Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/April 2022

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 30 April 2022 [1].

Arnold Bennett[edit]

Nominator(s): Tim riley talk 22:45, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about one of the most prominent English novelists of the first decades of the 20th century. Contemporary and later modernist cliques recoiled from his determination to make literature accessible to everyone, but he was a regular best-seller. He turned out some potboilers but he also wrote at least four novels now widely recognised as masterpieces. The article has had the benefit of a peer review, and in the last week or so a favourable GAN review by Gog the Mild. I haven't taken an article to FAC for ages – years, I think – and I look forward to seeing what colleagues think of my current offering. – Tim riley talk 22:45, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Image review—pass licensing look ok (t · c) buidhe 23:24, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley[edit]

  • I commented on this article at peer review but I will go through it again.
  • "now part of Stoke-on-Trent, but then an independent town". Shades of Passport to Pimlico? I would prefer "separate".
  • "He was clear-eyed about his literary talent: he wrote to a friend, "I have no inward assurance that I could ever do anything more than mediocre viewed strictly as art – very mediocre"" The praise of some critics suggests that he was being over-modest rather than clear-eyed?
  • "Bennett's lack of a theatrical grounding showed in the uneven construction of some of his plays. A successful first act followed by much weaker second and third acts was noted in his 1911 comedy The Honeymoon". You have already said this.
  • "a regular contributor to T.P.'s Weekly". If this is the name of a journal it should be in italics.
  • "Inspired by those of the Goncourt brothers, Bennett kept a journal throughout his adult life." "those of" is clumsy.
  • This is a first rate article. My only serious criticism is that it has nothing on the location of his manuscript journal and other papers. Do they still exist and if so where are they? Dudley Miles (talk) 07:25, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are collections of Bennett manuscripts in various locations in Britain and America. I have listed the main ones in the Legacy section, and (see comments below) will prune the External Links accordingly to avoid duplication. Thank you, Dudley for these points (as well as for those at peer review): I agree with all of them and have acted on them accordingly. Tim riley talk 08:41, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comments received[edit]

A kind friend has sent me these comments off-Wiki:

  • One thing I notice: the long Archives subsection in the external links section at the bottom. Is this list encyclopedic? Are these certainly the most important archives for him? Would anyone really find this list useful (I imagine a serious scholar of his life and works could easily compile a better one), or is it really advertising/spam by enthusiastic young archivists at these particular institutions?
  • As suggested above by Dudley, I have incorporated the main archives into the body of the text, in the Legacy section, and removed them from the External links along with the lesser collections. Tim riley talk 08:57, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you need to refer to Wood and Grigson in Note 11?
  • I think they put the matter in context, making it clear that other celebrated people had to adopt the same strategy, and as the information is in a footnote it doesn't get in the way. Tim riley talk 08:57, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Early years: I think it would help to repeat "Enoch's" instead of "his", to clarify that it was Enoch's father who died four years later, not Arnold's father. Yes, a careful re-reading helped me be sure, but I think it is worth the repetition here.
  • Lead section:
  • the start of his career in 1898. Later you say that he finished his first novel in 1896 (though it was published in 1898), and you imply that he began writing for the magazine in 1894, so should the start of his career be a slightly earlier date?
  • Born into a "modest" family. Does modest mean middle class, poor, or something else? Was his father just starting out as a solicitor after having "served a term as office boy to an attorney's firm"?
  • I'll look again, but at first glance this looks all right to me. Tim riley talk 08:57, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Always a devotee of French culture ... relaxed milieu -- your later section about his moving to Paris doesn't really say this, and your early years section only mentions that he liked French literature and language.
  • You refer to "the Potteries". Though you previously mentioned his native Staffordshire Potteries, I think you should repeat "Staffordshire" here to assist confused foreigners.

I hope there will be more in due course. Tim riley talk 08:25, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tim, this looks about ready to close, do you want to check if our friend has anything further...? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:13, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings, Ian! Without wishing to breach anonymity I can say that my unnamed off-Wiki commenter later looked in, logged in, at the review below. So, no, I'm confident he has no more to add. Tim riley talk 21:18, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild[edit]

I went through this thoroughly at PR. More recently I assessed it at GAN, but against the FAC criteria (just to be nasty to Tim) and all I could find to pick at were two bits of trivia. Hence I have no reservations in wholeheartedly supporting. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:03, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much, Gog! Reviewing the article three different times was a remarkable work of supererogation, and I am in your debt. Tim riley talk 21:53, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt[edit]

Just reserving my spot.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:59, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just as an aside, interesting that Bennett and Earl Russell both died in March 1931.
  • Is it tap water or tap-water. You use both.
  • Hyphenated according to the OED, and now consistently so here. Tim riley talk 07:45, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "he knew he could "turn out things which would be read with zest, & about which the man in the street would say to friends 'Have you read so & so in the What-is-it?'"[16] " What-is-it is, I assume, intended as a publication, so should it be italicised?
  • It isn't in the source, but I see your point. I'll try it and see how it looks. Tim riley talk 07:45, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Eleanor Green, a member of an eccentric and unreliable American family living in Paris" What is an "unreliable family", even if American?
  • I would move the passage that is presently the second paragraph of "Novels ..." into the first paragraph to join it with the rest of your discussion of the Five Towns, and at its conclusion, have a paragraph break before discussing characters.
  • You give, in parentheses, the date of Clayhanger, twice.
  • "Universities of Texas and Yale" Since it's Yale University, not sure that this works.
  • Redrawn.
Not many quibbles to be gleaned from this well-written article about a writer I'm not familiar with but will take pains to read some of.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:35, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for these points, all of which I agree with and have attended to, I hope satisfactorily. Tim riley talk 07:45, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent work.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:23, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much, Wehwalt, for your kind words and support. Tim riley talk 19:28, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from KJP1[edit]

Very pleased to see this here. Life, and a prior FAC commitment to The Cenotaph, are holding me up, but shall certainly get back to this as soon as I can. KJP1 (talk) 20:44, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Have read this through twice, and I really can't find anything to quibble about. It is a first-rate article and I can only Support its promotion. It is good to see you back here, Tim, writing to your usual high standard. In compensation for my feeble reviewing, I have created a little Start class for Bennett's last home, Chiltern Court. KJP1 (talk) 12:41, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much, KJ, for your support and kind comments; I hugely appreciate them. Tim riley talk 13:18, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

Footnote numbers refer to this version.

  • Shapcott (2015) looks like it's a chapter in a work; if so it needs the editor's name added.
  • Done (it is Shapcott, but we can certainly name him twice in his capacities as contributor and editor). Tim riley talk 08:12, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • In [51] you need "pp." for the cite to The English Review.
  • You're inconsistent in how you show the date where a source name needs it for disambiguation; compare [33] to [61].
  • Amended, along with another unbracketed year in later ref. Tim riley talk 08:12, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • [96] is "Watson and Willison, columns 429–431": this is a little unusual -- can you confirm that a reader can find this material unambiguously with this as the reference? It appears a hardcopy was consulted, so I was expecting a page number.
  • Yes, it's a strange format. There are two columns to each page and instead of page numbers there are only column numbers. It looks odd, but one must admit it makes the entry quicker to find than a page number, covering two columns rather than one, would. Tim riley talk 08:12, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • [36], [89], and [94] refer to Lucas -- in one case to "Lucas (ODNB)". I see the ODNB entry is cited as [3], but if for some reason you don't want [89] and [94] to just be more instances of [3], I think Lucas has to be put into the sources. For [36] you could split it into two cites to avoid the issue.
  • I think the ref was clear enough, and neater bundled like that but have separated the ODNB citation from the other three. Tim riley talk 08:12, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That takes care of 36, but the concern I had was that if a reader clicks through [89] or [94] they will find a citation that says "Lucas, p. 153" or "Lucas, p. 305", and to find out what source this refers to they'll go to the "Sources" section, which doesn't include Lucas. I was suggesting that you could either (1) add Lucas to the list of sources, in which case you could also rebundle [36] if you wish, or (2) you could leave [36] split as you have it now, and change [89] and [94] to re-use cite [3] instead. Looking again I now wonder if, given that you have explicit page numbers for [89] and [94], you consulted a physical book for those two? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 08:40, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good gracious me! I omitted the Lucas book from the list of sources. Now hastily inserted. Apart from the ODNB references all the reference to Lucas are to this 1974 book. I'm so glad you spotted this – thank you. Tim riley talk 09:06, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That explains it! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:11, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest expanding "NJ" to "New Jersey" in the sources.
  • I've removed it, as we don't give the American states for the other American publications listed.

The sources are impeccably reliable as far as I can see. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:18, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All attended to. Thank you very much for the review. Tim riley talk 08:12, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pass. All issues addressed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:11, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Ssilvers[edit]

Early years:

  • "...but then a separate town". Does this add anything to the reader's understanding?
  • I think so: without it it isn't clear that it was no mere borough but a fully-fledged town in its own right. Tim riley talk 08:32, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suggest that you wikilink draper, a term that American readers will find unfamiliar.
  • "the family moved, within the space of five years". Can you say what time period this refers to? Late 1870s? Early 1880s? Or "when Bennett was in primary school"?
  • Instead of the link to the vague "undergraduate", how about something like "...could have led to his [entering] or [a degree at] that prestigious university"?
  • I'm loth to editorialise. There are some Oxonians who might baulk at describing Cambridge as prestigious. Tim riley talk 08:32, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
User talk:Tim riley, if you look at the link to undergraduate, I think you will see that it is distinctly unhelpful. Even if you don't say "prestigious", what about simply "...could have led to his [entering] that university" or "...could have led to his becoming an undergraduate there".
I see what you mean. That's a strange article! I've rewritten to make it "could have led to an Oxbridge education". I'm tempted to make "could" "would" here, and will ponder further once I've refreshed my memory of what the sources say. Tim riley talk 16:53, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is very good. I guess I prefer could, as "would" presumes certain knowledge of an alternate universe. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:06, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Quite so. I'll only change "could" to "would" if the sources justify it. Tim riley talk 20:31, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • In 1891, aged 21. If he was born in 1867, then he was aged 23 or 24 in 1891. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:40, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Typo (apols!) It was 1889 (March - two months before his 22nd birthday). Now amended. Tim riley talk 08:32, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for these comments − most helpful, and any further thoughts will be most welcome. Tim riley talk 08:32, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

First years in London:

  • He ... won a prize of twenty guineas for a contribution to a magazine, and ... he submitted it successfully to The Yellow Book -- can you give an approximate time frame either/both of these events? The paragraph covers his 5 years of employment at the solicitors' office.
  • I can put the years in if wanted, but as you say, this bit covers just five years and I'm reluctant to fill it up with particular dates. I don't think readers will particularly care if the prize was in 1891 (which it was) or a year either side but I'll add the year if you insist. Tim riley talk 20:00, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't insist, but I think "in 1891" would help readers with their mental timeline. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:40, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, all right! Added. Tim riley talk 23:44, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Americans will not be sure what "making ready and running round" meant to readers of Woman magazine, so if there is a wiki-link that explains either term, it may be worth linking to, unless they literally mean getting ready for one's day (dressing, brushing teeth, etc.) and running around (doing errands?).
  • I don't know either. I'm guessing your interpretation is correct, but I really don't know. In a way that points up the value of Drabble's quote: AB got a grip on a lot of obscure stuff that most male writers would not. Tim riley talk 20:00, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • How to bath the baby -- does the quote say "bath" or "bathe"?
  • The former. It's curious how the two forms cause confusion within the Anglophone world. When in Australia Johnners swam in the sea and told his hosts it was the first time he'd bathed for years: they were nonplussed, as to them the daily ablutions were where one bathes, whereas to an Englishman they are where one baths, and one bathes in the sea or the swimming pool. Tim riley talk 20:00, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • very mediocre" but he knew -- should there be a comma before "but"? -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:06, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could be, if desired. Sixty-something years ago I was taught that one had to have a comma before a conjunction, but such arbitrary superstitions have, thank God, died out; nowadays the tendency is to put in a comma where it helps the flow and the sense, and to omit it when it serves no definable purpose. One wouldn't hurt here if you'd like one, but I wouldn't myself. Tim riley talk 20:00, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Since you don't seem prepared to do me bodily harm for it in this instance, I've done it. You overstate the punctuation rule -- we only argue that the comma ought to go before the conjunction where the conjunction begins an independent clause. I know you have often argued that this is not a rule you think useful, but to educated American readers, the failure to so separate independent clauses is seen as simply an error. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:40, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly, and I don't presume to tell Americans how to write American English: I was talking about how I was taught to write the Queen's English back in the 1950s, and the pointless, arbitrary and illogical rules our half-baked pedants (quite as bad as yours) sought to propagate. But quite happy with your added comma if it pleases you. Tim riley talk 23:12, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Freelance; Paris:

  • Instead of "Enoch" and "widow", how about Bennett's father and mother ... and sister?
I don't feel strongly about this, but one additional potential point of confusion you might consider is that the subject's given name is also Enoch. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:40, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • You use the term pot-boiler twice. That is not a huge number, but check to see if you wish to use the same word in both places. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:41, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The pot is boiled in three places in the article, which I think is about right, given how often the term crops up in the sources. Tim riley talk 20:05, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:40, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Marriage; Fontainebleau:

  • eccentric and unpredictable American family -- still not clear what "unpredictable" adds to eccentric. Do you mean capricious? Unethical? Disloyal or fickle? Untrustworthy? Whimsical? Mentally unstable? Deceptive or deceitful? Undependable? Meretricious? Unfaithful? Corrupt? Dishonest?
  • Most of those. My summary of the sources would say selfish, arbitrary and unreliable. They were, in short, an absolute shower. I toned down "unreliable" to "unpredictable" in response to Wehwalt's comment, above, but I like your "capricious", and will adopt that with thanks. Tim riley talk 23:41, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...south east of Paris. Southeast, the direction, is one word here in the New World. Not so in your land?
  • Well, well! According to the OED we're both wrong and it should be "south-east". I'll add the hyphen. Tim riley talk 23:41, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Metropolitan -- Many readers will only know of this name as a cocktail, rather than the long-defunct publication, so I've added the word "magazine". Feel free to delete if it offends your prose instincts.
  • I know nothing about alcoholic drinks, as you know, but as to the publication I have not the smallest objection to your addition. The magagzine was from your neck of the woods, after all. Tim riley talk 23:41, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Come bumpers, aye, ever so many! -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:50, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was going to comment on something else, but it was just a smudge on my computer screen. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:15, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are not we all merely smudges on the computer screens of eternity? So be it. Tim riley talk 23:41, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Return to England:

  • The only thing I see in this section is two more of those rascally missing commas prior to an independent clause, both in the first paragraph (prior to "but his inexperience" and "and they collaborated"). May we add them?
  • Certainly not. I spend far too much time removing otiose commas inserted into the Queen's English by well-meaning AmE writers under the influence of the half-baked "rules" propagated by their beaks. Tim riley talk 06:54, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, also, do you want to mention The Great Adventure? You discuss it below, but it seems strange to discuss Milestones but not TGA. -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:51, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the mentions in the lead and the stage and screen section suffice, but we could add third mention if wanted. Tim riley talk 06:54, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Last years:

  • Lecturer is not a term we generally use on this side of the pond. I suggest linking it.
  • It isn't a precisely definable term. If he had been a reader or possibly even a professor a link would be useful, but I think anyone from any Anglophone country will be able to work out that a lecturer is somebody who lectures.
  • [comma] and Marguerite had taken up
  • No.
  • [comma] and his ashes were interred -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:51, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • No.

Novels and short stories:

  • John Eland was the source for Mr Aked. Perhaps "model" instead of "source"?
  • I wonder if "model" might be a bit too definite. I think Bennett drew on Eland for Aked, but I'm not sure the character was a complete representation of the man. Tim riley talk 17:13, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Then "the source" is also too definite. How about "a" model or at least "a" source? -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:46, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Tim riley talk 17:53, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I added/deleted a couple of paragraph breaks. See if you like it.
  • I deleted a couple of Oxford commas for consistency with the rest of the article and added a comma at the end of a parenthetical clause.
  • One of these days I am going to beat you to death with a bag full of commas, but I haven't altered your alteration here. Tim riley talk 17:13, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "His chosen locations ranged widely"... Do you prefer "locations" to "settings"? -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:32, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stage and screen:

  • I combined the last two paragraphs about film scenarios.
  • Perhaps some of this should go in Critical reputation section?
  • I know what you mean. More than once I've had to ponder where a sentence should go, being relevant to more than one section. I think this is currently the way I prefer it, but will review. Tim riley talk 17:13, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jounalism and self-help books:

  • [Literary Taste: How to Form It|Literary Taste: How to form it] -- If the title is wrongly capitalised, we should move/change the title of the article, although the capitalisation of the article seems consistent with the capitalisation of other titles, so perhaps better to simply write it as Literary Taste: How to Form It?
  • Yes, I think you're probably right. It is annoying that WP insists on altering the published titles of work to fit a restrictive capitalisation policy. I can't remember which literary figure said "a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds" but whoever it was, I agree with him or her. Tim riley talk 17:13, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It was Emerson. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:46, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, yes. I used have several of his albums on LP. Tim riley talk 18:17, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they were neither EPs nor LPs, but ELP's. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:57, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • in 1910 the figure was "probably about 80 other articles". What period of time do you mean? In a year? The previous sentence is also about a year of output?

Journals: No suggestions -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:32, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Critical reputation:

  • Should anything from the Works section about his plays go in this section instead?
  • On balance, no, I think, as they are so seldom staged now that their reputation is really only of historical interest. Tim riley talk 17:13, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Archives:

  • Beyond the two main archives at the Hanley Museum in Stoke-on-Trent and at Keele University, is it really worth listing the others? My experience has been that the librarians at Yale University are extremely aggressive in trying to get us to list them in every Wikipedia article. Do serious researchers benefit from our listing them, or is it already obvious to them? -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:08, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're right about that singular anomaly the manic archivist (from Yale or elsewhere), as we both know from many another article! I'll consult my expert adviser about which archives really need a mention. Tim riley talk 17:13, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Omelettes:

  • Can we say the year when it was introduced? -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:08, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm afraid not. I don't know that I could even, hand on heart, mention a decade, though my guess would be early 1920s. Tim riley talk 17:13, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I Support the promotion to FA. I have left comments, but they are all merely suggestions. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:35, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your support and for your careful scrutiny and helpful suggestions. I am much in your debt. Tim riley talk 17:13, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Dmass[edit]

The Old Wive's Tale has been on my reading list for a while, and is now a priority after reading this excellent and lively article. A few, very minor, observations from me.

  • To my ear, it sounds repetitive (although strictly it isn't) to have 'author...novelist...writer' within a few words of each other at the very start. Maybe something like: 'was a prolific English author, best known as a novelist; between the 1890s and the 1930s he completed 34 novels etc.'
  • Lightly redrawn, cutting the number of nouns down. Tim riley talk 18:02, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should there be a comma before 'and French literature in particular'?
  • Does it need 'Bennett is best known for his novels and short stories' again in the lead, as the point has already been made in the first sentence? Could it go straight into: 'Many of B's novels and short stories are set...'? The same phrase is repeated at the start of the Novels sections below.
  • I think it might be fairer to clarify at the first mention (as you do later) that VW and co. belittled his novels not only because they were popular (and they were snobs) but because of his adherence to realism.
  • In 'Freelance; Paris' you've repeated a phrase used in the lead ('always a devotee of French culture in general and French literature in particular') - is that deliberate?
  • It was intentional: the wording succinctly says what I want it to say, but I can tweak it if the exact repetition troubles you. Tim riley talk 18:02, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I particularly like the fact that you've identified the streets he lived on in Paris (what a pity you don't give the precise house numbers...)
  • Oho! I hardly felt the stiletto going in between my ribs. Just you wait till you get M. Boulez of 14 rue Oudinot to FAC! Tim riley talk 18:02, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I feel a bit short-changed not knowing (however briefly) why Drabble thought him well rid of Eleanor Green. Reference to her 'eccentric and capricious' family only makes me more curious. Of course, you may think this would take up more space than is warranted.
  • Apart from anything else I think I'd feel well rid of someone so selfish and unreliable as to cause me public humiliation by deserting me at the last minute before our wedding was due to take place, and then, if you please, immediately taking up with someone else. Drabble suggests that one explanation for her involvement with AB was that she was after his money, or that her parents, short of cash, put her up to getting engaged to him, but there's no firm evidence for either and I don't feel I can fairly pursue either point in the article. Drabble calls her "spoiled and opportunist", which seems a fair judgement, and I'm inclined to leave it at that. Tim riley talk 18:02, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Pound quotation at the end of Last Years works very well.
  • Towards the end of Stage and screen what does 'of or in the period' mean (I know it's not your phrase)?
  • Pruned. The bit I've left unpruned makes the point quite clearly. Tim riley talk 18:02, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

These are all small points. I also Support the promotion to FA. It's a superb article, wide-ranging, rich in detail and very engaging for a general reader (like me).Dmass (talk) 17:10, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, Dmass, for your support and the suggested tweaks, most of which, as recorded above, I have duly twuck. Please let me know if you would prefer me to follow up the point about the repetition of "always a devotee of French culture ...". Tim riley talk 18:02, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 29 April 2022 [2].

Interstate 90[edit]

Nominator(s): SounderBruce 03:02, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The longest freeway in the United States, and perhaps the world. Stretching from Seattle to Boston, one can drive on I-90 for over 3,000 miles from the Pacific to the Atlantic without having to stop for a traffic signal, only the occasional tollbooth. This article was completely rewritten and improved to GA status in December and has undergone some copyediting since, and I feel it's about ready for FA status. Note that it's a summary article and is meant to be supplemented by the "Interstate 90 in X" state articles. SounderBruce 03:02, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Image review—pass no licensing issues found. (t · c) buidhe 03:18, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Major intersections" is unsourced. I'm not sure if it duplicates the "Route description" section, if so, what value does it have to show the same info multiple times? (t · c) buidhe 03:18, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is generally repeating information from the Route description, but I've added the state map citations to cover the rest. The map citations are still slightly broken due to the updates to CS1 templates that are still being resolved. SounderBruce 04:05, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I hope to review this at some point but a drive-by comment: According to 2011 data Is there anything newer? --Rschen7754 18:04, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I haven't seen a newer public dataset from the FHWA that is presented in a consistent and citable format. I did look at citing each individual state's AADT documents or maps, but it might fall under OR. SounderBruce 21:27, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Speatle[edit]

  • This is my first FAC review, so sorry if some of my comments aren’t helpful.
  • The opening sentence for the lede feels a bit too long. Maybe split it into two like this: Interstate 90 is an east-west transcontinental freeway. At 3,021 miles (4,862 km), it is the longest Interstate highway in the United States.
    • Don't think it's too long in its current state.
  • The freeway continues across Indiana and follows the shore of Lake Erie through Ohio and Pennsylvania to Buffalo. I-90 continues across New York by roughly following the historic Erie Canal and traverses Massachusetts… Continues is used twice in a row. I think that it’s far away enough to use some of the other verbs used in that paragraph like “traverses”.
    • Changed to "travels".
  • I may be missing something here, but at the start of the fourth paragraph in the lede, “incorporated” is in the past tense. If the toll bits were removed later, it doesn’t really make that clear in the paragraph.
    • Fixed, the tolls still exist.
  • I-90 emerges from the tunnel on a pair of floating bridges, among the longest of their kind in the world… “in the world” seems a bit unnecessary when you already have “longest of their kind”.
    • Removed.
  • There were a couple redlinks in the Montana and Wyoming sections, which I removed.
    • Not necessary, as redlinks are permitted even in FAs. All of the targets are notable topics in their own right and would be able to support their own articles.
  • I-90 serves a portion of northeastern Wyoming with a maximum speed limit of 80 mph (130 km/h). How is an 80 mph speed limit notable? Is it out of the ordinary in some way?
    • Removed.
  • I-90/US 14 enters South Dakota near Spearfish and travels east through prairieland… Prairie land needs a space between the words.
    • Fixed.
  • I-90 enters Wisconsin near La Crosse and bisects French Island before it reaches Onalaska while concurrent to US 53. Can you be more specific on when it become concurrent with US 53?
    • Fixed by giving the concurrency its own sentence.
  • The highways turn south and enter Beloit, where it intersects I-43 and cross into Illinois. There’s a grammar problem of some sort here. It should be either “where they intersect I-43 and cross into Illinois” or “where it intersects I-43 and crosses into Illinois”.
    • Fixed.
  • I-90 splits from the Dan Ryan Expressway in Englewood, where it turns southeast onto the tolled Chicago Skyway towards the Indiana state line… I-90 has been used way too many times in that paragraph, so maybe change it to something like “the interstate”.
    • "The interstate" would be too vague. I don't see an issue with this specific use of I-90 at the end of the paragraph.
  • A component of the Big Dig megaproject in Boston that extended I-90 east by 3.5 miles (5.6 km) under Fort Point Channel and Boston Harbor to Logan International Airport, opened on January 18, 2003, at a cost of $6.5 billion. The first comma probably isn’t needed.
    • Removed.
  • Other than those minor nitpicks, this article seems pretty good. Speatle (talk to me) please ping me when replying to something I said. 19:19, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Speatle: Well done on the first-time review. I have responded to all of your comments above. SounderBruce 05:09, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      @SounderBruce, thanks. I hope to do more in the future. Speatle (talk to me) please ping me when replying to something I said. 12:39, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by ChrisTheDude[edit]

  • "The highway serves 13 states and has sixteen auxiliary routes" - both as numbers or both as words
    • Fixed.
  • "approximately 760 miles (1,220 km) of I-90 uses turnpikes" - is there a wikilink for "turnpike"? Not really sure what it actually is......
    • Linked to toll road; it's a regional term for them in some U.S. states.
  • "The parallel highways travel northeast from Lake Station to the Michigan City" - is it actually called the Michigan City?
    • Removed.
  • "The 1.5-mile (2.4 km) elevated freeway on bypassed Wallace" - not sure the word "on" should be there
    • Removed, leftover from a previous copyedit.
  • The "highlight duplicate links" tool is highlighting a lot of links in the history section which had already been linked in the route section
    • Cut away the ones I thought were unnecessary. There's quite a few links I think are helpful to repeat once (such as locations given extra focus in the history section) due to the length of the article.
  • That's all I got - a very interesting read! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:30, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • @ChrisTheDude: I'm glad you enjoyed the read. I've fixed the issues you pointed out and will comb through again for overlinking. SounderBruce 07:55, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:31, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Mike Christie[edit]

  • The map in the infobox only shows two of the Great Lakes.
    • This is a recurring problem with Wikimedia Maps and I'm not sure how it can be permanently fixed. The lakes do appear at closer zoom levels, though.
      That bug is reported as resolved -- has it been reported again? I have to see I would rather not support a FAC that has a broken map, even though I can see that in a sense it's not your problem. Can you not use a different map until this issue is fixed? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:05, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the future tracks of Link light rail's Line 2": this could use an "as of" date, but since the line is presumably under construction already, perhaps we can say that? "...alongsid the future tracks of Link light rail's Line 2, under construction as of 2022"? That would simplify the phrasing of the "as of", and it shouldn't be hard to source.
    • Reworded to add opening date, which I think will be easier to update than an "as of" statement.
  • "which carries westbound traffic and the light rail line": should this be "the future light rail line"? Or "will carry"?
    • Fixed.
  • "From Chamberlain, I-90 continues east across the plains and several small towns near the city of Mitchell." Looks like a word missing -- should this be "and past several small towns"?
    • Fixed.
  • "The freeway, now named the Kennedy Expressway, travels through northwestern Chicago with the Blue Line of the "L" rapid transit system in its median, where it makes several stops": needs rephrasing; as written it says the freeway makes several stops. Perhaps "The freeway, now named the Kennedy Expressway, travels through northwestern Chicago, where the Blue Line of the "L" rapid transit system runs along the freeways median and makes several stops".
    • Fixed.
  • "...where it begins a concurrency with I-80. The parallel highways travel northeast...": are they parallel? I thought they were concurrent.
    • I-94 is parallel to I-80/I-90; three numbers for two roads. Reordered it to remove the use of parallel.
  • "I-80/I-90 then continue southeast across the Maumee River to Rossford on the southern outskirts of Toledo, where it intersects I-75": tense is inconsistent. If "I-80/I-90" is singular, "continue" should be "continues", but if it's plural, "it intersects" should be "they intersect".
    • Fixed to remain singular.
  • If Ohio finishes its last section in late 1978, how can there be unbroken highway from Wyoming to Boston in 1976?
    • The unbroken highway still had intersections, thus not making it a full freeway. Added a bit to clarify.
  • Optional, but you might consider making the "Major intersections" section collapsible -- it's a reference table, not something to read through.
    • As other uses of the route junction list aren't collapsed, I don't think it would be necessary to do so here.

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:26, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Christie: Thanks for the review! I've addressed all of your points to the best of my ability, though I will look around to see if the interactive maps issue can be fixed. SounderBruce 22:37, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just the map point left. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:05, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Mike Christie: I have replaced the interactive map with its previous static version for now. Will look around to bug people and fix the Great Lakes. SounderBruce 06:41, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:50, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

Footnote numbers refer to this version.

  • [22] is a dead link.
  • [52] is dead.
  • Suggest marking [87] with "|url-access=registration".
  • Mark [134] as paywalled.

No other formatting errors; sources are reliable. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:52, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Christie: All fixed. SounderBruce 20:19, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pass. I see Imzadi1979 reverted your change to [87]; I definitely get a login screen when I go to that URL, but I'll let y'all sort it out. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:10, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There's no registration required to use the archive. Due to the vagaries of how that archive works, direct links to specific documents don't work correctly. A reader would have to go to the search page first and search for a document before clicking a direct link, which would then load the desired document. I've changed the citation to point to the search page, because unfortunately the best way is to make people use the search form to find stuff. Imzadi 1979 → 22:52, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Steelkamp[edit]

  • Could the meaning of the "Purple Heart Trail" be explained? Steelkamp (talk) 16:58, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Added.
  • Can you link Lorain, Ohio? Steelkamp (talk) 16:58, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done.
  • From Lorain, Ohio,[136] through Pennsylvania and New York,[137] I-90 is officially designated as the "AMVETS Memorial Highway".[138] – The locations of those references could be rearranged. [137] only makes reference to Pennsylvania, not New York. Steelkamp (talk) 16:58, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Moved 137 to the end of the sentence.
  • As per MOS:POSTABBR, {{abbr}} should be used for the state abbrieviations in the table near the top of the article. Steelkamp (talk) 16:58, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done.
  • city of Coeur d'Alene could be simplified to just Coeur d'Alene. Same applies to city of Mitchell. Steelkamp (talk) 16:58, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Both instances are meant to differentiate the subject; Lake Coeur d'Alene is mentioned immediately after for the first use, while "city of Mitchell" is meant to be presented as something different from the surrounding towns.
  • Among these auto trails, which were generally designated by the private organizations – What does this mean? Steelkamp (talk) 16:58, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fixed to remove "the" and add "motorist".
@Steelkamp: All addressed, except for the "city of" points. SounderBruce 20:02, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Steelkamp (talk) 02:09, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 29 April 2022 [3].

Combe Hill[edit]

Nominator(s): Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:00, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a Neolithic causewayed enclosure in Sussex, not far from The Trundle and Whitehawk Camp, both now FAs. The site has been excavated twice, and is a scheduled monument. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:00, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review–pass no licensing issues found. I noticed a couple issues with refs though: 1) Oswald 2018 is not cited 2) why is Sheridan formatted differently than other journal sources? (t · c) buidhe 21:34, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks; both fixed, I think. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:47, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

HF - support

Looks interesting; will review soon. Hog Farm Talk 19:04, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Causewayed enclosures were built in England from shortly before 3700 BC until about 3300 BC" - the article body implies they were only built for about 200 years after 3700 BC, and that the 3300 BC figure is use, not building?
    Yes, though the sources are not as precise about this as I would like. I have changed the lead to match the body, since I think the date of building is more interesting for the lead; the body gives the "continued to be used" dates. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:20, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The exact scheduled monument date of 9 October doesn't seem to be cited?
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:20, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "included it in a list of certain and probable causewayed enclosures" - while I can see how the description of Curwen's work in the body could mean this, I would think that maybe a description more similar to what is in the body would be better
    Reworded per your suggestion. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:20, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Beaker pottery needs linked or glossed, unless you're referring to actual pottery beakers
    Linked. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:20, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "may have been an area where flints cores were prepared" - is the plural of "flints" intentional here?
    No, just a typo. Fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:20, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Images/sources look

Very interesting, anticipate supporting. Hog Farm Talk 03:14, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:20, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RN - comment support

I'm slowly going through the article (a reflection of my time, not the quality of the article!). My first impressions are that this is a well-written and well-researched article. I'll aim to leave full comments this week, but the ones I've noted down so far are minor. Richard Nevell (talk) 21:53, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I look forward to your comments. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:05, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My initial impression was correct, it's a very fine article. It is well written and very well research, using an excellent range of sources. With articles like this there needs to be a balance between giving an overview of the sources and avoiding going into too much detail, and the article navigates that challenge very well. The comments below are very minor.
Background
  • The construction of an enclosure took only a short time, which implies significant organization since substantial labour would have been required, for clearing the land, preparing trees for use as posts or palisades, and digging the ditches. It might be worth making it clear that this is a generalisation, rather than specific to Combe Hill
    I made it "The construction of these enclosures" -- is that enough to make the point clear? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:15, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Over seventy causewayed enclosures are known in the British Isles It might be worth changing ‘are known’ to ‘have been identified’ to avoid repetition of ‘known’ which is used in the next sentence.
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:15, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Site
  • With the Allcroft plan, I would add to the caption that it does not include part of the outer circuit to the east.
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:15, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • At the moment, the more detailed plan comes later in the article. I think it would be worth moving it into the ‘site’ section, where the Allcroft plan currently is. The 1908 plan could go in the ‘Archaeological investigations’ section.
    Yes, done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:15, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it worth saying how many causeways there are at the site?
    I think not -- most are only known from bosing ("early geophys", as an archaeologist friend of mine called it when I told him about it!) -- and have not been confirmed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:15, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • A secondary circuit is referred to, but it’s not clear which one this is.
    Clarified. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:32, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • When discussing the radiocarbon date, it might be helpful to clarify from which part of the site it was taken – if possible, I appreciate that since it was done more than 40 years after the fact, establishing exact provenance might not be possible, but it sounds like it came from the southern ditch.
    A combination of Musson's description of his finds plus Drewett's comments make it clear where it came from, and you're correct, it was the southern ditch. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:32, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • There a bank associated with the outer ditch, and that is indicated on the more detailed plan, but it’s not stated in the text. As the bank is mentioned in relation to the inner circuit, I think it would be useful to mention it for the outer circuit.
    Added. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:32, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Related to the above, what do you think about specifying in the text that the bank was on the inner-side of the ditches? I’m not especially fussed since it’s clear from the more detailed plan.
    I think it's OK as is, since the plan is right there next to the text. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:32, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Archaeological investigations
  • The explanation of why Allcroft’s plan didn’t include the gaps in the banks is very interesting.
    I agree! I wrote the article on Knap Hill, and it was around the time Allcroft published Earthwork of England that Maud Cunnington was excavating that site and posting the first note about causeways. He was just a year or two too early to hear about it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:32, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article mentions Veronica Keiller in a footnote. The Heritage Gateway says that she was the first to identify the enclosure as possibly neolithic, so I would add that detail and move the content of the footnote into the main body of the text.
    I'm not sure about this. That page cites (5,6) for the fact the she was the first to spot it, but (5) appears to be missing from the list and (6) is Curwen's 1930 paper, which only says she told him about it, not that she identified it. Unless you feel I really should add it, I'd prefer to email the site via the link given (which goes to the East Sussex County Archaeologist) and ask them what source (5) is. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:46, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • In that case, it would be best to leave the text as it is and see if County Archaeologist can shed light on the matter. Richard Nevell (talk) 22:00, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • When talking about Musson’s identification of a hearth, it’s not entirely clear why signs of burning might bring this into question. The point about the ditch being recut should probably be a separate sentence, as at the moment it reads a bit like the putative hearth was in the ditch.
    In fact it was in the ditch. You can read Musson's paper here; he says "a section of the trench is shown.... It will be noticed that a hearth is shown because at that level two flat pieces of tabular flint set close together were found with a small heap of bones close to and the broken piece of quern stone a little farther away. There was charcoal around and underneath the flat slabs, though not in great quantity..." (p. 108) If you look at the section (p. 107) you'll see it's well down in the excavated ditch. Gathering Time says "...a 'hearth', so called because it contained two slabs of tabular flint set side-by-side. There is, however, no mention of burning in situ and the abrupt sides of the feature suggest that it may have been a recut". I think Musson post-dates the era in which it was thought the builders of these camps lived in the ditches, so I don't know what he thought was going on. I've added "in the ditch" to the description; do you think more is needed? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:09, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that covers it. I was a bit surprised that someone thought there might be a hearth in a ditch, but at least it would have offered some shelter. In any case, it's sorted. Richard Nevell (talk) 22:00, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • which Drewett dates to the Romano-British period Does Drewett explain how the dating was reached? In a nutshell, I’m looking for a the sentence to finish based on…[pottery/datable organic material/local context and stratigraphy/something else
    Pottery; added. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:16, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • There was a geophysical survey in 2003 which would be worth mentioning, especially as it identified possible postholes (and therefore structures) in the interior. There is a very brief summary in Heritage Gateway, which is probably all the detail we can manage since it’s a grey literature report.
    Added. I don't know why I didn't find this page when writing the article; thanks for the link. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:28, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the subject of postholes, since they’re already mentioned a couple of times it might be useful to explain for the reader why they are significant (ie: they indicate there were structures of some form which no longer survive above ground).
    I am inclined not to go into this much detail -- the problem is that if you do this for one article you should do it for all of them, and it's not that hard to figure out. There's now a link to posthole (which you added, I think) and the new discussion of the 2003 survey makes it pretty clear what post-holes can mean. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:31, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That seems fair to me, the info is at readers' fingertips via a wikilink. Richard Nevell (talk)}
Sources
  • For consistency with the other sources, perhaps include Maud Cunnington’s first name rather than initials
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:31, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Richard: all points replied to now; thanks for the review! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:31, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent, and thank you for bringing this article to my attention! Richard Nevell (talk) 22:00, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the support! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:10, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Richard, I was about to email the County Archaeologist and realized I'd misread the citation -- it's to a 1929 note in SAC that I hadn't seen, which unambiguously credits Veronica Keiller as the first to point out the causeways. I've now put that in the main text and deleted the note. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:27, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Tim riley[edit]

I did my best to find something to complain about, but failed. I find —ize endings look a bit quaint in a modern BrE article, but who am I argue with the OED, the last bastion of —izes in England? (Mind you, even the OED prefers "analyse" to "analyze", but let that pass.) If were writing it, I might put Gathering Time in inverted commas, but I'm not. I wondered why we needed to know that Curwen was informed of the site by Veronica Keiller, but it's only a footnote and doesn't get in the way. The article is widely referenced, from a range of sources – some old, most new – and the references and sources seem admirably set out. The text is a pleasure to read, the article appears to be comprehensive and seems to me to meet all the FA criteria. Happy to support its elevation. – Tim riley talk 11:52, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Tim. The "-ize" endings are probably a result of my corrupted mid-Atlantic English; I've been on the left side of the pond for over thirty years now. I hesitated over the footnote about Veronica Keiller, but finally decided to add it because it's a hint to the social nature of archaeology in those days -- Curwen and Alexander Keiller were both gentlemen amateurs, as many archaeologists were, and given that the article notes that Allcroft included the site in his well-known survey, Earthwork of England, in 1908, I think it's interesting that Curwen didn't find out about it from Allcroft, but from Keiller's wife. That thought process is too much OR to include explicitly, of course. Let me know if you think that's too tenuous to be worth including. Re Gathering Time: I've been undecided how to present this in the articles I've cited it in; if I use quotes, do you think I would need to include the quotes in all mentions of it, including the section header? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:14, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
–ize -v- –ise: as both are correct in BrE it is entirely a personal choice which to use, and I am not going to carp at your choice (beyond the gentle dig, above). The footnote about Mrs Keiller does no harm and doesn't get in the way, so I can't see any reason to object to it. As to putting inverted commas round Gathering Time, if you're happy with it as it is, without quotes, I'm not quibbling. If you did feel moved to change, I suppose consistency from article to article would be a good thing, but it wouldn't be obligatory, I'm sure. Tim riley talk 13:57, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:00, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild[edit]

Recusing to review.

  • Optional: "Musson also found a large quantity of Ebbsfleet ware in one of the ditches." → 'Musson also found a large quantity of Ebbsfleet ware pottery in one of the ditches.'
    Yes, better. Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:07, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Drewett suggested that three polished axes ..." Full name at first mention.
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:07, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "would have been visible from as a treeless notch". Something missing after "from"?
    Fixed: "would have been visible from the north as a treeless notch". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:07, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Link scheduled monument.
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:07, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Once the ditch had silted in". Is that right? Not 'silted up'?
    I had to think about this. Looking in Google Scholar convinced me that the phrase does get used in archaeological texts; it's a paraphrase from the source which just says "silted". To my ear, "silted up" implies filling, whereas with an excavation I think what's of interest is the various layers of earth, and a silted layer can look quite different from a deliberate infill with chalk rubble. So I'd like to keep this unless you think it's jarring to someone unfamiliar with the usage. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:07, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's all. Easy and informative reading. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:44, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:07, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from mujinga[edit]

  • Thanks for the interesting read, I think I must have walked past this site at least once without really realising it was a causewayed enclosure. Comparing this article to the one on Whitehawk Camp it seems pretty decent, but also gives me cause for a few comments:
  • The two articles share some text, is there an acknowledgement somewhere in the article history to mark the edits for copyright acknowledgement?
    Yes, this edit credits Barkhale Camp as the source. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:04, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Cool, that's what I was looking for! Mujinga (talk) 15:21, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whitehawk Camp begins "Whitehawk Camp is the remains of a causewayed enclosure", this one begins "Combe Hill is a causewayed enclosure" - what's the difference?
    Nothing intentional. I think when I wrote Whitehawk Camp I had read less of the literature; technically it's the remains of an enclosure, but nobody talks about them that way, so I would be more inclined to change Whitehawk Camp than this article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:04, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whitehawk Camp gives a bit of info about what the site is like nowadays in the lead, ie mostly destroyed. The lead here could do with a sentence or two on that.
    What sort of thing are you thinking of? Whitehawk was damaged by development; really nothing has happened to Combe Hill. Even the Trundle had a beacon, a chapel, and a windmill to mention; there's not even a trig point on Combe Hill. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:04, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    So I mean a sentence or two to orientate the reader, something like "Combe Hill is a causewayed enclosure, northwest of Eastbourne in East Sussex, on the southern edge of the South Downs. It is composed of an almost complete inner circle of ditch and bank and the remains of an outer circuit. Causewayed enclosures were built in ..." I also changed Jevington to Eastbourne here since that's a bigger place and it reflects what's said in the article text better. Then also on top of that now I'd like to query "on the southern edge of the South Downs" since I would have thought the southern edge would be Beachy Head, facing the sea? If it looks towards the Weald surely it's on the northern edge? Mujinga (talk) 15:27, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Oops; glad you caught that; it is indeed on the north edge of the South Downs. I see what you mean about the lead now and have expanded per your suggestion; how does that look? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:14, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks great! I wikilinked Eastbourne Mujinga (talk) 11:00, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Radiocarbon dating is linked on third mention
    Fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:04, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should K.D. Thomas be K. D. Thomas ?
    Yes, fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:04, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Healy, Frances; Bayliss, Alex; Whittle, Alasdair (2015) [2011]" - why the two dates here? I'm sure there's a reason but it seems strange
    It's a 2015 reprint of the 2011 edition; it's not a new edition so there are no changes. It's the "orig-year" parameter. Is there a way to make this clearer? I could make it "(2015 reprint)" instead of 2015, by not using the citation templates, for example. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:04, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I see. Yes, "(2015 reprint)" would be better I think, but it's not a big deal Mujinga (talk) 15:21, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have Antiquity (331): 262–264. but also Antiquity. 4 (13): 22–54., so the two are not consistent
    I had accidentally omitted the volume for Sheridan's review; now fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:04, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you identify Peter Drewett on first mention?
    I made it "Peter Drewett, who reviewed the excavation history in 1994, suggested that" since I think this makes it clear he's an archaeologist. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:04, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Nice Mujinga (talk) 15:21, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Most causewayed enclosure are fairly close to circular in layout, but the inner enclosure at Combe Hill is more elliptical than most" - suggest "The majority of causewayed enclosures" to avoid 2xmost
    I made it "Most causewayed enclosures are fairly close to circular in layout, but the inner enclosure at Combe Hill is somewhat elliptical". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:04, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's all from me! Mujinga (talk) 17:23, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the review! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:04, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the replies, for me I just have one outstanding question (now expanded) about the lead Mujinga (talk) 15:27, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That question is answered so switching to support. Will be nice to see the article on the frontpage Mujinga (talk) 11:01, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:05, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ceoil[edit]

Some small, trivial comments

  • File:Coombe Hill - geograph.org.uk - 2709481.jpg is tiny in the ibox; maybe a portrait view, or increase the width of the box?
    Yes, a pity to waste it in the infobox. I decided the box didn't need a picture and put this picture in the background section, and moved the existing one down. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:07, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes much better now as that pic is by far the best on commons on showning the whole site. Your going have a problem selecting a crop for main page day however. Have been testing with the crop tool, and not finding any 100 x 100px section that could work satisfactory Ceoil (talk) 21:20, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hadrian Allcroft, a historian - The historian Hadrian Allcroft....(which at least gets rid of the comma)
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:07, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Evidence of attacks at some sites provided support for the idea that Evidence of attacks on some sites support the idea that
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:07, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • that the enclosures were fortified settlements - were built as fortified settlements....
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:07, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The plan he drew showed no gaps - shows? as it still exists
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:07, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is a scarp
    Changed to slope; it means a steep slope but I think it's a jargon word so it's gone. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:07, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • is the "Later investigations" section too detailed, given that none of them, as yet, amount to much.
    It's really the RCHME report and the Gathering Time report that have no information; the former because it hasn't been released, and the latter because they couldn't do any radiocarbon dating. I'm hesitant to cut these; the RCHME report really exists, and an archaeologist interested in the site could no doubt get hold of it, even though it's unpublished, so I think it should be mentioned. The Gathering Time project is a major radiocarbon project, and a reader of this article who knew about it would definitely expect it to be mentioned -- if we don't mention it it'll seem an omission, even though in this case there's no actual data. So I'd like to keep both. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:07, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Fine, its still valuable info, and shows that the site still attracts specialist interest. Ceoil (talk) 21:20, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise excellently written, sourced and organised. Support Ceoil (talk) 20:34, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review and support, and also for the copyedits -- some good tightening that I should have been able to see myself. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:07, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review by Z1720 - pass[edit]

Version reviewed

  • I suggest archiving ref 35 and ref 36
  • Ref 36 cites to Historic England, but Heritage Gateway is partly managed by HE, along with two other organizations. This should be changed to "Heritage Gateway"
  • Why are some of the authors in the Sources section wikified, while others are not?
  • In Sources, Patton, Stephen's reference has a ISBN, but it is the only one without dashes. I suggest adding the dashes to standardise the refs.
  • I am confident that these sources are all reliable and high quality sources.
  • I fixed one instance of "pp." used for one page, but the rest are fine.
  • Since this article didn't go through a GA, I did an earwig check. I have no concerns about plagiarism or paraphrasing.
  • Spot checked refs 14, 24, 17, 34, 22

Please let me know if there are any questions or concerns. Z1720 (talk) 17:45, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All done, I think; I wikilinked every author that has an article -- I've redlinked Curwen in the article but didn't want to add a redlink to the sources. For Patton I changed the ISBN to the epub since I suspect that's what I have -- I was emailed a PDF by another editor so I don't have the ISBN. Thanks for the review. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:29, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My concerns have been addressed, and I pass the source review. Z1720 (talk) 19:27, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 29 April 2022 [4].

