Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/October 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 Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 26 October 2020 [1].

In the Aeroplane Over the Sea

[edit]
Nominator(s): Famous Hobo (talk) 22:36, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, third times the charm. Hopefully.

This article is about In the Aeroplane Over the Sea, one of the most widely beloved and incessantly mocked indie rock albums ever made. With weirdly named instruments and even weirder lyrics (this is the "semen stains the mountaintop" album), In the Aeroplane Over the Sea is a bizarre album that in theory shouldn't work, but my goodness it does.

The first FAC nomination failed because I had personal issues to attend to so I couldn't respond to comments. The second FAC nomination failed because of not enough comments. Now it's back (with a brand new aftermath section courtesy of BLZ. @Aoba47:, @Casliber: (as the two editors who supported the FAC last time, sorry to keep making you guys do this), @Nikkimaria: (as the editor who supported the FAC based on a source review), and @Buidhe: as the editor who gave the media review. Famous Hobo (talk) 22:36, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Cas Liber

[edit]

Okay then...looking good...

  • The On Avery Island tour generated enough money to afford the band members to move to Athens, Georgia... - not how I'd use the verb "afford", maybe "The On Avery Island tour generated enough money to enable the band members to move to Athens, Georgia"
  • The final band member came when Mangum was traveling to New York City to live with Koster. - odd construction - maybe, "Mangum found the final band member while traveling to New York City to live with Koster. " or somesuch..
@Casliber: How does the sentence look now? Also took care of the other issue. Famous Hobo (talk) 09:44, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
All good now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:04, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Aoba47

[edit]

I have contributed to the past two FACs for this article. I agree with Casliber's assessment that this article appears ready for promotion. I have read through it a few times, and I do not have any further suggestions. I support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 20:01, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from SatDis

[edit]

I picked out this article purely due to having listened to the album before. I have just left a few comments which will hopefully help to make the article even better.

  • I noticed the '50s progression has the apostrophe but the 90s underground does not. Is that because the "90s" is from a quote?
  • I don't know if Ironically enough, is the best encyclopedic language; maybe just "Ironically,"?
  • but could not bring himself to tell the band. Some of them had quit their jobs to be in the band, and it seemed impossible to... The repetition of "band" here. Could it be changed to "tell the other band members. Some of them had previously quit their day jobs to join the band, and Mangum perceived it as impossible..." Just a few changes to tighten that sentence?
  • As it was a successful vinyl in 2008, are there any anniversary vinyl reissues worth mentioning in the "Release" section?
  • I love the layout of the references as well. I haven't seen this much before, is there a particular reason for this style?

Apologies that there are not many suggestions, as the article is very well written and interesting. Best of luck with the FA nomination. If you get the chance, I would greatly appreciate it if you could leave some comments on my FA review at Bluey (2018 TV series). Thanks. SatDis (talk) 06:59, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coord notes

[edit]

@Famous Hobo: Are you still active on this nomination? I see unaddressed comments from 6 October and very little activity. I've added this to the Urgents list in hopes of some more attention, but I also need to know ASAP if you have the bandwidth to work on feedback. --Laser brain (talk) 15:24, 23 October 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 October 2020 [2].

Game of Thrones

[edit]
Nominator(s): -- LuK3 (Talk) 19:02, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the HBO fantasy drama television show which ran from 2011 until 2019. The show broke viewership records for HBO in addition to it being a cultural phenomenon. The last two FAC nominations did not receive enough feedback and was archived. I would appreciate any feedback and comments regarding this article. Thank you! -- LuK3 (Talk) 19:02, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose On sourcing and resultant issues with balance and comprehensiveness. Despite Google Scholar showing a large number of academic works on this topic, little use has been made of this literature. Journal references appear to be limited to the para on academic studies of the series, where the journals are used to cite only a sentence stating that there has been academic work on the topic. I note that similar issues were highlighted in the first FAC for this article in 2016, so it's concerning that this still hasn't been addressed. Nick-D (talk) 23:32, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the comments Nick-D. I will try to include more in-depth information about the show in academic journals. I definitely agree studies should be included in the critical response and cultural influence sections. -- LuK3 (Talk) 00:30, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect that these sources could be used more broadly to replace some of the news stories on which the article is currently heavily dependent. Given the scale of work which may be required, I'm not sure if it's advisable that this FAC continue for now. Nick-D (talk) 22:46, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I was coming to the same conclusion based on the previous day's exchange -- if further sources need to be incorporated, it's best this is done outside the FAC process. so I'll archive this. Can I suggest that after the new work, you try another PR (perhaps specifically inviting Nick) before looking at another FAC nom? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:02, 24 October 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 Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 23 October 2020 [3].

Royal Calcutta Turf Club

[edit]
Nominator(s):  Saha ❯❯❯Stay safe  06:10, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about... a 170 years old horse racing organisation/club in Kolkata, India. This is my first FA attempt. It became GA last month. Its DYK was done 7 years ago. A big thanks to Aymatth2 for that. He wrote the article beautifully. I also want to thank epicgenius for the GA review and guiding me. The article almost remained untouched since 2013, and suddenly I came across this. Then I went for a GA and now trying for FA.  Saha ❯❯❯Stay safe  06:10, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Did you consult Aymatth2, the main contributor, about whether the article is ready for FAC, per the FAC instructions? Do you have access to all the sources used by Aymatth2? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:41, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
SandyGeorgia No I didn't consult. I was unaware of this thing. Although I informed him that I will be trying for FA. And I don't have access to some sources (if I try searching them more, I might find them).  Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe  14:53, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
See the FAC instructions. It is important that you have access to all the sources. And sometimes the main writer has feedback on whether the article is yet comprehensive. Might you consult with Aymatth2 on their talk page or via email? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:52, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
SandyGeorgia Can Aymatth2 be the co-nominator? So, that he can work with the citations I don't have access?  Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe  15:02, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That would be grand! Just have him add his signature right after yours on the nom statement, so the bot will recognize both of you. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:15, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am glad to see the article being improved, but do not think I can take credit for getting it to FA status. I would have only used sources that were online at the time I was starting the article, e.g. in the 2–6 November 2013 versions, and have no special access apart from JSTOR. If some of those links have gone dead, I cannot help. I had no opinions or prior knowledge, and would have done my best to accurately reflect what the sources said while avoiding copyright violations. Good luck with it! Aymatth2 (talk) 17:39, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
ArnabSaha did you want to continue this nomination, or did you mean you want to withdraw? @FAC coordinators: ? You have a worthy nomination here, but reviewers need to know if you are still engaged. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:26, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
SandyGeorgia Im covid positive. So, I want to keep it on hold. Sorry.  Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe  16:57, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Lee Vilenski

[edit]

I may end up claiming points towards the wikicup. Hope you don't mind! :P|

I'll take a look at this article, and give some comments on how it meets the FA criteria in a little while. If you fancy doing some QPQ, I have a list of items that can be looked at here - specifically FACs for 2020 World Snooker Championship and 1984 World Snooker Championship Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:43, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

TBH I don't think I am experienced enough for it.  Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe  13:43, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by SG

[edit]

I think you have a viable candidacy here; I provide below only some spotchecks and random things I noticed-- not a comprehensive review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:42, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Prose

Please try to vary the wording in these instances (sometimes that may necessitate re-casting or re-arranging the sentences):

  • Organised horse races were first held in India on 16 January 1769 at Akra (near Calcutta), where they were held for the next 40 years.
  • Meeting was held on a specially-constructed course inside the main course. Public interest in racing increased when races were held in the afternoon, and new stands were built in 1880.
  • In 1883 the British House of Lords discussed an accusation against a Surgeon-Major Thornburn by the Lucknow Race Course of gambling irregularities which was upheld by the Calcutta Turf Club.[7] A court of inquiry looked into the accusation, and the Commander-in-Chief of India upheld the club's ruling.[7]
  • It is unclear how upheld is intended in the first instance; the second is legal.
  • I'm sorry; the sentences are a bit convoluted, so I may be misunderstanding or misreading. What is exactly was the determination, and how does a Club "uphold" that? What exactly did they do/say? They found a statement meritorious? They agreed with a complaint? How can a club make a ruling, which is a legal thing? I may be completely missing something here, and if others thinks this is OK, ignore me :) (If you are able to remember, please leave the spaces between items that I insert to make responses easier on my old eyes.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:45, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps provide more of the detail given in the source. He was accused of having a pony pulled. "The Stewards of the Lucknow race course found him guilty of the misconduct" which was confirmed by the Calcutta Turf Club (that is, I was confused how a Club can "uphold" which I think of as a legal ruling, but now I see the intended meaning). Then the conduct was reported to the Commander-in-Chief in India. It seems that they went after him because he didn't conform to the expectations of an officer ? And that was how it ended up at the British House of Lords? Is that correct? I'm sorry if I am being confusing, but it just needs better explanation. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:51, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • He was elected senior steward in 1955, a position he held for 27 years.
  • There is so much held in the article, that this presents an instance where you might use a different word, so the reader does not tire of held, held, held, held, held :)

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:25, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overuse of however; pls review throughout.
    • After the closure of the Tollygunge racecourse, a new racecourse was opened by the club in Barrackpore during the 1920s; it was unsuccessful, however, due to poor attendance.
    • The first races were on a rough, temporary course wide enough for only four horses. Reformist governor Lord Wellesley disapproved of organised racing, and banned horse racing in 1798; five years later, however, the Bengal Jockey Club was formed to resume racing at Akra. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:31, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
MOS
Sourcing
Citation formatting
  • This citation repeats the publisher as the author, while other citations do not use that format:
  • If I am interpreting the page correctly, "The Golf Doctor" is T. J. Tomasi.

ArnabSaha please see the instructions at FAC, and avoid using templates like {{done}}. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:49, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. GA habits...  Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe  16:44, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Fowler&fowler

[edit]
  • I won't be reviewing but would like to make a comment. The lead says, "During its heyday, RCTC-organised races were among the most important social events of the calendar and were opened by the Viceroy of India." So, a reader might be pardoned for wondering, "Whose calendar?" Not of those in Calcutta and the Bengal in 1943, all three million, about whom Christopher Bayly had written:

    Hundreds of thousands died in their own homes, too proud to embarrass others with their fate. People lay down in the street and died, rather than resisting or looting the grain stores in the way the radicals wanted.

    Some disambiguation might be helpful. I'm not being sarcastic nor am I attempting to guilt-trip anyone, only suggesting that the picture should be more realistic. Best, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:01, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment - Unfortunately, it appears the nominator is not currently in a position to work on the nomination. Therefore, I will be archiving it shortly and it may be re-nominated after the customary two-week waiting period. --Laser brain (talk) 14:10, 23 October 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) 23 October 2020 [4].

Death of Jeffrey Epstein

[edit]
Nominator(s): ~ HAL333([5]) 07:43, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Although I'm pretty active over at FLCs, this is my first attempt at a FAC — trial by fire, I guess. This article concerns the 2019 death of reported finance billionaire and sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. ~ HAL333([6]) 07:43, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • "Epstein's lawyers challenged that conclusion and opened their own investigation, hiring pathologist Michael Baden." - the text says Baden was hired prior to the conclusion
  • Direct quotes should be cited in the lead even if cited later
  • "Many public figures accused the Federal Bureau of Prisons of negligence and inefficiency" - I can derive negligence from what's in the text, but what accusations were made related to inefficiency?
  • What's the source for the coordinates given? They're different from what's in the correctional centre article
  • "This letter was written in ball point pen, despite the fact that no prisoners, especially those on suicide watch, were allowed to have one under jail protocol." - source?
  • "Ghislaine Maxwell, who was arrested and indicted in July 2020" - the text says charged not indicted, which is correct?
  • FN1 has the publisher and work reversed
  • Be consistent in when/if you wikilink work titles
  • Be consistent in when/if you provide ISSNs
  • FN2: authors listed don't match source. Ditto FN22, check for others
  • FN3: Reuters is a publisher not a work. Ditto CNBC, check for others
  • Be consistent in when you provide publication locations
  • WP:RSP lists the Washington Examiner as questionable - what leads you to believe it qualifies as a high-quality reliable source? Ditto The New York Post, Fox News for politics-related content, and others
  • What makes Heavy.com a high-quality reliable source?
  • Be consistent in when/if accessdate is included
  • Why NPR.org in FN11 but just NPR in FN1?
  • FN13 is incomplete. Ditto FN30, check for others

Stopping there and oppose pending citation cleanup. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:50, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • I want to join Nikki's concerns on citations. Also, see my general advice at User:SandyGeorgia/Achieving excellence through featured content and the top of my userpage regarding the overuse of however, subsequently, and in this case, consequently as well. Subsequently is almost always apparent, and similar problems happen here with consequently. Consequently is misused here, for example (SAMPLE ONLY): Consequently, prison personnel also failed to photograph Epstein's body as it was found.[44]. Also is almost always redundant. The exercises at User:Tony1/How to improve your writing are helpful. A peer review first might have better prepared this article for FAC. Also, MOS:LQ adjustments needed. That's just based on a very quick glance. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:41, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'll get to work. ~ HAL333([7]) 16:31, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. This is not up to a good level for the front page.

1 "new" charges? There's no mention of "old" charges or what the "new" charges are. I'm confused about the situation within the first sentence.

2 What does CPR stand for?

3 It's not clear of the source that says "he was transported in cardiac arrest". That is not in the body and he was probably transported in an ambulance.

4 The final sentence of the paragraph is odd. It does not explain why the hiring the pathologist is relevant to their disbelieving the M.E.

5 Why are some abbreviations (like FBI and CPR) without periods and others (like a.m., and U.S.) with periods?

6 The fact that two bodies are conducting investigations suggest it's about five years to early to have this as an FA.

7 The final sentence of the second paragraph is grammatically awkward.

8 Investigations cannot "shift attention": they are inanimate processes. The investigators moved their focus (also note that "shift attention" is lax phrasing).

9 sex-trafficking needs a link.

10 Ghislaine Maxwell. Who she? That needs more background.

11 There is no point having reference 5 in the middle of the sentence – it can move to the end where it covers the meaning better.

If these errors are present in the lead alone, I dread to think what the rest of the article is like. It is clear this is not ready or right for FA.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.194.127 (talk • contribs) 22:40, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request for withdrawal
  • I am sorry that I wasn't able to address these concerns. Some personal stuff has come up and I'm really busy currently. I appreciate the comments and will continue to work on improving this article. Thanks! ~ HAL333([8]) 23:17, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@FAC coordinators: SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:44, 22 October 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) 22 October 2020 [9].

Beaver

[edit]
Nominator(s): LittleJerry (talk) 16:17, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've been very bust working on this article about one of the busiest animals. Have at it. LittleJerry (talk) 16:17, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SG comments

[edit]
  • EXTREME MOS:SANDWICHing of images is everywhere. This can probably be solved by eliminating a number of images which aren't needed for understanding the topic. I am surprised to see this from an experienced nominator, and will try to read the article once this basic is addressed.
There isn't any sandwiching for me. It really depends on the breadth of your screen when you're on desktop mode   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  04:57, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • MOS:CAPTIONS, please review punctuation on image captions, eg, A beaver lodge at the edge of a stream. ... does not require a full stop.
  • Check your ps and pps, eg Müller-Schwarze & Lixing Sun 2003, p. 32–33. vs. Müller-Schwarze & Lixing Sun 2003, pp. 85. ... this is everywhere. p. 56–57. Müller-Schwarze & Lixing Sun 2003, pp. 58. Müller-Schwarze & Lixing Sun 2003, p. 57–58.
  • What is your page range scheme (citation consistency)? For example, Animal Behaviour. 63 (6): 1073–78. but ... BioScience. 38 (11): 753–762. Decide which digits you repeat.
  • This external link is dead, and FAs are supposed to be comprehensive, why are we linking to another encyclopedia? http://thecanadianencyclopedia.com/articles/beaver-rodent
  • What does this External link offer that can't be covered in the article? https://web.archive.org/web/20081029222026/http://animal.discovery.com/mammals/beaver/
  • I can't see why giardiasis is a See also, rather than as a mention in the article (environmental effects)?

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:06, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed all. LittleJerry (talk) 16:05, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose a rushed nomination (as can be seen in the "bust" introduction). No, not fixed all. I suggested that giardiasis needed to worked in to the article; instead it was completely removed. Now we have no mention of a problem endemic to beavers. Similarly, beaver attack could be worked in to the article rather than listed as a See also. FAs are supposed to be comprehensive, and giardia is a beaver issue.
The image (and description) in infrastructure illustrate the need for alt text throughout. As a sighted person, I have a problem understanding the illustration of a lodge, and can't imagine what a person using a screen reader is supposed to make of that image and the associated confusing text in the article. The feeding and nesting chambers are the same? What is holding up the top part? The beavers and logs are similarly colored and difficult to distinguish. The text talks about all three structures in a way that I have to go back and re-read several times to understand that three different structures have been mentioned, yet never answers my questions about the image.
There are copyedit issues throughout: sample "The ponds they have created certain have flooded other trees and vegetation." Which fish is which and who did what? "However, areas with introduced beaver were associated with increased populations of native puye fish (Galaxias maculatus), whereas the exotic species had negative effects on native stream fishes in the Cape Horn Biosphere Reserve, Chile." How did we get to New Zealand in the same paragraph? Overuse of however should be reviewed. The lead is choppy and an inadequate summary of the article; one thought does not flow to the next and it does not compel the reader to want to know more.
Please don't expect FAC reviewers to do all the work of bringing an article through to the state of preparedness that should be there before the nomination; we should be able to focus instead on issues of substance at FAC, and repeat nominators should know this. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:41, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
These are being worked on. I just added in giardiasis before you put in your oppose. LittleJerry (talk) 15:13, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Two days earlier, you said "fixed all". My oppose stands: see FAC talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:51, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - in addition to Sandy's point above

  • Suggest adding alt text
  • Suggest reviewing captions for grammar
  • File:Die_Gartenlaube_(1858)_b_068_white_background.jpg: what is the author's date of death?
Who cares. The image is from 1858. LittleJerry (talk) 13:51, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It includes a copyright tag based on author date of death, so this information should be provided. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:09, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ernst Keil died in 1878 but I can't edit that in. LittleJerry (talk) 15:50, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Here. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:41, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 16:07, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Rpelaced. LittleJerry (talk) 13:51, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The new image is missing a legend. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:09, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Hog Farm

[edit]

