Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/May 2020

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

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 31 May 2020 [1].

John Alden

[edit]
Nominator(s): Historical Perspective 2 (talk) 19:41, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about John Alden, a signer of the Mayflower Compact and an English colonist who played a key role in governance during the early years of Plymouth Colony. He also featured prominently in American popular culture of the late 19th and early to mid 20th centuries thanks to Henry Wadsworth Longfellow's fictionalized "Courtship of Myles Standish" in which Alden was a main character. Finally, of all the Mayflower passengers, John and Priscilla Alden have the most descendants, estimated at about 1 million (I am NOT a descendant, for what it's worth). I did a major overhaul of this page during the winter and submitted it for a peer review but got no bites. Nonetheless, I think it is in good shape and after incorporating feedback here, could be a worthy featured article. In this, the 400th anniversary year of the founding of Plymouth Colony, it might be appropriate to feature one or two articles on that topic. Thanks for your consideration. Historical Perspective 2 (talk) 19:41, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Captions need editing for grammar
  • Don't use fixed px size
  • File:Priscilla_and_John_Alden,_by_Geo._H._Boughton_(NYPL_b12647398-79379).tiff: source link gives a date range of 1898-1931; how do we know it was published before 1925? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:10, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I've removed the fixed px sizes, uploaded a different version of that image from the LOC definitively dated 1884, and edited the captions. If anything is still off about the captions, just let me know. Historical Perspective 2 (talk) 16:40, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Generally if you're using a century in adjective form it should be hyphenated - ie. "in the 18th century" would be correct, but "18th-century etching" takes a hyphen. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:17, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Got it. All set. Historical Perspective 2 (talk) 12:25, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Truflip99

[edit]

Reserving for comments. Hoping you could provide comments to MAX Red Line in return. --truflip99 (talk) 14:44, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be happy to. Looking at the open FAC nominations, I'm thinking you meant MAX Yellow Line? ...And thank you! Historical Perspective 2 (talk) 20:06, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Woops that's the one! --truflip99 (talk) 04:38, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • casting his lot with the Pilgrims -- what does this mean?
  • Rephrased
  • Done
  • hypothesized origins "tempting," -- comma outside quotes per MOS:LQ
  • Done
  • Done
  • to work temporarily when the Mayflower arrived. -- link Mayflower again in this first instance
  • Done
  • was proposed by B. Carlyon-Hughes -- historian or genealogist?
  • Both, noted as such
  • Harwich is an ancient North Sea port -- link North Sea
  • Done
  • for Alden's joining the crew -- not "Alden joining the crew" or "Alden's joining of the crew"?
  • Picked the former suggestion
  • "remembered him as tall, blond, and very powerful in physique." -- MOS:LQ
  • Done
  • "a fair presumption," -- MOS:LQ
  • Done
  • "may have been the son of George Alden the fletcher, who disappeared – probably dying in that year – leaving John, an orphan, free to take employment overseas. Jane, the widow, may have been his mother and Richard and Avys his grandparents." -- MOS:LQ
  • Done...I think. Last period outside the quotes?
  • This is, however, pure conjecture and in no way proven. -- if this is part of the previous ref [5], then place this before it. Otherwise, it looks like your own conclusion, ergo WP:OR.
  • Struck the sentence.
  • The Mayflower Descendant -- add a brief description of what this is
  • Done
  • "son and heir of John Alden of Swanscomb, Kent," -- MOS:LQ
  • Done
  • There is no evidence that John Alden of the Mayflower was connected to this family -- Mayflower not italicized?
  • Done

More later. --truflip99 (talk) 04:38, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!Historical Perspective 2 (talk) 21:22, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Probably should still link the first instance of Southampton
  • Done
  • Make sure you give the painting its proper title
  • Done
  • due to Alden's useful skills, the colonists encouraged him to remain with them in America during the voyage. -- any skills in particular?
  • Added barrel-maker and carpenter
  • The 100-foot ship had 102 passengers and a crew of about 20 to 30 in extremely cramped conditions. -- "aboard in extremely cramped conditions" might sound better?
  • Done
  • A lack of proper rations and unsanitary conditions for months caused illnesses -- illnesses in particular?
  • Primary sources give no clues. There are many theories but they're just that.
  • including the majority of women and children. -- not "particularly to"?
  • Changed
  • On the way, there were two deaths, a crew member and a passenger, but the worst was yet to come. -- a little confusing; on the way to where?
  • Specified North America
  • which was then part of the Colony of Virginia. -- comma before
  • Done
  • which is an indication that he had already made the decision to remain with the settlers. -- comma before
  • Done
  • and a large hill overlooking the harbor -- establish that they would later name this Burial Hill
  • Done
  • Done
  • During their first winter in Plymouth, most of the settlers fell ill and half died of disease. Priscilla Mullins (John Alden's future wife) lost her entire family during the first winter -- slightly redundant
  • Deleted second "during the first winter"
  • her father William Mullins, her mother Alice Mullins, and her brother Joseph Mullins. -- last names also a little redundant
  • Deleted
  • A recreation of this house stands today at Plimoth Plantation, a living history museum which replicates the original Pilgrim settlement. -- ref?
  • Added
  • Photo cap: A view of the recreated Plimoth Plantation which includes a replica of John Alden's house seen second from the left -- comma before which
  • Done
  • The fictionalized story tells of a love triangle -- link Love triangle
  • Added
  • contributing to the establishment of a national Thanksgiving holiday five years later. -- I think it's better to say the exact year here
  • Done
  • "the most celebrated Pilgrim couple in history." -- MOS:LQ
  • Done
  • others dismiss it as mere fancy. -- what does this mean?
  • Rephrased
  • Historian John Goodwin pointed out several anachronisms and inconsistencies -- link Anachronism
  • Done
  • there was not "reason for believing any part of it." -- "not a reason" or "no reason"; also MOS:LQ
  • Fixed

More again in a bit. --truflip99 (talk) 15:29, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • This left the colonists in a quandary -- is quandary a common word?
  • Rephrased
  • the debt in exchange for a monopoly on the fur trade from the colony -- link fur trade
  • Done
  • Eight of the Plymouth colonists, including John Alden, agreed to collectively assume, or undertake, the debt in exchange for a monopoly on the fur trade from the colony. -- who granted this exchange and how?
  • The other colonists. I added some explanation.
  • known as the "Undertakers." -- MOS:LQ and ref needed
  • Done
  • The fact that Alden was among them is indicative of his growing stature in the colony. -- does this have a ref or is it your own analysis?
  • Added ref on this point re: Alden.
  • He also served as Deputy Governor on two occasions in the absence of the Governor in 1665 and 1677. He was elected Treasurer of the colony annually from 1656 to 1658. He served on the colony's Council of War, an important committee to decide on matters pertaining to the defense of the colony, in 1642, 1643, 1646, 1653, 1658 and 1667. He also served on a number of important committees including the Committee to Revise Laws, the Committee on the Kennebec Trade, and a number of additional minor posts. -- add some variety
  • Done
  • interloped in the trade prevoking -- provoking*?
  • Oops. Done.
  • When the Plymouth traders put in at Boston authorities there decided to imprison John Alden who was -- need a comma here where appropriate, also what does "put in" mean?
  • Done and rephrased.
  • intervention of Bradford that Alden was eventually released. -- Bradford linked twice.
  • Done
  • upland that had been partially cleared by Native Americans -- link hill?
  • I don't use the word hill there, I'm not sure a wikilink is appropriate here.
  • salt marsh (a good source of hay) -- "a salt marsh" or "salt marshes"? also link Salt marsh
  • Done
  • a boulder, plaque and other interpretive signage. -- comma before and
  • Done
  • The site was professionally excavated by Roland Wells Robbins in 1960, unearthing many artifacts including a halberd blade which is now exhibited at Pilgrim Hall Museum in Plymouth. The site is now part of the Duxbury school campus and is located next to a playing field. The footprint of the house is evident as a depression in the ground and is marked by a boulder, plaque and other interpretive signage. -- ref?
  • Added
  • were reluctant to break apart the "mother" church congregation in Plymouth but reluctantly gave permission. -- redundant
  • Fixed
  • A second Alden House was long believed -- is* long believed?
  • Past tense is correct here. The notion has been disproved, so it is no longer believed.
  • following local tradition -- the placement of this is a little awkward, also what is the local tradition?
  • Re-wrote to better explain how historians wrote about this for a long time
  • The Alden's first Duxbury home site and the Alden House Historic Site were together granted National Historic Landmark status in 2008. -- ref needed
  • Done
  • Family section would be better as prose
  • Agreed. This was a bit of struggle. I did my best here to convert to prose, adding some facts to create just a bit more narrative, citing them, and adding some new references. But in most cases very little is known about the children, so parts still look a little like a list.
  • John Alden was the last survivor of the signers of the Mayflower Compact. He died in Duxbury on September 12, 1687. Both he and his wife Priscilla were buried in the Myles Standish Burial Ground in Duxbury. The precise location of their graves is not known as markers either were not placed or have crumbled away. In 1930, the Alden Kindred of America placed commemorative slate stones at the estimated location of their graves near the headstone of their son, Capt. Jonathan Alden. -- ref needed for all of these statements
  • Done
  • Several artifacts attributed to John Alden are exhibited at major museums. These include the halberd blade discovered in the 1960 archaeological dig at the Alden first house site in Duxbury, the Alden family bible, and a mortar and pestle attributed to John and Priscilla Alden, all of which are displayed at Pilgrim Hall Museum. -- ref needed
  • Done

I believe that is it for prose. --truflip99 (talk) 16:40, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Refs - pass

[edit]
  • Change all of the http to https
  • Done
  • As web content can change on a whim, best to use access-date parameter (IMHO)
  • Added
  • last=Alden Kindered of America -- should be publisher not last
  • Done
  • American Ancestors also should not be under the last parameter; probably use via=americanancestors.org (though not certain)
  • That works for me. Done.
  • last=Historical Marker Database -- should be publisher
  • Done
  • last=Pilgrim Society -- omit
  • Done

--truflip99 (talk) 17:59, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Historical Perspective 2 (talk) 14:06, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, missed a few more.

  • I would say doing the same for last=Plymouth Ancestors as you have for American Ancestors
  • and last=Library of Congress
  • and last=NRA Museums

--truflip99 (talk) 15:53, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Refs look good too. --truflip99 (talk) 19:34, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note

[edit]

Sorry but with only one comprehensive review after more than a month it looks like consensus to promote is a long way off so I'm going to archive this. The list is big right now so this might get more traction in a couple of weeks as we work to pare things down. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:46, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 31 May 2020 [2].

Máscara Dorada

[edit]
Nominator(s): MPJ-DK (talk) 22:52, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is abouta a Mexican professional wrestler who's also worked in Mexico and is now working for the biggest wrestling company in the world WWE. The article has been a Good Article for a long time and has gone through improvements through out and I believe it is finally at a Featured Article level. I will happily commit to doing a FL review for each person providing feedback PLUS one, which I will initate in the next day or two. MPJ-DK (talk) 22:52, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note

[edit]

Sorry but with no commentary after almost three weeks this is clearly a non-starter so I'm going to pull it. Given the lack of comments you're free to re-nominate without waiting the usual two weeks following an archive, but I'd suggest give it a couple of days after which we might've been able to pare the FAC list down and it will have a better chance of being seen and gaining reviews. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:39, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 31 May 2020 [3].

Meteorological history of Hurricane Florence

[edit]
Nominator(s): ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 20:06, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Florence in 2018 was one of two devastating hurricanes to strike the United States. Unlike Hurricane Michael, Florence was primarily a freshwater flooding event that is among the worst ever seen in The Carolinas. This article covers the meteorological conditions and progression of the hurricane from its origins over Africa to dissipation roughly three weeks later. The article follows the same structure as other meteorological history articles, being on the technical side as it's a special interest topic, but goes uniquely in-depth on the historic rainfall event. I believe this article is the single-most comprehensive coverage of the hurricane's meteorological aspects there is. Looking forward to hearing opinions and criticisms on it. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 20:06, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Comments from Hurricane Noah

[edit]

-I will add more later... I got pulled away by basement flooding again. sigh... NoahTalk 22:34, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]


@FAC coordinators: I'm going to withdraw this nomination. I don't have the time or energy to work on this nor do I see things getting easier in the near future. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 03:18, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, tks -- I hope things improve and we see you back before too long. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:27, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 31 May 2020 [4].

El Camino: A Breaking Bad Movie

[edit]
Nominator(s): Flowerkiller1692 (talk) 18:44, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

El Camino: A Breaking Bad Movie adds an additional coda to a beloved TV series. This article goes through the lengths that creator Vince Gilligan took to revisit a story that he concluded six years beforehand, and the measures he took to keep the production a secret. Flowerkiller1692 (talk) 18:44, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:30, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Bilorv

[edit]

(Might claim WikiCup points for this review.) I was the GA reviewer and suggested that the article could be taken to FAC. I felt it was exceeding the GA standards at the time the review passed, and it's significantly improved since. I've re-reviewed it top to bottom:

Resolved comments from — Bilorv (talk) 12:16, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
alt) and accolades table needs a caption (MOS:DTAB, something like |+ List of awards and nominations received by El Camino); otherwise good.
  • "Other licensed tracks include" – The given sources go into some detail on where the songs are used and what significance they have. A paragraph or two of prose would be good, or the same amount of information in list format if you prefer.
    • I thought about that. However, not all of the songs have descriptions as to their appearances in the film, so it may be awkward leaving some without any information. And also, all of the listed tracks are barely audible when they are heard in the film (short clip on the radio, background music of the hotel, etc.), so it may not be noteworthy at all to mention their placements. Flowerkiller1692 (talk) 03:21, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Copyediting:

  • Not sure when/why infobox values were changed back to "> $6 million" and "~$40,000" from the GA review but I still prefer "more than $6 million" and "at least $40,000". Per MOS:NBSP, money amounts like "$6 million" should use  . MOS:PERCENT favors "percent" over "%" in non-scientific articles.
  • "Paul vowed that he would be eager to be involved" – redundant, better as "Paul was eager to be involved".
    • Done.
  • "Joe leaves" – I'd say "Joe flees" because it's a pretty urgent getaway that he makes.
    • Done.
  • "Jesse hides but holds one, Casey, at gunpoint after Casey finds him" – sounds repetitive with the double "Casey". Perhaps "Jesse hides but holds one, Casey, at gunpoint after being found by him"?
    • Done.
  • "Casey distracts Lou" – Lou is not mentioned to be part of the present scene until this bit. Perhaps "Two police officers enter the apartment, after being distracted by Lou, and begin to search"?
    • Done.
  • Mention that Galbraith calls the police e.g. "and refuses to help when Jesse is $1,800 short, calling the police".
    • Done.
  • "Jesse shoots him with the Hammerless, which was concealed in his coat pocket and already aimed at Neil" – Simpler: "Jesse shoots him with the Hammerless, which was concealed in his coat pocket."
    • Done.
  • "Casey fires at Jesse, but Jesse kills him." – I think someone who hadn't watched the film would wonder how. "but Jesse kills him with [whichever gun]" if the particular gun he uses is obvious? Or "but Jesse manages to shoot him dead"?
    • Done.
  • "for the fifth season premiere of spin-off Better Call Saul" – the link spans too much text, just link "fifth season premiere", and remove "spin-off", which we know from previous mentions.
    • Done.
  • "included the final scenes of Jesse and Ed Galbraith making their final exchanges" – replace one of the "final"s.
    • Done.
  • "Cranston was heavily disguised when he was escorted from and throughout the set, while off the set he and Paul were told to avoid seeing each other." – This is comma splicing. Try: "Cranston was heavily disguised when he was escorted from and throughout the set and told to avoid seeing Paul when off-set."
  • "as well as learning that the release date" should be "as well as by learning that the release date", I think, in order for it to mean "taken aback ... by learning that the release date".
    • Done.
  • "at least 8.2 million viewers watched at least a few minutes" – replace one of the "at least"s
    • Done.
  • I think ellipses need a non-breaking space before it and a space after it per MOS:ELLIPSIS.
    • Done
  • Montgomery of the BBC is given a bit too much weight, even if this is the only review in the paragraph. I'd definitely cut "And if television has recently been characterised as the ‘new cinema’ while cinema apparently infantilises itself with superhero movies and Disney remakes, then this gives lie to that narrative", a comment mostly not about El Camino. To avoid having this review in isolation as a short paragraph, I think I'd split it up so that "accusing the film of devolving into fan service [...] a character study without any character" goes under the paragraph about Pinkman's performance, and "it's a franchise extension as lazy and vacuous as anything dreamt up on the big-screen" goes in the "Comparisons to Breaking Bad" section.
  • Sancto of Little White Lies has too much weight as well, I'd cut "especially when series creators and writers strain too hard either to steer away from or stick to the original format".
    • Done.
  • "you’ll be as lost as Badger without Skinny Pete if you tried to watch this sharp and compelling sequel without having seen the series" – not a particularly enlightening quote. Just "Richard Roeper of Chicago Sun-Times concurred, saying that viewers would be lost if they had not seen the series."
    • Done.
  • Use straight apostrophes and quotation marks rather than curly ones per MOS:CURLY.
    • Done.

No concerns over reliability of sources or citation style. Source spotchecks: #2, #6, #14, #25, #45, #63, #88, #94 as of this oldid. Issues found:

  • "stated to be more than the $6 million that "Felina" cost to produce" – The source says "an episode" rather than "the finale", whilst the infographic contradicts this a little with the infographic at the bottom saying "$6M cost per episode by the end of season 5". Do we have another source for it being "Felina" that costs $6M?
    • The source itself says all who were interviewed declined to disclose how much it cost to produce, so I doubt it will have any other sources. However I did change the text in the body to more directly reflect what was in the source. Flowerkiller1692 (talk) 04:02, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's El Camino's budget that wasn't commented on, not necessarily season 5 of BB's. Afraid it's still not quite right. You say: "more than the $6 million that each episode of the final season cost to produce" but the source says "by the end of season 5", which presumably means part or all of season 5B (the second half), but not all of season 5. It needs to be very specific. Perhaps: "more than the $6 million which an episode budget in the final season of Breaking Bad had". — Bilorv (talk) 18:50, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Bilorv: That's still a bit awkwardly worded....I changed it to "The film's unspecified budget provided was stated to be more than the $6 million per episode budget in the show's final season." Flowerkiller1692 (talk) 20:54, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • Perhaps we're still speaking past each other: the issue is that the source doesn't say "$6 million per episode". It just says that at least one episode had a budget of at least $6 million. We need wording that's different from the source, but implies that at least one episode had a budget of at least $6 million, without implying anything stronger. Your wording implies that the overall average budget for the 16 episodes of season 5 was $6 million i.e. that season 5 had a budget of $80 million (not a fact we know). — Bilorv (talk) 22:35, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • [We say] "He described the film's contents and resulting score as more cerebral and psychological, rather than relying on fast-paced adrenaline" vs. [ref #45] "The movie is much more cerebral. It’s much more psychological. While there’s plenty of tension, it’s not so much of that fast-paced adrenaline." It is difficult to get the balance of not overquoting, not misrepresenting and not close paraphrasing, but I think we do need quote marks here: "He described the film's contents and resulting score as more "cerebral" and "psychological", rather than relying on "fast-paced adrenaline"".
    • Done.
  • #63 doesn't seem to be the right reference for the sentence "Sixty-two hours before the release ...", but #64 (next ref cited) seems to cover that information. I'm a bit confused about what "the social media channels of Breaking Bad" are though, with #64 saying "The channel, which is exclusively available on the Samsung TV Plus platform ..."

