "Seven's use of alternative music by Nine Inch Nails" – I'm not sure the meaning of "alternative" here is clear.

• Clarified Darkwarriorblake (talk) 14:33, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

• "The film's twist ending is considered one of the best in cinematic history." – again, I don't think the sourcing is up to snuff here (I'm guessing the intended reading is "one of the best twist endings" rather than the stronger "one of the best endings"). Slashfilm doesn't even describe it as a twist ending, and says it is "one of the most unforgettable endings in movie history" rather than one of the best. GameSpot puts it at #8 on their top 21 list of "most shocking horror movie twist" (so restricted scope and not best). GQ includes it on their unranked top 10 "Best Twist Endings on Netflix" list. Cosmopolitan includes it on their seemingly-unranked list of 50. Comic Book Resources puts it at #2 on their top 10. The Independent includes it on their unranked list of 31. Complex includes it on their unranked top 25 "best movies with a twist" list. The Ringer puts it at #13 on their top 50 list (of both movies and TV shows).

• Changed Darkwarriorblake (talk) 14:33, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

• "Fincher recalled an encounter with a woman who said: "'There is no need to make a stand in of Gwyneth Paltrow's head to find in the box. You don't need to see that.' And I said, 'Well, we didn't.' And she said, 'Oh yes, you did.' So, the imagination, if properly primed, can do more than any army of makeup artists"." – this could be summarized/paraphrased instead of quoted outright, and it would almost certainly read better that way.

• Changed Darkwarriorblake (talk) 14:33, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

• "Paltrow wore a replica box over her head as her Halloween costume in 2017." – this seems like rather straightforward trivia.

• It's intended to show the enduring cultual cache of the film Darkwarriorblake (talk) 14:33, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

• "Several publications have named John Doe as one of the great cinematic villains." – I don't put much stock in simply appearing on a bunch of lists that typically represent the viewpoints of one or a handful of staff writers at the publication in question. The exception here is the USA Today source, where "24/7 Wall Street created an index based on both positive and negative user votes on rating website Ranker.com, Wikipedia page views in the last two years, and the number of user votes for each villain’s most popular film on IMDb."—which is even sillier.

  Per one of the above responses, I didn't realize the USA today one was sourced like that, it just said their top 50 films so I made hte mistake of assuming it's theirs. I've just removed it entirely. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 14:33, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Hey Tompa, I'm not ignoring you, I just wanted to get this themes part over with so it can be looked at by all involved first. Sorry for the delay. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:17, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Summary

I am regrettably also going to have to oppose this nomination. This is principally on prose quality and sourcing grounds. In terms of the WP:Featured article criteria, that roughly corresponds to 1a/4 and 1c, respectively. I think it's fair to say that we have different ideas about what an ideal article on a topic like this looks like in a few key ways, and to some extent that comes down to a matter of preference. Indeed, some of the feedback I have offered above concerns matters of preference, but I want to be clear that these are not the things I base my oppose on. To that end, I'll try to clarify in general terms the dealbreaker issues as I see them, as well as some of the other things that might keep me from supporting the nomination but would not on their own make me oppose it.

On prose quality:

• The article is, as noted above, very lengthy. I estimate that out of the roughly 10,000 words of prose the article consisted of when I started reviewing it, at least 1,000–2,000 could be removed by a combination of general copyediting for conciseness, removing extraneous detail, and shortening or outright removing verbatim quotes.
  • The article is rather heavy on verbatim quotes, some of which are quite lengthy. I generally prefer quotes to be used sparingly and not be longer than needed. In some instances, I find the quotes to cross the line from simply not how I would do it to outright poor writing.
  • Part of the reason the article is so lengthy is that it goes into a lot of relatively minor details, some of which I've listed above. The inclusion of these tidbits can on the individual level certainly be debated, and there is some leeway when it comes to including such things, but taken all together the sheer amount of this kind of content makes the article unbalanced in a WP:MINORASPECTS way.

On sourcing:

• Other editors have commented on sources they feel are missing. I have not looked into this matter; my concerns deal with the sources that are used rather than any that perhaps should be but are not.
• Source quality is one issue. Featured articles need (per WP:FACR 1c) to be based on sources that are not only reliable, but high-quality—a much tougher requirement. Screen Rant, for instance, is reliable enough for straightforward statements of fact within its area of competency (entertainment, roughly speaking) but is not a high-quality source (more of my thoughts on it can be read at WT:FAC#Would these pass a source review?). Sources of that caliber (i.e. low-quality but not-unreliable ones) should never be for establishing WP:Notability or assessing WP:Due weight. Listicles, even if published by otherwise-good sources, basically never reach the threshold of being high-quality sources. Low(er)-quality but reliable sources can in select cases be used to supplement high-quality sources when the latter verify almost all the information we want to include but not quite (everything but the date is one possible example), but here sources like Screen Rant, Comic Book Resources, Slashfilm (which according to our article is a blog?), and various listicles are used as the principal sources for significant portions of the content. Even discounting the featured article requirement about using high-quality sources, this presents WP:PROPORTIONALITY problems with the relative weight given to different aspects covered to a smaller or lesser degree by different kinds of sources—that should be based on the WP:BESTSOURCES.
• Source use is another issue. I haven't conducted anything approaching a thorough spot-check, but double-checking a handful of sentences that caught my attention has turned up some problems that I have listed above. In particular, I have found a pattern of the article making stronger claims than the cited sources justify. One aspect of this is making inappropriately generalized statements based on discrete sources (synthesizing rather than summarizing). Another aspect is disregarding qualifiers made by the sources.

TompaDompa (talk) 22:21, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

I truly value the time and effort you've invested, Tompa, and I was genuinely looking forward to collaborating on enhancing the quality of the Se7en article. However, I want to express that Screen Rant, Comic Book Resources, and /Film are perfectly fine in the capacity they are used and none of them are used for significant portions of the text at all, most of hte Screen Rant ones are just actor name/character description, and /Film is not a blog, it WAS a blog, now it's a full-blooded publication owned by a company and with an editorial policy as required. I can only see 4 instances of Screen Rant used 6 times, 3 instances of CBR, used 3 times, and 7 instances of /Film used 15 times but again I consider /Film a highquality source that has been used in many of my previous featured articles. Similarly, reliable sources that happen to have facts in list form are not bad or disallowed. I'm not going to find a full article about Seven that mentions minor, if interesting, aspects of the filmmaking process and sadly there isn't a Making Of book about it. I've also removed, I think every single large quote in the article except the two in the thematic analysis section which we've not come to, and the Legacy section, which we've not come to. The word count is only 8000 now not including the thematic analysis which I was asked to extend so it is of a perfectly cromulent length. Ultimately, it is within size guidelines and is both readable and of a highly-competent quality, initially written by myself, and copyedited by someone else, plus fixes you've requested which is why I think it's gone from 10,000 to 8,000 characters during this review, removing the 1000-2000 words you have requested above, then BACK up because of the requested additions to the theme section which is not something I can control. It feels like I've already addressed most of the issues you're raising and the ones I haven't I am coming to from the other comments you've made. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:01, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

The word count is at present slightly above 11,000 words, for future reference. Which actor played which character is the kind of straightforward statement of fact that Screen Rant and similar sources are indeed perfectly fine for (though it seems likely that higher-quality sources would be available). But then we have things like:

• "Pitt said he regretted not disrobing for a separate scene of Mills and Somerset shaving their chests to wear concealed listening devices. He disliked the public attention given to his body but later came to believe taking off his shirt off would have conveyed the growing partnership between Mills and Somerset." – sourced to a Yahoo! listicle. This particular marginal source is used quite a bit, including for the rather lengthy passage "The ceilings of the sex club in which the lust victim is murdered were lowered to make the space more claustrophobic, and wax was sprayed on the walls to give texture and to imply they are covered in bodily fluids. A former bank was used as the library and 5,000 books, which were supplemented with fiberglass replicas, were rented to fill the space. The shaking in Mills apartment, which is caused by a passing train, was created using gas-powered engines attached to the set. Walker's script extensively described Doe's home, whose windows are painted black for privacy and a drawer is filled with empty painkiller bottles to help Doe cope with frequent headaches.", for which it is the sole source.
• "Seven's aesthetic was influenced by [...] the over-the-shoulder viewpoint used in documentary television show Cops because of its implicit vulnerability" – sourced to a Shortlist listicle (there is another source cited for this sentence, but it appears to cover the other part of the sentence that I omitted here).
• "A seven-issue comic-book series was released between September 2006 and October 2007 by Zenescope Entertainment; serving as a prequel to the film's events of the film, the comic book focuses on Doe and the planning of his crimes." – sourced to Comic Book Resources; this is borderline because it's probably necessary for comprehensiveness, so if Comic Book Resources is genuinely the only (or, perish the thought, best) source that can be used here then I suppose it will have to do.
• "The script was made into the standalone thriller named Solace (2015), which was a critical and commercial failure." – sourced to a Screen Rant article; while this is sufficient for the first part (which is again likely necessary for comprehensiveness), the second half of the sentence contains analysis that really should have stronger sourcing.

And so on. This is what I mean by significant portions being based principally on low-quality sources. While it is true that listicles aren't outright disallowed, they are as I said almost never high-quality sources—which is the threshold to reach for featured articles. I agree that you are likely "not going to find a full article about Seven that mentions minor, if interesting, aspects of the filmmaking process", but then that's the point: those are WP:MINORASPECTS that are only mentioned by low-quality sources that should not be used for assessing the relative weight of different aspects here. TompaDompa (talk) 21:16, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

I am trying to find better sources, but to be clear regarding the word count it was about 10,000 when we started, reduced to about 8,000, and then it's gone up to 11,000 because of the additional content requested by others as part of this review, the content actually about the production, reception, and legacy of the film has not gone up it's gone down significantly per your requested changes. I could split the themes section off but then only 30 people a year would read it, noone ever clicks through to sub articles. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:58, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

I also think you may be looking down on some sources too readily because they are from pop culture focused websites, i.e. Comic Book Resources. It's not on the Perennial Resources page as unreliable, it has an editorial team and staff page, the source in question was writen by CBR Staff, it has a fact checking policy, an ethics policy and an ownership policy. Many years ago (it was founded in 1995 after all) it probably would've been easier to dismiss but it's nearly 30 years old at this point, owned by an international company, and has the policies in place that have been asked for during FAC reviews in the past, so I'm not sure why it is unreliable or considered a low quality source, especially in an area of expertise like the Se7en comic book. It has evolved like /Film. Screen Rant is owned by the exact same company and has the same policies in place. I won't deny that in the last 12 months Screen Rant's content has become (IMO) designed to take advantage of the algorithm and drive more quick hits, but the limited capacity it is used (and I've replaced some of the refs) should not be considered so detrimental to a Featured Article. I am still searching for alternatives though. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:58, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

I've responded to all of your above queries above and removed the Yahoo reference apart from for sourcing casting. Honestly not happy about that as the article has lost a lot of interesting information and I don't see any reliability issues with the source, but it's gone. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 14:37, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

TompaDompa, Hi Tompa I've responded to all the outstanding issues above and also discussed the word count in the paragraphs above. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:10, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Comments by Lankyant

Just tagging a place in this. And will do it in chunks.

Lead

• Is 'near-retirement' a functional term? Is the hyphen necessary? I would use 'nearly retired'
• I would link serial killer. Mainly because couldn't Doe be better characterised as a spree killer? So good to give the link so people can see the definition.
• "endeavour to thwart" - I take George Orwells advice and change to "try to stop" but not going to demand it.

Plot

• "Somerset, considering the case too extreme for his last investigation, asks to be reassigned to another case but his request is denied." Could you lose the 'to another case'?
• "Doe has no remorse for his victims, believing the shocking murders will force society to pay him attention.* The 'to pay him attention' seems off to me. Could be 'force society to pay attention to him'?
• "Somerset intercepts the vehicle, whose driver was instructed to deliver to Mills a package at this specific time." Change to 'instructed to deliver a package to Mills at this specific time and location'

Production

• Penta Film has an Italian wiki entry. I don't know what MoS is for that but if allowed Penta Film could be added at first instance. I will try and create the page for it in the next few days.

Lankyant (talk) 23:37, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

• I've implemented all of these, I've added the internal Penta Film link for now. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:09, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Lankyant just a ping to see if there's anything else you'd like to add? Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:10, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Apologies ended up going away for business, back next week so if still up I will give it a go over and support Lankyant (talk) 00:22, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Support I'm happy to support this Lankyant (talk) 21:39, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you Lankyant Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:49, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Comment from JM

It seems like there's a lot of scholarly literature on this film, but the article doesn't seem to engage with any of it. Has this been reviewed? An article that doesn't engage with the relevant research might (might) be OK at GA level, but I feel we should hope for more for an FA. For example, with a couple of minutes on Google Scholar, and including only the papers that explicitly name the film in their title, I came across this, JSTOR 40658383, JSTOR 30002692, JSTOR 43263574, JSTOR 25112430, ProQuest 2ab2c69216acac72, and the Oleson chapter in ISBN 9780567677983. I've not read any of them, but they're all in decent publications. I suspect that's just the tip of the iceberg. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:54, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

I have researched academic articles but I do think we need to account that with pop culture articles, especially ones meant to be dissected like this one, it's fairly easy to find much more readibly accessible sources online. In addition to this I obtained the physical copies, at my own expense, of Richard Dyer's book by the British Film Institute on Seven, which is all about thematic breakdown and analysis of the film, and the Sight & Sound article by Amy Taubin, which has resulted in a fairly robust analysis section of about 1300 words so far that, I believe, does give a detailed and broad coverage of the elements in the film. I also have to be considerate that during these reviews some people can take issue with the article length and the longer I make the themes section the larger that issue becomes, with the analysis section currently accounting for over 12% of the article length. On this basis I would make it a point to say that I have thoroughly engaged in an analytical review of Seven, I've just not used as many academic articles because more easily accessible ones were already available.