Might be claimed for WikiCup points. Hog Farm Bacon 19:57, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Dipoides appears to have been a rather poor builder than modern beavers" - Missing a word in here? Doesn't read right to me
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 13:11, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "heir four incisors are chisel-shaped with continuous growth. The outer enamel of the incisors is very thick and colored orange due to the presence of iron. The roots of the lower incisors extend throughout the length of the lower jaw. Beavers have two premolars and six molars for each jaw adding up to 20 teeth in total." - Based on the math, it must be four incisors on each jaw. Clarify that, as it's not super obvious from the phrasing
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 13:11, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Beaver populations currently range from Spain and France, though central and eastern Europe and into Scandinavia and western Russia and their population totaled at least 639,000 by 2006." - Got a more up-to-date number?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 13:29, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Starting in 2009, beavers have also been reintroduced to parts of Great Britain" - Surely it's been enough time to tell if it's been a successful reintroduction or not
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 13:29, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Dams consist of logs, rocks, wads of grass and mud" - Need an "and" in there
I don't understand. LittleJerry (talk) 13:29, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Misread.
  • "which are around 2 °C (36 °F) cooler than the surrounding air. Open-water lodges are used during the winter and their temperature is similar to that of the surrounding water, at around 0.5 °C (32.9 °F)" - Not the conversion you wanted. You wanted what two individual degrees equals, but you got what exactly 2 degrees is
I don't understand. LittleJerry (talk) 13:29, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You're misusing the convert template. A decrease of 2°C does not equal a decrease of 36°F. The convert template converts an absolute temperature, not a relative decrease. Hog Farm Bacon 14:47, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 19:34, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link Wyoming
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 13:29, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • " caring for the younger offsrping" - Spelling
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 13:29, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Within the lodge, beavers communicate with burgs and whines. They produce gargles and bubbles when entering and exiting" - Not clear what exactly some of these sound names are suppose to represent
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 13:29, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Got to leave now, but I am not done yet. Will have some more points later. Hog Farm Bacon 23:44, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Beavers were also hunted for their fur. They were particularly easy to find for trappers as they stayed in one place. Trappers will kill entire families in a lodge. Beaver pelts were mainly used to make hats, which were considered a luxury item in 17th century England and were commonly stolen" - Weird tense switch
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 13:29, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do beavers have any parasites or endemic diseases? Just about all critters do, but there's no mention of such here.
Will work. LittleJerry (talk) 13:29, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Added. LittleJerry (talk) 13:59, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note to coords: nonexpert here, so I'm not going to be able to detect potential flaws in technical matters. Mostly just a layman's review here. Hog Farm Bacon 02:11, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Beavers tend to use the bank lodges during the summer, which are around two degrees cooler than the surrounding air. Open-water lodges are used during the winter and their temperature is similar to that of the surrounding water, at around 0.5 °C (32.9 °F)." - Got two issues with these sentences. First, two degrees celsius is about 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit, so you have to state whether the two degrees is in Celsius or Fahrenheit. And then to provide the conversion, you're gonna have to do it by hand, as the template's gonna try to make it as two absolute degrees celsius. So you'll just have to do the conversion manually and stick in the parenthesis. Second, it's very unclear what 0.5 °C is suppose to mean here. It reads like it's suppose to mean that 0.5 °C is the temperature the water stays at, which seems implausible. Climactic conditions around the beaver's range means it isn't going to stick at 32.9 degrees Fahrenheit all winter, which suggests to me this is another poorly formatted range. Hog Farm Bacon 02:11, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 03:09, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Beavers were also hunted for their fur. They were particularly easy to find for trappers as they stayed in one place. Trappers will kill entire families in a lodge" - Still not sold here. The weird use of "will" here is an issue for me, as the rest of this paragraph is used to talk about historical events..
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 03:02, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "by the early 21 century" - 21st century. This article could definitely have used a heavy copy edit.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 03:02, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there a map of the distribution of the beaver? If so, replace the Poland beaver image in the distribution section with it.
I asked Mariomassone to make one. LittleJerry (talk) 03:02, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The lineages of the two beaver species are estimated to have split around 7.5 mya" - Makes it sound pretty clear. However, the source says Similar to the divergence of the family Castoridae, the divergence time of the two extant beaver species has not yet been estimated with much precision.. Looks like there's some ambiguity that needs clarified. Also, this probably needs more than one study's results: cladistics and phylogenies can be very different between different scientists.
Fixed. This is the best and most recent cladogram I can find on fossil beavers. LittleJerry (talk) 03:02, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "There is one case of a dog that died during surgery after being bitten by a beaver in 2010 at University Lake in Alaska, where a number of unprovoked attacks against pets were recorded" - Beaver attack lists another dog killed, and is sourced. "There is one case ..." is thus a bit misleading.
  • Are beavers still hunted anywhere? I don't see this being mentioned in the article anywhere
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 03:08, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nearly every animal is hunted. LittleJerry (talk) 03:02, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • C. Californicus is mentioned in the infobox, but nowhere else.
Its not significent. There's barely any information on it. LittleJerry (talk) 03:02, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It at least needs a citation ... Hog Farm Bacon 03:06, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there's more, and that was only a casual glance. I'll be giving this another close go-over, as I see more issues each time I look at this. Hog Farm Bacon 02:45, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please wait. I listed it for a copyedit and have asked some people.to do it. LittleJerry (talk) 03:02, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Tell me when you're ready. Hog Farm Bacon 03:55, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose and suggest withdrawal These things should have been done before nomination. This one wasn't ready for FAC. Agree with Dunkleosteus, there's a good deal of missing information. Hog Farm Bacon 14:05, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dunkleosteus77

[edit]
  • When I left you at GA, I was kinda expecting you to expand the article a bit more, namely (as I said) on human–beaver interactions, extinct beaver species, diseases and parasites, the hunting of European beavers, the decline of beaver hunting, beaver hunting today (like, when's beaver season? Quota counts?) I know in the past you've said you don't want important articles to be dumping grounds for all kinds of random information, but for especially iconic animals such as the beaver, you should expect the article to have some girth, which isn't necessarily a crime   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  04:57, 22 October 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) 21 October 2020 [10].

People's Square station

[edit]
Nominator(s): Evan0512 (talk) 17:46, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the station in Shanghai Metro that went popular due to a three line transfer station. It is the first 3 line transfer station in 2007 in China (Line 1, Line 2, and Line 8). It is one of the stations opened in 1990s that went popular and there were a lot of subway exits. It was featured because there were three metro lines that serve this station. I have seen no featured articles using the word "Shanghai," so this is the first time nominating the featured article. Evan0512 (talk) 17:46, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose and suggest withdrawal and taking to WP:PR. Significant issues here: No real structure, as all of the information is located in the lead, with no body except for and unsourced list of places nearby with no clear inclusion criteria and an unsourced station layout. Not convinced that the gallery section meets WP:GALLERY. Significant uncited material. Much history of the station appears to be lacking, as is a more detailed prose layout description. Citation format leaves a little to be desired. Fails all of the WP:FACR criteria except for 1d and 1e, IMO. Hog Farm Bacon 18:29, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose and suggest withdrawal, Hog Farm covers it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:52, 20 October 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) 20 October 2020 [11].

Cups (song)

[edit]
Nominator(s): The Ultimate Boss (talk) 01:47, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Second times the charm. This article is about the Anna Kendrick's 2013 hit "Cups" It reached number 6 on the US Billboard Hot 100 and was certified triple platinum by the RIAA.The Ultimate Boss (talk) 01:47, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose and suggest withdrawal. Previous concerns are expected to be addressed before returning to FAC, and these are all the changes made since the last FAC closed. If you open a peer review and ping me to it, I will be glad to help, but FAC is not peer review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:52, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(@FAC coordinators: ) The Ultimate Boss (talk) 02:12, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review opened at Wikipedia:Peer review/Cups (song)/archive1 SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:24, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose No improvements from the last FAC. Please open a Peer Review or request an individual copyedit at GOCE before proceeding. HĐ (talk) 02:13, 20 October 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) 18 October 2020 [12].

43rd Chess Olympiad

[edit]
Nominator(s): Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:59, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the 43rd Chess Olympiad, a biennial chess tournament for teams representing nations. The main improvements to the article that led to its current shape were made immediately before and during the event. For that purpose, many chess sources were consulted and selectively used to reference the content based on their reputability and popularity in the chess world, so it abounds in details that are typically present in similar multi-country competitions (e.g. Olympic Games). Finally, the article has a GA status, having been promoted in April 2009. Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:59, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment

This article uses an excessive number of flag icons, to the point that they dominate the visual presentation of the text. Some seem at odds with the MoS (which discourages use in infoboxes among other things). What is the service to the reader? --Laser brain (talk) 02:08, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm mostly impartial to Laser brain's issue above, but at the very least, the table in Sponsorship should be a bulleted list by itself... Aza24 (talk) 07:00, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support removing the excessive flag icons. (t · c) buidhe 03:02, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Aza24: I've re-arranged the Sponsorship section. @Buidhe: Could you please tell me which flag icons you find excessive and I shall remove them?--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:36, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Image review

Drive-by comment when you have 185 countries participating, listing all their names—leave alone with flags and links—is excessive and unnecessary. (counterexample: not all of the 210 countries who participated in the 2018 FIFA World Cup are named in that article, only the 32 who qualified to the finals.) Instead just mention the salient points—some big absentee countries, why Pakistan withdrew, why Georgia had 3 teams, what those 3 abbreviated associations are etc.—indopug (talk) 09:20, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. This article is not quite FAC ready. The flags are visually off-putting, there are stubby sections, and the prose could be tightened with a copy edit, sample:

  • In September 2018, FIDE announced the anti-cheating measures and procedures of the 43rd Chess Olympiad in accordance with the Abu Dhabi FIDE Executive Board in 2015 and the Moscow FIDE Presidential Board in 2016, as well as after clarifications of the FIDE WCOC Commission and FIDE Anti cheating Committee that were applied at the Baku Chess Olympiad. According to these measures, players and captains had to be inspected by the security staff at the entrance of the playing hall. The carrying of mobile phones, watches, and pens was not allowed inside the playing venue and players were required to release them in storage areas.

I suggest withdrawing and returning to FAC after an independent copyedit as the fastest route to the bronze star. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:58, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note -- archiving per commentary above; per FAC instructions you can bring this back after two weeks have passed, which should afford time enough for a solid copyedit. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:14, 18 October 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) 18 October 2020 [13].

Leyla Express and Johnny Express incidents

[edit]
Nominator(s): Vanamonde (Talk) 00:28, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A short article about an instructive episode of recent Latin American history; Cuba seized two freighters flying Panamanian flags, accusing them of piracy, and a controversy followed. The article has been through a military history A-class review. All comments are welcome. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:28, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion I started, with Coord permission for nom, moved to talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:55, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Image review

Pass, per my comments at ACR (t · c) buidhe 20:06, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support by PM

[edit]

I examined this in considerable detail at Milhist ACR, all my queries ans comments were addressed, and consider it meets the FA criteria. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:22, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Review by SG

[edit]

I will be reviewing this article in the context of the faulty MILHIST A-class pass of Manuel Noriega, with similar issues as discussed at Wikipedia:Peer review/Manuel Noriega/archive1, which may be of interest to Peacemaker67. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:38, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose and suggest withdrawal, for complete reworking to examine sourcing. My concerns are similar to those listed at the MAN peer review; the sourcing, and the way sources are used, present a POV. Sourcing needs to be scrutinized for bias and accuracy and balanced with other sources.

Issues can be seen in this passage:

According to reporter John Dinges both freighters were being used by Cuban exiles to launch machine-gun attacks on Cuban government targets.[4] Verne Lyon, a one-time CIA agent, wrote in his memoir that the two boats were run by the CIA, and referred to the Johnny Express as a CIA "mother ship".[6] A 1997 biography of former Director of Central Intelligence and US President George H. W. Bush, in discussing his relationship with Manuel Noriega, also stated that the two freighters had been used to launch speed-boat attacks against Cuba.[7]

  • As described at the MAN PR, Dignes is not a scholarly source, had a book to sell, and one reviewer of books about Noriega mentions "trendy journalists who want to blame Noriega on the U.S.". Sourced to him is that the freighters were used to "launch machine-gun attacks on Cuba government targets", while other sources say the freighters may have been used to "land insurgents" (that is, Cuban exiles).[14] Two very different things.
  • Verne Lyon was discredited and imprisoned; he had an anti-CIA motive.
  • The (unnamed) 1997 biography (which should be named, Parmet, who by the way refers to Noriega as "the bastard child of an accountant and maid") repeats the "machine gun raids" ... and apparently sources it also to Dinges.

So, there's an entire paragraph with damning conclusions that trace back to Dinges and a discredited CIA operative.

I am happy to dump Lyon, and to name Parmet where he is first mentioned (he is, in fact, mentioned at the second instance). Dinges is not a scholarly source. However, there are precious few reliable sources covering this material at all, and when no others contradict Dinges, I believe it is perfectly reasonable to use him with in-text attribution. This is especially the case when Parmet, a respected historian, cites Dinges for this assertion. The other sources which say insurgents were landed source it to the Panamanian commission. This assertion is also reported in the article, also with attribution, because none of it is good enough to state in Wikipedia's voice. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:21, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
But then we have the problem that Parmet had no access to classified documents. So Parmet is merely repeating Dinges’s claims, so attributing it to Parmet would not solve the problem. It is a Dinges claim, with no other backing. (The discredited CIA operative aside, who did prison time, right?) And if we have claims made only by Dignes, are they UNDUE? Perhaps this article can be written after FOIA reveals more facts to replace rumor? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:00, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The claim is made by Dinges, but it was cited by a mainstream historian. It is not equivalent to a claim that is completely ignored by others. Parmet may not have had access to documents, but he chose to cite Dinges, and did not challenge Dinges's assertion in doing so. I do not believe topics that have substantive and detailed coverage should not have articles just because the relevant material (if any exists) has not been declassified. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:06, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The opening sentences obscure important facts (POV)

  • In December 1971, the freighters Leyla Express and Johnny Express were seized by Cuban gunboats off the coast of Cuba. The Leyla Express was stopped off the Cuban coast on December 5; the Johnny Express was intercepted by gunboats near the island of Little Inagua in the Bahamas ten days later. The Johnny was WELL off the coast of Cuba, that is, the Cubans fired upon a ship and captured it from Bahamian waters. Well, yes, the Bahamas are "off the coast of Cuba", but the opening sentence downplays the seriousness of strafing a ship in Bahamanian waters, injuring its crew, and hauling them back to Cuba, captive.
    I disagree that this downplays anything; it explicitly says the Johnny Express was captured in the Bahamas, and the very next sentence mentions the injuries, substantially before any Cuban justifications or rationalizations. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:21, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It is not plainly stated that Cuba strafed and commandeered a ship that was in Bahamanian waters, Injured the crew, and with the Captain reporting he was dying, hauled it back to Cuba. “Off the coast of Cuba” is technically true, but misleading. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:14, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    If the concern is with "Off the coast of Cuba", I have simply omitted it. The locations are now stated explicitly in the second sentence. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:06, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The map showing Little Inauga in relation to Cuba, the Bahamas and Floriday should be redone; it's unclear.
    I can request other maps be made, and would appreciate suggestions as to how they can be made clearer, because it seems perfectly clear to me. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:21, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    If you go to Google maps and look for Little Inagua, then zoom out just enough to pick up Miami and Haiti, the relationship with the Bahamas and Cuba is clear. Then you only heed to highlight Little Inagua in red. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:14, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    File:Bahamas, The-CIA WFB Map (2004).png is such a map, but I do not see it being an improvement, as it is less detailed. I am happy to add it as an additional map. Buidhe, apologies for the many pings, but you've done the image review, so I think your opinion is required. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:06, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • but announced that José Villa, the captain of the Johnny Express, would face trial as he had confessed to being an agent of the CIA. POV: announced that they claimed he had confessed to being an agent. ("Confessions" have a way of happening with Cuban intelligence, that is not pretty.) For example, this source states it more neutrally ... "but the skipper of the Johnny Express was held for trial, reportedly having confessed to being an agent for the CIA" from [15]. POV, stating in WikiVoice that he had confessed, when that is based on Cuban claims.
    The statement is very much in the voice of the Cuban government; the entirety of it is covered by the "announced that". If we need to reword to make that clearer I am happy to do so, but it is most certainly not a claim made in Wikipedia's voice. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:21, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Rewording to make it clear it is a Cuban claim would be a good start. If you could come up with a Spanish name for the “Commission”, we should be able to locate more facts about José Villa’s side of the story. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:14, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    We're saying the Cuban government announced it; to me that's clear; I have reordered it to make it doubly clear. As to the commission, I wish I had its name, but the sources don't say. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:06, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • A Panamanian mission which investigated the incident concluded, based on the ships' logs, that the vessels had in fact brought insurgent forces to Cuban territory, and that the Cuban government's accusations were accurate. and A commission from Panama subsequently visited Cuba to investigate the case. Based on examinations of the ships' log books, the commission concluded that the ships had in fact been engaged in bringing insurgent forces to Cuban territory, and that the Cuban government's charges were accurate.[16] This is cited to Gehring, see note 180. at 317-18. 324. What does Gehring say? I don't have access. And what date was this Panamanian mission? Under Noriega's rule, or after? In other words, if it was under Noriega, well, of course ... he struck a deal, negotiating between the US and Cuba, to get Villa released. What was included in that deal? Some sort of admission? We need better detail from the original quoted source, and better Panamanian retrospective or scholarly sources, on this Commission, who was on it, who it reported to, etc. and whether making this claim was part of the deal struck with Fidel.
    I have now located a copy of Gehring, who gives no footnote or source about this information, as the JAG paper had a different purpose ... to investigate the laws regulating piracy. It gives no further information about this Commission.[17] The article has a big hole for the reader who wants to understand why Fidel let Villa go, and what he got in exchange for the "confession". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:27, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    As you have noted, Gehring pretty much says what's in the article. A retrospective such as you desire hasn't been found, and I investigated the availability of sources thoroughly. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:21, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Gehrig was not investigating the veracity of the claims. He was investigating what Marine Law has to say in a case with these claims. That there was an alleged but as yet mysterious Commission, and this is the only mention, seems UNDUE. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:14, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Passing along rumor from the Miami Herald; unsure this belongs in an encyclopedia, or a Featured article, but I can be convinced.

  • Source: In exile circles here, Santiago Babun is believed to have been a ranking agent for the CIA in Oriente Province until he left the country for the United States in 1960.
  • Article: Among Cuban exiles in Miami, Santiago Babún, one of the brothers, was believed to have been an agent of the United States Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) while in Cuba.[18]
    I agree it is rumor, and would be happy to omit it, but I would point out that it was mentioned by a US newspaper that has no reason to be sympathetic to Cuba or Noriega or anyone else, and that it is a rumor among the Cuban exile community, not among Castro's sycophants. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:21, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

POV, unbalanced. The article is painting a specific picture by omission.

  • Article: The Cuban government believed that a boat owned by one of the brothers was responsible for shelling the Cuban village of Samá, on the northern coast of Oriente Province, in October 1971; several people were reported to have been killed in the attack.[1]
  • Source: Informed sources said that the Cuban Government apparently believes that a vessel owned by the Babún brothers was involved in the shelling from the sea last October of the village of Samá near the port of Puerto Padre, on the northern coast of Oriente Province. Several persons were said to have been killed. Although the Babún brothers are known to be opposed to the Cuban regime and, according to informants here, have in the past provided assistance for anti‐Havana activities, the best information Here is that the Semi raid did not involve Babun vessels.[19]
    An error of omission that is easily corrected. The contrary position is in any case presented only as the Cuban government's belief, not as an assertion of fact in Wikipedia's voice. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:21, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Easy fix, then. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:14, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, an easy fix, now implemented. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:06, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

These are samples only, indicative of the same issues seen at Noriega. I have not completed an exhaustive review as I did at Noriega, but based on both, I suggest the article should be withdrawn and completely reworked, with an eye towards better investigation of the sourcing, working with the several knowledgeable editors from the talk page who are well versed in CIA issues. This article is POV because of poor sourcing, and failure to completely examine sources and claims, and by text omitted. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:02, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully, I dispute this oppose, and I specifically disagree that the article is POV. I have dredged every available bit of reliably sourced information, and have been careful to provide in-text attribution where required. I am grateful for SG's attention to the Noriega article, where she has pointed out substantive new source material that should have been considered. I cannot improve the sourcing here when no new material has been shown to exist, and if more sources are found, I will do my best to incorporate them. Yes, Dinges isn't a scholarly source, since he was working as journalist at the time, but he did subsequently hold a professorship in journalism, at Columbia, and I hold that he is an entirely reasonable source in the absence of anything superior. I wish there were better sources, but if the available sourcing here isn't good enough for FAC, that's a very discouraging thought to anyone seeiking to write FAs about history in the developing world. I am confused as to the "several knowledgeable editors from the talk page" you are referring to; there's nobody commenting on the talk page at all besides Canadian Paul, who reviewed this at GAN. Perhaps the reviewers at ACR, who were no lightweights either, would be willing to weigh in; @Buidhe, Zawed, Hog Farm, and Peacemaker67: thoughts? Buidhe, I'd be interested in your perspective in particular, as you did the source review at ACR. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:21, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This article is basically a sub-article to Manuel Noriega, which is highly slanted towards Dinges; I am referring to the three other editors active on that talk page, who all seem to have a good handle on the CIA issues and other nuance. I have not pinged them to this FAC; perhaps you would like to ask them if they are able to locate further sources or can shed further information. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:19, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree strongly that this is a sub-article of Noriega. His role here is important but this was a substantive incident before he got involved. The coverage this has received in the military history journals has nothing to do with Noriega; the coverage this received in the media occurred before Noriega got involved. Dinges constitutes only a fifth of the citations in the article. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:06, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Personally, I'm not persuaded by this oppose. There may be a few things that can be improved, but the sourcing for this incident is so sparse (I also looked for additional sources, not finding them) that the right thing to do is to repeat what sources say, attributing as necessary. This is what Vanamonde has tried to do. I'm also not convinced that Dinges isn't a RS. (t · c) buidhe 01:29, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • So, as an example, if there is no information other than one source—which does not give its sources—on the Panama Commission ... including no Panamanian source ... how is it not UNDUE to include that information? One example. I can ask similar on others. What is the source of that information, and what do scholarly sources say about the makeup of this Commission and its relationship to Torrijos/Noriega wrt the negotiations to release Villa? I have not said Dignes can be disregarded as a source; I have observed that Wikipedia is telling his journalistic partisan story, and giving it UNDUE weight, without seeking out other sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:54, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The question is, if only one source refers to this Commission ... whose name in Spanish is not even identified, so it cannot be located in Spanish-language sources ... and for which there is no other trace, is it not UNDUE to even mention it? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:56, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not think it is undue. Due weight is determined by prevalence in reliable sources. If one reliable source is all that covers this facet of the topic, then it is not undue to use it. The same goes for Dinges above. I would weigh any more scholarly sources above Dinges or the military history review, but as Buidhe said, I cannot cite sources that do not exist. Also, I acknowledge that Dinges is not a scholarly source, but he's no lightweight; he held a professorial position at Columbia, some years after publishing this book; he was also a high-ranking editor at NPR. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:06, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are other items you have left off of Dignes's bio. And we still don't have even a name for this "Panamanian Commission"; we don't know that sources don't exist, but we can't even look for them with a name, because the source who mentions it give NO trace, footnote, or indication from whence came that information. Hence, UNDUE. We have a lot of rumor here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:23, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • If there are items of his biography that somehow change his reliability as a source, then I would like to hear them explicitly; I still see no reason to discount him as a source. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:28, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Continuing
[edit]