Mary Jane Richardson Jones[edit]

Nominator(s): Ganesha811 (talk) 01:49, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a 19th-century American abolitionist and activist. I have been working on this article since last January (2021). In May 2021, it was reviewed for GA by Edwininlondon, and passed. I believe it meets the FA criteria and look forward to your comments. This is only my second FAC, after Mary van Kleeck, so I am still fairly new to the process. Thanks for taking the time to review it! Ganesha811 (talk) 01:49, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from AviationFreak
  • Add {{circa}} to infobox image caption per image source
    • Done.
  • Suggest linking Illinois in the infobox and splitting birthplace into separate city and state links
  • South Carolina is linked in the body, but Tennessee and Illinois are not. Could be MOS:OL, not sure if there is a precedent specifically for US states though.
    • Response: I am not sure either, but for now I have linked each state the first time it appears in either lead or body. I'll look and see if I can find a guideline.
      • Fixed - on reflection, I think it is probably overlinking, so I've removed the links to US states.
  • her father's house - Was this the family's group house, or were the parents separated at that point?
    • Response: - I do not know. I've never seen any reference suggesting her parents separated, but the source (p. 342) says her father's house in particular, so that's what I wrote.
      • Yeah, it looks like the author in this case just called it was "his estate" and referred to it as such despite living there with his wife. Given that this is what the source says, I'm fine with it.
  • North Carolina and Chicago are also linked. Suggest looking through article for linking of geographic names and applying MOS:OL where applicable.
    • Response: - as mentioned above, am happy to remove links if they're not needed.
  • freedman's papers or "freedmen's papers"? Everything I see on Google uses an e.
    • Fixed, good catch.
  • Jones moved with him - They would have both been "Jones" at this point, and I reckon it would make more sense to just say "the couple moved" unless she specifically followed him after he decided to move.
    • Fixed.
  • Suggest linking/piping Fugitive slaves in the United States from "runaway slaves"
    • Done.
  • Suggest adding {{Inflation}} to the $3.50 statement
    • Not done - couldn't get it to work right (it just showed '95') so will try again.
      • Done - I believe I've now understood how it's supposed to be used and added it accordingly.
        • Just about - The template uses an index year that doesn't necessarily line up with the current year, so I've made that change here.
          • Fixed. - should be all set now, thanks for the help with this!
  • Shorten John Jones' tailoring business to "John's tailoring business". Suggest using "John" instead of "John Jones" at future points in the article.
    • Done.
  • I assume Lavinia was also a Jones - If this is the case, maybe say "The Joneses, including their daughter Lavinia" or something similar. Perhaps include birthdate/year or add a sentence about her if we know anything more about her.
    • Response: Her birth name was Lavinia Jones, and she later became Lavinia Jones Lee, presumably through marriage. You can find her on unreliable sources like FindAGrave and Ancestry.com, but there's almost nothing about her in reliable sources I could add. Adjusted the sentence per your recommendation though.
      • That works
  • Decapitalize "Church" in "African Methodist Episcopal Church"
    • Done.
  • Remove address of tailoring business unless it's particularly significant.
    • Removed. It was included basically only because I was curious and tracked it down, but I agree it's not actually significant.
  • What kind of political success did he achieve?
    • Response: - he was elected to the Cook County Commission, the first black man to be so. One of my to-do-list items is improving his page, which is fairly sparse at the moment.
      • Suggest including this info in the article
        • Included.
  • Suggest piping "was hanged in" to Virginia v. John Brown#Execution
    • Done.
  • Racial integration and/or Civil rights movement (1865–1896) could be linked
    • Done: added the latter.
  • The single-sentence paragraph at the beginning of "Later life" should be merged or expanded. Also is a run-on to my reading.
    • Partially done - split the sentence and will expand.
      • Expanded somewhat from Junger source.
        • Looks significantly better - Recommend using the "r=" parameter to round off the lower 3-5 digits in the Inflation template, and the year needs to be fixed as above.
  • The article for Phillis Wheatley Club lists the spellings "Phillis" and "Phyllis", but not "Phylis".
    • Fixed adjusted to the Wiki article title.
  • before the Great Chicago Fire of 1871 - The fire was introduced earlier in the article, so this could perhaps be shortened to "before the 1871 fire" or "before the Great Fire of 1871".
    • Fixed.
  • Oxford comma usage is inconsistent (Hull House, the Phylis Wheatley Club in Chicago, and Provident Hospital uses it, while Susan B. Anthony, Carrie Chapman Catt and others does not)
    • Fixed, added comma.
  • in the latter case, providing him lodgings at her home and funding his medical education. - Suggest changing to "in the latter case, she provided him with lodgings at her home and funded his medical education" to match tense with the first part of the sentence.
    • Done.
  • Pluralization of nouns ending in "s" is inconsistent - Jones' is used in some places, but Ida B. Wells's is later used. This is a fairly rule-laden area and may warrant a closer look.
    • Response - my Achilles heel of grammar. I can never remember what's right! I'll go through and fix it.
      • Fixed I think the article is now in accordance with MOS:PLURALNOUN.
        • Looks good, I missed that guideline
  • Suggest She died on... -> "Jones died on..."
    • Done.
  • the Chicago Defender should be "The Chicago Defender"
    • Done.
  • FN3, which has a lot of references, is 503 unavailable for me. Could just be my end though.
    • Question: is that the Junger source? If so, I can access it so might just be you. Ganesha811 (talk) 19:00, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, that was Junger. Tried again and it worked just fine so perhaps I was just trying at a bad time.

This is all I have for now. Looks like it relies heavily on some references and there are relatively few footnotes for a FAC, but if the sources are reliable and the article is comprehensive that shouldn't be a problem. AviationFreak💬 17:58, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for your comments! Going through the last issues now and of course would welcome more improvements. It's a relatively short article, but as best as I know, it's a comprehensive article on the known aspects of her life. Ganesha811 (talk) 19:00, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sure thing! There's a couple places that still need just a little bit of doing, but overall I think the article is looking pretty good. AviationFreak💬 22:34, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Any further comments, or has everything been addressed to your satisfaction? Ganesha811 (talk) 12:13, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • The one thing I'm still hung up on is the "r=" parameter with the Inflation templates to round the values off to more appropriate values given the understood uncertainty (e.g. $100 is probably more appropriate than $101.79). AviationFreak💬 01:16, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          I've rounded them off to the nearest dollar or 100 dollars, depending on scale, and added "approximately". I hope that is what you had in mind! Ganesha811 (talk) 01:54, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          Yep, exactly what I was envisioning. Looks like a solid article, and I am happy to support on prose! AviationFreak💬 02:59, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          Thanks for all your comments and suggestions! Ganesha811 (talk) 03:19, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie[edit]

I've made a couple of minor copyedits; feel free to revert anything you disagree with.

The only thing there is that because both Fannie and Daniel shared the last name Williams (though they were not related or married), the reader may be confused whose medical education she funded. Tweaked to avoid this. Ganesha811 (talk) 01:44, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, should have seen that. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:09, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we know if Tilton was successful in his plea to the Crosby Opera House to integrate its seating, either for his performance or generally?
    • At least for that lecture, the source makes clear he was successful. Since I obviously didn't make that clear in the article, edited to fix this.
  • "John's tailoring business was also reconstructed at a new location". If you mean a new building was constructed I wouldn't use the word "business"; if you mean he rebuilt his business I wouldn't say "reconstructed"; rebuilt or restarted might work.
    • Fixed - went with restarted.
  • Can we say why she was hesitant to support women's suffrage? You mention Lewis, but that doesn't help the reader understand her hesitation. I tried clicking through to the article on Lewis but searches for "suffrage" and "vote" turned up nothing.
    • The source is also a little vague. Junger writes

      "Jones came to the issue of women's suffrage more slowly, as did many other women of her generation. For instance, she gave a presentation on Mary Edmonia Lewis, the daughter of a freed black man and Native American woman who became a well-known late nineteenth-century sculptress, to a women's suffrage group in 1873... [a reporter wrote that] 'Mrs. Jones did not believe that Lewis ever got to that point where she cared to vote.' With time Jones modified her position, however..."

    • I wasn't able to find a lot in other sources on Jones' view of suffrage. If you have a better suggested wording, I'm very open to it, because I agree the article as written isn't very specific. Ganesha811 (talk) 01:44, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't think I understand what the source is trying to say. The source doesn't quote its primary sources, does it? I would almost suggest cutting the mention of Lewis if we can't explain what she's saying -- the point that she resisted and then changed her mind can be made without that. Take a look at this; it's not usable as a source for us, but it explains why black women sometimes lacked enthusiasm for the women's suffrage movements. It would be good to find something like that that mentions Lewis; we might be able to connect that to Jones' opinion. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:09, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I can't see a clear chain back to primary sources for those facts from the Junger source, no. I can't access the Chicago Tribune archives, though. For now, I've cut the mention of Lewis, though as you say, if we can find a way to include the connection with a little more detail, it would be a definite plus! I'll do some digging. Ganesha811 (talk) 14:39, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Take a look at this; someone clipped it last year! That should do it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:14, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Good to see! I've restored the clause with slightly different wording - let me know what you think! Hopefully fixed. Ganesha811 (talk) 21:05, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Can we do a little more? We have her (indirectly reported) words; it would be nice to use them. Perhaps 'Jones was not quick to become a suffragist, arguing that prominent African-American women such as Edmonia Lewis had not pushed for suffrage, and saying that "her idea of woman suffrage" was that "a woman should do all she could do".' Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:01, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Adjusted to your wording and added the citation. I think it looks pretty good now. Ganesha811 (talk) 22:52, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I can see to comment on. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:05, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Looks good; a well-written and concise article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:37, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reiterating my support after the minor expansion of the article today. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:38, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comments and improvements! Ganesha811 (talk) 00:50, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review/pass[edit]

Spot checks not done, as they say. SN54129 13:55, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Journal of Illinois History: OCLC?
    • Added.
  • Schultz et al. 2001: needs publisher.
    • Added.
  • Lusk 1897: needs an identity number, e.g. OCLC.
    • Added ISBN - could not find an OCLC # available.
  • Kaba * McDowell, 2017: Ditto, ISBN (and presumably OCLC, since you use both).
    • So this one is complicated. The physical book has no ISBN or other identifier, only a publisher. The publisher, Haymarket Books, may simply be a name chosen for self-publication. The book is not in wide circulation and was produced locally in Chicago. I don't have any reason to believe the book is unreliable, but given this, I've removed most of the citations to this book in the article. The facts included were all supported by other sources in any case - the Kaba/McDowell book just happens to be how I heard about Richardson Jones in the first place, so it has stayed on as a "legacy" source since the beginning. The only fact that Kaba-McDowell contains that other sources do not is her place of burial and that her tombstone reads "Grandma Jonesie." I'm reluctant to let this one go, as I think it finishes the article very nicely. The grave is also visible on FindAGrave, though I understand that's not generally considered a reliable source. Given the uncontroversial nature of the information, do you think it's acceptable to use the Kaba-McDowell source for this sentence only? Ganesha811 (talk) 14:58, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Tricky indeed! As far as Haymarket books goes, they're small and radical, but they're not self-publishers: see [5]; they've published Noam Chomsky, for example. The odd thing is that on Worldcat, HB isn't mentioned, and the publisher's given as Chicago Black Women Tour, which does sound rather an SPS. Having said all that, now you've removed them as references, I don't see any problem with using it to support a statement of knowable fact. Perhaps ask the good folk at the Chicagoan Wikiproject if someone can grab a photo? SN54129 14:55, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        Good idea - I've asked there, but it could be a while before anyone gets around to it! Chicago Black Women Tour is also listed in the book - they're the organization which "sponsored" the work, I guess? It's a little unclear, but Mariame Kaba is a well-known activist in Chicago; I don't know anything about Essence McDowell. As you say, it's a verifiable, uncontroversial fact, and in fact by common-sense standards it is already verified, given the picture on find-a-grave. If I'm reading your comment right, then, you're ok with the final sentence as it currently stands and is sourced? Ganesha811 (talk) 15:42, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • Which is why I've already marked this source review as 'passed'  :) SN54129 18:51, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your ISBNs should be consistently formatted.
    • Done - all ISBNs are hyphenated 13-character ISBNs where possible.
      • I should've been clearer; I meant, as well, that they should all be laid out the same way. E.g. 978-A-BBB-CCCCC-D. I've done that myself, considering I should've been clearer originally. SN54129 18:51, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for doing that! Ganesha811 (talk) 18:57, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sources are a mix of peer-reviewed journals, University and other reputable presses, and contemporaneous newspapers of record. WWTO and the NPS are absolutely fine for the weight they bear.
  • Nice article! Cheers, SN54129 13:55, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Serial Number 54129:, thank you for your comments and improvements! They are appreciated. Ganesha811 (talk) 18:55, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per the recent minor expansion of the article (Thanks MC!) I confirm that I'm monitoring the sources as they're added and so far it's sound. But a gentle reminder that, while it's important that (per WP:FA?#1B) the article be comprehensive (i.e, "it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context"), this is counterbalanced by #4, "It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail and uses summary style". IOW, not everything you find needs to be included; both WP:DUE, FRINGE and NOTINDISCRIMINATE also apply at FAC, as they do any article. Cheers, SN54129 17:01, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Definitely, and that's something I've been trying to watch out for. Is there any detail/bit in particular that I should take a second look at? Ganesha811 (talk) 17:07, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    No, not at all, just a general observation in response to "so that the article has as much information as is available". Carry on  :) SN54129 17:16, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Z1720[edit]

Non-expert prose review (although I have written some an FA bio on a person in this time period, they were Canadian and don't seem to have much crossover). Due to how short this article is, I did a search for additional sources on WP:LIBRARY, Google Scholar, and some other databases I have access. Why were the following sources not used in the article?

  • "Mary Jane Richardson Jones" in Notable Black American Women, found on Gale (through WP:LIBRARY)
  • Bontemps, Arna, and Jack Conroy. They Seek a City. Garden City. N.Y.: Doubleday, 1945. (cited by the above) [6]
  • Mary Ellen Snodgrass, The Underground Railroad: An Encyclopedia of People, Places, and Operations, [7]

Please ping upon reply. Z1720 (talk) 22:54, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Z1720: pinging as requested. Good questions regarding sources! The Notable Black Women source is great, and I see that it does contain some details not found in the article already. As to why it wasn't included before, it's simply that I didn't find it! I did find They Seek A City, which dedicates a chapter to the Joneses - Chapter IV, "John Brown's Friend." However, it is really only about John Jones, and Mary Jones gets pretty much just two mentions. Both of them are quoted in Notable Black Women, actually - that she was a "fair octoroon whose queenly beauty became a legend in later years" and that she had "queenly grace and hauteur." Other than that, there's nothing that could be added to this article. I also don't see anything about Mary in the Snodgrass source that isn't already in the article. I am tempted to go through and add some of the details from Notable Black Women to the article, but I know expansion during an FAC is sometimes frowned upon - what do you think? Ganesha811 (talk) 01:14, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it would be worth adding the new material; if it's substantial you might courtesy ping the other reviewers to see if they want to review, but if it's just a couple of sentences I don't think that's necessary. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:21, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree with all of that. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:08, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please ping me again when you have finished incorporating Notable Black Women into the article. Since this is such a short article, I also encourage you to search the databases you have access to (especially WP:LIBRARY) so that the article has as much information as is available. I also encourage you to look at the references of the sources that were already used, as that lead to additional information. I will also do another source search and post here if I find anything new. Z1720 (talk) 14:40, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've gone through and incorporated material from Notable Black Women into the article, as well as a couple smaller things from They Seek A City. As advised, pinging Z1720, Mike Christie, Serial Number 54129, and AviationFreak. I'm digging into the sources used in Notable Black Women now but so far haven't turned up anything new about Mary. Thank you for your help and improvements to the article! Ganesha811 (talk) 16:27, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I did another search for sources online and could not find other ones. I trust that you have also looked for sources and added everything that could give additional information in the article.
  • "only eight years after the city's incorporation." only is not necessary in this sentence and can be removed.
  • Removed.
  • " However, John Jones's tailoring business succeeded" I don't think however is necessary here, as this is not opposed to the last sentence. I think it should be removed.
  • Removed.
  • "key to earning respect." Earning the respect of who?
  • Rephrased and added a little more context from the source.
  • " One scholar, Junger, has written that" Since Junger was introduced in the previous section, "One scholar" is not necessary here and can be deleted.
  • Removed.
  • "Jones died on December 26, 1909." Any information of how she died, or illness leading up to her death?
  • Not that I know of. If I could get my hands on the Defender article, it might say, but I haven't been able to. It's just quoted in Junger. I did search the Chicago Tribune for an obituary/mention around that time, but wasn't able to find one. I should also note that there are contradictory death dates given for Jones - Junger and at least one other give December 26th, 1909, but Notable Black Women gives January 2nd, 1910. I'm inclined to believe the earlier date and guess she was probably buried on the January date, since it would be odd to report on someone's death when they hadn't died yet. Ganesha811 (talk) 22:23, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • If there's contrary dates for the death, I recommend that the more commonly sourced date be put in the article body, and a note stating that a source states a different date for Jones's death. Z1720 (talk) 02:33, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Those are my comments. Z1720 (talk) 21:36, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support my concerns have been addressed, and I cannot find additional sources to be evaluated for the article. If other sources are discovered, I hope their inclusion will be considered. Z1720 (talk) 00:48, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comments and improvements! Ganesha811 (talk) 01:33, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Edwininlondon[edit]

Glad to see this here. I did the GAN review. Very little left for me to comment:

  • inconsistent date format: infobox has December 26th but lead has December 26, and same at the end of the article. And there is " 2 January, 1910."
  • Fixed. - article now consistently uses Month #.
  • family, she and her family --> not great to have family twice so close
  • Adjusted to avoid repetition.
  • I would link Tennessee and Illinois in the lead
  • Linked.

That's it. I Support on prose. Nice work. Edwininlondon (talk) 10:12, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for your comments and improvements, both here and in the GA review! Ganesha811 (talk) 11:36, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:John_and_Mary_Jones_in_the_1840s.jpg: when and where was this first published? Ditto File:Mary_Jane_Richardson_Jones_and_granddaughter.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:22, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't know for sure, in either case. Obviously, both were taken during her lifetime. The Chicago History Museum states, for the similar portrait of her by Baldwin & Drake (which I assume was taken at the same time as the one with her granddaughter), that there is no known copyright. I got the photos from Bruce Purnell, who is a descendant of the Joneses, but I believe all of the images except that of the gravestones are in the public domain. Ganesha811 (talk) 01:26, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Many of the images of the Joneses held by the Chicago History Museum and others seem to come from the Franklyn Atkinson Henderson collection. Henderson died in 1962 and his nieces donated the collection in the early '90s. That link states: "Many of the photographs in his collection were exhibited at the 1940 American Negro Exposition, held in Chicago. A larger group of the photographs was exhibited in 1943 at the South Side Community Art Center; that exhibit received a major feature article in the Chicago Herald American newspaper." I can't say whether these photos of the Joneses were among them for sure, of course. Ganesha811 (talk) 01:32, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • Under US law public display of a work does not constitute publication. What's the earliest publication that can be confirmed? Or are these unpublished? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:39, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • Unless the Chicago Historical Society, Chicago Public Library or someone else unknown is selling prints, they are probably unpublished under that definition, yes. I can trace the infobox portrait back to a donation by their granddaughter to the Chicago Historical Society. She wrote a letter saying that it was one of a pair that hung in their home (his portrait is on his page). The 1840s portrait I cannot find in the collections of any archive, though it is online elsewhere as early as 2008, and it may have first entered circulation via Bruce Purnell, i.e. came down through the family. The Baldwin & Drake photographs, as mentioned, appear to have come through the Franklyn Atkinson Henderson collection - how he got his hands on them I do not know but it seems plausible they were never published. Ganesha811 (talk) 01:45, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
            • Okay, suggest switching to an unpublished tag then. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:56, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
            • Looking at the Hirtle chart for unpublished images, the 1865 portrait and the 1840s photo should both be fine, as they were certainly created before 1902. Aaron Darling, the portrait painter, was active from 1845-1874 per the Smithsonian, so it stretches credibility that he could have died after 1952. As for the Baldwin & Drake photographs, I'm 99% sure they were taken before 1902 - not only does it match the information we have and her and her grandaughter's subjective age, their studio is listed in the 1892 Chicago Business directory but not the 1900 edition, suggesting they went out of business before that date. I have not found any evidence of them being extant after 1902. Ganesha811 (talk) 01:58, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
            Yes, I will apply the appropriate tags now! Ganesha811 (talk) 01:58, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Tags are switched! Thanks for the help. :) Ganesha811 (talk) 02:05, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria any other image comments? Ganesha811 (talk) 11:47, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:49, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Great, thank you for your help and improvements! Ganesha811 (talk) 00:11, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Kavyansh[edit]

Interesting article, just few nitpicks:

  • "she and her family moved to Illinois when she was a teenager" — how about "during her teenage"?
  • Done.
  • "in the antebellum era" — might be better to add some context about what 'antebellum era' is (at-least in the lead). I would have not known it without clicking the link.
  • Done, switched text but kept link.
  • "After her husband's 1879 death" — Shouldn't it be "After her husband's death in 1879"? Writing "1879 death" implies that her husband died many times, and we are concerned about the 1879 one, which is practically not possible!
  • Done!
  • "as well as becoming a suffragist" — is 'as well as' necessary? How about "and became a suffragist"?
  • Done.
  • "The historian Wanda A. Hendricks" — I know this is acceptable in English English, but I am not sure whether American English has the definite article with job titles.
  • Not changed - this was done to avoid false title, which was mentioned by Gog as an issue in my first FAC for Mary van Kleeck.
  • Isn't Wanda A. Hendricks notable enough for a red-link?
  • Done.
  • Infobox: "(age 89-90)" — shouldn't it be an en-dash in place of hyphen?
  • Done.
  • She has been described as "abolitionist, philanthropist, and suffragist" in the lead, but occupation in the infobox is Activist. Why?
  • Comment: simply because activist seems to cover all of these activities in the context of her life, while the more specific words are not really "occupations" but more akin to roles or beliefs.
  • "originally from South Carolina" — we don't mention where her father was from, and is this important to mention?
  • Removed: I suppose it's included just because it's known, but it's not actually relevant, so removed.
  • "In the 1830s, she moved with her family", "In 1841, she married", "She also mentored", etc. — At the beginning of every new paragraph, you'll need to replace the pronouns like 'her', 'she', etc. with her last name.
  • Done.
  • "she experienced the riots" — 'witnessed'?
  • Done.
  • "the riots surrounding the murder of the anti-slavery newspaperman" — awkward repetition; suggesting to rephrase if you can think of something better.
  • Rephrased.
  • "which Richardson "vividly"" — could use she instead of her surname.
  • Done.
  • "taking his name" — last name/surname?
  • Done. Went with surname.
  • "a free black man originally" — 'man' seems redundant.
  • Not done. I think it would be considered rude to refer to him as "a free black", similar to saying "a homeless" rather than "a homeless person" or "someone experiencing homelessness."
  • "on March 11, 1845" — Just "March 1845" would work and save a comma, I think.
  • Done.
  • "large anti-slavery" — 'huge'?
  • Not done. I think that goes slightly beyond the source and the change in adjective doesn't add much.
  • "O.G. Hanson" — You sure that there is no space between 'O.' and 'G.'?
  • Done: added space, since it appears that way in They Seek A City
  • "The Joneses became members of a small community of African-Americans in Chicago, comprising only 140 people" — Do we have to specify 'small'? The number itself conveys that. And if we do, then 'only' is redundant.
  • Done. Removed 'only.
  • "African Methodist Episcopal church" — our article capitalizes 'C'. Moreover, later in the article, we have "Olivet Baptist Church" with Capital 'C'
  • Comment: This had been capitalized, but was removed per a comment from AviationFreak above - I have no strong preference, as long as we can come to consensus.
  • "the Liberty party" — 'p' should be capital
  • Done.
  • "and other restrictive laws like the Fugitive Slave Act" — Which Fugitive Slave Act? 1793? presumably 1850.
  • Comment: presumably the second, but the sources don't specify and the wikilinked article covers both, so I think it works.
  • "to their raid at Harpers Ferry" — 'to their raid on Harpers Ferry'
  • Done.
  • Done.
  • "Jones wrote to him to warn him" — awkward repetition; suggesting to rephrase
  • Rephrased.
  • "personally presented" — just 'presented' would suffice, I think.
  • Done.
  • "to his audience" — 'to the audience'?
  • Done.
  • Expanded to full name.
  • There seems to be nothing from "Supporting younger activists" section in the lead
  • Added a sentence to the lead.
  • "However, once she decided to" — 'However' can be removed.
  • Done.
  • "In exchange, Hale Williams looked after her horse and buggy." — Why is mentioning this important?
  • Comment: I think it's an interesting detail that gives insight into how her support was given to a younger generation.
  • Comment: Interesting—yes, important—I don't think so! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 12:28, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Modified and shortened as part of tweaks to paragraph.
  • "as an "interracial institution"" — Where does that quote comes from?
  • Comment: from Smith-Phelps, Notable Black Women, which is Ref#2.
  • Comment: Would it be better to paraphrase this than quoting it? – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 12:28, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Paraphrased as part of tweaks to paragraph.
  • Fixed.
  • "Note" section should really be "Notes"
  • Fixed.
  • "www.nps.gov" is redundant, I think, when "U.S. National Park Service" is already mentioned.
  • Removed.

– Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:23, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support, thanks for resolving the issues. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:36, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your many comments and improvements! Ganesha811 (talk) 19:20, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Alanscottwalker[edit]

  • Nice work. I put a question about the "octoroon" assertion on the talk page. Perhaps we can discuss it there or here. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:38, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • May as well discuss here - it's an interesting question. I've never heard of "octoroon" being used figuratively; as far as I'm aware, it was a specific term that sometimes had legal implications as well as being in common parlance. However, I can't pin down her ancestry specifically. Given that it's generally a reliable source, I don't think there's any reason to believe they would call her an octoroon if she wasn't, to the best of their knowledge, 1/8 black. Ganesha811 (talk) 17:54, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • In the United States, these terms were often used loosely to refer to gradations of complexion, without regard to ancestry (and in the U.S. unlike other places in the Americas they were not generally of legal use) [8] So, it's not a matter of reliability, it's a matter of how those authors were using it (if they wanted to really talk about her parents and ancestors they would have likely identified them, instead of talking about her looks). Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:18, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        I agree that the passage was intended to focus on her appearance, but given their lack of focus on her at all in the chapter (she's barely mentioned throughout) I don't think we can take absence of evidence as evidence. The article phrases it as follows: "In the 1945 book They Seek A City, Arna Bontemps and Jack Conroy described Richardson as a 'fair octoroon whose queenly beauty became a legend in later years.' " The article clearly attributes the description to Bontemps and Conroy, instead of describing Richardson as an octoroon in Wikipedia's voice. Ganesha811 (talk) 18:28, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        But it links to octoroon which of course is not in the original quote but the link makes it a technical term, instead of generally descriptive, so Wikipedia does appear to be asserting we know they meant it in its technical mathematical sense. Thus, I suggest something like, . . . Arna Bontemps and Jack Conroy described Richardson as a fair woman "whose queenly beauty became a legend in later years." Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:58, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        Done - modified the sentence as suggested with 'light-skinned' in place of 'fair'. Ganesha811 (talk) 19:27, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        Thanks. That works. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:05, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article mentions a grand child in a caption (source?) but no children?
    • The article does mention the Jones' daughter Lavinia a couple of times - just after their marriage, and also in the third paragraph of 'Antebellum life in Chicago.' Lavinia's daughter Theodora was born in ~1871, per a letter she wrote to the Illinois Historical Society. Ganesha811 (talk) 17:54, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Hog Farm via FACBot (talk) 29 April 2022 [9].

Cerro Tuzgle[edit]

Nominator(s): Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:30, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a rather unremarkable volcano in Argentina, which is mostly important because it is one of the few recently active volcanoes in the Puna. There are some ideas to use it or its neighbour Tocomar for geothermal power generation. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:30, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Image review—pass no licensing issues found (t · c) buidhe 18:17, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild[edit]

Recusing to review.

  • Sources: "Tuzgle" access date?
    Added. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:42, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "may have continued into the Holocene." Which was when?
    Added. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:42, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Main body: It seems strange that a reader doesn't find out what Cerro Tuzgle is until the second paragraph. Can I strongly suggest moving the first paragraph of Geography and geomorphology to the end of that section.
    Eh, I think the current order geography->volcano makes more sense - that Tuzgle is a volcano is already said elsewhere. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:42, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As you wish, but you need to tell a reader what you are talking about at the start of the article. so 'Cerro Tuzgle is a dormant stratovolcano located near the eastern border of the Argentinian Puna.' or similar
Um, it does already say "Cerro Tuzgle is a dormant stratovolcano in the Susques Department of Jujuy Province in Argentina."? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:35, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It says that in the lead. The first words of this bullet point are "Main body".
Well, my thinking was that people are unlikely to read a section without even noticing the first sentence of the lead. I've written something though. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:09, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "kilometres" is used 24 times. The MoS suggests "In prose, unit names should be given in full if used only a few times, but symbols may be used when a unit (especially one with a long name) is used repeatedly, after spelling out the first use".
    Abbreviated most. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:42, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "is reported northwest from Cerro Tuzgle". That seems a strange phrase. Are we uncertain whether it exists?
    Aye, I don't see that place mentioned in many places. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:42, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If we are not sure of its existence, should we be mentioning it at all? As a minimum a reader should be warned of the places possible non-existence.
Well, I failed a spot check. It shows up on Google as "Puesto Sey, Ruta Nacional 40, Puesto Sey, Jujuy Province, Argentina". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:09, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 1926 it was reported that a crater lake lies on the summit." Any information on this more recent than 96 years ago?
    No. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:42, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "began to form in the Eocene-Oligocene"; "During the Miocene and Pliocene", "of Ordovician age" etc. Dates please.
    Added. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:42, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link lineament.
    Linked. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:42, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "into the foreland of Argentina". I don't think that where you mean will be clear to most readers.
    Explained. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:42, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It is a strike-slip fault". What is "It"?
    Explained. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:42, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which define a" seems an odd phrase. Perhaps 'which result in' or similar?
    Used "constitute", they are not a compound. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:42, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "reach 2–20 metres per second (6.6–65.6 ft/s)." Can we have these in accessible units please.
    I don't think any other unit is more accessible. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:42, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would not expect an average reader to grasp what 6 m/s was, I would expect them to understand 70 kph.
Done, with km/h. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:35, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "snowfall [is] common ... The region is arid, with less than 100 millimetres (3.9 in) annual precipitation". Sounds contradictory. Where is the measurement site for that <100 mm?
  • "Annual precipitation there". Where?
    (regarding both queries) Hmm, sources often disagree on the exact values, probably because there are lots of mountains and few gauges. Snowfalls often are undercounted in gauges, which is an acknowledged problem in the region. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:42, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I had assumed that would be the case. Could this be explained in the article.
This source mentions the issue, but in the context of the Atacama rather than the Puna so I am not sure whether to use it here per WP:OR Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:35, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Bleh! The phenomenon almost needs its own article. I'll leave it with you as to whether there is anything sufficiently general in the Atacama article to support a brief explanation - I think we can be reasonably generous re OR. But if you decide to leave it as it is, then it's not a deal breaker for me.
  • "Trichomycterus fish have been found in creeks around the volcano." would be better with animals than precipitation.
    Moved it up. One wonders how the fish ended up there. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:42, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "buried by aeolian material". Can we have "aeolian" in plain English please.
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:42, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "300,000±1,000,000". Really? So it may not yet have happened? And that is a stunning degree of uncertainty.
    Yes, really. We only have oldfashioned K-Ar dates for most of these volcanoes, if we have any at all. C14 and Ar-Ar are very underused so far in the non-Peruvian Central Volcanic Zone. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:42, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't start a section with "These hot springs", specify what you are talking about.
    Rewritten. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:42, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Von Rosen". Is that their full name?
    The source has him as "E. Von Rosen" which isn't better. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:42, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My, admittedly flaky, translation of that source has von Rosen climbing and exploring the volcano, rather than a clear statement that he was the first summitter. ORing, such a late first recorded ascent seems highly improbable for such a straight forward climb.
It's a remote region, but yes. I'll remove that mention. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:09, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's a stroll, not a climb. Works outings go up it.
  • "Ceruti"; "Norini": names in full at first mention.
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:42, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "was reportedly issued by 1933". "reportedly"? Was it or wasn't it?
    Rewritten. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:42, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild (talk) 16:17, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Gog the Mild It looks like JoJo has replied to your comments, prepared to support or oppose?
Apologies for taking so long to get back on these. A few further come backs. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:29, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you check for dup-links. Eg Holocene, Pleistocene ...
  • Could you check that each geological period has an explanation of when it was at first mention.
  • Footnote f doesn't make sense to me. Is something missing?

Gog the Mild (talk) 11:54, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think I got these. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:35, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Good stuff. Supporting. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:53, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Realmaxxver[edit]

Placeholder. Realmaxxver (talk) 09:03, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Its name, which is also rendered as Tujle, Tugle or Tugler, comes from the Kunza language. It means "knoll" and refers to the shape of the volcano.[9]" → "Its name, which is also rendered as Tujle, Tugle or Tugler, comes from the Kunza language; it means "knoll", referring to the shape of the volcano.[9]"
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:21, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Volcanoguy[edit]

  • Geography and geomorphology
  • "A 0.5 square kilometres (0.19 sq mi) platform" — A 0.5-square-kilometre (0.19 sq mi) platform.
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:21, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "these include Mina Betty on the northwestern flank[22] between 5,000–5,350 metres (16,400–17,550 ft) elevation where in 1939 seven sulfur outcrops were reported" — Should "these include" be "this includes" since only one sulfur mine is mentioned here?
    I think the current form is more correct. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:21, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Quebrada Aguas Calientes passes west and Quebrada de Charcos east of the volcano;[27] the latter becomes Quebrada Los Charcos north of the volcano and converges with Quebrada Aguas Calientes." — Are these streams?
    Or dry valleys, hence I did not specify. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:21, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Local
  • "The basement is formed by Cambrian and Precambrian formations[35] of metamorphic character" — What is meant by "metamorphic character"?
    Formations made up of metamorphic rocks. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:21, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Eruption history
  • "Cerro Tuzgle was active during the Pleistocene[25] and its most recent eruption may have followed a period of inactivity." — This is pretty obvious since most volcanoes are active intermittently.
    Not all of them are; Etna and Stromboli are pretty regularly active and they are very well known. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:21, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
True, but that doesn't seem to be the case with Cerro Tuzgle. Volcanoguy 00:24, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but why would a reader know that? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:22, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "forming a 80 metres (260 ft) thick plateau" — forming an 80-metre (260 ft) thick plateau
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:21, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The middle and upper parts contain pumice" — Is this referring to the plateau?
    No, the ignimbrite. Specified this. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:21, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It consists of massive, up to 15 metres (49 ft) thick, dark grey to reddish-brown coloured lava flows." — 15-metre (49 ft) thick
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:21, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Mafic andesite lava filled the caldera" — Andesite is intermediate not mafic.
    Hmm, the source does treat that andesite as mafic. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:21, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All of this from my first pass. The article is overall in a good shape. Volcanoguy 06:45, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Volcanoguy 20:31, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Harry[edit]

  • Opening sentence: I like to explain where something is in terms somebody unfamiliar with the area can understand (eg north-western Argentina), rather than just the local government division.
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:07, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • and was constructed during different stages "constructed" to me implies man-made. Is there a better verb?
    Went with "grew". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:07, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • flanked by 1–2 metres (3 ft 3 in – 6 ft 7 in) high you can use |adj=on in the convert template to produce the hyphens and adjectival form.
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:07, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Numerous young-looking lava flows descend the slopes can we have some context for "young"? Months, years, decades, centuries?
    Unfortunately we don't know this. "Young looking" in the context of lava flows refers to appearance, but it can mean different things depending on the volcano. In particular, in dryland volcanoes a "young looking" flow can be quite ancient. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:07, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abandoned sulfur mines occur Mines don't naturally "occur", and presumably were built before they were abandoned?
    Yes, changed that. I think I tend to overuse "occurred" in my writings. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:07, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • whereas after 1.5 million years ago Maybe "from" 1.5 million years ago to avoid the potential confusion from having "after" and "ago" so close together?
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:07, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:35, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I only had minor quibbles and you've addressed them. Support. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:29, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

Footnote numbers refer to this version.

  • Suggest adding access dates to Garcia & Sruoga and Tuzgle/Global Volcanism Program.
  • The link to Ahumada is giving me a 404 error.
  • The link for Bustos et al. appears to be intended to go to the article specifically, but it does not.
  • You give "Geothermal investigations with isotope and geochemical techniques in Latin America" but the linked page gives the title "Flow patterns at the Tuzgle-Tocomar geothermal system, Salta-Jujuy, Argentina. An isotopic and geochemical approach" -- is this linking to the right article?
  • The OSU Volcano World link gives me a 404 error.

Other than that, sources all look reliable and I can see no formatting errors. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:43, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dealt with these. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:18, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fixes look good; pass. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:15, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie[edit]

I've copyedited; please revert anything you disagree with.

  • The lead says "three lava flow units were named San Antonio, Azufre, and Tuzgle", but in the body it seems as if this is just one of two possible reconstructions. Shouldn't the lead by less definite?
  • Also to avoid the implication that the naming happened on the same timescale as the flows, perhaps make it "Subsequently, lava domes were erupted; the three resulting lava flow units have been named San Antonio..."
    Rewrote this. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:23, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The paragraph starting "Magma mixing processes" changes tenses from past to present halfway through; I think it should stay in the past throughout.
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:23, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and is partially welded": "welded" looks like a term of art; can you provide a link?
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:23, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I see you added a Wiktionary link; the problem is that the standard meaning -- "to join together" -- doesn't make sense to a reader unfamiliar with geological processes, so the link isn't helpful. The article says the ignimbrite "flowed" and that it's "partially welded". To a lay reader, "flowed" implies a single continuous substance; "welded" implies the joining of two different entities. So what does weld mean here? As I said, it doesn't have to be an inline explanation if there's a suitable link, but I don't think the Wiktionary link suffices. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:50, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem is that I can't find an usable explanation of "welded". I think it's saying that in a welded ignimbrite, the ignimbrite consists of rocks that have partially melted and fused with each other while in unwelded ignimbrite they are still separate fragments. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:56, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think we should include material we can't explain. We do have some professional geologists who are active editors; you could ask one of them? We can cut it if you're confident it's a sufficently minor point, but it would be better to understand it if we can. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:04, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It's relatively minor so I've cut it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:31, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The "Young Flow" unit is considered to be of Holocene or Pleistocene-Holocene age,[1] which is represented by multiple young lava flows": if I'm reading this correctly, this would be better as "and is represented by".
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:23, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I can see. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:53, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:39, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 26 April 2022 [10].

Frank Russell, 2nd Earl Russell[edit]

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 12:01, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about... Frank Russell, the second Earl Russell. He wasn't prime minister like the first earl, Lord John Russell, nor a famous philosopher like the third, Bertrand Russell. He had three marriages, all of which ended badly, and other events that marred his life, but he still accomplished a good deal. He was also the last person convicted in a trial before the House of Lords, and the first celebrity to get a Nevada divorce, the two being directly related. Enjoy.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:01, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Suggest adding alt text
  • Suggest scaling up the trial image
Scaled.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:12, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Frank,_2nd_Earl_Russell.jpg is claimed as own work, which given the date seems unlikely to be true
I've fixed this.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:12, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Now needs a US tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:42, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:51, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Frances_Elliot_Murray_Kynynmound.png needs a US tag, and to satisfy the UK tag the image description should include steps taken to try to identify the photographer
Since it was published in the US in 1911, I've changed to a US tag.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:59, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't seem that the file has been changed? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:42, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about that. Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:51, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since File:Russell2.jpg is hosted on Commons it needs a tag for country of origin. Ditto File:Russell_leaving_trial.jpg
The first is done as an engraving (non photographic) with author unknown more than 70 years ago. The second is signed, though I can't make it out, so I've deleted it since presumably it could be made out.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:42, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Russell,_Countessc.1910_(23083012452).jpg: is a more specific copyright tag available? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:39, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not that I can see. I'm content to rely on the knowledge of the LSE (and Fae) regarding the item.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:20, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would anticipate LSE would reflect the status of the work in the UK; what is the status of this work in the US? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:42, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've addressed that now.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:51, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Tim riley[edit]

Happy to support. No complaints about the content – clear, most readable and impressively referenced – and just a few anglicisations and other minor tweaks to suggest, none of them important enough to affect my support.

  • Lead
  • "likely because authorities there" – for some mysterious reason this is not a BrE idiom. Even more oddly, an adverb in front of it would make it perfectly idiomatic, but without one the normal BrE form is "probably because". There's another "likely" in the Trial before the Lords section (third para). The "most likely" in Second Marriage is impeccably BrE.
  • "antiwar" (and also in main text) – the OED prescribes "anti-war" (though I ought to mention that Chambers is happy with "antiwar").
  • Education
  • "longtime" – both the OED and Chambers hyphenate that one.
  • Trial before the Lords
  • "dueling" – "duelling" in BrE.
  • "pled" – the past tense of "plead" in standard BrE is "pleaded", though I see from Fowler that "pled" is not only AmE but Scottish too, and is also found in some English dialects. (A swift rummage in the archives suggests, as I rather expected, that "pled" was once standard English here – Spenser uses it in The Faerie Queen, but by the 18th century "pleaded" was standard.)
  • "occupied by journalist W. T. Stead – I shan't bleat on about false titles but I will point out that you give Stead (and Asquith) spaced initials but T.J. Sanderson and H.G. Wells (and possibly others I haven't spotted) unspaced ones. Better to be consistent one way or the other, I think.
  • Second marriage
  • "practiced" – in BrE the noun is "practice" but the verb is "practise".
  • Third marriage; First World War years
  • "wed" – the current (2015) edition of Fowler says of this verb that because of its brevity "the word is de rigueur in the popular press" but it is "irretrievably naff" in more serious writing. I see no reason to argue with that.
  • "gambling at bridge" – I imagine this would be auction bridge (a bit early to be contract bridge?) and if so it might be an idea to link to it.
  • Labour politician and death (1921—1931)
  • "The book was well-received" – Oh, I hate hyphens! I think that one has a well-received book but that a book is well received.
  • "permitting local authority" – either a missing "a" or "any" or else the noun should be plural, I think.
  • "quickly walked back" – not an idiom familiar to me, though it isn't hard to work out its meaning here.

That's all from me. The article seems to meet all the FA criteria, and I gladly support its elevation. I'd never heard of this character and I have much enjoyed making his acquaintance. – Tim riley talk 09:34, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Much obliged. All of those done. Thank you for the review and especially for instruction on the finer points of the language.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:56, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Moisejp[edit]

Hi Wehwalt, hope you're well. I'll review this soon. It looks interesting! Moisejp (talk) 17:43, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Have finished first read-through. Hope to get to second read-through very soon. Moisejp (talk) 19:07, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Am now finished reading through. I guess other reviewers must have caught all the main issues because, mostly, I only found a number of minor punctuation issues that I took the liberty of adjusting myself. My one comment is that I got confused in this passage in the Trial before the Lords section: "Russell could not have waived trial before the House of Lords had he wanted to; he wrote in his memoirs that the privilege of peers cost him dearly, as he probably would have been sentenced to a token day in prison at the Old Bailey, and the verdict of the House of Lords could not be appealed." I feel like there are unstated bits of the explanation that the reader is assumed to understand. For one thing in "as he probably would have been sentenced to a token day in prison at the Old Bailey" do we need a precision of "if such-and-such factor had not been true"? Maybe I also don't understand well enough how the court system at the time worked for lords and non-lords and all of the resulting implications. If this part could be spelled out more clearly in the text, I'll be very happy to support the promotion. Thank you. Moisejp (talk) 23:58, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'll add a bit shortly.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:00, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a bit. The idea is that as the state had spent a very large sum of money trying him, with a huge pageant in the Houses of Parliament a token sentence would have looked ridiculous. Russell was, by the way, the only peer ever sentenced to a term of imprisonment by the Lords, though I did not consider that worthy of mention in the article). Thank you for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:28, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The changes look good. I support, thanks! Moisejp (talk) 21:17, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from KJP1[edit]

Me too, interesting indeed. One immediate thing - the Ravenscroft Hall linked in the 2nd para. of Early life isn’t the right one. Cheshire’s a fair way from Trellech. The Russell house is this one, [11], which is more generally known as Cleddon Hall. Ah, my youth in the Wye Valley wasn’t entirely misspent. Will get to a full review shortly. KJP1 (talk) 06:04, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wehwalt - I've done a quick Start class, Ravenscroft, as a replacement. KJP1 (talk) 08:56, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've made that change. Many thanks. Looking forward to the review. Frank is an interesting fellow, indeed.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:13, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Lead
  • "the next several years was marked" - something's not quite working here. "the following years were spent in acrimonious litigation"... or something like that.
I changed to "saw" acrimonious etc
  • "served there through 1904" - "until" would probably work better for a non-US audience
OK.
Early life
  • "Frank was allowed to do much as he pleased, roaming the countryside" - he did whatever he wanted while roaming the countryside? Or "roaming the countryside" was the only thing he liked to do? Either way, the "roaming the countryside" seems a little stray?
Phrase prefaced by "including".
First marriage
  • "Mabel appealed and the verdict was overturned in the Court of Appeals" - "Court of Appeal, linked and singular?
Trial before the Lords
  • "Russell was sentenced to three months at Holloway Prison as a first-class misdemeanant" - a very legalistic term that will puzzle many! Would a link to Misdemeanor help a little? Although the section on English & Welsh misdemeanors is very incomplete.
Cut.--Wehwalt (talk)
Third marriage; First World War years
  • "They fell in love in a visit he paid her, without Mollie, over New Year's 1914" - "the New Year of 1914"?
  • "He was allowed, though, to serve his sentence in the first division at Brixton Prison" - I found this, and the following, long, sentence, rather confusing. Could it be broken up a bit and "first division prisoners" explained, perhaps with a footnote? We don't appear to have anything to link to - though this is quite nice, [12].
I've avoided the technical term (which would have applied also to Frank in 1901 and Lady Scott in 1897).
Wehwalt - Nothing but trivial quibbles here. It's a grand article, although quite why you decided to rescue the Earl from his, entirely warranted, obscurity is beyond me! See what you think, and then I'll be pleased to support. KJP1 (talk) 09:13, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the review. Yes, Frank was not a completely pleasant character but nevertheless interesting.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:22, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Very pleased to Support. KJP1 (talk) 12:42, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Z1720[edit]

Non-expert prose review.

  • "his efforts bore little fruit." I'm concerned that this might be an MOS:IDIOM. Maybe "his efforts were mostly unsuccessful."
  • "At Balliol, Russell read Classics." Wikipedia's article on classics uses a lowercase c, so I believe for consistency this should also be lowercase.
  • "He was generally impressed with America, but disliked New York." Does this refer to New York City or New York state? Please clarify in the article.
  • "He was not entirely idle, though, involving himself with an electrical contracting company," I don't think though is necessary here, and removing it will also remove two commas which will help with flow in my opinion.
  • "He began to take up his seat in the House of Lords, in September 1893 being one of 40 peers who supported the unsuccessful Irish Home Rule bill." -> "He took his seat in the House of Lords in September 1893, being one of 40 peers who supported the unsuccessful Irish Home Rule bill." ?
  • "end his marriage to Mabel Russell at last." At last is not needed; I suggest removing it.
  • "Frank Russell married Mollie on 31 October 1901." Since they were married in Nevada, should this say "remarried" or some other similar wording?
  • I think note a needs a citation.