Nice work overall, no concerns about comprehensiveness, quality of research or length. Good use of images. — Bilorv (talk) 21:32, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just one budget comment needing more work or discussion, and the rest is addressed. Appreciate the very speedy response. — Bilorv (talk) 18:50, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I notice Theironminer has made some plot edits, raising some concerns (as of this oldid):

  • Per MOS:CURRENCY, the article needs to use "US$" on the first mention (rather than just "$").
  • Ed calling police needs to be mentioned, as a significant plot point.
  • Lou should be mentioned in the present-day scene, and it's not clear where Casey disappears to in the Neil vs. Jesse argument otherwise.
  • Removing mention of Albuquerque means the plot's setting is unclear.

— Bilorv (talk) 22:35, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, all my comments have been resolved so it's a support from me on criteria #1, #2 and #4 (spotchecks done). — Bilorv (talk) 12:16, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Bilorv: Thanks for the review! I noticed you left #3 out...I'm guessing likely because of the two new images I added for The Countdown to El Camino. This is my first time uploading images — do you think I gave sufficient explanations as to why they are under fair use? — Flowerkiller1692 (talk) 18:48, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ah, I should have been clearer. No, I just meant I didn't review the article under these criteria, as it's not my area of expertise. I see Nikkimaria's image review raised no issues. For what it's worth, I don't see any issues either. — Bilorv (talk) 20:17, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note

[edit]

Sorry but this has been open well over a month and dormant for several weeks so I'm going to archive it. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:28, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 31 May 2020 [5].

Nashville Xpress

[edit]
Nominator(s): NatureBoyMD (talk) 21:40, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a Minor League Baseball team that played two seasons in Nashville, Tennessee, on a temporary basis. It was uprooted from Charlotte, North Carolina, in conjunction with Major League Baseball expansion and played in Nashville until a permanent home could be found. The team shared Herschel Greer Stadium with the Nashville Sounds. While not unheard of, it is rare to find two baseball teams sharing a home ballpark. NatureBoyMD (talk) 21:40, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Usernameunique

[edit]

Image review

  • File:NashvilleXpressLogo.png: who is believed to be the copyright holder? Same with File:NashvilleXpressCapLogo.png. And given that we're including two non-free logos rather than just one I'd expect each to have a stronger FUR
    • Presumably BallCorps, LLC, the current owners of the Southern League franchise once known as the Xpress. I've added this to each image's source. Regarding two non-free images, I've added to the "purpose of use" on each image. For what it's worth, it is standard across baseball team articles to include both team and cap logos in the infobox. NatureBoyMD (talk) 21:36, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:1984_Nashville_Larry_Schmittou.jpg: can you confirm there's no copyright notice anywhere in the program, and that the image is original to the program?
  • File:NashvilleXpressJerseys.png: what is the source used to create this image? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:02, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Therapyisgood

[edit]
Resolved comments from Therapyisgood (talk) 03:09, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  • In conjunction with the 1993 Major League Baseball expansion, George Shinn, owner of the Double-A Southern League's Charlotte Knights baseball team, was granted an expansion franchise in the Triple-A International League why was he granted a franchise?
  • The asking price was believed to be $3.6 million believed by whom?
  • uprooted by the Colorado Rockies National League expansion team. I'm not sure I understand this, how can a MLB uproot a Triple-A team?
    • Similar to how the Double-A Charlotte team had to leave upon the arrival of the Triple-A team, the Triple-A Denver team had to leave when the MLB Rockies moved into the Denver territory. NatureBoyMD (talk) 16:00, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The game was attended by just 1,715 people on a bitterly cold evening just is WP:EDITORIALIZING, I think "bitterly cold evening" is inappropriate too unless it's a quote from somewhere.
  • The Southern League's 142-game season was split into two halves wherein the winners of each half from each of two divisions confusing
  • Múñoz, who did not play in the game after having pitched six innings the night before, led the Southern League with 11 wins and 118 strikeouts.[23] Becker possessed a .280 batting average with 10 home runs and 42 runs batted in (RBI); he struck out in his only at bat off the bench. I think you could combine these two sentences with the conjunction "while"
  • The Xpress lost three key pieces violates NPOV, if someone described the pieces as "key" you can quote that but as it stands it's a POV violation.
  • These subtractions as well as late-season injuries to shortstop Denny Hocking, outfielders Marty Cordova and Mike McDonald, and others, caused Nashville to struggle in the second half according to whom? OR
  • The team had a new owner, but still lacked a city and stadium of its own not sure this sentence is necessary
  • Their final home game was played on September 1 against the Huntsville Stars. With Nashville holding a 1–0 lead going into the eighth inning, Huntsville scored three runs in both the eighth and ninth innings on the way to a 6–2 defeat of the home team. think you could combine these sentences
  • After playing 282 regular season games and compiling an all-time record of 146–136, the franchise's time in Nashville had come to an end. → "After playing 282 regular season games and compiling an all-time record of 146–136, the franchise left Nashville."
  • Schmittou was similarly unwilling to have the team back for yet another season as hosting the team at Greer was too big of a financial risk. "yet" is POV, "similarly" is WP:SYNTH, "too big of a financial risk" is POV
    • Changed to "Schmittou was unwilling to have the team back for another season as hosting the team at Greer was too big of a financial risk." "[T]oo big of a financial risk" is from the reference ([6]). NatureBoyMD (talk) 17:20, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Can you explain why this was a too big of a financial risk? I read the source but still don't understand. Therapyisgood (talk) 00:44, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • I can't find anything that elaborates on the financial risk of hosting two teams. Going by the attendance analysis in the second two paragraphs of the "Ballpark" section, it stands to reason that Schmittou either didn't break even, or the profits were lower than he desired. With hosting two teams, his part-time staff (ushers, concessions workers, parking attendants, etc) worked twice as many games, and were thusly paid for twice as many games. His full-time staff (ticket sales, office staff) may very well have been paid extra for their extra work involving an extra team. In addition to employees, opening the ballpark nearly every day meant additional expenditures towards electricity, water, gas, etc. As to why Schmittou mentions Michael Jordan, who was expected to play for the Nashville Sounds in 1995, it seems like he wanted to put his full effort, and that of his staff, toward maximizing revenue from Jordan's presence. NatureBoyMD (talk) 14:25, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rather than choose a city within the league's Southeastern footprint, Bastien proposed a temporary move to Bayamón, Puerto Rico, some 1,700 miles (2,700 km) away from Nashville and 1,200 miles (1,900 km) miles from the circuit's nearest team in Orlando, Florida. I read the source, nowhere does it mention the distance from Nashville to Bayamón so you're doing some kind of WP:SYNTH.
  • the Minnesota Twins were not interested in continuing their working agreement with the Xpress, not what the source says, the source just says they cut ties
  • Eventually, the only major league club left without a Double-A affiliate was the Seattle Mariners, this needs a reference, because just a reference ago I read the Detroit Tigers also didn't have a Double-A affiliate and you don't source the Tigers signing anyone
  • who refused to affiliate with the Xpress over the excessive travel costs again not what the source says, the source doesn't say why the Mariners didn't sign them, the article writer just speculates it's over travel costs
  • The cap looks like a lighter shade of red than on the graphic, is that the right shade?

Whole article's tone is unencyclopedic. Opposing. Therapyisgood (talk) 02:41, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Therapyisgood: Thanks, I have responded to all of your comments. NatureBoyMD (talk) 17:20, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • and the largest metro area population. I'm thinking this might be hyphenated but I'm not sure.
  • Bastien proposed a temporary move to Bayamón, Puerto Rico. I read the source and nowhere does it mention "temporary"

I believe I performed a "source check" above but I'd encourage another one. Therapyisgood (talk) 03:08, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note

[edit]

Sorry but this has been open well over a month and dormant for several weeks so I'm going to archive it. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:58, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 31 May 2020 [7].

Neanderthal

[edit]
Nominator(s):   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:31, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a species of human that lived in Europe until 40,000 years ago. If this passes, it will be the first FA about a human species. I tried organizing it so that, if anyone ever got human to quality status, it would have a somewhat similar form. There has been a lot of research and debates and controversies about Neanderthals since their discovery over a century and a half ago, and as such, this article is quite large. Until recently, Neanderthals were thought to have been inferior to humans in several ways (if not every way) and ultimately doomed to go extinct, but this view has very rapidly changed over the last two decades. Now it seems to be consensus that Neanderthals and humans are equals on an intellectual and cultural (but spiritual is still in the wind) level   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:31, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FunkMonk

[edit]
  • Wow, three palaeontology articles at FAC simultaneously, not sure if it's a first, but certainly rare. I'm just marking my spot here for later, as I have a few reviews open already. FunkMonk (talk) 13:47, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And all of them nominated within less than a week of each other   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:43, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's unusual to see so many citations in the intro. It should be ok if all the info and citations there can also be found in the article body.
They are. The article (and likewise the lead) is very big so I wanted to keep refs in the lead so a reader doesn't have to parse through all the text and details if they're just trying to get at the refs   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:39, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Is it possible to lump the citations together as notes? As I have seen this done in some other articles. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:03, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand how you'd actually do that and still make it clear which refs support which statements   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:05, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
How you would do it is that after every sentence where there were multiple refs for instance "go seafaring through the Mediterranean,[38][39] make use of medicinal plants[40][41][42]" would be changed to "go seafaring through the Mediterranean,[note1] make use of medicinal plants[note2]", with each note containing the respective references. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:12, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That would just increase clutter in the Note section without really changing much in the lead. I think refs in the lead are fine as they are   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:17, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some of the footnotes lack citations.
added refs to footnote f   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:39, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wonder if the two huge maps under Population could maybe be placed side by side so they don't take up so much space? A lot of unused white space on their sides.
It uses Template:Location map which doesn't allow side by side view. It defaults to collapsing the Asia map so taking up a lot of space shouldn't be a problem   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:39, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll continue the review soonish. Regarding the discussion of missing book sources below, while I don't think it in itself should stop promotion, I personally do find it good to use books here and there just to show a wide variety of sources have been consulted, and because they also give a good overview of the literature (the mammoth articles I nominated for FAC benefited from a good book). I think the inevitable FAC waiting time could be used to sprinkle some book sources here and there, or just one good one that can tie things together. As for using journal articles, as long as you say "author x stated y in year z", it should be clear to readers that what's presented are theories rather than facts. FunkMonk (talk) 13:57, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sometimes you mention museums in image captions and sometimes you don't. Should be consistent.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:12, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Neanderthals are named after the valley, the Neandertal, in which the first identified specimen was found" this reads bit ambiguously, as if it is the first known specimen, though later you state earlier remains were known. I think you could say the first recignised specimens instead of identified, would be clearer what is meant.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:12, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the order where etymology comes first is unfortunate, since it keeps you from giving a more chronological, logical sequence of events, with first found specimens first, then the type specimen, naming etc. I don't think etymology even needs to be separate, as the text there could simply be part of the historical narrative and make the information flow much easier for the reader. Now you jump around in time, and it's a bit hard to follow.
I think it would be confusing if you mix etymology with information about the bones themselves especially because Etymology and Research history are already quite big and detailed as far these sections go, and it'd be much harder for readers to find etymology if it's intermixed with Schaaffhausen and Virchow   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:12, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since this[8] is apparently the first restoration of a Neanderthal, it should be more relevant in the history section than for example the Knight or Wells images.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:12, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • You should state the date of the cited study in the cladogram caption.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:12, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you want to be more comprehensive with the pop culture section, you could mention films like Quest for Fire or Walking With Cavemen. The section seems a bit thin, I'm sure there must be more in depth analysis of how Neanderthals have been culturally perceived. The Neanderthals in popular culture article also seems to just be a list, maybe anything useful there could be folded into here and merged. Much of the text in that article has nothing to do with pop culture either and would actually be useful in the history section here.
Yeah I wasn't sure exactly how much to include for pop culture and because there article's already approaching 300,000 bytes, I decided to keep it very short, and only mentioned the works the sources in Research history mentioned. The only thing I see pertaining to the history section is the Origin section of which only the rickety Cossack isn't mentioned here. As for the rest, I'm not too sure what to include here (The Croods? Far Cry: Primal?)   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:12, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've added some things   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:14, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from HaEr48

[edit]

Very well-written and well researched article, easy to follow and very enjoyable despite containing many technical aspects. Thank you for working on this and nominating it! I do have some small comments:

  • Compared to modern humans, Neanderthals were "stockier". Is there a more accessible word than "stocky" that's still accurate? This is word is not common IMO, especially for non-native speaker.
Huskier? Heftier? Honestly, stocky is one of the least technical terms in this article   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:38, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My concern is not that it's technical, it's just unusual. I don't have a better suggestion so I guess we leave it for now. HaEr48 (talk) 03:59, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think the word "robust" accurately captures what you are referring to. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:52, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:46, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In Taxonomy. Is it possible to discuss what properties or what arguments make it considered a distinct species from human? I get it that #Anatomy and other sections provide the properties, but why is it a species rather and not for example a race or a subspecies
clarified   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:38, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lung capacity of Kebara 2 was estimated to have been 9.04 L (2.39 US gal): as contrast, would it be possible to provide the range for modern humans, or where this number stands with regard to that range?
Lung capacity is greatly variable not only how much activity you do but what kind you do. The average person and long distance runners have a lung capacity of 6 L, whereas swimmers I believe have 9 L, and Michael Phelps hit 12 L. I think we would imply incorrect ideas by giving any one of these measurements for comparison   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:38, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Post-Eemian Western European Mousterian lithics: Link "lithics" (would have done so myself but lithic is a disambiguation page)
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:38, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mousterian should be linked in first instance rather than later.
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:38, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Social structure: Can anything be said about the level of intraspecies violence? E.g. was violence used to enforce hierarchy or to get resources?
Last paragraph of Inter-group relations   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:38, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • and utilise complex spatial organisation of their settlements: can we clarify what specifically these means? Did they build structures or rooms inside a cave, or simply organize existing structures for different purposes?
I mean, they did in fact build structures inside caves, and they also purposed different zones and structures for specific tasks   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:38, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, suggest adding a sentence in the article like how you described it above. IMHO it will be easier to understand. HaEr48 (talk) 03:59, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:37, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "no modern body louse species descends from Neanderthals": not sure what "descends" mean here, surely we don't expect lice to descend from humans?
It's like saying human pubic lice descends/derives from gorilla lice, or human immunodeficiency virus descends from simian immunodeficiency virus   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:38, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest say "no modern body louse species descends from their Neanderthal counterparts"? HaEr48 (talk) 03:59, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:37, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Qafzeh humans were approximately coeval : describe "coeval" in parentheses, or link
I just switched it out with "lived at approximately the same time as"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:38, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Trying to understand "The discovery of a first generation hybrid indicates interbreeding was very common between these species".. Can you explain the relation between these two facts? I thought interbreeding would necessarily cause first generation hybrid regardless of frequency
Things very rarely fossilize, so the fact that we found a 1st generation hybrid indicates there were a lot of 1st gens around to fossilize. It's the same reasoning why Shanidar 1 being diagnosed with DISH indicates a moderately high incident rate   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:38, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Would it be approprate to add a note saying "given that organisms rarely fosilize" somewhere, for clarity? HaEr48 (talk) 03:59, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Given how few Denisovan bones are known..."   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:37, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • IMHO, the #Extension section could use a short intro. Are the four subsections correspond to four chronological stages, four overlapping causes, four contrasting hypotheses, or…?
Yeah I thought that might be problematic. Originally there were only 3 subsections so it was clearer each was a competition hypothesis, but then I added the Transition section. Should the other 3 be sub-subsections under a Causes or Factors heading?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:38, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would prefer something like that,with an intro sentence saying that there are 3 main causes hypothesized by scholars. HaEr48 (talk) 03:59, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
added   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:37, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • #In popular culture: The article talks about how the scientific community have improved their understanding of Neanderthal away from the caveman stereotype.. Is there a similar trend (even small ones) in popular culture?
Not really, I mean you watch TV, how often do you see an intelligent caveman? I know only 1 time in Doctor Who where the butler was a Neanderthal and was really intelligent and articulate and witty   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:38, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Those were taken in Germany and Croatia which have freedom of panorama   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:38, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: does FOP apply to things inside a museum? HaEr48 (talk) 03:59, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It varies by country but so far as I'm aware the answer for Croatia and Germany will be no. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:14, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I thought it's okay for works of art in Germany and Croatia (unless not public interiors also includes works of art inside public buildings).   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:37, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't feel qualified to answer this so will defer to Nikkimaria. HaEr48 (talk) 02:21, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As per commons:COM:FOP Germany, "Buildings such as museums, public collections, churches, or administrative buildings are not "public" within the meaning of the statute, and thus photographs of works exhibited in their interior do not qualify for s 59(1)". Nikkimaria (talk) 11:00, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Should I nominate them for speedy deletion on the commons then?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:33, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I replaced the images   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:46, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I expect nothing less   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:39, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All things considered, this is a very interesting and informative article :) HaEr48 (talk) 22:30, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note I've marked follow-up/unresolved points in blue above. HaEr48 (talk) 12:34, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review (expanding on HaEr48's points above)