(after edit conflict) From reading some of the other sources, I also find:

The source does not state this
  1. and that the Cuban government's charges were accurate.[3] (The Cuban goverment made many charges; the source does NOT say anything about all of them being accurate... this is editorializing.)
    Not editorializing, merely insufficient precision in wording, which I have now fixed. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:28, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Jorden (who should be identified as the Panamanian ambassador at the time ... he is downplayed as "a diplomat") in one case does not need to be attributed (information from multiple sources, not just his opinion), and in another case, he never stated that it was "ironic" ... this is editorializing, not verified by source.
    He did not say it was ironic. Dinges saw his quote, and described it as noting the irony. I can word this differently to make it clear it was Dinges' assessment of Jorden's writing, but the content is supported by the cited sources. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:28, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In sources but omitted from article
  1. From Gehrig, owners stated that the vessel was returning from a charter to Haiti
    Added. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:28, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. US denied the ships were carrying arms or agents
    Added. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:28, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Welles and others mention the seriousness of Villa's wounds, he reported blood everywhere, the Johnny was unarmed, but was strafed by machine gun and rammed
    Villa's wounds are already mentioned; severity added; ramming and strafing are already in the article; machine gun detail added. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:28, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Welles says Villa and three others retained when other crew was released; the article says only Villa was retained.
    Welles is the only one I've seen who mentions this; Jorden, Villa, Gehring, etc, make no mention, so I do not think this is something that should be stated, or if it is it cannot be in Wikipedia's voice. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:28, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Misleading
  1. "off the coast of Cuba" ... all sources state that the vessels were not in Cuban waters, and Johnny was in Bahamian territory. The first sentence is misleading by omission
    "Off the coast of Cuba" is also what all the news sources use, and so if I am being misleading, it's only because so was the NYT. Regardless, I have now added the fact that the first capture occurred in international waters to the lead and the body; the second one occurred in Bahamanian territory, as already stated. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:28, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Better sourcing/citation needed
  1. Landing of insurgents should be cited to Gehrig, p 324. We still have no idea where Gehrig got this information, nor what this "Panamanian Commission" was. There are surely Spanish-language sources if we had even a name for this commission. If there is no other source, UNDUE.
    I have added Gehring as a source, but I don't see how the original citation was insufficient; it is reliable. If Gehring is a reliable source, and I think he is, I see no reason to consider this undue. If he's not a reliable source, we should not be using him for any of the information. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:28, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Dinges is used to describe the "face saving" issue re Villa when Jorden gives a fuller account of that ... why is Jorden not used instead? There was cleary a deal with Fidel ... what did he get in return? (eg, Commission findings). (Curious why Jorden isn't used at Manual Noriega.)
    There are two pieces of detail Jorden mentions that can be added, and I have now done so. I cannot speculate as to what Castro got in return, and in the absence of sources I believe such speculation it out of scope. Again, when Dinges is a priori reliable and has met the requirements of the source review at ACR, I do not see a reason to remove him. Also, Jorden may be a reliable witness, but he is also not an independent source for events he was involved in, and I am not comfortable using him to the exclusion of other sources. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:28, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
SYNTH
  1. Neither Johnsten nor Hersh ever mention Leyla or Johnny Express ... they are used to synthesize a conclusion here.
    There is no synthesis, because there's no conclusion there not contained in a single source (Dinges). Johnston is used just for the date, while Hersh is used to avoid citing very many pages of Dinges. Hersh can easily be replaced; both can be removed if we decide we're content with less context about Noriega. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:28, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Close paraphrasing
  1. Historian Herbert Parmet wrote that Noriega played an important, and possibly decisive, role in the negotiations. This is exact wording from the source that needs to be quoted. Also, Jorden seems to have a slightly different take on that, and other negotiations he mentions are left out. Why is Parmet puffed up as a "historian", while Jorden (ambassador) is downplayed as a "diplomat"? Jorden was there; Parmet was not, and Parmet did not have access to classified documents.
    That is four words, but okay, quoted. Jorden is making the same basic points; Noriega was sent, and persuaded Castro to release Villa into Panamanian custody. "Historian" and "diplomat" are the most logical and concise descriptors of Parmet's and Jorden's respective jobs. I disagree that they are minimizing or puffing up anything. I have added Jorden's position of US ambassador at the time. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:28, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Because similar issues were found at Wikipedia:Peer review/Manuel Noriega/archive1, I don't believe this article can be promoted without a complete check for source-to-text integrity. The two articles are related via Noriega, CIA and Dinges POV; the Dignes POV is that the US created the Noriega problem, he is presented as only a stooge of the US (another editor's words, not mine), and this incident is described in a way to lay that foundation.

Between the two of them, POV is introduced in several ways: a) text not verified by sources; b) selection of sources (with UNDUE weight given to some); c) sources excluded or information from sources excluded; and d) text in sources not represented fully or accurately.
I don't have Dinges, but a complete review of every page used from Dinges should be undertaken based on what I have found. Using sources to state one side of a story presented in those sources, when those very sources offer alternate info (eg, Bush on not being able to overrule the Army at the MAN article and statements that the Semi raid did not involve Babun vessels being left out are considerable omissions, leading me to believe an indepth source review and reworking of the article is needed. Dignes is preferenced over other sources, and our articles reflect his POV. Some sources used are only restating what Dignes has stated. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:28, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I had done my level best to represent the available sources, and where details that had been left out were point out by you and others, I have added it. I do not agree that the few omissions noted above, which I have now addressed, amount to a wide-ranging neutrality problem. I cannot add sources that have not been shown to exist. I still see no reason to discount Dinges as a source, especially when his book has been cited 100+ times in scholarly work. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:28, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have not said Dinges is not a reliable source. He is not a scholarly source, in relation to other untapped (or lesser used) scholarly sources at Manuel Noriega. I have said he is given undue weight in both articles. His biases are apparent in his Wikipedia bio; we do not require that sources be free of bias, but here we need a careful weighting of sources to make sure we are giving due weight to all points of view.
I will inquire tomorrow how long it will take my local library to get me a copy of Dinges. Once I have it, I will re-read the entire article to see where we stand. I will let you know when I can get hold of Dinges.
I continue to believe since we have zero information about this Panamanian Commission ... other than a passing unfootnoted mention in one source, that it should be left out. And I continue to believe sources might be found, for example, by following up on Gehrig. Sometimes letters have to be written to attain Featured status, and doing so is often productive. If you can get me a name of this Commission, or members, I could have better luck in Spanish-language sources. For all we know at this point, it was MAN’s brother, Luis Carlos Noriega. Fidel did not let Villa go for nothing, after stalking the ship for weeks. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:52, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Continuing 2
[edit]

Vanamonde93, I do not know which version of Dignes to request. The citations say the 1990 version was used, but the ISBN points to the 1991 paperback. If I get the wrong version, I won’t necessarily have the same page numbers. There is an error in the citation, I believe. Which version was used? (Please doublecheck all ISBNs at MAN too??) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:10, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The version of Dinges I am using is the 1990 version. An ISBN converter seems to have led to my error. I am also happy to email scans of a couple of pages if you would prefer that. I can't scan the whole book, though, so if you want more than a few pages asking a library would seem necessary. I also do not expect different editions to diverge in any substantive way; page number discrepancies are easy to figure out. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:23, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Replied on talk here, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:22, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In the lead:

  • The US asked the Panamanian government of Omar Torrijos to negotiate his release. Rómulo Escobar Bethancourt and Manuel Noriega traveled to Cuba, where they negotiated Villa's release into Panamanian custody, in return for which criminal charges were brought against Villa in Panama, though he was released without being convicted.

Is this correct? Was he released without being convicted, or was he released without even being tried, since, as Jorden explains, it was probably always clear that a US citizen could not be tried in Panama for alleged activities against Cuba. (And since Fidel was too crafty/savvy to fall for such a ploy to begin with, there is probably still something missing in this story.)

Also, another reason why we shouldn't be trying to correct an article with substantial issues during a FAC:

  • According to William Jorden, a US diplomat who was the country's ambassador to Panama during the incident,

It is my understanding that Jorden was on the National Security Council during Nixon, and was LATER ambassador to Panama, during the Canal Treaty negotiations. What am I missing?

Why is this in the article; that is, what is the reader supposed to understand from this?

This is not what the New York Times reported:

  • According to the New York Times, vessels owned by the Babún brothers did not participate in the raid on Samá.

The NYT is not in a position to make that statement so authoritatively, nor did they. The NYT reported: "the best information Here is that the Semi raid did not involve Babun vessels". I suggest rephrasing to ... According to the New York Times, there was no information corroborating that vessels owned by Babún brothers participated in the raid on Samá ... or something of the nature.

  • adjusted. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:53, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Ironic" is still in the article; that is editorializing.
    As I've said, it's what Dinges wrote. I have reworked it to make this clear.
  • Yes, using Hersh and Johnsten (which make no mention of this incident) to build a case about Noriega's relationship with the US or the CIA is SYNTH. It is using sources that don't mention this issue to buttress Dinges' POV.
    I disagree; the connection is made by Dinges; Johnsten is only used for the date. Besides, the existence of Noriega's relationship with the CIA is hardly controversial. Hersh has been omitted. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:53, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Still in the article:

  • In discussing the relationship between former Director of Central Intelligence and US President George H. W. Bush and Panamanian leader Manuel Noriega in a 1997 biography of Bush, historian Herbert Parmet stated that the two freighters had been used to launch speed-boat attacks against Cuba.[6]

Parmet, who had no access to classified documents, is merely repeating Dinges' claim, which is already stated in the previous line.

There is an if-then logical problem here:

  • A case study of the incident in the US armed forces journal The JAG Journal stated that the violent actions of the armed personnel carried by the Leyla Express and the Johnny Express met the definition for piracy. However, it stated that since the actions of the two ships had the objective of overthrowing the Cuban government, they constituted political actions, and therefore could not be considered acts of piracy.[3][17]
Gehrig is looking at the maritime law in terms of whether Cuba can characterize the actions as piracy, and whether that allows them to seize a ship not in their waters and impose punishment. IF they were pirate ships yada yada, THEN according to Gehrig ... yet, we are stating in Wikipedia's voice that Gehrig endorses that these violent actions actually happened. Gehrig is arguing what the law allows for, not endorsing that the allegations are true ... some "if" or "alleged" or "claimed" or "such as" is missing from this sentence. Example: JAG argued that violent actions as alleged by Cuba met the definition for piracy, but cannot be considered piracy when their objective is political.
I do not believe that FAC should be a place for pulling articles through when the issues are significant. The article will be better re-worked off-FAC. I continue to suggest archiving the FAC, and bringing in the other MAN editors for additional eyes, with closer review after you clarify which is the correct version of Dignes. We are still at a place where each time I look at the article, there are still issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:49, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gehring is relying on the Panamanian commission's report. I've adjusted the wording to make this clearer. I disagree with your views of the role of FAC, but that's neither here nor there; I will work on this until the coordinators indicate that they are going to archive it, and they did not do so after my message below. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:53, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

I have been to the library; this article is neither comprehensive (1b) nor well researched (1c). I did not order Dinges because I still don't know which version to order. There are numerous errors or contradictions in this article which need to be sorted via some rather intensive research (I have only scratched the surface). It should be neither GA or A-class. Some notes from newspapers:

  • José Villa's full name should be used (as in all hispanic names, because there are so many common names)-- his name is José Villa Díaz.
  • Multiple sources say he was Spanish born; this article says he was Cuban born-- needs to be sorted.
    The most reliable sources I have say he was Spanish; some sources do say or imply he was Cuban, but at the moment, they are ones I would assign less weight to. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:09, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Multiple sources explain that the crew was released at different times ... some right away, some later, at times four were still held, and perhaps one died in custody.
  • The "Panamanian commission" appears to have been headed by Jorge Ilueca, one of Noriega's later "presidents". It appears that it did not find what this article states it found. It seems to have had three members, including Bethancourt and Carlos Gonzalez de la Lastra, who examined the ships' logs. The Cuban government invited them via the Mexican Foreign Ministry. As an example of information not well researched, the Cuban claim was that this ship participated in the 1971 Oriente issue, the logs did not reveal that. The logs revealed the ships were in the area on other dates. And "close to the areas" claimed by the Cuban govt on other dates. This article overstates the connections. I am unsure if we can use printed excerpts of Panamanian radio broadcasts gathered by the CIA: [20]. But best I can tell, that's all we've got. If we can't use it, then we need to figure out what to do with Gehrig's statement, which is also overstated in this article versus what he wrote. The "subsequently" in the article should be dated ... they were there fairly quickly because of intervention of Mexico.
  • Ilueca negotiated the release of some of the prisoners.
  • Mexico's ambassador was involved-- never mentioned in the article, which seems to emphasize Noriega's role while ignoring others.
  • A better description for the first sentence would be "outside of Cuban waters" for both cases.
  • Details about the ships are left out (eg, one was designed to carry crude, what size they were, etc)
  • An ample chronology of who was released where and when is available in newspapers, but is not included in this article.
  • An ample discussion of the charges against Villa is available, and this article appears to misrepresent not only what he was tried for, but that he was convicted but released early because of the considerable time he was in jail in Cuba and in Panama.
  • Multiple sources discuss names and nationalities of crew members (relevant since one seems to have died in Cuban custody ... a few of the crew members were Cuban)

There are considerable untapped news sources that can be used to fill in details. See for example Miami Herald Mar 2, 1973; Palm Peach Post, Nov 1973; Miami Herald Oct 31, 1973; Ft. Lauderdale News, Oct 31, 1973; Miami Herald Mar 2, 1973 and scores of others.

  • Villa was released to Panama in Mar 73.
  • Miami Herald Mar 2, 1973 discusses the timing of Villa's release (and answers my query to what Castro got out of this, even if that speculation cannot be included in article)
  • We don't mention that Villa had 14 bullets in his back, one still lodged in his spine when released
  • Cuba released the ships to Panama on the condition they not be returned to the US
  • Palm Beach Post mentions crew imprisonments, and that one might have died in custody
  • Miami Herald Oct 31 1973 says Villa was found guilty of "exposing Panama to reprisals from Govt of Cuba" ... not any of the Cuban charges.
  • Ft Lauderdale News Oct 31, 1973 says he was sentenced in Panama to 16 months, but released immediately for time already served in Cuba and Panamanian jails. Our article is quite inaccurate and incomplete on any of this. Also says the ships were owned by only two of the brothers.

This is scratching the surface; to write this accurately, comprehensively and neutrally, a good deal of time in a library will help. I have also further researched Dinges. I now understand the mention of "trendy journalists who want to blame Noriega on the US"; Dinges seems to be stuck in Chile in the 70s, and viewing all of Latin America through those lenses. When using his POV version of history, careful balancing research is needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:28, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • I am unable and unwilling to go to a library during the pandemic. I can and will ask for most of these sources on WP:RX, as they appear to be available on newspapers.com. I am not willing to use most of the transcripted radio broadcasts as a source, because I do not see how they are reliable, nor do I see how interviews given on Panamanian radio are reliable. They may make a useful external link, and could perhaps be used for absolute bare-bones details, like the names of the commission members. Some of the other statements above I cannot address unless I know which source they originate from. I disagree that Dinges's history is in any way more POV than any of the other sources brought up here. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:09, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • As you may note where I mentioned it, I am not insisting that we use the radio broadcast transcripts (I questioned that myself), but they do answer some basic questions and give us some guidance, and I do agree they can be used for some bare bones understanding and to help us make sure we don't make other mistakes. If you have processed through everything else (let me know?), I will sit down for a new runthrough to see what I can strike. I can probably do that tomorrow, when I can fully focus to avoid the "searching sources from the car" scenario that happened at MAN:). I just got a subscription to newspapers.com; what do you need (titles? ... am I able to forward those to you myself ? Haven't checked, not fully familiar with newspapers.com myself just yet ... ) Re Dinges, many sources are POV (we don't expect them not to be), but we have to read lots of sources and reviews to make sure we know what the POV is and that we don't inadvertently give undue weight to any one POV. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:17, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've worked through things besides anything to do with the newspaper sources or the broadcasts; I would prefer to wait to use the broadcasts until I've seen the newspaper sources. So I guess what I need is a clipping of any newspaper source you would like me to use; I've asked an editor who has newspapers.com access for assistance, but if you'd rather find them yourself, I wouldn't object. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:19, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Awesome, I see she is more conversant with newspapers.com than I am. I have now seen about four different descriptions of the size of the ships, so think we can stop trying to sort that and just leave it out—too much disagreement in sources. The US Coast Guard Marine Information Exchange seems to have no record of these ships. Shall I hold off for you to process through everything, and me to get Dinges? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:02, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi guys, it seems to me that Vanamonde and Sandy are working together effectively to improve the article but the nom has become more akin to a PR. Could we pls continue this outside FAC and return when the collaboration is complete, or after two weeks, whichever is longer? A dedicated PR might even be in order before the next nom here, something to consider anyway. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:31, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Message to coordinators

[edit]

@FAC coordinators: SG has provided an extensive review above. I have engaged with what I believe to be the actionable substance of this review as it stood 72 hours ago. However, much of SG's commentary amounts to, in my opinion, a hostility to using one particular source, Our Man in Panama (1990), by John Dinges. Despite it a priori meeting the criteria for a reliable source, SG has essentially argued that the book isn't one, though she seems willing to accept details from obscure local Florida newspapers as statements of fact. Furthermore, SG has also asked me to either use an a priori unreliable source (printed transcripts of Panamanian radio broadcasts) or to write to the author of a relatively obscure source from 1973. I believe that I am being held to an unreasonable standard, one that the majority of FAs are never held to. This is exemplified by SG's objection to describing Herbert Parmet, a professor of history, as a historian. Would you be willing to look at these major points of disagreement? If you believe an oppose on those grounds is reasonable, I have no wish to spend weeks with newspaper clippings (as an aside; a good deal of time in a library, when I work 60+ hours a week and we're in a global pandemic? Is anyone unable to do that forbidden from nominating at FAC?), because the standard I have been set with respect to everything else is completely unattainable. Regards, Vanamonde (Talk) 21:53, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Vanamonde93: We (coords) are not going to take a position on content questions without recusing. What we will do, however, is make a call on whether actionable opposition can or should be worked on during the course of the nomination or if it's best archived. Any opposition that raises rational questions about how the article meets WP:WIAFA is open to debate about whether and how it should be actioned. That's a matter for consensus among the nominator and various participants in the review. I'm not trying to give you a politician's answer to your query, just trying to be straightforward about the coord role here. --Laser brain (talk) 00:45, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Laser brain: I understand that; I am asking you whether the points I mention in my ping to you constitute genuinely actionable opposition. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:09, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Vanamonde93: I operate on the assumption that feedback should be addressed, even if to state your reasons why you aren't making changes in response to that feedback. Nominators have never been required to do what reviewers ask, only to address feedback with actions or responses unless the feedback is clearly misguided, which certainly isn't the case here. That's my definition of actionable. Coordinators aren't here to sit in judgment of whether feedback items should be integrated into the article. That's a matter of consensus among you and the other participants in the review. --Laser brain (talk) 11:53, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Laser brain: Thank you, that is reasonable. Can I assume that means you are not going to be archiving this immediately? Vanamonde (Talk) 14:49, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Vanamonde, it's odd to object to using the considerable coverage in the Miami Herald for other facts, when the article now cites it 13 times and did use it to spread a rumor about one of the brothers. I also refute your characterization of my stance on Dinges, but we've been over that already. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:17, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have not objected to the Miami Herald, and your claim that I am is another indication that you're not really treating my arguments in good faith. My objection is to treating their content as established fact rather than source material requiring attribution, and to using papers even more local than the Herald for claims that contradict higher quality sources. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:31, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I gave you five samples only above, and three of the five were from the Miami Herald, which you have already used extensively, so I am not following your concern about expanding your examination of newspaper sources. There are considerable more to be found by visiting a library.
The ship's owners, and its captain, were all from Florida, so it is not surprising that Florida papers covered it.
We don't have "higher quality sources [to contradict]" in this case; the article is based on snippets from here and there, with no major work devoted to this incident, except a legal analysis of maritime law (Gehring)-- the ONLY source used that is devoted to this incident, and which only looks at the maritime and other law involved. The other major source used is a legal analysis of another case (Behuniak), which mentions this case in passing. We have bits and pieces from other books, none of which look at this incident in depth. In other words, it is not surprising that you have had to use newspapers (which you have done extensively) and that you will need to then use more of them to balance and complete the story. By not doing so, the article actually had errors, and was not scratching the surface of comprehensive. I don't think you can opine on the newspapers sources untapped until the research is done-- it took me about an hour to find the amount of information I found above.
I am sympathetic to your concern about the hours of research it takes to write an FA; I have an entire credenza of lengthy, complex, technical journal papers which I have consulted to work on medical FAs. In addition to a considerable selection of scholarly textbooks, that are also lengthy and complex reading. That's the nature of the beast.
More significantly, I am keen to get hold of Dinges so I can verify the info from the pages used. The citation at both this article and Manuel Noriega is incorrect. There are two versions of Dinges. The ISBN in the citation points to the 1991 paperback, but the citation date is given as the 1990 version, which is a hardback. Could you please correct the citation and let me know which version to order? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:57, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
“This is exemplified by SG's objection to describing Herbert Parmet, a professor of history, as a historian.” That was not my position; please re-read more carefully. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:18, 14 October 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) 18 October 2020 [21].