Those are my thoughts. A well written article. Z1720 (talk) 20:35, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review, I've made those changes, though doing it a bit differently in a couple of cases.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:05, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support My concerns have been addressed and resolved. Z1720 (talk) 22:30, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review/pass[edit]

Placeholding, Wehwalt, should get to this tomorrow UTC if that's OK. SN54129 13:14, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • The Dorset Historic Churches Trust seems rather...parochial? But it's not referencing anything particularly radical.
That was added by an IP who did some work in the early part of my article improvement. I'm inclined to let it stand.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:50, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Similarly with 1903 and All That; this is the official organ of the Registration Numbers Club and about as esoteric as they get! I suppose the guy publishing it might be an expert in his field: "Advisor & Archivist, John Harrison, a veritable knowledge base when it comes to both UK and Irish vehicle registrations." But that does still rather depend on how reliable one deems the RNC in the first place...
Any association with a publication that gets through that many issues probably has something going for it. Doubtlessly the club has a small scope, but I wouldn't dismiss them just for that.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:50, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Harpster 2014. Well, difficult to appraise this as my machine refuses to download it as a security risk! So that's slightly off-putting from the start. I also can't find out much about it; its editorial staff, it says, "is quite small, but is very familiar with and passionately interested in the history of Nevada".
I accessed that article from here, a website administered by the University of Nevada-Reno. They seem to be good with the reliability of the website.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:50, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • However, the vast majority of sources are high quality, modern research published in both peer-reviewed journals or reputable presses, with only a couple of prewar examples (even then, which seem to still be published today). I'm somewhat surprised that of the four non-anonymous pieces under "Further reading", now of these were able to provide material for the article? There is a view—which I don't necessarily subscribe to—that an FA shouldn't need any further reading because it is already comprehensive. That's probably too binary. But in these cases, where they literally have the topic in the title, it's hard to imagine that they're only peripheral material?
Glad to have the SR, not worried about timing! Three of the four are by Derham, and they are subscriber only. However, given we use her bio of Frank extensively, I think that perspective is well-represented in the article, the articles are not later than the book. The fourth is a 1959 book I wouldn't mind reading. But given that the book is about trials before the House of Lords, and only has a chapter on Frank's, and we have other sources that cover the same territory, I don't think it's essential in the same way it would be if this article were specifically about trials before the House of Lords, or about Frank's trial there.
  • So, apart from a couple of queries regarding the quality of a couple of sources, and regarding comprehensiveness, there are very few problems indeed. And a nice article to boot :) sorry for the delay in getting around to the SR, Wehwalt. SN54129 13:01, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Much obliged indeed for the review, I've responded to everything.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:50, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 26 April 2022 [13].

Battle of Little Blue River[edit]

Nominator(s): Hog Farm Talk 04:46, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is probably my last Price's Raid battle FAC for the near future. I brought this one to GA in 2020, and it passed a MILHIST ACR in March 2021, but I've just now gotten around to finishing filling out the sourcing to a state that I believe is FAC-able. Apologies ahead of time for the prose; the fact that I went about a year between really working with it probably doesn't bode well on that front. Hog Farm Talk 04:46, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image and source review pass per ACR. (t · c) buidhe 05:03, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Indy beetle[edit]

  • while Brigadier General Nathaniel Lyon and the Union Army supported the United States and opposed secession. Well, isn't the fact that the army supported the United States what made it the "Union" Army? Do you mean the federal forces stationed in Missouri at the time? Some clarification would be nice, if possible.
    • How about "Brigadier General Nathaniel Lyon led Union Army forces in Missouri that remained loyal to the United States and opposed secession"? If it would help, I can cut the mention of Lyon, as he's not super relevant to the overall picture, as he was killed in battle in August 1861
  • By the beginning of September 1864, events in the eastern United States, especially the Confederate defeat in the Atlanta campaign, gave Abraham Lincoln, who supported continuing the war, an edge in the 1864 United States presidential election over George B. McClellan, who favored ending the war. Per GLOBAL, might be worth clarifying that Lincoln was the incumbent at the time.
    • Done
  • Is there an appropriate wikilink for the federal conflict with the Cheyenne?
  • Blunt then made the decision to reinforce his outer positions and resist the inevitable Confederate advance. inevitable --> expected/anticapted, ain't much in human history that is truly inevitable.
    • Done
  • There is public interpretation at the site but no visitor's center. If this means signage, please clarify as such.
    • Clarified using another source.

On the whole an excellent article with good scholarship to back it up. -20:59, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

  • @Indy beetle: - Thanks for the review! Replies above, hopefully all have been addressed. Hog Farm Talk 04:41, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Satisfied with the above responses, nominator has a good track record, sources look good, supporting promotion. -Indy beetle (talk) 04:48, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Z1720[edit]

Non-expert prose review. If my comment ends in a question mark, it means I am unsure if the comment should be implemented in the article and will leave it to your discretion.

  • "of the Confederate States Army had led an army into Missouri in September 1864" Delete had?
    • Done
  • "and all 14 of the army's cannons were small-bore." Because I am a non-expert, I do not know what a small-bore cannon is, and therefore I would have to click out of the article to understand why this would negatively impact Price's force. Can a half-sentence be added to describe the significance of this?
    • Rephrased to "less powerful pieces", which I think conveys the meaning
  • "who had fewer than 10,000 men on hand, many of whom were militiamen." Replace the comma after "hand" with "and", to remove a comma? There's lots of commas in this sentence and this might improve the flow.
    • I've moved the militamen clause into the next sentence
  • The "Battle" section is quite long, with 6 large paragraphs. Is it possible to split this section up using Level 3 headings?
    • Split into two sections
  • I checked the lede and infobox, and everything is in the article.

Those are my comments. Z1720 (talk) 01:15, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720: - I've tried to action all of these - how does the article look now? Hog Farm Talk 02:57, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My concerns have been resolved, I can support. Z1720 (talk) 12:54, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild[edit]

Recusing to review.

  • Optional: "bringing reinforcements that brought". "bring ... brought" - is it possible to avoid this?
    • Done
  • "all 14 of the army's cannons were less powerful pieces." I know that you have just changed this, but "less powerful" than what?
    • @Gog the Mild and Z1720: - on second thought, "less powerful" isn't a good way to phrase this. How about "and all 14 of the army's cannons were of small caliber for artillery of the war"? The relevant stuff from the source is "The Army consisted of [...] 14 artillery pieces [...] The artillery was composed of all light-caliber guns." I just can't come up with a good way to state this without going beyond the source or leaving in jargon. Hog Farm Talk 02:28, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Something like "... were light, and relatively ineffective for the period."?
I'm not 100% for sure on that either. Projectile size didn't really equal effectiveness at the time. Hog Farm Talk 16:57, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I was drawing a possibly unwarranted distinction between light-caliber and small-caliber. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:00, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. I'll change the "small" in my suggested phrasing to "light" and think over your proposed change some more. Hog Farm Talk 17:16, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "many of whom were militiamen". Link to militia.
    • Done
  • "were also dispersed throughout the state." Delete "also".
    • Done
  • " Attacks ... failed, and the Union garrison abandoned the fort" reads oddly. Perhaps "and" → 'but'?
    • Done
  • "was also mobilized. Major General James G. Blunt was also transferred". Too many also's.
    • Removed one
  • "Together, Dietzler's militia and Blunt's division were grouped". Delete "Together".
    • Done
  • "the brigade containing the militia was led by Colonel Charles W. Blair." Move this to straight after "one of the brigades was composed of Kansas militia."
    • Done
  • "At this time". What time?
    • Clarified
  • "were able to put out some of the flame". "some"? So part of it was still burning?
    • Removed "some of"
  • "Additionally, Thompson's brigade of Shelby's division also crossed over". Delete "also".
    • Removed
  • "to form a line at Independence. By 16:00, Union troops held a line near Independence". This is a bit repetitive.
    • I've decided that the second mention isn't necessary, so I've removed it
  • "The retreat to Independence had been over 7 miles (11 km) of ground". "of ground"? What else might it have been over? Consider rephrasing.
    • Removed "of ground"
  • "The 11th and 15th Kansas Cavalries and the 2nd Colorado Cavalry combined for 20 men killed." "for" → 'had'.
    • Done
  • "Price had lost over two thirds of his men during the campaign." Delete "had".
    • Removed

That's my lot. Nicely explained. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:50, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@WP:FAC coordinators: I see this is listed here as needing a source review, but Buidhe cites the ACR source review at the top of this page as sufficing -- does it really need another review? Ian, I think you'd be the only non-recused coordinator? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:10, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My error. Sorry. Removed. (I tend to miss comments not under a level four header.) Gog the Mild (talk) 11:22, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie[edit]

  • This might be an AmEng/BrEng difference, but "While some of the militia was technically commanded by Blunt" seems wrong to me; I would expect "were", not "was". Or "a part" of the militia would be OK with "was".
  • The map in the Prelude section is not ideal, though I couldn't find anything better; it shows a different battle and isn't particularly easy to read. You might consider requesting a map from the map workshop. The map of the battlefield at the end of the article is helpful, but better would be something showing the main places mentioned in the article without the overlay of modern infrastructure. Not necessary for FAC, just a suggestion.
    • That might be difficult - I'm not even sure of a good underlay map. The best underlay I can find would be an 1894 USGS topographic map, but it's not even clear if the crossings shown on that map are the same crossings present in the battle. If I can find a good period map to start with, I can try to get something worked out using the maps in Collins and other sources. Hog Farm Talk 17:47, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • You give the number of men in the militia in the Army of the Border, but not the number of Union troops; is the number available?
  • "the men of the 10th Missouri Cavalry had already routed": not sure what this means -- "been routed" perhaps? Is "routed" as an intransitive verb standard AmEng?
    • I see routed used in this way in military history books published in the US fairly frequently, so I think this is fine for AmEng.
  • Is the detail about Jennison being a political rival of Blunt's necessary? When I read that I assumed it would play a role in some subsequent conflict, but it doesn't seem to.
    • Removed. It had some bearing on the campaign, but not really for this battle.
  • "...civilians within the town took potshots at the retreating Union troopers. It is not known if the civilian gunmen were pro-Confederates, under the mistaken belief that the Union soldiers were guerrillas in captured uniforms": I don't follow this. If the civilians were pro-Confederate, why would it matter to them whether they were firing at Union troopers or Union guerillas in captured uniforms?
    • These are separate clauses/scenarios. I've changed the commas to semicolons to make this clearer.
      OK, I see now. The semicolons are an improvement, but how about "It is not known if the civilian gunmen were pro-Confederates, or were under the mistaken belief that the Union soldiers were guerrillas in captured uniforms, or if they were attempting to hamper the destruction of military supplies, hoping to take them themselves"? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 08:26, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Done, even though I was always told in school that it was forbidden to use "or" more than once in a sentence Hog Farm Talk 17:29, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's everything I can see. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:31, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support. A map would be a bonus but this looks FAC-quality to me. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:39, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! It's always frustrating for me that I can't get good maps for most of my articles, and a lot of them there's not even a good map to use as an underlying work that predates the 1890s. Hog Farm Talk 17:48, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 25 April 2022 [14].

55 Wall Street[edit]

Nominator(s): Epicgenius (talk) 12:33, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a building in Manhattan, New York City, whose long history can be seen just by looking at the two tiers of colonnades on its eight-story facade. The lower section was constructed for the Merchants' Exchange in 1841 and also housed the New York Stock Exchange and the United States Custom House in the 19th century. The upper section was built when National City Bank took over in the 1900s. At one point, the bank was said to do "more business in its head office than is done under any other nongovernmental banking roof on the face of the earth". The building's massive cruciform banking hall is now an event venue, with people living in condo apartments above.

This page was promoted as a Good Article almost two years ago after a Good Article review by one of FAC's very own coordinators, Hog Farm, for which I am very grateful. In addition, the page received a GOCE copyedit a few months ago from Rublov, whose efforts I also appreciate. I think it's up to FA quality now, and I look forward to all comments and feedback. Epicgenius (talk) 12:33, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Suggest adding alt text
  • File:(King1893NYC)_pg790_THE_OLD_MERCHANTS'_EXCHANGE_ON_WALL_STREET.jpg: what is the author's date of death? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:29, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note[edit]

This has been open for nearly three weeks and has yet to pick up a support. Unless it attracts considerable further attention over the next four or five days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:42, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt[edit]

  • " is the entrance to the Wall Street station on the New York City Subway's Broadway–Seventh Avenue Line (served by the 2 and ​3 trains).[6]" I might say "an entrance" as there are multiple such.
  • "a dome rising 124 feet (38 m)" above street level?
  • "There is low relief in the center dome" These are, presumably the compass signs and zodiac spoken of a bit later. Since it is these designs that (I assume) are done in low relief, I might mention them together.
  • "to accommodate all of the customs duties " Since "customs duties" has another meaning (i.e., tariffs), I might rephrase.
  • Since the Subtreasury was, I believe, at Federal Hall, that might be a better pipe
    • The Subtreasury was indeed at Federal Hall after 1862. Actually, since this is related to the next point, I just moved the bit about the Subtreasury downward. Epicgenius (talk) 13:59, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "thereby making it easy to transport gold" "By the end of the century, the custom house's location at 55 Wall Street was no longer advantageous, as it was easier to use a check or certificate to make payments on revenue.[18][56]" These read a bit obscurely unless one's aware that they paid before in gold, and there was an obvious safety advantage to having the Custom House nearby the Subtreasury.
  • "president William McKinley and U.S. treasury secretary Lyman Gage.[9]" These titles could be capitalized.
  • The first paragraph of "Conversion" seems to mix two different things that were going on: the fact that the (predominately rural) Democrats disliked spending money for a new federal building in NYC, and what appears to be something of a tax dodge, with the bank not taking title (which would have made the building subject to property taxes) despite paying most of the purchase price. I might separate them out a bit.
  • "$10,000 apiece" the newspaper source says not less than $10,000.
  • " A "universal tellers' station"" And this is what?
  • "The New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission designated the building's exterior a landmark on December 21, 1965. It was one of the first landmarks to be designated by the LPC in Manhattan" This is the second time you've told us about this.
That's it.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:05, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Epicgenius: - Pinging nominator for these comments, as the nomination is at risk of getting archived without gathering momentum soon. Hog Farm Talk 13:38, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Hog Farm, thanks. Ironically I was just responding to Wehwalt's comments now, so I will address those shortly. – Epicgenius (talk) 13:44, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Wehwalt, thanks for the thorough comments. I have addressed them now. Please let me know if there's anything that may still need clarification. Epicgenius (talk) 13:59, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Wehwalt (talk) 17:48, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Harry[edit]

  • You use decimal feet, which strikes me as a little odd. Are such precise measurements from the sources or have you fallen into the common Wikipedia trap of converting a metric estimate?
    • It appears I have indeed fallen into such a trap. I have fixed this now. Epicgenius (talk) 00:11, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why was it built in such an odd shape? Was it because of space constraints or was someone making a statement?
    • The building occupies a whole city block and fits in with the neighborhood's street grid, which is fairly angular. The grid dates back from the 17th century, when the colony of New Amsterdam was founded. These days, not only is the building a city landmark, so are the streets around it, so the owners can't straighten out the dimensions even if they wanted to (though that whole backstory is a little tangential). Epicgenius (talk) 00:11, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • McKim, Mead & White placed a second colonnade you mention the firm a lot (11 times in just over 4k words) to the point that it get a bit repetitive.
    • I've cut half of the mentions now. This type of feedback is pretty helpful, actually, since I tend to become desensitized to repetition if I'm too familiar with a topic. Epicgenius (talk) 00:11, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The basement was used for such a purpose between 1863 and 1899,[19] with 12 jail cells having been located there. The ", with" construction is journalistic and doesn't become a featured article and this sentence is far too wordy just to say there were some cells in the basement.
    • That's also a good point. I've fixed this now. Epicgenius (talk) 00:11, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per 2b, you could probably stand to lose some of the subheaders. Some of the sections are quite short.
    • I've combined a few of the subheaders, though I'll take a look at the rest of the article tomorrow. Thanks for the feedback Harry. Epicgenius (talk) 00:11, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • cupola could take a link and/or inline gloss.
  • By 1861, the United States Custom House was looking to move into 55 Wall Street, since the custom house's former location at 26 Wall Street (now Federal Hall) had become too small to accommodate the agency's customs offices The building was looking to move in? Because that's where the link goes. I'm guessing you mean the agency, in which case most of the second half of the sentence is redundant.
    • That's weird. I always assumed the link is actually about the agency, but I can see why someone may get the impression that the United States Custom House (New York City) article is about the building. However, since the Custom House was in several buildings, I would not say that article is about a particular structure per se. Epicgenius (talk) 13:12, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The federal government of the United States signed a lease → federal government. Which federal government is obvious from the context and the link isn't helpful.
  • As arranged, clerks were situated in the central rotunda under the dome What purpose is "as arranged" serving there?
  • Among the notable employees of the building during this time strikes me as trivia
  • president of National City Bank (predecessor bank of Citibank), subsequently arranged for his company to buy 55 Wall Street and make it the headquarters of National City Bank redundancy
  • City Bank had paid all except $40,000 of the purchase price as part of its agreement with the federal government. National City Bank had not yet taken title to 55 Wall Street repetition again.
  • Representatives of the bank said that because it had not taken title to the building, the bank should not have to pay property taxes What was the outcome of the case?
    • I added something about that now. It was held up until the Customs Service moved to its new building. Epicgenius (talk) 13:12, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • National City Bank and the Farmers' Loan and Trust Company merged in 1929. National City Bank took over the expanded bank's banking operations, while Farmers' Trust became the City Bank Farmers Trust Company, a subsidiary of National City Bank and took over the trust operations. How relevant is this to the building? I feel it could at least be shortened and some repetition eliminated.
    • I eliminated the second sentence. However, the first sentence is directly related to the bank's expansion into 20 Exchange Place in 1931 (as mentioned in your next point). Epicgenius (talk) 13:12, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Subsequently, in 1931 City Bank Farmers Trust constructed a new structure I'll grant you that your uses of "subsequently" are correct in a literal sense (which is uncommon), but you over-use the word in this article.
  • Do we need the scare quotes on "universal tellers' station"? It draws unnecessary attention to the term.
    • This is a verbatim quote from the sources. I'm not sure what else to call it, but I removed the quotation marks now. Epicgenius (talk) 13:12, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • purchased the building for $21.15 million, with Kajima losing money "with" is adding nothing here
  • Personally, I wouldn't put explanatory notes in the references section but I wouldn't oppose an FAC over such a trivial thing.
  • If there are no external links besides Commons, you should eliminate the section and use the {{Commons category}} floaty box (personally I'd put the {{Commons category-inline}} in the see also and let the MoS people be angry but I probably shouldn't recommend that!)
    • For me at least, the commons category box by itself just seems a bit unnatural (I'd rather put it at the end of a references section and just not have an "External links" section at all). However, I did find the official website for the building's current tenant, so I added that. Epicgenius (talk) 13:12, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:50, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Harry, thanks for the detailed review. I've addressed the remainder of your comments now. Epicgenius (talk) 13:12, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. You've more than adequately addressed my concerns. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:47, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by ErnestKrause[edit]

  • The image photo in the infobox has almost an exact duplicate just below it at the start of the main article. Seems a little redundant. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:01, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure that the redlinks for William Fryer, and, Milgrim and Lee are of particular note. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:01, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • @ErnestKrause: Thanks for the comments. I have removed the second image and these two redlinks, as neither subject seems to be that notable. Epicgenius (talk) 21:40, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • SUPPORT Article looks better after that. Supporting article for promotion. ErnestKrause (talk) 22:46, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

Footnote numbers refer to this version.

  • You're inconsistent about including publisher locations. E.g [49] is missing a location, but [2] and [103] have locations. You don't have to include them but you should be consistent.
  • What's the sort order in the "Sources" section intended to be? It looks like you're doing it by title if there's no named author, but then Goodrich is out of place.
    • Generally, if there's an author, I would sort by the last name; if there's no author, I would sort by the title. However, most of these sources don't have any author listed. Epicgenius (talk) 13:26, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The archive link for [6] doesn't work. I think generally interactive links like that can't be archived.
  • For [80], it looks like a bot has set the URL-status to "unfit". FAC doesn't require archives for links in footnotes, so this is optional, but the message implies you could improve the archive link if you want to.
  • The link to the 1978 NRHP Historic Structures Report in the sources section does not work.
    • That is strange. I checked it just now and I had no problem accessing the report. Perhaps it is only accessible from certain geographical regions, or there was an earlier outage that has now been fixed. Epicgenius (talk) 13:26, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Odd; I tried again and it still fails. For definiteness, can you confirm that this works for you? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:56, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes, I can reach it. I also turned on my VPN and set my location to the US, then to the UK. In both cases, it still worked. Epicgenius (talk) 14:52, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      And now it's working for me too. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:00, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • In [73], I would remove "Times, Special to the New York" from the first/last name parameters -- this is not an author, and the citation template is designed to handle situations like this perfectly well if you leave those fields blank.

Sources all look reliable and I see no other formatting errors. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:58, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Christie: Thanks for taking a look. I have addressed all of your comments now. Epicgenius (talk) 13:26, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review is a pass. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:38, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie[edit]

  • Suggest using "façade" instead of "facade".
  • "The upper portion of the building was turned into a hotel from 1998 to 1999": this makes it sound as if it was only used as a hotel during those two years. I think you mean the construction work was done at that time; if so I think the simplest solution would be to ignore the construction dates: "The upper portion of the building was operated as a hotel from 2000 to 2003, after which the upper floors were...".
  • "Though the building occupies an entire city block, each side is a different length, and none of the sides are parallel due to the irregular street grid in the area". I don't think this is accurate. William Street and Hanover Street are very close to parallel, but perhaps not perfectly so, but the building's sides on those two streets are parallel to each other. You can see this on the satellite view on Google Maps.
    • Technically, they are at a very slight angle from each other. For all practical purposes though, you are correct, so I've removed the parallel part. Epicgenius (talk) 15:56, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you have a copy of Hoster's Early Wall Street? It has an 1831 picture of the precursor Merchants' Exchange, an 1844 picture of the new building, and multiple pictures of the interior from the time of the renovation, all of which are out of copyright. It has a whole chapter on the building, but I can't yet tell you if there are any details you don't have. I have a copy of the book and can upload the pictures if you want any or all of them -- I think the 1844 one is a must, as you don't have any picture of that version, and the others would be good if you can find a way to use them. I found this book available to borrow electronically through my local library -- you may be able to do the same, which would save time.
    I see now you do have a couple of early pictures; don't know how I missed those when scrolling through. The 1831 picture I mentioned is better than the one you have; it's at less of an angle. The engraving of the new building might be slightly better, but I think the date you have must be wrong -- in 1837 the new building could not have looked anything like that complete. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:15, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Because the Corinthian columns are located above the Ionic columns, the arrangement of the colonnades is stylistically accurate": what does this mean?
    • I've clarified this. Epicgenius (talk) 15:56, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Sorry, I still don't follow. What stylistic rules are governing this? Is there some rule about when these kinds of columns can both be on the same building? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:25, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      After further thought, I've removed this as it's irrelevant. Epicgenius (talk) 16:05, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the first couple of paragraphs of the "Interior" section I think you're using the past tense to indicate what used to be true of the original building, but that should be clearer. You have "there was office space" without any explanation of why this is past tense.
  • You use "elegant" a couple of times in the description of the banking hall; I would cut both uses unless you either make it a quote or your sources are clear this is a general opinion among architectural commentators.
  • "Light gray stone was imported from Europe for the columns and floors,[25] although gray marble was also used for the floors and walls." Why "although"? Perhaps "Light gray stone, imported from Europe, was used for the columns, and gray marble was used along with the European stone for the floors. The gray marble was also used for the walls."
  • "Bookkeepers and National City Bank's bond and foreign departments were in the other corner": does "other corner" refer to the "three stories of offices at each corner"? If so it's confusing because you mention the southeastern corner between the two references -- changing the order of sentences here would resolve the confusion.
    • Sorry, I meant "other corners", i.e. the northwestern, northeastern, and southwestern (not necessarily in that order though). Epicgenius (talk) 15:56, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another past/present tense issue: you have present tense for e.g. "The room also features..." and "Corinthian columns support..." but past tense for e.g. "There were three stories of offices" and "The fourth through seventh floors were rented out...". I think it needs to be clearer when we're talking about current features and when we're talking about structures or usages that no longer exist. For example the discussion of the jail cells is in the past tense, and that's clear that it's talking about past usage.
    • Regarding this, I have clarified that this is a past usage since the upper stories are now residences. Epicgenius (talk) 15:56, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I think we need a bit more. At the start of the "Interior" section you say "there was originally office space on the fourth through seventh floors and staff facilities on the eighth floor", but then the paragraph describing this office space is in the "Banking hall" subsection and refers to different offices -- not the upper floors, which are covered in the "Other floors" subsection. So there's no hint as to why this paragraph, starting "There were three stories of offices" is in past tense -- we haven't said these offices have been replaced by anything. Are the balconies connecting the office mezzanines still there, for example? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:35, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      The start of "Interior" was intended to be an overview for the entire section. There were also offices in the corners of the banking halls, which may explain the confusion. I've now moved the info about the upper-story offices to "Other floors". The balconies and corner offices still exist; they just aren't used by the bank anymore (as explained elsewhere in the article). Epicgenius (talk) 16:05, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      That's clearer. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:16, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "requiring workers to blast the floor while they were installing it": what does this mean?
    • They had to blast into the floor to install the vault. Epicgenius (talk) 15:56, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hoster quotes Devens Our First Century, which is available on Google Books, with regard to the fire: apparently the Merchants' Exchange was thought to be a safe haven so people brought their valuables there during the fire, but in vain. Might be a tidbit worth adding to the history.
  • "and 26 Wall Street became the Subtreasury building": this is a non sequitur where you have it. A couple of sentences later it becomes clearer why you mention it but I would cut this and give the Subtreasury's address at the later mention.
  • "By the end of the century, the custom house's location at 55 Wall Street was no longer advantageous": I would make reference to the Subtreasury's location here, just to be clear: "By the end of the century, the custom house's proximity to the Subtreasury was no longer advantageous"; we already know the address so there's no need to mention it again.
  • "No progress was made until 1897,[57] and, under the Tarsney Act, Cass Gilbert was selected": suggest "when" rather than "and", and unless you're going to explain the relevance of the Tarsney Act (e.g. in a footnote) I would cut mention of it as it just baffles the reader.
    • Done (I removed mention of the Tarsney Act as that is more relevant to the Alexander Hamilton U.S. Custom House article). Epicgenius (talk) 15:56, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The transaction had been criticized by Democrats in the House of Representatives, who stated that the sale was an "extravagant" use of money": I don't follow this; it wasn't a use of money, it was a sale of an asset in return for money. If this refers to the rent that would have to be paid (as implied by the next couple of sentences) that should be clearer.
  • "Messengers carried the bank's $500 million holdings between the old and new offices in leather satchels, each containing at least $10,000." A nice detail! Can we say where the old offices were? It seems relevant to this surprising bit of info -- i.e. were these messengers travelling one block, or the length of Manhattan?
    • It was literally just across the street (52 Wall Street), but that building did not have an article, which may be why I did not mention that before. Epicgenius (talk) 15:56, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "National City Bank and the Farmers' Loan and Trust Company merged in 1929. Two years later, City Bank Farmers Trust erected 20 Exchange Place immediately to the south to house the operations of the expanded bank." From this I assumed the merged company was named "City Bank Farmers Trust", and was going to suggest making that explicit, but it appears from the following sentences that the bank was still called National City Bank. So what is City Bank Farmers Trust? And I see they're mentioned again, in 1961, so it does look like a totally separate company.
    • The Farmers' Loan and Trust Company was renamed, but National City Bank kept its name. Epicgenius (talk) 15:56, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      That helps, but if they ended up as two separate entities then presumably it wasn't a merger, but some other business transaction? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:37, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      They did merge, but each of the predecessor companies became a division of the merged company. Both companies used to have their own banking and trust operations. After the merger, National City Bank was responsible for the banking operations and Farmers' Trust became City Bank-Farmers Trust, managing the trust operations. Epicgenius (talk) 16:05, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Reading through again I think this is OK. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:20, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Years after First National City Bank moved its headquarters": we haven't said they moved their headquarters.
  • "moniker" is a little too informal for an encyclopedia.
  • Why did Klein need the air rights? I can't imagine they built anything above 55 Wall Street's footprint.
    • It's actually a complicated process, but basically it's related to the construction of 60 Wall Street. Each building has air rights above it. In NYC, each land lot has a certain maximum floor area as specified under zoning regulations. If a building is constructed to less than its maximum, then the difference between the actual floor area and the maximum floor area is the unused potential. If a building exceeds its maximum floor area, it can acquire air rights from immediately adjacent sites with unused potential to expand its floor area. Since 55 Wall Street could not be expanded any further due to the landmark status, the only thing its owners can do is sell the air rights. Similar buildings such as Grand Central Terminal and most Broadway theaters have had to sell off their air rights, since these structures have high development potential but are also city landmarks. Epicgenius (talk) 15:56, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Very interesting. Can we get that explanation in a footnote? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:37, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I have done that now. Epicgenius (talk) 16:05, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Likewise, other critics "viewed the renovation as an aesthetic aberration", especially with regards to the juxtaposition of the colonnades." Is this related to the earlier comment about the colonnades being "stylistically accurate"? That is, is that comment in reference to the criticism?

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:22, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just two points left; the one about Devens is entirely optional and you may think it's too tangential for this article. I think the Hoster pictures are worth a look, though. I will go ahead and upload them since you haven't said you have access, and I'll leave a note here with the file links when I'm done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:21, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Mike Christie, thanks. I don't have access to the Hoster book at the moment; hence, I cannot currently address either point. I may be able to look for the book at the New York Public Library on Monday, though. – Epicgenius (talk) 16:41, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For Devens, see here -- the account of the fire starts on page 353, and the bit I mentioned on 355. I'll upload the images from Hoster today. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:50, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the images:

To get these I took screen shots of all of the Hoster chapter, so if you want I can email you the whole chapter -- send me a Wikipedia email if you're interested. The book also has chapters on "The Battery and Bowling Green", "Trinity and Broadway", "The New York Stock Exchange and the Curb", "Federal Hall and the Assay Office", "The Realm of Oceanus" (the Manhattan Company), and "St. Paul's", if any of those are interesting. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:15, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Christie, thanks for uploading these. I would be very interested in the entire book, actually. However, I think it may be more convenient for both of us if I borrowed it from the library rather than emailing you for each chapter. I've added an image of the 1842 building - it's actually very similar to one that's already in the article, which was described as having been taken in 1837. I also added a sentence about the dome collapsing during the fire. – Epicgenius (talk) 23:17, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Arcadia Press has a series of these books that you might find useful for the sort of articles you work on. For this one, since I can get an electronic copy, I can upload high-quality images much more easily than can be done from a physical copy, so if you do get a copy and are interested in using any of the images, let me know and I'll upload whatever you need. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:02, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:33, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 25 April 2022 [15].

1985–86 Gillingham F.C. season[edit]

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:23, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here's my 11th nomination of a season from the history of English football club Gillingham F.C. I was 13 years old at the time and was devastated when the team managed to blow their chance of promotion. Hopefully this article won't do the same - see what I did there.....? :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:23, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by FrB.TG[edit]

Placeholder, leaving comments later today. FrB.TG (talk) 08:54, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • "After slipping to as low as ninth" - do we really need "as low as"?
  • "Over the summer break, the club spent £80,000 (equivalent to £250,000 in 2020) installing..." This is an incredibly long sentence. Suggest splitting it.
  • "however despite" - I'm not a fan of this double contradiction.
  • As noted below by mujinga, there are a little too many usages of however's. In some cases, you could opt for the simpler "but".
  • "on this occasion he felt the need to say that he felt" -> "on this occasion he said that he felt"
  • "reaching the third round of the FA Cup" - let's make sure it wins here. ;)

Otherwise very well-written. FrB.TG (talk) 10:05, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@FrB.TG: - all actioned with these edits I think :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:40, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support - fine work, Chris. FrB.TG (talk) 16:22, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by mujinga[edit]

  • Gillingham F.C. not Gillingham at top of infobox?
  • I'll come back to lead after reading through the article
  • "gained promotion from the Fourth Division as runners-up in 1974" - not sure if "as runners-up" is needed
  • "made his debut but was substituted" - maybe say in what minute? could then use "then" instead of "but"
    • Unfortunately I could not find a source for that specific detail -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:54, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Two days later, Gillingham won their first league game of the season" - I'm confused, do you mean "Two days later, Gillingham won their first away league game of the season"?
    • No, it was their first win of any kind. See the results table further down -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:33, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • ah I see now! so they lost to lincoln, right Mujinga (talk) 09:48, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • so I'm getting thrown off in this section by a couple of things. "The team's first game of the season was away to Lincoln City on 17 August and resulted in a 1–0 win for the home team;[10] Elsey made his debut but was substituted.[11] Gillingham finished the game with ten men after Terry Cochrane was sent off.[12] Seven days later the team played their first home Third Division game" - 1/ I think Third Division needs to be moved up to the beginning in "team's first game" to make it clear that is a Third Division game and 2/"resulted in a 1–0 win for the home team" would be clearer as "resulted in a 1–0 loss" Mujinga (talk) 09:51, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "They extended their unbeaten league run to seven games" - so Lincoln City was a friendly?
    • No - not sure why you would think that from reading the article.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:27, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • lincoln / darlington / bristol city / bolton / notts C / chesterfield / wigan / bury - thats eight matches so surely the "unbeaten league run to seven games" should be eight? Mujinga (talk) 09:47, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "They extended their unbeaten league run to seven games with draws against Notts County and Chesterfield and wins over Wigan Athletic and Bury,[10] after which Gillingham were fourth in the league table" - seems strange to start with they and then have Gillingham later on, suggest "The team extended ... after which they .."
  • "Cascarino was suspended" suggest "Cascarino had been suspended"
    • Standard wording in football reporting would be as shown here -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:54, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • " two players joined Gillingham. David Tong, a midfielder, joined" - two times joined, suggest changing one
  • "The result left Gillingham in fifth place, two points off the promotion places, but they were at a disadvantage as they had played at least two games more than all the teams above them.[33] Gillingham won their next two games but then lost 1–0 at home to Newport County on 29 April." - as a general point, from the lead already onwards I'm noticing a lot of "buts" and for exampel there are two in the chunk quoted here. I'd suggest changing some, not particularly fussed how/where
  • " 102nd scored by the team in all competitions" suggest " 102nd scored by the team in all competitions in a single season" - obvious to you no doubt but i had to think about it
  • "midfielder Mehmet took over in goal after Hillyard was injured" - first mention for Mehmet so maybe full name, first mention for Hillyard after lead so maybe full name and link
  • "at home with goals from Robinson and Mehmet" - same as above for Robinson
  • "Cascarino was voted into the PFA Team of the Year" I'd say put Professional Footballers' Association Team of the Year
  • "Aftermath" sounds a bit dramatic for a section header, is it standard?
    • Yes, every one of my previous 10 Gills FACs used this heading, as do other football season FAs --ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:37, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • back to lead - "After slipping to as low as ninth, the team climbed to third, but finished 1985 in eighth place. The team continued to challenge for promotion in the second half of the season and were in second place at the end of January, but their form continued to fluctuate. As the end of the season approached, the team were still in with a chance of finishing in a promotion position, but three defeats in the last six games meant that the team ultimately fell short, finishing in fifth place." - too many "buts" and the progression is strange for me. Ah now I see why, it's because "finished 1985 in" makes me think it's the end of the entire season, maybe this could be resolved by something like "After slipping to as low as ninth place, the team climbed to third, and then at the close of 1985 had fallen to eighth"
@Mujinga: - all amended other than where noted above. Many thanks for your thorough review! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:54, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
cool I've clarified one thing above Mujinga (talk) 09:56, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Mujinga: - yup, picked up that too :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:57, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nice one for the superfast replies, I'm pretty much at support now, the one nitpick for me still outstanding is if you wordsearch "but" I still think there are too many instances, even though you have chopped out some. What do you think on that? Mujinga (talk) 10:03, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Mujinga: - what can I say, I like a lot of buts and I cannot lie :-) Having said that, I have eliminated some more -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:11, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Cool I am now satisfied with the prose although the next reviewer may well say you have too many "howevers" :) Good luck with the article! Mujinga (talk) 10:15, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Lee Vilenski[edit]

I'll begin a review of this article very soon! My reviews tend to focus on prose and MOS issues, especially on the lede, but I will also comment on anything that could be improved. I'll post up some comments below over the next couple days, which you should either respond to, or ask me questions on issues you are unsure of. I'll be claiming points towards the wikicup once this review is over.

Lede
Prose
Additional comments

Additionally, if you liked this review, or are looking for items to review, I have some at my nominations list. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:10, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I've had a good look. I started reviewing the lede (above), but I really couldn't find enough here to not support. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 17:29, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've clarified the "slipped to ninth" bit in the lead but I'm going to respectfully disagree on the redevelopment. I don't think the creation of a few executive boxes (and it was only a few from personal recollection) and some sort of safety work is so major that it merits being in the lead. It's not like the bulldozed and rebuilt an entire stand...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:33, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by WA8MTWAYC[edit]

  • "After slipping to ninth ... finishing in fifth place." ==> "the team" is used a lot here, maybe you can replace one or two with "Gillingham" (or something else) for variation.
  • "Over the summer break" ==> I understand what you mean, but e.g. the summer months are different on the Southern Hemisphere. Maybe "During preseason" fits better?
  • "equivalent to £250,000 in 2020" and "equivalent to £180,000 in 2020" ==> how much is it in 2022 (especially with the current inflation rate...)?
    • I don't know, the conversion is done automatically by a template and as it stands the value it returns is as of 2020. This will change over time.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:44, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Priestfield Stadium is linked in "season at Priestfield Stadium against" but should be linked earlier in "within Priestfield's main stand".
  • "the club's first friendly match" ==> who was Gillingham's opponent? Or were they insignificant?
  • "and AFC Bournemouth before" ==> is Bournemouth's full name needed?
    • I don't think it hurts. All other teams are referred to by their full names -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:44, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "midfielder Dave Mehmet took over in goal" ==> I presume Mehmet took over halfway through the game?
That's all I have. Great work, Chris. WA8MTWAYC (talk) 20:29, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@WP:FAC coordinators: - just to let you know, I will be logging off shortly and will be off WP until some time on Friday. If any more comments are raised here, I will address them upon my return..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:11, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

  • Add the publisher location to Bradley & Triggs. This looks like perhaps it's published by Gillingham themselves? It's only used to source a couple of minor match details, so even if so I think it's OK for reliability.

That's all I can see to complain about. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:54, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    • @Mike Christie: - done. Yes, it was published by the club to mark its centenary. I only used it for a couple of minor points which I surprisingly couldn't find any other source for (in other such scenarios I have used matchday programmes, but for whatever reason that season's programmes don't have reports on previous matches, only a handful of photos which didn't necessary capture the key moments.....) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:42, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review is a pass. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:53, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

  • Licensing is fine for all images.
  • ALTs for images are a bit lacking in descriptiveness.
  • The description for Priestfield1.jpg says it was taken "circa 1986" but the caption says "circa 1987". Would like to see this cleared up.
  • Caption for Cascarino's image should use "ten" instead of "10" per MOS:NUM.

Just dropping by to say well done on the prose, it's a fun read. These were the only issues I could see with the images. If possible, I would appreciate a review of any kind on my current FAC at Interstate 90. SounderBruce 04:57, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Query for the coordinators[edit]

@WP:FAC coordinators: - OK to start a new nom at this point? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:49, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:51, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 25 April 2022 [16].

2021 World Snooker Championship[edit]

Nominator(s): Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:54, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the 2021 version of the World Snooker Championship. Third times the charm! 15 other events are at FA level, so I'm looking to get the latest version up to level. Let me know what feedback you might have. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:54, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Sportsfan77777[edit]

I'll review the article. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 18:01, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Did you have anything for me Sportsfan77777. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:56, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Lead
  • , that took place from 17 April to 3 May 2021 <<<=== I don't think that comma is needed.
  • for the World Snooker Championship to be held ===>>> the World Snooker Championship was held
  • , and was the 15th and final ranking event of the 2020–21 snooker season. The tournament was ===>>> The tournament was the 15th and final ranking event of the 2020–21 snooker season. It was
  • There were 128 participants in the qualifying rounds, with a mix of professional and invited amateur players ===>>> There were 128 participants in the qualifying rounds, consisting of a mix of professional and invited amateur players.
  • , with 16 players reaching the main stage of the tournament where they played the top 16 players from the snooker world rankings. ===>>> The main stage of the tournament featured 32 players, the top 16 players from the snooker world rankings and an additional 16 players from the qualifying rounds.
  • , defeating Kyren Wilson ===>>> , at which he defeated Kyren Wilson OR where he defeated Kyren Wilson
  • with an additional 106 ===>>> and an additional 106
Background
  • with the final held at Camkin's Hall in Birmingham, England, and the title was won by Joe Davis. ===>>> The final was held at Camkin's Hall in Birmingham, England, and the title was won by Joe Davis. (the misuse of "with" issue)
  • The event is organised by World Snooker ===>>> It is organised by World Snooker
  • £500,000, from a total <<<=== don't need the comma
  • highest-ranked players ===>>> higher-ranked players (it's too many for highest-ranked)
  • given byes ===>>> given one or two byes
    • Hmm, I'm not so sure of this. You get two byes if your opponent was to quit in two seperate rounds, but generally, the wording is "given a bye until round X". Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:44, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Defending champion Ronnie O'Sullivan <<<=== I'm supporting using his first name here because it's used in tandem with "Defending champion", in contrast to ChrisTheDude's suggestion below.
  • a maximum of 33 frames. <<<=== just repeat "best of"? Changing terminology makes it sound different, but I think it's the same?
  • Maybe contrast the spectator situation with that of the previous year and/or what was normal for the rest of the events from the same season?
    • Hmm, I think we'd be WP:SYNTHing something together to get this to work, but I will take a read of some more sources. [17] doesn't actually cover it. It was (I believe) the only tournament with spectators, but there was (although weirdly limited to the first and last two days) fans in 2020. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:44, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Qualifying
  • The defeat for White meant he was not ranked high enough to remain on the World Snooker Tour, but he was later given an invitational place for the following two seasons. ====>>> The defeat for White left him with too low of a ranking to automatically retain his tour card; however, he was later given an invitational tour card for the following two seasons. ("however" is useful for flow here. any reason for not using "tour card"?)
    • I don't like "tour card". If you know what it is, great - but it's unnecessarily jargony. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:44, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • named "judgement day", took place on 13 and 14 April and the winners qualified for the main stage ====>>> named "judgement day" because the winners qualify for the main stage, took place on 13 and 14 April. (lacks parallelism)
First
  • 112, to win the match 10–4 <<<=== don't need the comma
  • Reigning Masters champion Yan Bingtao played Gould, making five breaks higher than 50 and tying the score at 4–4, having only played eight frames in their opening session. ===>>> Reigning Masters champion Yan Bingtao played Gould, making five breaks higher than 50 and tying the score at 4–4, ending their opening session after only eight frames. (I think? something is off grammatically.)
    • Yeah, the comment is that it was 4-4, despite first sessions generally being 9 frames. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:44, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maguire commented that he would be fined for using bad language at the quality of his play <<<=== Rephrase. This wording makes sound like was fined or did use bad language. Or maybe just use the quote: "I’m frustrated. I don’t think there’s a word for how I played. If there is a word, I’d get fined!"
  • the last three frames of the opening session to trail 4–5 ===>>> the last three frames of the opening session to only trail 4–5
  • was leading 5–4 after the first session. ===>>> ended up leading 5–4 after the first session.
  • Ding attempting a pot, only for the black to end in the opposite corner ===>>> in which the black ended in the opposite corner from where Ding was attempting a pot
  • after the next session had ended ===>>> after the next session ended
  • Identify the two qualifiers who won as qualifiers.
  • At the end of the section, state how many qualifiers advanced.
Second
  • 81, 105 and 138 as he led 4–1 ===>>> "81, 105 and 138 to lead 4–1" OR "81, 105 and 138 as he took a 4–1 lead"
  • McGill forced a deciding frame ===>>> McGill forced a deciding frame,
  • in the next allowing Lisowski ===>>> in the next, allowing Lisowski
  • two frames later – a 13–9 victory ===>>> two frames later, a 13–9 victory
  • praised Lisowski's play saying ===>>> praised Lisowski's play, saying
  • In a replay of the 2018 World Snooker Championship final <<<=== Is "replay" actually used the same as "rematch"?
  • 106–6 <<<=== Isn't it 109–6?
  • but won the final frame of the second session to lead by three ===>>> but he won the final frame of the second session to lead by three
  • At the end of the section, summarize the remaining seeds (e.g. All but three of the top eight made it to the quarterfinals.)
Quarter
  • Here you switch from best of 25 to best-of-25. Either is fine, but be consistent.
  • but they were tied at 8–8 after the second.[92] In the final session, Wilson won five straight frames to win the match 13–8. ===>>> After they were tied at 8–8 at the end of the the second session,[92] Wilson won five straight frames in the final session to win the match 13–8.
  • Williams had been playing <<<=== I don't think this is the right tense. It sounds like he changed his strategy, but I don't think he did?
  • where he rolled up to the reds <<<=== Is this "where he attempted to pocket a red ball on the break" (Also, would something like that be a clearer way to state it?)
  • Williams defended the break (add "strategy" or "tactic"? It's not just one break, right?)
  • where Murphy ===>>> during which Murphy
Semi
  • Wilson made breaks of 121 and 127; a total of 248 points without reply <<<=== should just be a regular comma
  • on several occasions ===>>> on several occasions,
  • the first player to win a match (add "at the World Championship")
  • , which Selby tied at 4–4 after the first session ===>>> and the match was tied at 4–4 after the first session
  • including making ===>>> , during which he made
  • but the next was won by Selby, which was halted twice for a re-rack ===>>> before the one after was halted twice for a re-rack and won by Selby
  • to be one frame away ===>>> to get to one frame away
  • with extended safety play ===>>> in part due to extended safety play
Final
  • claimed the title ===>>> won the title ("claimed" is too informal)
  • allowing Selby to win the frame. ===>>> , allowing Selby to win the frame.
  • before Murphy made a break of 100.[123] Murphy won the next frame, <<<=== this seems disjoint. these are the same frame, right?
  • being one frame away ===>>> and was one frame away

I'll finish the review in the next day or two probably. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 19:03, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    • Thanks for this. Looks like mostly minor wording changes, which shouldn't be a drama. Will start tomorrow. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:57, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
User:Sportsfan77777 ? Gog the Mild (talk) 16:53, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for the delay. I finished a first read-through. I'll go through it one more time after those comments are addressed. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 17:32, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Will get on this as soon as I can. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:02, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
All covered Sportsfan77777. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:04, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I made two small changes (feel free to check those), but support. Good work! Sportsfan77777 (talk) 19:11, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Sportsfan77777, could you check that I have correctly repositioned your support, immediately above? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:25, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Images[edit]

are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:16, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from ChrisTheDude[edit]

  • "The tournament was sponsored by sports betting company Betfred, as it has been since 2009" - I'd be tempted to change this to "The tournament was sponsored by sports betting company Betfred, as it had been since 2009", so that it remains valid even after such time as Betfred's sponsorship ends
  • "Defending champion Ronnie O'Sullivan" - no need to restate his forename so soon after he was last mentioned
  • "serving a year-long ban for controvening betting regulations" - contravening is spelt incorrectly
  • "World number one Judd Trump" - this is the first mention of Trump but he isn't wikilinked
  • "Williams won three of the next four frames, all with breaks over 70 to win 13–7" - think you need a comma after 70
  • "Selby's lead was cut to 8–6, but won" - Selby's lead didn't win, so this should be "Selby's lead was cut to 8–6, but he won"
  • "The final was broadcast to a peak audience of 4.1 million viewers on domestic television, equating to 27 per cent of all viewers in the United Kingdom" - this is a bizarre claim as, if I have read it correctly, it means that only around 15 million people in the UK were watching television at that time, which seems a low figure for a country with a population of 67 million. But it's what the source says, so hey......
  • Think that's all I got this time round...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:35, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:33, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by FrB.TG[edit]

Generally not my area of Wikipedia-interest but saw that the previous two noms suffered from a lack of feedback.