That said, I will take a look at the ones you've posted, as you say you haven't read them, and I'm not 100% without reading them if they're ones I've already reviewed or not. The book is at minimum £90 which is beyond my means but reviewing the abstracts it is a main focus on the religious aspects and there is already existing discussion of the religious content. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 17:13, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Done. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:02, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

J Milburn, please see below Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:57, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

@Darkwarriorblake: Thanks for the ping; it's great to see these developments. I'll hopefully have a chance to look a little closer soon. Josh Milburn (talk) 09:05, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Heartfox

Oppose per 1c. In addition to the sources highlighted by Josh Milburn, I found several other in-depth scholarly sources not cited in the article. Given this, I can't see how the article can be a "representative survey of the relevant literature". I strongly suggest making requests at WP:RX for sources you can't access yourself or through WP:TWL. Heartfox (talk) 02:07, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Do you have these in-depth scholarly sources? Darkwarriorblake (talk) 10:52, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't what sources to which you referred, but I've expanded the section and the sources used. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:02, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for incorporating more scholarly sources. I have struck the oppose, but I would really try to incorporate as much as possible. Surely there are things that can be cited from stuff like:

• ISBN 9780791480335 – a book chapter about the film
• ISBN 9781405145947 – another book chapter about the film
• doi:10.1515/9781474407694-055 – a short book chapter about the film
• ISBN 9780199767007 – two pages about the film
• doi:10.7560/314913-006 – a paragraph about the film on page 144

not to mention one-sentence or one-off mentions that can help boost the amount of scholarly sources cited

Best, Heartfox (talk) 05:59, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Done Heartfox, not easy to read 40+ pages but done. The only one I haven't used is "Chapter 4 . Stephen King as Low-Budget and Straight-to-DVD Horror" as it's less analysis and more performance, I am going to use this reference elsewhere in the article but not in the analysis section as it didn't seem relevant. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:56, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Image review - passes

Sorry if this was covered in some fashion already. I did a quick skim of the comments above and didn't see an image review.

• File:Seven (movie) poster.jpg

  Used in the infobox, obviously has a clear purpose for use, properly licensed, and has alt text.

• File:Brad Pitt (8993535447).jpg
• File:Morgan Freeman, 2006 (cropped).jpg
• File:Gwyneth Paltrow face.jpg

  All three images are of main cast members. Use makes sense in the cast section, all properly licensed, and have alt text.

• File:TheKillerBFILFF051023 (8 of 22) (53255176376) (cropped2).jpg

  Image of the film's director. Use obviously makes sense for the article, properly licensed, and has alt text.

• File:Ned Beatty (46282011834).jpg
• File:Zodiac-Killer.jpg

  Use of both images fits the article, both are properly licensed, and have alt text.

• File:Los Angeles, Winter 2016.jpg

  Filming took place in LA, so the image makes sense to be used. The image is properly licensed and has alt text.

• File:Governor Tours the House of Cards Set (8769358329) (cropped).jpg

  Use in the reception section makes sense, properly licensed, and has alt text.

Image review passes. Congrats! -- ZooBlazer 05:16, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks ZooBlazer Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:10, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Coordinator note

This has been open for three weeks and has yet to pick up a support. Unless it attracts considerable movement towards a consensus to promote over the next three or four days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:11, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Comment from Rodney Baggins

I was about to review this FAC but notice that it's currently in danger of being archived. My main comment would be that, while the article does appear to be very well sourced throughout, the Plot section is totally unsourced and is presumably WP:OR by editor(s) simply watching the film and then describing it in their own words, which is not acceptable for a Featured Article. If this is not the case, the plot needs to be restricted to descriptions given in reliable source reviews, with the relevant citations added. Examples: [24] [25] [26] Rodney Baggins (talk) 13:21, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

See MOS:FILMPLOT: "Since films are primary sources for their articles, basic descriptions of their plots do not need references to an outside source." TompaDompa (talk) 13:41, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Support from Graham Beards

Richard Dyer's BFI monograph has to be the best critical review of the film and it has been well used. But the article provides much more based on that which has become available since Dyer's book was published. I have made one tiny edit, which is neither here nor there. I am pleased to support the promotion of this engaging contribution. Graham Beards (talk) 21:14, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks very much Graham Beards, sorry I would've thanked you earlier! Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:39, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Coordinator note: this has been open for almost two months now and we still don't have enough supporting reviewers for promotion. It seems to be the second time where DWB and TompaDompa are at an impasse regarding the same issue of sourcing. Perhaps start a wider discussion off-FAC and get other opinions on this issue to reach some sort of agreement before a possible renomination. FrB.TG (talk) 12:19, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. FrB.TG (talk) 12:19, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

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) 6 March 2024 [27].

---

Tatannuaq

Nominator(s): Generalissima (talk) 21:59, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Tatannuaq (or Tattannoeuck, or Augustus in older sources) was an Inuit hunter and interpreter for the Hudson's Bay Company, notable serving in two of Sir John Franklin's ill-fated Arctic expeditions. Tatannuaq was one of nine survivors out of the twenty who began the Coppermine expedition, and saved the Mackenzie River expedition party from Inuit attacks.

This was a fun article to write; I've worked a lot on the coverage of Inuit interpreters, as they have increasingly been coming into the forefront on the scholarship of arctic exploration. Generalissima (talk) 21:59, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

@FAC coordinators: It's been a few days since there's been activity on here; is this good to promote? Generalissima (talk) 19:16, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Image review

• Don't use fixed px size

• File:Tattannoeuck.jpg needs a US tag. Ditto File:Coppermine_mouth_1821.jpg, File:The_Esqimaux_Pillaging_the_Boats_(BM_1932,0727.107)_(cropped).jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:32, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

• Ope, good catches on both accounts, thank you. Fixed. Generalissima (talk) 22:40, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

• When and where was File:Tattannoeuck.jpg first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:49, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

  Actually, hmm it might not have ever been officially published. It was drawn in May 1821 in Canada in the diaries of Robert Hood, but the Canadian archives simply call the source "private". Generalissima (talk) 22:53, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

• Okay, do we know when it was digitized? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:50, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

  The Canadian archives flickr page says January 28, 2015, so prior to that date at least. The Canadian Archives website itself just says that copyright is expired and doesn't list a digitization date. Generalissima (talk) 00:56, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

• So given the current information, we can't verify the current tagging, but {{PD-US-unpublished}} may apply? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:43, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

  Yeah, thats a fair point! Corrected that. Generalissima (talk) 06:02, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Support from Gog the Mild

• Recusing to review.

• Link inuit?
  • Good idea. - G
• "Following significant delays" doesn't really work in the lead. I think you need to either cut it or explain it a little more. Similarly in the main article.
  • Expanded on it a bit more in both sections. - G
• "After several years of tending the HBC post at Fort Chimo". I m not sure what "tending" means here, and I am unsure that it corresponds to what is said in the main article. Perhaps recast?
  • Good idea. Rephrased. - G
• "he himself". Do we really need "himself" here? I mean, who else would he be?
  • Oof yeah that's sloppy phrasing. - G
• "as far north as Marble Island, near Rankin Inlet." Would it make sense to add a distance to the end, even if approximate?
  • Rankin Inlet is also a body of water the island is adjacent to, so I'm unsure how to phrase it in a satisfactory way. - G

Cough! Rankin Inlet is a village. It is almost exactly 300 miles north of Churchill, so approximately 100 north of where the young Tatannuaq lived.

• Ohhh relative to where he lived, rather than to Marble Island. I misunderstood. I clarified this now. - G

• "he took a wife". A slightly archaic and mildly sexist phrase. Perhaps 'married a woman'?
  • Good idea. - G
• "to travel overland from the North American to explore". Is there a word missing after "American"?
  • Ope, yes there is. - G
• "a concurrent naval expedition by William Edward Parry" Which was doing what where?
  • Added some clarification. - G

• No publisher location for McGoogan?
  • Ooh, good catch. Fixed. - G
• "they joined a large party proceeding to Fort Chipewyan." This suggests that the party was already "proceeding", which the following sentence states they weren't.
  • Ah yeah, "departing towards" is probably better here. - G
• Link Hudson Bay Company?
  • I already do in the first section; would that be overlinking? - G

My mistake. But you confused my search by having "Hudson Bay Company" the second time. (No 's.)

• Ope, yeah. Fixed that now. - G

• "was the first to descend the Coppermine River". Is there a 'European' missing from in there?
  • The sources don't qualify it but like, yeah, you're right lol. - G

Shame on the sources then. :-)

• "HBC-NWC". The MoS: "an acronym should be written out in full the first time it is used on a page, followed by the abbreviation in parentheses".
  • Oh good point. - G
• "Tatannuaq unsuccessfully searched for Hoeootoerock, who went missing following a hunting trip." This would be easier to read if it were recast in chronological order.
  • Yep, that's a good point. - G

• "Tatannuaq departed from the fort in October 1821". Again this seems to be out of chronological order within the paragraph.
  • Oh I have no idea how I left that in there! - G
• "shot at the Inuit, forcing them to retreat". Forcing them to retreat, or 'causing' them to retreat.
  • Causing is probally more encyclopedic here. - G
• " The Inuit reportedly expressed remorse ... with Tatannuaq reportedly weeping". Synonym time? To avoid "reportedly in consecutive sentences.
  • Rephrased the first to "said to have" since it's Tatannuaq himself reporting this. - G
• "From 1827 to 1830 he was stationed at Churchill". "stationed" makes it sound like he was a ship or a military unit. Perhaps 'lived' or 'worked'? Or both.
  • Good point. - G

That's all from me. Neat work. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:27, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

• Thank you very much for your review! I started making the changes as you were reviewing, so it should be all good on those fronts now. Generalissima (talk) 16:54, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

FM

• Looks interesting and unusual compared with what we usually get here, will review soon. FunkMonk (talk) 12:12, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
• At first glance there's a bunch of WP:duplinks, which can be highlighted with this script:[28]
  • Oh thank you so much for the script recommendation! Removed duplinks. - G

• "Expedition camp at the mouth of the Coppermine, 1821" Spell out and link the name of the river? I was puzzled when I glanced at the caption.
  • Done. - G
• "Engraving of John Franklin" Link his name and provide context for his relevance in caption?
  • Done. - G
• Give date and artist for the infobox image?
  • Done. - G
• "Engraving of the expedition being attacked by Inuit after a sketch by George Back, 1828" Link Inuit and Back in the caption?
  • Done. - G
• Link Inuit and any other terms that are not only linked in the intro at first mention in the article body as well (and vice versa, if any exist).
  • - Oops, yeah. Done. - G
• "about two hundred miles" Give conversion?
  • Done. - G
• Link Rupert's Land in infobox?
  • Done. - G
• "a hundred miles to the north" Conversion?
  • Done. - G
• Do we have more specific info on what ethnic group or tribe he belonged to? As far as I understand, Inuit is a pretty wide umbrella-term?
  • Sadly this is not explicitly spelled out in any of the sources. Geographically, he almost certainly would have been a member of a Kivallirmiut band (the Paallirmiut specifically lines up almost perfectly with the distance from Churchill given), but that'd be OR; no biography has specified his band affiliation :( - G Generalissima (talk) 16:56, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Alright, but nice to know! FunkMonk (talk) 15:57, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

• "He returned to Fort Churchill in 1822" Do we know which month?
  • Source doesn't say, alas. - G
• "charted 675 miles" Convert?
  • Good idea, done. - G
• "From 1827 to 1830 he worked at Churchil" Probably good to use his name at the start of a new section.
  • Done. - G
• "around 20 miles" Convert?
  • Done. - G
• "Finlayson described him less favorably, describing him" The "described/describing" in the same sentence is a bit clunky, any way to make it less repetitive?
  • Threw in the spicier "eulogized" here. - G
• Fort Resolution is still linked three times in the article body, twice in the same paragraph.
  • Ope, my bad. - G
• "Originally from an Inuit band two hundred miles north of" Conversion in intro?
  • Done. - G
• Give year for the two expeditions mentioned in the intro?
  • Done. - G
• "he departed again to the interior in an attempt to assist in locating John Ross's expedition, but perished in bad weather a short distance outside Fort Resolution." Give year.
  • @FunkMonk: Done! Thank you very much for all the feedback. Generalissima (talk) 18:44, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

• Support - this looks nice to me now. FunkMonk (talk) 20:02, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Comments

• "Leaving the post briefly in 1814, he returned to work for the winter of 1815, then returning" => "Leaving the post briefly in 1814, he returned to work for the winter of 1815, then returned"
• "the Dene's great interest and admiration, who were fascinated" => "the great interest and admiration of the Dene, who were fascinated"
• That's it, I think! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:14, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

  @ChrisTheDude: Good suggestions; implemented! Thank you very much. :3 Generalissima (talk) 18:22, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 22:03, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Source review from PMC

Coming soon to a FAC near you ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:16, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Nitpick side

• Several instances of refs out of order (VE will fuck you on this while using sfns unfortunately, because it counts refs as one thing and sfns as another thing - you'll need to open a copy of the page in view mode and make the fixes in the other tab)
  • for example "Augustus" and "Junius".[11][9][12]
  • Ope, I admit I didn't even know that was a style guideline to begin with! Fixed. - G
    • I perennially annoy FAC reviewers by not doing this properly, lol
• Harper source needs page numbers if possible, and why is that book in the citations section and not in the bibliography?
  • I'm using an ebook copy which doesn't have page numbers :( Not sure what to do there. The chapter is like, 4 pages though. - G
    • Hm, actually, my local library system seems to have a copy. I'll pick it up and throw the page numbers in and put it in the bibliography once it comes in.
      • This is now done, for anyone looking ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:43, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
• Also for Harper, you've omitted the quote that makes up half the chapter title
  • Ah yeah, fixed. - G
• Where possible, you should link authors who have articles using the author-link parameter (ie Kenn Harper, Ken McGoogan, C. Stuart Houston)
  • Totally forgot about authorlinks! Thank you, fixed. - G
• Should list the publisher for the Canadian Encyclopedia, Dictionary of Canadian Biography, and Open Science and Data Platform
  • Done! - G
• If the bibliography has an organizing principle, I do not see it, I beg you to obtain one
  • Organized it by date. - G
• If I don't pick on this, Gog will - titles of major works like books should be in Title Case, while titles of minor works like journal articles should be in Sentence case. Please adjust accordingly
  • Okay! - G
• Is Stuart Houston (1994) the same guy as C. Stuart Houston (1974 and 1984)? If yes, make consistent. If no, can you distinguish them better?
  • Same guy, yeah. Clarified.
• Houston should be listed as the editor rather than the author for "To the Arctic", as that's what's given in the book's front papers. Not sure where the original date of 1821 is coming from - was the book published in this form at that time? If so, please clarify, per the documentation for {{Cite book}}, which says "For clarity, please supply specifics." If not, I would just remove it.
  • I don't think it was ever published, so I'll just say 1974. - G
• Please link all publishers for which there is a bluelink, or none of them. Right now you've got a couple at random.
  • Got it. - G