Electrical telegraphy in the United Kingdom

[edit]
Nominator(s): SpinningSpark 17:21, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the development and growth of telegraphy in the UK. Much of the early technical work occured in the UK, the country was the first to have commercial telegraph companies, and the country was central to the creation of the first worldwide telecommunications networks. The page was long overdue for creation on Wikipedia.

The page has been through an extensive peer review here as well as a very thorough GA review here. Pinging all the editors who took part in those reviews and talk page discussions in the hope they can support the FA too. @Scope creep, TedColes, Andy Dingley, and Binksternet: SpinningSpark 17:21, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Catslash: who got missed off the ping list. SpinningSpark 17:23, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Serial Number 54129: and another. SpinningSpark 17:25, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I have replaced my previous "drive-by" nomination. I would like to nominate for FA status. I undertook the original GA review. It was what I would consider a fairly rigorous review. I wanted to examine every aspect of the article, to ensure it was as close to perfection as possible, which it was. It also underwent a fairly comprehensive peer review, which found some minor fixes.scope_creepTalk 15:29, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Binksternet comments
  • Kieve's recently released PDF highlights a social aspect of telegraphy that may or may not be appropriate for this article about the UK system: remote representatives in distant locations "were never again to be free from central control and direction." The telegraph in general reduced the autonomy of local officers and agents who were now expected to deliver more frequent reports and to follow instructions emanating from London or other headquarters. Of course, that is a characteristic of telegraphy in general, but its effects would have been felt first and most strongly in the pioneering UK system. Is it worth talking about this aspect? Kieve says, "The telegraph became the nervous system of industry and commerce, and influenced every aspect of life of the nation." Binksternet (talk) 03:17, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • The "Public take-up" section is perhaps the place where an expansion of this sort could occur. The section's heading is rather opaque to an international audience. You might replace it with "Social effects", "Public reaction", "Public realisation", etc. Binksternet (talk) 05:15, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • The quotes you provided are from the publisher's blurb, not the book itself, so should not be used as a source. Nevertheless, the desire to exert central control over the empire was undoubtedly a driver for the British Government. I will look into adding something if sources are available and it's not there already. But, the "Public take up" section is not the right place to do that. It's more connected with the All Red Line or the desperate need to connect to India. Edit: I've now added a couple of sentences, and a new source, to the "Ocean cables" section.
      • I've retitled "Public take up" to "Spread of public use". Is take up not understood in this sense in the US? It's not marked as specifically British in wikt:take-up sense #3. I've added a sentence to the section.
      • Sweeping, inflated claims like "influenced every aspect of life of the nation" are to be avoided, or at least treated with caution (and remember, this is publisher's blurb). Although this is long after Kieve, ever since the publication of The Victorian Internet there has been a tendency to exaggerate the telegraph with the Internet's characteristics. That analogy only goes so far. The telegraph brought important changes for business and government, but its social use by the public never reached the level of daily social chit-chat as seen on the internet. It was just too expensive for that. Somewhere in Kieve he gives booking opera tickets as an example of the spread of "everyday" use of the telegraph. That pretty much tells you that casual use of the telegraph did not penetrate down to the lower tiers of society. Ordinary people did use it, but only occassionally, for instance for special occassion greetings or to arrange visits. SpinningSpark 09:54, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Frankly, a sweeping statement is exactly what I think is proper. A general statement about the drastic reduction of local autonomy. You added the sentence "Colonial officials necessarily had a great deal of latitude for independent action due to the communication delay" but you did not emphasize the fact that the telegraph was putting an end to the "latitude". The wording you used was opaque in meaning. Binksternet (talk) 02:52, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • @Binksternet: Thanks for responding. I've had another go at this which I hope you might like better. I've still qualified the statement somewhat, as does the source:- "...these hopes (of the government) were not entirely fulfilled..." Nickles' book is entirely on the subject of the effect of the telegraph on diplomacy so it would be hard to find a more authoritative source. I read Kieve's book from cover to cover while I was writing this article. Happy to be shown wrong, but I don't remember him saying anything like the statement in the publisher's blurb you referred to. SpinningSpark 15:55, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • checkY I approve the article for FA status. Binksternet (talk) 03:12, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Suggest scaling up the All Red Line map
    • I don't agree that this needs scaling up. The representation is a crude simplification and the Red Line is heavily bolded. It is perfectly clear at the current size, and expanding will not reveal any further information.SpinningSpark 10:36, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The current alt texts are not useful
    • One of the purposes of the alt text is to prevent screenreaders reading out the filename. If the image caption is sufficiently descriptive, then according to WP:ALT One solution is to provide something at least minimally useful such as |alt=photograph , |alt=painting, or |alt=sculpture. Please be specific on which images are deficient, if any. SpinningSpark 10:51, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • That guidance is specifically for purely decorative images; I don't think any of the images here fall into that category. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:05, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • In that case we have a difference of opinion on what constitutes "purely decorative". For instance, the Childers image could be removed from the article without losing any relevant information. The caption already says who it is and when. There is no real need to add anything else. SpinningSpark 14:21, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:PSM_V03_D418_Single_needle_instrument.jpg needs a US PD tag. Same with File:Foster_magneto-electric_telegraph.png, File:John_Watkins_Brett.jpg, File:Jacob_Brett.jpg, File:All_Red_Line_(retouched).jpg, File:Rex_Whistler_-_St_Valentines_Day_Greetings_Telegram_1935.jpg
    • Done, although I'm not entirely sure why this is necessary. SpinningSpark 11:19, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Both Commons and en.wp require images hosted as free to be free in the US; Commons additionally requires they be free in their country of origin. When and where was File:John_Watkins_Brett.jpg first published? Same with File:Jacob_Brett.jpg. Why is File:Rex_Whistler_-_St_Valentines_Day_Greetings_Telegram_1935.jpg believed to be free in the US? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:05, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • I can't say when these were first published, but an image of Jacob Brett that appears to be a head and shoulders crop of this image was published in Bright, The Life Story of the late Sir Charles Tilston Bright, 1899,[22] and in Bright, The Story of the Atlantic Cable, 1903,[23]. These were not my uploads, so the best I can do is write to the site the images were taken from. SpinningSpark 15:56, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • On the telegram form is it not automatically PD in US if it has gone out of copyright in the country of origin through PD-70? By what mechanism could it still be in copyright? For this date, to be protected by copyright in the US the first place it would have to have been registered, renewed 28 years later, and (I think) marked as copyright (which this form isn't. In all probability it was never copyright in the US. SpinningSpark 15:56, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Lord_Kelvin_photograph.jpg: an image taken in the 1900s could very well have been taken by a photographer who died less than 70 years ago, plus this also needs a US PD tag
  • File:William_Henry_Preece_-_Page's_Magazine.png: as previous, the photographer could well have died less than 70 years ago
  • File:Hugh_Childers,_Lock_%26_Whitfield_woodburytype,_1876-83_crop.jpg: when/where was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:37, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note

[edit]

I'm adding this to the urgents list to hopefully get some reviews. --Ealdgyth (talk) 14:37, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Laser brain

[edit]

Hi Spinningspark, I began to review this today but didn't make it past the lead. Unfortunately I find the writing to be relatively dense and awkward in many places, and appearing to need a good round of revision with an eye toward cohesiveness and smoother narrative. Some random examples are below:

  • I can't parse the first sentence in the lead at all. What are you trying to convey? It reads as if "Electrical telegraphy in the United Kingdom" is the subject of the sentence and it had... what? I don't understand.
I don't quite understand what the problem is you are having with the lead sentence. It is explaining the importance of the topic, which goes beyond parochial concerns. Perhaps you could elaborate on the issue. SpinningSpark 14:53, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It is distinct from the optical telegraphy" - I'm unsure what "it" is referring to here. Telegraphy or electrical telegraphy?
When the subject of a sentence is a pronoun, it is normally expected that it represents the subject of the previous sentence. The subject of that sentence is electrical telegrahy so the meaning is grammatically unambiguous. It is also logically unambiguous; optical telegraphy is a subset of telegraphy so the sentence could not possibly mean that telegraphy was distinct from optical telegraphy. We could write "electrical telegraphy" explicitly, but really, don't you think that is unnecessary repetition? And by the way, that kind of repetition was a big complaint of an earlier review, which led to these early sentences being structured the way they are. SpinningSpark 14:53, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Cooke formed a company to exploit it" I'm curious about the word choice here. By exploit to you mean monetize? The word carries negative connotations.
This is a perfectly normal (and common) usage of exploit. The OED gives "[t]o make full use of; to derive benefit from" for this meaning. No negative connotation is meant, which would normally be applied to people (or possibly the environment), not ideas and inventions. SpinningSpark 15:11, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've now removed the passage altogether in response to the comment two down from here. SpinningSpark 15:46, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Important components were the needle telegraph instrument suggested by Wheatstone, the battery invented by John Frederic Daniell, and the relay invented by Edward Davy." This could be written in active voice to convey the message much more effectively.
I don't see how that can be put in active voice; there is no action verb to activate. "A component was the battery" is no more active than "the battery was a component". SpinningSpark 15:46, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm thinking something like "The needle telegraph instrument suggested by Wheatstone, the battery invented by John Frederic Daniell, and the relay invented by Edward Davy were important components [possibly because...]" I don't really understand your resistance—it's better writing especially for ESL readers. I don't say "Red were the apple and the wagon" generally either. --Laser brain (talk) 16:41, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's not so much resistance as failure to understand what you wanted. perhaps I don't properly understand what active voice is. Still not sure how this is an improvement, but done anyway. SpinningSpark 22:32, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 1846 the Electric Telegraph Company (the Electric) was formed by Cooke" - same company referenced in the last para? Why repeat it (the lead is already long)?
Agreed and done, which incidentally removes the word exploit which you didn't like. SpinningSpark 15:46, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The company initially supplied telegraph systems to railway companies, but soon branched out into other businesses" - "Industries" is surely a better work than "businesses" here
I don't think so. I find it hard to think of the financial sector or newspapers as industries. They were rarely referred to as such historically, that's a modern contrivance. In any case, I don't see why "businesses" is problematic. SpinningSpark 16:12, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Most telegraph companies were unprofitable except for the Electric and Magnetic." Awkward writing
Rephrased. SpinningSpark 16:24, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Once the cables were laid, these disparate companies were merged into the Eastern Telegraph Company, first established in 1872." Writing can be simplified by replacing phrases like "first established in" with just "in".
No, it can't be stated that way because it would not be true. The Eastern TC was formed in 1872, but the other companies were merged in at various dates as they completed their specific projects. The idea was that if a project failed to deliver its cable, then the company running it could be thrown to the wolves without bringing down the rest of the organisation. SpinningSpark 16:12, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The inland telegraph companies were nationalised in 1870 and then run" By run do you mean operated? Perhaps too colloquial.
Done, although I don't think run is colloquial in this context. SpinningSpark 16:24, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the estimated costs failed to take into account" The costs didn't fail to do anything... a person surely did.

I think this needs considerable improvement before it's ready to meet 1a. --Laser brain (talk) 15:55, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Changed "estimated costs" to "cost estimates". SpinningSpark 16:24, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Laser brain: I have responded to the specific points you raised. I hope you can see your way to continue reviewing. It would be greatly appreciated. SpinningSpark 16:28, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Spinningspark: Thanks for the responses—it doesn't sound like anything is a showstopper. I'll plan to continue leaving some notes in the next day or so. --Laser brain (talk) 21:17, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I've just completed a readthrough and I have some minor notes that I'll post today or tomorrow, but there's hardly anything worth fussing over. I've changed to tentative support, as I'd like to read through one more time for cohesiveness. --Laser brain (talk) 17:29, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Moving to support after another readthrough and some minor tweaks. --Laser brain (talk) 16:53, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
More notes below. --Laser brain (talk) 13:26, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

[edit]

I began looking at the sources today. I focused on checking instances where a single citation is provided at the end of a paragraph to ensure it covers all of the text. Just checking a couple:

  • Fn 83 - close paraphrasing
    • Our text: "The Electric had tested the Hughes printing telegraph in 1858 but decided against using it."
    • Source text: "The Electric also tried the Hughes Type Printer in 1858 but did not use it."
  • Fn 85 - fails verification. This whole para cites p. 64 of Kieve but I don't see that it supports the text.
  • Fn 86 - OK
  • Fn 87 - fails verification. The cited pages cover the profitability statement but I don't see anything about "a troublesome rooftop system to maintain".
    • I've removed the passage. The troublesomeness of the system is discussed elsewhere in the article. It was more susceptible to storm damage and malicious or accidental damage by the public. However, it's not worth finding cites, and you are right, Kieve does not discuss the financial impact of this. SpinningSpark 19:01, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fn 92 - fails verification. The cited page covers increased use but not "public started to use the telegraph for mundane everyday messages".

Unfortunately because of these spot-checks I'm revising my support above as this is a troubling sample. A lot more thorough inspection of the citations will be needed before this could be considered ready. --Laser brain (talk) 13:26, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi guys, in a situation like this I'd expect the nominator to re-check all referencing in the article for possible issues such as those noted above, after which Andy or another reviewer can make another spotcheck and if that comes up clean then we're probably right to promote -- but given the time this has been open, the nominator's ref check would have to take place in fairly short order or else we'd be better off archiving. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:22, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Ian Rose: I think that's a bit harsh. None of the comments raised are real killers. Of the five cites checked one is marked ok (#86), one is due to a simple typo in the cite (#85), one alleges close paraphrasing (#83) which I don't really agree with as its just a short statement of fact (but I changed it anyway), one is a repeat of a claim that was already made (and cited) earlier in the article (was #92, now #93) and was just used as an introduction to another point. The final one (#87) is a true statement and is also cited elsewhere in the article, but was perhaps used in an inappropriate place. To my mind that was the only one that amounted to a substantive complaint. I'm doing my own random checks, but I know for sure that I have not written anything that is not in the sources (because I don't know anything that is not in the sources). SpinningSpark 15:30, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Spinningspark: I don't think it's fair for you to dismiss everything except one as not being substantive. They are citation errors, and they are not in line with the FA criteria. I don't allege that anything you've written is false or fabricated. But they have to be verifiable by the random reader and not just with your assistance. I don't have time to do a comprehensive review of all of your citations, so I would expect you do review your own work at this point and let me know when you believe it's ready for another spot-check. Pinging Ian Rose just for visibility. --Laser brain (talk) 12:35, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Lee Vilenski

[edit]

I may end up claiming points towards the wikicup. Hope you don't mind! :P|

I'll take a look at this article, and give some comments on how it meets the FA criteria in a little while. If you fancy doing some QPQ, I have a list of items that can be looked at here - specifically FACs for 2020 World Snooker Championship and 1984 World Snooker Championship

  • The guideline says this is a general rule of thumb, not a hard rule. That indicates that exceptions can be made, and the great length of this article is surely grounds for an exception if anything ever was. A "paragraph" does not have a definite length, so reducing to four paragraphs does not in itself change the length of the lead. I'm happy to try and shorten it, but you need to say what you think has too much coverage. Five paragraphs works well with the structure of the article, covering the five major periods/developments. These are (1) early development, (2) commercial companies period, (3) nationalised industry period, (4) international submarine network, and (5) decline and rise of other technologies. I don't think any of those five should be removed entirely from the lead.
An alternative solution here is to split the article across two pages. It will divide fairly neatly into pre- and post-nationalisation. This will automatically result in a much reduced lead for both pages. But I would only be willing to do that if the FA coordinators were willing to continue with this nomination in that state. I don't want to have to start over with a new nomination. SpinningSpark 09:53, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm certainly not expecting a split, but obviously we want to keep the lede as condensed as possible; maybe something to think abut rather than something to worry about 14:25, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
  • This comes up so often in reviews that I usually just comply with it. But in this case I could not immediately see a way of doing it without butchering one sentence or the other, so I am just going to ask why is this considered a bad thing? Does our MoS (or anybody's MoS) prescribe it? It is a literary device called anadiplosis and I'm not seeing any writing guides saying not to use it. Just the opposite in fact,[24][25][26] they say it is used for emphasis and linking two clauses for logical flow. It has been used by such titans of literature as Shakespeare and Byron. SpinningSpark 10:53, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but they weren't writing an encylopedia in 2020. :P. I'm not sure we have a MOS about it, but I've never found it to be particularly easy to read. What about "The introduction of special greetings telegrams for birthdays and similar events in 1935 proved highly popular also countered the decline."? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:25, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done, although I still say this is a made up rule circulating amongst wikignomes which has no real basis. Even though I've changed it, I would still argue that it was superior before. Putting "decline" at the beginning of the second sentence immediately tells the reader what point the sentence is going to make and that it follows on from the previous sentence. Nothing needs to be held in temporary storage in order to parse what is going on. Your way the reader has to get all the way to the end of the second sentence before finding out what it is about and then has to refer back to the first sentence to make the connection. SpinningSpark 17:19, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Other than the above I've had a look through the article and I can't see too much else worth not supporting, so I'm happy.Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:25, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. The prose is below FA standard. Here are some examples:

  • Passive voice The source of power he used was high-voltage friction machines.
  • This is awkward: despite the optical telegraph being frequently unusable due to weather conditions. It sounds like it needs a possessive "opticsl telegraph's being".
  • Redundancy Nearly all the telegraph systems that were finally successful used batteries of electrochemical cells as their source of power. What else can you use batteries for?
  • Passive voice An important development that made this possible was the invention of the Daniell cell in 1836 by John Frederic Daniell.
  • The chemistry does not make sense here The hydrogen is consumed by the sulfuric acid electrolyte, oxidizing it to water, before it can reach the copper electrode in the copper sulphate electrolyte. A later improvement by J. F. Fuller in 1853 replaced sulfuric acid with zinc sulfate.[4] I don't see how replacing an acid with a salt works. Can you explain this?
  • Passive voice to which are attached electrical contacts which close and complete a secondary circuit.
  • Passive voice again The person who was the driving force in establishing the telegraph as a business in the United Kingdom was William Fothergill Cooke. (William Fothergill was the driving force....).
  • Use of slang a serious falling out
  • You could use an appositive here This was an instrument patented by Charles Wheatstone in 1858. It was designed to be used by unskilled operators with no knowledge of telegraph codes. "Patented by Charles Wheatstone in 1858, the instrument was designed to be use by unskilled operators." (There is also redundancy).
  • Passive voice An early advocate of nationalisation was Thomas Allan in 1854.
  • Here The Post Office decided to standardise on the Morse telegraph system, which had been the international standard since 1865. How could it have been the international standard before it was standardised?
  • Here in the Lead, it should say it was the latex from the plant that was used, Suitable insulation for these was not available until the introduction of gutta-percha in 1843 by Scottish military surgeon William Montgomerie. The link is to the plant.