  • Some of the captions warrant citations
  • File:Ernst_Haeckel_-_Tree_of_Life.jpg needs a US PD tag
added   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:38, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Where was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:14, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Berlin, I don't know what tag to use, I thought it was fine to just use pd-old-100   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  14:03, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's sufficient for its status in its source country, but we also need to know its status in the US, which means for the current tag we need a demonstrated publication before 1925. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:25, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I don't know who made that because this is Haeckel's tree. It looks like a derivative   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:46, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so that makes things a bit more complicated because for a derivative work we need tagging for both the original and the derivative. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:06, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I just uploaded the original. I don't know how to prove when it was first published in the US, but recent reprints such as this say that it's pd in the US   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:16, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Le_Moustier.jpg: where was this first published?
The description on the source page reads "Photograph of an original color mural painted in oils (see below) by artist Charles R. Knight depicting a Neanderthal family during the Ice Age. This reproduction was once part of an exhibit on early man at New York’s American Museum of Natural History."   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:38, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Weichsel-Würm-Glaciation.png: source link in the description is dead
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:38, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Neanderthal_child.png: what's the source of this reconstruction?
The artist himself, paleoartist Tom Björklund who specializes in reconstructing Neanderthals and Upper Paleolithic humans (as in, he's as credible as a published author)   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:38, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Neanderthal_genetic_subgroups.png: what do the points represent?
added   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:38, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Mousterian_point.png is tagged as lacking description
added description "A Mousterian point"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:38, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It was created and uploaded by archeologist José-Manuel Benito Álvarez. Here are his published works   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:38, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley

[edit]
  • "40,000 years ago (40 kya [thousand years ago])" I don't think you need [thousand years ago]. The context makes clear that that is what kya means.
That's what I thought, but someone re-added it, and I don't really have a strong objection   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:02, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "DNA studies have produced results ranging from 182 kya[23] to more than 800 kya." This is misleading. The ref for 182 kya gives a DNA date of 315-538 kya. 182 kya is "derived from analysis of neutral morphological characters" and it is not a result, but the most recent possible date in a range at 95% confidence. More than 800 kya is also not based on DNA, but dental evolution.
Whoops. I guess I was trying to streamline all the dates and then just accidentally lumped them all into DNA studies. I did the same thing with the cladogram which someone else corrected   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:02, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most of your list of Neanderthal technologies is widely accepted, but I cannot find any sources which endorse the the claim "go seafaring through the Mediterranean". This article describes the claims as "just speculation for now".
In the body I do use words like "indicate" because we can't prove anything (in the same way we can't prove clothing or weaving), but this doesn't come across in the lead. What wording do you suggest?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:02, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Neanderthals were capable of articulate speech, though it is unclear how complex their language would have been." This is not widely accepted. Neanderthals had a hyoid bone similar to modern humans, but any claim that they were mentally capable of articulate speech is very controversial, as the sources make clear.
Yeah it's the same thing as the last comment. In the body we go over all the debate and the supporters and dissenters, but the lead says it as very definitive. This one's an easy fix though. Also, I don't really see any sources positing it as highly controversial, and with the great quantity of publications discussing culture coming in within just the last decade, articulate speech and/or complex language, I see, is more often presented as something they obviously had   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:02, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "They predominantly resided in caves, and moved between caves seasonally." How strong is the evidence for this? It is a commonplace that evidence of early humans is often found in caves because that is where it has the best chance of surviving for archaeologists to find it.
You're talking about the open-air site in Israel (which is discussed in Group dynamics) where the study made some indirect asides to the taphonomic bias you're describing (which is not discussed). I wasn't sure if this was really appropriate for the lead, because it would be like including, after stating the average height, the recorded height range and "though it is possible that some grew much taller". But if you insist, I can add "though it is possible this is due to taphonomic bias" or something similar, and then make mention of this hypothesis in the body   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:02, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you think it's a good idea, I can add more text in the body about open-air sites   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:15, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry but I have to oppose. The sourcing is mainly journal articles, but human evolution is a field where people are constantly publishing articles making controversial claims which may or may not be accepted. I think you have to rely predominantly on secondary sources which summarise the current state of knowledge. The Natural History Museum in London and the Smithsonian have good web sites, but you need to look at books for in depth analysis. On the genetics, David Reich's Who We Are and How We Got Here, 2018, is up to date and authoritative, and there is also Svante Paabo's Neanderthal Man, 2014. I do not know of any up to date summary of the fast moving field of Neanderthal archaeology. I have not read Clive Finlayson's The Smart Neanderthal, 2019, but reviews suggest it is making the case for Neanderthal intelligence rather than being a summary of the state of knowledge. Two good books on the subject are Papagianni and Morse's The Neanderthals Rediscovered, 2013, and Ian Tattersall's The Strange Case of the Rickety Cossack, 2015. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:49, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't trust books, they have no academic oversight, do not let authors correct mistakes or account for new information ex post facto, sometimes make authors paranoid of the former concern and present everything as pure and utter speculation regardless of anything, or the exact opposite where the authors have to write a lot of page filler which they may or may not consider entirely relevant or entirely support. I also don't trust the Smithsonian because I have seen facts put there that are just plain wrong or extremely outdated. I can assure you, the 350+ references used in this article accurately portray scientific consensus; for those applicable, I try to include responses to journal articles, and for every claim I have tried to include a contemporary source which argues to the contrary where there is one. I understand that this is a very well-researched topic with lots of theories and whatnots, and I've spent the last 6 to 7 months making sure I have captured current academic thought   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:02, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Books vary in quality, but reviews by leading experts in the field will tell you how far they are to be relied on. WP:LOP says "While we cannot check the accuracy of cited sources, we can check whether they have been published by a reputable publication and whether independent sources have supported them on review." It is very difficult for the reader of a Wikipedia article to check the reliability of journal articles, which are often by researchers who are reporting their results and talking up their importance, or trying to make their names by proposing controversial new theories. Articles by reputable experts are fine for facts and views cited inline to the author, but your method of reading journal articles to arrive at your own synthesis is WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. You are asking the reader to take on trust your analysis of the field, which is not what a Wikipedia editor should do. PS. You are probably right about the Smithsonian. I seem to remember that some of their stuff is outdated. Dudley Miles (talk) 08:48, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how books are any different than how you described journal articles, except that they're less accessible than journals. Just because you write a book doesn't mean you're any less fallible. Literature reviews (which are used here) would accomplish the same goal you say can only be achieved by citing books. Paabo's book is already cited in Classification (but that book is first and foremost an autobiography). Rediscovered is also cited in various places.   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  13:51, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Using journal articles primarily or even exclusively is standard practise for paleontology articles. Please note that books, when written by authorities of the field, do generally not restrict themselves to providing neutral reviews of recent research. On the contrary, books aim to the general public and are freer of scientific rigour: they frequently contain speculation and vague claims that wouldn't have been accepted in a peer-reviewed publication (note that I didn't read the books mentioned, but it would surprise my if they were different in this regard). They are also quite often biased in favour of the hypotheses published by the respective authority/their lab, and this is expected: they wouldn't be authoritative if they wouldn't express an opinion. Journal articles make controversial claims, but these are highly relevant as they reflect current science, and thus need to be covered in a Wikipedia article (taken for granted that they are marked as opinions of the respective authors). But more than that, journal articles are in large parts secondary sources. They provide the best summary of previous research on their specific topics that one can possibly find, and peer review assures that all relevant literature is adequately mentioned (reviewers tend to be quite strict in this regard). I have always preferred journal sources over book sources in my paleontology FAs. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 10:43, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I do agree, however, that the article in places presents the results of single journal articles as fact, without taking the necessary distance, and too often seems to decide what is correct and what is not. I already expressed my worries on this issue during the GAN review. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 11:06, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is crucial that readers of articles, not only editors, can check their reliability. Books and articles both vary greatly in quality and impartiality, but readers of a Wikipedia article can check the reliability of a book by looking at reviews. Checking the reliability of articles is almost impossible for non-expert readers. Many articles which pass peer review are putting forward controversial theories and/or making excessive claims for the significance of the authors' research. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:49, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really see how book reviews tell you anything because they are either a plot summary or critiques about literary techniques, and more often written by laymen who don't know how accurate the book really is   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:17, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, these controversial theories are what palaeontology mostly is about: this is our content. We only can say "x said this", "y said that". We do not, and are not supposed to, care about the quality of published science. I don't think we can, according to the Wikipedia policies, knowingly disregard published opinions while mention others just because they were published in a journal and not in a book; this would be a fatal bias. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:00, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That is extraordinary. Of course we have to care about the quality of published research. Otherwise we might as well just spout the nonsense we find on the internet. I never have any problem finding book reviews by experts in the field who point out any errors or bias. And I am not saying that we should not use articles as well as books. They are often useful for uncontroversial facts, and for opinions attributed inline to the writers. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:09, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What is it that you want me to do exactly? Books authors' opinions and content are included here, like Pat Shipman, Trekking the shore, Robert Fink   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:26, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not about the truth, but about verifiability. What counts as a reliable source is defined in WP:reliable sources. We only worry about the neutral point of view. And how to achieve the neutral point of view is a question of topic size: For a broad topic such as Paleontology, of course we should rely on books predominantly. But the article of the recently discovered Perijá tapaculo from the rain forest is basically based on a single journal article (that one that proposes this new species), this is all there is. For a small topic we need to cover all opinions that have been published in reliable sources, we cannot select according to WP:NPOV. And if some of those opinions are obviously nonsense, we still have to cover them no matter what. Secondary sources become important at larger topics, when we begin to filter. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:46, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
NPOV does not mean that we have to cover nonsense, and we are aiming to find the best evidence to get as near as we can to the truth, without pretending to infallibility. I am sure that Dunkleosteus77 is trying to get as near as possible to the truth about the Neanderthals.
In reply to Dunkleosteus77, in my opinion, the use of Pat Shipman is fine. She is a respected palaeontologist and her book is published by Harvard UP. The book title makes clear that it is controversial, but you cite her by name when she is giving an opinion. Fink's book is self-published, and not a reliable source unless you have evidence that his views are accepted by experts. I think you also need to read the most up to date surveys of the field (listed above). Reich is the authority on the genetics and maybe Papagianni and Morse for a broad survey. P&M is a bit dated, but it is highly praised by leading authorities such as Clive Gamble and Paul Pettit, and I do not know of a more up to date broad survey. Of course, these are just my opinions, and you will no doubt want to get the views of other editors. Mike Christie what do you think? Dudley Miles (talk) 22:23, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
When discussing the flute, basically everyone brings up Fink's book, so I kinda had to include it. I just added Reich's book. Rediscovered is used in 4 places right now   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:04, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Replying to the ping: I think what sources you rely on depends on the specialization. For a dinosaur with little evidence and not much discussion, specialist papers will be all there is; for Neanderthals there are plenty of book-level discussions. I think Dudley's main point is that one relies on books by experts to separate out fringe theories and present consensus, and I agree that's the ideal. For Neanderthals, though, I'm not at all sure how easy it would be to identify which books are authoritative and which are outside the mainstream. I emailed an archaeologist I know to ask about how sources should be used in their opinion; they said that anyone writing an article like this should have spent enough time with all the sources to be able to identify which were the mainstream and which were the fringe theories. I agree with him as far as that goes, but for Wikipedia we have the extra problem that we can't use that expertise as a source. In other words, if Dunkleosteus77 has spent enough time to be truly familiar with the material, then they are able to select appropriate sources and give the topics in the article appropriate weight. How do reviewers validate that? I don't see how we can, if we have no knowledge of the field. This is an example of where FAC often wishes for subject matter experts to review the articles. My archaeologist friend also commented that books, in addition to often being at a lower level of sophistication, can be just as speculative as articles.

I'd suggest posting at WT:FAC to get more opinions on this. My friend said he might have time to read the article and give feedback, and if he does I'll pass it along; he's an academic archaeologist and I think his input would be very useful, though Neanderthals are not his speciality -- his work is on palaeo-Indians in the US, and on early hunter-gatherer groups in South Africa, if I recall correctly. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:37, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If Fink's views on the flute are discussed by experts, then of course it is correct to cite him. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:16, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've added Rickety Cossack   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:43, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This article makes no attempt to select sources or separate out fringe opinions as far as I can see. Quite on the contrary, and as long as the topic is not broad enough to be adequately covered by secondary sources, ideally review articles, I don't see another way. Selecting sources (at least for this article) can only be subjective and inevitably introduces personal bias. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 13:41, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify (and repeat myself) I am not arguing that books are more reliable than articles, but that readers can check whether whether a book is a reliable source by looking at reviews by experts. This is generally difficult or impossible for non-experts with articles. A good survey in book form also gives a broad overview which no article can do. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:00, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
But you do feel that hypothesis proposed by journal articles should not be incorporated as long as they have not been reviewed by a reputable secondary source such as a book, if I understood correctly? Which would mean that articles cannot generally include the newest research? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:05, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would be against removing the newest research, like the direct evidence of string production from 2 weeks ago   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:18, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
With any source, whether a book or an article, it is a matter of judgment. An article may provide an uncontroversial fact, or a source for one expert's view among other views. I prefer validation by books for the reasons I have given, but it can be by other articles by experts. I do not agree that we should include recent research such as evidence of string production. We need to wait to see whether the claim is endorsed by other experts. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a magazine reporting claims which may or may not stand up. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:53, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is, though, contrary of what we do at least in the WikiProject Paleontology, where we try to include the newest claims as soon as they are published, and we try to update all our FAs this way with priority. I think Mike was right with suggesting a general discussion seeking more opinions, because this is absolutely fundamental and we cannot do something without consensus; it also seems unfair to blame this particular nomination for it. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:06, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Are we discussing what constitutes a reliable source, the best ways to maintain NPOV/what constitutes WP:UNDUE, or if it's okay for different WikiProjects to have their own criteria for those?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:27, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
All of these are obviously important, but I am surprised that WikiProject Paleontology tries to include every new claim, as in discussions I have seen and taken part in it has been accepted that new claims should not be included until it becomes clear whether they are taken seriously by experts. Doug Weller can you advise what the policy is on this question? Dudley Miles (talk) 22:30, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Dunkleosteus77: all Wikiprojects should adhere to the same interpretations of policy and guidelines. When an article on a discovery, etc is first published in a peer review journal it is a primary source, and we have to be very careful how we treat it. See WP:PRIMARY. If you read down to WP:SECONDARY, that says "A secondary source provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains an author's analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources. Secondary sources are not necessarily independent sources. They rely on primary sources for their material, making analytic or evaluative claims about them.[e] For example, a review article that analyzes research papers in a field is a secondary source for the research." In addition, see WP:NOTNEWS. I'm always hesitant about using anything that hasn't been scrutinised by other experts in the field, too often we do it and later find that we were too hasty. If the work on the Cerutti Mastodon site had been added to Mastadon before it was criticise, we would have done our readers a disservice. If it isn't controversial, a brief mention using only material based on the summary/conclusion/discussion section at the end might be ok. If it seems in anyway controversial, I'd avoid it. And of course the media as a source is a nono. Doug Weller talk 14:55, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Of course if it's an outlandish claim (like the fringe listed below) it's not gonna be included, and if an official report hasn't been published (like Neanderthal child eaten by giant bird) it's not gonna be in here. But it is standard practice to report new discoveries by actual scientists in paleo articles, without which, they would be terribly incomplete and dated   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:12, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That goes against Wikipedia guidance. As Doug pointed out, a claim of a new discovery is not the same as a claim which has got support from experts. WikiProject Paleontology cannot set its own rules. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:25, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We are completely in line with all cited policies. Also bear in mind that journal articles are peer-reviewed, which means that at least two independent experts already had their say on it. Also, to repeat myself, we never present hypotheses as fact, we say "author x suggested in 2019 that"; so we simply inform that this hypothesis exists, and there can't be anything wrong with that. What you are asking from us does not even work even if we wanted, since the requested evaluation does not regularly happen (this often requires restudy of the fossil/locality in question). And no, I don't even think it is specific to our WikiProject, you see it in all areas of science at least if you go to the specialised articles (and I reviewed a lot of them over the years). --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:05, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[comment moved]

I mean I try to separate fringe when I identify it. The ones I remember (because they were kinda entertaining): one person said that humans lost hair like 70 kya or something and every other Homo was as hairy as chimps, one on how Neanderthals fit into the female cosmetic coalitions hypothesis and another for aquatic ape hypothesis, and the book this is from. Most everything else is either supported, refuted, or at the least briefly noted either directly or indirectly by many of the other sources (like growth rate based on dental evidence, basically everything in Art, ponchos, the controversy regarding the Châtelperronian, etc). Of course, this isn't true for everything in the article not because they're fringe but because they're just simply hardly discussed by anyone else (like pre-Neanderthal range or Moldova I). The least popular opinions in this article are Andrey Vyshedskiy, detractors of the interbreeding model, and maybe scaffolds because I don't remember anyone else at any point in time talking about drying meat and it reminds me of Clan of the Cave Bear. I can delete these. Does the Cults section count as fringe? It's clear these ideas are no longer supported, but they got some notable attention before being completely debased   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:18, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've put in the books you wanted   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  14:37, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I will take another look in a few days. I now have Clive Finalyson's The Intelligent Neanderthal, and I would like to read this before reviewing. It is not necessarily a book you need to cite, but I would like to see what he has to say. Have you considered adding adding a bibliography? A list of sources in alphabetical order of lead authors is very helpful to readers who want to see what sources have been used in the article. Dudley Miles (talk) 08:32, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
that's in here, he talks about his previous research with bird jewelry   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  13:33, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You need to cite page numbers in the book. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:20, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm looking at the ebook which doesn't have page numbers. The ref is used for very broad statements like "Neanderthals are suggested to have used various bird parts as artistic mediums" which the entire book discusses (except chapter 13, and even then, he still mentions birds), so I don't know what to do in this instance. He makes references to the conclusions of other journal articles or his past work (which are already cited here), but I don't want to clutter the entire thing with the same repeating ref. If you want, I can add info on Finlayson's hypotheses on Neanderthal bird hunting strategies, but the article's already massive (maybe save that for the child article?) and I'm not sure whether that would be put under Art or Food   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:36, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The chapters are quite short so it should be OK to cite the chapter. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:31, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
See also the comment by Fowler&Fowler at the end of FAC talk for a way of finding page numbers. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:38, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't that effectively just be the same as giving "pp. 1–240"? What do you do if the entire book supports the statement?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:51, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I do not know as I have not yet read the book, but from memory authors usually deal with it by finding a passage which sums up the idea and then citing the whole book and adding "especially page ..." This allows readers to check the source even if they do not want - or have time - to read the whole book. BTW you cite the book five times. Presumably most are for specific statements. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:18, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have cancelled my oppose and will review again in a few days. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:13, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Preliminary further comments
  • The standard lead for an FA article is an unreferenced summary of the referenced main text in up to four paragraphs. You have five referenced paragraphs. Why is this? Are you including material that needs referencing because it is not in the main text?
I wanted to put references in the lead for people who want a lighter read because the article is massive. There is no rule against having refs in the lead, and I'm opposed to removing them   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:26, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I checked whether you have covered the idea that Neanderthals had large eyes as an aid to hunting in poor light, and I found that you have covered it three times. This suggests that there may be repetition in the article.
It's discussed in detail once, and it's briefly mentioned the other 2 times so people aren't left wondering why are the eyes so big because the article is so massive and they may not read the Metabolism section. This needs to happen sometimes in this case otherwise the reader may miss important background information. It's the reason why Trinkaus' mortality rate estimate is brought up twice, or why caves are also paired with their country on every mention   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:26, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • You mention the suggestion that Neanderthals used feathers as decoration, but not the claim in Finlayson's book (pp. 129-32) and elsewhere that they preferred black feathers.
added   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:26, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have a video of the Levallois technique. I do not know whether it is just me, but I find it difficult to concentrate on text when there is a video next to it and generally close any web page when I see it. I would prefer it to be deleted but if kept it should have the usual cross in the top right corner to close it.
How do I do that?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:26, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have five citations of Finlayson's book with no page numbers and in many other cases you have wide page ranges, even though you are citing sources where specific page numbers are available. This makes it unnecessarily difficult for readers to check references.
I don't have page numbers, I have an ebook. It might be easier just to take out all the other mentions of that book because it's almost always paired with an earlier study by Finlayson   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:26, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I commented above, I think such a long article should have a bibliography listing lead authors in alphabetical order. Also, in view of the extensive sources used I do not think you need a further reading section, and the external links section should be trimmed. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:37, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what a lead author is, so I just listed all the repeating refs with an ISBN   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:26, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead author is the first (or only) author listed. E.g. in " Bischoff, J. L.; Shamp, D. D.; Aramburu, A.; et al. (2003). "The Sima de los Huesos hominids date to beyond U/Th equilibrium (>350kyr) and perhaps to 400–500kyr: new radiometric dates" the lead author is Bischoff, J. L. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:06, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done.