Spotcheck side

• All sources appear reliable, nothing in need of challenging
• It seems like sometimes you're a little loose with precise placement of sources. It's not that I'm finding great gobs of stuff that aren't supported by some source, but in some cases you've cited the wrong source by mistake, or you've placed the ref after X sentences it does support and Y that it does not, creating the inaccurate impression that it also supports Y. I'm also somewhat prone to slightly absent-minded sourcing, so I'm not hassling you too badly, but it's something to watch yourself for.
• Ref 1 good
• 2a is used to support Tatannuaq having a brother, but that info is found in ref 6
  • Fixed. - G
• 2b, 2c, 2e, 2f, 2g good
• Ref 6a, 6d, 6f good
• 6b doesn't match the text. Our article says the interpreters were sent ahead because of "Concerns of Inuit attacks on the explorers", but the source says "Rightly worried that the Inuit would be nervous on seeing Europeans and Indians again" and then describes a bunch of Inuit taking off. Ie, they didn't think the Inuit would attack, they thought the Inuit thought they were going to attack
  • Ah good catch! Added context about the Bloody Falls massacre and reworded. - G
• 6c supports up to "...weakened from hunger" but not the next two sentences. I would move it so it's more clear what it supports.
  • Fixed. - G
• 6e is used to say that he walked to Cumberland House with Ooglibuck, but Cumberland House isn't mentioned
• Fixed. - G
• Ref 7b doesn't support the number of survivors. I think you meant to cite ref 8, which does
  • Fixed. Dearest apologies for making so much work for you. - G
    • All good, like I said, I'm prone to it to, so I won't give you too much of a hard time. (You should see how much work I've made for myself mixing up Thomas and Wilson in my McQueen ones, because both books came out in 2015 and often discuss the same period within roughly the same page numbers). All looking good now.

Other miscellaneous thoughts

• "Tatannuaq unsuccessfully searched for him. Hoeootoerock was never found." Feels kinda redundant to say the search was unsuccessful and then to reiterate that he was never found, but I'm open to changing my mind.
  • Just chiming in to say that I did suggest a change along these lines (and the article didn't previously include the second sentence), since just because Tatannuaq's search was unsuccessful doesn't necessarily mean that Hoeootoerock didn't eventually turn up. Elli (talk | contribs) 17:53, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
  • Someone asked for explicit conformation he was never found, but I reworded it a bit more concisely. - G
    • Works for me
• "He returned to Fort Churchill in 1822, one of nine survivors of the twenty who began the expedition." - This sentence ambiguously implies that he returned at this time in the company of the other survivors. (Or that his return in 1822 had to do with Franklin's expedition, which it didn't). I would disconnect these two things - close the paragraph with him being 1 of 9 survivors, then move his return to Churchill into the next paragraph.
  • Good idea! Fixed. -G
• "Later life and death" is one paragraph, but I feel like it could be split, maybe at "In 1833, he learned..."
  • Also a good idea. - G
• "He arrived at the post" - it feels odd to cover him working from 1830-1833 in one sentence, then backtrack and announce btw he arrived here in September.
  • Ooh yeah, flows better now. - G
• "In 1833, he learned that George Back was mounting an expedition to search for John Ross's second Arctic expedition, presumed lost, and hurried to join the expedition." Two is undesirable but maybe justifiable, but three is for sure avoidable
  • Reworded. Thank you for noticing that. - G
• Why does Tatannuaq arrive at York Factor before he departs?
  • He took a ship of some sort to York Factory, and then went to Churchill from there. Reworded for clarity. - G
• Feel free to ignore this but I uploaded a tighter crop of the butterfly that shows it off a little better, if you want - File:Brown Elfin (Callophrys augustinus) (8847670385) (cropped).jpg
  • Oh what a nice crop, thank you!
    • I like playing with the crop tool on Commons :P

That's all I have for now. I'll take another pass once you've double-checked the source placement and replied otherwise. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 09:09, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

@Premeditated Chaos: Alrighty! Had the chance to look through the sources to double check placement and corrected everything you've found. Generalissima (talk) 22:27, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

• • I'm satisfied enough to pass the source review, and I support based on prose also. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:11, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Comments by Elli

• Is there any better estimate of where they were born? A map would be nice if possible.
  • Sadly this is kept very vague in all the sources. - G
• "Although his tribe would frequently trade with other Inuit groups further north, Tatannuaq had only been as far as Marble Island, around a 100 miles (160 km) to the north, in the vicinity of Rankin Inlet." this sentence is a bit confusing. 100 miles north of where? "Had only been as far as Marble Island" as of when? I can figure it out from context but saying things a bit more explicitly would be better.
  • Clarified this. - G

Regarding the Coppermine expedition:

• Is Hoeootoerock potentially notable? Also, was he never found?
  • Unsure, he might fall under WP:1E. And no, he was never found. Let me clarify that. - G
• When did the return trip take place?
  • Clarified. - G
• You mention "Fort Churchill" once but otherwise just mention "Churchill" -- are these the same? I'd assume they're nearby at least?"
  • In this period, they're the same. - G
• "Tatannuaq met Anglican missionary John West at Churchill in August 1822; he served as West's interpreter in 1822 and 1823 during his visits to Churchill and York Factory." -- you mention visits to York Factory in 1820, and a potential one in 1833, but not one in 1823.
  • Ah, I meant West's visits; but I clarified this. -G

Regarding the Mackenzie River expedition:

• "Descending down the Great Bear and Mackenzie in the summer of 1826" they descended down the lake? Not sure what this means.
  • Great Bear River, I clarified this. - G

Regarding Later life and death:

• "From 1827 to 1830 Tatannuaq worked at Churchill" was this still at the HBC?
  • Yep. Clarified. - G
• "In 1833, he learned that George Back was mounting an expedition to search for John Ross's second Arctic expedition, presumed lost. He possibly arrived at York Factory in September 1833. He departed from Churchill, where, despite an injured leg, he traveled the 1,200 miles (1,900 km) on foot through the winter weather to Fort Resolution, possibly accompanying the post's messenger." can you expand on this more? Was he sent on this as part of his job, or did he volunteer for it?
  • Seems to have volunteered. Clarified a bit, as much as the source allows. - G
• Did Back succeed in finding Ross's expedition?
  • Ooh, I should have included that. Added a little addendum there. - G
• When was his body found?
  • Doesn't say, alas. - G

That's all for my comments -- pretty good article. Elli (talk | contribs) 20:01, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

• @Elli: Thank you very much for your feedback! Made edits as suggested. Generalissima (talk) 22:10, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
  • Looks good! Support this (as a prose review; didn't check the sources and will leave that to others). Elli (talk | contribs) 22:18, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

SC Oppose

• Marker for now. Will be along shortly. - SchroCat (talk) 23:49, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

The Mackenzie River incident is told a different way here. I think the alternative version also needs to be covered in the article, even if it is just as a footnote (otherwise it fails the "comprehensive" part of the criteria). - SchroCat (talk) 13:22, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

@SchroCat: Hmm. I'm not sure if this source is reliable; since it makes a number of errors (John West was Anglican, not Moravian; Keewatin didn't exist until the 1870s; Every other source agrees that Tatannuaq unsuccessfully pleaded for the Inuit to stop, but then he later performed diplomacy to prevent future attacks. Since that source is a tertiary source, and it has so much incorrect information in regards to Tatannuaq, I don't really feel comfortable considering it one of the best sources in regard to him. Generalissima (talk) Generalissima

It may be worth including it as a footnote and rebutting it with the weight of other sources. If someone reads that other source and comes here to find more information, they will likely have the impression we are wrong. Correcting it by using the sources would be a beneficial step. (ps. no need to ping me: I have this watchlisted) - SchroCat (talk) 16:51, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

(Ah my apologies on the ping.) I just really feel that is unnecessary: WP:WSAW is one of my guiding essays when it comes to situations like this, and I think it's very undue weight to include a version of the narrative from a secondary source which is citing existing scholarship, when all other sources which it cites unanimously agree with another version of the events. Generalissima (talk) 16:59, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

WSAW is a new essay (less than a year) written almost entirely by one person that who has no experience in FAs (and limited experience in GAs); that's a lightweight opinion to be holding up at FAC. I won't push the point on this, but I do suggest that you have the ability to clarify for readers something that has been incorrectly published in at least two books (albeit both written by the same person). You may also want to look at Approach 3 at WSAW.

I'll do the review proper shortly. - SchroCat (talk) 17:20, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

OK, I was going to let this be your call, but I'm going to return to it now, having found a third and fourth source that states no shots were fired. The first is the Dictionary of Canadian Biography, which you rely on at several points in the article; the second is Sir John Franklin's journals and correspondence : the second Arctic land expedition, 1825-1827 (this is the version taken from Franklin's own notes). The previous sources should have been enough to have had this information as a footnote, but these two put an entirely different spin on it - given these are close to the primary sources saying no shots were fired, this needs to be corrected and both versions need to be addressed in the text.

• Some form of map may be useful here - I doubt most readers will know the location of most of the places mentioned
• There is another picture of Tatannuaq here, published in 1823, so free of any copyright concerns
  • Oh rad, thank you. - G
• The above book is Franklin's Narrative of a journey to the shores of the polar sea, in the years 1819, 20, 21, and 22, which I'm surprised hasn't been used, given the number of references he makes to "Augustus". - SchroCat (talk) 19:20, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Early life

• "and with her had three sons" is a little cumbersome. Why not just "and the couple had three sons".
  • Much better phrasing. - G

Coppermine expedition

• "Tatannuaq and Hoeootoerock to advance ahead of the party and attempt to make contact with local tribes." Odd change in tense here. Why not they “advanced ahead of the party and attempted”?
  • Fixed. - G
• "two week journey": -> “two-week journey”
  • Fixed. - G

Done to the end of Coppermine. More to come - SchroCat (talk) 09:14, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm had to move to oppose on this, partly around the point of the disputed source, but with another aspect too.

I have finally managed to get hold of the source that you use to support the statement "George Back was able to recover his firearms and shot at the Inuit, causing them to retreat". The source actually states that "Finally Back got his boat afloat again and his crew levelled their guns at the Inuit, who immediately retreated." It doesn't support the claim that Back recovered any firearms or that he shot at the Inuit. This is concerning.

I'm also concerned that some other sources - notably the records by Franklin - are not used at all. This does not chime with 1.c of the FA criteria as being "a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature". - SchroCat (talk) 20:13, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

I think it's rather premature to oppose considering I'm still working on resolving the issues you raised, but I hope that I can resolve things to a level where you would be comfortable supporting. I'll try to make the changes later today. Generalissima (talk) 20:29, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

I think it goes deeper than trying to do some changes in the course of a day. A search of IA on the name "Tattannoeuck" or using the terms ("Franklin" "Augustus") shows a large number of other sources. Yes, many of these are only a passing reference, but some of them go into more detail on the man and his actions. It's a short article on a subject where the amount of information is scarce, but there is information I have found in about an hour's searching that should be included, but isn't. Some of it is in the sources you've already used.

I think this article would have benefited from some deeper research from a wider range of sources and a period in PR. As it stands this isn't at FAC level yet. Can I suggest you withdraw and take your time in building it up from every available source you can, before popping it into PR and then returning with a strengthened piece? - SchroCat (talk) 20:48, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

I will not withdraw the article, I believe that it is in ready position for FA with some minor modifications needed. It passed a great deal of prior prose and source reviews without issue. Generalissima (talk) 20:54, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Your call, but it fails FA criteria 1.c. This is not a minor point. The reviews you've had do not cover this at all (the previous source review was on the formatting on the extant sources; my review is showing you have not conducted "a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature", which isn't something you can fix in an afternoon).

@FAC coordinators: I think this could probably benefit from a spot check on the sources, given the issue above. Your call on that, but I think it best it's not done by me, just to keep everything above board. - SchroCat (talk) 21:01, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

I really appreciate your in-depth review here, but I really feel that I can resolve it to a level that you would feel comfortable passing. Would you be willing to give me the weekend to work on it before asking me to withdraw? Generalissima (talk) 21:04, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm sure the FAC coords would probably be okay with it - it's down to them, but they do like to play fair to nominators to sort things out.