These are just examples. The article is a slog to read because of the verbosity. It is not written in summary style and it is too long. While appreciating the time and effort that has gone in to this interesting contribution, I don't think it's ready to be featured. Sorry. Graham Beards (talk) 10:42, 18 October 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 put this on the urgents list two months ago and it's not gotten any traction. I suggest taking it to Peer Review and working with LaserBrain and Graham Beards on their concerns so that hopefully the next try will be smoother. --Ealdgyth (talk) 15:25, 18 October 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 Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 18 October 2020 [27].

Riegelmann Boardwalk

[edit]
Nominator(s): epicgenius (talk) 14:58, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the wooden boardwalk in Coney Island, Brooklyn, NYC. First proposed in the 1890s, the boardwalk opened in 1923, and has been renovated and expanded several times since then. Its namesake is a borough president who didn't want the boardwalk to be named after him. There are several attractions and landmarks on this boardwalk, which became a New York City designated landmark in 2016.

This was promoted as a Good Article a year ago thanks to an excellent GA review from The Rambling Man (who incidentally also reviewed Parachute Jump, another Coney Island-related FAC). After a much-appreciated copy edit by Tdslk, I think it's up to FA quality now. I look forward to all comments and feedback. epicgenius (talk) 14:58, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Lee Vilenski

[edit]

I'll take a look at this article, and give some comments on how it meets the FA criteria in a little while. If you fancy doing some QPQ, I have a list of items that can be looked at here. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:15, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not much here. I do think there should be a little merging of a few paragraphs that are quite short, but I didn't see all that much that would be in opposition here Epicgenius Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 17:09, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comment from Therapyisgood

[edit]

I don't believe the use of {{open access}} is appropriate on the majority of references here. From Help:Citation Style 1#Registration or subscription required: "There are several url-holding parameters. Each may be marked with an access icon. Links inserted with any of the url-holding parameters are expected to be free-to-read by default, so |url-access=free is not valid." Therapyisgood (talk) 03:15, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Therapyisgood: You're right, thanks for pointing this out. I've removed that template. epicgenius (talk) 15:18, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note

[edit]

This has been open for over a month with relatively little activity, and not much has happened in recent weeks. It will be archived soon if it does not attract some additional review. --Laser brain (talk) 13:35, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is the lack of review a WIKICUP issue? I would normally volunteer to review this, as it looks sound, but I am staying away from Wikicup articles out of concern for the effect it is having on FAC. I can see no reason for this article not to be attracting reviewers. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:24, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Laser brain and SandyGeorgia: If my participation in the WikiCup is concerning, I'm fine with withdrawing this nomination for the moment, and then renominating after the WikiCup has ended (after the required waiting period). epicgenius (talk) 19:31, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Goodness, one would hope that would not be necessary! I just can't understand why the article is not being reviewed; at a quick glance, it looks fine. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:39, 13 October 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) 14 October 2020 [28].

Manilal Dwivedi

[edit]
Nominator(s): Gazal world (talk) 18:55, 3 October 2020 (UTC) Co-nominator(s):Nizil Shah[reply]

This article is about 19th-century Indian philosopher, writer, and social thinker. After the first nomination was archived, the article has been majorly expanded. In doing so, I received enormous help from my mentor User:Mike Christie, who also reviewed the previous nomination. Without his help, such improvement would not have been possible. The article has now became clean and polished. I am also thankful to User:Nishidani, User:Gog the Mild, and all the editors who participated in Peer Review and GA review.

Reviewers may want to take a look at the article talk page, where User:Fowler&fowler has expressed concerns about the notability of the article subject and whether the sources are of sufficient quality to support a featured article, since Fowler&fowler has indicated they will probably not be commenting at this FAC. However, regarding sources, I believe that they are quite reliable and scholarly. Thanks. Gazal world (talk) 18:55, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review—pass

Per previous FAC (t · c) buidhe 21:11, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Aza24

[edit]
  • I don't know if I'm going to give this a full review but there a little of odd things that stick out to me:
  • There could definitely be at least 2 more pictures, especially something in the Philosophy and social reform section... also why are the two pictures in the biography section so tiny? And is one building right after another really an appropriate use of media?
  • I glanced through the talk page and with the doubts on Dwivedi in mind (which I am not attempting to take a side on), where is "He was an influential figure in 19th-century Gujarati literature" supported in the text – and what does the reference say to explicitly support this?
  • "commonly referred to as Manilal in literary circles." seems unnecessary, why does this matter? If you want to keep it it should be formatted right after the name, like how Josquin des Prez is in the first sentence
  • I'm not really sure how I feel about "Philosophy and social reform" – I'm not getting a very coherent section here. From looking at it (albiet not intensely closely) it seems like an "extended bullet point list" of his ideas. I don't know though, maybe other reviewers will disagree.
  • "among the masters of Indian philosophy" seems editorial, does the source really say that?
  • User:Fowler&fowler posted some new comments on article's talk page which need to be addressed. It will take some time in addressing all that comments. I would like to withdraw this nomination for now. I will come next year with fresh eye. Pinging Ian Rose and Ealdgyth. Thanks. --Gazal world (talk) 14:00, 14 October 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 Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 13 October 2020 [29].

Can't Get You Out of My Head

[edit]
Nominator(s): — Tom(T2ME) 17:05, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about... the 2001 single by Kylie Minogue. After the first failed FAC, I opened a review, where the user who was concerned with the prose laid over his opinions and the prose was significantly changed and improved. I believe that the article is ready for the bronze star now. — Tom(T2ME) 17:05, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Graham Beards

I don't think this is quite ready. There is some awkward prose.

  • Here "Lyrically, it discusses Minogue's obsession with her love interest" - discusses doesn't sound right and it's not really about Kylie.
  • I had to read this three times "the session started off by Davis generating a 125 bpm drum loop on the programme Cubasemusic equipped with an acoustic guitar" does it mean using a computer programme? And what's the significance of the guitar?
  • Here ""Can't Get You Out of My Head" has a length of three minutes and fifty seconds." Why not say it's three minutes fifty five seconds long?
  • Here "The whole song, including Minogue's vocals" the song wouldn't be whole without the vocals.
  • This is jargon "programmed using a Korg Triton workstation via MIDI", at the least it needs an indefinite article.
MIDI is an interface, so you need "a MIDI" and perhaps link it? Graham Beards (talk) 19:14, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is pompous "Adams praised its natural flow and deemed it an epitome for a song programmed by a computer." When we use "epitome", which is rarely, we say "the epitome". Why not just quote Adams here? "If you could program a computer to formulate the perfect pop song, it would sound like this." - Graham Beards (talk) 17:48, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Graham Beards, thank you for the comments. I tried to re-word the awkward prose. Please, check it out when you have the time. — Tom(T2ME) 18:22, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think the changes you have made are an improvement. If I have anything to add I will do so later. Graham Beards (talk) 19:31, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome! Thanks for the suggestions again. — Tom(T2ME) 20:07, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Lee Vilenski

[edit]

I may end up claiming points towards the wikicup. Hope you don't mind! :P|

I'll take a look at this article, and give some comments on how it meets the FA criteria in a little while. If you fancy doing some QPQ, I have a list of items that can be looked at here Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:16, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • I just couldn't get this FAC out of my head.
  • Haha, love the pun!
lede thoughts
  • I think it should stay like this, I feel like removing the brackets and adding in 2011, implies that the song was recorded in 2001, not that Fever was released that year.
prose
  • Well, it is only used for the track listing in the formats. Since, it's an older song, it's the only available digital retailer that has the EP. Anyways, Lee Vilenski, thanks for the comments. I believe I resolved most of them and also responded to some specific ones. — Tom(T2ME) 21:52, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose And suggest withdrawal to obtain an independent copyedit. As Graham Beards indicated, the prose is not ready for FAC, and listing the prose issues would be quite lengthy. I offer this example:

  • The song is about an obsession with whom The Guardian's Dorian Lansky described as "mystery" as she never reveals the identity of the object of her infatuation and suggested that the person could be "a partner, an evasive one-night stand or someone who doesn't know she exists".[13]

Similarly awkward and ungrammatical prose is throughout. Also, see WP:RECEPTION. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:47, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment - The prose appears to need work before this is ready and I see an independent copyedit has been requested. This is best done outside of the FAC process. Therefore, I will be archiving it shortly and it may be re-nominated after the customary two-week waiting period. In the mean time, please action feedback as appropriate. --Laser brain (talk) 14:42, 13 October 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 Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 13 October 2020 [30].

Stephen Dee Richards

[edit]
Nominator(s): Paleface Jack (talk) 16:46, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the 19th century serial killer, who confessed to the murders of nine people, and was publically executed in 1879 for the murders of the Harlson family, and Peter Anderson. Richards would later be known for a posthumous biography, which was based on an interview conducted after his final arrest, as well as a modern-day analysis by forensic psychologist Katherine Ramsland.

I have been working on the article for a while now and have passed it under GA status several months ago. All the sources used in the article are of sufficient quality, and most of the images used are both good quality and in the public domain.Paleface Jack (talk) 16:46, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • What makes "The Old West's Ted Bundy" warrant bolding in the lead?
  • Source for "Kearney County Murderer" nickname? Also why include the other lead nickname in the infobox and not this one?
  • "seeking his fortune" - source for this quote?
  • "Richards would become notorious by way of a posthumous biography" - source for this claim?
  • "about $19,855 as of 2020" - source?
  • "This would be the only confirmed photograph of Richards. " - source?
  • "The current location of the skull is unknown. " - source?
  • Short cites would benefit from being formatted for human readers
  • The article relies quite heavily on contemporary newspaper accounts - do later sources corroborate their claims?
  • FN23: page?
  • Be consistent in whether authors are presented first or last name first
  • For articles without a byline, it isn't necessary to specify Anon.
  • How are you ordering Sources?
  • For multi-edition works be sure to include edition statement for version cited
  • Be consistent in whether you include locations for books
  • Ramsland 2006: link provided gives a different publisher

Stopping there and oppose pending citation cleanup. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:26, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment - It appears this was not adequately prepared for nomination and we've had no response from the nominator after several days. Therefore, I will be archiving it shortly and it may be re-nominated after the customary two-week waiting period. In the mean time, please action feedback as appropriate. --Laser brain (talk) 13:58, 13 October 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 Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 13 October 2020 [31].

Chinese nationality law

[edit]
Nominator(s): Horserice (talk) 05:03, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Chinese nationality law. The framework for a lot of these regulations was created in the waning years of the Qing dynasty, through which we can take a peek into the monarchy's views on the rest of the world at that time. This article just passed GA review and I think it's ready to be reviewed here. Horserice (talk) 05:03, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review—pass

Only image looks OK for copyright (t · c) buidhe 18:11, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

The article is very short for a FA, only 1939 words of readable prose. I am surprised that there is not more to say about this topic. (t · c) buidhe 18:15, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Had to do a bit of reading before getting back to this. The basic principles of the law have barely changed in the last century and I think what has been changed is already covered here quite succinctly, so I'd have to ask what you'd like to see added? Horserice (talk) 04:36, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article lead does not properly summarize the article. This is the most important part of an article and I wonder why this was not at least mentioned as a topic for improvement in the GA review. Hekerui (talk) 21:14, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment - This has dropped into the Older Nominations section without any support for promotion or substantial prose review. Therefore, I will be archiving it shortly and it may be re-nominated after the customary two-week waiting period. --Laser brain (talk) 13:54, 13 October 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 Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 12 October 2020 [32].

Royals (song)

[edit]
Nominator(s): De88 (talk) 07:38, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about... the 2013 debut single by New Zealand singer Lorde. After another nominator was unable to get their request for GA nomination approved in 2014, I translated the article from Portuguese, where it was designated FA-status, to English in 2018 and nominated it for GA. The nomination passed, albeit, without a proper review. However, I requested a copy-edit of the entire article a week later and the reviewer relayed to me that they edited the article to meet the standards of a proper GA. Two years later, after working on the article for sporadic time periods, I believe it now meets or is relatively close to meeting the requirements for FA-status. De88 (talk) 07:38, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose and suggest withdrawal to return after an independent copyedit and peer review. You have obviously put a lot of work into this article, but I do not think the prose is yet ready for FAC, and suggest that an independent copyedit (with attention to MOS issues like MOS:LQ as well) will be the fastest route to a bronze star. There is awkward prose throughout that needs tightening: two samples only:

  • However, she realised those songs had too many references to luxurious lifestyles which did not represent her reality, and was another reason she wrote the song.
  • More broadly, historic aristocrats also inspired the song. She explained the lyric "We're driving Cadillacs in our dreams" was something she read in a diary she received at the age of 12.

and overuse of redundancies like subsequently when the chronology is already clear. Also, the excellent essay WP:RECEPTION may be useful. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:38, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest withdrawal I concur with Sandy's assessment. While the prose is detailed and covers all relevant matters related to the song, it is far from FA quality in my opinion. Some examples that I can take only from the lede include Lorde co-wrote the song with her producer Joel Little (is Little really her producer?); Its lyrics detail disapproval (not sure if "detail" is the appropriate word choice here); In the media, the song has been credited for inspiring some artists to adopt its minimalist sound (credited by whom? And I'm pretty sure "In the media" is the wrong choice of word). A request for copyedit at GOCE may be a good start, HĐ (talk) 11:26, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment - It seems this is not at the level required for nomination yet and should proceed through some independent copyediting and review. Therefore, I will be archiving it shortly. --Laser brain (talk) 00:47, 12 October 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 Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 8 October 2020 [33].

Kentucky Kingdom

[edit]
Nominator(s): BlueShirtz (talk) 06:00, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the Kentucky Kingdom amusement park, located in Louisville, Kentucky. Plans for the amusement park were created in 1977 by the Kentucky State Fair Board, as a proposal to expand the Kentucky Fair and Exposition Center grounds. Kentucky Kingdom opened in 1987 as a park focused on the commonwealth of Kentucky's history and culture, but filed for bankruptcy after one season. Businessman Ed Hart purchased the park's operating rights in 1989, and reopened the park one year later. Under Ed Hart's leadership, attendance increased by 1.1 million people in seven years, making Kentucky Kingdom the fastest growing amusement park in North America. Kentucky Kingdom's success led to Six Flags, a national amusement park operator, purchasing the park in 1998. The park, now known as Six Flags Kentucky Kingdom, began to experience a decline in attendance, as the company brought smaller additions to Kentucky Kingdom. After Six Flags filed for bankruptcy, the company announced in 2010 that they would no longer operate Kentucky Kingdom, and for five years the park was closed as the local government searched for a new operator. In 2013, Ed Hart announced that he would return to operating Kentucky Kingdom, and the park reopened one year later. Since Hart's return in 2014, Kentucky Kingdom has added new attractions and seen a growth attendance every season.

I began working on this article in April, and it was promoted to Good Article status in May. Throughout the past five months I've added 131 sources, new images, new sections of the article, as well as expanding older sections of the article. Many of the sources that I added were from local newspapers and magazines that featured information about Kentucky Kingdom that had not been documented on the internet. Because of the recent of expansion of this article, I believe that this article meets the qualifications to be classified as a Featured Article.

Comments on images
Comments by Spicy

Thanks for putting this up for FA. I can tell you have put a lot of work into this article - the history section in particular is quite detailed. I think that the article will need some more work to meet the FA criteria, though. Here are some things I noticed while skimming; this is not meant to be comprehensive.

  • The park originally opened on May 23, 1987, after years of planning by the Kentucky State Fair Board and Kentucky Entertainment Limited, the parks original operators, at a cost of $12 million. - "the parks" should be "the park's". This is a rather long and unwieldy sentence. Is "years of planning" necessary? Presumably most amusement parks take a significant amount of time to plan. "at a cost of $12 million" is too far away from its referent, making the sentence awkward to read. This could be rephrased to something like:
"In 1977, the Kentucky State Fair Board announced plans to build a theme park on the grounds of the Kentucky Fair and Exposition Center. The park's construction, overseen by Kentucky Entertainment Limited, began in 1986 and cost $12 million in total. Kentucky Kingdom opened to the public on May 23, 1987..." (the specific phrasing could be improved but this is just an example of how to restructure the sentence)
  • $12 million in 1987 dollars, or 2020 dollars? Also, the $12 million figure does not appear in the article body. The lead is supposed to summarize the article; it generally shouldn't contain information that isn't in the main article text.
  • The park went bankrupt after one season, and was reopened in 1990 by businessman Ed Hart, who would reopen the park again on May 24, 2014, after it was closed by the park's third operator, Six Flags, in 2009 -> there is a lot going on in this sentence and it's out of chronological order which makes it a confusing read. Should probably be split into two, and mention the acquisition by Six Flags and the 2009 closing before the re-opening
  • There are 4 social media links in the infobox; should only be one per WP:ELMINOFFICIAL
  • Kentucky Kingdom's normal operating season runs from late April to early August. The park then reopens only on weekends until the end of October, the same month that the park hosts their Halloween-themed event, known as HalloScream. - Do we need this much detail about their schedule in the lead? Remember that this is supposed to be a high-level summary. This information doesn't seem to be in the body of the article, either.
  • The lead should be expanded. From WP:LEAD: The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. Think of the lead as a mini-version of the article, and keep in mind that many people only read the lead, so it should be a reasonably detailed summary of the article's content. The article's history section, for example, is very detailed but all the lead tells us is when it was opened, closed, and bought.
  • signed a contract with a group called "Kentucky Entertainment Ltd." - why the quotes?
  • Kentucky governor Martha Layne Collins and Louisville mayor Jerry Abramson - WP:SEAOFBLUE and WP:OVERLINK issues; the governor and mayoral positions are not particularly relevant to this article so no need to link them
  • many people who visited Kentucky Kingdom complained about the park's small size and how it had very little attractions, one person who visited the park said, - comma splice
  • kiddie area - slang/jargon; would change to "children's area"
  • the 10-acre park closed - the "10-acre" part kind of shows up out of nowhere. Wouldn't this fit better in the previous paragraph which talks about visitors complaining about the size of the park? The previous paragraph says it was planned to be 13 acres, did it end up being smaller or did the source round the figure down?
  • park closed and filed for bankruptcy after only one season, due to few attractions - perhaps nitpicky, but I imagine it didn't close because of having few attractions, but because it didn't attract enough guests due to having few attractions...
  • What makes hellotravel.com themeparktourist.com, davealthoff.com parkvault.net, this Youtube channel, thrillhunter.com ultimaterollercoaster.com, moxietalk.com, etc. FA quality sources? Many sources seem to be fan pages, commercial sites, or blogs. These would not satisfy the basic WP:RS criteria, let alone the FAC requirements for high-quality reliable sources.
  • Kentucky Kingdom reopened for the 1990 season on June 13, an estimated 2,000 people visited the park on the first day of the season - comma splice. There are a few others throughout the article.
  • Despite the Starchaser being sold it had remained on-site at the amusement park allowing Hart to purchase it back. - what is "the Starchaser"? It is not mentioned previously and the reader has no indication of what it is or why it is important
  • On August 24, 1990, Kentucky Kingdom announced plans to build a water park ... On July 11, 1991, the park announced plans for Ocean Avenue, a 6-acre water park - repetitive
  • The NFCC rationale for File:Bluegrass Boardwalk logo.png is incorrect, it is not placed in the infobox at the top of the article. I think this logo would fail NFCC in any case because there is no discussion of the logo itself in the article.
  • Images should have alt text.
  • Storm Chaser is a Rocky Mountain Construction roller coaster which will use part of Twisted Twins' existing structure - article says it opened in 2016 so why future tense?
  • Many entries in the list of rides are lacking inline citations
  • In light of WP:NPF and WP:BLPPRIVACY, I would avoid giving the names of non-notable children in the "Incidents" section. It is unnecessary and adds nothing to the reader's understanding of the topic.
  • When Ed Hart talked about the new additions to Kingdom Gardens, he said "We’re very proud of Kentucky Kingdom Gardens. Sure, the Kentucky Kingdom experience centers on the rides and water park attractions, but we think the Gardens program provides an extra dimension for many of our guests, riders and non-riders alike" - of course the park owner has good things to say about the park. This is promotionalism, not encyclopedic content.