  • "It tournament was organised by the World Snooker Tour" - I think you probably meant "Its" here.
  • The lead mentions Matchroom Sports as one of the three broadcasters but the coverage section says, "The tournament was broadcast in the United Kingdom on BBC Television and Eurosport".
  • BBC → BBC Television (per coverage section)
  • whilst → while - both mean the same thing so we should opt for the simpler one.
  • "whilst Maguire commented that he was "frustrated. I don’t think there’s a word for how I played. If there is a word, I’d get fined!"." Use straight apostrophes instead of curly ones per MOS:'.
  • "On the resumption of play, Williams won five straight frames to take the match 10–4, saying afterwards that he would "go for everything", indicating he would.." - two usages of verb-ing modifiers read a little strangely. I suggest connecting these two with a conjunction.
  • "Higgins won the final three frames of the second session, but Williams won three of the next four frames, all with breaks over 70, to win 13–7." Three instances of 'win' in one sentence.
  • "Williams commented after the win that he felt he was playing as well as he had during the 2002–03 snooker season" - I have a hard time understanding this sentence.
  • "Bingham also won the next two frames, but frame 22 was won by Selby after the frame" - frame.. frame.. frame

That's all. FrB.TG (talk) 12:20, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your changes look good but I’d still like a clarification on Matchroom Sports. The lead mentions it as one of the three broadcasters while the body only says BBC and Eurosport. If the lead is true, it should also be included in the body. FrB.TG (talk) 15:51, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, that must have been deleted at some point. Basically, whilst there were minor coverage in other areas, which we shouldn't list all in the lede, matchroom covered it in any other areas. Now added Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:59, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Good work. I would appreciate comments on my FAC but this is obviously not obligatory in any way. FrB.TG (talk) 22:37, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by MrLinkinPark333[edit]

Per Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/2021 World Snooker Championship/archive2 and Talk:2021 World_Snooker Championship#FAC source review comments, I did not review Section 2 Summary to Section 2.6 Final as I had found a lot of unverifed / original research. As FAC2 was closed, I worked with Lee to go through the comments I had there on the talk page. Therefore, a source review of all sources for verification / original research issues is needed in all sections from Section 2 to Section 2.6 (Summary to final) is needed. I won't be doing this source review for FAC3 as I went through the ones I brought up with Lee in the talk page. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 15:39, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Thanks for your previous comments. I don't believe there is much uncited in this area, but happy for someone to check it over and confirm. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:10, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Panini![edit]

My knowledge of snooker only extends as far as eight-ball, so hopefully I should help the article appeal to a broader demographic.

  • I'm not sure if others are having the same problem as I am, but a bunch of scores are being thrown around (1–6, 6–3) and I'm unsure of how this conclusion was reached.
    • MOS:CUE says that we should have scores written from the perspective of who is being talked about. For example, Robertson trailed 1–6 but later led 9–6. The article does say that the matches are played as the "best of" a certain amount of frames. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:05, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My grasp of article understanding would really benefit from a general description of how to play snooker, probably somewhere in format, possibly? As of late, the article appeals to an audience that has come to this article knowing what snicker is and just wants to know about the tournament statistics.

    • I'm not sure I agree with you. The vast majority of the article is a tournament summary in prose. There are results, but that's exactly what you'd need from an article about a sports event. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:11, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • but this is gonna be on the front page and read by 30k others, most of which would probably like to know this information too. Here are some other statements throughout the article that better solidify my confusion with a lack of explanation:
  • "misjudged a pot on a red ball"
    • Both pot and "red ball" are linked. I'm not sure what more I can say other than the red ball is a ball, that is red.
  • "before going in-off in the next"
  • Mentions of specific-colored balls - to me a pink ball is the same as a black ball
    • Indeed. There are 22 balls in snooker, 15 red balls (worth 1 point), and then six coloured balls, with different values (pink is worth six, black worth seven)
  • "Wilson was placed into a snooker" - Is this like a Yahtzee situation?
    • Kind of. It's something that you can both play and be put into. Basically it means you have no clear path to the ball in play, but there's a bit more to it than that. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:05, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm also not a fan of how many of these terms link to Glossary of cue sports terms. The glossary itself is confusing (the definition of frame reads "A term for each rack from the break off until a clearance" with three other jargon words linked, so I had to go on a goose chase to figure out the meaning). Is there a way where you could give a basic description of some of these terms?
    • The thing is, not really. The glossary has very little to do with this article. The links are there specifically to help clarify what some of these words mean. A frame is an individual game of snooker, but the word game could mean a match. It's a little confusing to try and explain in line. You're better to say that a match is played as the best of X frames, and go with it. It's a little like explaining what a goal is in football, when you are talking about the world cup. I agree the glossary could probably do with a cleanup, but as there's no "featured glossary" pages, I doubt it'll top my list for a while. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:05, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stephen Hendry and black ball are linked twice.

Overall, good work on this article. It's mainly just an archive of numbers so it's pretty hard to screw that up, and the player quotes help shake things up every once in a while. These main two points are my main concerns but a sprinkle of definitions should fix it up in two shakes. Best Wishes, Panini! • 🥪 13:03, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi Panini!, I was wondering if you felt in a position to either support or oppose this nomination? Obviously, neither is obligatory. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:40, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, sorry, for future reference I don't watch these articles and glorify pings. I personally disagree with the lack of a snooker description, but I understand your point and I won't force you into adding one to garner my support. I feel it loses some audience from only appealing specifically to the tourney folks and therefore doesn't meet criteria 4 to a maximum, but Support on prose nonetheless. Panini! • 🥪 00:51, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Spot check by Z1720 - pass[edit]

A reviewer as requested a spot check of sources in section 2. Below are my findings:

  • Refs checked, and no problems determined: ref 2, 28, 29, 30, 31, 34, 36, 38
  • Ref 35 is in German, so I can't verify it.
  • ref 27: "for the first time since announcing his retirement after the 2012 event." The source says he retired in 2012, but doesn't say that it was after the 2012 event. I suggest changing this to, "for the first time since announcing his retirement from the sport in 2012."
  • ref 32: "Three-time World Championship semi-finalist Alan McManus announced his retirement after his second-round loss to Bai Langning." The source doesn't state that this was the second round. Can another source verify this, perhaps ref 33?
    • added additional source. Obviously the draw itself is widely cited. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:30, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • ref 13: "but lost to world number 50 Mark King 3–6 in the second round." What information is this ref verifying?
  • ref 33: "Matches in this round were played over the best of 19 frames." How does this ref verify this?
  • ref 37: "Four players were competing having started in the opening round: Bai Langning, Jamie Clarke, Igor Figueiredo, and Steven Hallworth," Where does this course verify this info?
  • ref 37: "Bai led his match 5–4 after the first session, but lost 5–10 to Martin Gould;" Where in the source is this verified?
  • ref 33: "The lowest-ranked player to make it through to the Crucible was Jamie Jones, ranked 69 before the tournament." I don't think the archived link has the ranking of hte players.
    • Sure. I've removed it for now. I can find a source stating he was 69th, but not specifically stating that he was the lowest ranked player. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:30, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll pause at "First round" because I need to get back to real life, but I will continue later. Z1720 (talk) 15:02, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing:

  • Refs checked: 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 51, 52, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 67, 68, 12
  • Ref 39: "The draw for the main stage of the tournament was held at 11 a.m. on 15 April 2021." Where in the source does it specify the time?
  • Ref 12: "The opening round took place between 17 and 22 April, each match played as the best of 19 frames held over two sessions." Where is the held over two sessions verified in the source?
    • I've removed. There is definitely a source out there (the old order of play for snooker.org states the times and stuff), but it's not super important. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:38, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 12: "Defending champion O'Sullivan played debutant Joyce in the opening match." Ref 12 doesn't verify this information, but I think ref 40 does so you might want to add ref 40 here.#
  • Ref 50: "before the match was halted to allow a later session to go ahead on time." I could not find this in the source.
    • I've added another citation to show the match was halted as it overran. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:38, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 53: "The previous year's runner-up Kyren Wilson" I could not find this in the source.
    • Removed previous years runner-up, although it's already mentioned in the article. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:38, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 65: " but won the final frame of the first session with a break of 114." Should this be 113?

I'll continue later with "Second round", as this is time comsuming and I need some rest. Z1720 (talk) 02:12, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing:

Refs checked: 72, 73, 75, 77, 78, 79, 80, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 88, 89, 90, 91,

Ref 76 and 87 were behind a paywall.

  • Ref 12: "The second round matches were played from 22 to 26 April," Where does the source verify when each round was played?
  • Double checked, and Lee is correct. Z1720 (talk) 19:30, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 69 and 71: "who had never defeated him in their six professional matches." I could not find in the source where this was verified.
  • Ref 81: "In a rematch of the 2018 World Snooker Championship final," Where is this verified in the source?

Pausing, I'm at "Quarter finals". Z1720 (talk) 01:11, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing:

Refs checked: 12, 92, 93, 96, 98, 99, 100, 101, 103, 104, 105

Ref 97 is a video, which is region-locked for me.

  • Ref 94: "Selby defeated Williams with a session to spare." Where does it verify that it was a session to spare?

Pausing at Semi-finals. Z1720 (talk) 19:30, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing:

  • Refs checked: 12, 110, 111, 112, 115, 117, 118
  • Ref 107 did not have a link because it was a printed source, so I couldn't check it.
  • I looked at this source and it verifies the relevant article text. I amended the stated author, per the source. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 20:45, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 106: "who had reached this stage for three of the last four events," I was not able to verify this in the source.
  • Ref 108: "In the final session, Murphy won five straight frames to win the match 17–12." I could not verify this. Perhaps use ref 109 instead.
  • Ref 113: "after Bingham scored 92 to lead again at 6–5." I could not find 92 in the article. Is this the correct number?
  • Ref 114: "before frame 19 lasted over an hour," I could not find this information in the source.

I'll finish the final later. Z1720 (talk) 16:14, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Let's finish this up. This spot check has already ruined my news algorithm. I have so many articles about snooker on my phone now....

Refs checked: 12, 120, 121, 122, 123, 125, 129, 130, 131, 132

Ref 110: "but they had not met at the event since the 2007 semi-final, which Selby won 17–16" I could not verify this in the source.

Ref 119: "and been runner-up in 2009 and 2015;" Was not able to verify this.

Ref 119: " Selby was playing in his fifth final, having won the event in 2014, 2016, and 2017, and been runner-up in 2007." Was not able to verify this.

Ref 126: "After a safety battle, Selby won the next frame with a break of 120, and was one frame away from victory at 17–13." This is not on this page of the source, and it probably needs to be cited to page three.

All done. Please ping once the above are resolved. Z1720 (talk) 00:17, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    • All covered Z1720. Thanks again for taking a look. I won't apologise for your algorithms. There's plenty of cue sports articles to do up if you get interested ;)
      • Pass. I won't make a declaration as I haven't looked at other parts of the article. As for writing snooker articles, we'll see if I can learn enough snooker to write intelligently about it... Z1720 (talk) 13:30, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from BennyOnTheLoose[edit]

I'll do a fuller read-through after the responses to Z1720's review, but a couple of things for now. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 21:51, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Lead: "It was organised by the World Snooker Tour, a subsidiary of the World Professional Billiards and Snooker Association." - suggest amending this (see Talk:2022_World_Snooker_Championship#Ownership of World Snooker Tour)
    • Sure, I've made this change. I will eventually go through all of the articles, but time dependent! Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:13, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Coverage: "Internationally" seems superfluous.
  • "an Events Research Programme" - perhaps "the Events Research Programme" as it seems this is the title of it. (link)
  • Refs 1, 2 and 16 should have WPBSA removed.
  • Some script shows ref 20 as having a "cite web: CS1 maint: unfit URL (link)" message
  • Inconsistency between using wst.tv (e.g. refs 1,2, 137, 138), World Snooker (e.g. refs 13, 25) or World Snooker Tour (e.g. refs 24, 130)
  • Can probably do without the "– WPBSA" in ref 134 and the "– World Snooker" in refs 5 and 24
  • "A record number of 108 century breaks were made by 22 players during the main event" doesn't quite read right to me. I'm not a good writer and will defer to others, but maybe something like "A record number of century breaks, 108, was made during the main event. There were 22 players that made at least one century break." ?
  • Ref 97 (the BBC video): I only watched it once, but I don't think it verifies "which other players such as O'Sullivan had also attempted." As mentioned above, I'll re-read after the source review. Regards BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 15:40, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's a bit of inconsistency in picture captions, e.g. Wilson has "(pictured in 2018)" but the pic of Selby doesn't have "(pictured in 2016)". As all the player pictures are from 2015 or later, can probably either omit or include the "(pictured in ..." for all. I can't see any other issues at the moment. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:41, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi BennyOnTheLoose, I was wondering if you wished to either support or oppose this nomination? Obviously, neither is obligatory. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:21, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

Footnote numbers refer to this version.

  • Compare [1] and [5]: you have wst.tv as the website for one, and WST for the other. Looking through your citations I see you mostly use "work= " when you are putting in the title of the website (e.g. "BBC Sport") and "website=" when you're putting in the domain (e.g. "snooker.org"). The two parameters are exactly the same parameter; one is an alias for the other. Can you make them consistent, in one direction or another? There's no harm in using the domain if there really is no name for the website, but that's rare. I would suggest using the name rather than the domain in general.
    • Sure. I've actually never had this explained to me, thanks for that. I've made a change. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:42, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      A couple more: oe24.at -> OE24; thestar.co.uk -> The Star; livescores.worldsnookerdata.com -> WST. You also have "cajt.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk" for [3] and "Chris Turner's Snooker Archive" as the publisher; that should be the website/work, and you don't need a publisher because it's really just "Chris Turner" so is evident from website name. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:16, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The archive link for [87] doesn't work, presumably because it's paywalled.
  • The archive link for [129] goes to page 2 instead of page 3.
  • worldsnooker.com now redirects to WST; if those links can be updated to point to WST it would be useful, but not necessary for FA.

What makes the following reliable sources?

  • cajt.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk
    • Chris Turner (who sadly died in 2011) is pretty much the best statistical source for pre-2011 snooker information, info after this time is best handled by snooker.org. He's the guy who did the statistics for Eurosport and the official tour.Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:41, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Is there any evidence that he did the stats for Eurosports and the tour? That would make this acceptable. Without some evidence that he was treated as reliable by official organizations I don't think this meets the FA criteria bar. I had a quick look and found a blog entry from Snooker Scene, which is reliable, saying they referred to it; that's a good start. Is there more than that we can point to? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:16, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Here is Eurosport calling him a snooker historian, and used as a citation for Masters of the Baize from a quick scan. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:35, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        That might be enough, but what you're using the source for seems like it would be easy to source elsewhere. For example, Clive Everton's Black Farce and Cue Ball Wizards sources most of it, and I think you can get all of it from Williams & Gadsby's Snooker's World Champions; both those are viewable on Google Books. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:22, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sure, that's fair, but the archive is used on pretty much every snooker article and would be a bit crazy to remove a reliable source wholesale. I don't particularly see the issue with using Turner's archive; but I can change out to Cue Ball Wizards or similar on this article if necessary. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:15, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          Striking, but I would recommend making the source change anyway. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:51, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • globalsnookercentre.co.uk -- seems to be run by a group of gamblers rather than an editorial organization of any kind
    • I think there was more to it than that, but it's only used once, so I removed it. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:41, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • snooker.org -- looks like this is run by a single person
  • sportingfree.com
  • snookerhq.com
    • I still think this one is reliable, but the info is in the May issue of Snooker Scene, so I've swapped. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:41, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • livescores.worldsnookerdata.com
    • This one is the official website (see wst.tv), it just has a different domain for their live scores.

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:44, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi Mike, is it just your first bullet point left for Lee to address? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:24, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, the dead archive link should really be removed, but that wouldn't hold up a pass, so it's just the first point. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:30, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I have now made these changes (hopefully I didn't miss any). Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:25, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Pass. Lee, I tweaked the Chris Turner citation -- you had "Chris Turner's Snooker Archive" as the publisher, but that's actually the website. The publisher is Chris Turner, but there's no need to use a publisher field because that's obvious from the website name -- e.g. one doesn't put in "New York Times" as the publisher when the website is "New York Times". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:35, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Hog Farm via FACBot (talk) 23 April 2022 [18].

The Holocaust in Greece[edit]

Nominator(s): (t · c) buidhe 18:04, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article went through a thorough GAN by Hog Farm and an ACR with comments from CPA-5, Nick-D, Catlemur, and Gog the Mild, and a copyedit by Twofingered Typist, all of which are much appreciated. I subsequently expanded the article from a couple newly published sources, and I think it's ready for FAC. (t · c) buidhe 18:04, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Suggest scaling up the first two maps, and see MOS:COLOUR
  • Some of the captions include claims that warrant citing
  • File:Prisoners_sorting_confiscated_property_at_Auschwitz_II-Birkenau.jpg: the description indicates author is unknown, but the source credits authors? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:34, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Scaled up maps. All info in captions should be cited already in the article or image description page. The photographers of the Auschwitz Album are unknown, but there are some theories. The museum puts down two of the hypothesized photographers, but I think it's fine to say "unknown". Thanks for the review! (t · c) buidhe 03:42, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Indy beetle[edit]

  • The Jewish community reported that 12,898 Jews fought for Greece in the war; 613 died and 3,743 were wounded There wouldn't happen to be any unique info on what happened to Greek Jewish POWs, would there?
    • All the Greek soldiers including Jews were released after a month. (Bowman 41) Should this be mentioned in the article? I didn't think so because the treatment of Jews appears exactly the same to Orthodox Greeks.
      • Something to the effect that they weren't treated differently at this stage would be nice.
        • Done
  • The collaborationist Greek government began to see Bulgaria as the main threat and did all it could to secure German support in restraining Bulgaria. From annexing its territory?
    • Pretty much, clarified based on the source
  • some went mad Is there a better medical term for this?
    • All the source says is, "Several people went mad along the way, and virtually no one was able to stand up on arrival"
  • but there is no record of him taking action to prevent the deportations, except two letters of protest written after they had already begun. Is it known on what grounds the Greek authorities protested? That the Jews were Greek citizens? It's curious considering the PMs previous comments about solving the "Jewish problem".
    • The "Jewish problem" comments were from Logothetopoulos' predecessor. The cited source says that the letters were an example of Greek collaborators hedging their bets and continuing to collaborate while creating exonerating evidence in case of an Allied victory. Source does not elaborate on the content.
  • By June 1944, 850 Jews had escaped to Çeşme, despite obstruction from British intelligence. The f was Britain doing obstructing refugees fleeing from an Axis-occupied ally to a neutral nation?
    • It was part of their attempt to reduce the number of Jews arriving in Palestine, since the Turkish government was not admitting Jewish refugees but merely allowing them to pass through on the way to the Levant. Nevertheless, these efforts do not seem to have a significant effect and explaining them would take WP:UNDUE space, so I removed this bit.
  • All of mainland Greece was recaptured from Axis occupation by November 1944. Recaptured? I'm having trouble finding info here but it seems the Germans mostly withdrew so they could go fight the Soviets on the Eastern Front.
    • True, the source is not completely clear on this point. Reworded.
  • In Salonica, Jewish camp survivors were often called "unused cakes of soap". Yikes. No further comment.
  • Jews found themselves sleeping in improvised shelters Who established and managed these shelters, the Greek government?
    • No, the source specifically says that the government did nothing and the survivors had to improvise for themselves. Clarified
  • Holocaust denial is illegal in Greece since when?
    • After looking at some sources it seems that there is no law against Holocaust denial in particular, although it has sometimes been prosecuted under racial hatred laws with limited success. Rewrote accordingly.
  • The Holocaust was obviously an event which focused on Jews, but is it known what happened to other marginalized groups? For example, the article on the Porajmos suggests few to no Roma people were killed in Greece.
    • I've tried to integrate the related ethnic violence (e.g. against Chams or Macedonians), but the Romani people are unmentioned in the sources.

-Indy beetle (talk) 20:55, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks so much for your review! (t · c) buidhe 01:15, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Storage building owned by the Voliotis family in the village of Lachonia near Pelion, where members of the Hakim family lived and hid during the Nazi occupation This caption is too long for addressing a subject not specifically mentioned in the article. Technically, it doesn't even suggest why the Hakim family was hiding. Could be shortened to the effect of "Storage building in Lachonia where Jews lived in hiding during occupation" or something of the sort. -Indy beetle (talk) 03:24, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. (t · c) buidhe 03:27, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure what you've seen, but this book argues a very clear connection between German attempts to control inflation in Greece and the dispossession and deportation of Jews. You mentioned the confiscated gold, but I wonder if something is missing here. -Indy beetle (talk) 13:16, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Some of Aly's conclusions have been controversial (his heavy emphasis on economic aspects to the exclusion of other factors), and Kavala says that many aspects of the property confiscation haven't been adequately researched yet—so I'm hesitant to be too conclusive. She never suggests that the fight against inflation was the cause of the deportation. (t · c) buidhe 19:19, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review—pass[edit]

The article relies almost entirely on appropriate scholarship for the subject at hand, with well-published books and peer-reviewed journal article making up the source material. The few instances where this is not the case are citations to appropriate mainstream media outlets and nonprofit memorial organizations.

  • The pagination for Droumpouki, Anna Maria (2016). "Shaping Holocaust memory in Greece: memorials and their public history" appears to be incorrect.
    • The version I accessed starts at page 1.
      • I've corrected this issue; however, I've removed/changed some of the cities listed for places with monuments, since this does not appear to be supported by the source.
  • Spotchecks on this version
    • Ref 18 does not appear to support the second half of this statement: some 72,000 to 77,000 Jews lived in 27 communities in Greece—the majority in Salonica. It says the majority were Saphardic, but not that they lived in Salonica.
      • "Despite the lack of credible statistics, a generally acknowledged number for the prewar Greek Jewish population is between 72,000 and 77,000, with the Jews from the Dodecanese included, albeit as Italian citizens. Some 50,000 of them resided in Thessaloniki." The rest is WP:CALC
        • Ah, did not realize that Thessaloniki was Salonica. All good then.
    • Ref 32 good
    • Ref 70 good, but might be worth appending the footnote used in the source material to the citation as well, since that explicitly mentions the diary
    • Ref 114 good
    • Ref 184 good
    • Ref 199 good
  • The Antoniou & Moses 2018 "Introduction" chapter seems to have some good info on the development of Holocaust historiography for Greece, which seems to be missing from the article.
    • Added a bit more about this

-Indy beetle (talk) 15:12, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm not sure about the sentence you added at the end of the article. The book is about the Balkans generally not Greece specifically. I think it could be misleading as the other events in the Balkans sometimes viewed as genocides did not occur in Greece, eg. the genocide of Serbs in the Independent State of Croatia, and I've never heard of any other wwii greece events being called genocides. (t · c) buidhe 19:19, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Constantine[edit]

Will review over the following days. Constantine ✍ 17:56, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Have made various tweaks and copyedits to save time. Feel free to revert/discuss.
  • Have removed a few MOS:DUPLINKs.
  • While Eastern Orthodoxy was and remains the state religion in Greece, legally at least Greece was among the first European countries to lift restrictions on the Jews and accord them legal equality with the Christian majority. This happened already in 1830, IMS.
    • As far as I can tell, Fleming doesn't mention this in her book. According to this source it was in 1844, but I'm still not sure if it would be WP:DUE to mention.
  • Can we add that Salonica was at one point known as "New Jerusalem"?
    • Done
  • The Jewish community reported that 12,898 Jews fought for Greece in the war; 613 died and 3,743 were wounded a) can we have a reference right here, for these numbers? b) which Jewish community?
    • This is from Bowman who states, "Jewish community figures record the mobilization of 12,898 Jews. Whereas the total population of Jews in Greece was about 75,000, this estimate should be treated with caution. However, given that some 9,000 Jewish males of Salonika of conscription age (fifteen to forty-five) were to report to Plateia Eleftherias (Liberty Square) in July 1942 for registration in Nazi forced-labor gangs, the figure does not seem impossible, if we recall that able-bodied males who had served in 1919 were called up in the later stages of the fighting against Italy. Greek Jewry still commemorates the loss of 613 dead and 3,743 wounded, a 34 percent casualty rate, nearly three times more than the overall 12 percent Greek casualty rate." The notes section does not provide further information about exactly where this "Jewish community" estimate comes from. (t · c) buidhe 08:08, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • no protests from Greek diplomats are known Greece was a country under military occupation, and de jure and de facto not under control of its foreign policy. The collaborationist regime had no foreign ministry or accredited representatives in other countries, all Greek embassies that survived belonged to the government in exile. Indeed, I am very doubtful that there were Greek diplomats at all in France at the time. Of course, the Greek collaborationist government could have protested, but for the reasons already mentioned, this did not happen (and all other German-influenced governments more or less followed the same policy). To avoid misunderstandings, I'd suggest striking this.
    • I believe the cited source is referring the Greek government in exile, although I'm struggling to independently confirm that the Vichy government had diplomatic relationship with the Greek government in exile. Specifically, Kerem states: "Cases of Jewish Greek subjects in France who were endangered with deportation were brought to the attention of the Greek diplomatic corps there, but Greek diplomats are not known to have taken activist positions on behalf of their Jewish subjects. The Greek Jews in Paris, Lyons and Marseilles were victims of special deportations initially in July 1942 and then mostly in November 1942. Nevertheless, the diplomats representing their country were not known to have pressured the Vichy and German forces in France on their behalf". However, I've removed as it could be an unimportant point. (t · c) buidhe 08:08, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • most could not can some brief explanation be given why not?
    • Source doesn't say. I added information about hostages used to prevent escapes. It's also the case that the factors that facilitated escapes in other places did not exist in Salonica, but I wasn't able to find sources explicitly making this connection.
  • often called "unused cakes of soap" I assume by the local Christian Greeks?
    • Yes, clarified
  • The Greek government avoided prosecuting collaborators this was largely due to the outbreak of the Greek Civil War, where the collaborationists joined the military and security forces of the right-wing governments. This is partly mentioned later on, but it should be brought up earlier for context. Liberation from the Nazis did not mean return of normality to Greece.
    • Reordered to provide context
  • annulled the Aryanization law the term 'Aryanization' should be introduced and linked when the law is first mentioned.
    • Fixed
  • Otherwise a very well written, concise, and necessary article. Constantine ✍ 17:08, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks so much for your comments! (t · c) buidhe 08:08, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Cplakidas: - No compulsion to go either way, but do you feel comfortable supporting or opposing here yet? Hog Farm Talk 21:02, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Buidhe and Hog Farm: sorry for the delay. I am satisfied with the changes/responses, and ready to support. As said before, a fine article. Constantine ✍ 12:41, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild[edit]

I looked at this at ACR but using the FAC criteria and it seemed good then. I will recuse and see what further I can pick at.

  • "originally native to Greece". Do we need "originally"? I mean, could they have been non-originally native to Greece?
    • done
  • "The Greek islands, especially Corfu, Rhodes, and Crete, were home to both Sephardic and Romaniote communities under Venetian rule or influence such that many Jews from these islands spoke Italian." This reads as if they were still under Venetian rule.
    • Rephrased
  • "Before the Balkan Wars". Which happened when?
    • This is introduced a couple bullets up. Would more clarification be helpful?
I missed that. If it were me I would write 'Before 1912–1913', but that's just a personal style preference, so feel free to leave it as is.
  • "In June 1943, parts of eastern Macedonia switched from the German to Bulgarian control." Perhaps preface with 'Despite this,'?
    • I think this may be straying close to OR because the source does not suggest the handover had anything to do with Greek collaboration
  • "Greek Jews living in Paris, Lyons, and Marseilles were deported in 1942 to Auschwitz concentration camp during the Holocaust in France". Any idea as to the number?
    • Done
  • "irregularly looted". What does this mean? Is there regular looting?
    • I was thinking that regular looting—by the state, irregular looting—by private citizens without the approval of the state. But clarified
  • "Jews filled the area at a time". Is "filled" the best word? 'occupied', 'were billeted in' or whatever?
    • Done
  • Why no definite articles in front of LAS, EDES, EAM etc?
    • It reads more correct to me that way. Maybe an ENGVAR issue?
Must be. Each time you miss a "the" it jars as I read it, it comes across as pidgin English. But if it works in USVAR, so be it.
  • "EAM refused to help Jews if it did not receive payment for the operation." Optional: delete "the operation".
    • Done
  • "Skeptical that Jews had a future in southeastern Europe, the JDC prioritized aid for those in transit to Palestine." I don't understand this. Does it mean 'Skeptical that Jews had a future in southeastern Europe, the JDC prioritized aid for those from this area who wished to transit to Palestine'?
    • Reworded

That's all I have. An excellent article. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:01, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks so much for your comments! (t · c) buidhe 23:59, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Great work. Supporting. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:29, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Z1720[edit]

Non-expert prose review.

  • Optional: In Background, four different types of Jewish people are listed in bullet points. In the sentence preceding this, there can be a colon to signify that a list is coming up, so it reads, "The prewar Jewish communities of southern, western, and northern Greece each had a different history:"
    • Done
  • "while others fled to the Ottoman Empire, because of suspicion that they opposed the Greek insurgents." Remove this comma
    • Rephrased
  • "either allow Italian troops to occupy Greece or else war." -> "either allow Italian troops to occupy Greece or else Italy would declare war on Greece."?
    • Rephrased
  • " that hundreds of Jews lost their lives." -> " that hundreds of Jews died." per MOS:EUPH, died is more direct.
    • Done
  • "trying to wrest from them for years." -> "trying to obtain from them for years." I think this sounds more neutral.
    • Rephrased
  • Optional: "The municipality of Salonica destroyed the cemetery beginning in December 1942. The city and the Greek Orthodox Church used many of the tombstones for construction." Maybe combine these sentence into, "The municipality of Salonica destroyed the cemetery beginning in December 1942, and the city and the Greek Orthodox Church used many of the tombstones for construction."
    • Done
  • "£300 sterling," Do other currencies use this symbol? If not, I don't think it's necessary to specify sterling.
    • Done
  • "the prospect of Allied victory led the collaborationist Greek leadership to hedge their bets," hedge their bets feels a little too MOS:IDIOM to me. Perhaps just go straight into "the prospect of Allied victory led the collaborationist Greek leadership to continue cooperating with the Germans"
    • Rephrased
  • "Both the collaborationist administration and postwar governments used the war as an opportunity to Hellenize northern Greece, the same area, from Corfu to the Turkish border, that was most deadly for Jews during the Holocaust." I'm not sure what this is trying to say. Is "the same area" supposed to be there?
    • Rephrased
  • "Bulgarian authorities saw the removal of non-Bulgarian ethnic groups including Jews and Greeks as a necessary step in making room for Bulgarian settlers." -> "Bulgarian authorities saw the removal of non-Bulgarian ethnic groups, including Jews and Greeks, as a necessary step in making room for Bulgarian settlers." Added some commas
    • Done
  • "those who registered with the authorities came from the lower classes in society, and lacked the financial resources to do so." -> "those who registered with the authorities came from the lower classes in society, and lacked the financial resources to flee."
    • rephrased
  • "was the last straw that drove them to leave the country." Concerned about MOS:IDIOM. Perhaps, "caused them to leave the country."
    • I removed the sentence because the proposed rewrite changes the meaning. Fleming doesn't say that Jews left solely because of the draft but combined with other reasons.

Those are my thoughts. Please ping when the above are addressed. Z1720 (talk) 01:37, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks so much for your review! (t · c) buidhe 12:32, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support my concerns have been addressed. Z1720 (talk) 14:07, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request for the coordinators[edit]

@WP:FAC coordinators: since I now have 3 supports, SR and IR, could I make another nomination? (t · c) buidhe 12:45, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You may. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:52, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 22 April 2022 [19].

John Minsterworth[edit]

Nominator(s): SN54129 19:06, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is another—although probably the last—about 14th-century failures, medieval madcaps or bizarre barons. This chap goes to France, gets roundly up his boss' nose, sneaks away while his comrades get roundly beaten by the French, tries to blame everyone else, then eventually deserts to the French and supports a Welsh invasion, is picked up by the English, and, not unsurprisingly, paid a high price for his escapades. Hopefully, you'll join me in getting Minsterworth the promotion that is most certainly not his by right of conquest! Cheers, SN54129 19:06, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Image review—pass (t · c) buidhe 19:21, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Tim riley[edit]

  • Lead
  • "Sir Robert Knolles, who contemporaries praised" – whom, please.
  • Yus!
  • "Minsterworth may have despised Knolles on grounds of the latter's reputation and status, and with others, split away" – I think we have either one comma too many or one too few here – if you want one after "others" I think you want one after "and" as well
  • Add comma.
  • "despite regular ambushes" – unless they were e.g. every Tuesday and Friday at 11.00 o'clock I think you mean "frequent" rather than "regular"
  • A fascinating thought that!
  • Service in France and mutiny
  • "as a "shadowy... man" – I think, but don't take my word for it, the MoS would like a space before your elliptical dots.
  • Sorted all of them; I had a mixture.
  • Definitely articled.
  • "the army commenced a chevauchée" – I have bleated at you before about using a genteelism like "commence" when a good plain word like "start" or "begin" is available at no extra cost. (And you do realise that the word "chevauchée" is the exclusive property of Gog the Mild, who may impose a hire charge?)
  • In my defence, m'lud, these three articles were written a long time ago. Probably around the same time, when I was obviously more gentile...!
Usually I would just send the lads round for a full and frank discussion. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:12, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Division of the English force
  • "continuous ambushes" – I think you probably mean "continual" rather than "continuous" here.
  • Check.
  • Renegade in France
  • "Minsterworth left England for France again in 1372, and it is possible that Minsterworth was communicating" – the repetition of the surname is infelicitous: a pronoun might be better the second time
  • Done.
  • "communicating treasonably with them by now" – "them" being the French, presumably, but there is no plural noun for "them" to refer back to
  • Tweaked.
  • "but he was serving Charles V's army by then" – is there an "in" missing before "Charles"?
  • Fixed, as part of the above tweak.
  • "Soon after, on 20 December 1373, that the escheator of the Duchy of Lancaster was ordered to confiscate all the lands" – the "that" seems to be surplus to requirements. (Afterthought, but perhaps you meant to put the "that" before the first comma, where it would be perfectly happy.)
  • Less being more, I removed it.
  • "the intended logistics of this campaign, or how it was to be implemented, are uncertain" – if you use "or" you need a singular verb – "is", rather than "are"
  • Done.
  • "and Charles' plan" – I haven't boggled at "Knolles'" rather than "Knolles's" (though I would write the latter) but Charles' really does need to be Charles's.
  • For consistency, I've double-s'd both. But I could have sworn that BrEng favored a single possessive s...? Must've got the wrong end of the stick somewhere.
  • It would be an oversimplification to say that Jones' is AmE and Jones's is BrE: most BrE style guides use the latter form but I know at least one that doesn't, and I know some AmE users prefer ess-apostrophe-ess; but as a rule of thumb it isn't too far wrong to think of the shorter form as AmE and the longer as BrE. (As for your "favored", that is unequivocally AmE, but we all know that, don't we, boys and girls?) Tim riley talk 16:54, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Capture by the English
  • "Peasant#'s revolt" – the what?
  • The pedant's revolt  :)
  • Quite so. But as Fowler commented, the term "pedant" is a relative one: "my pedantry is your scholarship, his reasonable accuracy, her irreducible minimum of education, and someone else's ignorance". Tim riley talk 16:54, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notes
  • "Under a royal charter issued him in 1365, Gaunt was authorized" – the z is not wrong, but looks a bit odd in modern BrE: "authorised" would be more usual.
  • Done.

Over to you. Tim riley talk 18:03, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this Tim; apologies for the tardiness of my response, there aren't enough hours in the day at the moment. As if, ever. Your points addressed with ths edit, hopefully! SN54129 15:52, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Looking good now. I'll be back after a final read-through. More anon. Tim riley talk 16:54, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Meets the FA criteria, in my view. Tim riley talk 18:31, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Appreciate that Tim, as ever. I promise no more gentilisms! Liked the Fowler quote too; somewhat reminded me of Bernard...) and, yes, favored was deliberate mistake of the day  :) SN54129 14:36, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

Spotchecks not done. Version reviewed

  • Check that everything in the lead is cited in the body - for example "attempted to have Knolles tried for treason" is not explicitly claimed there
    Check.
  • How does Baker meet WP:SCHOLARSHIP?
  • Ah, well, we have two Bakers.
    Baker, G. P: It's a PhD from a reputable university, supervised by a respected expert in their field, by someone who was subsequently employed at equally respected institutions for their expertise on the same subject (UEA, Southampton and Exeter), and has published in his field. Some of his thesis is replicated in a subsequent piece (Baker 2018), although not completely, so now the one complements the other. For the record though: I would argue for the thesis being a high-quality source in the first place regardless of a later write up (as you'll be unsurprised to hear, most of his article is cited to...the thesis!).
    Baker, R: A RS for the fact that Minsterworth's "infamy" was still being discussed nearly 300 years later.
  • What makes Harrison a high-quality reliable source?
  • Well. J. J. Alexander, writing in 1937, discussed the use of antiquarian texts by modern historians. It is true, he said, that some of these writers often had access to now-lost sources, and, likewise, that many of them were researching with the scientific method, but on the whole, "the practice of quoting from eighteenth- and early nineteenth-century sources... is to be deprecated". in: J. J. Alexander, 'Tavistock in the Fifteenth Century', Report & Transactions of the Devonshire Association 69(1937), 252. But for our purposes, is 16 out of 59 an overuse of a source mostly backing simple, if rarely considered, facts, in an area where modern scholarship no longer deeply goes?
  • If there's reason to consider it reliable, perhaps not - but is there? Alexander was speaking in generalities rather than regarding this particular source. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:39, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    True. I have removed the number of references to Harrison. (Admittedly, only by one.) But he's OK for the local detail—not opinion, you see, just raw fact—that may no longer be available to modern scholars. All the stuff getting burned in 1867, etc.
  • Leland is missing language
    Excellent eyes, thanks.
  • Ormrod: verify location? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:33, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree it looks odd  :) The US place of publication is, of course, New Haven, but I only have/had access to that printed on Yale's behalf in the UK, in Padstow. Can you see this copyright page? (Note same ISBN too.) Bloody limeys eh!  :) SN54129 18:20, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Cf. Tim, apologies for taking a while to complete this Nikkimaria. See what you think now. Cheers! SN54129 15:52, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ceoil[edit]

Placeholder. Will get to this over weekend; from the lead looks v interesting. Ceoil (talk) 21:20, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll edit trivial prose stuff directly rather than list demands here, if that's ok, and of course you can revert at will. Ceoil (talk) 00:06, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have made some edits
  • Convicted of conspiring – alliteration
    Went with "Convicted of intriguing with the enemy"?
    Convicted on conspiracy charges Ceoil (talk) 13:22, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • whom contemporaries praised for his military prowess – "Whom" is old fashioned, and "military prowess" should be either tactical or strategic acumen or ability
  • "whom" is the only grammatically correct accusative form of "who". (Perfectly OK to use "who" as the accusative in speech or informal prose, of course, these days.) Tim riley talk 20:28, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair enough Tim, your the expert and I withdraw! Ceoil (talk) 20:42, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Right, "military acumen"?
  • and, for reasons which are now obscure, - concerns historical method and accuracy; if covered below drop clarifier from lead
    When you get to it, you'll see that it's considered too hare-brained a scheme to make much sense at the time, let alone >600 years later  :)
  • However, in 1377, while still abroad, he was captured by the English and sent home. Unless missing something..."while still abroad" should be "in France", drop "however"
    Removed however. I went with "abroad" as the geography is a bit complex—he went from Eng > France > Castille > Navarre, where he was finally arrested. And the only place I've mentioned him being before that is France, so I'm kind of skating over the fact that he wasn't arrested there while not having to go into too much detail. Do you see what I mean?
  • socially superior - "superior" isn't quite right, maybe use the word higher or rank
    Tweaked the whole sentence.
  • The lead is quite sparse; if no image is available would add, gasp!, a brief IB, just to fill up the empty space
    I haven't had much experience with IBs ;) but am not averse. As you say, something to break the walls of text up would be great. This has to have the crappest selection of images ever! Not even a coat of arms. Any particular IB you recommend?
    If not an ib, what about a painting of a repetitively contemporary battel from the Hundred Years' War? Ceoil (talk) 19:34, 3 April 2022 (UTC) - should have been "relatively" not "repetitively". Ceoil (talk) 22:38, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    "All you battles look the same to me, squire"  :) Have added an IB, sorry Cass  ;) what you think Ceoil?
    Looks good (and yes, no disrespect to cass or mr Cat). I like "Known for: Soldiering, treason" Ceoil (talk) 22:37, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • More later Ceoil (talk) 04:05, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, Ceoil, all good points, and thanks for your copy editing through. SN54129 12:54, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe split "Capture by the English" and "Execution". Ceoil (talk) 20:28, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Forget to say, I did this a while ago! Looks much better now.
  • This doesn't add up as stated: Minsterworth left England for France again in 1372,and it is possible that he was communicating treasonably with King Charles V of France by this point. Precisely whether he gave himself up to the French or was captured by them the following year is unknown, but he was serving in their army by then.. "Gave himself up and was communicating treasonably" are consistently (though 'communicating treasonably' should be made a deal?), but the "or was captured" doesn't logically flow, unless he was forced into service (unlikely) or was brainwashed. Maybe, precisely when he committed treason is unknow, it may have been before he returned to France, after was captured, etc....".
    Yes, I see: it's not chronological is it... I've tweaked the sentence to put the order of events into, some order!
  • A supposed likeness and the the story of Minsterworth's execution is recorded on a version of Ranulf Higden's c. 1377 chronicle Polychronicon, but was added by a 16th-century hand - My reworded version, but should it be that a "16th-century edition of Ranulf Higden's c. 1377 chronicle Polychronicon contained an illustration of Minsterworth and a description of his execution." Ceoil (talk) 02:01, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Much better, thanks. Nabbed!
  • @Ceoil: Thanks for these suggestions too—I've utilised all of 'em. And apologies for not doing so sooner! Just got bogged down elsewhere. Cheers though! SN54129 14:45, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ceoil, I was wondering if you felt in a position to either support or oppose this nomination? Obviously, neither is obligatory. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:14, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
hi Gog, will have another look on Monday, and take it from there. Txs. Ceoil (talk) 02:57, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing:

  • and eventually—albeit seeing most of the remnant of his army massacred on the Breton shore—to England - his army? the preceding sentance indicates it was Knolles army.
    Knolles's army was bent out of shape at Pontvallain, but I've clarified that M. commanded a smaller one.
  • conspired with a rebel Welsh lord, Owen of Wales: as he is named - the rebel Welsh lord
    Done.
  • he was captured by the English and sent home - sent home seems to understate and make him sound like a naughty schoolboy. Presumably to face imprisonment or death.
    Couldn't think of a synonym for "sent home" w/out duplicating English/England. But see next!
  • Convicted on conspiracy charges - conspiracy to commit treason? And link to the then UK law
    Linked, and added to previous sentence^^^
  • Who is Andrew Ayton and when did he describe "him as a shadowy ... man of obscure origins - before or after The Fall
    Fall references are always welcome (mandatory!), but I didn't get this...have clarified who Ayton is though! (Hang on, "A Figure Walks"?)
  • the English "did not...burn anything for which a ransom was paid." - too coyly stated, would paraphrase and make plainer as it could be whitewashing otherwise. Given that, a modern source badly needed here.
    Made it very clear that "the English destroyed what they wanted, unless ransoms were paid". But the source is from 2000? Added a 2017 source r. the money that could be made from it.
  • I don't know what this means: Knolles's appointment had an "implied mark of distinction" about it, suggests Mark Ormrod.
    Entire section tweaked.
  • Similarly, most won't know the meaning of these antiquated and localised words in the quoted sentance "...Minsterworth called Knolles an "old brigand", a "tomb-robberand a "freebooter" before the troops." Also "In front of" rather than "before" the troops
    Linked where possible.
  • He may have hated Knolles, suggests Sumption, and this hatred may have been virulent. According to Sumption, he may have "hated"...also "virulent" is an odd choice here; meaning what in context exactly.
    It's Sumption's own word, but a quote now should contextualise it.
  • While he bore much culpability for the disaster - more old fashioned / primary source wording, better as - was widely blamed for?
    I agree culpability is clumsy, but I use "blame" later in the same sentence; gone with "bore responsibility"?
  • Overall there are two many (albeit cute) contemporary turns of phrase embedded in wiki voice or inserted as quotes (from the short "Renegade in France" sect contra fidem et ligeanciam, More intriguing still, .. more than coincidence, army of the sea, burn their way west, pretender to the throne, particular advantages. Although the scholarship seems up-to-date, the article could be more dethatched and less in contemporary (wag) voice. Ceoil (talk) 21:22, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    H'mm. Well, I've removed a couple of Latinisms, but bear in mind they are only accompanying translations, I think it's important to give the reader an opportunity to do their own trans. Those others are all, I think, direct quotes—replaced one with a direct quote for clarity—can you clarify what a wag voice?
  • Thanks Ceoil, some very thorough stuff there, thanks; all actioned except for a couple of queries. Cheers, SN54129 12:44, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Great choice and nice work. Ceoil (talk) 18:44, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from mujinga[edit]

  • Thanks for an interesting read! I just realised you wrote Coterel gang which I also enjoyed a while back. This article tells quite a confusing story and most of the time I could follow it easily. Here are some comments on prose, where I got stuck:
  • "The Historian James Sherborne has said Minsterworth caused "much trouble" on the campaign,[4] and Jonathan Sumption described him as an "ambitious hothead".[5] " - perhaps recently garbled, historian doesn't need capitalizing and would suggest introducing both commentators as medieval historians or similar
    Absolutely. Decapped, and have remodelled the sentence to show they are both historians.
  • "It was to be the first English army to France intended to be led by a commander below the rank of earl[6] or other peers.[7]" - seems like this could be trimmed to " It was the first English army to France led by a commander below the rank of earl[6] or other peers.[7] "
    Done.
  • "resulted in joint command of Knolles " suggest "resulted in joint command by Knolles" or "resulted in the joint command of Knolles "
    Went with "by".
  • "This system of shared leadership appears to have led to jealousies and rivalries arising among them" - suggest cutting "among them"
    Done.
  • "who had started at the bottom" - bottom of what?
    The ranks. But I've merged the two sentences together, which is hopefully clearer?
  • "Geographically his force was recruited from across the country, including locally to Minsterworth—such as Wales and Gloucester—but further afield;" - this reads awkwardly to me, i think the dashes don't help
    Have recast the sentence, hopefully, it reads better now?
  • I don't think note2 needs to start with "Although", especially since there's a "though" in the quote
    Good point, tweaked.
  • Marches - should this be linked? Welsh Marshes is linked below, which I suppose is currently second mention
    Swapped them over.
  • "probably to make enable foraging and increase profits" - extra word here
    I think it was meant to be "probably to make foraging easier and increase profits".
  • "escaped into Brittany" - escaped to?
    Done.
  • consider "Charles V of France" for heathens like me to keep up with the story
    Apologies, but I couldn't see what you meant; could you clarify where this is?
    • I meant in this sentence: "and it is possible that he was communicating treasonably with King Charles V by this point". It's Charles' first mention and I was wondering before clicking through if he was king of Spain and/or France Mujinga (talk) 13:50, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Soon after, on 20 December 1373, the escheator of the Duchy of Lancaster was ordered to confiscate all the lands Minsterworth held of John of Gaunt, Duke of Lancaster, Minsterworth's feudal lord in Gloucestershire and the Welsh Marches.[44]" - bit confused by this sentence .. so the escheator was told to confiscate land Minsterworth possessed which was owned by John of Gaunt, who was the Duke of Lancaster? On a reread it's "held of" that's tripping me up
    Changed to "held from"?
  • so there's two quoteboxes in "Capture by the English", one has a book reference, one doesn't, which seems inconsistent
    Good spot, done.
  • in Pamplona,[46] Navarre - prob a comma after Navarre
    Done.
  • [observation] wow that's brutal to send bits of his body to different cities
    A deterrent for any like-minded lads  :)
  • link messuage to conveyancing (which it currently redirects to)?
    Done.
  • i'm not sure how the discussion in the "Estates" section relates to the earlier stuff about the escheator confiscated Minsterworth's holdings ultimately owned by John of Gaunt (although it does clarify my earlier comment for me). But does that mean the land had been confiscated in 1373 or it was spoken about then and only done after his execution?
    Yes, this is a bit confusing, you're right. I've tried to clarify that the outlawry and confiscation took place in '73, but the IPM (from which we get a list of lands) wasn't til '77. Better?
    • yes makes sense, corrected a typo Mujinga (talk) 13:50, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does the Baker PhD need a location?
    I only ever use the university location to be honest—they're rarely different.