I suggest you run the searches I outlined in the Internet Archive, which will show you the possible sources (50 works for "Tattannoeuck", for example, but Franklin and others will have called him Augustus, so make sure you include searches under that name - "Franklin" and "Augustus", "Back" and "Augustus", etc), many of which can be discounted as duplicates, but there are still useful areas to explore. You have, for example, no quotes from anyone who worked with him. Franklin's Thirty years in the Arctic regions contains one appraisal that "the circumstance of his having found his way through a part of the country he had never been in before, must be considered a remarkable proof of sagacity", really should be included to bring the man to life. You don't mention that he converted to Christianity while working with West (and what was he before, if anything). A quote from Back on his opinion would be good, etc. At the moment, it seems like it's an article that just goes through the motions, rather than making a reader interested, enlightening them making us care about the individual. Some of this is in the sources I've outlined, others, I'm sure, are in the ones you've already used. I hope this helps. - SchroCat (talk) 21:08, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Hey, just to be clear, my spotcheck was not just formatting. I had a nitpick section for formatting and a separate section right underneath with actual spot checking of the text against the sources, and did identify issues that were rapidly addressed. I regret to say I did miss the levelling guns vs firing shots issue in Harper, which is entirely my own oversight. I did not do my own separate research to find unused sources, but I don't typically see that done for source checks, so I don't see that as being a deficient source check. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:18, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi PMC, my bad: laziness on my part made me just assume it was a format check, rather than a spot check too. I don't think you did a deficient check - by their very nature, a spot check will not check all the refs, and 17 just happened to be one of those you didn't check. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 21:28, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

I have been dealing with an immense amount of stress lately but I will try to my best to return to this article as soon as possible and get it up to your liking. I would like to reiterate that I am confident that I can fully resolve any 1.c issues within the next few days. Generalissima (talk) 22:00, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi Generalissima, I'm truly sorry to hear that. I'm happy to wait a few days for you to go through the sources I've highlighted above - I'm sure the FAC co-ords will allow a bit of leeway on the timing (Big hint to the co-ords: please let this ride for a while as Generalissima goes through the sources). Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 22:05, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

• (Arbitrary break so this doesn't get too hard to read)

Sorry about the delay; bogged down with personal life as well as large amounts of work. I have begun incorporating text from Jean Delisle's Interprètes au Pays du Castor (2019), which seems to incorporate much of the primary sourcing that I had missed. I may bring in more of the primary diaries, but I really would like to avoid relying on such old primary sourcing for something like this. As you explained, I'll try to add some more information to clarify the range of differing interpretations of the boat incident after I'm doing getting through the Delisle source. Thank you very much for your patience. Generalissima (talk) 02:27, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Fleshed out the Coppermine section, will work on Mackenzie River tomorrow! Hope this has at least partially resolved your issues so far, Schrocat. Generalissima (talk) 07:35, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Oppose by Sandbh

The first six paragraphs of this article don’t meet criterion 1a, well-written: its prose is engaging and of a professional standard.

The first paragraph refers to John Franklin's Arctic expeditions without any context as to the signicance of John Franklin or the purpose of the expeditions. The subject is from 200 miles (320 km) north of Churchill, Manitoba. So, where the hell is Manitoba?

In the second paragraph the first sentence is too long, at 44 words. The second paragraph refers to a “significant delay”. Eh? So what? Mention is then made of two expeditions namely the 1819–1822 Coppermine expedition and the 1825–1827 Mackenzie River expedition. What is Coppermine? What is the significance of Mackenzie River? Where are these places?

In paragraph 3 we learn that Tatannuaq was born to an Inuit family in the 1790s, about 200 miles (320 km) north of Churchill, Manitoba, in what is now the Kivalliq Region of Nunavut, then part of the loosely administered Rupert's Land territory. Where are all these places? Where is a map?

In paragraph 4 we learn that in 1812, he was hired to work at the Hudson's Bay Company (HBC) trading post at Churchill. Hired to work as what? What is the significance of the HBC?

Paragraph 5 refers to an abortive 1818 expedition to Svalbard. Where is that? What was the purpose of the mission? Why was it aborted? Mention is made of hoping to meet with a concurrent naval expedition by William Edward Parry intending to traverse Lancaster Sound. Where is Lancaster sound? Who is Parry? What was the purpose of the concurrent expedition?

Paragraph 6 says, Franklin attempted to hire one or two Inuit interpreters for the expedition, but encountered difficulties and delays due to a lack of suitable candidates at Churchill or Cumberland House. Why not hire the subject of the article? Where was he at that time? What is Cumberland House and its significance? Reference is made to a clerk at York Factory. Where is that? What is the function of York Factory? What is the next-mentioned Fort Enterprise? Continuing the theme of mystery locations and entities, what is the North West Company (NWC) post of Fort Providence? Is Akaitcho, chief of the Yellowknives, an Inuit. Why him?

At this point I lost interest in the article, due to its non-engaging style. — Sandbh (talk) 09:47, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been withdrawn, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 21:21, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

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) 5 March 2024 [29].

---

Sam Manekshaw

Nominator(s): Matarisvan (talk) 14:26, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

This article is about Sam Manekshaw, one of only two people promoted to the Field Marshal rank in India. I believe I have addressed all the concerns raised in the last FAR and look forward to going through the process once again, hopefully for the final time for this article. Matarisvan (talk) 14:26, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Note: For reviewers who find the Assessment section too short and lacking on comprehensiveness, please note that I do not have access to the Wikipedia Library and thus cannot access a lot of sources fully & instead have to rely on snippets.

RoySmith (support)

slightly off-topic discussion about TWL access

I'm not going to go so far as to formally oppose, but I think this should not go forward on procedural grounds. The nominator has identified a shortcoming in their own ability to properly research this article; lack of access to WP:WPL. Looking at the requirements, the only thing they're missing is "6+ months editing". I can see two trivial ways to handle that. One would be to write to the WPL folks (who I have found to be exceptionally eager to help), explain the problem with the old account and request that the 6 month requirement be considered met based on that old account. Two would be to wait another three weeks, at which point your new account will meet the 6 month requirement and apply that way. In the meantime, my suggestion is to withdraw this submission and resubmit after you have gotten access and been able to complete your research. Considering that this article has been submitted three previous times over the past six years, with all three submissions being unsuccessful, I don't think it's unreasonable to ask that you wait another three weeks to be able to avail yourself of the sources you say you need to complete your research. RoySmith (talk) 16:52, 13 February 2024 (UTC) Hi Roy, thanks for your thoughtful and considerate reply. The only source I don't have full access to is the Indian Arms Bazaar 1994 artice, source #141. I don't believe this one can br accessed through TWL too. I have full access to the rest of the sources used in the article, and do think I can research the article properly. The reason I put the note though, is because most FA reviewers have TWL access and expect sources from catalogues there, like Newspapers.com. I don't have access to those yet, but I don't think TWL access is a prerequisite for FA status, is it? I did try to get TWL access over at Wikipedia talk:The Wikipedia Library, but got my application rejected within a day. How else would you suggest I write to them? Are there other forums for that? I understand your suggestion to wait, but I don't want to, because I don't think TWL sources are better than open access ones. Also, having two failed FARs for the same article feels really bad, it's not the end of the world but is off putting. But if the TWL thing is a negative qualifier for you, then I will consider withdrawing the nomination once again. Matarisvan (talk) 17:42, 13 February 2024 (UTC) I just entered "Sam Manekshaw" into TWL's search box and got a page full of sources. I see you've used at least some of them (The obituary in The Economist, for example), but quite a number of other sources that you don't mention. Raghavan S. Soldiers, Statesmen, and India’s Security Policy. India Review. 2012;11(2):116-133. doi:10.1080/14736489.2012.674829 has several pages about Manekshaw. I don't see that mentioned in your sources, but they do cite Interview with Manekshaw in Quarterdeck (1996) reproduced in Lieutenant General J. F. R. Jacob, Surrender at Dacca: Birth of a Nation (New Delhi: Manohar, 1997), pp. 18183 as one of its sources, which I see you do use, so perhaps you've already got that covered. My point is that WP:FACR requires a "thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature" and I don't see how you can say you've done that without at least having run a TWL search to see if there's anything you've missed. Samwalton9 (WMF) I see you processed Matarisvan's TWL application and rejected it based on failing the 6 month's tenure requirement. What wasn't mentioned in his application was that he previously edited as PunishedRottweilerAppreciator but lost access to that account because of a technology failure. Between the two accounts, he meets both the time and edit count requirements. Is there any way the rules could be bent to get him access now, so he doesn't have to wait another 3 weeks to hit the 6-month mark on his current account? RoySmith (talk) 18:41, 13 February 2024 (UTC) Thank you for this, I didn't know SW9 could be requested like that upfront. I did forget to mention the old account in my plea, maybe if I had, then perhaps I wouldn't have struggled in the last FA. I will incorporate the 2 sources you mention, and if I do get access to TWL then cite all the other sources available there as well. Thank you once again, cheers! Matarisvan (talk) 19:25, 13 February 2024 (UTC) @Matarisvan: I missed your followup note last time about having a previous account. Usually we would ask for some proof of ownership for your previous account, but in this case since you've only got a couple of weeks to go anyway I've enabled Wikipedia Library access for your account. On a broader note @RoySmith I'm wondering about this procedural decline on the basis of not having access to The Wikipedia Library - I would feel uneasy about us being a bottleneck to future FACs. There are a wide range of venues for doing research besides TWL. Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 12:40, 15 February 2024 (UTC) Hi @Samwalton9 (WMF) I agree that TWL should not be a bottleneck per-se to FAC. However in this case, @Matarisvan specifically identified their lack of TWL access as the reason why they couldn't get a source they needed. It just seemed like a problem that could be easily solved, so I pushed a bit on that. FA requires "professional standards of ... sourcing". In a professional setting, if you submitted something for review with a note, "I know my paper/code/project/whatever is deficient, but I lost my library card so I can't fix it", it wouldn't go over very well, and that's really the point I was trying to make. Anyway, thank you for your assistance. Now, I've got a review I need to do... RoySmith (talk) 15:08, 15 February 2024 (UTC) Hi Roy, I'm glad to share that I got access to the Indian Arms Bazaar Source through the Open Library/archive.org. Now there are no sources left which I don't have full access to. Matarisvan (talk) 12:22, 14 February 2024 (UTC) Alternatively, Wikipedia:Resource request should be utilised. If an article is not comprehensive, it is not FA status, no matter the nominator's personal position. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:14, 13 February 2024 (UTC) Hi, great idea! I was almost done posting my request there when somehow I thought of using the resources which are part of the ISBN template. As a result, I was able to access the only source I did not have full access to, thanks to the Open Library. As for the comprehensiveness, I should have phrased my words better. I did not mean to say 'I think' or 'I believe' in the first reply, but inadvertently did so, it was absent minded filler. What I meant to say was that I have gone through multiple reliable source catalogues. I have gone through the entire search results for 'Sam Manekshaw' on Google Books, Google Scholar, JSTOR and NYT, and cited all the unique content I could find there. Matarisvan (talk) 12:30, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