I would recommend seeking a copyedit and a peer review from Wikipedia:WikiProject Amusement Parks members to ensure this article is ready for FAC. Spicy (talk) 17:24, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from CR4ZE

Thank you first of all for your commendable effort to improve this page over the past few months. The article has developed along sound lines and I can see there's potential for a true FA, however I think that is still quite far down the line from here. I have read through and echo the concerns voiced above, and have outlined a few of my own below:

  • The prose does not meet 1a, b & c:
  • "The park closed and filed for bankruptcy after only one season, due to low attendance numbers, which were contributed to the small amount of attractions and poor weather conditions throughout the 1987 season", "There was also more tables, chairs and benches and smoother, quicker season pass process processing and in-person purchases through technology improvements"—among other examples.
  • Much of the article reads like proseline and lacks connection:
  • "On May 29, Kentucky Kingdom announced...", "On June 9, Kentucky Kingdom announced...", "However on June 25, the park announced..." is one of many notable examples.
  • Note that when running through multiple dates with a single a year, you shouldn't refer back to the year each single time. The prose in 1.4 - Attempts to revive the park (2010–12) really suffers here.
  • "the park made its biggest investment yet with the addition of Chang" is puffery.
  • Many sentences could be recast in active voice and this would improve the prose's cadence and flow.
  • Numerous instances of choppy paragraphs. Three paragraphs less than three lines in "1.5 - Ed Hart's latest return" alone.
  • Attendance figures are visited a handful of times, there's some commentary on the park's growth, initial public criticism of its small footprint is mentioned, and there's a "top 10 amusement parks" listicle from MSN Travel (notability?). Beyond that, I just don't see the level of comprehensive analysis on earnings/industry performance/awards/attendance/etc that is expected of an FA. Perhaps you have indeed exhausted the available literature, but the article leaves the impression there is much more that could be said.
  • The tables don't meet 2b & c:
  • The table format for the attractions list isn't kind on the eyes. Perhaps this is personal preference, but I wonder how this would look converted to prose. A glaring concern is that almost none of these table entries cite reliable sources. If individual attractions can't be cited in any way, it raises the question of whether a protracted list is encyclopedic content.
  • Perhaps former attractions could be forked into a child article to improve page readability.
  • Inconsistent height formatting: The Giant Wheel is listed as a "150 ft (46 m) tall Ferris wheel" but FearFall is a "A 129-foot tall drop tower ride".
  • References look solid. Note several journals are missing publisher fields (ie The Courier-Journal is published by Gannett). It would be nice (not required) to see archiving.
  • The article is well-illustrated with plenty of free media. However, I really don't see the non-free File:Bluegrass Boardwalk logo.png as additive to the article. The rationale for why this can't be conveyed through text alone remains unclear.
  • Images in the roller coaster table lack alt text.
  • One {{Citation needed}} tag noted.

I feel that the level of clean-up required extends beyond the scope of this review. As such, unfortunately in its current state I would oppose this candidacy. I am happy to revisit this if you can address my concerns, or I can give input at a future peer review. Please do let me know if you would like follow-up. — CR4ZE (T • C) 15:56, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@BlueShirtz: It has now been over two weeks since commentary was left at this review. While you have made some improvements to the article since, there are still several concerns raised by Spicy and I that remain unresolved. Where are we going from here? — CR4ZE (T • C) 22:04, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@CR4ZE: Sorry for not replying, I have been really busy lately and I haven't had enough time to properly respond. Thank you for taking a look at this FA nomination and providing ways for the article can be improved so that it can be more likely to reach FA status. I have tried to do some of the minor improvements that were mentioned by you and Spicy, and I will do more of those improvements sometime within the next couple of days. I removed a section of the article about information from the late 1990s that sourced a blog article, as I was unable to find a reliable source, and I will continue to replace unreliable sources in the article as soon as possible. I will keep this YouTube documentary as a source, as it includes interviews from park management and employees, was promoted by the park and was even shown at one of the park's gift shops, which leads me to believe that the video would be considered a reliable source.
The proposed File:Bluegrass Boardwalk logo was removed, and I replaced it with File:Holiday World Entrance Gates - Jeremy Thompson.jpg. There are also other minor fixes that I have done since I posted this for FA status, and I will try to get to the other improvements as soon as I can. Once again, sorry for the extreme delay. BlueShirtz (talk) 22:22, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment - It looks like substantial work is needed to bring this up to FA standards and this work is best done before nomination. Therefore, I will be archiving it shortly and it may be re-nominated after the customary two-week waiting period. In the mean time, please action feedback as appropriate. --Laser brain (talk) 12:51, 8 October 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 Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 8 October 2020 [34].

Pepi I Meryre

[edit]
Nominator(s): Iry-Hor (talk) 14:36, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Pepi I Meryre third pharaoh of the Sixth Dynasty and arguably the most charismatic of this line of kings. Reigning for some 50 years in the late 24th century BC, Pepi faced the murder of his father, a possible usurper, several more conspiracies and the decrease of the pharaoh's power as the Ancient Egyptian society became more and more decentralized. In spite of this, he managed to be the most prolific builder of the Old Kingdom period, building temples and chapels throughout Egypt as well as at least 7 pyramids. Pepi's vigorous policies both internal and external as well as delicate power plays stabilized the situation allowing trade to flourish, asserting Egypt's power and influence abroad. This article is the fruit of extensive research over several months. Iry-Hor (talk) 14:36, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Aza24

[edit]

Marking my place. Looks like a very well written and researched article – in good company with your previous articles. I'll get around to reviewing at some point soon. Aza24 (talk) 01:18, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aza24 Thanks, I am looking forward to your comments ! By the way, I saw that you are interested in early music, perhaps you know the youtube chain "Early Music Sources" and accompanying website [35], written by professional musicians specializing in Renaissance music from the 1500s and which details the complicated musicology of the time. Their website has an impressive quantity of original sources on that, including links to most of the original Renaissance era treaties on music. However, they don't go much farther back than 1500. It is regrettable, for example I wish they had something on Jacopo da Bologna, an italian composer of the 14th century, whose Wikipedia article is neglected but his music is really good (to me at least !). Iry-Hor (talk) 05:52, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have heard of that channel! I'll bring this to your talk page. Aza24 (talk) 08:24, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Finally getting to this, comments:

  • Is there a reason he's referred to as a "king" rather than "pharaoh" – surely the former is the standard?
Done Actually I use both terms more or less freely to avoid repetitions, with "king", "ruler" and "pharaoh" being taken to be equivalent. The question came up in a past pharaoh FAC review (I don't remember which though) and it was settled that "pharaoh" was a widely accepted modern English term to refer to Ancient Egyptian kings and thus that it could be used as such, even though it is anachronistic (the term came into being no earlier than the Ramesside period and was really used to designate the king only from the Saite period onwards). I reformulated the first sentence to clarify.Iry-Hor (talk) 08:11, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The 2nd–4th sentences all start with "Pepi" – perhaps mix it up a little?
Fixed. Well spotted.Iry-Hor (talk) 08:11, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm assuming with "the decline of the pharaoh's power at..." you're saying that the role of pharaoh was weakening, but at the moment it makes it sound like Pepi and the pharaoh were two different people – perhaps rephrase? Maybe something like: "At the expense of emerging dynasties of local officials, the role of pharaoh began declining in power; Pepi reacted with..."
Fixed I meant indeed several pharaohs, not just Pepi here as troubles started earlier than Pepi's reign. To clarify I wrote "Confronted with the protracted decline of pharaonic power..." which makes it clearer that Pepi was facing a long trend, not just something that sprung up during his reign.Iry-Hor (talk) 08:11, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is relief in reference to Relief? Should link if so (same with Mastaba)
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 08:11, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "as well as" in "as well as by inscriptions in her pyramid" seems unnecessary, clutters up the flow too
Fixed.Iry-Hor (talk) 08:11, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Surely the sentence "She seems to have died..." should be after the " Iput may have been a daughter of..." sentence?
Done yes of course I don't know what caused the mix up.Iry-Hor (talk) 08:11, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "most likely Pepi's father then follows" – "then"? Did he stop being his father later? :)
Fixed ! Iry-Hor (talk) 08:11, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "Pepi's best attested wives..." sentence may be better combined (less choppy) into the next ("and Ankhesenpepi II,[note 2][22] both of whom bore future pharaohs..."
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 08:11, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reading further it looks like the earlier sentence with "Six consorts of Pepi I have been identified by Egyptologists" would be better amended to something that implies that these 6 have been identified with more certainty ("reasonably identified"?)
Done You are right, I wrote "identified with near certainty" to clarify.Iry-Hor (talk) 08:11, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Two more queens have been proposed as Pepi I's consort" makes it sound like he can only have one consort?
Fixed I wrote "Two more queens have been proposed for Pepi I based on partial evidence." Iry-Hor (talk) 08:11, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It may just be me but are you missing a word in "with and as yet unidentified consort..."?
Fixed I changed the sentence completely to "Another son of Pepi I was Teti-ankh, meaning "Teti lives", whose mother is yet to be identified".Iry-Hor (talk) 08:11, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait how can Neith be "likely the eldest daughter" if Meritites IV is the eldest daughter?
Fixed well spotted, this is an issue of Egyptologists having competing hypotheses on the matter. The hypothesis that Neith was the eldest is not the current dominant one (Meritites), so I included this in a footnote.Iry-Hor (talk) 08:11, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "as we do today" sounds somewhat un-encylopedic, perhaps it could be altered or taken out completely (During the Old Kingdom period, the Egyptians recorded time by counting years... ?)
Done. Iry-Hor (talk) 08:11, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lol did not expect to see that much text after hovering over note 6
Yup actually this discussion made up the majority of the article on Pepi I before I started editing it. Such technical digressions on reign lengths are typical of user Leoboudv. I thought it was worth keeping in a footnote as it is entirely correct although perhaps too technical for the main text...Iry-Hor (talk) 08:11, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The South Saqqara Stone is already introduced in the above paragraph and is probably best without the "The Sixth Dynasty royal annals, now known as... and dating to the reign of Pepi II," part
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 08:11, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Got to the Reign section; damn, I meant to read through this in one sitting but my slow reading combined with ignoring how late it is here seems to have prevented that. I will be back tomorrow to review the rest, looking good so far and a very enjoyable read. Aza24 (talk) 09:57, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • 2nd batch:
  • "important increase" doesn't really explain why the increase was important by itself, would perhaps "significant" (implying that it was a rather large increase) or "notable" (implying that the increase could have been in response to his father's death) be more appropriate?
Fixed this is actually a poor French to English translation of what I had in mind. The English word "significant" is exactly what I meant in the original French.Iry-Hor (talk) 08:11, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "who could therefore be behind the regicide" sounds like it's referring to only Seankhuiptah, but I'm assuming its meant to be referring to all 3 people?
Fixed.Iry-Hor (talk) 08:11, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "or occupied the throne in the interregnum" well... I mean he did occupy the throne during the interregnum (right?) – so I'm unsure what the intended meaning is
Clarified Actually either he really did just occupy the throne to keep the seat warm, or he claimed himself to be a kind. This is the distinction that is meant here in the sources. I changed the sentence to clarify.Iry-Hor (talk) 08:11, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "Further archeological evidence lending credence to the idea that Userkare was illegitimate in the eyes of his successor Pepi I is..." seems unnecessary and may be better replaced with something more to the point like "Further archeological evidence of Userkare's illegitimacy is..." (if change were to happen then the following part "the absence of mention of Userkare in" may fit better as "Further archeological evidence of Userkare's illegitimacy is his absence in...")
Fixed.Iry-Hor (talk) 08:11, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Miroslav Bárta has an ill link (here)
Fixed as recommend.Iry-Hor (talk) 08:11, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • As someone largely unfamiliar with Ancient egyption history, I have no idea what a "Ka-chapel" is, is there anything this could be linked to? (I'm talking about in the first mention in the "Policies and power play" section)
Fixed. I changed to " He gave such an exemption to a chapel dedicated to the cult of his mother located in Koptos" which clarifies what is meant here. What is a Ka-chapel is explained in details later in the article, in the relevant section.Iry-Hor (talk) 08:11, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "At some point in his reign, either early[49] or late,[note 12] around his 44th year on the throne" this sentence is rather ambiguous. If there's no agreed upon general time maybe just stating that the time was unknown and having a note mention varying estimates would suffice
Fixed.Iry-Hor (talk) 08:11, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • After reading further it looks like you go in to detail about different views of when it may have happened, so a note like I suggested above would not be necessary; consider still simplifying the opening sentence of the paragraph though
Actually I did a footnote I think it is a good idea at this point and it makes the first sentence simpler.Iry-Hor (talk) 08:11, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I may have missed something but who is "Re" in "with Pepi incorporating Re's name into"?
Fixed I wrote "incorporating the sun god Re's name ". Re was the sun god and the dominant god of the Egyptian pantheon at the time. So much so that during the preceding Fifth Dynasty, Re was essentially "the" official state-god of Egypt. I clarified.Iry-Hor (talk) 08:11, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there something that nomarch and/or Abydos could link to?
Fixed I can't add a link here because nomarch is already wikilinked earlier in the main text, in the section on Pepi's family. I changed to "provincial governor" to make it understandable. Same problem with Abydos, which is wikilinked earlier in the text.Iry-Hor (talk) 08:11, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "is further suggested by the fact that" may be less awkward as "is furthered by the fact that"
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 08:11, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The whole "The political importance of these marriages..." sentence has 5 commas, making it rather choppy to read, rephrasing would be worthwhile here I think
Fixed.Iry-Hor (talk) 08:11, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This part of Pepi's rule may not have..." –> "This end of Pepi's rule may not have..." or something, I wouldn't rely on the reader to read the header and carry it over as context of the first sentence
Fixed.Iry-Hor (talk) 08:11, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • link for Canaan?
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 08:11, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Got to Building activities section, more soon – finding less and less things to comment on
Aza24 Thanks for all your inputs !Iry-Hor (talk) 08:11, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. The changes you have made thus far look good. Aza24 (talk) 05:35, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Last batch:

  • "the Egyptologist Flinders Petrie considered in 1900" – considered seems like an odd word to use here. Maybe "so much so that in 1900 the Egyptologist Flinders Petrie stated/suggested that"
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 11:36, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The thing with this line: "contemporary sources to have stood in Hierakonpolis,[176][177] in Abydos, [178][179][note 26] two[182] in Bubastis,[171] one or more Dendera,[note 27] and in the central Nile Delta region" is that I'm unsure whether how many stood in Hierakonpolis, Abydos and the central Nile Delta region. I'm assuming that the implication is that at least one was in these places, but then why is Dendera specified as "one or more"? At the moment the sentence remains somewhat ambiguous.
Fixed. I made two sentences: the first one listing places where one chapel stood and the second giving the two location where two or more stood.Iry-Hor (talk) 11:36, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A further chapel" in this context makes it almost sound like it was "further away" perhaps "Another chapel" or "A chapel may have also..." would be better
Fixed.Iry-Hor (talk) 11:36, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Missing word in "for example that at Abydos was likely" ?
Fixed. I changed the sentence completely.Iry-Hor (talk) 11:36, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Beneath the floor of Hierakonpolis Ka-chapel of Pepi, in an underground store, –> "In an underground store beneath the floor of Hierakonpolis Ka-chapel of Pepi, – to avoid the extra commas
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 11:36, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I almost feel silly for point this out but you seem to be rather consistent with have "Egyptionologist so and so said/did..." but this is absent before James Quibell
Fixed.Iry-Hor (talk) 11:36, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Confused with "comprised a 95 m × 60 m (312 ft × 197 ft) enclosure wall and, near its north corner, the small Ka-chapel made of rectangular building housing 8 pillars." – not sure the line makes sense. If you're meaning to say that it comprised a small Ka-chapel then surely "a small Ka-chapel..." would be correct?
Done. Yes it is a typo, probably a remnant of something I wrote before. I wrote "...enclosure wall with, near its north corner, a small rectangular Ka-chapel housing 8 pillars".Iry-Hor (talk) 11:36, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait he's referred to as "Son of Hathor of Dendera" for Khenti-Amentiu's chapel too? (if so an "also referred to" the second time would be helpful) – also why is "son" capitalized the second time?
Yes this is correct. Pepi liked to be called this way (why?! I don't know obviously), he is given the title of son of Hathor of Dendera on inscriptions found throughout Egypt and abroad, even on cups, pots, and whatnots. I removed the capital S in Son.Iry-Hor (talk) 11:36, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a direct evidence of the consolidation of the Heliopolitan cults at the time" could be a lot more to the point as something like "direct evidence for the consolidation of the Heliopolitan cults at the time"
Done. Thanks that reads much better indeed.Iry-Hor (talk) 11:36, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "witness royal interest" – "suggest" instead of "witness" not sure "witness" makes sense since who is witnessing?
Fixed. Ah my bad, my use of "witness" isn't good, I meant testify but I guess this would require a person too.Iry-Hor (talk) 11:36, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't mean to be ignorant, but as someone who is unfamiliar with Egyption history, the line "gave rise to a novel designation for the nearby capital of Egypt originally called Ineb-hedj, designation which ultimately gave Memphis in Greek." makes little sense to me...
Fixed. I clarified with: "The diminutive name Mennefer for the pyramid complex progressively became the name of the nearby capital of Ancient Egypt—which had originally been called Ineb-hedj. In particular, the Egyptian Mennefer ultimately gave Memphis in Greek, a name which is still in use for this ancient city". Amazingly, this means that a city such as Memphis, Tennessee owes its name to Pepi's pyramid complex since Pepi Mennefer gave Mennefer which was adopted as the name of capital of Egypt located nearby, which the Greek read "Memphis". Now the US settlers of Tennessee wanted a name for a large city located near a river and took the Greek name for Egypt's capital, on the Nile, as a template.Iry-Hor (talk) 11:36, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Pepi's mortuary complex was surrounded on its south-west corner by a necropolis built during the reigns of Pepi I, Merenre and Pepi II." Would begin this sentence with "Pepi 1" to avoid confusion with Pepi II later in the sentence. I'm confused, if it was built during the reign of Pepi I that means it was built during his own regin, among others, right? This should be said if so ("during his own reign and those of, Merenre and Pepi II" ?)
Clarified. Yes you are right. I changed the sentence as you suggested.Iry-Hor (talk) 11:36, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "fashion as others since" – the "as others" is probably unnecessary as it's implied
Done.
Done.
Aza24 Thank you for your review !Iry-Hor (talk) 11:36, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Aza24 Actually, once you feel like you have finished the review, could you please indicate whether oy support or oppose the nomination ? This would help me keep track of what is finished and what needs work.Iry-Hor (talk) 10:39, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thank you for reminding me. My comments have been fully implemented or addressed, I support this article for FA. Gosh I hope this nomination picks up more reviewers, would be a shame for it to stay in limbo... Aza24 (talk) 22:42, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by A. Parrot

[edit]

Very sorry I haven't gotten to this earlier. I haven't been able to focus on the article as much as I should, but having taken so long I decided to post some initial comments. I'm concerned with the prose, a lot of which is awkward. These are the first few prose problems I noted; I'll have more once I've looked through the article more thoroughly. A. Parrot (talk) 07:30, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's acceptable to write "Old Kingdom period" (and the like, for the other two kingdoms) once, to make it clear to readers that "kingdom" in this context refers to a time period, but it's not standard Egyptological usage and shouldn't appear more often than once in the lead and once in the body.
You mean that "Old Kingdom period" should be used only once in the lede and once in the body or "Old Kingdom" should be used only once ? At the moment "Old Kingdom period" appears only once in the lede and once in the body, but "Old Kingdom" appears multiple times.Iry-Hor (talk) 16:05, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Words should be capitalized when used as titles: "Prince Hornetjerkhet", as opposed to "a prince named Hornetjerkhet".
Done. I fixed all instances of "prince" and "queen" followed by a proper name.Iry-Hor (talk) 16:05, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Pepi II was the last great pharaoh of the Old Kingdom period." That's a matter of opinion.
Fixed well yes, I removed the sentence. That said I am fairly sure I read this somewhere. But this is irrelevant to the present article anyway.Iry-Hor (talk) 16:05, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "While Pepi's wider necropolis witnessed continuing burials until the Late Period, Pepi's cult stopped early in the Second Intermediate Period." I think the first half the of the sentence can be excised. Intrusive burials really aren't that relevant to Pepi himself.
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 16:05, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • …with lime production resuming later…" Most readers probably won't be aware of the connection between lime production and the dismantling of Pepi's monuments, and the lead isn't the place to explain it, so it makes sense to just say that the dismantling of the monuments resumed later.
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 16:05, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems there's enough evidence that Iput was Pepi's mother that you really don't need to list all the individual attestations for it.