That's all I got.Mujinga (talk) 10:55, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for looking in, Mujinga, great to "see" you again (Kennedy Road seems ages ago now!) I've tried to address all your points, except one, which I'll do when you clarify. Now I see you've mentioned me elsewhere—are my dashes getting me into trouble!  ;) Cheers, SN54129 13:02, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Time flies when you are having fun! I've replied on Charles, see what you think, and in any case switching to support Mujinga (talk) 13:52, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I've actioned on Charles, and thanks for noticing the typo which took him back 1,000 years  :) SN54129 15:36, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Z1720[edit]

Non-expert prose review.

  • "John Minsterworth was under Knolles's captaincy." I don't think John is necessary here, as the reader will know that Minsterworth is referring to this person.
    Absolutely; done.
  • " while Jonathan Sumption describes him as an "ambitious hothead"." Who is Johnathan Sumption and why should I care about his opinion? Perhaps, "while medieval historian Jonathan Sumption describes him as an "ambitious hothead"."
    Done (but for the record, and wrt the same points you make below, remember that repetition is poor writing ecept for poets, so use synonyms when you have them; although cf. False title (Tim riley of this parish has some lighthearted examples I think?))
  • "had an "implied mark of distinction" about it, suggests Mark Ormrod." Who is this person, and why should I care about his opinion? Perhaps something like, "had an "implied mark of distinction" about it, suggests historian Mark Ormrod."
  • "He seems to have seen himself as socially outranking Knolles, who had first started, says the chronicler Thomas Walsingham as a "poor and lowly valet"." The arrangement of this sentence confuses me. Is "poor and lowly valet" Minsterworth's opinion of Knolles?
    Ah; recast the entire section!
  • "Anne Curry argues that by then," -> "Historian Anne Curry..."
  • " says Rosemary Horrox," -> "says historian Rosemary Horrox"
  • "Michael Prestwich has suggested" -> "Historian Michael Prestwich..."
  • "being, according to Baker, "as guilty as any man for the break up of the army"" Is this the same Gary Baker that is mentioned later in the article, and what is this person's credentials?
    Indeed!
  • "but it is unknown if this was after surrender or capture,[15][15][43]" is ref 15 supposed to be cited twice?
    Well spotted—removed.
  • ""More intriguing still", comments Gary Baker, is the fact that he appears to have been accompanied by his old comrade-in-arms, Thomas Fauconberg, who defected at the same time; "the fact that both these men took this huge step must be more than coincidence"." This sentence is implying some sort of relationship between these two men, but instead of being explicit about it, the article only hints at it. What kind of relationship did Baker think these two men had? Does Baker say how he thinks Fauconberg influenced Minsterworth to make this decision?
    Crudely, he suggests that F. might have been mentally unstable and "easily led" by M., which hopefully I've clarified.
  • "Sumption also, however, points out that" I don't think however is necessary here.
    Done.

Those are my thoughts. Z1720 (talk) 21:27, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks very much, Z1720, good to see you here! I've addressed all your suggestions, I think, and thank you for them  :) SN54129 12:44, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My concerns have been addressed. I can support. Z1720 (talk) 13:23, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Very kind, Z1720, it's much appreciated! Have a good week  :) SN54129 14:51, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Harry[edit]

  • calling Knolles such names as Was Sumption or Minsterworth the speaker of the insults?
    Clarified it was Minsterworth, although Sumption is certainly not unknown to speak his mind :)
  • move the link to medievalist to the first mention
    Done.
  • Minsterworth again left for France in 1372 How easy was this for an outlaw to do?
    Thanks for the massive question! If you mean physically, then (OR, but probably sourceable) quite easily, I'd say. Those instructed to abjure the realm were usually given either Dover or, if the coroner was malicious, somewhere miles away that you only had a few days to walk to barefooted, and they also had licence (in the form of guards) to do so. But there was plenty of traffic between Eng and France, legal and otherwise, so I suspect someone like Minsterworth, probably with cash and contacts, wouldn't have much trouble finding a ride. And I think it would have to have been off the books, as it was illegal for anyone to leave the country without a royal licence. Merchants, soldiers, pilgrims, etc. Outlaws were automatically excluded from getting a licence, Now: I can probably find the sources to say this kind of thing, but it would be with very broad strokes (talking about the generalities rather than Minsterworth himself), and possibly contra FA? #4. What do you think?
  • If there's an illustration of him, can it be found and used?
    This is really heartbreaking! Until recently I didn't know of this manuscript, and ironically wouldn't necessarily have expected his likeness to ever have been taken down, let alone survived (I mean, there are earls, dukes, etc., from the same period that we don't have pictures of, let alone some obscure knight!). But finding it... that's another matter. There are numerous contemporary copies of this MS floating around, but of course only one has this illustration. I've asked around, so if I hunt it down, I'll do my best, but right now I don't quite know what it is I'm looking for, let alone where it is. It would be such an original addition, though *sigh*...

Not much to pick at really. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:10, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Harry, for looking in, and for asking some very interesting questions; I'm sorry if my answers haven't been as useful as I'd like them to be. But if you've got any advice, I'd appreciate it. Cheers! SN54129 16:26, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I like to ask the questions, even though sometimes the answers aren't known or are out of scope for the article! I'm not sure there's much more that can be done here, but it was interesting anyway! Happy to support. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:10, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Harry, I've got a book I can lend you on outlaws and exile of the period. It's colourful stuff  :) SN54129 17:55, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 22 April 2022 [20].

Mount Price (British Columbia)[edit]

Nominator(s): Volcanoguy 03:50, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a mountain in the Canadian province of British Columbia. Mount Price is also an andesitic stratovolcano that began forming 1.2 million years ago. A vent on its western slope (Clinker Peak) was the source of two thick lava flows that ponded against an ice sheet within the last 15,000 years. These lava flows were one of the first described occurrences of lava having been impounded by glacial ice. Volcanoguy 03:50, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Image review—pass images are freely licensed (t · c) buidhe 05:11, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I don't know whether the article complies with 1c and 1d of WP:WIAFA, but everything else seems to fit. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:14, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Did some work on checking for these two criteria, thus I now say support. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:11, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Version reviewed

  • "It is located 10 kilometres (6.2 miles) southeast of the abandoned settlement of Garibaldi above the eastern flank of the Cheakamus River valley" - source?
  • Be consistent in when/if you include publication locations
  • What makes Liu a high-quality reliable source?
  • Fn26: what is given as work title appears to instead be a section title. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:15, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Nikkimaria: I have dealt with all of this except for the last one because {{cite web}} does not have a section parameter. Volcanoguy 04:47, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Okay, but you can't address that by putting that info into a parameter in which it doesn't belong. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:42, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        I've removed it. Volcanoguy 23:13, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note - at three weeks in, while the important source and image reviews are done, this has failed to attract any general supports. It will likely have to be archived in a few days without further reviews forthcoming. Hog Farm Talk 21:01, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie[edit]

  • Why do we need to mention Burke Channel and King Island in the "Geography" section? They're not that close to Mount Price and are never mentioned again in the article.
Removed. Volcanoguy 21:26, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Similarly, the adjacent ecoregions, listed at the end of the first paragraph of that section, don't seem relevant -- they would be relevant to an article about the Pacific Ranges Ecoregion, but this article is about a mountain that is entirely within that region.
I agree. They've been removed. Volcanoguy 19:48, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can we get a map showing the extent of either the Eastern Pacific Ranges Ecosection or the Garibaldi Volcanic Belt (or just its southern segment) or both? You mention multiple geographic divisions -- another is the Garibaldi Lake volcanic field, and another is the tectonic plate arrangement -- and for someone unfamiliar with the geography it's hard to follow. A smaller map showing Mount Price, Mount Garibaldi, The Table and Clinker Peak would be helpful too; I looked at the two images for a while and am still not completely sure I correctly identified everything in the captions. And there are plenty of other locations mentioned in the article that could be labelled on a map: Culliton Creek valley, the Cheakamus River valley, Price Bay, Table Meadows, etc.
I'm not aware of there being any maps, not freely licenced ones anyway. Volcanoguy 19:59, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I just searched Commons and found this, that's a little gaudy but would be helpful. I'll keep looking. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:12, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There's also this, which you could rotate and crop. Interestingly, the date of that map is 1928, but it shows the peak as "Mt Price", so this is a little earlier than the earliest reference you currently have for that name. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:17, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've added the first image but I'm unable to crop the topo map. Volcanoguy 19:01, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'll crop it and post it for you to take a look at and decide if you want to use it. However, I think we have to mention it in the article in any case, because it's a source for a 1928 use of the name "Mount Price". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:04, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the cropped map. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:16, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Volcanoguy 23:38, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "These eruptions resulted in the creation of a small 1,788-metre-high (5,866-foot) lava dome or scoria cone on Mount Price's northern flank". I take it this is the elevation of the peak, not the height above Mount Price's flank? If so this could be clearer -- I initially read it the other way, but then realized that that wouldn't have been "small".
I've changed this to "These eruptions resulted in the creation of a small lava dome or scoria cone on Mount Price's northern flank with an elevation of 1,788 metres (5,866 feet)." I'm not sure if that's any better. Volcanoguy 20:57, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's clearer. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:09, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The age of this final volcanic phase has varied from 15,000–12,000 years ago to as recently as 10,000–8,000 years ago." I don't understand this. Do you mean estimates of the age have varied?
    • Changed to "The age estimates of this final volcanic phase have varied from 15,000–12,000 years ago to as recently as 10,000–8,000 years ago." Volcanoguy 19:38, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 1927, Canadian volcanologist William Henry Mathews (1919–2003) identified Mount Price as Clinker Mountain in articles and journals." It seems unlikely he did this at the age of 8. I don't think you need to include the birth and death dates in parentheses like this when you mention someone, but in any case it seems this can't be the right person.
I've revised this to "In 1952, Canadian volcanologist William Henry Mathews identified Mount Price as Clinker Mountain in the American Journal of Science." Volcanoguy 20:22, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Generally this looks in good shape. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:43, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:00, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from GeoWriter[edit]

Overall a well-written and well-sourced article. My detailed comments:

Introduction
"If this were to happen, relief efforts would be quickly organized." — I suggest this should be rephrased. One would hope/expect relief efforts to be quickly organized but it is not accurate to state that this would (definitely) happen.

What would you recommend then? Volcanoguy 23:36, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed "would be" to "may be" if that's any better. Volcanoguy 00:35, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Geography
"with the northern summits containing large icefields". — Can (non-crater) summits contain icefields? Or are they covered by icefields?

That's what the cited source claims. Volcanoguy 23:36, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Geology
"A diverse range of volcanic rocks with differing compositions are present in the Garibaldi Lake volcanic field." — The subject is "a diverse range" which is singular, therefore the verb should also be singular i.e. "compositions is present". (Alternatively, remove "A diverse range of").

Changed "a diverse range" to "several". Volcanoguy 23:36, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Volcanic history
"These eruptions resulted in the creation of a small lava dome or scoria cone on Mount Price's northern flank." — It is usually very easy to decide if a landform is a lava dome or a scoria cone. The word "or" suggests that geologists very familiar with the area do not know which it is, which seems unlikely. Checking the cited sources: Smithsonian GVP describes Price Bay as a "cone". Read (1990) states "a small andesitic dome was constructed on the northern flank of Mount Price". Hildreth (2007) refers to "Price Bay scoria cone" based on Green (1981) who refers to "andesite agglutinate breccia" of Price Bay (adventive) cone. Is "a lava dome or scoria cone" possible novel synthesis? Perhaps there is a lava dome and a scoria cone?

There's only one dome/cone on the northern flank of Mount Price. Volcanoguy 23:54, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source [5] ("Quaternary Magmatism in the Cascades—Geologic Perspectives" by Wes Hildreth) is a public domain USGS publication - the citation should include a web page URL for the PDF file https://pubs.usgs.gov/pp/pp1744/pp1744.pdf

Done. Volcanoguy 23:36, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"depositing 0.030 cubic kilometres (0.0072 cubic miles) of rock". — These units of measurement are (too) large and give the impression of a small volume landslide. I suggest changing to 30 million cubic metres (39.2 million cubic yards).

Done. Volcanoguy 23:36, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"impact-wave". Please clarify/define/wikilink.

Removed. Volcanoguy 02:39, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Naming
A date of renaming ("September 2, 1930") is mentioned twice. This duplication is unnecessary. One occurrence should be removed.

I don't see how that's a duplication since they are referring to two different mountains. Volcanoguy 23:36, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Protection
"which is in turn named after the Italian patriot and soldier Giuseppe Garibaldi." — Seems irrelevant to Mount Price and I suggest it should be removed.

Not irrelevant to Garibaldi Provincial Park of which the section is about. Volcanoguy 23:36, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

— GeoWriter (talk) 22:22, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi GeoWriter, I was wondering if you felt in a position to either support or oppose this nomination? Obviously, neither is obligatory. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:02, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support. GeoWriter (talk) 16:01, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Pfly[edit]

Is it too late for this article, is it now archived? I've read through it and found it quite good. A couple things:

  • Under "Geology": Seceral volcanic rocks with differing compositions are present in the Garibaldi Lake volcanic field.
Is that supposed to be "Several volcanic rocks..."?
Yes fixed. Volcanoguy 00:07, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Under "Human history", "Naming": ...associated with 'a'a flows.
Wouldn't it be better for this Hawaiian term be written with ʻokinas, like: ʻaʻa?
Yes done. Volcanoguy 00:07, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise, it looks good to me. Makes me think better monitoring of the volcano is needed. I didn't check all the footnotes and their formatting. Pfly (talk) 00:00, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Pfly: Not too late at all. Volcanoguy 00:14, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support Pfly (talk) 23:02, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Z1720[edit]

Non-expert prose review.

  • "The committee requested that the Geographic Board of Canada adopt Mount Price for this mountain after Thomas E. Price," Is this supposed to be italicised?
I thought it had to be but I could be wrong. Volcanoguy 17:19, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think so? If it is, maybe put "The committee requested that the Geographic Board of Canada adopt the name Mount Price..." because it's weird that this is the only instance that the name is italicised. Z1720 (talk) 01:07, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done and removed the italics. Volcanoguy 02:53, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I checked the lede and infobox, and the information there is cited within the article body.
As it should be. Volcanoguy 17:19, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Those are my thoughts. Z1720 (talk) 16:55, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support. My concerns are addressed. Z1720 (talk) 21:12, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Harry[edit]

  • The Pacific Ranges Ecoregion is subdivided into seven ecosections, with Mount Price lying inside the Eastern Pacific Ranges Ecosection The use of "with" like this is tempting to join two parts of a sentence, but it's more befitting a tabloid headline than an encyclopaedia article, and at the very least it's poor practice to change tense mid-sentence. This construction occurs eight times in the article.
So what should I do about it then? Volcanoguy 22:01, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Easiest way is to split the sentence: "The Pacific Ranges Ecoregion is subdivided into seven ecosections. Mount Price lies inside the Eastern Pacific Ranges Ecosection." A semicolon would work just as well. Sometimes, just removing "with" solves the problem. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:20, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Volcanoguy 21:28, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • However, cold Arctic air invades "however" is listed on MOS:WTW and this is the sort of use that's cautioned against: implying a contradiction where one doesn't necessarily exist. There are a couple of other instances of "however" that look similar.
@HJ Mitchell: Done, although the word "however" is not only used to imply a contradiction. It is also used to mean "in spite of that" and "nevertheless". Volcanoguy 22:28, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mount Price and its eruptive products are protected I assume this means legal protection? Can we have a sentence on what that entails? Is access restricted? What can people do or not do?
I've reworded this to "Mount Price and its eruptive products lie within a conservation area called Garibaldi Provincial Park." Volcanoguy 22:01, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Daisy Lake Road 30 kilometres (19 miles) north of Squamish provides access suggest using parenthetical commas for readability → Daisy Lake Road, 30 kilometres (19 miles) north of Squamish, provides access...
Done. Volcanoguy 22:01, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's it from me. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:58, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:54, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 21 April 2022 [21].

Daisy Pearce[edit]

Nominator(s): 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 14:10, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Daisy Pearce, one of women's Australian rules football's leading pioneers and a prominent current player/media personality (and future coach, if the recent news is anything to go by). I've put a fair bit of time and research into this one, and got it to GA status last year, so keen to know what you guys think/how you guys might like me to improve it further – thanks! Kind regards, 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 14:10, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kavyansh[edit]

How can I not review "Daisy"! Expect some comments soon – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 14:22, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • It has clearly taken a lot of effort to write and improve this article, and all your work is very much appreciated. The first thing, and perhaps the most major point that concerned me is the sources. I'll admit have just read the lead, but from a look at sources, I see various sources whose reliability cannot really be judged. For featured articles, we require sources to be "high quality reliable sources". How are "afl.com.au", "SportsTG", "AFL Community", "girlsplayfooty.com", etc. the reliable sources of highest quality? Another issue with the sourcing is use of many primary sources: "westernbulldogs.com.au", "melbournefc.com.au", "aflplayers.com.au", "womens.afl". 71 of the 175 sources are directly or indirectly from the website of Australian Football League (AFL), a primary source. There are also other issues like overuse of direct quotations in "Legacy" section, duplicate linking, adding Instagram link in External links, etc. Can you elaborate as to how did you find sources for the article, and why does the article meets WP:FA?#2c? – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 14:41, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the sources, most if not all of the bits of information that just cite a single source, whether it be The Australian or melbournefc.com.au, only cite those sources because they were the only ones that I could find for those tidbits; some of the time, I might have used a club website as a second or third source when something like SEN or Fox Sports was already there – if you want me to remove those instances where there's already a better source, more than happy to, but a lot of the time when you see something from AFL Media (afl.com.au or womens.afl), it's probably because it was the only thing I could find/that was reporting on that particular piece of information. Granted, SportsTG, AFL Community and girlsplayfooty.com might not be the Herald Sun, but they were, again, the only ones I could find/that were reporting on that tidbit. I would argue that AFL Media is independent from the AFL and not just a primary source that's biased/selective in the content that it produces, as it produces stories about the good, bad and the ugly in the AFL world (even at AFL HQ), same as the newspapers and TV/radio networks, but that's a whole other story – my point being that because it gives such a wide coverage of the AFL and AFLW, hasn't been shown to necessarily be given preferential treatment by the league or its clubs and (I would argue) very reliable from a journalism standpoint, I'm not sure that it should necessarily be brushed off as a primary source/unusable in a featured article, but hey, that might not amount to much.
As for how I found sources, I follow AFL Media pretty closely for the reasons above, but in some cases, I'll also do a Google search to find other sources on certain bits of information. Before the article reached GA status, it had bits of information that were unsourced or improperly sourced, so I did the best I could to Google these areas to find what sources I could and include them if I thought that they were reliable enough – some periods of Pearce's life/career were more widely reported on than others, clearly, and there were certain bits of information that I was forced to remove/leave out because I couldn't really find anything to source it with, so I believe that the article's been improved from that standpoint. Regarding your last question, did you mean 2c or 1c? I believe that I've maintained a consistent use and format of citations throughout the article, but if I'm wrong, please let me know how I can improve this further.
Otherwise, let me know if any of this makes sense/you need further clarification, and otherwise what else needs doing – I'm fairly new to this process/the jump to featured article status, but keen to learn and take on what I can, even if it's because the article isn't quite ready yet. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 03:28, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
By over-linking, I was particularly referring to double linking in the prose itself (independent of lead), like AFL Players Association, but I'm confident you'll fix that too. Multiple links to sections withing the same article is allowed. So if I understand you correctly, the article has various information which only a particular sources cite. Then why is that information important enough to be mentioned in the article? If there is something significant, I'd expect a lot of media commentary on it. Even if AFL Media is independent from the AFL, and even if it is reliable, what makes it among the highest quality of reliable sources? Don't get me wrong, I know almost nothing about sports; this is entirely a non-expert's perspective, but I think we should write an encyclopedia article from widely reported facts. Are there no books/academic work about her life? Regarding my last point, I meant 1c, apologies. All in all, I don't think you'll get a consensus here that sourced are WP:HQRS. I am not convinced that the article meets the criteria, at-least for sourcing. I won't oppose, but I am suggesting withdrawal (changed – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 14:39, 16 March 2022 (UTC)). But please don't be discouraged, we need more FAs about women, especially in sports. I'll be happy to give this article a review outside of FAC once all the sourcing concerns are resolved. I am open to reconsider, if other feel the other way. Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 06:05, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, per this discussion, I have been requested to provide some sources not used in the article. Here are the sources:
    • Fedele, Robert (2017). "Midwife Blossoms Into AFL Star". Australian Nursing and Midwifery Journal. 24 (8). Australian Nursing and Midwifery Federation. ISSN 2202-7114. Retrieved March 5, 2022 – via Informit.
    • Pippos, Angela (2017). Breaking the Mould. Affirm Press. ISBN 978-1-925475-29-6 – via Google Books.
    • Faganel, Armand; Rižnar, Igor; Baruca, Arne, eds. (2021). Impacts and Implications for the Sports Industry in the Post-Covid-19 Era. IGI Global. ISBN 978-1-7998-6782-1.
    • Lynch, Jackie (2018). "State of the AFLW Nation". Green Left Weekly. 1171. Retrieved March 5, 2022 – via Informit.
    • Sources mentioned by Steelkamp below are not repeated here. The 2nd and 3rd might help a bit, but I think the other two (especially the 1st) discusses the topic in bit detail. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 11:56, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, I have struck my suggestion to withdraw, but my concerns stand. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 14:39, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Sportsfan77777[edit]

I'll review this article. Noting I reviewed it for GA status. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 06:44, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also noting above that Kavyansh.Singh's comments above are blatantly sexist. They make an assertion that "we should write an encyclopedia article from widely reported facts". That essentially implies that biographies should not be able to be made into FAs if the subject doesn't receive a very wide range of coverage, an issue that much more frequently affects women than men. I would recommend their review be disregarded by the coordinators. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 07:00, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think my comments were "blatantly sexist". I never intended to say that. We need sport biographies in FAC, for both man and woman, equally. My comment regarding that encyclopedia articles should mostly have widely reported facts meant to imply that if a particular piece of information is covered only in 1-2 sources, that too a primary one, why is it significant enough to mention then? My suggestion to withdraw is in accordance with the FA criteria; I have no issues with you disagreeing on that. But I don't think my comments should be "disregarded". It is upto @WP:FAC coordinators: to determine if my comments are in accordance with the criteria or not. Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 07:20, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is what I said. It is up to the coordinators to decide whether to take your review into account. I am merely suggesting that they do not. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 08:48, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Although higher standard for sourcing or WP:DUE arguably impacts biographies of women more than men, I do not agree that it's sexist. All reviews are taken into account to determine consensus to promote, to the extent that they are based on the FA criteria. (t · c) buidhe 08:55, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please bear in mind WP:AGF. Also that a nominator should address a review, not the reviewer. As Buidhe says, all reviews and comments are taken into account when closing. Ones bearing on whether the article "is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature" will be weighted heavily. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:15, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Lead
  • in the AFL Women's (add "competition" so that the sentence ends on a noun)
  • One of women's Australian rules football's first superstars <<<=== In-between this and the old statement of "Widely regarded as the face of women's Australian rules football", I would suggest the intermediate "Often regarded as the face of women's Australian rules football" to be more complete without potentially making too strong of a statement
  • having (add "already" or "previously") captained the club in the women's exhibition games in the years prior
  • seven as captain ===>>> seven times as captain
  • "VFL Women's (VFLW)" ===>>> VFL Women's (VFLW) competition
  • Pearce is a dual AFL Women's All-Australian, having been named as captain in the 2017 team and vice-captain in the 2018 team, and won the inaugural two Melbourne best and fairest awards. <<<=== This sentence doesn't have parallelism. I'd suggest splitting off the second part as "She won the inaugural two Melbourne best and fairest awards."
  • "media performer" <<<=== I'm not sure "performer" is the correct word (unless it's an Australian English thing?) Maybe "media personality" would be better?
Early life
  • Okay.
State
  • She was named in the carnival's All-Australian team <<<=== I might suggest calling it the "National Championships' All-Australian team" instead, since I don't think it's obvious that is what carnival is referring to.
  • with Pearce named among the best players in the grand final ===>>> a game in which Pearce was named among the best players. (to avoid "with" and repeating "grand final")
  • Darebin would go on to win five VWFL premierships in a row, before losing to St Albans in the grand final in 2011; Pearce, who had by then become captain, was named Darebin's best player in the loss <<<=== Combined with the previous sentence, it says Pearce was among the best players in 2007 and was the team's best player in 2011. But what about the other years in the five VWFL premierships in a row? Do you have that information?
  • In 2013, Darebin again went through the season undefeated, defeating Diamond Creek in the grand final, and Pearce was again named among the best players in the grand final.[21] Darebin repeated this feat in 2014, again going through the season without a loss and defeating Diamond Creek in the grand final, and Pearce was named best afield in the grand final. <<<=== Combine these two sentences to something like "In both 2013 and 2014, Darebin again went through the season undefeated. In both years, they defeated Diamond Creek in the grand final, and Pearce was again named among the best players in the grand final."
  • She would also feature in Darebin's third ===>>> She also featured in Darebin's third
  • "with Darebin named among the ten teams" ===>>> "and Darebin named among the ten teams" (avoid "with")
  • "She would also play in Darebin's grand final win" ===>>> She also played in Darebin's grand final win
Exhibition
  • The top 50 female footballers in Australia ===>>> Fifty of the top female footballers in Australia (it's not literally the top 50)
  • "Pearce was selected by Melbourne with the first selection in the draft" ===>>> "Pearce was selected by Melbourne first overall in the draft"
  • with the first to be held ==>>> the first to be held
  • "with Melbourne playing two games" ===>>> "in which Melbourne would play two games"
2017
  • the Melbourne's inaugural match ===>>> Melbourne's inaugural match
  • and won the inaugural Melbourne best and fairest award ===>>> . She won the inaugural Melbourne best and fairest award
  • meaning that she would miss the 2019 season ===>>> which would result in her missing the 2019 season
2020
  • with coach Mick Stinear saying ===>>> ; coach Mick Stinear stated
  • She played her first AFLW match ===>>> Pearce played her first AFLW match (unclear "She" with Black in the previous sentence)
  • half-back (add "in defence" to clarify)
  • without a premiership being awarded due to the worsening pandemic ===>>> with no premiership awarded due to the worsening pandemic
  • Pearce went on to be selected ===>>> Pearce was selected
  • two goals from 13 disposals ===>>> two goals from 13 disposals,
  • with Pearce saying ===>>> and Pearce herself stated
  • Pearce also received five coaches' votes <<<=== Unless the coaches votes are a new thing, I would leave this out given that you never mention them before. (As in, wouldn't she have received coaches votes before?)
Playing style
  • A few pairs of citations are not in numerical order.
  • her ability to threaten <<<=== specify what she is threatening
Statistics
  • Okay.
Honours
  • Okay.
Media
  • Clarify that Triple M is a radio network (or radio station?).
Advocacy
  • Okay.
Coaching
  • with Pearce to complete her AFL level three coaching accreditation ===>>> in which Pearce would complete her AFL level three coaching accreditation
  • Explain what AFL level three coaching accreditation means, maybe just in a footnote.
Legacy
  • You can put back the "face of" statement, but state who calls her that (e.g. the media, I think? or maybe other players?)
Personal
  • Pearce began working as a midwife <<<=== if known, state at what age?
  • she currently divides ===>>> she has since divided (avoid "currently" per MOS:RELTIME)
Overall
  • I don't share the concerns above about not using game reports because they are primary sources. This is pretty typical of most past sports FA articles. I'm not even sure I agree that game reports count as primary sources. (Relatedly, a book source would be nice, but you can't ask for one if it doesn't exist.)
  • Use IABot to archive all the sources.
  • In particular, I noticed this one doesn't work any more.
  • There are a few instances of using ALLCAPS in parts of some references where it is not needed (e.g. "COMMENT", "THE W SHOW IS HERE").

Overall, it looks like it's in pretty good shape. The content looks very thorough and well-organized. I intend to support after the above comments are addressed. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 08:46, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the support, Sportsfan77777. I think I've covered most, if not all, of your feedback – let me know what you think/if there's anything more that you wanted to throw in there (given I've also added a little bit since you gave your review). Thanks! 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 05:14, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Second read-through
  • "was selected by Melbourne with the first selection" <<<=== to avoid "select" twice, would "was selected by Melbourne with the first overall pick" be Australian English enough? Or "was taken by Melbourne with the first selection"? --- This issue is in the lead and the body.
  • before the first exhibition game ===>>> for the first women's exhibition game
  • Pearce was announced as a marquee signing for Melbourne's AFL Women's team in 2016 prior to the competition's first season. ===>>> Pearce was announced as a marquee signing for Melbourne's AFL Women's team in 2016 for the competition's first season the following year. (the year is more important to clarify)
  • She also won the inaugural two Melbourne best and fairest awards <<<=== You don't need the "also" here.
  • If the book source disagrees with her birthplace, add a footnote stating the alternative possibility.
  • Specify "Melbourne Cricket Ground (MCG)" in the first mention
  • and Pearce was named among Melbourne's best players in its 46-point win. ===>>> Pearce was named among Melbourne's best players in its 46-point win. (start a new sentence)
  • The five goals that she kicked in round 9 of the 2022 season was ===>>> The five goals that she kicked in round 9 of the 2022 season were
  • Pearce had won the inaugural VFLW best and fairest award in 2016 ===>>> Pearce won the inaugural VFLW best and fairest award in 2016
Source comments
  • There is still unnecessary all caps ("LISTEN", "UPDATE", "DEE-MOLITION") left in the sources.
  • I do think AustralianFootball.com is definitely a high-quality reliable source, per 4TheWynne's reply to Hawkeye.
  • Both of the SportsTG sources are really content published by the VWFL (it says it's the official VWFL website). Whether it's republished or that's where they published it originally, I don't know. Either way, the publisher should be listed as the "VWFL", not "SportsTG".
  • Similarly, the first Footy Almanac source is also published by the VWFL, and should have VWFL as the publisher.
  • In the second Footy Alamanac source, the one comment (from one of the website administrators) specifies that the author of the piece is the same author (Leesa Catto, who works for the VWFL) as the first Footy Almanac source, so I would assume it is also published through the VWFL. I would recommend putting Catto as the author and VWFL as the publisher just like the first source.
  • You don't need the Instagram source. (Both usages are covered by the very next source.)
  • I agree with the comment below that Fox Sports should always include "(Australia)" and likewise for ABC News. You could also do the opposite and never include "(Australia)", since they are always linked anyway.
  • Regarding the book sources, I would expect only the Lane book on the launch of the AFLW to potentially have more information that could be included, but probably not a whole lot given that it doesn't focus on Pearce specifically. I would expect the news sources and the official sources from the official VWFL/VFLW/AFLW websites to be more in-depth. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 09:50, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am curious as to how the book source disagrees with whether her siblings are brothers or sisters. Having no access to either source, I don't know which would be more reliable. The newspaper source is much more recent, so I don't see how they could have messed it up if the book was already published. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 09:50, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The other book sources seem like mostly passing mentions. The Hayes and Sheedy sources are a bit more in depth, each with about two pages on Pearce, but these are picture books for kids. They might have a little more information, but I wouldn't favor them over most other types of sources already used.

I didn't finish either of these today. I'll probably finish both of them tomorrow. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 19:33, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's it for the comments on the prose. I didn't find much after a second read-through. I'll look through the sources again if others continue to comment them. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 09:50, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sportsfan77777, just finished here again. I've opted to remove "(Australia)" because they're linked, like you mentioned, and regarding the differing information in the sources, I really like Sam Lane – who I know is a big fan of Pearce – and wouldn't expect her to get this sort of information wrong, but from memory (the Weekend Australian article was freely available at the time when I used it), Courtney Walsh actually travelled around with Pearce to write her story, and it's more recent like you said, so I figured it would also be pretty reliable; to counter this, I've tweaked the wording slightly so that it doesn't contradict either source ("two brothers", "two younger half-siblings"). 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 00:52, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good, supporting! Good work! Sportsfan77777 (talk) 10:36, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Steelkamp[edit]

Media career: (some of this may have already been mentioned due to an edit conflict)

  • and in 2019, she also hosted This Is Grit, a weekly podcast series on SEN focusing on female sportspeople. – Citation doesn't show that. Also, wouldn't "sportswomen" be more concise than "female sportspeople". Steelkamp (talk) 09:03, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pearce was a rotating panel member on the Seven Network program AFL Game Day and is a boundary rider for Seven and 1116 SEN's AFL coverage – Citation makes no reference to 1116 SEN. Citation does not show why rotating panel member is in past tense. Steelkamp (talk) 09:03, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I notice womens.afl is frequently referred to in references and other parts of the article, but [22] this shows that it should be womens.AFL. Steelkamp (talk) 09:03, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This one has not been addressed yet. Steelkamp (talk) 05:03, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I honestly think you might have just picked out one of the only instances in which this happened, as I see it formatted far more frequently with the "afl" in lowercase – here are some recent examples (plenty more where these came from): [23][24][25][26][27] 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 05:35, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough. Only two issues remain (see below) for me to support. Steelkamp (talk) 10:06, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • In 2021, she co-hosted The W Show on womens.afl alongside Nat Edwards – There is no indication that this is a website. Maybe change to In 2021, she co-hosted The W Show on the womens.AFL website alongside Nat Edwards Steelkamp (talk) 09:03, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • After Tiffany Cherry spoke out against the Nine Network in February 2018 for failing to stand up for gender equality after being replaced as host of the Nine program Women's Footy by Clint Stanaway, Pearce said that it was better to have both men and women involved in commentating and talking about the men's and women's competitions. "I enjoy seeing men working across and well-informed football commentators talking about [women's football]... why can't we see men working across the AFL Women’s competition?" She said that if there was a belief that only women should call AFLW games and only men should call AFL games, "It's almost as if we are taking a few steps back". – The problem with this paragraph is that it takes a while to get to the point. It's not until about 2/3rds of the way through that I realise that Pearce is criticising Tiffany Cherry's stance. Steelkamp (talk) 09:03, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pearce was among several high-profile AFLW players to speak out during the 2020–2022 collective bargaining agreement negotiations in 2019, with Pearce supporting the AFL Players Association (AFLPA) and its efforts to grow the competition,[152][153] saying that broader talks between the AFLPA and AFLW players would result in an agreement that would satisfy all players. – This doesn't really put things in their full context. The Age says that "reports emerged of a split over the new collective bargaining agreement." I think the quotes can be shortened and more context to this can be added. Steelkamp (talk) 09:03, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Coaching career:

  • I don't think that many citations are needed. Three or more adjacent citations is too much. For example, in the first group of citations, the Lions website could be removed without impacting the verifiability of the preceding sentence. Use WP:CITEBUNDLE if they absolutely must be there. Steelkamp (talk) 09:15, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Legacy:

  • and is highly regarded across the football industry for her professionalism, football knowledge and leadership, both on and off the field, as well as being a role model for current and future female footballers and commentators.[24] – Citation is a wix.com website. Doesn't seem to be a high quality source. It is also a dead link, so some source archiving will need to be done. There are several other dead links throughout the article as well. Steelkamp (talk) 09:37, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Still not convinced by a wix.com website. Steelkamp (talk) 05:10, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I've reverted to citing the Weekend Australian article in the instance above (I remember it covering the inspiration element a fair bit, and that really should have been the source in the first place) and used a different quote from Melissa Hickey from a Fox Sports article (Hickey was clearly full of praise) in the quotes further down, so the Change Her Game article is now, for all intents and purposes, dead and buried. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 13:06, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Herald Sun journalist Jay Clark wrote that Pearce had "set the standard in training and professionalism [in women's football] for years" and that her contributions over more than a decade made her a "living legend of the women's game", – What's to say that Jay Clark wrote that. It says up the top that Lauren Wood wrote that article. Steelkamp (talk) 09:37, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This issue still remains. Also, the archive link for reference 157 is incorrect. Steelkamp (talk) 05:15, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I fixed the archive link (I remember pasting it into the text originally, so not sure how I accidentally put a different one in there) and set |url-status=deviated to indicate that the current version usurped the older version that I'm trying to cite; both versions at least attribute the information that I'm sourcing to Clark, but this way you can see that Clark originally wrote the article before Wood came in over the top and "took a screamer", to use the old footy vernacular. Would this suffice? 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 13:06, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The format of this section is a bit awkward due to the images. I think it would be best to remove one image, and have the other one on the right rather than the left. Steelkamp (talk) 09:37, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is very minor, but I think that named Daisy in honour of Pearce sounds and flows better than named Daisy to honour Pearce. Steelkamp (talk) 09:37, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • On 7 March 2017, Pearce became the first woman to be elected as a director on the board of the AFLPA, which then decided to include AFLW players as full members of the association. – Citation says that it was existing members that voted to include AFLW players as full members. There is nothing there to say that the vote occurred after Pearce was elected. How about On 7 March 2017, Pearce became the first woman to be elected as a director on the board of the AFLPA. The association had also decided that day to include AFLW players as full members. Steelkamp (talk) 09:37, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pearce had won the inaugural award in 2016 after having previously won six Helen Lambert Medals in the VWFL. – How about you change this to Pearce had won the inaugural VFLW best and fairest award in 2016 after having previously won six Helen Lambert Medals in the VWFL. Steelkamp (talk) 09:37, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Personal life and philanthropy:

  • Pearce began working as a midwife at Box Hill Hospital upon moving to Melbourne, and lived in Eltham, in Melbourne's north-east. – The flow of this sentence is awkward. Steelkamp (talk) 09:44, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • near Bright in country Victoria – Seeing as Bright is mentioned earlier in the article, it is not necessary to say that it is in country Victoria. Steelkamp (talk) 09:44, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Honours and achievements:

  • 2× AFL Women's All-Australian team: 2017 (c), 2018 – There is nothing to show what "c" stands for. Steelkamp (talk) 09:54, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

General:

  • Best and fairest should be linked somewhere in the article, seeing as its mentioned several times. Steelkamp (talk) 09:37, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shouldn't it be The Weekend Australian, rather than Weekend Australian? Steelkamp (talk) 09:44, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are several book sources that may be useful. I may get around to looking at some of these books over the coming week to see if they are useful to this article in any way:
    • Lane, Samantha (2018). Roar : the stories behind AFLW -- a movement bigger than sport. ISBN 9780143788744.
      • Pg. 302: Pearce was born in Wandiligong, not Bright. She was born in Wandiligong, Victoria, which has 300 residents, with the nearest major town, Bright, having a population of just over 2000. Steelkamp (talk) 06:37, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Pg. 302: Pearce has an older brother Harry (two years older) and a younger brother Billy (two years younger). Ali is actually a half brother, not sister. Pearce's parents separated in 1995. Pearce has an older half brother, Aaron, through her father. Steelkamp (talk) 06:37, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Pgs. 293-: Details on her life and career in 2016 and 2017. Steelkamp (talk) 06:37, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hayes, Nicole; Sometimes, Alicia (2017). A footy girl's guide to the stars of 2017. ISBN 9781863959124.
    • Sheedy, Kevin (2020). Kevin Sheedy's heroes of footy. ISBN 9781922400246.
Steelkamp, I've mentioned the differing information regarding Pearce's birthplace in a footnote and tweaked the information about her brothers and half-siblings so that it doesn't contradict either source. I've also sourced 1995 and her half-brother, and otherwise addressed all most of your other feedback previously. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 01:35, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Graham Beards[edit]

  • I have made a few edits to the article rather than list my suggestions here. The article suffers from citation overkill. For example, does Pearce's participation in the annual Big Freeze at the 'G need three citations? Similarly, "By March 2022, Pearce was considering an assistant coaching role for Geelong's AFL team;" has five citations. There are others like this. Can we use just one reliable source for uncontroversial statements? And on the subject of citations, some seem to be poor quality (there was even a Facebook one). Can we weed these out and replace them with better ones? I'm referring to the ones like worldfooty.com. As it stands, the citations are a problem. Graham Beards (talk) 16:13, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also: These are often redundant but keep popping up in revisions of the article. I think the writer has an addiction to them. Here is a quote from Tony's essay :
"Additive terms—"also", "in addition", "moreover" and "furthermore". Every sentence is additional to its predecessors, but most of us, including otherwise good writers, have got into the habit of sprinkling these terms through our writing, because they give us a vague feeling of adding to the cohesion of the text (the strength with which it all hangs together). However, only occasionally are these additive words required for textual cohesion; the flow is usually stronger without them." -Graham Beards (talk) 06:45, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
All of these have been addressed – let me know if you have any additional feedback. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 01:38, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose. For a sports biography, this article is refreshingly accessible to someone who know nothing about the game. Graham Beards (talk) 07:50, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

Images are appropriately licensed, but suggest scaling up the image in Personal life. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:55, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Teratix[edit]

Just a drive-by comment on sourcing, might convert to a full review. Bylined pieces from AFL Media (i.e. post-2012 AFL.com.au) and womens.afl have a decent track record of independent coverage and in my view should be regarded as independent RS. Club and AFLPA websites aren't independent but are reliable enough to be used sparingly. – Teratix ₵ 07:12, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass[edit]

Quality
Formatting
  • I have replaced the work cards with publisher/newspaper/website as appropriate to generate MOS-compliant formatting
  • Also News.com.au was sometimes capitalised, sometimes not; I have standardised the article on lower case, matching the other web sites
Spot checks

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:35, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hawkeye7, thanks for the review – I think I've pretty much covered everything. Australian Football seems to be the database of choice for all AFLW players (AFL players use both AFL Tables and Australian Football, whereas AFL Tables doesn't cover AFLW), and the club websites don't include AFLW best and fairest votes (which I used the database to source a few times), so I'd argue that it is reliable and the article would benefit more from keeping it. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 05:09, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good to me. Pass on sources, support article generally. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:32, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing concerns from Kavyansh — resolved[edit]

  • Of the five instances, Fox Sports (Australia) does not have 'Australia' in Ref#135 and Ref#143. Also, Ref#135 and Ref#143 are italicized while rest three are not. Suggesting to be consistent.
  • I am not confident if "Australian Football" (australianfootball.com) is a high quality source. this does not make it clear if any content matter experts are consulted. More importantly, this says "In order to view some Content, post any Content or access certain features of the Service, you must register as a member with AF" (emphasis mine), which makes me think it is more or less a WP:UGC. Am I missing anything? (References: Ref#5, Ref#54, and Ref#131)
  • I am not sure how this of from 'SportsTG'. (Ref#6)
  • Since we write 'Fox Sports (Australia)', shouldn't we also write 'ABC News (Australia)'. It can easily be confused with American ABC News. (References: Ref#7, Ref#37, Ref#44, and Ref#111)
  • Not convinced that 'The Footy Almanac' is a high quality source. This says "We’d like to publish your work – any topic, any genre. (Check out our Write for us page). It doesn’t matter how experienced you are: if you want to have a go, have a go", which makes me think it is more or less a WP:UGC. Am I missing anything? (References: Ref#13, Ref#17)
  • Ref#21: The URL says "The Page you are looking for cannot be found". Should url-status be marked as 'dead'?
  • Why do we use 'Instagram' as a source. Are there no secondary sources? (Ref#78)
  • Our article italicizes 'Seven News'. Should we do that same in Ref#122?

That is on a quick run. This should be noted that these concerns are raised after a source review was been "passed" on March 14 (Special:Diff/1077022142/1077025521). – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 14:40, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kavyansh.Singh, thanks for your feedback. As I've gone into above with Sportsfan77777's comments, I've removed "(Australia)" from each Fox Sports and ABC News source, as they're all linked. I've fixed the VFLW source and removed the Instagram source, and I've stopped short of italicising Seven News, as I've treated it as being the same as ABC News, etc. All of the other sourcing concerns were addressed in Sportsfan77777's comments. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 01:23, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for the late reply. Thanks a lot for fixing most of it. I still have few standing concerns. Per your reply about "Australian Football", you talk about the usefulness of the source, which still does not make clear why it is reliable, or why it is not a WP:UGC. Same with "The Footy Almanac". Even if VWFL (assuming it to be Victorian Women's Football League) is a publisher, does it make it a WP:HQRS when the site explicitly claims "We’d like to publish your work – any topic, any genre. (Check out our Write for us page). It doesn’t matter how experienced you are: if you want to have a go, have a go". Sorry for pressing you and/or being nitpicky. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 19:03, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Kavyansh.Singh, sorry for taking even longer myself. Regarding Australian Football, I've cited different sources for the AFL Women's best and fairest votes, leaving just her date of birth and player statistics (both of which normally cite databases anyway, as you aren't going to find either in a news article) as citing the database; the only alternative would be to source the club website, but the individual player pages at club websites only exist when the player is active, so Australian Football would likely be the only source (if not the best available, at least) that's still live once Pearce retires (I also didn't see anyone object to the use of Australian Football when Erin Phillips was nominated... and her article is littered with citations to the database). As for The Footy Almanac, I've also replaced one of these articles (2011 VWFL GF) with a different source because I was able to find one, but I haven't been able to find another source/version for the other (2009 state team); is there anything wrong with treating it on a case-by-case basis? In this case, just one article; because we know that it was written by Leesa Catto and originally published by the VWFL, shouldn't that make that particular article reliable enough given we can't find another version? 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 16:34, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have not objected to using any source, merely questioning the reliability. I am now satisfied with the responses, and as far as I am concerned, most of these sourcing concerns should be considered resolved. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 19:31, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments/discussion/feedback[edit]

OK, guys – I think I've covered just about everything so far, aside from upscaling that last image and maybe a couple of other things (including getting a chance to check out those books/articles, if that was directed at me). Let me know if you guys had any more to add; I've just added this subsection in case anyone wanted to add a comment separately to their reviews, otherwise feel free to drop your thoughts via your own sections if that's easier – thanks. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 16:03, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just seeing if anyone else has anything to add? Not sure of the best way to scale up the Personal life image, either. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 01:56, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just checking in again – been three days now. Pinging those we haven't heard from in a little bit (Buidhe, Gog the Mild, Graham Beards, Nikkimaria and Teratix), along with Casliber, Ian Rose, Ealdgyth, Hmlarson and Figureskatingfan from related FACs if they have any comments. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 00:53, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@WP:FAC coordinators: five supports/concerns resolved here, and haven't really had any opposes – is that enough/is there anything else that you guys think needs doing? Anyone else, please feel free to comment as well. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 12:55, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As you are a first time FAC nominator, the article will need a source to text fidelity spot check. I have requested one at the top of the FAC talk page. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:19, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Spot check[edit]

I'll do the spot check; I know nothing about this sport so in some cases I may be asking from ignorance. Working from this version, for reference numbering purposes. I'll look at every 11th footnote.