comments

"Chief of the Army Staff" : be consistent about capitalization. Also see MOS:DUPLINK, "a link ... may be repeated ... at the first occurrence in a major section". I think it should be linked both in the lead and the first time it's used in the body (i.e. under Indian Military Academy). Changed all to lower case. "His active military career spanned ... five wars" is in the lead, but I'd repeat that statement in the body along with an explicit list of the five wars so the reader doesn't need to go hunting to find them all. Wouldn't that mess up the chronological order? Also, all 5 wars & 1 skirmish he was part of are mentioned in the infobox; 4 of the 5 wars are also discussed in the body. I had written up a section for the 1962 war, which was deleted on the advice of Undercover Classicist in FAR #3, because there were only 2 sources and not much detail. Well, as it stands now, I can't tell which 5 wars you're talking about. I see two top-level sections that talk about wars ("Word War II" and "Indo-Pakistani War of 1971"), so the obvious question is "what were the other three?" The infobox should summarize what's in the article, not include material that isn't otherwise there. Hi Roy, I removed the 5 wars mention, is that alright? We know for sure that Sam was involved in these wars but don't have any further details, most of these are yet to be declassified. "Manekshaw was selected as part of the first batch of cadets at the IMA" -> "Manekshaw was in the first batch of cadets ..." Also, "batch" seems like an odd choice of word. Maybe "class"? Hmm, I see you use "batch" a lot, as in "batchmates". Maybe that's just standard Indian English usage, in which case it's fine? I was gonna change this to cohort. Yes indeed, batch and batchmates are common words used for academic cohorts and colleagues. Cohort works, but I found this stack exchange article which verifies that "batch" is the accepted term in Indian English, so I'd leave it as batch. "In World War II, he was awarded the Military Cross for gallantry." is in the lead but not the body. These exact words aren't repeated, but the details of and citation for the award are there in the body. "partition of India" is sometimes in upper case, sometimes in lower case. Fixed. "Manekshaw was seconded to a planning role ... Hyderabad crisis" a military buff might know what "seconded" means, but I don't. Either explain it, or at least link to what I assume is the right target, Secondment. Also, "Hyderabad crisis" isn't mentioned in the body. Added the link. It is not discussed much, but 'annexation of Hyderabad' is there in the body. "167 Infantry Brigade" in other places, you write unit numbers as ordinals, i.e. "12th Frontier Force Regiment". Be consistent. I had changed these to 167th earlier, but for this particular unit, that is just the way they are written by the army, without the suffix. I can still change all these to 167th, what would you suggest? If the army calls it "167 Infantry Brigade", then that's what we should call it as well. It's possibly worth a footnote explaining that, but I'll leave that to you. I was not sure about this. I haven't put in one, I hope that is ok. As a general comment, you are inconsistent about capitalization of job titles. For example, "Chief of the Army Staff" vs "director of military training". I'll leave it to you to find all the other places. I believe I have fixed these. The only time when the ranks are capitalised are when they appear next to a rank holder, as per the suggestions in the 2nd peer review. "Army Headquarters" not clear if that should be capitalized. Maybe that's an Indian English vs. American English thing? Yeah, I also guess it's a military thing. In the lead you say "After completing the higher command course at the Imperial Defence College,", but in the body it's "... to attend a higher command course for one year". I assume the course is one year long and he completed it, but that's a little ambiguous. It sounds like maybe it was supposed to be a multi-year course and he only completed the first year. Specified that the course was 1 year long. (that takes me to the end of the lead, I'll pick this up again later) "Hilla found it impossible to travel any further due to her advanced pregnancy.[9] After Hilla had recovered," This sounds like she was having morning sickness or something and got over that. But looking at Wikipedia:Peer review/Sam Manekshaw/archive1, I see that what she recovered from was giving birth, which seems like a significant detail to leave out. Added. "During World War II, Hormizd had served", I think just "... Hormizd served", but maybe a grammar expert should weigh in on this. I was also stuck up on this, the latter phrasing seemed to be present participle so I changed it to past participle. Is that alright? "Manekshaw's younger brother Jami also served in the Indian Armed Forces." This is mostly repeated in the next sentence. I'd combine and condense them: " Manekshaw's younger brother Jami became a doctor and served in the Royal Indian Air Force as a medical officer". Combined. "Jami was the first Indian to be awarded air surgeon's wings from Naval Air Station Pensacola in the United States." I'm curious how it came that an Indian officer was serving at a US air station. That deserves some explanation. It's also unclear what "first" applies to. The first Indian to get air surgeon's wings, or the first Indian to do that at Pensacola? Also, what year did this happen? Added the year and clarified that he was not serving, but training there. He was not the first one to get air surgeon's wings, but he was the first one to get them at Pensacola. "Jami joined his elder brother" I assume the elder brother we're talking about here was Sam, but with four sons, it's worth being explicit. Done. "passing with a third division in science" I suspect "third division" would be understood by somebody who had gone through the Indian education system, but I (an American), have no idea what it means. Is there some article that could be linked to which would give an explanation? Added the equivalent grade (C). "enrol" Is that a typo for "enroll", or is that just how it's spelled in Indian English? Was a typo, fixed. "Enrol" is also UK English; generally Indian spellings have followed UK usages AIUI but perhaps this is now changing. But the article should stick to Indian usages, I would have thought, whatever that standard is. Does or could the page specify this with a template? --Jim Killock (talk) 18:08, 16 February 2024 (UTC) {{Indian English|small=yes}} can be included if not already. There isn't information about exact preferences at Wikipedia, but Indian English mentions that generally follows British English spellings. So I would guess that enrol would be preferred. Jim Killock (talk) 10:06, 17 February 2024 (UTC) The {{Use Indian English}} template is there, so I think the spelling needs another check. Jim Killock (talk) 10:17, 17 February 2024 (UTC) I already made the changes, considering that in the next few lines, the spelling used is 'enrollment'. Would it be prudent to revise both? Matarisvan (talk) 10:38, 17 February 2024 (UTC) I can't say for certain what Indian English uses, but the English spellings would be enrol and enrolment. I would expect these from what I've understood of Indian spellings. Jim Killock (talk) 10:59, 17 February 2024 (UTC) I will make these changes. Matarisvan (talk) 07:03, 18 February 2024 (UTC) "You've got "batch mates" in one place and "batchmates" in another. Be consistent about it being one word or two. Done. "a holiday with Maharaja Kumar Jit Singh of Kapurthala and Haji Iftikhar Ahmed" Who are these two people? Is the first one, "Kumar Jit Singh, the Maharaja of Kapurthala"? Changed as suggested. "Of the 40 cadets inducted, only 22 completed the course." It's not immediately clear which course you're talking about here. I assume you mean "The cadet course at the IMA", but you have to go back to the previous paragraph to understnad that, so a little context here would help. Changed to 'inducted into the IMA'. "They were commissioned as second lieutenants" I'd end the previous sentence with a semicolon and combine it with this one: "... completed the course; they were commissioned ...". That makes it clear who "They" refers to. Done. "Many of Manekshaw's batchmates were captured by Japan during World War II and would fight in the Indian National Army" This is confusing. How did their being captured lead to them being in the Indian National Army? Added a clarification. The INA was a rebel force formed and staffed by Indian POWs in Axis camps. "was a junior by five years" it's not clear what this means. Clarified, hope the rephrasing is clear and not confusing. What does "antedated seniority" mean? Backdated entry into ranks. Irrelevant bureaucratic detail, don't know why I put it in, removed. "he was appointed the quartermaster of his company", this might just be an Indian vs. American English thing, but I'd leave out "the", i.e. "appointed the quartermaster" -> appointed quartermaster" Done. What does "substantive captain" mean? I'm guessing this is kind of like Brevet (military)?, but it should be explained. It is indeed like the brevet system, added a link to the relevant page. (I'll pick up with Battle of Pagoda Hill the next time) "He saw action in Burma during the 1942 campaign", For starting a new paragraph (and especially a new section), I'd use "Manekshaw" instead of "He"; you can call him "he" after that in the same paragraph. I don't know if that's actual rule or anything, but to me it sounds better. Done. "While observing the battle, Major General David Cowan, ..." I'd run this together with the previous paragraph. Done. "The citation (which was not made public), reads as follows" This is confusing. If it wasn't made public, how do we know what it said? Rephrased. It was not made public then, but released way later. Should this be removed? The chronology is still confusing. I would do something like "While observing the battle on (insert date), Major General David Cowan ...." and then something like, "The citation (which was only made public on (insert date) reads:" I'd also leave off "as follows"; that's implied by the colon. I have trimmed this sentence a lot now, the chronology should be clearer. We don't know what date the citation was made public, so I thought removing this detail would be better as it doesn't seem so significant. "part of General William Slim's 14th Army." See if you can rephrase this to avoid WP:SEAOFBLUE. Likewise with "general officer commanding, 20th Indian Infantry Division" in the next sentence. For the first one, done. For the second one, could only come up with a rather makeshift solution, hope it is alright? "he received the temporary rank of lieutenant colonel" then later, "He was promoted to acting lieutenant colonel". You should explain how "temporary" and "acting" differ. Added a link to the relevant pages. Should I explain these ranks in a footnote the first time they appear? "promoted to the substantive rank of major" as above, the reader will be wondering what "substantive" means. " Manekshaw's unit, the 4th Battalion, 12th Frontier Force Regiment, became part of the Pakistan Army.". You link 12th Frontier Force Regiment; it should be linked (only) the first time it's used in the body. "3rd Battalion, 5 Gorkha Rifles (Frontier Force) (3/5 GR (FF))." defining the short form here is convenient, but why not do the same for other units with similarly long names, such as 4th Battalion, 12th Frontier Force Regiment? Done. Didn't do so for 9th Battalion, 12th FF, because it appears only once. Is that alright? "lieutenant general equivalent" as with "temporary", "substantive", "acting", etc, what does "equivalent" mean? There's a lot of military jargon that many people won't understand. A little bit later, you've got "As an acting brigadier (substantive colonel)" which is similarly confusing. Changed equivalent to status. Removed the second rank bureaucratese. "he told Manekshaw that if he wanted to, he could sack Thimayya", "sack" seems like slang to me, but maybe that's another Indian/American English thing? Changed to fire, is that ok? Yeah, I think fire works better. But, again, that's based on my American ear. If "sack" is the correct word in the Indian dialect, then by all means use it. Again I can't speak for Indian English, but UK English would regard "sack" and "fire" as informal usage, and prefer "dismiss" or "terminate employment". But this is reported speech? What word did Manekshaw use? If he said "sack", then that's better, I would have thought. Jim Killock (talk) 08:27, 20 February 2024 (UTC) The source says sack, so I have reverted to that. I hope that is alright. Matarisvan (talk) 19:28, 21 February 2024 (UTC) "These posts were very strategic as they oversaw the Chicken's Neck,", Almost all uses of "very" can be deleted. This seems like one of them. Done. (I'm up to Honours and post-retirement, where I'll pick up next time) Hi Roy, thanks for your comments, I'll be incorporating them soon. I have to deal with a problem with the last 2 sections, as soon as that's over, I will make these changes. Hope that's not a problem. Cheers. Matarisvan (talk) 08:59, 16 February 2024 (UTC) "For his service to India, the President of India awarded Manekshaw the Padma Vibhushan in 1972": give the president's name. I assume we have articles about all the presidents of India, so link to that. Done. " He moved with his wife Silloo to Coonoor" It seems odd to say that he moved with his wife since that's what everybody would assume. This is also the first time Silloo is mentioned; it seems like his marriage should be mentioned under "Early life and family" Also, in some places you have "Siloo", in others, "Silloo". Oh, I see this is covered later under "Personal life and death". So I would just leave it out of the "Honours and post-retirement" section completely. Done. "independent director on the board of several companies ... as the chairman" I think it would make sense to include a list of them. Done. "Sherry had a daughter named Brandy, and Maya had two sons named Raoul Sam and Jehan Sam.[117] Manekshaw's home is named Stavka, as a reference to the Russian military headquarters Stavka, which his daughter Sherry had read about in War and Peace.[108]" The details of his daughter's children doesn't seem necessary, I'd drop that part. Removed. "Reportedly, his last words were "I'm okay!"." per MOS:LQUOTE, drop the final period. Done. "the Army's apex meet to formulate policy," not sure what this means. Removed, this was filler. "The Republic Day celebrations in Karnataka are held at this ground every year" connect to the previous sentence with a semicolon. Done. Link Think tank Done. "General André Beaufre, a French military theorist, had been invited by Manekshaw in 1971 to analyse the war" Which war? I think you're talking about "the 1971 war", but you need to go back two paragraphs to find that. Actually, the previous paragraph ("... noted that the speed of the campaign") has the same problem; it's not clear which campaign you are talking about. Specified that 1971 is being discussed. OK, that's a full read-through for me. I'll let you work on this and then I'll come back at some point and take another look. Thanks for these pointers, I have made all the changes you recommended, looking forward to the next round of comments. Matarisvan (talk) 17:35, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

OK, I'm ready to support based on my prose review. I am not familiar with military matters (and especially not the Indian military), but I assume some of the other reviewers will be SMEs who can cover that aspect. RoySmith (talk) 16:26, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, Roy. I will ask some military history contributors if they would like to chip in. Matarisvan (talk) 17:21, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Would it be ok if I put the resolved comments in a collapsible box, Roy? Matarisvan (talk) 14:03, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

It won't bother me. RoySmith (talk) 19:12, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Jim Killock (nearly support but further review on hold)