Well here I must disagree. I see this as relevant encyclopedic information on Pepi. After all, taken together there aren't so many evidences that listing them all is cumbersome, and this information is important to appraise the relation between Pepi and Iput, which itself is profoundly important for the various hypotheses regarding Pepi's early reign.

  • "…she may be the queen who was referred to as the queen of the west by the Ancient Egyptians, the owner of a pyramid west of Pepi's." I think I can tell what this means, but it's not clear.
Done I simplified the sentence.Iry-Hor (talk) 16:05, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A. Parrot thanks for your help.Iry-Hor (talk) 16:06, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley

[edit]
  • "He was the son of his second predecessor Teti, ascending the throne only after the brief and enigmatic reign of the shadowy Userkare." I do not think "second predecessor" is widely understood term, and you do not need "enigmatic" and' shadowy. Maybe "He was the son of the founder of the dynasty, Teti, and ascended the throne after the brief reign of the shadowy Userkare."
Fixed.Iry-Hor (talk) 16:20, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "to place her son as heir to the throne" What does this mean? To have her son designated as heir or to usurp the throne?
Fixed, it means to have her son as designated heir. I clarified the sentence: "Pepi faced a harem conspiracy hatched by one of his queens who tried to have her son designated heir to the throne".Iry-Hor (talk) 16:20, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Continuing Teti's policy, Pepi created a network of warehouses". What policy of Teti? If it was creating a network of warehouses, then Pepi must have expanded not created it.
Done Well Pepi did create lost of warehouses but it is true that the network itself was initiated under Teti. Pepi is clearly the dominant builder of the two so I wrote "largely expanded".Iry-Hor (talk) 16:20, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "landing troops directly on the coast thanks to Egyptian transport boats." Which coast? Also, I assume you mean that he invaded by sea rather than taking a long way round by land, but it is not clear.
Done I wrote " landing troops directly on the Levantine coast using Egyptian transport boats". Is this clearer or should I write that a seaborne invasion occured ? Because the source talks about of transport boats and all but does not say "seaborne invasion".Iry-Hor (talk) 16:20, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Dudley Miles Ok Done both in the lede and in the text.Iry-Hor (talk) 06:23, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Excavations revealed a bundle of viscera and a mummy fragment, both presumed to belong to the pharaoh." If this was all that survived of his mummy, you should say so.
I can't tell: the source is ambiguous on this, I suppose it is all that was found but the source does not explicitly state this. It talks only about viscera and a fragment. Should I make the jump to the obvious conclusion that this was all there was ?Iry-Hor (talk) 16:20, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ok !Iry-Hor (talk) 06:23, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Sixth Dynasty necropolis at Saqqara was used as a stone quarry from the New Kingdom up until the end of the Late Period with the dismantling of the necropolis' monuments resuming later in the Mamluk era of the Middle Ages." Why is this relevant? If his monuments were dismantled, you should say so.
Done I added " when most of Pepi's pyramid complex was destroyed" at the end of the sentence.Iry-Hor (talk) 16:20, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Dudley Miles thank you for your comments, I am looking forward to more!Iry-Hor (talk) 16:20, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am confused about the conspiracy by a queen. In the lead it is to get her son named heir, although that is what most mothers would do and I do not see how it could be a conspiracy. Under 'Consorts' it is a conspiracy against Pepi with no details. In the 'Conspiracy' section, the nature of her crime is unknown.
Fixed 1) The original text in Weni's tomb goes to great lengths to not tell the queen name nor her crime but she is judged for something and by the context, it can only be a conspiracy against the king (Weni says he was chosen because the matter was delicate). So in the conspiracy section and the consort section, it is said there was a conspiracy but we do not know which one. Many sources see her as trying to have a son designated heir, but this is not said by Weni who judged her. So I toned down the lede, writing that "she may have tried to have her son designated heir to the throne". As the king always chose his heir personally and he had a designated heir at all times, it would have been a crime to have someone else designated heir, especially if the way to achieve this is as a coup. This is a common issue in Ancient Egypt history, Ramses III was murdered for this very reason: having someone else be the heir and inherit the throne at the pharaoh's death in a coup.Iry-Hor (talk) 17:53, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Egyptologist is usually capitalised.
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 17:53, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The first, Meritites IV,[note 4] was the king's eldest daughter". No change needed, but this sounds odd. If Pepi II was born near the end of Pepi I's 50 year reign then Pepi I's eldest daughter would presumably have been much older than her husband.
This does not seem to surprise the sources, and actually it does not surprise me either given the Ancient Egyptians kings routinely married their sisters, or the wives of their fathers. Most of the case, I suspect these marriages were related to prestige and position, and thus power by association.Iry-Hor (talk) 17:53, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "During the early Sixth Dynasty, this count might have been biennial" "might have been" is indefinite. Elsewhere you are stronger, for instance in the note, saying "probably"
Done I wrote "probably" in the instance were there was a "might have been". Depending on the source you get "was biennial", "was probably biennial", "might have been biennial", "was irregular" (but close to biennial...) Most of the sources say that it was biennial or very close to it, but this remains one of the most important and (I quote) "vexing" problems in Ancient Egyptian chronology. An entire chapter is devoted to this in Hornung's hanbook of Egyptian chronology.Iry-Hor (talk) 17:53, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "At the opposite the Turin King List gives only 20 years on the throne to Pepi I while his successor Merenre I is said to have reigned 44 years. This latter figure contradicts both contemporaneous and archaeological evidences, for example the royal annals mention no further cattle count under Merenre I beyond his fifth, which might corresponds to his tenth year of rule. The Egyptologist Kim Ryholt suggests that the two entries of the Turin king list might have been interchanged." As this reign length is generally rejected, I suggest relegating it to a note. Also, "At the opposite" is clumsy. I would delete.
DoneIry-Hor (talk) 17:53, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "For example, numerous ointment alabaster vessels celebrating Pepi's first Sed festival have been produced." Presumably they have been discovered rather than produced by archeologists.
Fixed yes sure, but initially I meant produced by the Ancient Egyptians.Iry-Hor (talk) 17:53, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Pepi was by then perhaps too young a child to reign." This is clumsy. Perhaps "Pepi may have been too young to be king."
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 17:53, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Kanawati has argued that Userkare's reign length—at no more than five years—is too short for a regency". I do not understand this. Why should not Pepi have been five years short of the age of majority when his father died?
Major problem fixed thanks for posting this, of course this makes no sense. It seems like I mixed several sentences and garbled their meaning at some point beyond recognition. I corrected everything going back to the source. So here is what I wrote (and this is what the source says, I can send you the book pdf if required): "Against this view however, Kanawati has argued that Userkare's short reign—lasting perhaps only one year—cannot be a regency as a regent would not have assumed a full royal titulary as Userkare did nor would he be included in king lists. Rather, Userkare could have been an usurper and a descendant of a lateral branch of the Fifth Dynasty royal family who briefly seized power in a coup, possibly with the support of the priesthood of Re." I also added the following footnote attached to the word "usurper": "Pepi's claim to the throne, as the son of queen Iput and thus a male descendent of Unas was the strongest in Kanawati's view, implying that Userkare was an usurper." I apologize for this terrible mix-up.Iry-Hor (talk) 17:53, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Bárta and Baud point to Pepi's decision to dismantle his paternal grandmother[85] Queen Sesheshet funerary complex, reusing the block for his own mortuary temple." Why state this interpretation as fact and the alternative in a note? Is the alternative less credible? Also it should be "grandmother's". Why "the block"? A complex cannot have been made of only one block.
Done I added the missing "s" at the end of "block" and move the footnote to the main text. But I don't understand the "grandmother's", because the sentence is "paternal grandmother Queen Sesheshet funerary complex", so shouldn't it be "paternal grandmother Queen Sesheshet's funerary complex".Iry-Hor (talk) 17:53, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In any case," This phrase does not serve any purpose and I think you should delete it.
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 17:53, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "all of these events and evidences suggest". This is ungrammatical. Maybe "the evidence suggests"
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 17:53, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you again Dudley Miles I hope my modifications address all your concerns.Iry-Hor (talk) 17:55, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Bárta and Baud point to Pepi's decision to dismantle his paternal grandmother[85] Queen Sesheshet's funerary complex, reusing the blocks for his own mortuary temple.[86][74] At the opposite, Wilfried Seipel thinks these blocks bear witness to Pepi's foundation of a pious memorial to his grandmother." 1. You are right on "Sesheshet's". 2. "At the opposite," is ungrammatical. You could say "One the other hand" or "However". 3. I still do not understand what you are saying. How could dismantling his grandmother's funerary complex bear witness to his foundation of a pious memorial to her?
Done I wrote " on the other hand". Look the seeming lack of clarity here comes from Egyptologists contradicting each other because the evidence is ambiguous. For Barta and Baud, the blocks have been reused by Pepi as building material so this means he dismantled a previously existing structure to build his own and did so because he had no problem desecrating his grandmother's temples. For Seipel, the blocks have not be re-used by Pepi rather they show that a structure dedicated to Pepi's grandmother once existed, and given the location of the blocks, it is likely that this structure was built by Pepi himself who thus held his grandmother in high regard. The ambiguity comes from the poor state of Pepi's necropolis which was used as a limestone quarry so blocks from all structures lay mixed-up on the ground, some having been displaced to be thrown into furnaces in the Middle ages. To clarify I wrote "For the Egyptologist Miroslav Bárta, further troubles might have arisen directly between Pepi and relatives of his father Teti. Bárta and Baud point to Pepi's apparent decision to dismantle his paternal grandmother Queen Sesheshet's funerary complex, as he reused the blocks for his own mortuary temple. On the other hand, Wilfried Seipel disagrees with this interpretation of the blocks as having being reused by Pepi, he rather thinks the blocks bear witness to Pepi's foundation of a pious memorial to his grandmother."Iry-Hor (talk) 12:54, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "by creating true local dynasties". What does "true" mean here?
Done I removed "true". Here I wrote "true dynasty" (this is used by the source, you will see why) in the sense that you normally understand "dynasty" in ordinary English. For Egyptologists this is in contrast to the Egyptian royal dynasties, which were invented by Manetho, and were not recognized by the ancient Egyptians themselves. So in fact, here we are talking about local dynasties with male successions, whereas the case of the king is different as kingship was perceived to be eternal and passing from person to the next. As such, Teti was not seen as the first founding member of a new line of king, he was just the successor of Unas, the passing incarnation of divine royal power.Iry-Hor (talk) 12:54, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The concurrent rise of small provincial centers in areas historically associated with the crown may prove that pharaohs of the Sixth Dynasty tried to diminish the power of predominant regional dynasties by recruiting senior officials outside of them." This is clumsy and hard to follow. Maybe "Small provincial centers in areas historically associated with the crown became more important, suggesting that pharaohs of the Sixth Dynasty tried to diminish the power of regional dynasties by recruiting senior officials loyal to the pharaoh."
Done I modified your sentence slightly to "Small provincial centers in areas historically associated with the crown became more important, suggesting that pharaohs of the Sixth Dynasty tried to diminish the power of regional dynasties by recruiting senior officials that did not belong to them and were loyal to the pharaoh".Iry-Hor (talk) 12:54, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This territorial mode of organization disappeared nearly 300 years after Pepi I's reign, at the dawn of the Middle Kingdom period." So it continued in the First Intermediate Period?
Yes. This is not surprising, it was helpful for all rulers and the FIP wasn't quite as chaotic as the reputation of the period says. Rulers of the 9th, 10th and 11th Dynasties had taxes to levy too.Iry-Hor (talk) 12:54, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "this at least shows that the person of the king was not untouchable anymore" Surely the murder of his father had already shown this.
No because the murder of his father is not established with certainty: it is a tale told by Manetho, who wrote almost 2000 years after the events. Some Egyptologists like Kanawati see good reasons to believ this on archaeological evidences, but we do not have any contemporary document telling us this happened. Thus, perhaps it is true, perhaps not. But the conspiracy against Pepi is different: it is mentioned by his contemporary Weni, so it is established fact, especially in view of the Criterion of embarrassment.Iry-Hor (talk) 12:54, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the queen concerned could have been Userkare's mother and Teti's wife rather than Pepi's." Does this mean that Userkare may have been a son of Teti?
Yes, the text says that, at minima, the relation of Userkare and the royal family is uncertain. The problem is complicated and detailed in the article on Userkare. It would be too long to discuss all possibilities in this article I think, only the hypothesis by Kanawati is stated (that he was a descendant from a lateral branch of the royal line of the 5th dynasty), because this could explain why Pepi chose the name Meryre later in his reign in an agreement with the priesthood of Re. This is stated in the main text.Iry-Hor (talk) 12:54, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Consequently, to the failure of this conspiracy, Pepi I would have taken the drastic step of crowning Merenre during his own reign," I think I understand this, but it is unclear.
Fixed, I wrote "As a consequence of this failed conspiracy, Pepi I would have taken the drastic step of crowning Merenre during his own reign..."
Fixed I wrote "may". I wanted to say that he may have done something that may have led to something which may have happened. I thought the "would" would convey this degree of uncertainty: the original cause is uncertain (the conspiracy), the causal relation is uncertain (that the conspiracy aimed at replacing the heir and that Pepi wanted to secure his chosen heir in consequence) and the consequence is uncertain (that he decreed a corency (which remains only an hypothesis). Regarding "drastic", I would like to keep it. The step is not just "very rare" it is the first time this ever happened (as far as we know), while numerous examples exist in later Middle and New Kingdom Egypt. The step is really drastic with respect to the Old Kingdom perception of kingship, which posited that kingship stemmed from one permanent divine manifestation/being embodied in a physical person for a short while, and then passing onto another at the death of the person. So having two kings at the same time makes almost no sense in this view: the godly existence of the king appears to be in two people at the same time. The source actually says "drastic" for these reasons, I thought this was right so I kept it. For Pepi to have done that (if he did!) really means something was amiss.Iry-Hor (talk) 06:18, 23 September 2020 (UTC) #[reply]
I think you need to explain these points in the article. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:00, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Dudley Miles Done this is now footnote 17.Iry-Hor (talk) 14:16, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Sixth Dynasty Royal annals bear no trace either for or against it, but it makes it more likely that Merenre did not count his year of reign until after the death of his father." What makes it more likely?
Clarified. The royal annals ! I clarified with " The Sixth Dynasty Royal annals bear no trace either for or against it, but the shape and size of the stone on which the annals are inscribed makes it more likely that Merenre did not count his year of reign until after the death of his father". This is a common argument in Egyptian chronology: reign lengths can be estimated even on erased or damaged stone fragments from royal annals by estimating the maximum space that could have been devoted to a king's reign on the stone.Iry-Hor (talk) 12:54, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Dudley Miles Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 06:58, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Dudley Miles No there was no copy-editing, but I think the issue is that 1) there is a lot of information on Pepi in good sources because there is a lot of archeological material and he was an important pharaoh; 2) most of these informations are contradictory. These two facts make it hard to expose all opinions on any one subject without writing a lot more text (Kanawati has an entire book just on the possible archeological traces of conspiracies involving Teti - Userkare and Pepi). These issues arise later in the text of the article because of what is discussed there (conspiracies, policies etc.), which have been the subject of so many competing hypotheses.Iry-Hor (talk) 12:54, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Merenre did not count his year of reign until after the death of his father". This is unclear. Maybe "Merenre started his reign when his father died".
Clarified Actually what you propose does not mean the same thing as what I want to say here: the Ancient Egyptian calendar restarted at 0 everytime a king ascended the throne, so the question arises when there is a coregency if the coregent dated all documents related to him with the number of years (or cattle counts) since the coregency started, if he used the number of years of his father's reign or if instead he started at 0 again at the death of his father. Here Baud and Dobrev say simply that Merenre did the last, i.e. his official year 0 started (soon) after Pepi's reign. I clarified with "Merenre did not start to count his years of reign until soon after the death of his father".
  • "Titulary" is a specialist term which will be unfamiliar to many readers. Why not titles?
The royal titulary is the ensemble of 5 names used by the pharaoh and not an ensemble of titles. The names of the pharaoh are not earned, cannot be given or taken away from him and do not correspond to any charge be they fictitious or honorary, all contrary to titles. They really are just proper names (Did you know ? you can see all names of Pepi in hieroglyphics with transliteration and translation in the infobox by clicking [show] button on the right of the "Royal Titulary" title). I would be happy to wikilink "titulary" to Ancient Egyptian royal titulary if I could see where the word titulary appears in the article but an automatic look-up did not produce any instance of it (?).Iry-Hor (talk) 17:44, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The arrangement of the sections looks a bit curious to me. You have sections '3. Reign', '4. Building activities' and '5. Pyramid complex and surrounding necropolis', but these are all part of Pepi's reign and pyramid building is part building activities. Also 'Political situation' does not sound right as a sub-section as it is about the politics in the whole reign, not the situation at one time. There are obviously advantages and disadvantages to any arrangement, but one possibility is '3. Politics', with '3.1 Ascending the throne' ... '3.4 End of reign: coregency', and 'Military campaigns' moved into this section as 3.5; '4. Economy', '4.1 Foreign trade and mining' (You do not appear to cover the domestic economy. Is no information at all available about this?). '5. Building activities', with the 'Pyramid complex and surrounding necropolis' heading deleted, and pyramids etc as sub-sections of this section. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:11, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Dudley Miles Thanks let me think about this for a day or two, I will try to pick a better layout. Note that regarding the domestic economy I do cover it a bit, when I present Pepi's policy (which expanded upon Teti's) of creating a network of special warehouses to help levy taxes and which played a new role in the territorial organization. We discussed it briefly when you asked if it continued during the FIP. The trouble is that there is much less to say on domestic policies because they are mostly continuous in Egypt throughout the Old Kingdom. Ancient Egyptian society is one of the most stable mankind ever produced.Iry-Hor (talk) 17:44, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator notes

[edit]

I've added this to the Urgents list hoping for more feedback. As this has been open for well over a month and not much activity has occured in recent weeks, it will need to be archived soon if it doesn't gather some more consensus for promotion. --Laser brain (talk) 12:30, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Laser brain and Iry-Hor: As I said on Iry-Hor's talk page (here), I think the article has more prose problems than I feel able to deal with within the time constraints of an FAC. I'm not sure I want to outright oppose, but I think withdrawing, copyediting, and renominating at some later point might be Iry-Hor's best course of action. A. Parrot (talk) 22:26, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Laser_brainA. Parrot Yes I agree, I will put this up for a copy-edit at the guild of copy-editors. Once the copy-edit is done and I have updated the layout as per Dudley Miles' suggestions, I will put it up at FAC again. Iry-Hor (talk) 07:40, 8 October 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 Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 7 October 2020 [36].