  • I'd like to open this by stating that I'm not a subject-matter expert here. I've reviewed the discussion above, the linked discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates#What_constitutes_a_reliable_source?, and the relevant policy. On that basis, my interpretation is that the article should be based primarily on reliable secondary sources, supplemented when appropriate with primary sources, and in my opinion we're probably leaning too heavily on the primary literature here (particularly in the lead, which I'd expect to be a broader summary, and particularly in a few cases where citations are to news items rather than peer-reviewed sections of journals). However, as pointed out at WT:FAC it's difficult for a non-expert to determine appropriate weighting of sources. I'll wish the FAC coordinators lots of luck in evaluating that!
  • "Skeleton of a Neanderthal child discovered in Roc de Marsal near Les Eyzies, France" - source?
that's what the description was on the Commons. File:Neanderthal Child Roc de Marsal.JPG and archeologist Don Hitchcock's website show the same skeleton and call it the Roc de Marsal child, so I'm inclined to believe the Commons description   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:03, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • As per this RfC, pop-culture materials should include sources demonstrating not only that the usage exists, but that it is significant to the subject. Primary sources such as The Croods are not appropriate for that purpose.
Yeah, the pop culture section originally stopped at the books but Funkmonk suggested I add more. Should I delete the visual media?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:48, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The suggestion was mainly for the historical stuff in the origin section of Neanderthals in popular culture, not the random appearances. FunkMonk (talk) 20:54, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If there's no better sourcing for it then yes it should be removed. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:21, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
removed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:53, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent when you include locations for publications
which one has the location?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:48, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
FN4, check for others. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:21, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
fixed ref 4   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:53, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't mix templated and untemplated citations
Which one doesn't use the template?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:48, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Lexico, check for others. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:21, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Lexico may be getting replaced (per below) if @Espoo: comes back. I vaguely remember 1 English source supporting the statement so I'll try to find it again. Also Espoo, I believe you added the Longman Pronunciation Dictionary in the lead, could you include a page number? If s/he doesn't respond by the end of the week, I'll be replacing them with the online dictionaries   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:53, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lexico appears to be targeted to language learners - suggest replacing
deleted   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:14, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fn16 appears to be a publisher version, which per SHERPA this journal does not generally allow archiving. Ditto FN38, check others
I don't understand. They're both links to researchgate. Is that a problem?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:48, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If they are not authorized republications that's a potential linkvio issue. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:21, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I quite frequently put links to researchgate, I wasn't aware they allowed unauthorized publications. Who were the authors for those 2 you mentioned? The refs keep rearranging as I continue editing and I've lost track of the numbers   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:53, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN47 has a harv error
fixed
  • As above, some of the page ranges are quite large for verifiability purposes
Is this is regard to only book sources or are there some journal sources you're looking at?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:53, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Footnotes 99 and 100 don't seem to include the detailed linguistic history reflected in the text
Yeah, Espoo came in in January and added those details, and I tried to delete it, and then s/he added it back, and then we tried discussing and got nowhere. I can delete it again (if it will not be added again). Espoo, did you use any other sources you didn't list?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:48, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
deleted unsupported text   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:14, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN117 is missing publisher
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:48, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
How are you deciding which publications include publisher and which do not? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:21, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Which ones don't include the publisher?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:53, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fn123: formatting doesn't match other similar sources
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:48, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Think this is now FN120. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:21, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Duarte 1999 has a publisher listed. It'd be easier if you put the lead author and year published instead of the footnote number   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:53, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why do some sources have pages inline using {{rp}} while others have the pages in the footnote?
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:48, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The northernmost site is Bontnewydd, Wales" - the source supports that there is a site at this place, but don't see that it says it's the northernmost site?
That's because there're multiple sites at 53°N, fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:48, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's a Masters Thesis and was verified and signed off by Dr. Herman Pontzer and Dr. Tom Amorosi who are evolutionary anthropologists   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:48, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence". Evidence of this? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:21, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't aware of that. Considering it was published in 2018 and in that time no one else has really talked about Neanderthal calorie intake, it cannot be said to have had significant scholarly influence, so I guess I'll be deleting their results. It's basically echoing the conclusions of a 2012 study and adding numbers, so I've rewritten that paragraph now   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:53, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN325 is missing publication title. Same with FN331
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:48, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Gargett 1999, Journal of Human Evolution   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:48, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Now FN336. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:21, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wunn 2001, Cadernos Lab. Xeolóxico de Lax   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:53, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note

[edit]

This has been open a month and a half and we seem quite a way from consensus to promote so I'm going to archive this and ask that further take place outside the FAC process, after which we could try another nom. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:34, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 30 May 2020 [9].

Bad (album)

[edit]
Nominator(s): Isaacsorry (talk) 15:20, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Bad (1987), a landmark album of pop music. Built on modern musical technology at the time, it became one of the best-selling albums of all time and was the first of only two albums to produce five No. 1 singles on the Billboard Hot 100 chart. From fashion, songs and short film influenced music videos, Jackson and the accompanying Bad album had an influence on popular music e.g. Justin Bieber and Kanye West. I made several improvements to the article, including the [[10]] and [[11]] sections. This is my first FAC nomination. Isaacsorry (talk) 15:20, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose from The Squirrel Conspiracy

[edit]

Sorry that your first comment at your first FAC is an oppose, but the good news is that I'm here for only one thing and it should be easy to address.

I am not convinced that it is necessary to include three non-free audio clips from the album (per WP:NFCC 3a), and I am not convinced that any of the three included clips is sufficiently backed by prose in the article, meaning that they are not critical to the reader's understanding of the article (NFCC 8).

Of the three clips, "Bad" and "Dirty Diana" are discussed in prose, while "The Way You Make Me Feel" gets only a passing mention, meaning the latter clip has the weakest case for inclusion in this article. However it's not clear that readers' understanding of the album would be negatively impacted by the removal of the clips of "Bad" and "Dirty Diana" either. There's no in-depth discussion of the lyrics, tone, style, etc. - those things would all be in the articles on the songs themselves (where the audio clips also are).

If featured articles are supposed to represent the best that this project has to offer, they need to - in my opinion - follow the NFCC most stringently. Right now, because of the presence of these clips and the lack of in-article prose to justify its inclusion, I don't think that the article meets criteria 3 of WP:FA?

I'd be willing to strike my oppose if you get it down to one clip and back up that clip with additional prose in the article that justifies why the clip needs to be included. However I do not do full reviews at FAC - I only do NFCC enforcement. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 21:56, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose from Guerillero

[edit]

Source thoughts

  • The youtube video needs to be replaced
  • Sullivan 2017 needs a page number and a city
  • The Boombox isn't a high-quality RS
  • McNulty 2009 links to The Daily Telegraph when there are earlier mentions of the publication that are not linked
  • 14 and 27 are dups
  • Headline Planet isn't a high-quality RS
  • dito Music Times
  • 35 is missing publication name
  • 51 and 52 are copyvios
  • Kaufman 2010 links MTV when there are earlier mentions of the publication that are not linked
  • The Young Folks isn't a high-quality RS
  • Justin Bieber on Michael Jackson: BAD 25 needs a better citation
  • The Quietus seems questionable
  • ditto The Morton Report
  • The Harvard Crimson is a student paper and tends to not be an RS
  • 118 is the only inclusion of a outlet owner
  • 163 needs to link to something other than facebook
  • Nothing points to Dyson 1993 or Taraborrelli 2004.
    • Taraborrelli 2004 is a questionable source

I am seeing a recentism bias in the sources and very few academic sources. Bad was one of the best selling albums of the 80s. There has to be things about it on JSTOR --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 02:41, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose from Popcornfud

[edit]

I've done some work on this article on and off over the years. I've just been looking at it for the first time in a while and I've found several statements that aren't properly sourced, or where the correct source got lost or mangled at some point. For example:

Due to the huge commercial success of Thriller and the expectations of its followup, Jackson aimed to sell 100 million copies with his next album.

This is sourced to an Atlantic article, but that information isn't in that article. In fact, the 100 million thing came from a different Atlantic article, which I added as a source last year but got lost somewhere. Neither article says anything about "the huge commercial success of Thriller and the expectations of its followup" being why Jackson aimed to sell 100 million copies, so that's WP:SYNTH or WP:OR that got added at some point.

There are also quite a lot of cases of muddled prose and information in the wrong sections. It doesn't look to me like it's in a fit state to pass FAC any time soon and will require a lot of checking sources and sorting out the prose accordingly. Sorry about that, Isaac. Popcornfud (talk) 15:23, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also seeing several uncited claims. I've put [citation needed] tags where I see them. Popcornfud (talk) 15:54, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note

[edit]

The comments above suggest this nom was premature so I'm going to archive it. The last attempts at GAN and PR appear to have been a decade ago, I'd recommend trying both of those again before considering another go at FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:14, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 30 May 2020 [12].

What's a Nice Girl Like You Doing in a Place Like This?

[edit]
Nominator(s): ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 11:04, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the first film Martin Scorsese created when he was studying at New York University. This is my first FAC nom and hopefully it gets the FA status. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 11:04, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review—pass
Other comments
  • Thank you Buidhe for the comments. I have made the changes as you suggested. I don't think there is any higher resolution images available online since the videos online are 360p videos. The 4K version is only limited to the theatres. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 10:20, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from HaEr48

[edit]

(Note, I intend to claim this review for WikiCup) Thank you for your work and for nominating. Article about films has a well-defined expectation about what content should be present in most films. It can be found here: Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Film#Primary content, which in my opinion is a very good guideline that applies here. I get that this is a short film so it doesn't have as much detail, but I feel that it can still be expanded in order to be comprehensive. Based on comparing the article with the guideline (especially the "Primary content" section that lists "content that is expected in articles about film on a regular basis"), I find following scope from improvements:

  • Adding themes (ideas or motifs in the film's elements) as analyzed by reliable sources
  • Production: IMO, we need some detail about how the film's concept and script was developed, financing, recruitment of cast or crew, place of filming
  • Release : How it was released? Was it screened at film festivals or in theaters? Do we have more specific dates than just the year?
  • Reception: do we have any info about commercial performance (or is there such a thing for short films?), viewership statistics, and accolades?

I suggest you take a look at the guideline mentioned above and see if you have more info that can be added. If applicable, any content listed in "Secondary content" can also be added (although maybe mostly no). HaEr48 (talk) 19:02, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Couple of feedback:
  • What is the relation of the second paragraph of #Themes to the film's themes? I feel like it's written as a bio of Scorcese rather than providing insight into the film's themes. Suggest summarizing it a little bit and moving the relevant part to #Production as it relates to the development of the movie. HaEr48 (talk) 03:13, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done.
  • Is there any sort of number or statistics that indicate how widely viewed it was?
  • Nope. This was just meant to be a student project to teach them the fundamentals of making a film.
  • The release part only mentions 1992, so what does 1963 the release date in the infobox mean? How was it initially released, was it just submitted as part of the university assignment? HaEr48 (talk) 03:13, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The film was shown to the professor as a university assignment.

Oppose short though it is, the article needs a thorough copyedit. For example, the word "film" is used 55 times in the article body, including in sentences such as "The film was shot using 16 mm film, and filmed entirely in one week." Another such word is "obsess", used six times in nearly as many sentences in the plot summary. Try to bring the repetitions down to around once every other sentence. Other examples of weird prose are "The staff of Austin Film Society said that the film has the Nichols and May, an improvisational comedy duo atmosphere to it."

Further, the prose in the Production section doesn't flow well at all; looking into the article history this seems to be because you have added a lot of stuff recently, including an entire section, Themes (which, by the way, is more of a legacy section, in that it examines the way Nice Girl is a precursor of the acclaimed Scorcese features of the future). I strongly recommend de-listing this from FAC for now, and enlisting the help of veterans at WP:FILM instead to improve the article.—indopug (talk) 17:02, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think it still needs some work. For example (there might be more):
  • Later, he has difficulty sleeping due to it.
  • Excessive use of the film's full name throughout the prose.
  • the What's a Nice Girl Like You Doing in a Place Like This?
  • Recommend summarizing the first para of #Production just to the relevant parts. e.g. the details about the Seminary class, the B. A. and the Master's degree are probably not relevant , although it may just be me. HaEr48 (talk) 21:19, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose grammar is still terrible... needs a c/e despite how small it is. Therapyisgood (talk) 03:14, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note

I note there was a GOCE before the nom but given ongoing prose concerns it sounds like someone versed in film articles needs to have a go, and that should take place outside the FAC process, so I'm going to archive this. Cehers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:22, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 30 May 2020 [13].

Paris Saint-Germain F.C.

[edit]
Nominator(s): DroopyDoggy (talk) 22:21, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about French professional football club Paris Saint-Germain Football Club. DroopyDoggy (talk) 22:21, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Lee Vilenski

Thoughts on lede section Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 22:34, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • No alt-text
  • 14 citations in lede - please remove per WP:LEDECITE.
  • Where is the IPA cited?
  • The stadium couldn't have been that size since the 1974!
  • Emir of Qatar Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani, - seaofblue
Comment by Kosack

Personally, I would say this article is some way short of meeting the FA criteria. I would suggest starting with a GA review or a peer review before bringing it to FAC. Kosack (talk) 07:29, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Wna247

While not an image review by any stretch , I have noticed that

  • Neymar Jr presentation - Press conference for PSG 001.jpg - is a watermarked image
  • File:PSG logos.png - these are logos of a brand, whether they are past logos or not they will still be copyrighted might need a FUR statement creating for the copyright.
  • File:PSG_iconic_shirts.png - Again same as above for these. However on other articles I have seen the Football Kit Template used to show previous kits in a article instead of a picture. See Manchester United Kit evolution for an example.

Also I see a lot of web and news sites could certain aspects of the article be referenced from a published reputable book sources.

Comment by Cas Liber

Would agree with Kosack that I think withdrawing and opening up at Peer Review would be more productive. Anyway some comments..

  • Can you make a stub page for the predecessor club Stade St Germain? It currently ports though to french wikipedia directly (not of much use to a non-French speaker like me).
  • Actually, if the club un-merged to PSG and Paris FC, is the new club then synonymous with the old one (Stade St Germain)? What do sources say?
  • Also, I understand the History section is a summary of the daughter article History of Paris Saint-Germain F.C., but it could e a little larger and give a more coherent chronology.

Had a bit of a look, but I think it needs going over before FAC. Happy to help at Peer Review. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:47, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • The writing is flowery in places and needs copyediting.
Coord note

Given the comments above and the fact there's been no responses from the nominator, I've going to archive this. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:07, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 29 May 2020 [14].

We Are One (global collaboration song)

[edit]
Nominator(s): Aanuarif (talk) 10:21, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a global collaboration song at a time when the world population is living in isolation under lockdown situation. Kashan Admani, the producer of the song, invited 39 other musicians from India, Canada, USA, UK, Brazil, Russia, and Pakistan to sing a song for hope. We Are One is about inspiring hope and give a message of unity. I think it should be on the featured category because the effort is commendable and legendary musicians like Charlie Bisharat, Simon Phillips, and more are featuring in it. ... Aanuarif (talk) 10:21, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose We are less than 48 hours from when the song dropped. There isn't a way we can have a complete article at this time. Also, the sourcing needs some work. @Aanuarif: you may want to withdraw this and submit this to WP:DYK --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 19:38, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, suggest closure I'm not sure that this is even a B-class article given that the coverage of the song is patchy (what style is it? who wrote it? what are the lyrics about, etc?). This nomination is greatly premature as a result, and should be closed. Nick-D (talk) 22:44, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note -- yes, aside from the comments above, pls remember that the 'worthiness' of an article has nothing to do with its quality, which is what is judged here. If you can expand this with reliable sources I'd suggest trying for GA, and looking at PR, before considering a re-nom here. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:38, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 25 May 2020 [15].