resolved comments

Firstly I would like to say I support the efforts to get Manekshaw listed, I think it is important that Wikipedia features a more representative selection of topics so great to see efforts made to address these gaps. The four paragraphs about his family background and early education seems excessive to me. Most of this detail doesn't pertain to his later contributions. Of course, that he came from a middling social background is important, as is the fact his family had to struggle. I would appreciate other people's views on this however, and I also recognise there may be some cultural bias here; what an Indian audience or source feels is notable may differ from a European or American one. I was a bit concerned when I reviewed this article at peer review on two points: firstly Sam Manekshaw must have a reputation in Pakistan and Bangladesh, and I have no idea from this article what that is. For instance, regarding the Indo-Pakistani War of 1971: Concerned about maintaining discipline in the aftermath of the conflict, Manekshaw issued strict instructions forbidding looting and rape and stressed the need to respect and stay away from women. As a result, according to Singh, cases of looting and rape were negligible. The tone is somewhat self-congratulatory in the subtext; but decent treatment of civilians is what normal ought to be. His contribution seems to be that he ensured professional standards in a very difficult situation, but this isn't wholly clear given its presentation. Perhaps a counterpoint is needed? It seems there were reasons to be worried that the Indian army might not be disciplined for instance. In any case it feels like there may be another story or point of view which is not discussed here. Some more sources, preferably at a greater distance than a biographer would help. At the moment this passage is supported by one biography. The second area of concern for me is the clear tensions between Manekshaw and the Indian government. Or, perhaps the indian government and the military. Why wasn't he honoured properly, or even paid his pension in full for 20-odd years? He was not given a national day of mourning. While this was not a breach of protocol, this would have been customary for a leader of national importance A casual reader will conclude that there was a dispute and ill-feeling, but given the reasons are absent, may believe that this omission is deliberate and non-neutral. Assuming that isn't the case, the reasons should be stated. Jim Killock (talk) 21:16, 13 February 2024 (UTC) Hi Jim, great to have you here. On the first four paragraphs, I would want to hear other opinions, because people get defensive when too much information is removed. You can see this in the recent edit history. On the first point you raised, addressing it will be difficult. On one hand, it is true that no war crimes should be the norm, but that is almost always not the case. I have not found any cases of such indiscipline in wars, but they are there in insurgencies. Adding them in as counterpoints, however, will be risky. I think the best course of action will be to add a neutral source which supports the assertion of no such indiscipline, say a researcher. Would you agree? On the second point, I have added a brief explanation for the tensions, see the text before the 'national day of mourning'. I hope that is enough. Matarisvan (talk) 13:43, 14 February 2024 (UTC) On the specifics of this incident - a neutral source would help, as would an explanation of the underlying concern. On the tensions: the amount of information in the article should reflect the prevalence of information in "reliable sources" - eg news reports. If these were extensive, then a brief explanation would not suffice. The wider issue is Manekshaw's reputation with those he opposed at war. At a minimum, I would hope to see mention of his reputation as to his dealings with Pakistani POWs, if relevant, anything relating to the handover to Bangladeshi authorities or interim authorities, and his reputation as a soldier with the Pakistani military. They would for instance have an opinion as to whether he was a successful or lucky opponent, someone to fear or otherwise. Often soldiers in former wars talk about each other. (And even meet each other. This was frequent with WWII veterans in Europe for instance. I can understand this may never have happened in these cases, but equally that would speak volumes.) However, I would find it hard to believe that there is no commentary on him at all from Pakistani sources. Jim Killock (talk) 15:13, 14 February 2024 (UTC) Hi Jim, apologies for my delayed response. I will make the edits you suggest, there is an editor trying to do an edit war on a minor issue right now, so I will have to get that sorted out first. I think I can get this done in a day max, maybe through the Arbitration project. Matarisvan (talk) 11:58, 15 February 2024 (UTC) Some further thoughts There doesn't seem to be any mention of the biopic, or its portayal of him. This is surely of interest. Many articles have an "In popular culture" section, with mentions of any portrayals. I imagine there are others, where he might feature. The biopic probably needs to be mentioned in the lead as well, as an important fact. Removed as advised by Ian Rose in the second PR. Reading Wikipedia:Peer review/Sam Manekshaw/archive2, this seems to be an admonition not to have a bullet point list, but to rewrite and possibly incorporate into "legacy" rather than an instruction to delete to content wholesale. (On a general point, the Peer reviews are not linked from the talk page which makes it hard to find them.) --Jim Killock (talk) 18:12, 16 February 2024 (UTC) Getting the exact edit will be a little tough because I tend to club edits. We could ask Roy, who is a part of this FAR, about what he thinks of the need for a pop culture section. It was never a part of the lead. Ian's words, verbatim, were: "I'd consider ... dropping the popular culture section entirely". Matarisvan (talk) 18:20, 16 February 2024 (UTC) I think he meant remove the "section" rather than "remove all the content": See Wikipedia:"In popular culture" content, which advises on the pitfalls of these and gives advice on how they can work well. (Spoiler alert: bullet point lists fare badly; prose much better) … Agree with Schro -- as well as putting in prose, I'd consider moving this info to the legacy section and dropping the popular culture section entirely. So not "delete", but "move". As for inclusion in the lead, that's a judgement call, but it's just a fact that it will be in people's minds right now, but to my mind gives context to his perceived importance. Jim Killock (talk) 18:29, 16 February 2024 (UTC) In general, I'm not a fan of "in popular culture" sections. I do note, however, that George S. Patton does include a list of (the many) movies about him, without going into detail about any of them. I have no strong opinion either way. RoySmith (talk) 18:26, 16 February 2024 (UTC) Sections is less important than what's notable and included. Fictional depictions are an indication of cultural significance beyond his actions within his lifetime, and issuing a biopic in particular gives him additional cultural valance. Of course, if they were low budget flops, that would be a different matter. Jim Killock (talk) 18:34, 16 February 2024 (UTC) Should we wait for Ian's final opinion? If he sees the mention, he will reply soon enough. Matarisvan (talk) 09:42, 17 February 2024 (UTC) Up to you, @Ian Rose was pretty clear: consider moving this info to the legacy section and dropping the popular culture section entirely. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:29, 30 January 2024. Nobody has recommended deleting it. Where you put it tho is a matter of preference. The recommendation was to incorporate it in the legacy section. Jim Killock (talk) 09:48, 17 February 2024 (UTC) Reincorporated. Matarisvan (talk) 11:36, 18 February 2024 (UTC) Hi guys, Jim had it right, my intent was that the content of the In popular culture section could be incorporated in the Legacy section, not necessarily removed entirely. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:41, 18 February 2024 (UTC) Manekshaw's standing with the Indian government seems to be mixed in with their hollowing out of the independence of the Indian military and suggestions of graft at high levels. As Manekshaw was quite vocal about bad practice, and his reputation lies on his challenging the political powers of the time over how to intervene miltarily, it seems he was not looked on favourably. If this is the case, and there are sources that explain this, it should be stated in the later life section. Don't think there are reliable sources for this, adding would be original research. In India, such issues don't tend to be discussed and are swept under the carpet. I've added the only instance I could find, which is the Karan Thapar article. The Wire.in Why the Narrative on Manekshaw – India’s Uncrowned CDS – Is Captivating Military Veterans Now also gives interest from the current military ranks, and context to the relationships between state and military, eg, since his departure "operational objectivity had steadily degenerated, to the point of vanishing, replaced regrettably, by a services-politician nexus guaranteeing reciprocal benefit" and cites an essay "Roots of moral decline in the armed forces" by Admiral Prakash explaining the situation in some detail. --Jim Killock (talk) 09:05, 17 February 2024 (UTC) There are similar points made at India Today: He was infamous with the country’s bureaucracy and held no high opinion of the politicians. He made his dislike public and was often quoted as disapproving of the political elite. At a public function, he declared politicians as being illiterate. He said, “I wonder whether those of our political masters who have been put in charge of the defence of the country can distinguish a mortar from a motor; a gun from a howitzer; a guerrilla from a gorilla— although a great many in the past have resembled the latter.” Not surprisingly, there was little love lost between Sam and the political bosses, who ultimately had their revenge. And A thorough gentleman, Manekshaw made it a point to never offend the leaders, instead choosing humour to coat his obvious dislike. The sarcasm, however, never escaped the politicians, especially Indira Gandhi. Naturally, he received a cold shoulder from the bureaucracy post his retirement. These seem to explain the tension pretty adequately, from reliable sources. --Jim Killock (talk) 09:22, 17 February 2024 (UTC) Added both sources. Matarisvan (talk) 11:36, 18 February 2024 (UTC) yes but the points about using sarcasm to manage Indira Ghandi and others, and her particular distate for it, has not been incorporated. What was your reason for that? --Jim Killock (talk) 08:57, 20 February 2024 (UTC) Nor are the points about operational issues after his departure incorporated, and the current interest in Manekshaw from the POV of military reform is also still absent. Jim Killock (talk) 08:59, 20 February 2024 (UTC) At the current moment, where is the interest coming from? There is some suggestion that it is linked to a general rise in Indian nationalism or national feeling, but I haven't made a detailed investigation. The reason you mention + more Indians getting internet services + the biopic. From English langage mentions of Manekshaw that I could find from Pakistani writers, they were quite positive about him. They were not the best sources tho, eg Quora, but if better sources could be found, this would be useful information to include. I have used some Pakistani sources, the most notable one being RM Hussain for the doctrine subsection. I am adding one more for the reasons you suggest. Bangladeshis don't discuss him much, because, I shouldn't say this, but they are ungrateful. This is pure speculation on my part, but I imagine that there is bitterness that the Indian intervention came quite late, on Manekshaw's advice that it was militarily unwise. Meantime there were mass murders of the Bangladeshi elite. So it would be understandable if, from a Bangladeshi perspective, Manekshaw was not seen as an altogether positive figure. Again, if sources exist to enunciate Bangladeshi perspectives on events or his role, this would be helpful to reach FA status. What I can find so far is the opposite of what I speculated: Bangaldesh did honour him at his death, according to the Economist. That would be worth a mention. --Jim Killock (talk) 18:59, 16 February 2024 (UTC) Added. Matarisvan (talk) 11:36, 18 February 2024 (UTC) Jim Killock (talk) 18:14, 15 February 2024 (UTC) Some more observations from the international obituaries (Guardian, NY Times, Economist): One or two mention that he was a "Parsi over-achiever"; this would be worth mentioning (presumably the minority group is associated with focus on success) This does feel a little embarrassing as a Brit in post-Imperial Brexit Island to raise, but several draw attention to his adoption of British habits like drinking whiskey and his handlebar moustache "as was common in his generation"; it does seem to have been part of the personality he projected so probably needs a mention I wonder if a "character" section in the legacy / assessment section would help regarding some of the questions I've raised and can be found in the obituaries linked? eg, his sarcasm, his disrespect for politicians, etc.:::::Jim Killock (talk) 10:14, 17 February 2024 (UTC) I don't know if we should have such a section. I have thought about it and it seems to be polarising. Some reviewers want such a section but others are irked by even a sentence of such qualitative details which cannot be conclusively confirmed. I would like to hear from @RoySmith on this, we could then make a decision on consensus if that is ok with you. Matarisvan (talk) 20:15, 19 February 2024 (UTC) Structure is not the issue; it can be included in Legacy if preferred. the point is that his personality is not much discussed, it has to be inferred, but from the obituaries his very strong personality and personal skills in dealing with very difficult politicians etc come across loud and clear. I can't see how FA could be reached without this information, it seems central to who he was and why he succeeded. I suspect the reason that reviewers are "irked" is because of the tone or presentation of the remarks. It is easy for these to come across as fawning, or hero-worship, so they have dealt with it as a style rather than content issue. But if the sources are clear and in consensus about certain things in his character, then FA criteria require neutrally presented descriptions, AFAICT. Happy to have opinions tho. For ease of discussion, this is the kind of thing what I would expect from my reading and could easily be referenced: Manekshaw was charismatic, and known to be capable of charm. He was often described as a gentleman. Like others of his generation, his background in the British army gave him a fondness for some English habits, such as drinking whiskey and wearing his handlebar moustache. His background as a Parsi is sometimes attributed as a factor in his ambition and success. He commanded great loyalty from his troops, due to his reputation for personal bravery, fairness and his avoidance of punishments. He came into conflict with politicians, however, because he stood up to their often unreasonable or unethical demands. They also disliked his popularity as they feared the possibility of a military coup. He dealt with politicians' demands through sarcasm, which however was recognised by figures such as Indira Ghandi. (I know bits of this are now mentioned.) Jim Killock (talk) 21:33, 19 February 2024 (UTC) Added, though rather verbatim, except for the Parsi line, which I couldn't find a source for. Matarisvan (talk) 13:34, 20 February 2024 (UTC) The Print.in mentions that Manekshaw was disliked for his humane treatment of the Pakistani soldiers, and was told off in cabinet for treating them like "sons in law". This seems worth a mention, and further shows the tensions between him and the political elite. --Jim Killock (talk) 13:07, 17 February 2024 (UTC) This is still missing. Jim Killock (talk) 08:54, 20 February 2024 (UTC) Added. Matarisvan (talk) 13:34, 20 February 2024 (UTC) Also important context on this point, the Pakistani POWs remained in captivity for several years. See Willem va Schendel 2009, A History of Bangladesh, p. 172. It seems the Pakistani POWs were kept as prisoners as a bargaining chip by Indira Ghandi's government until Pakistan had recognised Bangladeshi independence. That is also important context regard why pressure to treat them badly could have existed, and why it was important and exemplary behaviour from Manekshaw to resist these calls. See The History of Pakistan, I. H. Malik (2008) p163-4 This is still missing. --Jim Killock (talk) 12:33, 20 February 2024 (UTC) Added. Matarisvan (talk) 13:32, 20 February 2024 (UTC) ThePrint.in article links to a Youtube interview of Manekshaw by his grandson which seems particularly helpful for the external links section. This is still missing, but not essential. If it's not being included, please indicate why. --Jim Killock (talk) 12:33, 20 February 2024 (UTC) The same video gives his account of his welcome by Pakistani military authorities and soldiers who seemed to hold him in high regard given the way he organised facilities for them as POWs. More on this would be helpful from secondary sources if possible. Although it may be surprising for a reader that these are so positive, it is important to get non-Indian perspectives on him in, as they will exist, whatever the contents of those assessments may be. This is missing. I imagine it may be hard to get a source for this but please let us know if you have tried to find one. --Jim Killock (talk) 12:33, 20 February 2024 (UTC) I have found one but it barely references the POWs and mostly talks about Tikka Khan. Matarisvan (talk) 13:35, 20 February 2024 (UTC) Just to reiterate, assessment of all available sources is the key to FA status. Omitting information is possible at GA, but FA as you know requires that is comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context; and well-researched: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature. This is IMO the trickiest part of an FA review, especially where the reviewers are not experts on the subject matter, and why I'm taking a bit of time to get my head around what is out there. --Jim Killock (talk) 13:09, 17 February 2024 (UTC) I have added the detention of the POWs to the article. Matarisvan (talk) 11:39, 18 February 2024 (UTC) Several of the background points are missing tho, so full context is missing. I'm happy to make some light edits so you can see what I think is needed, if that is easier. Jim Killock (talk) 22:03, 19 February 2024 (UTC) Added. Matarisvan (talk) 13:35, 20 February 2024 (UTC) Hi Jim, I am afk for some time, but I will make these edits in the evening. I had come across these sources but was not sure if I should include them, I will do so now. Matarisvan (talk) 07:05, 18 February 2024 (UTC) No problem. What I would be looking for is that the conflict between Manekshaw and the Indian bureaucracy and Indira Ghandi is well described, as this is clear in the sources, and that this is linked to his later treatment. Likewise, a better description of his character and personality (charismatic, principled, using sarcasm and humour to get around those with authority over him). he's clearly a very powerful figure who is also getting a lot of hero worship as a victor at war, but to me the real thread that runs through his career is that his heroism standing up to people making bad, immoral, unethical or self-interested decisions was rewarded by snubs from the government - which he equally didn't really care about, compared to sticking to his principles. Jim Killock (talk) 10:56, 18 February 2024 (UTC) I have added the conflict with the bureaucracy to the article. I will add the personality part too, perhaps later today. Matarisvan (talk) 11:41, 18 February 2024 (UTC) JK: Reflection so far: better transparency and communication needed I'm a bit concerned that a lot of the points I've raised have been either partially dealt with, rather than wholly dealt with, and the reasons for this aren't being made transparent. For example: I asked for the "culture" items to be restored; see the previous mentions, and I was told this was done. The film was added back, but the mention of Salman Rushdhie / Midnight's Children's chapter on Manekshaw was not. There was a third mention of a documentary, which I can't judge the relevance of. I added Rushdie back onto the page. It's not great to have to check on the quality of the changes in this way. It would be better if the editors could explain what they had / had not included and why. Indira Ghandi's cabinet appear to have suggested to Manekshaw that he treat Pakistani POWs worse, to hasten Pakistan towards signing a peace agreement, accusing him of treating them like "sons in law"; which Manekshaw rightly and courageously resisted. While other adjustments to mention the episode were added, these details haven't been actioned, and there isn't explanation for which bits around this episode have been omitted and which kept. This is making the work and progress on this FAR a lot slower than it needs to be. There's naturally some to and fro and differences of opinion on what is or is not included, but it's important we are transparent with each other about our reasoning for edits and omissions. At the moment, I am having to check the page itself to find out what has been done out of a suggestion, and then come back to ask why certain items were omitted. If the reason is that inclusion of certain material relating to Manekshaw's controversies will cause future edit wars, then I think we need to think about a strategy around that, rather than omit the material. The article cannot reach FA status without being a comprehensive account based on all sources. If this is the issue and is currently unsaid, then we are not helping each other. If it's simply difficult to understand my suggestions, or how to action them, then I'm also really happy to help, including by directly editing the page. All that said, I don't think that the work to get this to FA is impossible and I think objectively Manekshaw deserves that attention from WP's editors, and I would like for the page editors to get to that point. --Jim Killock (talk) 09:20, 20 February 2024 (UTC) Hi, the omissions were not intended, I must have skipped over them, I have added them now. My apologies that you had to get to it yourself. I believe all of the issues are now sorted. Would you agree? Matarisvan (talk) 13:38, 20 February 2024 (UTC) OK, thank you, but we do need to take care over this. I'll go through and make copy edits to the changes and see where we are. Jim Killock (talk) 17:13, 20 February 2024 (UTC) Thanks for making those changes, I've made some light edits around them, mostly for style and to avoid some repetitions. From second round: "During this period, there were suspicions that Manekshaw would lead a coup and impose martial law." Was it just the Americans who held this suspicion? Who within the Indian government felt this? If we know, we should name them. Done. Note my comment above re "fire" and "sack". Sources say sack, which I have reverted to. Thanks --Jim Killock (talk) 22:03, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

JK New comments

Some other things I've picked up:

• is it the case that army personnel were diverted to building projects in the lead up to the China war? If so this feels like important context regarding the army's poor performance.
  • Would this be relevant here? (Sorry if this question comes across as rude). Sam could not participate in the war anyways so would we not just be adding important but unnecessary detail?
    • I think it helps explain the chaos he had to sort out, so I would say yes, it probably is. If he did object to it (as the movie implies) more so. --Jim Killock (talk) 22:03, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
      • Could not find a good source for this, most ones I found were forums and blogs.
• is it the case that underfunding of the military before the Bangladeshi intervention added to unpreparedness? If so that would be important context.
  • I have alluded to this but specific references are not available because this is kind of an unspeakable well known secret. The allusion is in the Procurement sub section, "urgently procure equipment".
    • I see, so no sources presumably.--Jim Killock (talk) 22:03, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
      • No good sources, yes. Most are informal forums and blogs, would not qualify as RS.