  • 11: OK, but the source is from 2016 and says "remains" the only [etc.]. I know this is picky but I think you should say "as of 2016". If another series takes place in 2024, we want this article to still be correct.
    • Done.
  • 22: OK.
  • 33: OK.
  • 44: What's the source text for "a national free-to-air audience of over one million people"? Is it "telecast live into Melbourne and Adelaide on Channel 7; as well as Sydney, Brisbane and Perth on 7Mate — reaching a combined audience peak of 1.05m people"? I don't understand "free-to-air" -- does it mean broadcast over the air; i.e. non-cable? If so this is OK.
    • Correct.
  • 55: You're going to have to explain this one to me. I see her name in the ROUND SIX section under "Adelaide v Melbourne", listed as "3. D Pearce (Melbourne)". How does this support "was awarded the maximum three AFL Women's best and fairest votes by the umpires in the round 6 win against Adelaide"?
    • The AFLW best and fairest votes are awarded by the umpires (3, 2, 1 for each match), but this isn't in the source, so I reworded the sentence to "...awarded the maximum three votes for the AFL Women's best and fairest award in Melbourne's round 6 match against Adelaide".
  • 67: OK. I'm skipping 66 because it's almost identical to 55.
  • 77: used to source "on 31 August, Pearce announced her pregnancy with twins, which would result in her missing the 2019 season": in fact it doesn't strictly source the second half of the sentence, since that season was in the future at that point. You need another source for the fact that she actually missed that season.
    • Done.
  • 88: "She ran a personal best time in the club's two-kilometre time trial in the lead-up to the season". The source doesn't say the time was in a time trial or for the club.
    • Reworded to "She ran a personal best time over two kilometres...".
  • 99: OK.
  • 110: "after moving to the forward line and kicking two goals from 13 disposals". In the source I see she is credited with two goals, but I don't see anything that supports the rest of this, though since I have no idea what a disposal is I might be misinterpreting something.
    • I read the "13 disposals" part in another source, but was fine to just remove it instead.
  • 121: OK.
  • 132: "Pearce played in Melbourne's preliminary final win over Brisbane": I don't see evidence in the cited page that she played in this match.
    • In the source: "In a promising sign of things to come, Melbourne's win was built not just on the backs of experienced campaigners Daisy Pearce and Paxman..."
  • 143: OK.
  • 154: "As a result, Pearce was shifted to Seven's Friday night commentary team for the 2022 season". Yes, she was moved to that slot, but the source doesn't really support "as a result" (of her previous strong and praised performance); they could have planned to move her anyway.
    • Done.
  • 165: OK, but I would suggest changing the article text to extend the quote, since "over more than a decade" is directly from the source too. I.e. 'her contributions "over more than a decade [made] her a living legend of the women's game".
    • I think either would have been fine, and I might have even preferred it how it was, but changed it anyway.
  • 176: OK.

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:29, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Christie, just went through your feedback – sorry for the wait. Let me know if you have any more – thanks. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 01:32, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above issues are all OK now, but there were four or five (out of sixteen) that were just slightly inaccurately sourced. I'm going to look at ten more to be on the safe side, using the same numbering for the footnotes:

  • 113: I don't think this gives the exact nature of her injury, unless I'm missing something in the source.
    • The MCL part was in one of the sources that I removed when I cut down on the number of sources, so I've added that back.
  • 39: sourcing "a match against a Brisbane Lions women's team at the MCG in May" -- the source says "Queensland"; I know Brisbane is in Queensland, but the Brisbane Lions seem to be a different team from the way the source presents this.
    • I remember it initially being fixtured as "Queensland" but ending up just being the Brisbane Lions (including their guernsey), so I repositioned the current sources and used a different one to source the Brisbane team instead.
  • 125: OK.
  • 6: OK.
  • 162: OK.
  • 175: OK.
  • 136: OK.
  • 17: OK.
  • 21: OK.
  • 119: OK.

-- This is a bit better but the first two look like more of the same -- slight inaccuracies in the sourcing. Let me know whether I'm missing something. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:15, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Christie, I've ticked off those couple of issues as well. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 11:23, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Those fixes look good. To pass a spot check, I need to have confidence that this sort of slight inaccuracy has been cleaned up throughout the article. Can you take a pass through and see if you can spot any other similar issues? It's clear to me there's nothing inaccurate in the article -- we just need to be sure we're sourcing it precisely. Let me know when you want me to have another look, and I'll pick another ten footnotes to check. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:28, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@4TheWynne: How is this going? Gog the Mild (talk) 12:28, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Mike Christie and Gog the Mild, just in the middle of doing it now – I've been moving house and picked up more hours at work, so have had a pretty hectic week, but will have all of the sources checked soon, as I'd love to get this done and see the work here pay off. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 13:22, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK, go for it. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 12:49, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Will do -- probably later today. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:51, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Third try. Footnote numbers refer to this version.

  • 93: OK.
  • 35: OK.
  • 169: This does support the award, but you might add extra citations to support the roles you list -- ambassador, talent coordinator, graduate intern.
    • Whoops – I had an earlier source that I meant to change it to, as it supports the text, but must have accidentally closed it before making the change; fixed now.
  • 173: OK.
  • 144: OK.
  • 60: OK.
  • 135: OK.
  • 9: Used to support "Pearce sought dispensation from the local league to continue playing alongside boys as a teenager". It does support that, but the next part of the sentence mentions that she was disallowed -- that's supported by [3] which is paywalled so I can't see it. It looks (from [9]) as though she was initially given dispensation? But per [3] it was later withdrawn? If so I'd make it "was later disallowed". This isn't a problem with the spotcheck, just a suggestion, but I can't see [3] so I may be wrong.
    • I don't know if you can be 100% certain that she was given dispensation from "At one stage she needed dispensation...", so I've changed "sought" to "needed" per the ABC source, but I am certain that the Australian source said that she was disallowed.
  • 24: OK.
  • 4: OK.

Just one minor tweak needed, to 169. That's not enough to prevent me passing this spotcheck once you fix that. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:10, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome – done. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 13:45, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like you haven't done it yet? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:58, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I swapped the Age source for this one – is there something I'm missing? 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 14:03, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I missed that! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:43, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pass. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:43, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All good; thanks heaps for the spot checks – where to from here? 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 14:50, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing for you to do -- just wait till the coords comment or promote or another reviewer comes along. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:04, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 20 April 2022 [28].

Time in Finland[edit]

Nominator(s): LunaEatsTuna (talk) 02:07, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the history and geography of the time zone used in Finland as well as its maintenance. As far as I know, no time zone-related article has yet to achieve FA status, and so I really wish to expand and improve the coverage of this niche yet highly important subject (It indirectly involves almost all 7.9 billion people!). Additionally, the quality of Time in X articles (even important ones such as the United Kingdom) is rather poor at the moment, and so I also hope that perhaps this article could help towards possibly setting a standard for future Time in X articles I wish to improve. This reached GA in January 2022 (thank you Mujinga) and received a PR in March (thanks to Buidhe). It has changed significantly since it achieved GA status, and I think it is worthy of nomination for FA now. Lastly, I also wish to thank LPfi, whose lengthy edit to the history section in October last year unknowingly inspired me to work on this article. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 02:07, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Buidhe[edit]

  • Image review—pass no licensing issues found. (t · c) buidhe 02:14, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by ChrisThe Dude - Support[edit]

  • "In the 19th century, a single time zone across Finland was to be needed" => "In the 19th century, a single time zone across Finland was needed"
  • "between Finland its western neighbours" - think there's a word missing there
  • "Finland's observance of Eastern Europe Time, while other countries to the west used Central European Time at UTC+01:00 caused" - need a comma before "caused"
  • "with the adjustment made one hour earlier at 0:2:00 EET" - that time doesn't look right
  • "Hours can be marked with leading zeros especially for the early hours of the night where necessary for clarity [...] but the hour after midnight and later in the morning, the leading zero is usually omitted" - I don't understand this, the two parts seem to contradict each other......?
  • That's all I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:11, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done! And I reworded the sentence you mention last to be more comprehensive. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 00:15, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Aoba47[edit]

It is a shame that this FAC has not attracted more reviewers as it is nice to see a different topic being represented in this space. I am by no means an expert on this topic as I do not even have a full grasp on time in the United States, but I hope my more outsider position will help in at least some way. My comments are below:

  • For this part, two hours ahead of coordinated universal time (UTC+02:00), UTC+02:00 is linked twice. I would remove the first instance as it is not necessary in my opinion and it would avoid a sea of blue.
  • I am confused by the mentions of daylight saving time in the lead. The first paragraph says it has been observed since 1983, but the second paragraph says it was done away with at some unspecified date. Could you clarify this for me?
  • If Finland is linked in the lede, it should be linked in the article itself for consistency.
  • I find the citation placement for this part, advanced 20 minutes and 10.9 seconds to Eastern European Time, to be rather cumbersome. Why not just move the citation to the end of the sentence?
  • I'd link the Soviet Union as other geographic areas get linked.
  • Daylight saving time is linked twice in the article.
  • I would split the "Proposals to end daylight saving time" paragraph into two. I would start a new paragraph with this sentence, As of November 2021, as it seems like a natural break to me. I suggest this because it is a rather long paragraph so I think breaking it into two will help with readability.
  • I'd remove the following links: telephone, Internet, computer networks, and internet connection. I am encouraging this as this are rather common concepts that a majority of readers will already understand so the link is not particularly necessary.

I hope this review is helpful. I have focused on the prose as I do not know Finnish so I cannot really delve into the sources in any meaningful way. Once my comments have been addressed, I will be more than happy to support this FAC for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 22:37, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Very helpful! I have made the relevant changes, and reworded your aforementioned sentence on DST to instead read "Daylight saving time was first attempted once in 1942". Hopefully this should avoid the confusion. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 14:54, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for addressing everything. I support this FAC for promotion based on the prose. Best of luck with the FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 16:31, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Edwininlondon[edit]

Nice to see this type of article here at FAC. Some comments:

  • The opening sentence is a bit long. Do we really need to have "including Åland" right here?
  • Removed.
  • In the 19th century, a single time zone across Finland was needed --> would be better if it starts with what was before 19th century
  • Done.
  • Daylight saving time was first attempted once in 1942, but abandoned as not useful. In 2017, --> missing here is when it was re-introduced (1981)
  • Added.
  • to consider abolishing daylight saving. --> to consider abolishing daylight saving time.
  • Fixed.
  • and each city followed their own --> and what happened in the villages?
  • Changed to "localities" instead, sources mention that towns and villages used their own solar time as well.
  • each city followed their own solar time. In 1909 --> This is puzzling to me: at first I thought 1909 was a typo and should be 1809, but then realised that is not even "before the 19th century". Maybe just drop the year and say something a long the lines of "This meant that .."
  • Changed.
  • via telegraph --> when was the telegraph introduced in Finalnd?
  • Not here in the lead, but in the body it would be good.
  • Added.
  • Kaipiainen, just east of Kouvola. --> is anything known about time further east?
  • I could not find anything.
  • In 1882, clock synchronisations by telephone were arranged between Finland and Sweden --> anything about Russia? Especially since the topic was train to St Petersburg.
  • It appears I misread the source: synchronisations to Helsinki mean time were arranged between the Finnish Meteorological Institute and Sweden's National Meteorological Institute for geo measurements. Changed accordingly.
  • In 1888, the Diet of Finland (a legislative assembly) .. (Finland was --> 2 sets of parentheses is maybe a bit too much in one sentence
  • Perhaps "(a legislative assembly)" can be removed? Diet of Finland is wikilinked.
  • Yes
  • was proposed in the Diet --> by the Diet?
  • Fixed.
  • On second reading this made it worse, sorry! It now looks as if the Diet disagreed with itself. I assume that the proposal was made by the government and parliament voted and rejected it. If so, then perhaps "proposed by the government"?
  • Does it look alright now? :3
  • Yes
  • without success --> anything known about why it was rejected?
  • Expanded.
  • Nevertheless, the standard railway time spread to common usage throughout the country --> if there is a bit more about how and why this happened, that would be good.
  • Expanded. Should look alright now?
  • proposed that Finland adopt Eastern European Time --> link Eastern European Time
  • Added.
  • to become the standard time zone for the country --> ideally there is a bit more on this: e.g. impact, reactions by the residents, how did it compare to neighbouring countries
  • Expanded. Seems like it was a very easy switch with no objections until the proposal of CET in 1929, so there may be little to expand upon.
  • caused difficulties for businesses --> would be good to give examples. The next sentence has one, but it would be better placed here perhaps
  • Changed. Does it look alright?
  • Content yes, but wording a bit sub-optimal with repetition of "caused"
  • Fixed.
  • proposed that the Finnish government switch --> needs a bit of a rephrase, because now it looks as if they propose the government switches but the rest of the country not, so perhaps "switch the time in Finland to"
  • Fixed.
  • the European Union directive --> the name European Union was not in use in 1980, it only came in 1992
  • Fixed.

More later. Edwininlondon (talk) 16:57, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm not keen on the structure regarding daylights saving time. I can see the argument to have some of it in the history section, but now we have some repetition and wrongly placed info I think. I'm not sure how to make it perfect, but let me try to make some concrete suggestions:
  • first of all, Further information: Summer time in Europe should move to the header "Daylight saving time"
  • Moved.
  • As Finland is at high latitude, the sun ... time coordinated with other countries. --> apart from the tone of this being a bit too informal (still) and vague (as an advantage?) and unremarkable (the sun shines in the mornings in the summer everywhere), should this not move up? It seems to convey the reason why it was changed, so perhaps better suited in the history
  • Reckon it could be removed all together?
  • No, I do think it is a point worth making that in summer it is pointless. Perhaps something along the lines of "Finland's high latitude means that in summer the nights are short (e.g. in Helsinki in July there are only 5 hours between sunset and sunrise), and daylight saving time has no impact on the population. In spring and autumn it does, in addition to the advantage of keeping the time coordinated with other countries"
  • Implemented. Look alright?
  • would be healthy for Finns --> any specific reasons given?
  • Changed: the society claimed it would save power and food (food??).
  • Intriguing. But should it not be singular "means that" instead of "mean that"?
  • Fixed.
  • Finland has observed daylight saving time since 1981 --> I can live with duplication, given that some readers might jump from the index straight here, but the bit that follows "following the European Union directive on daylight savings time, with the adjustment made one hour earlier at 02:00 EET for the first two years" should not be in this section. The first two years bit should be in the history.
  • Fixed, should be okay now?
  • Yes
  • was reviewing the practice --> repetition of practice
  • Fixed.
  • As of November 2021 --> any more recent updates?
  • None from Yle in English or Finnish. EU has yet to release any updates either.
  • Geography and solar time --> a map would be good, the tripoint photo could go to an earlier section
  • It used to have file:Tzdiff-Europe-winter.png, or would you prefer a different image? Also, I would personally be fine with removing the tripoint photograph all together if need be, as the tripoint is ultimately of little importance.
  • file:Tzdiff-Europe-winter.png confuses me. I was thinking of a map that shows the 30th meridian and some of the cities mentioned in the text. We don't need another time zone image, the top one does that trick. It may not be possible to find something and that is fine too, it would just be nice to help the reader. If found, I agree the tripoint can go.
  • Great, will look for something.
  • located outside of 22°30' East --> is outside the right word? is simply west not better?
  • Changed.
  • Finland's standard meridian --> what does that mean? The meridian article doesn't define it either. Plus the infobox calls it "central meridian". One term should be used, not two
  • A standard meridian is "a meridian used for determining standard time". The 30th meridian east is the standard meridian of Eastern European Time. I will edit the infobox accordingly and see about adding standard meridian it to an article somewhere.
  • @Edwininlondon: Is it acceptable to link to Wiktionary for this term? I do see it as notable enough for its own article or an explicit mention in an article.
  • I don't think I have ever seen a Wiktionary link in an FA, so my suggestion is to a) add a Standard meridian section to the meridian article and link to that section; b) fix the infobox template and change "central meridian" into "standard meridian" with a link to this new section. In your source the phrase "central meridian" is never used. A quick search on the internet suggests that "central meridian" means something else, not time zone related.
  • Because of Finland's high latitude, ... and Russia easier. --> this sentence feels misplaced. What follows and what comes before it are closely related and this sentence breaks the flow. Also, I would drop the second part from "which is only" until the end, because it feels a bit repetitive
  • Fixed.
  • At Muotkavaara – a tripoint border between Finland, Norway and Russia – three time zones meet during Finland's winter time; --> commas instead of – is fine I think. And should the semicolon at the end not be a colon?
  • You are correct! Fixed.
  • in Nikel --> why mention a city? the timezone is for a whole part of the country, not just the city
  • Fixed. Thought it was worth mentioning as Russia has several time zones but it seems strange now.
  • leap seconds --> I would expect a bit more on this: when was the first time this was done, how often has it been done, when was the last time?
  • Expanded. Thoughts?
  • Nice work.
  • "21–04" to avoid confusion with 24:00 --> why deviate from the standard notation twice here? Both should use the period. And I'm not convinced this is a good example of the point being made about leading zeros
  • Changed to 24.00.
  • OK, but sorry I still don't get it: we're talking about leading 0s for the hours and 21–04 does not have a leading 0, and also has an unexpected - as separator. Can it not just be "(e.g. 04:00)" and drop the "confusion with 24:00"? What do the sources say?
  • @Edwininlondon: Oh, I see! The example is meant to read "21 to 04", as in "open from 21 to 04", as "open from 21 to 4" might make people think it was open from 21 to 24. I was actually confused by this myself! Evidently, It should definitely be changed to something less confusing, any ideas on what to?
  • I did some edits, after reading the source (thx to Google Translate!)
  • Thank you – that looks great!
  • but the hour after midnight and later in the morning --> comma before but and something is missing, perhaps "for the hour"?
  • Fixed.
  • "9–21" --> (e.g. "1.21" and "9.21")
  • just checking if I get this right: acceptable is 00:21 and 0.21 and 1.21 and 02.21 and 2.21 and 07.21 and 9.21. But not acceptable are: 01.21 and 09.21?
  • spelled out using the 12-hour clock --> does this work for all time or only the whole hour? I mean, does one spell out 9.21 as nine hours and twenty one minutes in the morning? (Languages can get quite odd with this: in Dutch one can actually say "nine minutes before half ten")
  • I shall consult the source.
  • Finland previously used the 12-hour clock --> and how did notation look like then? Something like the English am and pm?
  • I will see if there are any sources for this.
  • I cannot find a source for this specifically.
  • Europe/Mariehamn for Åland. "AX" --> anything on why there are 2 entries that are identical?
  • IANA gives tzs for individual territories rather than UTC offsets.
  • See also: always tempting to add many links, but now I'm thinking "where is Sweden?" That "bordering country of Finland" feels overkill

I'll look at sources later. Edwininlondon (talk) 12:09, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Edwininlondon: I believe I have addressed all your points now. Very thorough, thank you so much! For your last points, I have removed some text from Notation, does it look slightly more comprehensive and non-confusing now? LunaEatsTuna (talk) 01:38, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, notation does look better, except for the "21–04" to avoid confusion with 24.00"
  • Reading over the article once more, I do feel there is a bit of a gap. The birth of international coordination of time is missing. The 1897 proposal talks about UTC+2. Why was that? By the 1919 proposal EET did already exist. When was EET created? By whom? Who adopted it immediately? Was Finland involved in its creation? I think the article would benefit from an extra paragraph dedicated to international time coordination in the history section, including a link to the International Meridian Conference.
  • I have expanded on this. Thoughts?
  • Nice work
  • Since 1983, the change has been made an hour earlier. --> any reasons given? Did the neighbouring countries do the same?
  • TZ database says they did not, and the book source does not mention why. I will try to find another source for this, such as an announcement from a newspaper.
  • That would be good.
  • I cannot seem to find anything, and the 15 March 2007 source from Yle about DST in the country which is already cited in the article does not give any reason either.

That's it on prose from me. I promise. Edwininlondon (talk) 19:35, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy with the changes. I support on prose. Later I will look at source formatting, quality and will do a spotcheck, once mujinga has done their review. Edwininlondon (talk) 16:56, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from mujinga[edit]

  • I enjoyed reviewing this for GA and will give it a read again once the comments from Edwininlondon are dealt with. Just wanted to say now that I agree the first sentence is a bit unwieldy and would suggest breaking it up or starting with a different sentence. Mujinga (talk) 10:15, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll give the article a read now after replying at Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates#FAC_instructions_on_subheads Mujinga (talk) 10:58, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "each locality followed their own solar time" ⇒ "each locality followed ITS own solar time" - in lead and body
  • Done.
  • "would feel too alien for Finns" - I'm lost, wouldn't standardised time be helpful?
  • I know right *-* The source is relatively vague; I will try to find a more explanatory source for it. Found! It has been clarified and expanded.
  • " it continued to observe daylight saving time in-line with said directive, however is now bound by European Union law to follow it" - suggest " it continued to observe daylight saving time in-line with said directive AND is now bound by European Union law to follow it."
  • Done.
  • "must approve the proposal" - suggest "were required to approve the proposal"
  • Done.
  • "has yet to be obtained as the European Union" - suggest "had yet to be obtained as the European Union" since Nov 2021 is now in past, or can you update this?
  • Done. No updates from EU yet.
  • on references:
    • is there a reason for UTC–UTC(MIKE) not UTC–UTC (MIKE)? i do see the source uses UTC–UTC(MIKE)
    • Tilastoja Suomen ilmastosta 1981–2010 (PDF) can have an english translation
  • Added.
  • on the lead, as we discussed back at the GA review, more from the article can be summarized in the lead, eg a sentence each about maintenance and geography. notation and IANA time zone database perhaps dont need summarizing, but interested what you think
  • I have added on maintenance, geography and notation. I wholeheartedly agree IANA should not be mentioned in the lede. Honestly I am slightly 'meh' on notation, but what do you think?
  • By notation, do you mean " Finland uses the 24 hour clock notation." ? I agree, it feels a bit tacked on. Maybe see what someone else says, or if you want to delete it again, go ahead. Otherwise the lead is great now! Mujinga (talk) 18:00, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • also the first sentence reads too awkwardly to me. for me, "Finland uses Eastern European Time[a] (EET) during the winter as standard time and Eastern European Summer Time[b] (EEST) during the summer as daylight saving time" reads much better.
  • you could then add in "two hours ahead of coordinated universal time (UTC+02:00)" and "three hours ahead of coordinated universal time (UTC+03:00)" in a following sentence if necessary
  • I have altered the first sentence of the lead, your thoughts?
  • Reading much better I would say! Mujinga (talk) 18:00, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • finally, the caption "The Helsinki University Observatory, on which Finland's local mean time is based" is a bit confusign for me, what exactly do you want to say? i feel like "where Finland's local mean time is measured" would work better?
  • Done, upon reading other articles that seems to be the correct term to use.
  • that's it from me, great to see this article improved from the GA review and here at FAC! Mujinga (talk) 11:29, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Mujinga: And thank you for the GA and now FA review! You have greatly aided in helping to develop and improve this article :3 LunaEatsTuna (talk) 23:19, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

I'll do this, probably tomorrow. @WP:FAC coordinators: , I assume this needs a spot check too? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:28, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A spot check would be preferable. Hog Farm Talk 22:38, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe the nom has any FAs, so it would be required. (t · c) buidhe 22:42, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll start with the spot check, just in case that leads to any changes to the sources. I'll look at eight footnotes, picked more or less at random. For the Finnish sources, I'm using Google Translate, which I know can be misleading, so please excuse any notes below based on mistranslations. Footnote numbers refer to this version.

  • 36: OK.
  • 60: Used to support "VTT also maintains a radio transmitter in Espoo that transmits a high-precision time signal produced by an atomic clock and hydrogen monitors that maintain Finland's official time zone at a frequency of 25 megahertz to make sure the official timekeeping devices in Finland do not fall behind". I used Google Translate to translate the page cited, but I can't find these details on that page. Should this go to another page? And I see that VTT is in Espoo, but the only source for that seems to be the contact page at that website, so I would suggest citing that page too.
You are right! I have added the correct source ("SI units in Finland, time and frequency"). I looked around, but actually I cannot see anything on VTT maintaining any kind of radio transmitter, so I have removed said sentence.
  • 19: Used to support "Finland became independent in 1917, and on 10 December 1919 the Geographical Society of Finland [fi] wrote a proposal to the government that Finland adopt Eastern European Time". I think you need a separate cite for the date of Finnish independence (to avoid adding another source, you could use p. 87 of Heikki (1999), which mentions it). The source is a newspaper dated 10 December 1919, so it seems the Society's proposal must have been written before that date. Per Google Translate, I think that from the second-to-last paragraph I can tell the Society met to agree on this in October. Can you check the date, and quote and translate for me the sentences in the source that support the whole sentence?
  • 6: Used to support "A ball was released at noon and its falling was noted optically at the railway station and the clock adjusted accordingly. If there was fog impairing the ball from being seen from that far away, noon would additionally be announced by a shot from a cannon. The correct time was relayed to the other stations via electrical telegraph". I think you need to extend the cite to include page 83, which covers the cannon and electric telegraph. Google Translate says the cannon was used when it was "rainy", can you confirm that the source is really talking about fog?
Fixed. It does say rainy! I somehow mistook Sateinen (rainy) as Sumuinen (foggy). Also extended the citation.
  • 18 & 21: Used to support: "On 30 April 1921 at midnight on Walpurgis Night, the official time was advanced 20 minutes and 10.9 seconds to Eastern European Time, to become the standard time zone for the country" 18 is OK; it appears to cite everything except the name of Walpurgis Night. 21 is OK, again except for "Walpurgis Night". I'm curious as to why you mention Walpurgis Night instead of just giving the date -- does it have some particularly cultural relevance to Finns or to the article? Either way, if you keep it I would provide a cite for the name of the night.
It is mentioned in page 87 of Aikakirja, which references that it was purposefully chosen as such, so it may be relevant to the article.
"Valtio- neuvosto päätti, että muutos tehdään vuoden 1921 vappuyönä."
'The Council of State [that is, the government] decided that the change would be made on Walpurgis night 1921.'
Walpurgis night is called vappu in Finnish and yönä means night, but in Finnish yönä refers vaguely to the time between 11 p.m. and 6–7 a.m. So, "vappuyönä" refers to the eve of Walpurgis night (midnight 30 April 1921, as stated in the article).
  • 14: OK.
  • 23: Used to support "On 19 June 1929, the Finnish Post and Telegraph Board proposed to the Finnish government that Finland's standard time be switched to Central European Time". It looks as though this has the same problem as 19, above; the date given in the article is the same as the date of the newspaper. I was unable to find and translate the supporting text from the source; can you quote and translate the relevant text for me?
  • That is a mistake on my part, a date is not mentioned anywhere. The beginning is just right of "Turn kaupungin 700-vuotisjuhlat" underneath the giant image (first page):
"Posti- ja lennätinhallitus on lähetlänyt valtioneuvostolle seuraavan kirielman: Maaliskuun 12 paivänä 1920 annetussa asetuksessa yhteisen keskiajan käytäntöönottamisesta Suomessa säddetaan […; they mention a short history of EET and state their reasoning for the proposed change, article cuts off and then continues on page 10] Suomen tulisi siirtyä Keski-Europan aikaan."
'The Post and Telegraph Board has sent the following letter to the Council of State: 'The Decree of 12 March 1920 on the implementation of the common Central Time in Finland provides as follows […] Finland should move to Central European Time'

-- That's it for the spot check for now; I'll wait to do the source review till after we're done with this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:48, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The only point I think is still outstanding is footnote 19; you've added the cite for Finnish independence, but the date for the newspaper article can't be the date for Suomen Maantieteellinen Seura's proposal. Once you've addressed that I will check another few footnotes, since we found a couple of issues in the ones I've checked so far. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:42, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the slow-ish response time. For your final concern, there is no date given: the first sentence states that the society set up their own committee for proposing a time zone on 17 May 1919. The article just references that the proposal was formally made in late 1919 (I cannot specifically see it was December). I wish to also thank you for conducting this FA review, clearly the footnotes need some work- LunaEatsTuna (talk) 13:32, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That fix looks good to me. I'll check a couple more footnotes next. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:45, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I started doing more checks but almost immediately found that [53] is used to cite "results in a difference of approximately 48 minutes of solar time", which it doesn't appear to support. Can you go through the article and check that all the cites are in the right place and support what they cite? I don't want to fail the spotcheck, and the best way to avoid that is for you to do a check first. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:15, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[53] is not a citation for that – solar time was calculated by comparing the points of 19°07′54″E and 31°35′12″E. I will remove this as no such citation actually exists. In any case, I will look through the citations now. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 14:27, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Mike Christie: Okay, I have looked through every citation, and ended up correcting several, including the removal of duplicate or unnecessary ones. It should hopefully be fine now… LunaEatsTuna (talk) 18:04, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Second pass spot check. Footnote numbers refer to this version.

  • 15: OK.
  • 21 & 23: used to support "The proposal failed to gain support, as the Ostrobothnia Chamber of Commerce released a statement in September arguing that Finnish companies were adequately adapting to the two time zones." I think this is OK, based on Google Translate, but can you quote and translate the relevant bits?
  • 37: used to support "At the time, the European Commission was reviewing it." This is paywalled so can you quote the part of the source that supports this? Actually I also think you could just cut it -- the previous sentence says what it is reviewing and the next sentence talks about more substantive actions, so this sentence seems superfluous.
  • 44: OK.
  • 8: OK.
  • 59: Used to support "Since 2009, VTT's official time has remained within 30 nanoseconds of UTC". OK, but I suggest making it "since the end of 2009", since the last anomaly occurred in late 2009.

Just 21 & 23 to quote, unless you decide to keep 37. Once this is OK I will do the source review. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:28, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Should be good now. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 19:09, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that looks good; the spot check passes. I'll do the source formatting and reliability review later today -- shouldn't take long as I've already looked at most of the sources. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:37, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting & reliability review -- footnote numbers refer to this version.

  • It should be "p." in the citations for a single page, and "pp." for multiple pages; check footnotes 3,6, & 29.
  • For book citations you can either include publisher locations or omit them, but you should be consistent. 1 and 10 have locations; 7, 45, 46, and 60 do not. They're also missing from everything in the bibliography and further reading, so it would probably be easiest to omit them from 1 and 10.
  • Can we get an ISBN for 45? And for Heikki (1999) and (2013) and Simojoki in the bibliography.

The sources all look reliable; there are a couple of newspapers which look fine for the purposes they're used for. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:01, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Done, but I cannot seem to get an ISBN for Aikakirja 2013. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 23:03, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passes. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:56, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Z1720[edit]

Non-expert prose review.

  • "required precise timetables that earlier means of transport such as sailing ships and stage-coaches did not require." Suggest adding commas to separate the aside, as so: "required precise timetables that earlier means of transport, such as sailing ships and stage-coaches, did not require."
  • "In spring and autumn it does, in addition to the advantage of keeping the time coordinated with other countries." Although hinted at, the impacts of daylight saving time during spring and autumn are not explained. Please add some information about this.
  • I added Template:abbr for instances of e.g. in the "Notation" section. Please revert if this is not useful.
  • Note d might need a citation.

Those are my thoughts. Z1720 (talk) 13:10, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have addressed your concerns. Thoughts? And abbr. looks good! LunaEatsTuna (talk) 20:54, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support my concerns have been addressed. Z1720 (talk) 01:04, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 18 April 2022 [29].

Battle of Glasgow, Missouri[edit]

Nominator(s): Hog Farm Talk 16:38, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A cousin to Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Capture of Sedalia/archive1. The Confederates need weapons, so they raid a town on the Missouri River, getting weapons and supplies and burning a steamboat. Hog Farm Talk 16:38, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild[edit]

Having just looked at this for ACR I may as well recuse and rereview it.

  • "gave Abraham Lincoln, who supported continuing the war, an edge in the 1864 United States presidential election over George B. McClellan, who favored ending the war." This doesn't come across as relevant to the rest of the article. Suggest either deleting or expanding a little. Preferably the latter.
    • I've added a sentence about Southern hopes for McClellan
  • "who had fewer than 10,000 men on hand". Any ideas on the split of infantry and cavalry and if there were any artillery?
    • I believe it was nominally split between infantry and cavalry, but I'm not finding good breakdowns between the two or much comment on artillery, with the sole exception breakdowns of Ewing's scratch force at Pilot Knob. Collins just gives the overall total; Suderow (a newly-added source) just gives muster totals from August; Sinisi talks about reduced strength due to a botched vaccination but not a force breakdown, and I can't find anything super useful in Lause, Kennedy, or Nichols.
Optional (just a thought): Consider adding something like 'The breakdown of this force is unclear.' 'It is not known how much, if any, artillery was available to Rosecrans.
Unfortunately, the sources don't even say that. They're just silent on the issue.
  • "who had fewer than 10,000 men on hand"; "whose garrison was increased from 1,000 men to 7,000". Was that 7,000 of the 10,000? Or had additional Union troops entered the state? If so, from where?
    • I've clarified that Rosecrans received reinforcements at St. Louis, and that the increase to 7,000 was from bringing troops in from elsewhere in the state and from calling up more militia
  • " Attacks against the post on September 27 failed ... and decided to divert the aim of his advance from St. Louis westwards to Jefferson City." Yet the map shows him continuing towards St Louis until 1 October and only turning west at Franklin.
    • I've added some detail about what was going on here from a book specifically about the Pilot Knob fiasco
Ah. That's better.
  • "Price determined that Jefferson City was too strong to attack, and began moving westwards along the course of the Missouri River." I don't understand - the map shows the Confederates turning west and following the Missouri a week before they reached Jefferson City.
    • Rephrased
  • "On the 11th, Sanborn moved north and skirmished with the Confederates, who abandoned the town". Which town?
    • Clarified (Boonville)
  • "and then crossed the Missouri at Arrow Rock". Is it known how they crossed?
    • Added (ferry)
  • "to effectively fire across it". Do you mean 'to fire across it effectively'?
    • Done
  • "The Union had no artillery available." Perhaps 'The Union force had no artillery available.'?
    • Done
  • "The line was anchored by". What line?
    • Clarified
  • "drove away some Confederates from the riverbank". Maybe 'drove some Confederates away from the riverbank'?
    • Done
  • "Clark's force, delayed an hour while trying to cross the river". Which river?
    • The Missouri. Clarified
  • "on both sides of their line." I think you mean 'on both ends of their line.'.
    • Corrected
  • "give a maximum number of thirty-two wounded and eight to eleven killed". Why the switch to giving figures in words?
    • This was a response to a comment of yours in the ACR - ""32 wounded and eight to eleven killed". Could we have these numbers either all spelt out or all as numerals?" I can switch to numerals if preferred, although I find using the numerals for the small numbers a bit jarring
I find the switch jarring! The MoS leans towards standardisation but I am happy to leave it as a personal preference issue.
  • "An engine removed from the riverbed at Glasgow during World War II". Is it significent that it was removed during WWII? If not, suggest just stating the year. (Or 'during the early 1940s'.)
    • Source doesn't give a year. I've specified that it occurred during a WWII scrap drive to indicate the significance (surprisingly, I'm having trouble finding a particularly good place to link the WWII scrap drive concept)

Gog the Mild (talk) 12:31, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Gog the Mild: - Replied above - one not done (for now), and I'm having trouble finding something for the breakdown of Rosecrans's 10,000. I've also added two new sources used briefly for background information. The Suderow book published by SEMO should be fine for reliability, and Battle Cry of Freedom is basically above reproach there. My formatting might need checked though. Hog Farm Talk 05:01, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. One very optional suggestion above, but I am supporting and unwatching. Gog the Mild (talk) 09:07, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass[edit]

When I did the source review for this article's ACR nomination five days ago I did so to FAC standard, so I shall merely repeat my conclusions:

The sources used all appear to me to be reliable. I am unable to find any other sources which would materially add to the content of the article. The sources referred to seem to support the text cited, insofar as I have checked them. I found no unattributed close paraphrasing. I consider the sources to be current, as these things go. A reasonable mix of perspectives are represented. Everything that I would expect to be cited, is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gog the Mild (talk • contribs) 18:57, March 4, 2022 (UTC)

Image review—pass[edit]

Per ACR (t · c) buidhe 04:04, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support on 1a, 2, 3, and 4 per my review at the ACR. I have no additional comments at this time. (t · c) buidhe 00:23, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SandyGeorgia[edit]

Support on all criteria (except images, reviewed by Buidhe). My review is on talk; nitpicks addressed. A U. S. Supreme Court case resulted from the fire started by Harding, related to an insurance company claim. The findings left insurance company practices intact, so the case has no lasting significance, is of no significance to the Battle article, and amounts to "just another lawsuit", ho-hum. It needs not be mentioned to meet comprehensiveness. If Insurance Co. v. Boon were of any significance, it should have an article, but I can find no reason for that to be the case, as it changed nothing about insurance claims during war. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:25, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit surprised that none of the print sources I consulted mentioned it. Hog Farm Talk 15:32, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Because it's inconsequential; I only found it because it is mentioned on article talk (I always, and believe reviewers always should) review the article talk page, and its archives, in search of POV swept under the rug or comprehensiveness issues :0 Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:37, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie[edit]

  • Suggest linking Abraham Lincoln, 1864 United States presidential election, George B. McClellan, militiamen.
    • Done
  • I assume, since you mention how many of Rosecrans' men were militiamen, that this implies they are weaker troops than the regular army. If so, could we add an adjective or two to make that clearer? Perhaps "poorly trained", or "less experienced", or "untested", or whatever applies.
    • I've clarified with "without experience in major battles"
  • "and militia, including by calling up some of the Enrolled Missouri Militia": "including by calling up" is a bit ugly. Could we do something like "and militia, including some of the Enrolled Missouri Militia, who were called up after the Battle of Pilot Knob" or "who were called up at short notice", or whatever the sources will support?
    • Went with the short notice one
  • You mention Bloody Bill Anderson joining the Confederates, and the dates given make it appear that it was on or after October 9. Our article on Anderson (which is featured, as it happens) says he met Price in Boonville on October 6. Is one of the two articles incorrect, or is the sequence more complicated than it appears?
    • Collins implies that it was on the 10th. Nichols says directly in two places that it occurred on the 11th. Sinisi also places it at the 11th, discussing the event in some detail (Price was giving a speech, Anderson's boys rode up, Price made them get rid of the scalps, Anderson gave Price a brace of pistols, Price sent Anderson away with orders he didn't follow). I'm not sure if Wood in the Anderson article is wrong, or if October 6 is the day Anderson began riding towards Price
      • User:Mark Arsten hasn't edited since 2020, and in fact lost his admin bits, so perhaps HF you will just make adjustments needed to William T. Anderson so we don't have to see it at FAR :) :) (Nice review, Mike Christie! Now we have an example of what I do not mean when I use the term prose nitpicks, as these are all issues of substance.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:05, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • Brownlee's Gray Ghosts of the Confederacy discusses Anderson in-depth, and places the meeting on October 11, as well. Brownlee also doesn't mention the bit with the trained horse as well (see below). Hog Farm Talk 20:25, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          Thanks for cleaning that up. And thanks for the compliment, Sandy! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:20, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again referring to the article on Anderson, a footnote saying that Anderson ignored Price's instructions might be worthwhile.
    • Footnote added
  • The description of the Union defences is not very clear to me (I have read very little military history so have no instincts about what to expect). I would expect the defensive line of a location to encircle that location, is the line described specifically a defensive line set up in expectation of the Confederate attack?
  • The attempt by Clark to surrender a battle which was shortly won seems unusual enough to mention in the lead.
    • Added. It's not the most unusual I'm aware of - I'm currently reading a book about the Second Battle of Springfield, and it mentions the Confederate commander there send a surrender offer to a Union force after he had spent an entire day unsuccessfully trying to capture the place.
  • Another question about Anderson: this article says he fatally beat someone on the night of October 21-22; the article on Anderson talks about a wealthy Union supporter whom Anderson himself beat, partly because he had freed his slaves. Are these the same incident? They don't match up but even Anderson probably didn't beat multiple residents to death in just a few days.
    • Per Lause, this is apparently the same incident, although none of Sinisi, Nichols, Lause, Collins, or Monnett (the most relevant sources I have handy) attribute his motivation to freeing his slaves. I've added a mention of the rape from Lause. Likewise, the claim of trampling him to death with a horse does not appear in any of the sources I have, and frankly Wood in the Anderson article isn't a strong enough source for more extraordinary claims like a specially trained horse stomping people to death (full disclosure: I've used a different book by Wood as a source for two FAs, but not for any extraordinary claims like that) Nichols and Lause imply the primary interest was monetary.
  • There's no location given for Suderow & House.
    • Added
  • How are you sorting "An Industrial History of Missouri"? If it's by title, I'd expect it to precede Kennedy; if by "Missouri Bureau of Labor Statistics", which could be regarded as the author, I would expect it to precede Monnett.
    • I'm not sure how I was trying to sort it; I've moved it above Kennedy.

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:07, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Re the Anderson article - I've been able to adjust the wording of the date of meeting Price (confirmed in Wood that it was the date he left), and the bit about the trained horse is supported by the reliable Castel (confirmed via google books), so the Anderson article looks fine now. I also spot-checked a few other things in a copy of Wood from a local library. Hog Farm Talk 23:13, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. And I always think it's a pleasant surprise when an article you link to from an article you take to FAC turns out to be featured as well; it gives me the feeling that we're making progress. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:20, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Very clear and readable, and a pleasure to review. My only suggestion, which doesn't affect my support, would be to add a map showing the defensive lines and positions, if the sources are definite enough to make that possible. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:20, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@WP:FAC coordinators: - May I have a dispensation for a second nomination since this one seems to maturing nicely? Hog Farm Talk 04:34, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead. (t · c) buidhe 04:37, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Z1720[edit]

Non-expert prose review.

  • " including the disastrous Battle of Mine Creek, where many men were captured." Remove comma. If "including the disastrous Battle of Mine Creek" was removed, the sentence would not make sense so these two sections should not be separated by a punctuation mark.
    • Removed the comma. I'm never very sure if a comma belongs in a spot or not.
  • "Price's Missouri Expedition" is mentioned in the lede and the infobox, but this phrase/title is not used in the article's body. Considering that this has their own Wikipedia article, can a sentence or phrase be added somewhere (with a citation) that specifies that this battle is part of an event known as Price's Missouri Expedition?
    • Mentioned directly now, in a spot that doesn't require a separate citation because the source was already covering that.
  • I checked the rest of the lede and infobox and everything is in the article.

Those are my thoughts. A well-written article. Z1720 (talk) 12:40, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Z1720: - Thanks for the review! Both points should be taken care of. Hog Farm Talk 13:11, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. My comments have been addressed. Z1720 (talk) 13:15, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 18 April 2022 [30].