2019 Tour de France

[edit]
Nominator(s): BaldBoris 19:36, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The most recent race, which has had a a fair few contributors. I helped get it to a respectable state for ITN last July and soon after readied it for GAR, which it passed last week. My other Tour FAs are 2012 (17 January 2017) and 1962 (4 March 2019). BaldBoris 19:36, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from John M Wolfson

[edit]
  • starting on 6 July in Brussels, Belgium, and concluding on 28 July with the Champs-Élysées stage in Paris. Inconsistent locations named (stages vs. cities, and the country given for Brussels but not Paris).
    Changed to ", starting in Belgian capital of Brussels on 6 July, before moving throughout France and concluding on the Champs-Élysées in Paris on 28 July." BaldBoris 02:07, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • honour of the 50th anniversary of the first Tour de France win of Eddy Merckx. Mention that Merckx is Belgian for those unfamiliar.
    Removed, as it's not leadworthy. BaldBoris 02:07, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • the peloton (main group). The wikilink might be sufficient, but this might just be me.
    I've used "peloton (main group)" ever since I saw a comment made by the now-retired Neelix on this FAC. BaldBoris 02:07, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 02:19, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • all of its eighteen UCI WorldTeams were entitled, and obliged, should be "18" per the MoS.
  • He then started the Tour de Suisse, but a crash on half-way through the nine-stage race saw him abandon and require recovery time. This put in doubt his ability to perform at the Tour. This could be combined; the latter sentence should at least be rewritten.
    Rewritten. If you care to take a look at the first two paragraphs, I've now reassessed the leading favourites as it caused quite a stir with users during the race and passed me by. BaldBoris 02:07, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The entire route was unveiled on 25 October 2018, which the race director Christian Prudhomme described as "the highest Tour in history." → The entire route, which the race director Christian Prudhomme described as "the highest Tour in history", was unveiled on 25 October 2018. Or something to that effect; I'm not a fan of deliberately introducing more commas, but I think the relative clause should be closer to the antecedent.
  • Four main individual classifications were contested in the 2019 Tour de France, as well as a team competition. → Four main individual classifications and a team competition were contested in the race.
  • also holding the lead of the team and nation ranking respectively.[109][110] [108] There's an unwarranted space before the last ref, which is also out of order.
    A mistake I made yesterday. Removed. BaldBoris 02:07, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise this looks good and I'm inclined to support. I intend to take WikiCup points from this review. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 01:00, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All done, with replies. Thank you John. BaldBoris 02:07, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you. I have some more concerns.
    • Despite this, the decision of team leadership between him, Thomas and Egan Bernal was not yet resolved. I assume this means that who would be the race winner within the team was still uncertain, but this can be rewritten to be a lot clearer. Also, It's best practice to cite the sentences about Froome.
      The riders compete individually, apart from the team classification, but at all costs sacrifice winning for their team's leader, but when there's two or more equal leaders it becomes messy. I believe it's something quite unique to cycling and most don't initially understand. It's come up more than once in my past reviews. I've made it a bit clearer. Although I agree, both cites do cover all that precede them. BaldBoris 04:53, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      I've now separated the cites. BaldBoris 05:09, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • In the Tour, he was to share the leadership with Thomas according to the team,[27] although some in the media expected and internal battle between the two. This somewhat contradicts the assumption made above if I'm not mistaken. Please clarify what exactly team leadership is in this context. Also, I believe it should be "an internal battle."
      Hopefully it makes sense now. BaldBoris 04:53, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think "collarbone" is common enough to not be linked.
    • Other riders expected to place high in the general classification, or in some cases being dark horses, were Separate the expected-high in classification riders and the dark horses into different sentences.
      Remove dark horses. I didn't write it and wouldn't have. BaldBoris 04:53, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

– John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 02:19, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done the above. I've also just made a few final improvements to the "Classification leadership and minor prizes" section (sorry). BaldBoris 04:53, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie

[edit]

I'm copyediting as I go; revert anything you don't like.

  • Despite the latter, the decision of who would become the designated team leader for the Tour between Froome, Thomas and Egan Bernal was not yet resolved. The source given doesn't mention Bernal as a candidate for team leader, and given that we've just mentioned Froome's absence it's hard to see what was hard about the decision. I assume the source predates Froome's crash but the article doesn't make it clear we're going back in time here.
    Changed to "Prior to Froome's withdrawal". BaldBoris 17:00, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    That fixes the timing issue, but the new citation doesn't say the leadership is unresolved -- on the contrary, it explicitly says Froome will lead the team with Thomas. I'm not clear whether they mean Froome will lead, and Thomas will be on the team with him, or Froome and Thomas will be co-leaders, but either way there doesn't appear to be anything unresolved. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:53, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Replaced with two sources from four days earlier, one of which quotes the team manager Dave Brailsford. I think in the last source they presumed, like most, that Froome would lead. Team leadership can be messy in cycling, especially in the Tour. BaldBoris 21:00, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I'm still not seeing this. The closest I see to a supporting source is the comment in the Cycling News piece about the Ineos leadership looking murky, but is it really fair to report that in the article as "unresolved" given the quote I referred to above? I think the import of the sources I've seen (and I'm sure I haven't digested them as well as you have) is that Ineos had an embarrassment of riches, and leadership could well have been up in the air, but Froome was the leader. The fact that Brailsford even has to answer questions about it is of course relevant, but that piece doesn't say Bernal is a possible leader. I just can't see support for "unresolved". And Brailsford even explicitly refers to Bernal as a domestique. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:06, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Nothing says "Froome was [would be] the leader"? Perhaps "unresolved" wasn't the best choice of words. 'Leader' in cycling can simply mean the guy, at any time, with the best chance of winning that they give full support to. It's a valid point as Froome has been the team's unequivocal pre-race Tour leader since 2013. With three of the best riders they would never have said who would go in as leader. I removed the Brailsford source as he was understandably coy. Bernal is now mentioned as a potential 'leader' in all sources. BaldBoris 01:51, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    So "leader" doesn't mean anything parallel to a captain of a team in football or cricket? I can't find the quote I mentioned above, so perhaps I was misremembering it. And I see you took out "designated", but one of the sources talks about Froome wanting to be the "boss" at the Tour, so it does look like this is a position nominated by Ineos, not just a general term for a contender? I do see "Egan Bernal's change of programme makes the Ineos leadership situation even more murky" so it's clear now that the sources are using the term the same way you are, so I'm going to strike this, but I am still confused about what "leader" really means in a team. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:29, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    To my knowledge, rider titles aren't officially given apart from leaders getting the first number of a team in startlists. The leader is usually the best all-rounder who 'leads' a team's challenge of winning a race, which in multi-stage races is considered the individually competed general classification. Most teams will have one rider who is clearly the best and which the team is built around. Some teams will have a few top riders, causing a leadership 'battle'. A top rider capable of competing for the high places in a general classification would not want to be a domestique (servant) for a leader. Team Ineos would have had three of the very top riders in one race if not for Froome's withdrawal. Road captains are experienced riders that make the tactical decisions on the road, together with the managers following in cars behind. I hope gives you a better idea. Perhaps an entry here Glossary of cycling#team leader would be a good idea. BaldBoris 00:02, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we really need the inline explanation of the Giro d'Italia in the sentence about Dumoulin? The fact that he'd won it in 2017 is a bit more relevant in that it makes it clear he was a favourite, but I don't think it's necessary -- the reader can click through to Dumoulin's article if they want to see why he's considered a contender.
    Is it not a fair assumption that the average reader has no idea that the Giro is a Grand Tour, and with that is stood above other races. I just see it as aiding, but if you feel them unnecessary I'll drop both. BaldBoris 17:00, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair point; struck. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:53, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • First signs of improving form came with a third-place overall finish at the Tour de Romandie in early May: a nitpick, but the source doesn't say third-place, it just says podium finish, so we need another source. I also think this is a slight SYNTH; the source just says it's his only decent result, but "first signs of improving form" imply a trajectory which the source doesn't talk about. I think this should be more along the lines of the source "the only good result" or something like that.
    Changed to "His only result of note before the Tour". I did query "First signs of improving" as I was doing the double checking. BaldBoris 17:00, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

More this evening or tomorrow. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:37, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • What does "ASO" stand for?
    Amaury Sport Organisation, stated before in 2019 Tour de France#Teams. BaldBoris 21:00, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the table of stages the strikeout stopped me dead in my tracks. I see why you did it, and the footnote is right there explaining it, but it would be good to come up with a way to at least hint at what happened without the footnote. How about "89 km (55 mi) (originally 126.5 km (79 mi))" with the footnote?
    To me a strike anywhere clearly means cancelled or similar, but I understand how it could confuse. I think "originally" is too much for a table cell. Maybe just move the original distance into the note? BaldBoris 21:00, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm looking for a concise way to tell the reader that there were two distances involved. What if we put the original distances in parentheses, without strikeouts, and add a sentence just above the table saying explaining that the parenthetical distances refer to the original plan? Or use "orig." instead of "originally"? I just don't like leaving something so confusing to a footnote. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:06, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand what you mean, but data tables such as this should only include expected values. Adding any text would disjoint the column and then the table. The form locations and distances are almost irrelevant to the table, as it's stating the details of the completed stages, not what might have happened. So, the the striked can go as I said. I still think a note is suffiecent, either just below the table or as is. I could take it to WT:CYCLING? BaldBoris 01:51, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    So it would be the shorter distances in the table, with a footnote explaining the change? That would work. I agree that anything more would make the table ugly. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:16, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I've moved the struck things into the notes, which have to be in to "Notes" section at the because the stage 19 note is also used in the "Classification leadership and minor prizes" section. BaldBoris 00:02, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the aforementioned stage, Alaphilippe took the victory: I can't tell which stage this is.
    The final words of the previous sentence: "the following day's time trial". Is that not better than repeating "time trial" again? BaldBoris 21:00, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    How about combining those two paragraphs, and making it "the following day's time trial, which was won instead by Alaphilippe..."? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:06, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Following chasers Bernal and Buchmann and the last of the few breakaway riders, the overall contenders, led by Thomas, came in 1' 22" behind Yates. Syntax here seems muddled -- the breakaway riders are the overall contenders? Including the chasers?
    Rephrased. It was confusing because before it there's ", progressing to fourth overall.", which is stated because earlier it mentions he was sitting down in 11th. But the next paragraph does mention him in fourth? BaldBoris 21:00, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The new phrasing works for me. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:06, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bernal and Buchmann following Pinot closely in fifth and sixth respectively: too difficult to parse -- took me a second to realize that Pinot was fourth and you just skipped saying so. How about just "with Pinot, Bernal and Buchmann not far behind"? The reader can figure out the positions easily.
    Very muddled ha. Changed to "followed closely by Pinot, Bernal and Buchmann respectively". Your proposal doesn't make it explicit that they were next in 4th, 5th and 6th. BaldBoris 21:00, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • leading by over a minute and a half at the summit, which he held on the descent to the finish: needs rephrasing -- he didn't hold onto the summit. How about "and by the summit had built a lead of over a minute and a half, which..."?
    Done. I need to stop myself from doing this. BaldBoris 21:00, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not an issue for the FAC, but I suspect that the young riders were those born "on or after 1 January 1994", not just after. The article matches the source though, so we'll have to wait till a young rider born on New Year's Day wins the classification to find out for sure.
    I agree. It's not what I used to put, but it is technically correct. BaldBoris 21:00, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's everything. A clean article; once these minor issues are fixed I expect to support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:33, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just two points left above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:06, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the delay, I unwatched this page somehow. BaldBoris 01:51, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support. The only issue left is the struck numbers in the table; I think moving them to a footnote is the right answer, having given up on finding a better way to do it, but that's not going to hold up my support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:11, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your work and the support. BaldBoris 00:02, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note

[edit]

Repeating myself from the concurrent TdF nom but again this has been open two months and seems to have stalled despite its presence in the urgents list for over two weeks, so again time to archive. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:28, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 25 May 2020 [16].

1998 Tour de France

[edit]
Nominator(s): Zwerg Nase (talk) 18:33, 25 March 2020 (UTC) and BaldBoris[reply]

This article is about the 85th running of the Tour de France, the most famous bicycle race in the world. It is pretty much in the same shape as when it passed GA, but I feel that it is close to FA as it is. Every comment and suggestion is very welcome! Zwerg Nase (talk) 18:33, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

@Nikkimaria: I don't know what the original creator of the graphic used all those years ago, but I've added a source for the information to the Wikicommons page. Zwerg Nase (talk) 16:39, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
User:Andrei loas made more maps, and posted [one of them] as SVG. I checked the source code of that SVG, it has the following meta-data:
<dc:date>09/2008</dc:date>
<dc:creator>
 <cc:Agent>
  <dc:title>Eric Gaba (user Sting) for Wikipedia</dc:title>
 </cc:Agent>
</dc:creator>
<dc:source>NGDC World Data Base II</dc:source>
User Sting did indeed make maps of France in September of 2008 (see [his page on Commons]), but I don't know which one was used. I think it would be good to credit Sting, and maybe put "NGDC World Data Base II" somewhere?.--EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 15:48, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@EdgeNavidad: Like this? Zwerg Nase (talk) 17:33, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Seems right to me. One day, somebody should go through all Andrei's maps and add the sources, but that's not on topic for this review. --EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 18:51, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@EdgeNavidad:Since I plan on doing all Tour years, at least here, all maps will eventually be dealt with... Zwerg Nase (talk) 19:00, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by NapHit

[edit]
  • "Jan Ullrich (Team Telekom) was the defending champion, having won the 1997 edition's overall general classification with an over nine-minute lead." change to Jan Ullrich (Team Telekom) was the defending champion. He won the 1997 edition's overall general classification by more than nine minutes.
Split the sentences, but kept the tense, since I think past perfect is correct for the second sentence.
  • "In March 1998, El País headlined an article with "Ullrich is fat", highlighting that by this point he was still 8 kg (18 lb) over the weight he had during the previous Tour. change highlighting that to which highlighted
Done.
  • "His preparation was worsened when he suffered a cold during Tirreno–Adriatico, having to retire from the race." change to His preparation suffered further when he was forced to retire from Tirreno-Adriatico with a cold.
DOne
  • "erasing doubt over his form." not sure if doubt should be plural here. I assume there was more than one person who doubted his form?
Done.
  • "gaining his third Tour prologue victory."
Are you certain? I feel that it sounds very weird if I take the verb out of that second part of the sentence.
gaining is the wrong verb to use here, you could switch to "to win his third Tour prologue." instead. That probably works better. NapHit (talk) 11:35, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The second, third and fourth-placed finishers Abraham Olano, Laurent Jalabert and Bobby Julich all had times that were four seconds more, with Jan Ullrich finishing sixth, five seconds behind Boardman." change to The second, third and fourth-placed finishers Abraham Olano, Laurent Jalabert and Bobby Julich finished four seconds behind, with Jan Ullrich who finished sixth, a further second behind.
Done.
  • "in a crash caused by his teammate." Do we know which teammate caused the crash? Might be worth including
Done.
  • " with Festina's Pascal Hervé claiming the mountains classification lead." change to while Festina's Pascal Hervé led the mountains classification.
Done.
  • "The second and third placers..." is placers a word? Sounds odd to me. I would rewrite this sentence to avoid the construction of placers
Done.
  • ", with O'Grady winning two of them to end the day with an eleven-second overall advantage over both Hincapie and Hamburger." make this another sentence and change to O'Grady won two of them to end the day with an eleven-second overall advantage over both Hincapie and Hamburger.
Done.
  • "Cipollini would again be successful on the following stage, winning the bunch sprint into Brive-la-Gaillarde." change to Cipollini won the following stage, a bunch sprint into Brive-la-Gaillarde.
Done.
  • "Before that start of stage 5." change that to the
Done.
  • ", later saying that he had held himself back in anticipation of the upcoming Pyrenees." change to " he said later that he had held himself back in anticipation of the upcoming Pyrenees.
Done.
  • "Stage 8 was hilly and had very high temperatures; it ended with a group of six riders which fought out the victory 7:45 minutes ahead of the peloton." Few problems with this sentence. First part implies the stage had high temperatures, I think what you mean is that on the day of the stage the temperature was high. The second part reads awkwardly. Fought out is not ideal here, I'd try and reword it so it reads clearer.
Done.
  • "Temperatures increased to a high of 44 °C (111 °F) during the following stage, which saw Rabobank rider Léon van Bon win the final sprint which was contested between a four-man breakaway that was able to hold off the closing field by 12 seconds." This is a really long sentence. Split it up so it reads easier.
Done.

That's a few to get started with. I'll come back finish the rest of the article tomorrow. NapHit (talk) 19:36, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@NapHit: Thank you for your comments, see above for my responses. Looking forward to more :) Zwerg Nase (talk) 10:12, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, I'll get to this later today. :) NapHit (talk) 11:35, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

More...

  • "and lastly the Col de Peyresourde..." change lastly to finally
  • "teammates Rodolfo Massi and Alberto Elli had been formed by the foot of the Tourmalet." you can change this to, formed at the foot of the Tourmalet. Had been is redundant.
  • "Massi moved clear from his fellow breakers..." is breakers common terminology in cycling for members of a breakaway? I've never heard that term before when I've watched cycling. I'd change it to 'moved* clear from the other riders in the breakaway.
All three above done.
  • "As they did in that stage, the peloton agreed not to begin racing until after the first 45 km (28 mi)," what you're saying is that it was customary to not race until the 45km point? The first part of the sentence doesn't make this clear. Is this done every year, or just when the tour passes by this particular point. I would rewrite the sentence to specify this point.
Reworded, this wasn't actually written by me. Yes, it is customary when the Tour visits the Portet d'Aspet, I think 1998 was the first time the race was back after Casartelli died, but I am not sure. Have just removed the first part of the sentence, which should make it clearer.
  • "As the field headed the race at the bottom of the 16 km (9.9 mi) climb..." I don't understand what the field headed the race at the bottom means. I'm a cycling fan and that sentence is confusing so it will be very confusing to a non-cycling fan.
Reworded.
  • "They were also unhappy with the looming expulsion of the TVM team, against which the police had renewed their investigation which was started in March, as well as journalists going through waste containers at team hotels, searching for evidence of performance-enhancing drugs." This is a long sentence. I would split it into two where the comma after March is.
Done.
  • "Jalabert then went on the attack over a short climb with his brother Nicolas (Cofidis) and Bart Voskamp (TVM), who built up a lead of over five minutes." It's not clear whether the group built up the five-minute lead or whether it was Voskamp. The way the last part of the sentence reads suggests it was Voskamp. This needs to be reworded to make it clear whether the five-minute gap belonged to the group or a sole rider.
Clarified.
  • "He subsequently suffered from the cold..." cold weather or cold as in the illness?
Clarified.
  • "Pantani's Mercatone Uno team coped well in defending his yellow over the four..." missing a word after yellow
Reworded.
  • "he mountains classification was won by a more consistent Rinero..." change a to the
Done.
  • "First news stories..." Sentence should start with The
Done.
  • " meaning to test the amount of red cells in the blood." -> which tested how many red cells were in a rider's blood.
Done.
  • "Failing to test below the given value resulted in the rider being barred from competing for a two-week period." -> If a rider returned a value higher than 50 per cent, they were not allowed to compete for a two-week period.
Done,
  • "However, as cycling journalist Alasdair Fotheringham described it..." replace described it with noted
Done.
  • "Initially the doping suspicion..."
Done.
  • "this edition of the Tour also became nicknamed by many media sources as the "Tour de Farce." -> this edition of the Tour became known by many media sources as the "Tour de Farce."
Hmm, but that makes it sound like only the media sources know the nickname. I want to make clear that they coined the nickname. Will rephrase differently.
  • "the police's investigation against the TVM team..."
Done.
  • "revealing that eight riders took EPO and four amphetamines." revealing should be revealed as the examinations was not ongoing at this point
Done.