After that, I think it would be helpful to have someone look at the article from a copyediting and structure perspective. Although perhaps you have some checking to do with new sources. At some point the lead should be looked at and some of the points about his personal qualities and conflict with the bureaucracy and politicians mentioned. Jim Killock (talk) 20:33, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Agree on all points except including the personality in the lead. I apologise if this comes across as whataboutery, but the Douglas MacArthur artice we have used as a reference here has multiple paragraphs on his personality but doesn't mention any of these details in the lead. In comparison, we have a relatively smaller paragraph in this article on Sam's personality.

• That's not a deal breaker for me so long as someone takes a look. --Jim Killock (talk) 22:03, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

For me the next step is to take a rest and think if I have time to skim a biography cited, or similar. As mentioned my objective here is to at least understand the topic well enough to feel that the right information seems to be included. If there are any Mankeshaw / Indian recent history experts out there, I am certain they could do a better job than me however. I'd add that Manekshaw is relevant from a political as well as military history perspective, and so far it has been the political side that has needed some improvement, and thank you for making those that I have spotted. --Jim Killock (talk) 22:03, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

• Thank you, as always, for your comments. Looking forward to more of them once you have gone through a bio. Cheers. Matarisvan (talk) 14:01, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

  Hi Jim, I've added something interesting which I just came to know of. You should take a look at it, meanwhile can we put the above comments in the collapse box? Matarisvan (talk) 08:21, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

  @JimKillock, I think you missed this. Matarisvan (talk) 01:35, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

  Sure, I'll reorganise this a bit. And yes I did see your addition which looked interesting thank you. Jim Killock (talk) 08:22, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

  Hi @JimKillock, apologies for the ping, I gather that you are busy so I moved the comments myself, is that alright? Also, what are the next steps, have you found any more pointers? Matarisvan (talk) 11:58, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

  Hi there, I'll do this myself so I am sure of what is and is not resolved. On next steps it depends when I have some time at the British Library; perhaps this week, but otherwise in 2-3 weeks time. If any other reviewer wants to commence work meantime that would be a good idea! I am expecting to check for possible missing, important and referenced points when I do. Jim Killock (talk) 12:18, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

  Got it, reverted the collapse box to its original state.

Source review - Fail

• Will do this. - SchroCat (talk) 20:33, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
• There are a lot of problems with the sourcing formatting here, which should have been sorted out before FAC. I have not done a full spot check yet (I'm waiting for the sources before making a proper start, but the one quick check I have done has shown the same problems I flagged up at PR. At the moment I am leaning towards a fail, but I'll hold off until I can do the spot checks properly to see the scope of the problem. - SchroCat (talk) 10:41, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
• I'm still on the formatting part and I'm going to call this for a fail now. The sources are a mess of inconsistencies that should have been sorted prior to FAC and although some have been sorted, it's only been piecemeal. Some of these are just sloppy errors: FN 20 is "Brig. Behram Panthaki (Retd.); Zenobia Panthaki (15 November 2021). "Sam Manekshaw: The legend lives on – Seniors Today". Archived from the original on 6 January 2024. Retrieved 6 January 2024.": you have Seniors Today as part of the article title, but it isn't: it's the name of the website. This should have been done way before this hit FAC - if you had a little more patience at PR and waited for more people, rather than closing too quickly, it may have been noticed and picked up on, as would many of the other problems.
  I pointed out some problems at PR that were not sorted properly, and there are points I have made where the examples are cleared up, but not the remainder of the issues. A reviewer should not have to raise the same point three or four times for the nominator to get the job done (eg getting the case and capitalisations correct, which is a basic point for FAC and still hasn't been sorted). The point I raised at PR about the sources not supporting the text in all places is still an issue (in the very quick look I've had, at least, which shows major problems), which is a no-no. I selected two paragraphs at random and one of the sentences I flagged up at PR as a problem; all three are still problematic:

• The point raised previously at PR:

"The general pinned his own Military Cross ribbon on Manekshaw on the battlefield": not supported by the text, which says "awarded the Military Cross for gallantry. The medal was given to him on the spot by Major General Cowan"

• The following paragraph carries one citation, for Singh, pp 93-97. The entire situation is covered on page 93, but I suspect there may be something at the end of 92 as well (I can't see that page). Pp94-97 are not needed on the citation. Everything in red is not covered in the Singh citation (The opening sentence may be on page 92, but I need a copy of that one).

"At the end of 1947, Manekshaw was posted as the commanding officer of the 3rd Battalion, 5 Gorkha Rifles (Frontier Force) (3/5 GR (FF)). Before he had moved on to his new appointment, on 22 October, Pakistani forces infiltrated Kashmir, capturing Domel and Muzaffarabad. The following day, the ruler of the princely state of Jammu and Kashmir, Maharaja Hari Singh, appealed for help to India. On 25 October, Manekshaw accompanied V. P. Menon, the secretary of the States Department, to Srinagar. While Menon was with the Maharaja, Manekshaw carried out an aerial survey of the situation in Kashmir. According to Manekshaw, the Maharaja signed the Instrument of Accession on the same day, and they flew back to Delhi. Lord Mountbatten and Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru were briefed, where Manekshaw suggested immediate deployment of troops to prevent Kashmir from being captured"

• The next paragraph shows the same problems. Again, all the information is on page 93 and not pp 93-97:

"On the morning of 27 October, Indian troops were sent to Kashmir to defend Srinagar from the Pakistani forces, who had reached the city's outskirts. Manekshaw's assignment as the commander of 3/5 GR (FF) was cancelled, and he was posted to the MO Directorate. As a consequence of the Kashmir dispute and the annexation of Hyderabad (code-named "Operation Polo", also planned by the MO Directorate), Manekshaw never commanded a battalion. During his term at the MO Directorate, he was promoted to colonel, then brigadier. He was then appointed the first Indian director of military operations."

Matarisvan, you've put in a lot of work on this article, but you need to slow down and do some basic (and very boring) stuff slowly and properly if this is going to pass FAC next time. Every piece of prose between one citation and the next needs to be supported by the end set of citations, and it's not (and it's also not OK to copy out the same page ranges such as pp 93-97 across multiple uses: citations must be limited to the information they support). I suspect the other parts of the article I haven't got access to the sources for also have the same problems. I'm sorry, but this is a source review fail. - SchroCat (talk) 20:58, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

But these are all relatively minor issues, just page numbers, case consistency and other minor errors which I did not add but did indeed overlook. I can get them addressed very quickly, max within a day, min within hours. Would you be open to change your oppose to support at some point down the line, after the required work is done? Please note that I did address the sourcing issue and did not indeed change citations with more page numbers than needed to be on the safer side and hedge, but is that too unmitigable an issue? Matarisvan (talk) 22:04, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

I have fixed case consistency by changing all titles to First Word Caps. I have also fixed the page number issue you have raised, both for the specific text and also for all citations using more than 2 pages. The only point which is not cited is Maharaja Hari Singh being the ruler of the princely state of Jammu and Kashmir, which can do without a citation if someone clicks over to the article linked. You should take another look now. I also believe this is too quick a fail for such a small issue, would @JimKillock and @RoySmith like to weigh in on this, now that the requisite changes are done? Matarisvan (talk) 10:37, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

I am not going to withdraw the fail partly because I don't think you are taking on board either what I am saying or what needs to be done with the article. You have, again, tidied up some of the examples without looking into the problem further. Firstly, you can't say "which can do without a citation if someone clicks over to the article linked": all information (outside WP:SKYISBLUE) needs to be supported. Secondly I have spot checked only three paragraphs and found problems in all three. Fixing those does not make the problem go away. You need to go through the article sentence by sentence, word by word and check to see if every piece of information is contained in the citation. If it isn't, it needs to either be removed or cited. This is not a job that can be "addressed very quickly, max within a day, min within hours". If it's not done at the point of writing it can be a slow and boring job to get it right. That needs to be done before FAC, not during. You have twice referred to this as "minor": it's not. Sourcing problems are a major issue and they run throughout the article. I'm sorry, but it needs to be done properly outside the FAC process. - SchroCat (talk) 10:50, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

I did understand your pointers and I implemented them too. Perhaps you did not check the diff, I did not just resolve the example issue you had raised, I also removed two faulty cites: Sinha 1992 (217-224) and Singh 2005 (237-259). I am going to remove Singh 2002 and Panthaki & Panthaki 2016 because I do not have access to those 2 sources right now, and incorporate new sources. Also, I did write a significant portion of the article, when I got here the only citations were mostly SFNs, since then I have added multiple new single use sources. As a result, most if not all of the problems are with the SFN citations, some of them I have addressed and the others I will be removing. I do believe I can get this done within a day, because there are only 13 of these SFN citations I have to replace, the other single use citations are ones I put in the article. Also, the sourcing issues you have raised till now (in the PR & FARs) have all been due to SFN citations which were present before I started editing the article. Matarisvan (talk) 11:39, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Of course I checked, but the 'fail' still stands. I strongly suggest you don't remove sources - that will only worsen the situation. Your best course of action would be to withdrawn and (as I've said above a couple of times now), slowly and carefully go through each individual sentence and check it is supported by the source. It doesn't matter when the problems were added to the article: you are the one who has nominated it and—if you want it to get to FA status—you are the one who will have to sort out the errors. The best place to do this is not rushing through it at FAC, but spending time and care in getting it right and then returning.

I think I've said all I can and given all the advice I can, so I'll step away from this now. - SchroCat (talk) 11:51, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

SchroCat is on the mark. Whether we create an article from scratch or take it over when it's mature, we're responsible for all the referencing when it comes to FAC, or any other review. This requires the nominator to check all citations for accurate use and avoidance of close paraphrasing or plagiarism so it can withstand reviewer scrutiny. That's something that needs to take place outside the FAC process, so I'm going to archive this to allow that to take place. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:28, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Formatting

• What is your rationale for having eleven of the sources split out into a Bibliography section and the rest in with the references?
  • I put the sources which are cited more than once into the Bibliography section. The 4 Indian Army List books were already in the bibliography so I did not remove them.
    • There are other sources that are used more than once. - SchroCat (talk) 20:14, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
      • Added them into the bibliography. Matarisvan (talk) 07:32, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
        • But are all the Army Lists used more than once? You need to be consistent. - SchroCat (talk) 08:48, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

          Moved the 2 Lists used only once out of the bibliography and converted those into normal citations instead of using the sfn template. Matarisvan (talk) 12:27, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

• Check the alpha order on the Bibliography section
  • I am new to the alphabetical ordering conventions, so I do not know them well. Should I order by surname or first name?
    • Order by surname - 20:14, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
      • Another dumb question from me - would the Indian Army Lists stay up top as they don't have specific authors, or would they go somewhere in the middle, say after Falki 2022? Matarisvan (talk) 21:19, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
        • List alphabetically as “Army” - SchroCat (talk) 08:48, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
• The capitalisation is inconsistent, with some sources in sentence case, others in First Word Cap format and at least two citations in ALL CAPS. In the First Word Cap format uses, some words are capitalised that shouldn't be ("To" (109), "Of" (99, 145 and 158) are four such examples)
  • Rewrote the Allcaps references, as well as the four erroneous ones identified.
    • Those are examples only. You need to go through all of them and check: there are still a lot of problems. - SchroCat (talk) 20:14, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
      • Will do Done. For clarification, the cases used here are auto populated, so the ALLCAPS or first word caps titles were used by the source and thus copied here.
        • Not done, and you shouldn’t leave the titles as auto populated. Every book should be formatted consistently (and there are at least two books that are done in sentence case); every journal should be formatted consistently and ditto for every news source and every web reference. At the moment there are disparities in each of these groups. - SchroCat (talk) 08:48, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
• ISBN formats are inconsistent
  • Changed all (hopefully I didn't miss any) to the XXX-X-XXXX-XXXX-X format.
• pp. -> p. on the following FNs: 25 and 27,
• p. -> pp. on the following FNs: 59, 147
  • Both of these changes have been done.
• FN 42 (Falki) – page number? (And can you send me a scan of that page too, please)
  • I will have to check my copy, the Google Books upload doesn't have page numbers.
    • Removed this source, was only being used once and I found a better source to use instead. Matarisvan (talk) 11:56, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
• You don't need archive details for books (better to link directly to Archive.org, rather than Google)
  • The archive.org links to the books were added as a result of an Internet Archive Bot edit, I have removed all these for the books.
• FN 108: you don't need to say it's "1. publ ed"
  • Done. This was auto populated by the citation tool.
• For some books you show the publisher location; for others you don't – you should be consistent in your approach
  • Removed publisher location in all instances.
• FNs 117 and 118: The Press Trust of India are not the authors. If no author is shown, leave it blank
  • Done.
• Be consistent whether you link newspaper names or not (For example, The Times of India is linked for FNs 117, 118 and 126, but not for the other four times it is used.
  • Done.
• Publisher names shouldn't be abbreviated (FN164: "U of Nebraska Press")
  • Done.
• There are a couple of hyphens that should be en dashes (FN 81 is one example)
  • Replaced with a colon instead, hope that is alright.