Neutral Milk Hotel[edit]

Nominator(s): Famous Hobo (talk) 09:24, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Neutral Milk Hotel, an important and influential indie rock band from the late 90s. One thing I should note is that regarding Adam Clair's book, I only own the E-book version which uses Reflowable text, so I can't include specific page numbers. However, I'll be happy to provide the necessary quotes during the FAC process if needed for spotchecking. Famous Hobo (talk) 09:24, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please fix the following harv error: "McGonigal 1998; McGonigal 2008 Harv error: this link doesn't point to any citation." (t · c) buidhe 09:49, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Buidhe: Fixed Famous Hobo (talk) 10:27, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Wetrorave[edit]

This is one of those bands that I always tell myself I have to listen to but end up forgetting about hehe. Comments coming soon. Sorry if it seems as if I've read the article in reverse btw. Wetrorave (talk) 18:47, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Extended content
  • "Neutral Milk Hotel songs explored" - "explored" should be "explore" since the songs do not exist only in the past
  • "other Neutral Milk Hotel recordings" could be reduced to "other recordings of the band"
  • "a subject of debate, however." - Having the 'however' at the end of the sentence rather than at the start feels a bit awkward to read
  • "his subconscious. 'Some of it" - since these two sentences are highly connected, I'd suggest changing them to "his subconscious, saying 'Some of it"
  • "style of songwriting. While the lyrics" - same as above, the full stop could be changed with a semicolon
  • "early music was rough," - could be changed to "was considered rough", or quotation marks could be placed around "rough"
  • "described some of the acoustic songs as 'lifeless acoustic warbles.'" - unnecessary repetition of the word "acoustic", the first use of it could be removed
  • "of the band members. The band members would" - same as above, could be changed to "of the band members, who would often ask"
  • "He then became a vagabond" - what exactly does "vagabond" mean? In my language the word "vagabundo" is associated with negativity towards a person's actions, though this may just be a difference in meaning of two similar-sounding words
  • "including nontraditional rock" - there should be a hyphen in "nontraditional"
  • The Decemberists should not have a capital The, per MOS:THEBAND

These are my comments. The article's overall prose is pretty good, and you could easily get it to FA. Wetrorave (talk) 19:47, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Wetrorave: Addressed each point except the vagabond one. In English, vagabond simply means a person who moves constantly without a home or a job, which in retrospect, doesn't seem to accurately describe that period of Mangum's life. Rereading Adam Clair's book, it appears as though Mangum was never homeless, but was what I would describe as "restless." The dude just didn't like living in one spot for long periods of time for one reason or another. I'll think of something better to replace vagabond and get back to you. Famous Hobo (talk) 16:01, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm I see. It's strange when words from gramatically close languages have different meanings. That definition of the word seems fine for this use, so prose is good. Wetrorave (talk) 19:11, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. A well-written article overall (and a good band overall, just finished listening to ITAOTS and it's... interesting). Wetrorave (talk) 19:11, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by re. ebooks[edit]

This has come up before. The reason page numbers are required is for reasons of policy rather than internal FAC processes (e.g. spot checks, although of course, they're interrelated), so the current situation—linking to chapters rather than pages—could be unsatisfactory. @WP:FAC coordinators: the relevant discussions are at Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/archive80#When are page numbers needed.... The suggested path forward seems to be to use the |loc= parameter; this will allow either a hyperlink to a page (if available), or a searchable term for the reader to ctrl+f within the document. (I think it was Ealdgyth's suggestion, but as usual with WT:FAC, bugger all consensus was come to!) SN54129 19:36, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant FAC criterion is "claims are verifiable". Personally I would not feel that linking to chapters meets this. There are probably several ways of satisfactorily addressing it, and IMO providing a searchable term per Ealdgyth's suggestion is one of them. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:44, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It depends how long the chapters are whether that is an acceptable solution. I mean, some books have chapters that are like 100 pages long. So if the chapter is pretty short, like 10 pages, that is an acceptable solution although providing a quote might be even better for WP:V. Of you could list the lowest-level subheading that the information is under, since many books have sub-chapter organization. (t · c) buidhe 21:10, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Serial Number 54129, Gog the Mild, and Buidhe: Sorry to ping all three of you, just wasn't sure who to exactly respond to. So I like the idea of including a searchable term. Take for example reference 28. Chapter 11 of Clair's book mentions April 28, 1997 as the start date of the national tour, and then spends the next five paragraphs talking about the growing pains of the members playing in a band. The reference with the search term would look like {{sfn|Clair|2022|loc=Chapter 11 (Search phrase "April 28, 1997")}}. Would this be acceptable? Famous Hobo (talk) 18:28, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
While I can't pre-judge any individual cite, in general terms that seems entirely satisfactory to me. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:41, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's an excellent idea; perhaps use the first sentence of the relevant paragraph? (Or a chunk of it if it's as long as one of mine!) Also, try and avoid using particularly common forms of words, as they might appear multiple times. I really do think this needs codification though, @WP:FAC coordinators: , as it's a situation that's only going to increase in frequency, and we should have an across-the-board to approach rather than on discrete FACs. SN54129 18:09, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure codification would be the right way to address this problem. The FAC criteria are not that specific when it comes to the exact citation style because we recognize there are multiple correct ways to do citations. (t · c) buidhe 01:27, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is about WP:V, not cosmetics such as citation style. SN54129 12:07, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • By the way, @WP:FAC coordinators: , could one of you advise Wetrorave not to bold both of his "supports" (once in the section heading, and once in his review)? The nominations reviewer script reads that as two opposes rather one, due to the bolding, and as such misleads on the main FAC page. Cheers, SN54129 20:28, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Wetrorave (talk) 20:49, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm aware of this problem, but a lot of people do this not realizing it throws off the script... I don't think there is technically any rule against it. (t · c) buidhe 01:26, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie[edit]

  • I think the dates should be given in the first or second sentence -- even if it's as vague as "late 1980s" and "2015, most recently" or something like that -- we need some sort of framing.
Added a sentence to the lede
  • Our article on the Casio digital horn says that noone but Neutral Milk Hotel calls it a zanzithophone. I don't know if that's true, but unless we've some evidence that the term is in use I think we shouldn't use the word (even linked) as if it were something some general readers might understand. Perhaps call it a Casio digital horn, with a footnote giving the band's name for it. I see you have it the other way round in the body, but I think in the lead we have to be clearer. In the body you could call it by either name with a parenthesis giving the other.
Changed zanzithophone to Digital Horn, as that appears to be the proper title of the instrument (including the capitalization). Slightly altered the footnote pertaining to the instrument
  • "the band's newfound stardom through the Internet": "stardom" seems too strong a word, judging by what I read in the article on In the Aeroplane Over the Sea.
Reworded
Done
  • "overcame his apprehensions of the music industry": I don't think this works, because "apprehension" can mean "understanding", and with "of" that's the more natural way to parse this. Perhaps "apprehensiveness about the music industry"?
Reworded
  • I seem to recall there's a MoS rule about this, but shouldn't it be "The Apples in Stereo" inline, if you're going to link the "the"? Or else "the Apples in Stereo"? But it appears the band name does include the "The".
So admittedly I'm also confused about this. According to MOS:THEBAND, the word "the" should not be capitalized, and should only be linked if the word consistently appears on releases (which it does)
  • "how he felt he was being led down a different life than he was supposed to live": I had to read this a couple of times to make sense of it. I think it means something like "how he felt circumstances/chance/something was leading him down a path in which he wasn't living the life he felt he should be living"; that's clumsily phrased but I think that's what's meant. If so I think it needs rephrasing.
Reworded and added a quote to clear up some confusion
  • "to improve upon the lo-fi sound of On Avery Island": is "improve" the right word? No doubt the fidelity was better for the second album, but the lo-fi sound of the first album wasn't a mistake, so I think this is a misleading word choice. I see a couple of sentences further down that "lo-fi" is still being used to describe In the Aeroplane Over the Sea, too, which makes it more confusing to say "improve".
Reworded
  • "who would often ask some audience members if they could spend the night at their house": was this as a sort of performance art or were they really looking for somewhere to crash?
No they just needed somewhere to crash. They were kinda broke. Being an indie rock musicians in the late 90s wasn't a particularly profitable career choice
Can we make this clearer to the reader? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:16, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Reworded, although I think it looks a bit clumsy. What do you think?
I tried a rephrase. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:54, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "while others perpetuated hoaxes around what might have happened": vague, and do you mean "perpetrated"? Perpetuate implies that the hoax already existed. Either way a bit more specificity would be good.
Added more details according to the source
  • "The large response helped": I don't know what "The large response" refers to. The previous sentence talks about fan anger and hoaxes. Do you mean something like "The speculation and online discussions raised the profile of the band, to the point that Neutral Milk Hotel and, in particular, In the Aeroplane Over the Sea gained..."?
Reworded
  • "became incredibly passionate": "incredibly" is a bit non-encyclopedic, though if you can find a quote that says something like this that would work.
Reworded
  • "Neutral Milk Hotel was known for its experimental sound": surely "is known"?
Whoops, got too caught up with making sure to refer to the band in the past tense that I let that one slip through
  • "As the song progressed, more instruments could be introduced": I think "would be" or "were" rather than "could be", unless I'm missing some nuance here.
Reworded the sentence. I wanted to make sure not to specify that every NMH song builds up with more instruments, but a good chunk of them do
  • "Neutral Milk Hotel's early music": I don't know what "early music" refers to -- there are only two albums, only separated by two years. Or is the distinction between those two albums as the early music, and Ferris Wheel on Fire and the live sets of 2013-2015? The quote from Mark Richardson implies we're talking about pre-album material, but that doesn't seem to be generally available, so I'm not clear what's being discussed.
So early music in this case refers to recordings made prior to the first album. Not all of these recordings are availble, but the demo album Hype City Soundtrack and the 1994 song "Everything Is" is available. I changed "early music" to "early recordings"
Now we have "Neutral Milk Hotel's early recordings was considered rough, and featured a considerable amount of distortion": how about "Neutral Milk Hotel's early recordings, prior to On Avery Island, featured a considerable amount of distortion and are considered rough". It needs to be "were", not "was", and reversing the order gives the description before the opinion which makes more sense; and I think "prior to On Avery Island" or something similar would clarify what "early" means. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:09, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Reworded
  • Why isn't Ferris Wheel on Fire included in the discography? I see from the discography article that it's just an EP, but you describe it as a boxed set?
So Ferris Wheel on Fire is an EP of unreleased songs that was bundled with the boxset, which is mentioned in the Reunion section. Per WP:WPMAG, articles about musicians and bands should generally only include studio albums in the discography section, which is why Ferris Wheel on Fire isn't included
  • You're inconsistent with the tense you use to describe critics' opinions: "Kim Cooper cites" but "DeRogatis described", for example. I think present tense would be the best choice.
Pretty sure I changed every instance of past tense to present tense in regards to critics' opinions
  • "have labeled In the Aeroplane Over the Sea as a concept album": I'd make it either "have labeled In the Aeroplane Over the Sea a concept album" or "have described In the Aeroplane Over the Sea as a concept album".
Reworded
  • Any chance of more recent sales numbers than 2013 for In the Aeroplane Over the Sea? Understandable if nothing is available.
Yeah, sadly 2013 seems to be the most recent update
  • "publishing emphatic reports on his life": I don't know what "emphatic" is intended to mean here. Strongly-worded? Forceful? Neither seems likely.
Changed to detailed

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:03, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Christie: Oh god, it's been a while. Real life problems and all that jazz. But I finally took care of the issues you brought up, or at the very least answered them. Famous Hobo (talk) 12:32, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, I understand about real life. I've struck a few that I could check quickly; will look at the others this evening. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:16, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A couple of points outstanding above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:09, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Mike Christie: Responded to the remaining points. Famous Hobo (talk) 13:06, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:54, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from 100cellsman[edit]

The only thing I suggest is unlinking "the" in the blue link for the Apples In Stereo. Otherwise I support this nomination. Nice work! 웃OO 08:23, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Media review[edit]

  • File:NeutralMilkHotel-InTheAeroplaneOverTheSea.ogg: part of the FUR refers to a different band/article - possibly it was copied from another work? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:59, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: Yeah, that's on me. I got lazy and copied part of the FUR from a Radiohead article. Fixed now. Famous Hobo (talk) 01:31, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

Since nobody else has stepped up to do the sr here, I will. Hog Farm Talk 23:30, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • "In the Aeroplane Over the Sea emphasizes structure and texture, and tracks seamlessly segue into one another" - attribution to source needed
Added
  • "His lyrics were surreal and opaque, and feature a stream of consciousness style of songwriting" - attribution to source also needed here
Added
  • "Anon. (n.d.). "On Avery Island". AllMusic. Archived from the original on January 22, 2021. Retrieved December 19, 2020." - source gives Ankeny as the author, this shouldn't be cited as "Anon.", unless you're citing the user review below, in which case that isn't an acceptable source.
So I use this source to cite the release date for the Fire Records edition of On Avery Island, which is September 30, 1996. It says it in the side bar, which from my understanding, is acceptable according to WP:RSMUSIC as I'm not sourcing a genre from the side bar (for reference, it is the second entry in source 19 in the "On Avery Island and expansion to a quartet" subsection). Since I'm not 100 percent sure Ankeny wrote the side bar information, I left it as Anon, although I can change it if need be. I can also find another source for the release date.
Okay. The uses of anon is appropriate in that case. Hog Farm Talk 23:29, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • AllMusic has been debated back and forth before. I think the stuff it's being used for here is okay, given that you're not citing biographical or band history details, rather just review components
I personally think it's acceptable, but that's a discussion for another time. Like you said, I didn't cite the biographical details from AllMusic, just release dates and critic opinions.
  • WP:RSP lists Vice as being of debatable reliability, what makes it high-quality RS for FAC purposes?
Removed the first instance of Vice, but left the second one. That's a interview, and the subjects interviewed directly reference that they were influenced by Neutral Milk Hotel.
  • Newsweek is known to have gone into great decline after 2013 due to a new owner who introduced bad editorial practices. What makes a 2018 Newsweek piece high-quality RS?
Replaced

Other sources look reliable enough for the subject matter. Did a handful of spot checks that didn't flag up anything. Hog Farm Talk 23:49, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Hog Farm: Thank you for the source reveiw! Left comments for each point. Famous Hobo (talk) 08:49, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Passing sr with the caveat that this isn't a subject I'm overly familiar with. Hog Farm Talk 23:31, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Z1720[edit]

Non-expert prose review. Some comments below:

  • "He moved to Athens and played" Since Athens, Greece, is the more popular city internationally, I suggest changing this to "He moved to Athens, Georgia, and played"
Changed
  • "was also a bass guitarist for the Apples in Stereo," The Apples's article capitalises "The" so I would do the same here.
Per MOS:THEBAND, "the" should not be captitalized in this situation
  • I checked the lede and infobox, and all of that information is in the article.

Those are my thoughts. Z1720 (talk) 15:23, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720: Thanks for the comments! Responded to them accordingly. Famous Hobo (talk) 21:56, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. My concerns have been addressed. Z1720 (talk) 02:04, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Hog Farm via FACBot (talk) 18 April 2022 [31].

Olive Morris[edit]

Nominator(s): Mujinga (talk) 13:38, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Olive Morris was a Black activist in the 1970s and no doubt would be better known had she not died tragically young. She grew up in South London and became a squatter activist, involved in Black liberation groups such as the British Black Panther Movement, Brixton Black Women's Group and the Race Today Collective. When she studied in Manchester, she was quick to become involved in local campaigns, and upon returning to London her activism continued before being cut short at the age of 27. Her legacy has recently been invigorated by the Remembering Olive Collective and with the help of other contributors I've hopefully improved the page through a Good article review and a peer review. Special thanks go to Amitchell125 and SusunW. I think the article is now in a state ready for the front page, so all constructive criticism is welcome and I hope to reply to any actionable points as promptly as possible. This is my first submission to FAC. Mujinga (talk) 13:38, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya Gog the Mild thanks for adding Olive Morris to Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Image and source check requests. Can I doublecheck whether the comments from SusunW and/or Caeciliusinhorto could be enough for a source review? Otherwise should I be asking people for help on this? Mujinga (talk) 10:07, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point. (I should have thought of it!) @SusunW and Caeciliusinhorto: I am more than happy with the thorough source to text integrity checks. I wonder if either or both of you would care to opine on the more general aspects of sourcing? Eg are sources all high-quality and reliable, are the citation and referencing styles appropriate and consistent etc. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:51, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Mujinga and Gog the Mild: you know that I am reluctant to comment on formatting or technical stuff, as it is not my forté. Mujinga and I disagree on the citation style as I find it difficult to read "around" in-line citations, but I grant the reasons they prefer this style are valid. The sources are for the most part high-quality and curated. (I honestly believe that all accessible materials were evaluated in preparing the article.) During the peer-review, Mujinga reformatted materials to reflect title case and consistent ISBN formatting. There are three sources in version 1081103085 the piece by Obi (#27), Abasindi Co-operative (#39) and Lopez de la Torre's (#51) which are blogs/self-published. Obi and Lopez's piece were published by the Olive Morris collective, which was formed by academics seeking to recover Morris' legacy and Abasindi is published by the Manchester Central Library. Thus, IMO it is unlikely that any of them would present materials that might harm their reputations or the subject's and they appear to be reliable. The Abasindi piece could be replaced by a citation to Bettocchi's thesis if deemed necessary. I note that the name is flipped in the Lopez de la Torre (her first name is shown as last). Were it me (I understand that I am OCD and overly detail-oriented), I would add locations to all publishers (at present they only appear for books) and issn and oclc identifiers where available for journal articles, as it is often difficult for those of us with no access to formal library systems to access web links and these identifiers are often requested by those who hold articles to attain copies of them. SusunW (talk) 14:37, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Gog the Mild – I agree with Susun on the suitability of sources: they're reliable, primary sources are used appropriately, and I can find no high-quality reliable sources that have been omitted. I've fixed the misformatting of the Ana Lopez de la Torre source that Susun identified. I haven't combed through citation formatting in detail, but I don't see any obvious issues with consistency; I'm busy for the remainder of this week but can try to find time over the Easter weekend if nobody else can check that before then. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 16:45, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:Olive_Morris_died_1979.jpg needs a more expansive FUR, and is any more information available on provenance? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:50, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the comment, the rationale has been expanded. Re provenance, I already contacted the Lambeth Archives and they said "The ownership/copyright status of the Olive Morris collection at Lambeth Archives is complex. Therefore, sadly, Lambeth Archives isn't in a position, to assist with this request." Mujinga (talk) 21:04, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Just to add, Victuallers has helpfully emailed Remembering Olive Collective, Fawcett Society, Blackpast.org and the National Archives on 17 March to ask if they can supply a free picture. Mujinga (talk) 17:49, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Nikkimaria There's been no replies to the various email requests, so I guess we can assume we won't get one. I expanded the FUR, anything else I can do on images? Thanks Mujinga (talk) 15:24, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Spot check - pass[edit]

I did an extensive examination during the peer review and spot checked every reference. I can confirm that the information in the article is supported by the citations. SusunW (talk) 14:07, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Susun W[edit]

  • In the second sentence in Adult life and activism, we need context. To avoid repeating 1960s and 1970s, perhaps insert "in the last half of the 20th century".
  • "not only notions" begs a comparison. Not only British, "but Caribbean"?
    • hmm yes and "style" is repeated from a few sentences earlier .. i'll come back on that one. feel free to adjust since you were already adding stuff here Mujinga (talk) 20:54, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • I added it with the citation to the Windrush fashion source, as I noted another reviewer also commented that it seemed to be lacking a comparison. SusunW (talk) 13:59, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • nice! and i rejigged it a but to avoid using the word "style" so much. hopefully it's better now :) Mujinga (talk) 21:11, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • flip the references after "his arm was broken" and "ain't no girl" so that they are in numerical order.
  • "later beaten in police custody", perhaps "while" in?
    • for me that reads ok, happy to see what others think Mujinga (talk) 20:54, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • flip the references after "radical feminist" to fix numerical order
  • ditto for after "activities without any public funding", "Olive Morris Manuscript Collection at the Lambeth Archives"
    • done - thanks for the eagle eyes on this! Mujinga (talk) 20:54, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, great job. I would like to see a bit in the legacy section on why historians believe she was a significant figure, but others may disagree. SusunW (talk) 14:54, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely^^^ legacy is more than buildings and street names, but who was influenced and how; the former might be demolished and renamed, but the latter rings through the ages with ripples still seen today. SN54129 15:53, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed on this, but it's been quite hard to find stuff talking about her historical significance since she is still very much a marginalised figure - as is shown by the problems finding a photograph of her and indeed her political comrades such as Beverley Bryan, Elouise Edwards, Altheia Jones-LeCointe and Liz Obi Mujinga (talk) 21:11, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Go back to the peer review where I wrote "Longley p 131 says examining her life", several scholars I noted there analyze her significance. SusunW (talk) 22:38, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I was replying more to Serial Number 54129 but I do remember that peer review discussion. Longley is talking about the narrative about Morris presented in the archives and her reaction to that. I was hoping the Bettocchi PhD might have more on her legacy but I didn't see much there. Caeciliusinhorto is also asking about legacy below so I'll have to go back into the sources but I don't think there's a huge amount there to be honest. Having said that I'm sure I can find something and perhaps flesh out the work of the Remembering Olive Collective a bit too. Mujinga (talk) 10:41, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've had another look in the sources: I've added a quote from Fisher and some more info from Ford; I didn't see much more to add from Bettocchi and Longley. I note I recently added a source from Bristol University for Black History Month about the contributions of Obi and Morris. See what you think! Mujinga (talk) 12:20, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Based on everything I have read, you are correct to not make her "the figurehead", as you said below. The legacy I have in mind and maybe Caeciliusinhorto will look this over too, is something like this very rough first stab at it: An examination of Morris's life provides insight into the collective Black experience in Britain during the 1960s and 1970s.(Longley 2021, p 131; Ford 2016, p 8)(Bryan, Dadzie, Scafe 2018, pp 151, 155) The erasure of the Black community from British history of the period has been challenged by 21st-century scholarship which has examined individual lives of community members like Morris.(Reilly 2019; Longley 2021, p 131; Bettocchi 2021, pp 97-99) Analysis of her life by the Remembering Olive Collective and academics like Ford has brought to light the common struggle of British Black women with women across the African, Asian, and Caribbean diasporas against classism, colonialism, and sexism and the need for more comprehensive study of these intersections.(Reilly 2019) Harrison argues that uncovering Morris's participation in the squatting movement was significant as it showed a lack of academic research into the politics of housing.(Fisher 2012, p 75) Both Harrison and Bettocchi note that Morris's experiences reflected how the politicization of housing and homelessness impacted the Black community, as well as single and/or childless people.(Fisher 2012, p 75)(Bettocchi 2021, pp 99-100) I also see that (Perri W 2019) says her campaigning was successful in motivating the Lambeth council to buy abandoned flats in 1973 to address housing issues. SusunW (talk) 20:08, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestion! I don't really feel the article needs this, I think there is already enough on her legacy dotted through the article and we have (with your peer review suggestions) contextualized the time of Black liberation struggles in England in which Morris was active. But maybe I can't see the wood for the trees any more. I left it a few days to wait for other opinions, now I'll ping Caeciliusinhorto to see what they think and I'll also ask Carbon Caryatid. Mujinga (talk) 09:41, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think on the whole I agree with Mujinga on this point. Though I think Susun's proposed text interesting, I also worry that it is more a conclusion to an academic essay than it is a part of a wikipedia bio? Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 18:38, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Far be it from me to hold this up over such a small part of the article. Honestly, Mujinga, you have done a fine job on this and I genuinely appreciate your efforts on it. Support SusunW (talk) 19:38, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks SusunW, that peer review was epic and we found so much extra stuff together! Mujinga (talk) 15:21, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from GhostRiver[edit]

I will take a look at this later. — GhostRiver 17:09, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • In the infobox, "London UK" -> "London, UK"
  • "she was beaten up" -> "she was assaulted"
    • is this a BrEng/USEng thing? Beaten up seems more appropriate to me Mujinga (talk) 11:08, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Brixon, South London" potential MOS:SEAOFBLUE concerns?
    • I don't think two in a row is seaofblue, could lose "south" i suppose and not link London, but the benefits of mentioning south outweigh this Mujinga (talk) 11:08, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "squatted buildings" or "squatted in buildings"?
    • former reads fine to me, happy to supply academic sources to back that up Mujinga (talk) 11:08, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "another was used" -> "while the other was used"
    • she squatted way more than two buildings, so then it's more saying: one .. another .. (unspecified others) Mujinga (talk) 11:08, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Her life and work have been commemorated both by official organisations – Lambeth Council named a building after her – and by the activist group Remembering Olive Collective (ROC)." -> "Her life and work have been commemorated both by official organizations like the Lambeth Council, who named a building after her, and by the activist group Remembering Olive Collective."
    • I am not a big fan of dashes, don't use them myself, but don't see much difference here Mujinga (talk) 11:33, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and has featured on lists of inspirational Black British women" This feels like quite a vague statement
    • it's summarising the mast paragraph which says she appears in the Voice and Evening Standard lists Mujinga (talk) 11:36, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and then followed them" -> "before following them"
    • hmm maybe it's not clear the way it is that the grandmother was in Jamaica? Mujinga (talk) 11:33, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Migrants are affected by both local and transnational factors." Sentence doesn't flow as the header of the paragraph; the second sentence feels like a better start
  • "access to housing and jobs was"; awkward syntax. Could be read as "access to X and (to) Y" for the singular, or "access to X (thing one) and Y (separate item)" for the plural, if that makes sense
    • changed "jobs" to "employment", hopefully that helps Mujinga (talk) 11:33, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Just over five feet tall, she gained a reputation as a fierce activist." Is this where I make a no correlation joke? (In seriousness, the connection between her height and reputation is only implicit as currently worded)
  • "She was described as other activists" -> "Other activists described her"
    • then the second part reads funny so I haven't changed it Mujinga (talk) 11:33, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "wrote up"
    • i prefer wrote up, happy to hear other opinions Mujinga (talk) 11:33, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and several other people" -> "and several others"
  • "trumped up charges" unencyclopedic phrasing
    • Another BrEng/USeng thing perhaps? Could change to "fabricated" Mujinga (talk) 11:33, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the prosecution case" -> "the prosecution's argument"
    • since both case and prosecut- are previously mentioned, I've just chopped that phrase Mujinga (talk) 11:33, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why was she sent away from the hospital?
    • Here's what the source says (Longley p130): When interviewed by the ROC, Gerlin Bean (2009, pp. 5–6) spent time recounting her experience of Olive’s sudden deterioration in health: ‘She’s always messing around and laughing and carrying on, and then she starts rolling around on the floor, and said: “oh, such a pain”. And I said: “Olive stop messing around” and she said: “no, I really have this pain”’. They urgently took a taxi to King’s College Hospital: ‘we went and then they told her, you know what they told her? That she has gas [laughter], and they gave her some tablets and things and said go away’. But the pain persisted, and it was only after some time that they discovered the true cause of her illness, non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Mujinga (talk) 11:36, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly very nitpicky prose stuff to cut out fluff, or areas where there's some confusing syntax. Overall very good and informative! — GhostRiver 18:16, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments, I've implemented changes for some and queried others Mujinga (talk) 11:36, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi GhostRiver, are you in a position yet to either support or oppose this nomination? Obviously, neither are obligatory. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:32, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mujinga and Gog the Mild, a few points I still want to address.

  • I think "assaulted" reads better in the lede, as "beaten up" reads a bit too informal
  • I don't love the presence of dashes in the lede still
  • Would like the bit from the source to be included that she was sent away with nausea medication.

— GhostRiver 21:27, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking another look GhostRiver. I've changed to "assaulted" since another reader also flagged that up and added tablets. For the dashes, I think I'll check with other editors since it seems a stylistic preference to change it. Mujinga (talk) 09:56, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I asked SN54129 below and they thought the dashes worked Mujinga (talk) 13:41, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Everything serious has been addressed on my end. Happy to Support. — GhostRiver 18:31, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment[edit]

  • Publisher locations are missing from Fisher; Ford; and Scafe.
  • When citing books or journal articles it is usual to give only the year of publication. (The latter may also have the volume and/or issue.)
Gog the Mild (talk) 22:59, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed, much obliged Mujinga (talk) 00:08, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Caeciliusinhorto[edit]

I made a few comments at peer review, but it looks as though the article has expanded quite a bit since then. On the first readthrough this looks good: two quick comments on prose:

  • "Her personal style choices challenged not only notions of what it meant to be British" - suggests that we're going to get some sort of "but also challenged foo", but it never comes, and the paragraph ends leaving us hanging.
    • Indeed! That the sentence/section has been rejigged Mujinga (talk) 21:14, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Black" is mostly capitalised throughout, but Longley is described as a "black history researcher" and there's one mention of Morris' "blackness", both lowercased – is this intentional?
    • good spot, capitalised these two for consistency. Mujinga (talk) 21:14, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Will comment properly later Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 12:03, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please do return! Your comments at the peer review were helpful and like you said the article ended up expanding rather nicely Mujinga (talk) 21:14, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reading through the article again, a somewhat nitpicky point:

  • "[Morris was] charged with assault occasioning actual bodily harm ... she was accused of kicking an officer. The jury found her not guilty on that charge." - implies to me that there were multiple charges: if so, do we know the verdicts? If not, just "The jury found her not guilty" is probably sufficient.
    • You are picking up on a point where the source (the Howe biography) is a bit vague, since it says "As a result, the judge instructed the jury to retire and reach a verdict on the charges facing Morris and Macintosh relating to the assault of PC Reid. Although he provided no formal direction, it was clear that he was asking the jury to find Morris and Macintosh innocent prior to their defence. Conspicuously absent was any direction regarding Howe. The jury found in favour of the defendants, Macintosh was discharged, Morris faced two further charges" (p173). I looked into it a bit further and this BBC source says all three were acquitted so that solves it, the other charges must have not stuck either, so I'll rephrase Mujinga (talk) 10:18, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hmm, that's all very vague, isn't it! Good job on finding the other source Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 10:43, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I also have a few questions where I suspect the answer is "the sources don't say" but I'll ask them anyway:

  • When Morris went back to college to study for her O- and A-Levels, I don't suppose we know where? We list her schools and her university.
    • no couldn't find this information Mujinga (talk) 10:21, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article quotes Longley mentioning Morris' "long-term white-skinned partner", and there are two mentions of Mike McColgan (presumably said partner) in Morris' last year, but do we know anything else about this relationship? When did they meet?
    • the closest we've got is his recent obituary (RiP) where it says they met in the mid-1970s Mujinga (talk) 10:21, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yeah, I didn't expect you to find much on these points, but it's always worth checking – ah, well, if the sources don't say something, then there's not much we can do... Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 10:43, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Finally, for the section on legacy, has anyone discussed the question of Morris' long-term signficance in the context of the black rights, feminist, or housing equality movements? The Voice "listed eight Black women who have contributed to the development of Britain" and included Morris, but how? Did her campaigning lead to any sort of legal change, or inspire a change in how activist groups organised or campaigned? The Voice doesn't say, but perhaps someone has...

  • SusunW is also pressing this point above so I'll have another dip into the sources, I am uneager to make it seem that Morris was THE figurehead of black liberation in the UK but it seems I do need to add more. Thanks! Mujinga (talk) 10:23, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, if the answer turns out to be "nobody has discussed this and overegging Morris' long-term signficance wouldn't be neutral" then that's fine! If the current state of the article is a genuine reflection of Morris' legacy, then I'm happy with that – but again I just thought it was worth asking. If I find anything potentially worth using, I will let you know! Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 10:43, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have a closer look at sourcing over the weekend, but so far the article looks to be in excellent shape and I'm anticipating supporting. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 22:22, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, looking at sourcing now:

  • There are a few uses of primary sources, but these all seem to be acceptable either as supporting citations for things backed up by secondary sources, or uncontentious statements of fact.
  • The use of radical magazines and books published by independent radical presses seems to be appropriate, and balanced by Mainstream ScholarshipTM
  • Overall I'm not seeing any sources that I'm super concerned about the usage of in the abstract.

Going to spot check a few sources, chosen at random (actually random, using a random number generator, not just arbitrarily!). I'm referring to them with the numbers as of this revision.

  • 5, the National Archives source: used in discussion of Dick Shepphard School. Supports the claim that the school closed in 1994. Doesn't support that the school was girls' only or that Morris attended it, but the accompanying citations do support both those facts. "Other sources such as BBC News,[4] Brixton Black Women's Group[3] and the National Archives,[5] give different school names" – the BBC news source supports that Morris went to Dick Shepphard School, and presumably the school records held in the National Archives would confirm that, but the source cited is the National Archives' catalogue information for their records on the school, which doesn't support this.
    • In the note, 5 is being used the first time to show the school is called Dick Sheppard School, second time to show it closed in 1994. As you correctly observe, other sources are used to show Morris went there. Shall I removed the first mention? Mujinga (talk) 12:33, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Gah, I've just spent an hour trying to work out what is going on with schools here, and it's all a muddle. A convenient local government publication called something like "Schools in Tulse Hill, 1955-70" is proving frustratingly elusive! There's an archive catalogue entry in London Metropolitan Archives (https://search.lma.gov.uk/SCRIPTS/MWIMAIN.DLL/300073541/2/11/575371?RECORD&UNION=Y&URLMARKER=STARTREQUEST) which suggests that Dick Sheppard School was also called Tulse Hill Comprehensive, not to be confused with the boys' school which is Tulse Hill School (previously the Strand School). Lavender Hill Girls' School clearly existed in some form, and the fact that it was a girls' school suggests a secondary to me. I'd be inclined to throw my hands up in defeat and cut the note back to something like "The ODNB says that Morris went to Heathbrook Primary, Lavender Hill Girls' School, and Tulse Hill School; the BBC says Lavender Hill Primary and the Dick Sheppard School." (With a Wikipedian fear of original research, we might even note that the fact that Tulse Hill School was boys only in 1974 doesn't preclude it from being mixed when Morris was there, though a comprehensive school going from mixed to single sex would be odd!) Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 16:48, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes working through the school stuff is a bit of a nightmare! We got into it at the bottom of Talk:Olive_Morris#FA_nomination in case you didn't see that already. I'll take another look now. Mujinga (talk) 17:43, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • I have chopped the note a bit, now I'm wondering whether to chop it more and to just say in the article "Morris went to several schools in South London" and then only have the first half of the note saying "The Oxford Dictionary of National Biography states: "Olive attended Heathbrook primary school and then Lavender Hill Girls' Secondary School and Tulse Hill secondary school." A BBC News article says "Lavender Hill Primary School and Dick Sheppard School in Tulse Hill"." The alternative is to leave it as is and say the names of then schools in the article but then have the note to explain why the sources differ. I blame the ODNB factcheckers for this mess by the way! Mujinga (talk) 18:01, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • 17, "The Psychology of Windrush Style": doesn't explicitly discuss Morris' personal style choices, but there are two other citations (which I do not currently have access to but have requested) which may do that. As a supporting citation it is okay for the claim that the fashion choices of Carribean-British people in the 1960s and 1970s challenged ideologies of Britishness.
    • Happy to send over any sources you need! Mujinga (talk) 12:33, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • 40, "Black Women's Groups". We write: "Locke had set up the Manchester Black Women's Co-operative (MBWC) in 1975 with Coca Clarke and Ada Phillips; Morris got involved and members later recalled her vigour.[40]: 2, 15". Looking at this version of the article, linked on the CUP website, I think the correct page numbers are 1, 15, and 17? I'm also not immediately seeing support for Morris' involvement in *MWBC* in this article; it talks about her joining *BWMA*, and the two groups seem to have overlapping membership but are distinct entities?
    • Damn I printed the open access version of the article and it has 28 numbered pages so there will be differences, I'll fix that now using this authoritative version with 21 pages. On page 14, it says "When discussing the conflict between the MBWC and Ron Phillips over the mismanagement of company funds, Tsele noted that Morris ‘was not in with those sorts of fights, those were just for us, grassroots’, noting that she ‘just used to come and help us with the intellectual bits, about how the system was working’" - so that shows Morris was involved with MBWC (as well as BWMA) Mujinga (talk) 12:43, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • 40 is also used to support the discussion of the collapse of MBWC and its reformation of Abasindi; it supports the first part of this sentence.
  • 41 also used in the discussion of MWBC/Abasindi: along with 38 and 40, this supports the claims made.
  • 54: along with 55, supports the claims made about Breeze Yoko's Olive Morris mural.

Other less systematic checks I have done while reading the article for the PR and this FAC didn't bring up concerns, so the main worry is the pagination of ref 40, and whether you've confused MWBC and BWMA in that paragraph? Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 11:54, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that I've think I've answered everything (and note that I recently added another source answering other comments so after 29, numbers are +1). Mujinga (talk) 12:49, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I wanted to get back to you sooner, but the last week has been super busy for me. Time for me to stop dithering and support Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 18:41, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Harry[edit]

Not a subject I'm familiar with but I'll give it a go. I probably owe you a couple of reviews from my police shootings. At a glance, looks good.

  • At the age of 17, she was beaten up Personally, I would say "beaten up" is bordering on too informal for an encyclopaedia but I won't push it if you disagree because it is at least succinct and understandable.
    • GhostRiver suggested above replacing with "she was assaulted", would that be an improvement? Mujinga (talk) 11:22, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • That would work.
  • following an incident That's not a lot of detail, even for the lead. Is there anything else that can be said without bogging down the lead?
    • nothing springs to mind to summarise it better and the subheading calls it an incident. the diplomat does not appear to be otherwise notable Mujinga (talk) 11:22, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • She joined the British Black Panthers... The lead doesn't explicitly say that this is a result of the Nigerian diplomat incident, but the placement implies it. Can we be clearer?
    • the sources say it was a formative experience, it's a bit hard to be more specific since we don't have a definite date when she joined the Panthers Mujinga (talk) 11:22, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm guessing you would have included it if there was, but is there anything much to say about how/why she or her parents moved to Britain? Were they part of one of the mass migration events from the Caribbean?
    • It's a good question, unfortunately there isn't information in the sources. I think even Windrush was mentioned at one point but I took it out because it wasn't backed by the citation Mujinga (talk) 11:22, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Windrush was what I had in mind when I asked the question, as well as London Transport's recruitment of of workers from the Caribbean, but if we don't know, we don't know.
  • at the Victoria University of Manchester between 1975 and 1978 This is pedantry really, but hey, pedantry is what FAC is all about! By a strict literal reading, that sentence means "in 1976 and 1977", but I'm assuming you mean "from 1975 to 1978".

Very little to criticise really. A succinct yet comprehensive and well-written article. I'll doubtless support once you've had a chance to look over my nit picks. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:45, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for dropping by! I've replied to the comments Mujinga (talk) 11:22, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A couple of replies inline, but the resolution on those is not going to cause me to lose any sleep. For what it's worth, I've read the ODNB and it compares well to this article. I see no evidence of overly close paraphrasing, it appears to support all the claims it's cited for, and everything of importance in the ODNB is also in the Wikipedia article. Support. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:43, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Serial[edit]

Placeholder, but I usually get a nosebleed if I go that far saarf. SN54129 11:53, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind south, isn't this about 600 years too modern for you? ;) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:45, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Harry, how did you guess I spend my evenings flicking the light switch on and off in wonderment? "Give me the secret of thy Elektrickery!"  :) SN54129 13:18, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Other commenters are pretty much done just so you know. One thing I'd like to ask is since you use dashes at John Minsterworth, what do you think about the use of dashes in the lead here? Mujinga (talk) 10:58, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Mujinga: I am wholly embarrassed at not looking at this important article like I said. Apologies, I'll look now. FTR, it was near-support worthy when you nominated it so I don't foresee anything too drastic.
Re. dashes, as you know I probably overuse them myself—I find them a useful halfway house between commas and brackets. I think your use in the lead is fine, as it sets off a parenthetical statement while keeping the reading smooth. SN54129 13:18, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh no worries I figured you were waiting on other reviewers to finish up. Thanks for the reply on dashes! Mujinga (talk) 13:42, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe "she continued her activism while studying at the Univ of Manch".
    • Having read it both ways a few times out loud, I think I prefer the current sentence as a link between two lists of groups she was involved with Mujinga (talk) 11:54, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obviously linking the African nations you list would be WP:SKYBLUE, but there might be a case for lining them to their respective liberation struggles? (I certainly don't object to leaving them unlinked either; could be slightly EASTEREGGy, I know. And bloody complicated.)
    • that's a good idea, resolved by not really being able to find articles on black liberation in X and I think linking to specific groups eg Front for the Liberation of Zimbabwe in the case of Zimbabwe would be a bit eastereggy indeed Mujinga (talk) 11:54, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "adornment, clothing, and hair styles" - maybe link to Black British identity?
    • I don't mind to link it but wondering where. On "choice"? Mujinga (talk) 11:55, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps, "grassroots problems affecting her community". H'mm. That double-plurarl doesn't read great either. It's just that, as it is, these undefined problems are a little vague.
    • true. the sentence is a bit divorced from " continued to experience racism; access to housing and employment was restricted in discriminatory ways and Black communities were put under pressure by both the police and fascist groups such as the National Front" above. hmmm could change to "fight for community rights"? That's also quite vague Mujinga (talk) 11:58, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any chance of more on why her assault led directly to Marxist-Leninism and rad feminism? I mean, the link's an obvious one to those involved in the movement, but in this article, it's unclear that she isn't already either of those things!
    • not really, the sources are pretty vague, it's even unclear exactly when she joined, so everyone seems to say a variation on "the assault happened. then she joined the panthers" Mujinga (talk) 12:02, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't think of a good way of removing the three-month/three-year repetition either.
  • How about, "This introduced Morris to Altheia...", then you can lose the third usage in a row of panthers.
  • Is it possible to say slightly more about her trip to Morocco? (As her first trip abroad, it stands out.)
    • unfortunately not, that's all the sources say. must have been a fun experience until they ran out of money! Mujinga (talk) 12:02, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not wanting to raise obtuse points of law  :) but re. "the accused were eventually found innocent"... in Eng law, I think people are found not guilty rather than innocent. I might be nitpicking, though, as the result, of course, is exactly the same!
  • I'd forgotten I wrote the Oval Four! Nice to see it linked to a far better article.
    • ah! oh what a tangled web we weave Mujinga (talk) 12:10, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Upon the demise of the British Black Panthers" -- what happened, briefly?
  • You want to choose between suffixing -ise(d) or -ize(d); you currently use a mix of both. FWIW, I think that -ise is more common in BrEng. (Same with organise/organize.)
    • -ise is more common in BrEng, but if Mujinga prefers -ize, Oxford English claims to have etymological justification on its side; you are right that consistency is needed! Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 16:50, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • ugg yes. I'd like to keep the -ize but of course need to be consistent, thanks for the spot Mujinga (talk) 12:07, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "because the publisher refused to use a collective name and it was dedicated to Morris" -- clarify; atm it could mean either it was credited to three women because the publisher refused a collective name and because it was dedicated to Morris, or "because the publisher refused to use a collective name; it was dedicated to Morris". If you see my point.
  • "After her death, the MWBC folded after" -- "After her death, the MWBC folded due to", per repetition.
  • Link praxis to Praxis (process)?
  • What's the meaning behind the newsletter FOWAD!, do we know? A play on Forward! and the group[s name, or an acronym in its own right?
(drive by comment from someone who has lived lang taim eena di Caribbean) Chu kod do da consider dem "Kriol-speak", aka faawad, (or moving ahead, along, etc. In other words, the meaning would be obvious to anyone familiar with Kriol in the Caribbean and it is doubtful that it has any other meaning, but of course it could). SusunW (talk) 15:21, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What a brilliant explanation SusunW, seen :) Mujinga (talk) 07:39, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "began feeling ill"?
  • You elide seamlessly from the flatulence to Hodgkins. Was the former effectively a mis-diagnosis? If so, is the implication that—had it been caught earlier—the treatment might have been successful?
    • Yes that's a recent addition after a request for more info from GhostRiver above. What I'd done doesn't read back well to me today so I've rejigged it, see what you think. Here is what the source says in full: When interviewed by the ROC, Gerlin Bean (2009, pp. 5–6) spent time recounting her experience of Olive’s sudden deterioration in health: ‘She’s always messing around and laughing and carrying on, and then she starts rolling around on the floor, and said: “oh, such a pain”. And I said: “Olive stop messing around” and she said: “no, I really have this pain”’. They urgently took a taxi to King’s College Hospital: ‘we went and then they told her, you know what they told her? That she has gas [laughter], and they gave her some tablets and things and said go away’. But the pain persisted, and it was only after some time that they discovered the true cause of her illness, non-Hodgkin lymphoma.(Longley p130)
  • A shame we don't have an image of her grave; unfortunately this category of Wikipedians is very sparsely populated!
    • Trying hard not to make a joke about Croydon Mujinga (talk) 12:19, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a feminist Black Power movement in the UK and anthropologist" -- comma, semi-colon even, after UK?
    • Tried both, I think I'm happy with how it reads now Mujinga (talk) 12:19, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly just suggestions, Mujinga, although a few things could perhaps be clarified. But it's a thoroughly enjoyable read and a worthy tribute. SN54129 14:53, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

great lots of stuff to chew on, I'll hopefully get to this later on today Mujinga (talk) 07:39, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Serial Number 54129 thanks for the comments, I've followed some and queried others Mujinga (talk) 12:20, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Serial Number 54129 ? Gog the Mild (talk) 11:25, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yo Gog, sup? SN54129 15:00, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't it your turn to comment? Or have I lost count? Gog the Mild (talk) 19:17, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think I've said enough, Gog! But I support this article's promotion (tbh, I never expected not to, as I intimated above). But its a solid—BRIXTON MORTAR—piece of work.
Hat tip to SusunW for the best bit of OR I've seen in a while, too. SN54129 11:37, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

Footnote numbers refer to this version.

  • Can we get page numbers for the chapter for [46]?
    • using the wikipedia library no page number is given, so I've switched to the ebook isbn Mujinga (talk) 14:24, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure this is a problem, but the link for [19], http://www.movinghere.org.uk//gallery/celebration/desmond.htm, goes to the same URL as the archive link, though the URL is different when entered. Is there any reason to have an archive link in this case?
    • I suppose it can be of use to preserve the original link history? What's happened here follows from the National Archives running then closing the Moving Here project. Mujinga (talk) 14:34, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again I'm not sure it's really a problem for FAC, but I don't see why we need to archive links such as [26], which only take you to an access page -- if you have to go to an archive because this page is down, the archive page won't help.
    • I see what you mean, I suppose the counter-argument is if Wiley goes down totally, there is still the record at archive.org Mujinga (talk) 14:48, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The archive link for [27] doesn't work.
  • The archive link for [33] doesn't bring up a page image.
  • For [35], neither the original link nor the archived link is working. Assuming you can fix that, what makes britsandpcs.com a reliable source?
    • Yes it's been down for a while now, a few months at least. They are still tweeting at https://twitter.com/britsandpcs. It's a bit hard to debate the source when it's not available. I could just chop it and find another reference for leila hassan (and others)? I think the rest of the sentence is backed by the other ref. Mujinga (talk) 14:10, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I think that would be best, since it's not possible to evaluate the source as it stands. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:02, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sure, removed and added some more members of the collective with a citation that was previously on the following sentence Mujinga (talk) 11:30, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The archive link for [41] goes nowhere.
  • The archive link for [55] doesn't bring up a page image.
  • I'm not convinced the link for [3] is correct. You cite pp. 9-10 for the obit, but I see nothing about Morris on pages 9 and 10. The page 9 I see has a subhead halfway down titled "BRITISH IMMIGRATION LAWS - An attack on Black people".
    • It is correct, in that it's pages 9 and 10 of issue 3, you were on issue 1, but hopefully now it links direct, avoiding the issue Mujinga (talk) 13:58, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      My mistake. The link is unchanged as far as I can see, but it's fine as is. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:02, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • [4] is fine, but it seems to be used only to cite that the school exists, and since we have a link to a Wikipedia list article that includes the school I'm not sure why we need the cite. Still, not a sourcing problem if you want to keep it.
    • Yes I'd like to, since it says "Morris went to Lavender Hill Primary School and Dick Sheppard School in Tulse Hill and became involved in the British Black Panther Movement in the late 1960s." Mujinga (talk) 13:58, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • What makes manchesterarchiveplus.wordpress.com a reliable source?
    • It's a partnership of : Greater Manchester County Record Office (Association of Greater Manchester Authorities); Manchester Libraries, Information and Archives (Manchester City Council); North West Film Archive (Manchester Metropolitan University); Ahmed Iqbal Ullah Race Relations Resource Centre & Education Trust (University of Manchester); Manchester & Lancashire Family History Society; BFI Mediatheque and Manchester Registration Service (Historic Registers) Mujinga (talk) 13:58, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • What makes brixtonbuzz.com a reliable source?
    • This one is debatable I suppose since it's a (long-term) local news website. The about us is not clear on editorial policy but I don't think the claims it is being used for are particularly controversial. Mujinga (talk) 14:18, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • What makes rememberolivemorris.wordpress.com a reliable source? If you're using it only to source the existence of the book, I don't think it's a good idea to use a wordpress.com link for that. The ISBN/OCLC/etc. are enough to source that. If the book was too small-scale a publication to be recorded by OCLC or other indexes, then what makes the book itself a reliable source?
    • rememberolivemorris.wordpress.com is the website used by the Remembering Olive Collective, which in its first iteration collected information about Morris and then gave the materials to the local archives. People involved with it included Stella Dadzie, Tanisha C. Ford and Liz Obi, so subject area experts who wrote about Morris and also worked on the pamphlet together. We did discuss using this link at the peer review as well; I'd like to have it so people can find the pdfs via rememberolivemorris.wordpress.com, but can also just add Chidgey or Ruiz to cover its publication instead? As a sidepoint, the pamphlet appears to be listed twice on OCLC. Mujinga (talk) 14:48, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • What makes brixtonblog.com a reliable source?

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:53, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by Buidhe via FACBot (talk) 18 April 2022 [32].

Mindful (song)[edit]

Nominator(s): Aoba47 (talk) 03:25, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Mindful" is a single from K. Michelle's third studio album More Issues Than Vogue (2016). It is hip-hop and R&B song in which Michelle raps and warns critics to be mindful of her. The song does not take itself seriously, and this playful approach can be best seen in its music video which is set in a colorful trailer park. "Mindful" received positive reviews from critics, but it did not chart anywhere. Regardless, this song just stuck out with me for whatever reason.

I initially worked on this article in 2018 and brought it up to GA status at the time. Last month, I put this up for a FAC, and I received very helpful comments from @Nikkimaria:, @FrB.TG:, @ChrisTheDude:, @Pseud 14:, and @Aza24:, but I decided to withdraw the nomination because I wanted to clarify its single status. Since then, I found an official press release from Michelle's record label so I feel more confident about the article. As always, I would greatly appreciate any feedback! Aoba47 (talk) 03:25, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - I supported previously and see nothing to change that now -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:40, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per my last review. Except for a minor MoS adjustment I made, I have no complaint. FrB.TG (talk) 11:15, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you! The adjustment is greatly appreciated. Aoba47 (talk) 14:18, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Images are appropriately licensed/justified. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:48, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 14:18, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Improvements look good. Support per my review in the previous nomination. Pseud 14 (talk) 15:29, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • By the time I got around to looking at the article during its last review, I felt it was ready for promotion then (although, knowing absolutely nothing of this artist, I wouldn't have noticed any lack of material). I was going to support, with perhaps a comma comment, when the nominator requested archiving, so I was unable to do so. Considering that they did not know that I was about to support promotion, I felt that was an exceptionally mature and self-reflective approach, and demonstrates a nominator who is willing to go beyond the call of duty to ensure the encyclopedia comes first in the true spirit of FAC. It was a really honorable thing to do. I am pleased to rectify my tardiness now! SN54129 16:38, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the kind words and for your support. I have tried to become more self-reflective and when I was uncertain about a key element of the song (i.e. its single status), I wanted to make sure that I did my due diligence to do the research and I thought it would be more respectful to do outside of the FAC space to avoid detracting from other nominations. Aoba47 (talk) 22:08, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hopefully @WP:FAC coordinators: will take into account the length of time it previously spent at FAC, and how close to promotion it was, and promote this within a reasonable period—seven days of the nom, say—to make up for it 👍 SN54129 09:33, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

AK[edit]

  • Disclaimer: I haven't checked references and will be claiming credit for this at the WikiCup.
  • "More Issues Than Vogue (2016)" → Is listing the year necessary when you mention later the song was released as part of the album on Feb 19, 2016?
  • The single was actually released before the album, which was released on March 25, 2016. It is standard to include year that the album was released in this type of situation as sometimes a single can be released in a different than the actual album. The repetition is a bit annoying, but I think it is important to avoid any ambiguity or potential points of confusion. Aoba47 (talk) 13:15, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's a good suggestion, but I do not think it is necessary for two reasons. The concept of an album is pretty universally understood by a majority of readers (at least in my opinion), and having the link so close to the link for the album and T-Pain could raise some sea of blue concerns. Aoba47 (talk) 13:15, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Jet's" → You could replace the apostrophe with {{'}} so it doesn't overlap with the t.
  • That is a very good catch! I have used your suggestion. Aoba47 (talk) 13:15, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overall really nice article, only a couple of very minor nitpicks I could find.
  • Not necessary, but a review at my FAC would be appreciated. AryKun (talk) 03:01, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @AryKun: Thank you for your review. I greatly appreciate it! I would be more than happy to review your FAC. I hope you are having a great start to your week. Aoba47 (talk) 13:15, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as all my concerns have been addressed. AryKun (talk) 13:32, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the support. I appreciate it! Aoba47 (talk) 13:41, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review – Pass[edit]

Formatting
  • Pass, per last review
Reliability
  • Pass, per last review and valid rationale for HotNewHipHop
Verifiability
  • Couldn't find any issues
  • Pass for source review. Aza24 (talk) 06:46, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the source review. Aoba47 (talk) 14:04, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Z1720[edit]

Non-expert prose review. Comments with a question mark signify that I am unsure about my suggestion, and leave the final decision to your discretion.