Paranthropus robustus

[edit]
Nominator(s):   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:16, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about one of the first australopithecine species every described, and it's known from the Cradle of Humankind, South Africa; lived alongside human ancestors from 2–1 million years ago (maybe up to 600,000 years ago); and is most notable for the males having heavily built, gorilla-like skulls. Currently, Orangutan is the only ape FA, and I'm trying to get other articles to join it   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:16, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Suggest adding alt text
  • File:TM_1517.jpg: licensing provided doesn't match that at source site. Ditto File:SK_46.jpg
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:04, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Cradle_of_Humankind_plan.jpg: what is the source of the data presented?
I'm not sure but I would assume google maps. If you want, I can list the map here as a source, or upload the map from [37] which is CC-BY-4.0 (but highlights Rising Star Cave which P. robustus is not known from), or this map which is kinda pixelly   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:04, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:DNH_7_Reconstruction.jpg: what sources underlie this reconstruction?
I drew this based on this skull and it was reviewed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Palaeontology/Paleoart review#Paranthropus robustus which is where other user-made reconstructions are reviewed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:04, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
there is no FOP in South Africa, so normally images of sculptures wouldn't be allowed on Commons, but since this sculpture is in PD, the photo is allowed, and the person who took the photo released the photo under a CC-BY-SA-4.0 license   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:04, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
For the photo, I don't see a photographer release with that license - where is that? And for the display, when was it created and why specifically is it believed to be PD? Nikkimaria (talk) 17:15, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
the website says "The Appendix was published between 2012 and 2015, released under the CC-BY license", and that the diorama was commissioned by the Ditsong Museums of South Africa (a state organization) by an unknown author sometimes in the late 1960s (at least 50 years have elapsed), and therefore it qualifies under "It is an artistic, literary or musical work created under the direction of the state or an international organization and 50 years have passed since the year the work was published"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:55, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
CC-BY ! = CC BY-SA, and as the images are listed as courtesy of someone not the author, I'm not sure they are covered by that license. The article also states the dioramas were "receiving makeovers" as of 2010; is it known that this particular one dates to the 1960s instead? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:18, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You know, now that I'm really thinking about it, the diorama is probably based on the SK 54 skullcap which was interpreted as a leopard attack victim in 1970   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:29, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment - This has dropped well into the Older Nominations section without any support for promotion or substantial prose review. Therefore, I will be archiving it shortly and it may be re-nominated after the customary two-week waiting period. --Laser brain (talk) 02:01, 7 October 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 Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 7 October 2020 [38].

John Neal (writer)

[edit]
Nominator(s): Dugan Murphy (talk) 02:23, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about John Neal (writer), an eccentric and influential American writer, critic, editor, lecturer, and activist who used speeches, magazine essays, novels, poems, and short stories between the 1810s and 1870s to advance his ideas concerning American literature, feminism, racism, and other reform topics. He has an impressive list of superlatives to his name, he lived an interesting life, and he's a real character to boot. I overhauled the article earlier this summer and it just went through a successful peer review. I think it meets all the standards for FA status at this point. Dugan Murphy (talk) 02:23, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Buidhe
  • I agree that the article is in general very high quality and must have taken a lot of work to write.
Thanks! --Dugan Murphy (talk) 01:31, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article is currently 76 kb readable prose, above the recommended WP:Article size, and reads even longer considering the large number of quotations, images of text, and so forth. This is not ideal for readability: it would likely take over an hour to fully read the article. I would recommend splitting content into sub-articles or trimming.
I agree. I'll move some content to sub-articles and/or trim. This is not done yet, but I am working on addressing this. Do you have an opinion on a target kb of readable prose? I read WP:Article size but I'm still not sure how much is too much while maintaining comprehensiveness. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 01:31, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think somewhere in the range of 50–60kb is ideal for comprehensively covering a topic without going into too much detail. (t · c) buidhe 05:37, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the article has now been sufficiently trimmed. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 05:15, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Instead of manually bolding headers (MOS:PSEUDOHEAD), level-4 subheadings should be used consistently in accordance with MOS:HEADING.
Done! Thank you for modifying a few of those headers for me. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 01:31, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Books should ideally be identified by unique identifiers such as ISBN or OCLC, to clearly identify a which version is being cited
Done! I didn't know about OCLC codes, so I appreciate you bringing that up. Many of the books in the Sources section are too old to have ISBN numbers. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 01:31, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Further reading and External links sections would benefit from trimming. As SandyGeorgia says, A Featured article should already be comprehensive, so that little other reading is needed. (Note that Wikipedia is not a catalogue of all existing works on a given subject.) In addition to the editorializing when describing works (The most comprehensive work on John Neal ever published.[citation needed][according to whom?]), since the article already seems very long and complete, are these works really a unique resource beyond the works already cited in the bibliography? The External links section needs even more trimming, in my opinion. (For example, I see no need for two separate sections for Selected works and Selected works available online). (t · c) buidhe 10:37, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There are multiple points within the above bullet point, so I'm going to break up my responses to them individually in the list below. I believe this below list addresses all of the points you make in the single bullet point immediately above:
  • Trimming Further reading: I'd like to discuss just a little more before I eliminate the Further reading section. WP:Further_reading says that "In articles with numerous footnotes, it probably is not obvious which ones are suitable for further reading. The 'Further reading' section can help the readers by listing selected titles without worrying about duplications." Since this article has 66 sources listed, I think a Further reading list highlighting which 6 of those 66 are most helpful is what the guidelines recommend. Do you believe WP:NOTDIR supersedes WP:Further_reading? --Dugan Murphy (talk) 01:31, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article doesn't hide the works in footnotes. If it just duplicates works listed in the bibliography, that is discouraged in MOS:FURTHER. I don't think the bibliography is too long to use as a reading guide, since you can easily search for which works include Neal's name in the title. WP:Further_reading is an essay. (t · c) buidhe 05:37, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Selected works and External links duplication: I see your point. I cut out the individual works listed in the External links section for two reasons. 1) I intend to eventually create individual articles for many of the the publications listed in the Selected works section and this will be the place to list them, and 2) many of the works in External links that are listed individually are already included in the listed collections like Project Internet Archive and Open Library. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 01:31, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • They could easily be combined, using such format as

Image review

  • Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods
  • Alt texts are quite lengthy
  • File:John_Neal_by_Sarah_Miriam_Peale,_c._1823,_oil_on_canvas_-_Portland_Museum_of_Art_-_Portland,_Maine_-_DSC04059.jpg: we need the author and date for the original work to be on the image description page, plus a US PD tag; in the US reproduction of a 2D work doesn't garner a new copyright. Ditto File:William_Lloyd_Garrison_at_National_Portrait_Gallery_IMG_4392.JPG
  • File:John_Neal_Signature.png: as above, the uploader wouldn't hold copyright to this - probably this would fall under PD-signature on Commons
  • File:John_Neal_Penmanship_Sample_1808.png: when/where was this first published? Ditto File:John_Pierpont_1821_by_Rembrandy_Peale.jpg, File:John_Neal_Portrait_by_Joseph_Wood_1819-1821.png, File:Old_Portland_City_Hall.jpg, File:John_Neal_Family_Portrait_1843.jpg, File:John_Neal_Photograph_1875.png, File:Neal_Dow_daguerreotype.jpg
  • File:John_Neal_Penmanship_Sample_1808.png, File:John_Neal_Portrait_by_Joseph_Wood_1819-1821.png, File:Old_Portland_City_Hall.jpg, File:John_Neal_Family_Portrait_1843.jpg, File:John_Neal_Photograph_1875.png: I see the original publication dates on their respective image description pages, don't you? I don't see where to add publication location. Please advise. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 05:15, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • You can add information about original publication to the source field. With regards to date: date of creation and date of publication are not the same thing - the tagging in use requires that these were published, not just created, before 1925. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:03, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Er. It looks to me like you've just copied the creation information, rather than actual publication details. I'll accept that the first of these was published as an ad there at that time, but I don't see anything supporting the publication claims on the others. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:49, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I guess I'm confused about what constitutes publication for a painting or a photograph. I'm looking at pre-1925 photographs and paintings included in featured articles (File:James G. Blaine - Brady-Handy.jpg, File:Edgar Allan Poe, circa 1849, restored, squared off.jpg, File:Edgar Allan Poe by Samuel S Osgood, 1845.png, File:Neal Dow daguerreotype.jpg, File:Mary Wollstonecraft by John Opie (c. 1797).jpg) and not seeing publication dates and places listed on any of them - just creation dates. Is John Neal (writer) being reviewed under the same criteria as those featured articles? Is it more appropriate for the paintings to bear a PD-Art-100 tag instead of PD-old-70-1923? Thank you for your patience as I wrap my head around this issue. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 20:20, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In that case, because I can't find anything to indicate when copies File:John_Neal_Portrait_by_Joseph_Wood_1819-1821.png or File:John_Neal_Photograph_1875.png have been made available to the public, I deleted the publication info I added to them and removed them from the article. I left File:John_Neal_Penmanship_Sample_1808.png in place because Neal made it for public display originally. I replaced File:Old_Portland_City_Hall.jpg and File:John_Neal_Family_Portrait_1843.jpg with Market Square Portland Maine 1874.png and John Neal Portrait Portland Illustrated.jpg for the same reason I removed File:John_Neal_Portrait_by_Joseph_Wood_1819-1821.png. I think that takes care of all the image issues. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 21:07, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Jeremy_Bentham_by_Henry_William_Pickersgill.jpg needs a US PD tag. Ditto File:Mary_Wollstonecraft_Tate_portrait.jpg, File:The_Broadway_Tabernacle_(NYPL_Hades-165659-EM11603).jpg

Coordinator comment - This has been open for almost a month without any declaration of support for promotion, and doesn't seem to be heading in the right direction at present. Therefore, I will be archiving it shortly and it may be re-nominated after the customary two-week waiting period. --Laser brain (talk) 02:00, 7 October 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 Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 4 October 2020 [39].

Benjamin Harrison V

[edit]
Nominator(s): Hoppyh (talk) 20:42, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the life of an early Virginia patriot and governor, who was also one of the Founding Fathers of the United States. Hoppyh (talk) 20:42, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review—pass
  • What is the evidence that File:Benjamin Harrison V miniature portrait.png is available under a free license?
@Buidhe: Thanks for your review. I’ll see what I can do. Hoppyh (talk) 11:40, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is not my forte, so let me know if this helps or not. The Virginia Museum of History and Culture, which is the source and owner of the portrait, provides a description of the item. This indicates the painting was created in Virginia by the (unknown) author from life in the latter half of the 18th century. Does this establish evidence that the painting is in the public domain based of the lifespan of the author? Thanks again for your help. Hoppyh (talk) 14:45, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think that the underlying object is public domain (you can use {{PD-old-unknown}} on commons), however, there is a secondary copyright for the photograph as the object is three-dimensional. One way to fix it would be to photoshop out all the parts of the locket and its edge, leaving just the 2-d portrait (which would be {{PD-art}}). (t · c) buidhe 17:39, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I will try to find someone with that skill set–if you know of anyone here, of course I’d be grateful for the assistance. Thanks yet again. Hoppyh (talk) 18:52, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
See the new image in the article infobox. I have captured the portrait as you suggested, without the locket etc. I used the PD-art license, but it appears more classification is required. Can you help? Hoppyh (talk) 02:08, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Now fixed (t · c) buidhe 05:16, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Buidhe

Books should ideally have an OCLC or ISBN to indicate which edition is cited (t · c) buidhe 04:20, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. Hoppyh (talk) 11:40, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Hoppyh (talk) 14:36, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

  • Why is the "hold these truths to be self-evident" quote in the lead and not elsewhere in the article?
Removed. Hoppyh (talk) 21:21, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some of the other details in the lead don't appear to be supported or cited anywhere - for example, that he rarely disagreed with Washington
I removed this and another. Hoppyh (talk) 21:21, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Similarly some of the infobox details aren't cited anywhere, such as the names of his children (and actually there's a child named in the text who's not listed in the infobox)
  • Be consistent in whether page ranges are truncated
  • FN15 is incomplete
  • What makes FN25 a high-quality reliable source?
  • Fns12 and 39: the title is spelled out in full at the given source
  • Fn43 does not support that Harrison was "frequently" the chair
  • Fn12 is not a sufficient source for what it is being claimed to cite
  • Most of the sources cited are quite old, although there are more recent books that discuss the subject - why is this?
  • The quote cited to FN48 does not match that provided in that source
  • What makes Bridgehunter.com a high-quality reliable source?
  • Be consistent in whether locations are included for books

I can't access the books that support the majority of the content, but I'm concerned by spotchecking in the accessible sources. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:38, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If possible, I think the nom should be withdrawn. More work is needed here. I apologize to you for taking up your valuable time and effort. Your comments will provide a starting point for the work required. Thanks. Hoppyh (talk) 22:14, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@FAC coordinators: Nominator requests withdrawal. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:21, 4 October 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 Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 4 October 2020 [40].

Cups (song)

[edit]
Nominator(s): The Ultimate Boss (talk) 03:33, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Cups" is a song originally written by Lulu and the Lampshades. The song is a version of "When I'm Gone", a 1931 song by the Carter Family. Anna Kendrick released a cover version of the song entitled "Cups (Pitch Perfect's "When I'm Gone")". The song grew to be a worldwide phenomenon, with many artists uploading their own covers on social media. Kendrick's version reached number 6 on the US Billboard Hot 100. I'm open to any suggestions. The Ultimate Boss (talk) 03:33, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from LOVI33

[edit]

Article looks amazing!!! Defiantly ready for FA. You have my support. LOVI33 01:09, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Nikkimaria, got rid of the gif, still don't know how to reduce px size. The Ultimate Boss (talk) 23:08, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:IMGSIZE. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:25, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria, I have changed the px size so it is not fixed. The Ultimate Boss (talk) 00:07, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest withdrawal The process from GAN to FAC may have been hasty, and to me the prose is not up to FA criteria.

  • The commercial performance is needlessly detailed (WP:CHARTTRAJ)
  • "The original version was usually performed a cappella with a cup used to provide percussion, as in the cup game. It was first performed in a YouTube video by Luisa Gerstein and Heloise Tunstall-Behrens, as Lulu and The Lampshades, in 2009 and entitled "You're Gonna Miss Me". The original became popular after Kendrick performed her version in the musical comedy film, Pitch Perfect (2012)." → confusing flow; how "popular" did the original get?
  • "The song received mainly positive reviews from music critics" → WP:OR
  • "It was commercially successful" → redundant
  • "including being certified triple platinum in the US" → why not just "including a 3× Platinum certification"?
  • People is not a reliable source for a critical analysis
  • "Drew Taylor, writing for Indie Wire, described "Cups (When I'm Gone)" as a "sing-song-y tune"" → what does this have to do with critical reviews?

The issues I raised above are by no means exhaustive. Given the size of the prose, the article should be polished more before proceeding to FAC. HĐ (talk) 07:12, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

HĐ, apologies for the late response. I have gotten rid of all the issues you have told me and shortened the commercial performance section. The Ultimate Boss (talk) 06:29, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Aoba47

[edit]

Oppose. Apologies for this, but I oppose this nomination because of prose issues. I have noticed a number of areas in the lead alone that could be improved. Here are some examples, but it is not intended to be exhaustive.

  • This part, "making other musicians to record cover versions of the song", from the lead's first paragraph is grammatical incorrect.
  • I think the information in the first paragraph can be presented more clearly. I'd clarify in the second sentence that this is a cover rather than putting it later in the paragraph. I am not familiar with this song or film at all, and I got a little lost while reading this for the first time.
  • I'd avoid using passive tense when possible, like with this part: "It was first performed in a YouTube video".
  • The lead presents three different versions of the song title – "Cups", "Cups (When I'm Gone)", "Cups (Pitch Perfect's "When I'm Gone")" – and it's rather confusing to read.
  • I do not think Jimmy Fallon needs to be mentioned in this part of the lead: "Kendrick explained to Jimmy Fallon that the producers of the film". It is not necessarily to mention that Kendrick said this information to Fallon in the lead as this information is too minor/detail-oriented for the lead.

I do not mean to come across as harsh or overly critical, but after reading through just the lead alone, I do not think the prose is on the level expected for a featured article. I'd recommend putting this up for a peer review instead or trying the FAC mentoring system. I agree with HĐ that this nomination should be withdrawn and further work done outside of the FAC space. Aoba47 (talk) 02:05, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t really care if there is a bronze star on top of the article anymore, so you can go ahead and archive this coordinators. This is HUGE waste of time. And Aoba47, I don’t want to be rude, but remember when I nominated Everything I Wanted and you said it should also get a copy edit and peer review. Well, i did that. Had to wait about 2 months for that to happen. I nominated again and you said it should get another peer review! Like bro, that is such a waste of time. Although, I do appreciate your help, it is NOT worth it. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯The Ultimate Boss (talk) 03:53, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • I am only trying to help you. We have all put time into Wikipedia article, and a lot of editors have put much more than two months of work into an article. A lot of editors have also experienced unsuccessful FACs. I have had plenty of FACs where reviewers opposed them for not being prepared enough for a nomination. The peer review for "Everything I Wanted" only received commentary from one user, and while they were helpful, it would have been more beneficial to get feedback from a larger amount of editors prior to a second FAC. All I can say is that it does take time and work to get an article successfully through the FAC process. It is up to you if you find it worthwhile to spend that time and energy with this or if you would prefer to spend it on something else entirely.
  • To be completely honest, I would not be surprised if your attitude puts off a lot of reviewers. I understand that it is frustrating to have nominations not work out. I have reacted extremely poorly in these kinds of situations myself so I can completely understand your point of view. But this continued behavior, like calling the editor who archived the "Let's Fall in Love for the Night" FAC "a real jerk", is not helpful to your end goal. If you want to continue working in the FAC space, I would encourage you to be more mindful of your attitude on here and to try and reach out to more experienced editors who focus on music-related articles for their feedback. If the FAC process is really not worth it to you though, you can always focus on other aspects of Wikipedia, such as improving articles on your own without putting them up for any type of nomination. Either way, I hope you have a good and safe weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 05:06, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @The Ultimate Boss: Having a failed FAC may be frustrating for first-timers, and we've all been there. The purpose of a peer review is not procedural, but a means to perfect the prose to the highest standards — after all, FAs are about the prose. My judgement may be subjective, but it seems your English proficiency is rather inadequate for FA prose, from which I'd recommend that you take your time, don't be hasty, and keep in mind that Wikipedia is not a competition of who has successfully promoted the most FAs. Wikipedia articles should value the reader up above all, so keep experiencing and take notes of what constitute a quality article. If you think Wikipedia is a place to brag about your favs' songs (WP:FANCRUFT) with excessive, trivial information, then you should either refresh your state of mind, or leave Wikipedia for the better. Once you are in the right mindset, other members will be glad to offer help. Regards, HĐ (talk) 15:50, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

HĐ and Aoba47, it is not my “inadequate” English or attitude. It’s just that this is a HUGE waste of time. All of this trouble and time just for a little star on the corner. Now I even wonder how a star on the corner of an article will do anything. I have learned from my mistakes, and am never going to do FAC again. Who knew editors here would be so unforgiving and rude towards novice fac nominators. Smh. The Ultimate Boss (talk) 17:19, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FA coordinators, you can go ahead and archive this now. The Ultimate Boss (talk) 17:19, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Pinging the FAC coordinators (@FAC coordinators: ) per the above comments. Statements like "Who knew editors here would be so unforgiving and rude towards novice fac nominators" are not helpful. I have tried to help with this as well as HĐ, but I will just leave it at that. Aoba47 (talk) 17:46, 3 October 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Archived_nominations/October_2020&oldid=985523625"