That's it from me. An enjoyable read of a crazy Tour! NapHit (talk) 21:26, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@NapHit: I have reacted to all the points. Hope this is satisfactory! Zwerg Nase (talk) 15:20, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
All looks good to me, I'm happy to support now! Great work! NapHit (talk) 16:18, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! :) Zwerg Nase (talk) 18:10, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie

[edit]

I'll copyedit as I read through; please revert anything you disagree with.

  • and generally considered to be the most famous bike race in the world: I don't think this is needed. I looked at a few other Tour de France articles and this seems to be the only one that includes the phrase. It's certainly true, but it belongs in the parent article -- it's not a comment about this race, it's a comment about the Tour de France itself. Would you add this comment to an article about the 1905 Tour, for example?
Hmm, I added this originally in the 1989 article, but it's gone there as well, so I'll remove it here as well.
  • You define soigneur in parentheses in the body, but not in the lead; if it needs an explanation in the body it definitely needs it in the lead.
Done.
  • The second, third and fourth-placed finishers Abraham Olano, Laurent Jalabert and Bobby Julich all finished four seconds behind, with Jan Ullrich, who finished sixth, a further second behind: this doesn't match the numbers given in 1998 Tour de France, Prologue to Stage 11; which is correct? Even if this is correct I'd mention the others who finished on the same time as Ullrich -- it sounds odd to mention sixth but not fifth. You don't need to name them all, just say Ullrich was in a group that all finished with the same time.
True, that was wrong. Fixed and rewritten.
  • after the pair had broken away late from a nine-rider breakaway: rephrase to avoid "broken away from a...breakaway".
Replaced with "escaped".
  • losing the points he had earned from his tenth-place finish and ultimately the green jersey to Zabel, who finished second in the stage: "ultimately" doesn't seem like the right word; it wasn't a later or derived consequence. How about "losing the points he had earned from his tenth-place finish. Svorada's green jersey went to Zabel, who finished second in the stage."
Done.

More to come, probably tonight. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:46, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Christie: So far, all done. Thank you for the comments and also for the very good copyediting! Zwerg Nase (talk) 17:52, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • against which the police had renewed their investigation which was started in March: can we make this "which the police had been investigating since March", or is the fact that the investigation was now renewed a key point?
Indeed, that is the main point, as mentioned above, in March, the police didn't see much sense in investigating, only after the Festina affair broke, did they get back into it.
  • Generally the first part of that paragraph seems a bit repetitive. Right now it says Anger had grown among the riders amid the treatment of them by the police and the press in light of the evolving Festina affair. They were also unhappy with the looming expulsion of the TVM team, against which the police had renewed their investigation which was started in March. Likewise, journalists going through waste containers at team hotels, searching for evidence of performance-enhancing drugs, drew anger from the peloton. This says the riders were angry with the police, and the press, and the police, and the press. Does the first sentence refer to more than the journalists searching for evidence, and the police investigation of TVM? If so, more details would help; if not, I think this can be compressed.
True, I have cut it down.
  • the majority of the riders sat down in the road and entered into a strike. "entered into a strike" doesn't add much; I'd suggest "the majority of the riders sat down in the road and refused to start the stage" as being more direct. And what did the remaining riders do? Did they start the stage?
Well, I did not want to get into the entire saga in full detail. At the beginning, when the riders sat down, nobody moved, but some riders did not protest by sitting down. I have tried to clarify it.
  • The biggest influence during the strike was attributed to: not very fluent; can we make this something like "the leaders of the group who refused to ride", or "instigators"? and do the sources support "were" (no doubts expressed) instead of "attributed to" (implying no confirmation)?
Yes, the sources (well, mainly Fotheringham in this case) clearly name them, so I have reworded it.
  • The shortened stage was run at an average speed of 48.764 km/h (30.301 mph), breaking the Tour record of the fastest ever stage over 200 km (120 mi),[118] as well as the third-fastest of any distance stage in Tour history. I don't follow this at all. I don't see anything about the stage being shortened in any way, and you also say the riders rode very slowly to start with. Plus the distance is listed in the table above as 190 km, not over 200 km. What am I missing?
I have cut the first statement, since that indeed does not make much sense, I am unsure where Edwards takes that from, considering the stage was shortened. I don't own the book myself, so I cannot check. The fact that the stage was shortened is mentioned in the "Route and stages" section, but I will add the information here as well.
Well, you're limited by what the sources say, but I think something has to be wrong. The peloton was at one point 16 km ahead of Jalabert's group, so even if the peloton was going at a normal speed (which apparently it wasn't) Jalabert's effective speed must have been vastly faster than the average based on the start and end time of the stage. Do you have access to any other sources that give the time the stage finally began and concluded, or the duration of the ride? Something simply has to be wrong here. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:32, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Mike Christie: Well, the early part of the stage, that saw no real racing, is the part that was cut. So basically, the stage only started when everybody was together again and then Jalabert went on the attack and was later caught. Apparently I will have to make that clearer. Also, the sources here are a little confusing. For instance, The Guardian claims that indeed 205 km were raced eventually, but I don't think that is true and is due to the confusion of writing a newspaper article straight after the events unfolded and retrospective sources are probably more reliable here. But one can see where the original confusion in the article came from... Zwerg Nase (talk) 19:52, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK, that makes sense. Supporting below. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:24, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see stage 8 is described as "hilly", though it's a flat stage; I assume "hilly" here means "hilly for a flat stage, but nothing like a mountain stage"?
Have removed this since it is confusing. Again, this comes from Edwards, which is a book I don't own. But yes, it was classified as a flat stage but had minor climbs.
  • There are a couple of stages without even a sentence devoted to them; just checking that that's deliberate (e.g. stages 9 and 14).
Stage 9 is covered right after stage 8 (van Bon the winner), same applies for stage 14, won by O'Grady. I have however not devoted seperate paragraphs to each of the minor stages, since I felt that it drew out the text too long. But I can change that if you think it's better that way.
Right, my misreading. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:32, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, they probably should, I have actually mentioned that on the talk page a long time ago. However, with going through the race articles one-by-one, I don't really find the time to sit down and do it myself...
  • Therefore, media sources coined nicknames for the race, such as the "Tour de Farce"[152][153][154] or "Tour du Dopage" (Tour of Doping). Did this happen during the Tour or as the following events unfolded? Whichever it is should be clear to the reader.
The Spiegel source suggests it was during the race, so I have clarified it. I also remember the terms being around back then, but that is not really a source, is it? :D
  • Both meetings yielded little results: I was thinking of changing this to "Neither meeting yielded..." but realized I wasn't sure if "no results" was what was meant. If so I'd make it "Neither meeting yielded useful results".
Hmm, I am a little on the fence about this, since "useful" has a normative ring to it, like the author of the article is determining what could be considered useful. I have instead changed it to a direct quotation by Fotheringham.
  • considering that the ASO had failed to comply with a thirty-day registration period: I don't understand this.
I have tried to clarify.
  • following the organisers' assessment that, unlike at TVM, the doping culture in the team had changed: needs rewording, since presumably the point was that there was no doping culture in the team any more.
I have reworded this a little bit, also to be more in line with the source and added another source from Fotheringham to make it clearer.
  • extraordinary performances in cycling have been viewed under a cover of suspicion of doping: "under a cover of suspicion" isn't quite right. Does Fotheringham mean that people suspect doping when they hear of extraordinary performances? If so, how about "have been viewed with suspicion, because of the possibility of doping"?
Done, though with a slightly different wording.

That's it from me. Some infelicitous phrasing here and there, and as a result I've copyedited a bit more than normal. Generally this seems to be in pretty good shape. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:44, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Christie: Thank you very very much for the thorough review! Zwerg Nase (talk) 18:12, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Struck nearly everything; just the point about the speed left -- I think something has to be wrong there. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:32, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Mike Christie: Feel free to check if this makes more sense. Zwerg Nase (talk) 20:00, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support. All issues fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:24, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note

[edit]

Sorry but this review has been open two months and appears to have stalled despite being in the urgents list for over two weeks, so I'm going to archive. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:20, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 25 May 2020 [17].

Changsha Kingdom

[edit]
Nominator(s): Esiymbro (talk) 10:09, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a vassal kingdom of early Han dynasty China, notably the only one that is not ruled by the imperial clan. Changsha is one of the better known among the kingdoms, but overall, this is perhaps still a relatively overlooked topic in Chinese history. The article has recently passed GA review, and hopefully it is also up to FA standards now.

This is my first FAC nomination but the article's language and style have been much improved thanks to the DYK and GA reviews. I'll try my best to solve any remaining issue. All feedback is welcome! Esiymbro (talk) 10:09, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

[edit]

NB, I intend to claim points in the WikiCup for this review.

I have done some

  • "until Wu Zhu died without an heir." Could we have a date after this. Which will also tell a reader the duration of the kingdom, which ought to be early in a lead.
  • Or add to the first sentence ', which existed 203 –157 BC, 157 BC – 9 AD and 26 – 33 AD'
    • Added several dates to the lead, including those of Wu Zhu's death and the second interruption of the kingdom.
  • "was then still fertile lowlands" I think "still" is redundant.
    • Done.
  • "he organized a mostly Baiyue army to rebel" To rebel against what he organized a mostly Baiyue army to rebel? And/or, to what end?
    • I've provided some background for this period, so that it is now clear that he was against the Qin.
  • The infobox map legend. Optional: indicate which is the Changsha Kingdom. Eg 'Changsha Kingdom shown in light green, bottom centre'.
    • Done.
  • "The capital was known as Linxiang". "was known as" seems to beg questions? Why not simply 'was'?
    • Indeed, removed the 'known as'.
  • "survive the emperor's campaign" Upper case E, as you are referring to a specific emperor, per MOS:JOBTITLES.
    • Done.
  • "was forced to rebel" Again this seems to beg a question. Perhaps briefly state why, or change to 'rebelled'?
    • Changed to 'rebelled' – I think its cause will be difficult to explain in one or two sentences, so I left it out.
  • "the king of Changsha pretended to assist him" Upper case K.
    • Changed this and some other similar cases.
  • "Wu Chen reigned for 8 years" "8" → 'eight', per MOS:NUMERAL. Other, similar, cases also need changing.
    • All changed.
  • Link "enfeoffed" - Feoffment.
    • Done.

Looking pretty good so far. Nice work. More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:14, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Zhao Tuo, King of Nanyue" In another case when you use this formulation ("Ying Bu, king of Huainan") you use a lower case k. There are arguments either way, but you should be consistent.
    • All changed to uppercase now.
  • "but subtle differences remained" Remained from what?
    • It's from the imperial government. It is mentioned in the first sentence 'closely followed that of the Han central government', and I edited the following paragraph to make it clearer.
Yes, that works.
  • "Citations" Several "p." should be 'pp.'.
    • All corrected.
  • Hucker is in the bibliography, but is not cited.
    • This source is used mainly for the translation of Chinese terms, so there is no inline citations yet. How do you think should the citations be added, or should I remove this entry altogether?
  • I have boldly moved it to "Further reading". If you don't like this, feel free to revert. Alternatively, you could add a sentence to this section explaining the book's role.
I see, that works well.
  • Li Shisheng, Wu and Yi need identifiers.
    • These journals probably don't have DOIs. Will urls be sufficient? I've added the links.
Ho hum. OK, let's leave it for whoever does the source review.
  • Loewe and Harper need page numbers.
    • Done.
  • "All of the imperial Nine Ministers also" One of "All" or "also" is redundant.
    • Done.
  • "Rice was the main staple food" One of "main" or "staple" is redundant.
    • Done.
  • "domesticated animals including pigs, cattle, sheep, dogs, and chickens and game animals and fowl including deer, hares, wild geese, Mandarin ducks, wild ducks, bamboo partridges, cranes, doves, magpies, owls, and sparrows." You have "and" three times in that list, which reads a little clumsily. Also, are you sure that deer and hares are types of fowl?
    • Rewritten the sentence, added "game animals" to the list.
Nice.
  • "A selection of beers, made from wheat, millet, and rice, was also available." This reads more like a sales brochure than an encyclopedia entry. Could you consider rephrasing?
    • Changed 'available' to 'discovered', that probably sounds better.
  • Link zither.
    • Done.
  • "Science and Technology" section header. Lower case t per MOS:SECTIONCAPS.
    • Done.
  • "Ironware had become available for agricultural and military application" What is "had become" alluding to? As opposed to, say, 'was'.
    • Done, changed to 'was'. It seems that was not a totally new development, so 'Ironware was available' will be better.

A cracking article. I enjoyed that. That's it from me for now. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:23, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: Many thanks for taking the time to review! I've corrected most of the issues here, and replied to the others. Esiymbro (talk) 03:50, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I started to say above that I have done a little copy editing, and that you should let me know if you are unhappy with any of my changes. But I only got part way through the sentence. Apologies. I have done a little more, and the same applies.
A fine article. Impressive on first reading and prompt and effective responses to my comments. Are you sure that this is your first FAC? Happy to support. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:30, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Great to hear that :) Esiymbro (talk) 03:38, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley

[edit]
  • The Changsha Kingdom was a kingdom of China's Han dynasty, located in present-day Hunan and some surrounding areas." I find this confusing as I would take it to mean that it was independent but you say above that it was a vassal kingdom. For clarity, maybe "The Changsha Kingdom was a vassal kingdom of China's Han dynasty, located in the south of the empire in present-day Hunan and some surrounding areas."
  • Edited to 'a kingdom within the Han Empire of China'. I'm a bit hesitant to use the term "vassal", though. In Chinese contexts, the term seem to be more commonly applied to non-Chinese states outside of China proper (for example the Xiongnu in later Han times).
  • Is it well established that each king was the son of the previous one? Five generations in 24 years (203-179 BC) seems unlikely.
  • The sources indeed say that they were all sons. But the ancient Chinese usually marry and have children in late teenage years, and there's also the fact that Wu Rui was already quite old in 203 BC. Assuming he was 60 at that time, we'll have 84 years for 5 generations, 17 on average, so still a bit short but not too unrealistic.
  • "the Changsha branch of the Liu family saw its autonomy greatly diminished". The relevance of this comment is unclear without explanation. Had the kingship been granted to a member of the Liu family? Did they side with the rebels?
  • The 'Liu family' is supposed to mean the imperial family, changed to that.
  • "Changsha was one of the largest and longest-lasting kingdoms of the Han dynasty." I think it would again be helpful to clarify with "vassal kingdoms".
  • Changed.
  • "Changsha was relatively advanced in technology and art." Relatively advanced compared with what? Other vassal kingdoms?
  • Rewritten this part.
  • "the magistrate of Poyang County under the Qin" For clarity maybe "the previous dynasty, the Qin".
  • Done, added the time span of Qin dynasty.
  • "When the Chu Hegemon-King Xiang Yu became the prominent leader in the rebellion" This is ungrammatical. I would say "the most prominent leader" or "the leader".
  • Done, added 'the most'.
  • I am confused about the fall of the Qin. Was it a three way fight with Rui defecting from Chu to Liu Bang? If so, you should say so.
  • "it was the only one to survive the Emperor's campaign to eliminate kings that were not members of the imperial family" This assumes that you have already mentioned the campaign. I would say in x year the emperor launched a campaign and Changsha was the only one to survive.
  • Done.
  • "who favored Huang–Lao political views" For clarity maybe "the Huang-Lao school of political thought".
  • Done.
  • "In 183 BC, however, Zhao Tuo proclaimed himself emperor in Nanyue and then twice invaded Changsha, occupying a few counties. The reason was Empress Lü's decision to ban the trade of iron ware" This raises several issues. Did he proclaim in Nanyue that he was emperor of China or of Nanyue? Was he trying to conquer Changsha? "The reason was" is vague and "the trade of iron ware" is ungrammatical. Maybe "In 183 BC the empress banned the export of iron wares to Nanyue, and Zhao Tuo retaliated by twice invading Changsha."
  • Done.
Thanks for taking the time to go over this article! About the language issue, I think the difficulty is perhaps caused by the historical background of this period. There were some very complex conflicts in the 3rd-2nd centuries BC period so it's inevitable that some parts may seem unclear without fully explaining the overall situation. I've rewritten the history section a bit and hopefully the chronology and events are a lot clearer now. Working on other issues soon. Esiymbro (talk) 06:33, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Dudley Miles: These are all great points, fixed now. Esiymbro (talk) 05:56, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • More comments
  • "After hearing news of the uprising, Wu Rui organized a mostly Baiyue army in support of the rebel." "the rebellion"?
  • Edited.
  • "Rui's army joined forces with the Han leader Liu Bang" You should link "Han" as it is the first mention in the main text.
  • Done.
  • "Hegemon-King Xiang Yu" What is a Hegemon-King? Is there an article you can link to?
  • Changed to simply 'king'.
  • "Han would eventually won its conflict with Chu" This is ungrammatical. Maybe "The Han would eventually win its conflict with the Chu"
  • Done.
  • Territory section. The places mentioned will mean nothing to many readers. Is any estimate of the area available?
  • Unfortunately no, but maybe I can add a map to display these locations.
  • "Changsha was sparsely populated compared to other parts of the Han dynasty." A dynasty being sparsely populated sounds wrong. I would say "Han empire".
  • Done.
  • "vassal kingdoms" You use this term twice although you say you do not like it.
  • All deleted. It's because much of this article was edited by earlier reviewers. I wouldn't use that myself, though.
  • "Except for the chancellor and grand tutor (太傅, tàifù) who were selected by the imperial court, all officials were appointed by the king." I think you need a comma after "tutor (太傅, tàifù)" for clarity.
  • Done.
  • "the grand tutor played a much more extensive role in a kingdom, as he supervised the king for the imperial government." I would say "on behalf of" the imperial government". Also, this contradicts the statement that the chancellor was highest. I think you should put the grand tutor at the start of Government section and clarify his power over the king and his government.
  • Adjusted the paragraph and moved the tutor's part higher up. The chancellor is still the highest office – the chancellor was also appointed by the emperor rather than the king himself, so the grand tutor's tasks would not have much to do with him. Based on the job's duties I also imagine that the tutor would not have direct power over other officials and affairs in the court, while the chancellor would.
  • "Meanwhile, the high status of the court clerk was similar to that of the Warring States rather than the Han central government." This means little unles you explain the status of the court clerk in the Warring States.
  • Added a brief explanation.
  • You have a section heading "Culture", but it also includes food. Maybe "Food and culture" or "Daily life"
  • Changed. What about 'culture and life'?
No problem with that, edited. Esiymbro (talk) 06:55, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Nick-D

[edit]

I'm embarrassed to say that I knew nothing about this topic coming into the article. I'd like to offer the following comments:

  • "that resulted in the collapse of Qin" - should this be "that resulted in the collapse of the Qin"?
  • Done.
  • "The Han would eventually won its conflict" - the grammar and tense are both off here
  • Rewritten the sentence.
  • "The campaign was eventually cancelled " - "cancelled" sounds a bit wrong here. Should it be "abandonded?"
  • Done.
Nothing to be embarrassed about, Nick! It is really an obscure topic, usually this will only get one or two sentences at most in a book on Chinese history.
As for the economy and living standards, I've moved some information on the economy (mainly about agriculture and artisanship) to a new standalone section. What do you think about this? I don't remember reading anything in the sources about details the Kingdom's daily life – I can't add much to this article right now since the coronavirus is keeping me at home, but once things settle down a bit I can hopefully go through the sources again and see if I can find more about the topic. Esiymbro (talk) 03:28, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That all looks good. Information about the economies of ancient civilisations tends to be fairly thin on the ground. I'm pleased to support this nomination. Nick-D (talk) 10:44, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass

[edit]

Nb. It is my intention to claim points for this review in the WikiCup.