This is the first quick (ish) run-through on formatting. I'll have a more thorough look once these have been sorted. - SchroCat (talk) 13:19, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

• Newpapers and journals don’t need publisher details.
  • Removed.
• No publisher needs the company designation (Ltd, LLP, etc)
  • Removed.
• There are errors messages on Saighal 2008 (FN 22) and The Economist 2008 (FN 88)
  • Fixed. Matarisvan (talk) 12:32, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
• Page number for Rajagopalan (FN 149) – and a copy of the page/s please
  • Pages 95-96, available on the Google Books link. Matarisvan (talk) 11:56, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
    • Not for me. The view ends at page 91. (Google page views change depending on where you are in the world) - SchroCat (talk) 12:24, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

      My apologies, I was not aware. I will email those pages along with the rest to you soon. Matarisvan (talk) 12:29, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

• There are a couple of references where the website name is given in the format "pib.gov.in". That's it's address, not its name. "Press Information Bureau" is the website name in this instance, but there are others
  • Changed. Only other such instance was claws.in which I have also changed.
• FN 106 is 163–4. It should be 163–164.
  • Done.
• In the text you have US, in the sources you have U.S. Both are correct, but they need to be consistent.
  • U.S. tends to be US usage, I would check what Indian English tends to use and use that. --Jim Killock (talk) 11:41, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
    • Changed anyways. Matarisvan (talk) 11:56, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Quality and range of sources used

• To follow. - SchroCat (talk) 10:17, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Spot checks

OK, I don't have access to the following, so please can you send scans of the following pages:

• Panthaki & Panthaki 2016: pp. 17–27.
• Singh 2005, p. 92.
• Singh 2002, pp. 8-10, 16, 237–259
• Sharma 2007, p. 59.
• Singh 2011, p. 2011.
• Sinha 1992, pp. 131, 163-164, 217-224.
• Falki and Rajagopalan pages referred to above

I've sent you an email so you have an address to send these to. Thanks - SchroCat (talk) 11:55, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

• I do not have access to my bookshelf at the moment as I am travelling, I will try to send scans by borrowing from the Open Library. Matarisvan (talk) 21:19, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

I have removed SIngh 2011 as it was being used for a single citation. As for Sharma 2007, I have added the Google Books link where page 59 is open access. I have also added the Google Books link for Sinha 1992, you can read page 131 on there. For the rest, I will be sending the scans soon. Matarisvan (talk) 11:02, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 22:29, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

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) 1 March 2024 [30].

---

Vitamin C

Nominator(s): David notMD (talk) 04:37, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

This article is about Vitamin C. I raised it to Good Article in 2017. I nominated it for Featured Article on 20 December 2023. That nomination was canceled as premature. I have done a lot of editing since then, including resolving all requests for citations. I requested a Peer review on 9 January, but closed that on 8 February because it was unanswered. I have raised a total of 19 articles to GA. David notMD (talk) 04:37, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Image review

• Suggest copy-editing captions
  • copy-editing completed
• Some images are missing alt text
  • alt text added
• File:Linus_Pauling.jpg: when and where was this first published?
  • According to Wikimedia Commons this is a cropped image of a photograph published in The Big T (yearbook of California Institute of Technology) in 1955. It is identified as in the Public Domain. An uncropped version is used in Linus Pauling.
    • Where is the Swedish tag coming from, if this is a US image? Nikkimaria (talk) 05:35, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
• File:NIH_citrus.jpg: source link is dead
  • Replaced
• File:James_Lind_by_Chalmers.jpg needs a US tag
  • An editor provided a US tag
• File:GyorgyiNIH.jpg: this image doesn't appear at the source link provided. Nikkimaria (talk) 06:01, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
  • image deleted (Gyorgy extracted ascorbic acid from paprika, not from bell peppers, and it was for research purposes, not manufacture of dietary supplement vitamin C.
    • Looks like it was a different image that was removed? Nikkimaria (talk) 05:35, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

WP:MEDSAY

• A request was made at Talk:Vitamin C to comply with WP:MEDSAY
  • The Medical uses section was revised to remove the MEDSAY-type wording ("A meta-analysis reported..." or "Reviews concluded..." )

Reference quality

• A comment was made at Talk:vitamin C to consider WP:MEDDATE and use of MDPI journals, especially Nutrients, when reviewing reference quality toward deciding if some references should be removed, and if no better quality references available, the content removed. The sections most affected are Deficiency, Medical uses and Adverse effects (refs 19-81). I will leave a note here when I have completed my references review, but ask that FA reviewers also look at this issue of reference quality. David notMD (talk) 12:43, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Jens

• Generally, avoid references in the lead. This is because the lead is only a summary; every information should be cited in the body in any case.
  • Ref use in Lead in process of being reduced. I do not agree with no refs in Lead
• The first sentence of the lead is way to long and goes into detail (such as "wrinkles on the face") that clearly don't belong there.
  • Sentence shortened, and all mention of topical treatment deleted
• The section "Definition" does not contain a single definition. I am not sure what this section is for, actually.
  • This section has been deleted. the content (if not already duplicating content existing and referenced elsewhere) will be incorporated elsewhere.
• You start the article with sentences like "The term vitamin C encompasses several vitamers that have vitamin C activity in animals", but those do not explain and are not helpful for a general reader who wants to understand the topic. What are vitamers? What is vitamin c activity? This article is relevant for a very broad, general audience, and should be written accordingly.
• The next section is "deficiency", but first I would expect something about its occurrence, functions, chemistry, etc. The associated diseases should come at the end.
  • I intend to leave the diseases section near the beginnings of the article unless more reviewers criticize this placement. My thinking is that a majority of viewers come to this article because of a curiosity about a health condition, and so should find that information where it is now.
    • Given second reviewer also suggested the diseases section moved to later - done. Also, there was scurvy content in deficiency and in diseases - now combined in diseases.
    • As a second reviewer also challenged the order of section, in process of rearranging.
• All of these molecules have vitamin C activity and thus are used synonymously with vitamin C, unless otherwise specified – Which "molecules"? None are mentioned.
  • Deleted
• The section on chemistry should be much more extensive. Sections on physical properties and molecular properties are missing entirely.
• The article should also have an extensive section on physiology (how vitamin C works in the body), seems to be missing entirely.
• Sorry, but I have to oppose this article, it is nowhere close to FA level in my opinion. It is very unfortunate that the article did not get any feedback at the peer review. To improve the article, I would recommend to have a look at the German Wikipedia's article [31], which seems to have a good and logical structure; that might be a solid starting point. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 02:09, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
  • I will work on addressing your comments even though your conclusion is that the article is not of sufficient content and structure to warrant approval for FA. I point out here that the sections and order of section is similar across the other vitamin articles in English Wikipedia (with the understanding that this may be a criticism of all of those rather than a justification of this one). David notMD (talk) 12:49, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

    I think that the article Vitamin A could be a pretty good model in terms of structure and content. It has everything I was asking about above (except for the chemical, molecular, and physical properties). Also note the position of the "Deficiency" section (it makes sense to have that section further down: We first need to cover what Vitamin C is and what it does in the body, and from what food it comes from; this is the foundation, we need that before we can understand the deficiencies). Jens Lallensack (talk) 14:23, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Esculenta

• I also agree with the deficiencies pointed out by Jens above, and would oppose if pressed. Here's some additional specific comments that I hope will be helpful in your improvements efforts. Esculenta (talk) 17:37, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
• the Albert Szent-Györgyi image has a quotation, but no source
  • Ref used in text added for quotation in the image caption
• "Society and culture" - one-sentence sections aren't a good look.
  • Deleted (trivia; anyway, ref no longer worked)
• "Pharmacopoeias" what is this two-word section even for?
  • Deleted (this was years-old content that I had neglected to look at)
• there seem to be several instances of poor citation practices; for example this sentence: "In humans and in animals that cannot synthesize vitamin C, the enzyme l-gulonolactone oxidase (GULO), which catalyzes the last step in the biosynthesis, is highly mutated and non-functional.[128][129][130][131]" These four citations are to papers all 20 years old or more, some of them primary sources. If the statement made is true and important, then it should be citable to a recent MEDRS-compliant source.
• "Limes, lemons and oranges" image needs MOS:CAPFRAG check
  • Period added to image caption because the caption is a sentence
• The "References" section needs some attention to detail:

• FN#7 is multiply cited to a page range of 90 pages; this should be broken up into specific page cites
  • page numbers provide for each use of FN#7
• inconsistency with page numbering format: compare e.g. "pp. 155–70." vs. "pp. 260–275"
  • All ref pagination now consistent, using the former system
• inconsistency with sentence case/title case in article titles
  • All changed to sentence case

TompaDompa

I'll also oppose this nomination as premature. A quick look at the article reveals (non-exhaustively):

• Several unsourced passages. The entire first paragraph after the lead in the current version, for instance.
  • The entire Definition section has been deleted, with any referenced content incorporated elsewhere.
• As noted above, a rather counterintuitive structure. For instance: surely the role vitamin C plays normally should be mentioned ahead of deficiency and medical uses, no?
  • Although I have voiced that I oppose this (above), it is "not a hill to die on." I will deal with other criticisms, then get to this.
    • Per your and another reviewer's comments, Medical uses moved to later in article.
• Some apparent self-contradiction: "Ascorbate and ascorbic acid are both naturally present in the body, since the forms interconvert according to pH." versus "In biological systems, ascorbic acid can be found only at low pH, but in solutions above pH 5 is predominantly found in the ionized form, ascorbate."
• The sentence "However, a lack of conclusive evidence has not stopped individual physicians from prescribing intravenous ascorbic acid to people with cancer.", which really has no business appearing in an article going through WP:FAC.
  • Deleted.
• A bunch of repetition and redundancy. The relationship between vitamin C, collagen, and scurvy appears repeatedly ("In humans, vitamin C deficiency leads to impaired collagen synthesis, contributing to the more severe symptoms of scurvy." and "Scurvy is a disease resulting from a deficiency of vitamin C. Without this vitamin, collagen made by the body is too unstable to perform its function" and "Vitamin C has a definitive role in treating scurvy, which is a disease caused by vitamin C deficiency." and "The disease scurvy is caused by vitamin C deficiency and can be treated with vitamin C-containing foods or dietary supplements or injection."), for instance.
  • The information about scurvy has been consolidated.

I would suggest closing this. TompaDompa (talk) 21:16, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Response to opposition to date

The editors who have voiced oppose were kind enough to leave specific criticism, which I have been addressing, and will continue to. I hope that a final decision of accept can be reached. If this is closed before I have had the time to address the critical comments to date (and any more that new editors may add), I will not try again. I believe that an article which Wikipedia considers a Level 5 Vital Article and which gets more than 500,000 views per year deserves patience. David notMD (talk) 22:02, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Section deletion question

On 8 October 2018 an editor moved content from Chemistry of ascorbic acid to the Vitamin C article, where it now exists as subsection "As food preservation additives" within section "Sources." In the opinion of FA reviewers, does this content belong in the article? David notMD (talk) 23:27, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

That section seems relevant to me, and does not fit within the scope of Chemistry of ascorbic acid. However, maybe it should be combined with the "medical uses" into a general "uses" section (which then discusses medical uses, uses in the food industry, and some other uses that are not yet mentioned in the article). Jens Lallensack (talk) 13:23, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Moved out of Sources, as this use (food preservative additive) is non-nutrient. David notMD (talk) 13:43, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Copyright infringement evaluation

See Talk:Vitamin C for a copyright infringement evaluation. As the nominator of Vitamin C for FA, my evaluation is that the duplication of text in the article and the mentioned sources is due to many short text fragments, and in two of the four, to referenced quotations. I leave to the FA reviewer whether the quotations need to be removed. David notMD (talk) 13:37, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Comments from Vanamonde

Beginning to read through: after a few paragraphs, I confess I am also leaning oppose. I have some background in science, and yet I'm still struggling to follow some of the prose. Having read the first paragraph, it isn't clear to me if ascorbate is considered Vitamin C; with the second paragraph, I'm confused as to how the detection works, because both enantiomers are surely chemically equivalent? Or is it that natural sources only produce one? The deficiency section isn't largely about deficiency at all, but about concentrations in the blood (both high and low), and methods for determining them. In the Diet section, I'm not sure that a lengthy list of recommended intakes is encyclopedic; in the presence of such information, we really need some summarizing sources. Indeed having read those statistics I'm left wondering why the RDA varies across countries by a factor of 2.5. I will keep reading, but I think this may need working over at peer review. I don't fault the nominator necessarily; a lot of work has gone into this, and it apparently did not receive attention at PR; it's also a huge topic in terms of literature. Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:49, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Addressing each comment separately:

• first paragraph, it isn't clear to me if ascorbate is considered Vitamin C
• I'm confused as to how the detection works, because both enantiomers are surely chemically equivalent? Or is it that natural sources only produce one?
  • The enantiomers do not appear in nature, and when synthsized and fed to animals, have less than 5% of vitamin C function.
• The deficiency section isn't largely about deficiency at all, but about concentrations in the blood (both high and low), and methods for determining them.
• In the Diet section, I'm not sure that a lengthy list of recommended intakes is encyclopedic; in the presence of such information, we really need some summarizing sources. Indeed having read those statistics I'm left wondering why the RDA varies across countries by a factor of 2.5.
  • While each country or organization may have a justification for how a recommended intake was set, I cannot find any science journal article that discusses the range across the various expert panels. So, for example, for adult men, the US in 2000 identified 75 mg/day as the estimated average requirement and 90 mg/day as the recommended dietary allowance - the larger number to allow for two standard deviations above average - whereas the EFSA (European Union) in 2013 used 90 and 110 mg/day for average and recommended. Each organization used a combination of efficiancy of absorption, metabolic catabolism and urinary excretion to calculate an average oral intake needed to maintain blood concentration, but referenced different journal articles to source those numbers.

Coordinator comment

A fair few comments and a consensus that this is not yet ready for FAC. I am afraid that I agree - the appropriate venue for this discussion is PR, not FAC. I hope that it will continue there and that the article will return here in better shape. But for now I am archiving it. In any event the usual two-week FAC hiatus will apply. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:46, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:46, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Nominator comment

I will address a few more of the FA reviewers' comments, but do not intend to ever nominate this for FA again. This has been an informative, but in the end, disappointing, process. David notMD (talk) 18:52, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.