  • "File:Han dynasty Kingdoms 195 BC.png" Source: the image may be "own work" - fine - but I assume that the information for it was drawn from a RS? Which needs to be cited, just like any other information in an article. See File:Battle of Cape Ecnomus map.svg for an example.
  • I've written the source at its commons page but forgot to cite here, added a citation now.
Ah. The original source is at the end of Description on the Commons page. I have added the cite to Source; feel free to edit it.
  • "File:Western Han Mawangdui Silk Map.JPG" Sadly, while the original map may be out of copyright, the photograph of it isn't - or, at least, no evidence has been presented that it is. It has been scanned from Artisans in early imperial China so I am doubtful.
  • "File:Banière funéraire, peinture sur soie, Chine.jpg" Similar to above. The photograph is dated to 2015 and no case is made for it being PD.
  • "File:Mawangdui Astrology Comets Ms.JPG" Similar. It seems to have been scanned direct from a book. It also lacks a US PD tag.
  • Changed to appropriate tag on Commons.
  • Consider adding alt text.
  • Done.

Gog the Mild (talk) 10:40, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For the three images in question I think the "faithful photographic reproduction of a two-dimensional, public domain work of art" tag should be enough for public domain status. They are all used in a lot of articles, especially the map which is also in the FA article "Sino-Roman relations". Esiymbro (talk) 14:14, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In which case could you put the map images PD tag(s) inside a =={{int:license-header}}== notice - as you have done for the comets and banner images. I was doubtful as to whether the funeral banner can be considered "two-dimensional", but on consideration I think that it can. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:49, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed the map image. Personally I think the banner is fine – but the 2-D requirement is a bit confusing indeed. Esiymbro (talk) 16:09, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All images are appropriately licenced, positioned, captioned and alt texted. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:19, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note

[edit]

Did I miss a source review? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:24, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. I originally came in to do a source review but spotted some prose and style issues that lead me to believe this isn't quite ready for promotion yet.

  • Given the length of the article a longer lead would be appropriate
The article itself is not very long (18 kb prose) so per MOS:LEADLENGTH the current lead should be sufficient. Maybe the second paragraph can be expanded a bit?
At the least. The lead should summarize the article, and at the moment it's almost entirely summarizing just the history section. Rereading it, I also wonder whether there should be a dedicated section or subsection outlining our sources of information about the kingdom - for example, after the lead the Mawangdui tombs are mentioned several times before we hit an explanation of what they are. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:30, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have concerns about some of the prose. Examples:
    All edited.
    Those specific examples, yes. The article would benefit from a more comprehensive pass for clarity and flow. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:30, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • "20 marquisates was created from Changsha. These marquisates were" - plural vs singular verb
    • "Numerous archaeological sites of the kingdom have been discovered and excavated; most notably Mawangdui" - incorrect punctuation
    • "measures 128 cm long by 190 cm wide but weights only 49 grams in total" - typo (should be "weighs") and also missing conversions
    • "until early the 1st century AD" - missing a word
    • "was among the weakest among the kingdoms" - repetitive
  • Infobox and text both give established date as 203/202 BC, but lead says only 202 - why?
202 BC was for the establishment of the Han empire, not the Changsha Kingdom. Made a small edit in case there is any ambiguity.
  • "was demoted first to the rank of duke and then to a commoner" - need a bit more context here. Is duke a high rank within the ranking system at that time? Are there many ranks between duke and commoner? How does it compare to the rank of marquis mentioned later?
"Stripped of his titles" would be a better expression here. The rank of duke (English translation of the title gong) was roughly equivalent in status to its western counterpart so it won't need much additional explanation.
At the moment the article doesn't provide enough information for a reader to know that, even assuming the average reader is familiar with duke vs marquis in the western system. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:30, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Curly quote marks shouldn't be used
I didn't find any ...?
  • The Economy and Science sections could do more to contextualize their contents. For example, how did diet and agriculture in this region compare to elsewhere in the empire? Are the texts mentioned specific to this region or imported from elsewhere? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:13, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The information on economy and science are all based on pieces of archeological evidence scattered in different tombs so I don't think making such a comparison will be easy. If you find it really important then maybe I can link the "Economy of the Han dynasty" and "Science and technology of the Han dynasty" articles or add a summary of them. As for the texts, they are all found exclusively in this region. I've edited the section to make it clear.
I think my point may have been unclear: my question is not whether currently these texts are specific to this region, but historically - were they written by Changsha scholars, or brought into Changsha from elsewhere? The last work is mentioned to be by a Chu author but for the others this is not stated. And yes, I think broader contextualization would be useful. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:30, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: I've addressed the issues. Most of these are relatively minor problems on language and style left over in previous rounds of reviews, I believe. If there are still any remaining it should be entirely possible for me to correct them in one run. Esiymbro (talk) 02:59, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • It is not immediately clear what the first source is citing. Upon checking it seems to be the basis for the map, but I haven't seen images sourced like that before. If it contains information that was useful to build that picture, than perhaps it contains information that can be introduced as prose as well? That would be better in terms of WP:ACCESS for those who can't see the map.
  • The second source is used to establish that "Changsha was one of the largest and longest-lasting kingdoms in Han China." However, this is not repeated in the article body, and the article body does not definitively support the statement, as it only compares its length with the kingdoms that were eliminated by 190 BC.
  • In the sentence "In 178 BC, the kingdom...", "the kingdom" should be changed, as the last entity mentioned was Nanyue.
  • The lead says the kingdom was "re-established" in 155 BC. That gives the impression it was somehow ended after the initial dynasty died, but the article prose doesn't explain the gap at all.
  • The beginning of the territorial extent section needs to be reworded. Instead of starting with a statement about a theoretical size, before saying it is unlikely, and then giving another theoretical size, then caveating, perhaps group the two sizes and then state both are unlikely, and then provide the explanations.
  • Is there a reason the final two kings did not receive Posthumous names?
  • As an overall point, the lead is insufficient as a summary of the article. It is also unbalanced, with 1 article section (history) take up the majority of the lead.

Comments aside, I enjoyed reading about the topic, and appreciate how cleanly the historiography is worked into the text. CMD (talk) 11:37, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Additional coord note

[edit]

@Nikkimaria and Chipmunkdavis: How are things standing with your comments/oppose? --Ealdgyth (talk) 14:48, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ealdgyth, after re-checking I continue to feel that this article does not meet requirement 2a (WP:LEAD), and would oppose on that basis. I'm less sure how my other comments relate to the criteria. CMD (talk) 16:34, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There don't appear to have been any edits to the article since my most recent comments. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:39, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Esiymbro, you appear to have edited WP recently so pls address the above issues ASAP as we need to look at closing this one way or the other. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:07, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ian Rose: You can go on and close it. I won't have much time in the next few days. Esiymbro (talk) 03:24, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, you're welcome to bring this back for another nom after addressing the sourcing issues (presumably beyond the two-week minimum waiting period for a re-nom after this is closed). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:37, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 24 May 2020 [18].

In the Aeroplane Over the Sea

[edit]
Nominator(s):

Famous Hobo (talk) 20:10, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about In the Aeroplane Over the Sea, one of the quintessential hipster albums. If you like indie rock, you almost certainly know about this album, and have probably already formed an opinion about it. Despite how admittedly weird this album is (this is the "semen stains the mountaintops" album), I love this album, and I'm not alone. This article has been a passion project of mine, and I think it's about ready to see an FAC nomination. Have at it. Famous Hobo (talk) 20:10, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Spotchecks for close paraphrasing

  • Article: "In the early 1990s, a group of musicians from Ruston, Louisiana formed the Elephant 6 collective, which grew to encompass dozens of bands from the small city"
  • Source: " In the early ‘90s, Mangum and a few friends formed a now-legendary collective called Elephant Six, which grew to encompass dozens of strangely named bands"
  • Ref 31 – checks out fine, well don
  • Ref 37 (Dickinson, HuffPost): checks out fine, nicely paraphrased
  • Ref 41 (Sauerteig, PopMatters): article: "The lyrics will sometimes describe how Mangum wants to physically merge with the things he loves, which acts as a metaphor for the desire to connect with loved ones" ; source: "He packs the album full of characters trying to literally merge into each other’s bodies as a metaphor for how we yearn to connect with those we love."
  • Ref 39 (Richardson, Pitchfork): checks out fine, a clever mix of quotes and paraphrases

I shall return. Eisfbnore (会話) 04:24, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Eisfbnore: Just wanted to tell you I've seen this, and I'll try to take care of these problems either tonight or tomorrow. Famous Hobo (talk) 20:36, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Eisfbnore: Did some rephrasing. Famous Hobo (talk) 22:09, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:In_the_aeroplane_over_the_sea_album_cover_copy.jpg needs a more expansive FUR. Same with File:NeutralMilkHotel-InTheAeroplaneOverTheSea.ogg and File:NeutralMilkHotel-Holland1945.ogg
  • File:ItAotS_postcard_origins.jpg: as per the EU tag this needs evidence of efforts to identify author. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:47, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ping. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:21, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Aoba47

[edit]
  • The image caption in the "Background" section should not have a period since it is not a full sentence.
  • For this sentence, "He moved to Denver and worked with Schneider to record the album On Avery Island.", I would add the year that the album was released to provide a clearer timeline for an uninformed reader like myself.
  • For this part, (he deferred to Mangum's preference for a lo-fi sound. "At first it was frustrating, but I came to enjoy it. That's how I learned to produce, doing that record, because I totally had to let go of what I thought it should be like."), I think it may be better to replace the period with a colon before the quote to better tie these two parts together.
  • I do not think the comma is necessary in this sentence: "Spillane agreed, and handed in his resignation the following day."
  • I would specify in this part, "Schneider was already producing Hooray for Tuesday for the Minders ", that Hooray for Tuesday is an album as it is somewhat vague at the moment. Maybe something like the Minders' album Hooray for Tuesday?
  • I have a clarification question as I am honestly uncertain about this. For this part, (said: "The tension of Scott being heartfelt, explosive, and Robert trying to superimpose arrangement and control, made for something nice".), should the period be inside the quotation marks since it is a full quote? I have the same question for the Richardson quote at the end of the second paragraph of the "Lyrics" subsection and the Ratliff quote at the end of the first paragraph of the "Critical reception" section.
  • Since tempo is linked in the body of the article, I would do the same in the lead for consistency.
  • For this part, "such as mutant children, communism, and semen", is there a way to link the phrase "mutant children" to clarify its meaning?
  • Since this is an album by an American band, I would use traveling instead of travelling in this part, "having dreams of travelling back in time and saving her", as that is the more conventional American spelling.
  • I am uncertain about this sentence: "In the Aeroplane Over the Sea received mostly positive reviews upon release." According to the citation, the album "received decent, plainspoken reviews" right after its release and I am not sure that translates exactly to "mostly positive reviews". I'd revise it to more clearly reflect the citation. The current wording also made me confused when I read this later part, "In contrast to the lukewarm reception surrounding the 1998 release", because I was under the impression the album received a positive reception as opposed to a lukewarm one.
  • This is probably silly, but would it be helpful to add a message board link in this part: "became common fixtures on online message boards"? I have a similar question for revisionist history in this sentence: "Winkie noted that years after its release, In the Aeroplane Over the Sea became the subject of revisionist history."
  • AllMusic is linked twice in the body of the article. There are also spots where it is written in italics and other areas where it is not so I would be consistent with one way or the other.

I hope my comments are helpful. This was a very interesting read. I have actually never heard of this album before, but that is probably since I am more of a pop and R&B guy. The article does remind me of a class I took on trauma and testimony in Holocaust literature, and I wonder what my professor would have thought about the Anne Frank references in this album. Once my comments have been addressed, I will read through the article again to make sure I did not miss anything. Have a great start to your weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 15:08, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Cas Liber

[edit]

Taking a look now...

The recording sessions strengthened the musicianship between Mangum and Schneider. - I'm not sure what this is supposed to mean. Sounds a bit "fluffy".
You have "Elephant 6" and "Elephant Six"....
In the Aeroplane Over the Sea is [a musically complex album, and as a result, it] is difficult to categorize into a specific genre. - you could lose the bracketed bit - presumably as it refers to the sentences after, so just let the facts speak for themselves...?
This is a trend for nearly every musician involved with the album. - err, what is this referring to?
The lyrics are [complex and at times seemingly nonsensical], with references to a wide range of subjects, such as mutant children, communism, and semen - in whose opinion? Why not let the facts speak for themselves.."The lyrics cover/juxtapose wide range of subjects, such as mutant children, communism, and semen (sometimes in a random manner? with little logical connection? whatever the source(s) say)"

It otherwise reads well - prose is fine. It would be nice if there were some more material on the songs but I suspect that is due to a lack of reliable sources. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:56, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@FAC coordinators: FYI the article's nominator hasn't edited at all in nearly a month. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:16, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, tks Nikki -- another time maybe. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:49, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Ealdgyth via FACBot (talk) 6 May 2020 [19].

Hyborian War

[edit]
Nominator(s): Airborne84 (talk) 03:38, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the play-by-mail (PBM) game which occurs in the Hyborian Age with Conan the Barbarian created by Robert E. Howard. The game began in 1985 in a period of rapid growth in the PBM industry, and is one of the few games that has survived to the modern day, maintaining a loyal fan base with multiple fan sites. The game started strongly, earning a #1 spot as the Best Play By Mail Game of 1987 in Paper Mayhem magazine, but suffered from poor reviews and customer service feedback in subsequent years. In the 21st century, the game has done well, earning positive reviews and a 2008 Origins Award for Best Play By Mail Game.

Hyborian War was promoted to GA about five weeks ago after a copyedit and review by Gog the Mild, who apparently is somewhat of an expert in this field. Airborne84 (talk) 03:38, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I'm a bit too biased to offer anything of value in evaluating this article as an FA, since I started the article and followed its progress as Airborne84 built it from a little stub, and I acted as a coach/cheerleader to see it to GA and hopefully beyond, but I will say that his work on this and other articles has impressed me. It is the first GA for a play-by-mail game, so would obviously be the first FA for a PBM topic as well; I don't know if there are any other Conan FA's, but there may be an opportunity there as well. I want to wish you best of luck! BOZ (talk) 04:22, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Boz! Airborne84 (talk) 16:22, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild

[edit]

Nb. I intend to claim points for this review in the WikiCup.

Reserving a place. I have a lot on at the moment, so it may be a while before I can do the review. Note for the coordinators, while not familiar with Hyborian War I was, back in the day, very familiar with the genre of activity - PBM fantasy games. I have even had reviews published in the old semi-commercial UK PBM magazine. So I should be OK to check that it covers what an article on this sort of topic should. And, I suppose, the source review and spot check. Airborne84, is this your first FAC? Gog the Mild (talk) 18:15, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild, I got Sentence spacing through as an FA in 2010, so no, not the first one. However, it's been a while, and that was the only one, so I'm not claiming to be the FAC expert. But I'm ready for whatever heavy lifting may be needed here. Airborne84 (talk) 02:38, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As you know, I like this article. However, having reskimmed it, I am not sure that it is ready for FAC. Nothing similar seems to have been offered here before, so there are no precedents. What I don't see is any background on what PBM/PBEM is/was; how it worked; how it developed. Or any background on heroic fantasy/the world of Conan. Or anything on player interaction: players "communicate among themselves"; how and why? This is an encyclopedia article, but it takes a lot of knowledge as a given. "Orders are submitted by mail or email" - how about an example of a turnsheet, an explanation of what at least some of it means, an image of the subsequent completed ordersheet, again with a partial explanation of the tactics and a fuller explanation of the strategy they are part of. For FAC I would expect a fairly deep level of knowledge to be imparted.

Before I put the time into a full review, I would be interested in other reviewers' and the nominator's, opinions as to what the scope of the article should be. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:52, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. I appreciate it. A few thoughts below.
  • I decided against trying to describe the history and basics of play-by-mail gaming in the article. Instead, I overhauled the article on play-by-mail games from this earlier version to provide that. My thoughts were to link to a useful page rather than summarize PBM basics in an in-article section. It may be that there should be more relevant links to that article—I'll check. Of course, if others feel the PBM topic should be summarized in this article, I'll defer to the consensus.
  • Similarly, I can summarize heroic fantasy and Conan in the article versus only linking to them. I'm open to that if other editors think that is necessary to satisfy criterion 1b. It's difficult to say from WP:RS's what the answer should be: most articles on this topic just describe the game. However, some have dived into the fantasy/Conan area. I think it's reasonable to summarize in a section and it's also reasonable to mention it peripherally and link to the main articles as done. I defer to the consensus.
  • I can certainly address player interaction in more detail. For one thing, a link to this section will do for a start (weak as it is). But I'll add a few sentences describing how players can and do interact.
  • I was actually thinking about order sheet images last night. I think that and an example turn sheet would be a great addition. I'm on it. Airborne84 (talk) 23:08, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • (watching) @Airborne84: per the criteria, 1b the article must demonstratably place...the subject in context. This means, effectively, a short paragraph about the broader topic, and a link is insufficient. Having said that of course, it's a balancing act between that and providing so much background that it lends it undue weight. A short para, maybe 100 words (that's a guess only), which you can more or less lift (with attribution from the base article (and yes, although you wrote most of that yourself, it's still good for the optics to provide attribution on principle)). I don't think lack of context should be a big enough lack for you to withdraw, as it shouldn't be difficult to resolve; having said that, Gog may have further fire and brimstone to send you...by mail, presumably  :) SERIAL# 14:38, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
M'learned friend is, of course, quite correct. I was holding fire, and brimstone, until I saw what you came up with. But if it were me, and it ain't, I would definitely go the cut, paste and trim route. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:04, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comments. Am working now in my sandbox. The text sections for PBM context and Heroic Fantasy/Conan setting won't take long—24 to 48 hours. I have order sheets and turns sheets on hand for image examples, but need to investigate the licensing. Fair use will leave the text unreadable at low resolution. But I'm not sure I can use a Creative Commons license. Working. Thanks again! Airborne84 (talk) 17:17, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
At a push you could contact Reality Sim, explain what you are doing and ask them for a licence for a turn and order sheet. I don't see a downside for them and it's free publicity. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:43, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed—was already thinking that was the best option. Thanks! Airborne84 (talk) 20:42, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FA coordinators, Ian Rose, Laser brain, and Ealdgyth, after some discussion, I'm withdrawing this nomination. I'm going to complete the recommended modifications above. However, some of the image licensing and final revisions will take some time, so I'll renominate when complete and it just needs a bit of minor polish. Thanks for your time and thank you to the reviewers here for their useful recommendations. Airborne84 (talk) 19:01, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • 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. I'm archiving this. But when you have something ready for putting int eh article, ping me and I'll do a look over of it and see if I have any sources that might have some bearing on it also ... I have a few books on the history of the gaming industry, specifically the more esoteric parts (not the consoles...) --Ealdgyth (talk) 19:22, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Ealdgyth, will do. Thanks! Airborne84 (talk) 19:35, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 6 May 2020 [20].

Let's Fall in Love for the Night

[edit]
Nominator(s): DarklyShadows (talk) 20:00, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a song by Finneas O'Connell, and I believe it is comprehensive and meets the FA criteria. He is the brother of Billie Eilish and helps write and produce all of her music. He makes his own music but doesn't get enough credit for all the great work he does. Let's Fall in Love for the Night is his most successful song to date peaking at number 17 on the Billboard Alternative Songs chart. DarklyShadows (talk) 20:00, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose- This isn't anywhere close to ready for featured status since there is no meat to it. Would suggest looking at Diamonds (Rihanna song) and Single Ladies (Put a Ring on It) for examples of what meets the standard. Would suggest withdrawing this. And I think Finneas is Billie's brother, not sister?--NØ 21:37, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I don't know enough about music sources to be sure, but I'd be surprised if there weren't more reviews and commentary available; as N0 says it looks thin, and withdrawal and more research might be a good idea. My oppose is based just on the reception section, though, which simply lists comments one after the other. See WP:RECEPTION for some advice on improving these sections. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:57, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note -- It's good to have got this article to GA but the leap from there to FA is substantial, so pls take the comments above on board, and consider trying Peer Review before another nomination here. You could also look at the FAC mentoring scheme. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:31, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 6 May 2020 [21].

Sakura Wars (1996 video game)

[edit]
Nominator(s): Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 06:01, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In 1996, Sega and Red Company, now Red Entertainment, released Sakura Wars, a cross-genre video game that included tactical role-playing, dating sim and visual novel elements. It became the highest-selling title for the Sega Saturn and spawned a popular franchise that continues in Japan to this day, with a sixth installment released this past year.

Although this game was localized in Russia and China, American/European role-playing video game fans had to wait until Sakura Wars: So Long, My Love was released in 2010 since Sega released the game into the then-niche Western JRPG field. Since this article was promoted to GA back in 2018, ProtoDrake and I have extensively polished it up; I think it can go all the way to FA.

This is the first part of my efforts to get all of the main Sakura Wars series articles up to GA+. It had an FAC nomination in 2019, but it was closed due to inactivity. Over nine months later, I think it may be worth trying again. Hopefully, the second time is the charm. Thanks for reviewing. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 06:01, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment - I noticed that a lot of the refs are missing the "title" parameters. They need to be fixed. Namcokid47 (Contribs) 21:07, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I just added some titles (title parameters with actual titles) to the remaining refs as of this writing. It ain't perfect. I think I fixed the issue for now. I'm Aya Syameimaru! I 文々。新聞 22:12, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nice work. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:03, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I've been a busy editing machine as of now. I'm Aya Syameimaru! I 文々。新聞 23:04, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Spy-cicle

[edit]

Note: I have not verified the sources as I cannot read Japanese, mostly looked prose.

Infobox

  • It might be worth mentioning that Askella and Dysin Interactive were the publishers for Microsoft Windows for Russia and China respectively in the main body so you can shift the refs out of the infobox. But that is up to you.

Lead

  • Unnecessary to wikilink Tokyo per WP:OVERLINK
  • Probably worth mentioning that the game is set in the 1920s

Gameplay

  • Live & Interactive Picture System (LIPS) The ampersand should just be an and per MOS:AMP.
  • Use either "Players" or "the player" in one section per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Video games#Gameplay.
  • ...granting statistic increases and improving combat ability Does the statistic increase directly improve the combat ability. If so I would suggest adding "subsequently". If not leave it.
  • The game ends when certain conditions are not met or if the health bar on Ogami's Koubu reaches zero... Would the game not also end if the player wins the battle.

Synopsis

  • Probably worth wikilinking "Sendai" since it is not as well-known as Tokyo
  • The city recovers at the group relaxes I am guessing this is suppose to say: "The city recovers as the group relaxes"

Refs

  • As mentioned above, there are 7 refs without the title parameter filled in.
  • Refs 1, 5, 85, 101, 118 (possibly missed one or two) need to have the trans-title and language (where applicable) parameters filled in.
  • Ref 3 seems to be published in 2009 not 2006
  • When referencing page numbers you use en dashes instead of hyphens per MOS:DASH which needs to changed on refs 8, 9, 11, 44, 51, 65, 66, etc.
  • There are a few refs missing archives like 25.
  • I think that the website parameter would be more precise when filling out sources from RPGFan (as well as it resulting in italics).
  • The publisher parameter should be consistently wikilinked for example with Enterbrain and the publisher parameter should be present for Kotaku.

I should be able to go over the rest in the coming days. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 22:18, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I plan to do a review of this myself soon, but I just want to point out that Spy-cicle's the ampersand should just be an and is incorrect here, as Live & Interactive Picture System is a proper name - the MOS page they're linking says to retain an ampersand when it is a legitimate part of the style of a proper noun, such as in Up & Down or AT&T.--AlexandraIDV 05:17, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Spy-cicle: Responded below.
  • I've addressed the concerns in the lead.
  • The problems in the Synopsis section have been corrected.
  • I will try to find some titles for the 7 refs that are not filled in.
  • The date in Ref 3 has been corrected.
  • Corrected publishers in the citations.
  • I will get the rest of the problems addressed in the next couple of days. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:58, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay great, I will review the rest of the article soon. (Side note: I did not receive the ping I think because the ping was not on the same line of it being signed just so you know if you need to ping another user on a different occassion).  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 17:00, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I orignally planned to completely finish my review by now however the coronavirus outbreak in the UK has thrown a spanner in the works. I hope to complete it soon. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 22:51, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Spy-cicle's activities indicate he takes a long time to prepare for reviewing the rest of this article, he's got some stuff to do before the article becomes closer to FA this time around. I'm Aya Syameimaru! I 文々。新聞 21:15, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And oh btw, Alexandra IDV is gonna review this article too. I'm Aya Syameimaru! I 文々。新聞 21:19, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Got it. I didn't want it to get closed due to possible inactivity like it did in the previous FAC nomination. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:51, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. I'm Aya Syameimaru! I 文々。新聞 00:52, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from I'm Aya Syameimaru!

[edit]

TheJoebro64 Can you try to participate in this FAC review? It's about a Sega video game named Sakura Wars. We need more activity. «“I'm Aya Syameimaru!”I„文々。新聞“I„userbako”» 07:27, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Red Phoenix Do you want to participate in this FAC review of Sakura Wars? More activity is expected. «“I'm Aya Syameimaru!”I„文々。新聞“I„userbako”» 07:47, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also pinging @Tintor2:, one of the previous FAC participants, as well as WT:SEGA for feedback on this version. Also reminding @Alexandra IDV: of this. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:03, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. «“I'm Aya Syameimaru!”I„文々。新聞“I„userbako”» 22:52, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I can try later in the week. I'm going to be a bit busy, so my wiki-time will be limited. JOEBRO64 01:43, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, now you're in. «“I'm Aya Syameimaru!”I„文々。新聞“I„userbako”» 02:10, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's very funny that the first revision of this very article (created by ProtoDrake) is so similar to its current revision as of this writing. I'm surprised that this is not an article created in 2005, because I see here that Sakura Wars (1996 video game) was created in 2017! «I'm Aya Syameimaru!I文々。新聞Iuserbako» 02:26, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review
[edit]

Okay, I'm reviewing the images of the Sakura Wars (1996 video game) article:

  1. File:SW Sega Saturn cover.jpg has a small file size and comes with a proper non-free use rationale template (filled in) and good licensing information indicating it's cover art. The webpage where the image came from (a Segabits retrospective review of Sakura Wars) had a larger resolution and is still live. Update: It is used only once in the article for the infobox to identify the game (Sakura Wars). It is in only this article because of such good reason. The image does its job easily. «I'm Aya Syameimaru!I文々。新聞Iuserbako» 22:03, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. File:Sakura Wars 1 screenshot A.png and File:Sakura Wars 1 screenshot B.png are sourced from a Hardcore Gaming 101 article about the game (still live). However, the two images are different from each other, because they don't come from the same version of the game, and also because they don't have the same resolution as each other. Screenshot A was taken from Sakura Wars: In Hot Blood, the Dreamcast remake of the original Saturn version of Sakura Wars, which is the source of Screenshot B. They're of reduced size compared to what we see in the HG101 article. Still, like the infobox image, both comply with the non-free image guidelines, having proper non-free use rationale templates and licensing information saying that they're video game screenshots. Update: The first screenshot image is used once in the article for illustrating gameplay, and the same thing applies to the second screenshot. They do well in illustrating the gameplay of Sakura Wars, and for that reason this is the only article to have these two images. «I'm Aya Syameimaru!I文々。新聞Iuserbako» 22:03, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  3. File:Teikoku Kagekidan Team.jpg is also at a small file size, uses a proper non-free use rationale template (two of them, because the image is also used at List of Sakura Wars characters), and comes with licensing information. It is a Blu-ray menu screenshot like the non-free use rationale template says, but it isn't a screenshot of a television episode. Update: The image is used once here for illustrating how the characters look in the tuxedos, but I feel like the image could be moved to the Casting section (or maybe the last paragraph of the Scenario and characters section), since it talks about characters more. «I'm Aya Syameimaru!I文々。新聞Iuserbako» 22:03, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's it. «“I'm Aya Syameimaru!”I„文々。新聞“I„userbako”» 18:45, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Simply put it, I found no flaws in the images. I feel like I have an inaccurate assessment here, but even then the article's and its images are in a really good shape. Therefore I give out my vote:

Support Incredible work. «I'm Aya Syameimaru!I文々。新聞Iuserbako» 21:37, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@I'm Aya Syameimaru!: I'd like to ask for a second opinion on the image review, if you don't mind. I've taken a look at the images myself, and they each have a good, descriptive rationale. However, I'd like to see it evaluated for proper compliance of WP:NFCC #3: that minimal use is being properly followed. In particular, the characters image is the one I have the most concern with, and I can't say I feel 100% comfortable evaluating that aspect myself. Red Phoenix talk 15:33, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we should go ahead. «I'm Aya Syameimaru!I文々。新聞Iuserbako» 16:04, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Red Phoenix talk

[edit]

Intriguing - I don't usually see video game articles with this much depth. It's actually pretty exciting and a good read. I'll work on a review for this over the next few days. Usually in these reviews I specialize in sourcing for video game articles, so that will be my main focus, but I'll also look at the prose. When I do sources, I'll do at least a few spot-checks just to be on the safe side. Red Phoenix talk 02:15, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sources and spotcheck
[edit]
  • Zero reliability concerns from my looking over the sources. Ref formatting all looks good too.
  • Source 3 is from a gaming website not listed at WP:VG/S, but checks all the right boxes (editing staff and oversight, corporate publisher). Source 4 is a primary source in one of the game's manufacturers. They are both cited faithfully and reliably without close paraphrasing.
  • Source 10 is a primary source from an official game tips website. "Motivation", at least in my Google translate, is not mentioned in the source but is cited to it.
  • Sources 29 and 30 are both interviews in Japanese. They are used to cite Hiroi and Ito's roles in production of the game, but in neither source can I find a mention of Ito as "general director".
  • Source 53 is a Japanese interview with Hiroi. Looks to be cited faithfully without close paraphrasing.
  • Source 95 is to a website listed as reliable at VG/S. Faithfully cited, no close paraphrasing.
  • Source 100 is a primary source from an official website. Faithfully cited just for dates.
  • Source 108 is Siliconera, listed at VG/S. However, the source says nothing about an emulator or a Sega Saturn with a development kit, just a translation patch. Be careful to avoid OR here.
  • Source 137 is Kotaku, listed at VG/S. Faithfully cited, no close paraphrasing.
Prose
[edit]

So far I have made it through Production - Concept and development in both sources and prose. This took me an hour just to get through this far, so I'll be taking a break. I've already given you a fair bit to look at so far. Red Phoenix talk 03:37, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Sjones23: That should be a wrap from me. A fair bit to work on, and check those source spot-checks carefully. Feel free to let me know if you have any comments or when you're ready for me to review your changes. Red Phoenix talk 13:03, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All your comments are now resolved, it's all appreciated. «I'm Aya Syameimaru!I文々。新聞Iuserbako» 21:40, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@I'm Aya Syameimaru!: Please don't change my section headers. That's considered a bit rude; what if I came back with more comments? I also haven't evaluated it yet, so I haven't said it's resolved. I have changed it back for the time being. Red Phoenix talk 15:35, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. «I'm Aya Syameimaru!I文々。新聞Iuserbako» 16:03, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support pending a new image review - While I haven't appreciated some of the ways this FAC has been handled, I can at least appreciate the passion given to this article. That is reflected in the prose and the work to get this right. I still have some minor concerns given the couple of errors I found in my source spot-checks, but I trust that these were small oversights and that the rest of the material is faithfully cited to the source. I still need to see a new image review before I can fully support. Red Phoenix talk 16:13, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose by David Fuchs

[edit]

Placeholder. Reviewing tonight and will have first batch of comments tomorrow. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 21:26, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Japanese stage shows inspired Hiroi, who conceived the game's basic narrative and gameplay elements.—the second part of this sentence seems either redundant or disconnected from relevancy, since we've already been told that he created the concept; this also feels out of place because the previous and following sentences are about the game's actual production.
  • Sakura Wars 1 screenshot A.png&B.png—I would right-justify this given that at even relatively small desktop screen sizes it creates a huge gulf of whitespace.
  • You might want to explain what eyecatch is if you don't use "bumper". It's not a common term I imagine in most English countries.
  • skillful performances during LIPS segments raise a character's "Motivation", This is a bit redundant with the previous paragraph which already explained how you raise motivation, so maybe just explain that "Raised motivation during LIPS segments grant statistic increases..." etc or similar.
  • keep a powerful demonic hoard—I think you mean wikt:horde?
  • I think either the gameplay or plot section could use a little more detail in terms of stuff that comes up later in the development section—the fact that there are animated sequences that aren't gameplay, or that there are song numbers, feels like it should be mentioned
  • The role of Iris was originally given to Yokoyama, with Nishihara being considered for the role of Sakura. Redundant with earlier prose.
  • Given that this was a Japanese-language-only game, I think the reception section (using only 1 contemporary Japanese review) is just not enough for Featured Article criteria.

Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 14:28, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:I'm Aya Syameimaru!, I'm not sure if this is your first FAC, but you don't strike or alter others comments, and you especially don't do it as another reviewer in the FAC; it's up to the reviewer to make the determination if points have been addressed. I simply don't think obscure video games have "their own standards"; I'm sure the sources in mainstream Japanese sources exist if it was legitimate enough for Famitsu to cover it. At this point, I'm going to oppose on comprehensiveness concerns. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 17:36, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@David Fuchs: I don't really have a dog in this fight and I'm still unsure that it would be enough reviews, but I found two more contemporary Japanese reviews and added them to the article. Wondered if this might be of help since we're coming to the close of this FAC and I know how frustrating it is to have one archived. Red Phoenix talk 19:47, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@David Fuchs: Most, if not all, of the above concerns have been resolved. I will work on revising the reception section in a few days or so. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:53, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose by Namcokid47

[edit]

I'm really not too pleased with the reception of this article. For such a massive game with a lengthy development and history behind it, I'm rather surprised to see that there's not many reviews for it. I know it's a Japan-exclusive game, but surely there's gotta be more than that. I also don't understand why the review scores are listed in the writing, nor do I get why there are multiple reviews for the same version of the game by the same publication. The writing also needs improvement, as it comes off as just a jumbled mess of random comments and praises by reviewers instead of having them strung together. Considering the reception is a massively-important part of a video game article, I'm opposing this nomination. I'm also opposing because of the fact that Aya Syameimaru is striking and changing other's comments. Like David Fuchs said, it's very inappropriate, especially for somebody that is not even the nominator of the article. Namcokid47 (Contribs) 16:20, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for striking and changing other's comments, I was immature when I did it. «I'm Aya Syameimaru!I文々。新聞Iuserbako» 17:23, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Namcokid47: So, I could try reformatting the reception section and group some of the comments regarding gameplay, visuals and plot into separate paragraphs, using the reception section of the Trials of Mana article (an FA) as one of the main models. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:15, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coord comment

[edit]
Hi, this has been open over two months and there's no prospect of consensus to promote anytime soon, so I'm going to archive it and ask that further work take place outside the FAC process. Perhaps Alexandra, in lieu of reviewing now, could be involved. I'd also recommend consulting with the opposing reviewers, to see if their concerns are resolved, before a re-nomination. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:56, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Alexandra

[edit]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Archived_nominations/May_2020&oldid=960067767"