  • "one of them has the explicit and clean versions as well as the music video." I don't know what is meant by this phrase. What is the "them" that is being referred to here?
  • I have hopefully clarified this in the prose. It is intended to mean that one of the digital releases includes these versions of the song and the music video. Aoba47 (talk) 03:09, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...along with "Not a Little Bit", "Got Em Like", and "Ain't You"." Should these singles be wikilinked?
  • Good catch. I am not sure how I over-looked that one. I have linked the first and third song as the second one does not have an article (at least at the moment). Aoba47 (talk) 03:09, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Seriah Buckler summarized the video..." Who is this person? Introduce their connection to the song in the article.
  • Revised. I actually had the introduction to this person later on in the article rather than on her first mention so that was a mistake on my part. Aoba47 (talk) 03:09, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Michelle further promoted "Mindful" through live performances." This line is in the lede, but I could not find in the article where it talks about Michele's promotion of this single or live performances. Did I miss this in the article?
  • The second paragraph of the "Background and release" section includes a sentence about her live performances of the song (at least the live performances that received coverage from reliable sources). Aoba47 (talk) 03:09, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Those are my thoughts. Z1720 (talk) 01:34, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Z1720: Thank you for the review. You have helped a lot as you have pointed out issues that I must have just been reading over while prepping this for a FAC. I believe that I have addressed everything. Aoba47 (talk) 03:09, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My concerns have been addressed and I can support. Z1720 (talk) 12:56, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gerald Waldo Luis[edit]

For a one-minute song this article looks pretty ready for FA. I picked up several issues; if they're resolved I'll support this FAC. GeraldWL 04:42, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Expand "R&B" to "rhythm and blues (R&B)" per MOS:ACRO1STUSE. Although: I'm fine with the status quo as well, since I guess R&B is a pretty common term mainly attributed to the genre? But just wanna note.
  • R&B is the standard not only in Wikipedia, but in how music sources cover this genre so I do not think this is necessary. Aoba47 (talk) 14:08, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link studio album and single?
  • Both are rather universally understood concepts so I feel that would be over-linking. Plus, the studio album link would be by the More Issues Than Vogue link would could create a sea of blue. Aoba47 (talk) 14:08, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Need another link for studio album in "for K. Michelle's third studio album More Issues Than Vogue"
  • I did not not link studio album in the lead so I did not link it in this section either. Aoba47 (talk) 14:08, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "in Atlanta"-- in some parts, the state is mentioned but in others--like this one here--it's not. I'm aware that the Atlanta article has no state in the title, but I suppose it'll be better to add the state for consistent flow.
  • From my understanding, larger and more well-known American cities do not use the state (i.e. Seattle, New York City, etc.). Aoba47 (talk) 14:08, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "along with" --> "along with those for"
  • "The production of the "Mindful" video was shown on the reality television series"-- reality television duplicate link
  • "summarized the"-- should there be a "that" between?
  • "T-Pain does not appear in the video." Should this be noted? Isn't songwriters not appearing in a music video a common thing?
  • Fair enough. I have removed it. I had added it to the article as this was pointed out in an article, and T-Pain does have fame and recognition so that's probably why that article pointed it out, but it is rather trivial and does not really flow with the section. Aoba47 (talk) 14:08, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Michelle raps throughout the song. She had previously rapped on her 2012 mixtape 0 Fucks Given and a remix of Yo Gotti's 2015 single "Down in the DM"." --> "Michelle raps throughout the song, which she had previously rapped on her 2012 mixtape 0 Fucks Given...."
  • Revised with a slightly different wording to avoid having raps/rapped in the same sentence. Aoba47 (talk) 14:20, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added link for urban contemporary music, but R&B should stay the same per my above response (especially since this is a quote). Aoba47 (talk) 14:20, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Michelle directs the song toward "all kinds of hos""-- or "hoes"?
  • The citation spells it as "hos". Aoba47 (talk) 14:20, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Aight so I Googled "hoes vs hos" and turns out different press sources use different wordings: "An AP story (on the San Francisco Chronicle site), CNN, NewsBusters, and Media Matters use hos while the New York Post and Chicago Tribune use hoes." I'll let that pass since it's a quote, same case with Among Us' article. GeraldWL 14:59, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Cragg," also "writing for The Guardian"
  • "and Jet's Najja Parker considered it not safe for work"-- I think, with the previous descriptions, readers can already guess the song is NSFW. Perhaps it can be linked in the word "explicit" at the background section, with a Jet citation?
  • Removed. It is probably not necessary since the release section already talks about explicit/clean versions of the song being released. Aoba47 (talk) 14:20, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "some of the few instances she has done "fun songs""-- but in the lead fun songs isn't quoted?
  • I thought it was a basic enough quote that it did not need quotation marks in the lead (as I avoid that in general), but I have paraphrased it now for the lead. Aoba47 (talk) 14:20, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Total duration?
  • From my understanding, the total duration for this kinds of track lists are not included. See "I'm Goin' Down" as a recent example of a song FA that does not have this. I do see your point though. Aoba47 (talk) 14:20, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Gerald Waldo Luis: Thank you for your review! I appreciate all the feedback and you have helped to improve the article a lot. I believe that I have addressed all of your comments. Aoba47 (talk) 14:20, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your clarifications, and yeah I do need a little sea of blue reminder every now and then ;-; ... but it looks all good now, and with Elias' comment resolved too I'm giving a support. Nice stuff! GeraldWL 15:02, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the support! Aoba47 (talk) 15:24, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment from Elias[edit]

Hi! First time participating in an FAC, so please be gentle ^^;. Since I am too busy IRL to substantially comment on the prose, and since other folks seem to have reviewed most aspects of the article already, I'll go ahead and drop a drive-by comment here instead. ‍ ‍ elias. 🧣 ‍ ‍ 💬reach out to me
📝see my work 05:51, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Critics noted that its uptempo production differed from Michelle's previous singles, and she stated that it was one of the first times she recorded a fun song. / Critics praised Michelle's rapping in "Mindful", and referred to it as a highlight of her singles.
While the sentences are separated by a line break, I feel like we can change one of the "critics" here into a synonym to make the transition from the first paragraph to the next flow more smoothly. Perhaps change "critics noted... " to "some reviewers noted..." ?
@Troubled.elias: I have revised the lead using your suggestion. Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 14:23, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Aoba47: No problem! Happy to have helped ^^; If you wish to do a QPQ, you may opt to give your comments in this peer review I've set up for "Streets" (song). Doing the undertaking as my first foray into bringing an article to FA Class. Cheers! ‍ ‍ elias. 🧣 ‍ ‍ 💬reach out to me
📝see my work 15:05, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would be more than happy to help with your peer review. I will try to get to it on Friday if that is okay with you as that is my day off work. Aoba47 (talk) 15:01, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Status update[edit]

  • @WP:FAC coordinators: Apologies for the ping. I just wanted to get a status update for this nomination. Thank you for your time, and have a great start to your week! Aoba47 (talk) 04:00, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, 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. (t · c) buidhe 06:12, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 16 April 2022 [33].

Kharijites[edit]

Nominator(s): AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 13:51, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Being Top Importance in WikiProjects Religion and Islam, this article is about the first Islamic sect. The sect appeared during the First Muslim Civil War in late 650s when a group from the army of the fourth caliph Ali seceded protesting against the proposal to settle the dispute with his opponent, the Syrian governor Mu'awiya, through dialogue. They weakened Ali's authority in his home base who then proceeded to defeat them. One of the survivors killed him in retaliation thus inadvertently assisting Mu'awiya's rise to the caliphate. They vigorously fought the subsequent governments labeling them unjust. The governments on their part severely suppressed them, which eventually caused their disappearance, except for one of their non-violent sect, the Ibadiyya, who survive to this day. I have been working on this article for about two years now. With content help from a subject expert and prose improvements by Al Ameer son, I think the article is now in a position to be judged against the FA criteria. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 13:51, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Drive by[edit]

  • References should be in chronological order.
Thanks SN54129. I prefer ordering by last name, and then by year. They seem to be all correctly ordered. --AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 17:03, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • You'll get a thorough source review—probably spot checks—but you've got a few p/pp anomalies in your refs, and some of your sources are missing publisher locations and/or page ranges for book chapters. SN54129 15:56, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Apologies, AhmadLX I sent you up a blind alley: I meant, "inline citations should be in numerical order" (e.g., not [31][34][33], but check for more?). My poor choice of words completely mislead you. Sorry for the confusion! SN54129 12:26, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, there is no rule about whether inline citations should be in a particular order. (t · c) buidhe 12:35, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, the reason there's no rule about this (and so many other aspects of the process) is because WP:FA/ has very few rules about anything. However, it is clearly an acceptable request for a reviewer to make and in line with generally accepted custom and practice. See, for example, the following FACs: [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41]; [42]; that last is fresher than a duck's nostril. The point has been suggested by highly experienced FAC reviewers and as—if not more—pertinently, accepted by your co-ord colleagues as legitimate requests. Yes, you consider them cosmetic, and I don't necessarily disagree; but consistency, particularly of citation, is one of the few "rules" we have, and this has clearly become something of a community norm. SN54129 13:38, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Serial Number 54129 and Buidhe: That is news to me. I have always been against this and list my cites in the order they occur in the text, or randomly. With the exception of a now-retired reviewer at ACR I can't recall ever being picked up on this, and not at FAC. I quite probably have been, have complied in order not to trivially stretch out a review, and have since forgotten. But I am a little startled to discover that this a "rule", if only because I have never made any effort to comply. Skimming some of my recent FAs, they do seem - serendipitously - to comply. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:08, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, just because something is sometimes requested by FAC reviewers does not make it a "rule" unless there is a basis for it in the FA criteria. As a coord, the only thing I'm looking at is whether the article meets the FA criteria. (t · c) buidhe 17:11, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog, custom and practice, best practice, whatever one calls it, =/= a rule, and only you and one other editor have, in fact, called it one. SN54129 17:42, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi, thank you for the feedback and the links. I sort citations based on authoritativeness of the sources, and if two sources are more or less equally authoritative, I give first the one which is more easily accessible. I think it too is a reasonable choice. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 22:33, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I couldn't find any p/pp. issues. Could you please point out any specific instances?--AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 17:03, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not SN54129 (of course), but I can help: Ref#43: "Wellhausen 1901, p. 17–18". – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:45, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Publisher locations are missing for online publications (such as EI3 online or Oxford Bibliographies Online) and for journal articles (which do not need locations (AFAIK)). There were a couple other instances of missing loc, which I've fixed.--AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 17:03, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Missing page ranges are also for online publications, where they do not exist/apply.--AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 17:03, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Suggest scaling up maps and charts, and see MOS:COLOUR
Scaling done. Have to read MOS:Colour. Will get back on this afterwards. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 20:47, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Allah-green.svg: what "public domain artwork" was this copied from?
It was in a template, which I've now removed. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 20:47, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Balami_-_Tarikhnama_-_Battle_of_Siffin_(cropped).jpg needs a US tag. Ditto File:Nahrawan-Canal.jpg
Done both. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 20:47, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Dirham_of_Qatari_ibn_Fuja'a.jpg needs a tag for the original work
Done. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 20:47, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:خريطة_الدولة_الرستمية.jpg: what's the source of the data presented in this map? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:15, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Replaced map. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 20:47, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Constantine[edit]

Will review over the following days. Constantine ✍ 10:02, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Did some copyedits, feel free to revert if necessary.
Thanks. They look very helpful. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 20:44, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • amounting supposedly to a total of 4,000 men why 'supposedly'?
At Adam Gaiser's suggestion. He said that the numbers in the sources are exaggerated. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 20:44, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Then I would state it like this, e.g. "numbering reportedly up to 4,000 men, although the number is likely exaggerated." Constantine ✍ 20:07, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I changed it to "numbering reportedly up to 4,000 men". I think "reportedly" does the job of alerting the reader. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 13:30, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • elected Abd Allah ibn Wahb al-Rasibi as their caliph. was al-Rasibi really proclaimed caliph, or just their leader?
Yes he replaced Ali as the caliph in their view. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 20:44, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • they were called Khawarij; the term is anglicized to 'Kharijites' can we add the Arabic singular here as well? It will make clear where the English form comes from.
Done. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 20:44, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is the photo of the Nahrawan Canal in a different section?
Just because of space; moving it up breaks the section border and looks a bit ugly. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 20:44, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • where he was taking the Kufans' oath of allegiance link oath of allegiance to bay'ah.
I think you've already addressed this in your ce. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 20:44, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can we link the major figures? Even if only as WP:REDLINKs.
I've added links to the most important ones. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 20:44, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 20:44, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Have reviewed until 'Beliefs and practices', will continue from there as soon as I have some time. Constantine ✍ 07:51, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • although Ibadi communities in these regions ceased to exist do we have a timeframe for this? Otherwise I would suggest rephrasing to something like 'although the Ibadi communities in these regions disappeared over time.'
Not really, so I went with the second option. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 20:44, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • the use of the tahkim by the Kharijites the tahkim is mentioned for the first time here, and needs to be explained here, or given earlier, when the motto is introduced.
That was a stupid mistake on my part. Should have been la hukma. Now fixed. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 20:44, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to him, the main role in forcing Ali Who? Shaban or Hinds?
Shaban; specified. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 20:44, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Kharijite rebellions after Siffin also had economic origins according to whom? Better still, something like "X attribute the Kharijite rebellions after Siffin also to economic motivations".
Clarified. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 20:44, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's it. The article is well written and impressively comprehensive, as far as I can tell. Being somewhat familiar with the subject, I could follow it without any problems, and didn't find anything major missing. Will do another read-through once the above points are dealt with, but I am ready to support it as it is. Constantine ✍ 19:05, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Constantine. Looking forward to the rest. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 20:44, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Most of my points above have been addressed, and I've marked them by crossing them out. I've done some additional copyedits, and have some final questions:

  • the emerging orthodoxy I assume Sunni orthodoxy is meant here? Then I would mention this.
Actually both Sunni and Shia authors are hostile to the Kharijites; specified now. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 13:30, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • a probable reconstruction of the events I am uneasy with 'probable' here. You mean something like 'reconstruction that might be close to actual truth', but I am not sure this is understood.
Modified. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 13:30, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • the sources sometimes used the Kharijites are we still talking about the heresiographers here, or the later sources generally?
Both; histories and heresiographies. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 13:30, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As these are minor issues, I also don't hesitate to support at this time. Constantine ✍ 20:07, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Constantine. I think I've addressed all points. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 13:30, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much Constantine. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 22:33, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note[edit]

This has been open for nearly three weeks and has yet to pick up a support. Unless it attracts considerable further attention over the next four or five days I am afraid that it will have to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:38, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Gog the Mild: Thanks. Just give me a week. I will ask a few blokes. Thanks. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 16:41, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Can you also put it on urgent list?AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 16:45, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Ceoil[edit]

Placeholder. First impression (from reading the lead only) is that this is very well written. Ceoil (talk) 17:55, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sourcing is impeccable, all high quality, recent (ie up to date), and consistently formatted. Ceoil (talk) 18:01, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Information about Kharijite history and doctrines derive from non-Kharijite authors, and are hostile toward the sect. - should the word contemporary be used here
Not quite contemporary, but I got your point. I added that they were mainly from the 9th and 10th centuries. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 19:07, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • A small thing, but would right-align File:Nahrawan-Canal.jpg, and place just after the "Under Mu'awiya" sub-header.
Done. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 19:07, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • They held that Uthman had deserved his death because of his faults deserved his death is awkward, and "because of his faults" is hopelessly vague.
Clarified. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 19:07, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, have read it all and am a Support on prose & sourcing (spot check not done as have reviewed earlier FACs by the nominator). Ceoil (talk) 18:32, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much Ceoil. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 19:07, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • One last thing, I would drop the 2nd nav box in the lead. Ceoil (talk) 19:44, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Removed. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 22:00, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Al Ameer[edit]

Received a request by nominator to give my thoughts. The subject covers a major group and formative period of Islamic history. I reviewed the article just prior to its nomination, believing it to be ready, but I will review with a keener eye once Ceoil finishes. Al Ameer (talk) 18:13, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • "anti-government activities" → "rebellion" or "rebellions".
Done. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 00:02, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... their defeat by the Umayyad general al-Hajjaj ibn Yusuf" → "their defeat by the Umayyads"
Done. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 00:02, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "They, however, deny any links with the Kharijites of the Second Muslim Civil War and beyond, condemning them as extremists" → "They, however, deny any links with the Kharijites, condemning them as extremists"
This cannot be done really. As mentioned in the article body, the Ibadis respect and fully own the Muhakkima and the Basran quietists (e.g. Abu Bilal). They disown only the Azariqa, Najdat, and Sufriyya (who in the classical narrative originated during the 2nd Fitna). AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 00:02, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, understood. Is “and beyond” necessary then? —Al Ameer (talk) 01:10, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Actually yes, because the classical narrative of the tafriq during the 2nd Fitna is incorrect as discussed in the moderates' section. Also, Suffriyya in any case survived for centuries, as did Najda splinters (e.g. Ajarida, Hamziyya) beyond the 2nd Fitna. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 21:18, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Al Ameer (talk) 04:35, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "branded as unbelievers any Muslims" → "branded as unbelievers Muslims"
Done. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 00:02, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "have viewed the Kharijites as religious extremists and having left the Muslim community" → "have viewed the Kharijites as religious extremists who left the Muslim community".
Done. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 00:02, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Al Ameer (talk) 04:03, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Unless pertinent, I recommend trimming the details of Mustawrid's revolt. Maybe split off to an article about and expand it slightly.
The section on the Kharijite activity under Mu'awiya was added at Gaiser's suggestion; according to him the discussion of the Kharijites of the period b/w Nahrawan and 2nd Fitna should be expanded else it leaves a significant gap in the article. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 21:18, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 21:18, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I recommend deleting the following, because these details do not seem necessary for this article: "The Azariqa, under the command of Ibn Mahuz's brother Zubayr ibn Mahuz, returned to Iraq, ravaged al-Mada'in, evaded pursuit from Zubayrid forces, and then besieged Isfahan. They were driven from Isfahan and fled to Fars and later to Kirman." Then, I would slightly revise the next sentence to "Reinvigorated by their new leader, Qatari ibn al-Fuja'a, the Azariqa attacked Basra's environs afterward and Muhallab was redeployed to suppress them." Then link the next mention of Kirman.
  • On second thought, it seems important to note their attack on al-Mada'in and siege of Isfahan. Recommend adjusting to "The Azariqa plundered al-Mada'in and then besieged Isfahan, but were defeated. They fled and eventually regrouped in Kirman. Reinvigorated by their new leader, Qatari ibn al-Fuja'a, the Azariqa attacked Basra's environs afterward and Muhallab was redeployed to suppress them." (link Isfahan) Al Ameer (talk) 17:04, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 21:18, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • No need for "His election came about as a result of his leadership qualities, which convinced Abu Talut's followers to depose him in favor of Najda." We already state in the previous sentence that he became this group's leader. Alternatively, if you want to emphasize Najda's leadership qualities, you could revise those two sentences to just the following: "Najda's leadership qualities convinced Abu Talut's Kharijite faction to elect him as their leader and they became known as the Najdat after him."
Had added it to emphasize the vulnerability of the position of Kharijite leader. But yeah was a bit repetitive; removed. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 21:18, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Were the towns Najda raided in Ibn al-Zubayr's domains in Bahrayn? If so, you could remove that bit, and just state that he took over Bahrayn and repulsed a 14,000-strong Zubayrid army deployed against him. Ignore if this was not the case.
Will check the source tomorrow. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 21:18, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 13:24, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Al Ameer (talk) 16:12, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • "the Sufriyya became extinct with the passage of time" → "the Sufriyya eventually became extinct"
  • "Sufriyya and Ibadiyya sects at this stage are ahistorical" Please specify which stage.
  • I see inconsistent use of Sufri and Sufriyya. Sufri should be used as an adjective as in "Sufri revolts" and Sufriyya as a noun, as in "the Sufriyya were led by". I made the change in the Sufriyya section, but this should be done throughout. Same with Ibadi and Ibadiyya, etc. Alternatively, eliminate the dual use altogether and strictly use "Sufriyya" and "Ibadiyya" (in which case I will revert my change). Al Ameer (talk) 04:35, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have fixed a few instances. Will do the rest soon. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 13:24, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Al Ameer son I think I've done all of them. You might want to have a look. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 22:31, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link taqiyya at first mention.
  • Should imams be de-italicized as this is an 'integrated' English word by now?
  • Link Tripoli.
  • "the Abbasid army" → "an Abbasid army", unless this was the empire's main army.

Finished with the History sections, will continue the rest tomorrow I hope. Al Ameer (talk) 04:35, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Sunnis, who later went on accept the leadership" → "Sunnis, who accepted the leadership". Since we are talking about Sunnis and not 'proto-Sunnis' or some other predecessor group.
  • "as long as they were Quraysh" → "provided they were Qurayshite" or "provided they were of the Quraysh"
  • "Shi'a, who were to assert" → "Shi'a, who asserted", same as above, since you are talking about Shia, not 'proto-Shia'.
  • "displaced" does not seem like the right word, perhaps "deposed", unless the Kharijites specifically mean exile or expel (in which case I would use one of those two terms).
  • "Although militant like the Azariqa", I would either drop this since it's been well-established by this point in the article that the Najdat and Azariqa were both militant/radical factions of the Kharijites, or, if sourced, something like "While the Najdat generally shared the Azariqa's view toward unbelieving Muslims [or kafirs if you prefer], they allowed marriages with non-Kharijites"
  • "Of the moderates, the Sufriyya and Bayhasiyya—followers of Abu Bayhas, who is said to have criticized the Azariqa for going too far and the Ibadiyya for not going far enough, although it is almost certain that this sect too developed later and not during the second civil war as the sources assert—considered all non-Kharijite Muslims as unbelievers, but also abstained from taking up arms against them, unless necessary, and allowed intermarriage with them" → Unless there is an appropriate place to introduce the Bayhasiyya beforehand in the article, in an exclusive sentence, I would move this: "followers of Abu Bayhas ... as the sources assert" to a footnote.
  • "Going too far" or "not going far enough" is vague, could this either be specified or revised?
  • "fighting jihad" → just "jihad" (with link)
  • Should "dhimmi" be de-italicized?

Almost done. Al Ameer (talk) 18:15, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • The majority of the leaders of the Kharijite revolts in the Umayyad period were Arabs" → "Most Kharijite leaders in the Umayyad period were Arabs"
  • You spell out two-digit numbers in the "Tribal affliations" section, but use the numeric form elsewhere. Choose one form for consistency.
  • Why does the South Arabian influence on the southern Arabs' culture and collective thinking attract them "more to Shi'ism than Kharijism"? I understand why this would steer them away from Kharijism, but why would it specifically attract them to Shi'ism?
  • When kufr is first introduced, mention that kuffar is the plural form, since kuffar appears a couple times in the article without being defined to the general reader.
  • "traditional Muslim historians and heresiographers of subsequent centuries" Might help general reader to clarify which centuries are covered by "traditional Muslim historians" since you mention the heresiographers are "of subsequent centuries".
Basically 9th to 12th centuries. I changed it at first but it looked ugly, so didn't save the change. Can you think of a suitable formulation? AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 13:24, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Finished. Made some copyedits here and there that you may want to check. Al Ameer (talk) 19:50, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Al Ameer. I've addressed most points. The two exceptions responded to above. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 13:24, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Ahmad. I trust the Sufri/Sufriyya inconsistency will be cleared up. This is an exceptionally fine article and I am happy to support. Al Ameer (talk) 18:07, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much Al Ameer. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 22:31, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Funk[edit]

I'll have a look soonish. FunkMonk (talk) 17:59, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll continue when Al Ameer's issues are fixed, so we don't thread the same ground. FunkMonk (talk) 17:04, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Funk, ready for you I think. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:09, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Probably has the necessary support already, but beginning now. FunkMonk (talk) 23:07, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Almost no primary Kharijite sources survive, except for Ibadi works" I wonder if Ibadis should somehow briefly be presented here, as it's the first time you mention them outside the intro.
  • The second paragraph under "Primary and classical sources" is a huge wall of text which is difficult to perhaps, could be broken in two.
  • Link people and places mentioned in image captions too, such as Uthman, Umayyad, and similar.
Thanks Funk. All done. --AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 19:30, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "(sing. Khariji); the term is anglicized to 'Kharijites'" Shouldn't this be in he etymology section? Seems odd that you in a way present the word twice.
  • "During their time in Ahwaz, doctrinal differences caused a split between Najda and Ibn al-Azraq." But what were these differences? Or is this what's described in the subsequent section?
  • "All the other uncategorizable Kharijite" uncategorizable or uncategorized?
  • "which might have been called "Sufri"." According to what, and what does it mean?
  • "who sent 4,000-strong army" Sent a?
  • You mention Jazira and Jaziran without introduction, would perhaps warrant some sort of context?
  • "Abbasid influence in Oman was mostly nominal, and Ibadi imams continued to wield considerable power.[111] Ibadi imamates were reestablished in subsequent centuries.[112] Ibadis form the majority of the Omani population to date." But when did they finally take control, and how?
  • Any total population number of modern Ibadis that could be mentioned under Ibadiyya?
  • You have maps showing Kharijite dynasties in various parts of the world, except where Ibadis have their stronghold now, in Oman, perhaps some historical map of that area would be relevant somewhere?
I couldn't find a suitable historical map of Oman which has references to its data sources. Essentially none on the Ibadi imamates. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 15:22, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link Sunna?
Seems it is linked long after first mention, at "although they added to its sources the sunna of Muhammad", should be at first mention. FunkMonk (talk) 14:41, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes that is intentional because in the earlier references sunna likely refers to tribal code of conduct and not Muhammad's sunna. Please see footnote [i].AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 15:22, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "hold that the story, due its prevalence in the sources" due to?
  • "It contrasts Kharijites' extreme piety with extreme" The Kharijites'? The extreme piety of the Kharijites'?
  • "It contrasts Kharijites' extreme piety with extreme violence, justifies Ali's attack on them at Nahrawan, certain versions have anachronous references to isti'rad, it is similar in structure to an incident of a later date, and mimics the actions characteristic of the later Azariqa group." Very long and a bit confusing sentence. Perhaps break it a bit up?
  • ", else he forfeited his right to rule and was subject to deposition" Or else? The current wording may also be possible, not sure.
I think it is correct. Maybe we can again ask Gog on this. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 15:22, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's an archaic usage, but IMO acceptable. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:43, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Gog. I've changed it to "or else".AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 15:49, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • You present some modern historians/researchers by occupation, others not, should be consistent.
  • "A famous example is the warrior and poet Layla bint Tarif" I came across another example with an article, Ghazala, perhaps worth a mention in that sentence?
  • "One of the Kharijite groups also refused to recognize the sura" Which group? You name the others, but perhaps this one doesn't have a name?
The source doesn't name them, and I haven't been able to locate it in any other sources. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 15:22, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link ethnic terms such as Arab, Greek, and Bedouin?
  • Any names of the poets that authored the last two quoted?
  • "But their goals were impractical and hostile to culture:[166] "let justice be done, though the world perish".[168]" This quote is a bit puzzling, what does it quote and in what context? Wellhausen stating this was akin to their doctrine? Could be stated more clearly.
I think the link was already implied in "But their goals were impractical and hostile to culture". Further elaboration would be counter-productive IMO as it is a minor point. I just removed the quote. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 15:22, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "influenced the development of the mainstream theology" Add "Muslim"?
  • "in relation of faith and deeds" Relation to?
  • " In Levi Della Vida's view" No need to spell out full name after first mention.
  • "the Mu'tazila in particular were likely influenced by them" Could these get some kind of context?
  • Islamist needs a link?
  • "The first Kharijites were supporters of Ali who rebelled against his acceptance of arbitration talks to settle the conflict with his challenger, Mu'awiya," you should state here it was a challenge for power over the Caliphate?
It wasn't really a challenge for caliphal claim. Mu'awiya became a contender after the Adhruh meeting. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 15:22, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Ali was assassinated in 661" Link the article about his assassination here?
  • "What is known about Kharijite history and doctrines derive from" Derives? "What is known" is singular, no? Pinging Gog the Mild as usual when I'm in doubt about some grammar issue... FunkMonk (talk)

14:41, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Well now. I have an opinion, but am not 100% certain, so I am pinging who I refer to my grammar uncertainties to: Tim riley Gog the Mild (talk) 14:57, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Without question the singular "what is known" must have a singular verb following it – "derives". (I take it you are tweaking my tail by writing "who" when you mean "whom", but I let it pass.) – Tim riley talk 17:02, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
:-) Thank you. That is what I thought, but I was struggling to articulate why. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:49, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, yeah, so I guess the same applies to the point below. Just need to be sure AhmadLX has seen any of this? FunkMonk (talk) 13:57, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @FunkMonk: Yes I've addressed both and most other points. The remaining ones I'll do soon. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 14:31, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and are hostile toward the sect" Likewise, is hostile?
  • "proto-democratic tendencies" The article body doesn't use this term, there shouldn't be unique info in the intro.
  • Could be interesting to have a category for extinct Islamic sects (would apply to some of the sub-sects covered in this article)... Not sure if there are equivalent categories for other religions and sects, maybe I should start some... All we have now is a List of extinct Shia sects.
Made an inquiry about it here:[43] FunkMonk (talk) 14:56, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think you've created one now. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 15:22, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks Funk. I've addressed most points. Exceptions responded to above. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 15:22, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - interesting stuff, glad I got time to review before it was promoted. FunkMonk (talk) 16:04, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Funk. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 19:44, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Borsoka[edit]

  • The term al-Khariji was used as an exonym by their opponents for leaving the army of Caliph Ali (see below). Consider completing the sentence instead of placing a "see below" text within the article. For instance, "...for leaving the army of Caliph Ali during the First Fitna".
Done. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 14:49, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • They called themselves al-Shurat ("the Exchangers"),... Are you sure Gaiser (2010) verifies the sentence?
Actually Gaiser (2016); Gaiser (2010) also, but on a different page number. Fixed. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 14:49, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • As representatives of the emerging orthodoxy... To which branch of Islam does the term "orthodoxy" refer? Sunnite, Shiite or both?
As far as the Kharijites are concerned, both. Now specified. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 14:49, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...the authors tend to portray their own sect... Is the term "sect" neutral? I assume co-religionists of these "sectarians" are mentioned as representatives of "orthodoxy" in previous sentences.
On neutrality please see my response to point 6 below. As for "Orthodoxy", we are not actually declaring the non-Kharijites as "Orthodox" from a religious point of view but from a historical point of view. The source itself uses the term "Orthodoxy". AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 14:49, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...(see below)... Do we need this text?
Removed. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 14:49, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...the first sect to arise within Islam ... Is the term "sect" neutral?
I think there is nothing non-neutral in the term. They were a sect just like other sects of Islam such as Sunnis, Shi'a, Mu'tazila etc. The source starts the Introduction with "The Khārijites were the first sect to crystallize in the Islamic world...". AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 14:49, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consider deleting "First Fitna" from the "Further information" part of section "Origin" (because the First Fitna is linked in the text).
Done. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 14:49, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...(la hukma illa li-llah) Move to the last sentence of section "Origin" (where the English translation is first quoted). Borsoka (talk) 09:10, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 14:49, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Introduce Abd Allah ibn Wahb al-Rasibi.
Well, since his primary claim to fame is him being the first Kharijite caliph, not sure how can one introduce him in other terms. I added "pious" before his name. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 14:49, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Kharijites continued to launch insurrections against the caliphate. Five small Kharijite revolts following Nahrawan, involving about 200 men each, were suppressed during Ali's rule. Move it to the previous section before mentioning Ali's assassination. Borsoka (talk) 09:50, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 14:49, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Introduce Farwa ibn Nawfal al-Ashja'i.
Stated his clan; I couldn't find anything more suitable to introduce him. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 23:22, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...near al-Mada'in (Ctesiphon) Is this necessary taking into account that Behrasir is linked?
Removed. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 23:22, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...killed Ibn Ziyad's deputy... In the previous sentence we are informed that Ibn Ziyad was expelled from the city. Did his deputy remain in the city?
He appointed the deputy when he left. Clarified. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 23:22, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • ... Shabib ibn Yazid al-Shaybani (see below) ... Is the "(see below)" part necessary?
Removed. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 23:22, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • ... Modern historians consider Ibn Saffar to be a legendary figure ... Does the cited source verify the statement about modern historians?
I think I've now added enough sources. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 23:22, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • ... The heresiographers, whose aim was to categorize the divergent beliefs of the Kharijites, invented the Sufriyya to accommodate those groups who did not fit neatly anywhere else. I assume this is not a fact, but a widely accepted scholarly theory. Perhaps we could say, "The heresiographers .... likely/probably/obviously invented the Suffriyya..."
It is continuation of "Modern historians consider..."; now added specifically. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 23:22, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • During the last days of the Umayyad empire, a major Sufri revolt erupted in 744. Consider mentioning that this happened in Iraq because the previous sentence referred to northern Africa and Oman. Borsoka (talk) 02:38, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 23:22, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The ruling position remained exclusively within the Quraysh for centuries. Is this necessary?
Admittedly, it was placed in a wrong place and did not fit in the context. Moving it one sentence past also broke the flow, so I had just put it in this wrong place. Now I have moved it to a footnote and rephrased it a bit. Hopefully the context is now clearer. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 20:47, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...first four caliphs... Consider linking Rashidun.
Done. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 20:47, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • ..., especially Iraq and Persia ... Is this necessary (taking into account that a mawla of Greek origin is mentioned in one of the following sentences)?
The vast majority of the mawali was in fact of Persian/Iraqi origin. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 20:47, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consider introducing Giorgio Levi Della Vida (Michael Cooperson is introduced in a following sentence).
Done. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 20:47, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first Kharijites were supporters of Ali who had rebelled... Perhaps "who rebelled"?
Done. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 20:47, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

End of my comments. Thank you for this interesting, well-written and thoroughly researched article. Borsoka (talk) 02:54, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much Borsoka. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 20:47, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your hard work. Borsoka (talk) 01:23, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

  • Can you provide ISBNs for Abbas, Bosworth, and Donner?
Thanks Mike. ISBNs for these do not seem to exist. Bosworth is an online article, whereas for the other two, I haven't been able to find any. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 15:34, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For Abbas try OCLC 584091175; and 587950873 for Donner. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:51, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Gog. OCLCs added. Contacted template creator for loc. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 19:44, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're inconsistent about providing publisher locations; they are missing for Gaiser (2020), Gaiser (2021), and Lewinstein (2008).
Yes, these are online publications and do not have locs. Also Gaiser (2013), and Sonn, Tamara; Farrar, Adam (2009). Bosworth (2009) has one, but it shouldn't; it comes from the template. I will replace the template soon. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 15:34, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sources all look reliable, and I can't find any formatting problems. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:33, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passes; I see Gog suggested a couple of OCLCs above, but no reason to hold up for that. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:58, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Mike. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 19:44, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 15 April 2022 [44].

Levantine Arabic[edit]

Nominator(s): A455bcd9 (talk) 11:19, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Levantine Arabic, a variety of Arabic spoken in the Levant. (PR1, Sept 2021 / GA1, Dec 2021 / DYK, Dec 2021 / PR2, March 2022) A455bcd9 (talk) 11:19, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, here are the only 2 FA about a spoken language: Nafaanra and Nahuatl. A455bcd9 (talk) 21:09, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review—pass[edit]

  • File:Modern Levant.PNG — file description states the accuracy is disputed
  • File:Arabic Dialects.svg — The image description should include sources for the info displayed on the map
  • File:Lebnaan Newspaper issue 686.jpg — I don't think this meets the non-free copyright criteria for use in this article, especially #1 and #8.
  • Other images look fine. I don't see any sound files in the article, but if there are any they have not been evaluated. (t · c) buidhe 11:46, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
File:Modern Levant.PNG: I don't see any dispute so removed that information in the file description. Otherwise we could use File:The Levant 3.png (sourced) or File:Levant (orthographic projection).png
File:Arabic Dialects.svg: I don't think we can find sources for such a map, I removed it.
File:Lebnaan Newspaper issue 686.jpg: I don't know enough about non-free copyright criteria, let me know if I have to remove it A455bcd9 (talk) 11:57, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For 3, I went ahead and removed it. (t · c) buidhe 12:01, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lots of duplicate links. You can detect them using User:Evad37/duplinks-alt. (t · c) buidhe 12:01, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I removed most of them. A455bcd9 (talk) 12:40, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Buidhe: for "Arabic Dialects.svg", I've just realized that the image was present in Schmitt, Genevieve A. (2019). "Relevance of Arabic Dialects: A Brief Discussion". In Brunn, Stanley D.; Kehrein, Roland (eds.). Handbook of the Changing World Language Map. Springer. p. 1385. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-02438-3_79. ISBN 978-3-030-02437-6. as "Fig. 1 Major dialects of Arabic, by region. (Open source)". Could this be used as a source, a posteriori? (or at least a validation by a scholar that the information in the image is reliable) A455bcd9 (talk) 15:16, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Works for me. (t · c) buidhe 15:18, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria[edit]

Oppose at this time. There is considerable citation cleanup needed: many citations are incomplete and the formatting is inconsistent. There are also some issues with article structure, with a very long TOC, short and choppy subsections, and a significant number of one-sentence paragraphs. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:18, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Could you please provide examples of incomplete citations? I checked during the last peer review and I thought it was okay. Same question regarding formatting. I'm a bit surprised because I only used the automatic citation tool in VisualEditor, and as it auto-formats, I guessed the resulting formatting would be consistent. Chris Capoccia also reformatted refs and used citation bot cleanup. Regarding the other points: I'll improve that later. A455bcd9 (talk) 21:04, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately automated tools don't necessarily ensure consistency. Some samples of issues (not a full list):
  • Some references use the {{citation}} template, while others use cite templates ({{cite book}}, {{cite web}}, etc) - this will produce output that looks different. Also some references use no template at all, eg 278
  • Many books are missing publisher - eg footnotes 3, 8, 102, 126, and others
  • Some books include publication location (eg 27) while others do not (eg 123). This is an optional parameter, so you should decide to include or not include and then do that consistently.
  • When someone translates a work, they should be credited using a translator parameter rather than an author parameter in the citation template
  • Citations should generally include at least one of work or publisher - eg 155 has neither. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:13, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Crediting translators is optional, I believe, but if you are doing it, I would advise to use the translator parameter as Nikkimaria suggests. (t · c) buidhe 23:14, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I replaced {{citation}} templates, added publishers where missing in {{cite book}}, removed all "publication-place" and "location", added translators, added website for 155, and a template for 278 (I think it was the only ref without a template). Do you think citations are okay now? A455bcd9 (talk) 17:35, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The TOC is now way shorter (from ~60 sections and first-level subsections to ~40) and I removed many one-sentence paragraphs and "short and choppy subsections". I think the "Grammar" section is the only one where there may still be some work to do. What do you think? A455bcd9 (talk) 20:23, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely work needed in Grammar, but not only that. For example, presently the Vocabulary section is only six paragraphs, and yet it has two subsections. With regards to citations, thank you for addressing the specific examples raised, but as noted that wasn't a comprehensive list of issues. For example, footnotes 147 and 148 are both journal references but look quite different; 267 includes "www" in the domain but 265 does not; 123 lists ProQuest as a publisher, but in 20 the platform is credited using |via= instead. Some of these are errors: 20 is the correct way of treating platform, 123 is incorrect. Some of these are simply a matter of consistency. But both cases need working through. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:22, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think I addressed these issues. I understand that your list wasn't comprehensive, so I tried to address other issues I identified. Besides the Grammar section, is there still some work needed? If so, can I find a comprehensive checklist somewhere with the different criteria (such as "www" in the domain, credit platform with via, etc.) so that I don't bother you? A455bcd9 (talk) 10:45, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately I'm not aware of a comprehensive checklist. WP:CITEHOW and the documentation for the templates will give you some of the information, but a lot of the time it's a matter of manually comparing citations to see where they differ. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:49, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I used the Wikipedia citation bot, not really helpful... I looked at WP:CITEHOW and improved several citations. Is it okay now? A455bcd9 (talk) 17:04, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Still problems unfortunately. More examples: footnote 165 is a harv error; some book references include locations while others don't; some journals include publishers while others don't. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:23, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Aargh sorry... "some book references include locations while others don't": which book references? There was one that I forgot (Cambridge, just removed) but otherwise the only 6 "location=" used are for conferences (Miyazaki, Istanbul, Doha, Brasov) as it seems to be expected by Template:Cite conference. I added the three missing publishers for journals. I think/hope we should be good now... A455bcd9 (talk) 08:15, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
By the way you wrote: "123 lists ProQuest as a publisher, but in 20 the platform is credited using |via= instead. Some of these are errors: 20 is the correct way of treating platform, 123 is incorrect." And I initially changed from "publisher=" to "via=" for this reference. However I double-checked and the document says: "Published by ProQuest LLC (2019). Copyright of the Dissertation is held by the Author." So should I change back to "publisher=ProQuest"? A455bcd9 (talk) 08:55, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No - ProQuest is publishing a reproduction, but the thesis itself is originally published by the university. |via= is the more appropriate position for ProQuest in this case. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:44, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria, I worked on the citations, could you please tell me if they're okay now? A455bcd9 (talk) 16:53, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
They are definitely much better than when we started, but there are still inconsistencies. For example, some references to Ethnologue use regular {{cite web}} templates while others use a specialty template with different formatting. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:15, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: thanks. Template:Ethnologue25 only works for languages. The only three references to Ethnologue using cite web are links to Ethnologue's maps. (I changed one) Is that really an issue? If so, what would you recommend? A455bcd9 (talk) 17:26, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Using {{cite web}} for all. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:27, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Done. Anything else? A455bcd9 (talk) 17:38, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK thanks. Let me know if citations are okay now. I also worked on the TOC and one-sentence paragraphs. A455bcd9 (talk) 14:03, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Nikkimaria. I note your withdrawal of your oppose. Does that mean that the source review is a pass? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:52, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No - I did not do a full source review. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:59, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

JBchrch[edit]

  • To stay on the topic of sourcing, one inconsistency I'm seeing is that sometimes sources are cited with a specific page and sometimes not, e.g. ref 41, 107, 126. I am aware that it would be a huge job to fix that, but alas consistency is part of the FACR. Also is there any "systematic" reason why some sources are cited in "Sources" and referenced through {{sfn}} templates while others are cited directly in the "references"? JBchrch talk 22:48, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi @JBchrch:,
    I checked all sources and added missing page numbers. I think the only sources cited without pages now are:
    • Online news articles (for which there's no page, e.g. this one or that one),
    • Articles from the Encyclopedia of Arabic Language and Linguistics that are available online (e.g. here) without pagination,
    • "An illusionary power of seduction?" which is also an online journal, so there's no pages.
    Is it okay now? (I think so)
    Sources in "Sources" using sfn: long books cited several times at different pages in the article, and also the main references about Levantine Arabic in general. Sources directly in "References": shorter articles (often only cited once and about a specific point). Does this make sense? What are the conventions here? A455bcd9 (talk) 10:11, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @A455bcd9 Thanks -- are you sure you've checked all of them? I still see that ref 104, 108 and 246, for instance, are quoted "in bulk". As for the "Sources"/"References" thing, there is no standard practice, since Wikipedia doesn't mandate a specific citation style, it just has to be consistent. One additional comment as I looked at the article once more: I see that sometimes you list the day-month-year of publication as its publication date, and sometimes only the year (e.g. Brustad & Zuniga 2019, Al Masri 2015). I think listing the year is sufficient, and it will also make it consistent. JBchrch talk 14:04, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @JBchrch: I thought the only issue was consistency in terms of appearance (some references with p= or pp=, others without => now they all have this parameter, with a few exceptions I explained). But now I understand that it's not only about visual appearance but also about how accurate each page mention is and you would like each reference to specifically mention the exact page(s) related to the sentence they're attached to. So if it's a 10-page article and the information needed appears on page 5 then you want p=5 instead of pp=1-10. Am I correct? From WP:PAGENUM, I understood that specific page numbers were only required when citing "lengthy" sources. Should I still do it?
    Date format: I've just converted all dates to year in the "Sources" section. But do you think I should do that in "References" as well? Including for news articles? And for journals (for which the format is most likely Month Date)? A455bcd9 (talk) 15:54, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @A455bcd9 Your understanding of my suggestion is correct. Given PAGENUM, you can probably attempt to get this through FAC without mentioning page numbers each time, but you would have an easier time getting the designation if the page numbers were cited every time. Also, pay attention to the fact that sometimes there are lengthy works that are cited without a specific page number, such as ref 41. About dates: the "classical" way of doing things is to keep day+month+year for news articles, but to mention only the year for scholarly articles (unless adding the month [and the day] is the only way to individualize the article in question). JBchrch talk 16:08, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @JBchrch: OK so I changed all dates to "year only" for scholarly articles (cite book, cite journal, and cite conference) and kept day+month+year for cite news and cite web (when available).
    For the page numbers, just to be clear (before starting what may be a huge task haha), do you mean Given PAGENUM, you can probably attempt to get this through FAC without mentioning [specific] page numbers each time, but you would have an easier time getting the designation if the [specific] page numbers were cited every time.? I so, then I'll make page numbers more specific tomorrow or this weekend 😅 A455bcd9 (talk) 16:43, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I've started adding more specific page numbers (almost done...), so never mind my question :) A455bcd9 (talk) 21:13, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @A455bcd9 Apologies for the late answer. And yes, just in case, yes that was what I meant :). Good luck this work! JBchrch talk 16:11, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @JBchrch no worries! I've actually just finished. I hope it's okay now :) Please let me know if there are still some issues... A455bcd9 (talk) 16:37, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @A455bcd9 It looks like things have improved indeed, but I will take a closer look later. Something you could double-check is whether all the book titles are correctly capitalized. For instance, ref 125 and 129 should have more capitals per their "official" titles [45][46]. JBchrch talk 17:14, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @JBchrch: it's a never ending task haha! Thanks, I fixed those and all the others I identified. A455bcd9 (talk) 17:54, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @A455bcd9 Yes it is 😊. The way I like to think about it is that the article has to be "ready for the printing press" which supposes that Wiki editors have to do the work typically done by publishers, editors and copyrights "in real life". JBchrch talk 18:42, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @JBchrch: I have so much respect for all the contributors who improved articles to FA status now... Anyway I think the article is "ready for the printing press" (when it comes to citations at least). But you'll maybe tell me there's yet another point to improve 😅 A455bcd9 (talk) 18:54, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @JBchrch Were you able to take a closer look at the citations? A455bcd9 (talk) 16:49, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @A455bcd9 Unfortunately, I was not able to find enough time to do so. I will now go on a wikibreak, so sadly I will not be able to work on this soon. Best of luck! JBchrch talk 17:19, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @JBchrch, no worries, thanks for your feedback and enjoy your break :) A455bcd9 (talk) 17:20, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @JBchrch: hi, if by any chance you're back from your wikibreak (otherwise, never mind :) ), please let me know if the citations are now okay (esp. the ones without page numbers). A455bcd9 (talk) 13:33, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi, A455bcd9, thanks for your message. I'm indeed off my wikibreak but unfortunately I will not have the time to take a look a the citation at the moment, at least until the next week-end. I hope that in the meantime perhaps someone is able to do a proper source review. I'm still watchilisting this page, so following how it goes. JBchrch talk 14:12, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Joseph[edit]

  • Very nice and comprehensive article with useful maps and good references. Thanks for your efforts.--Joseph (talk) 16:17, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note[edit]

This has been open for three weeks and has yet to pick up a support. Unless it attracts considerable further attention over the next two or three days I am afraid that it will have to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:35, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just to understand: how does the process work? Because my natural reaction if you archive this nomination, would be to nominate it again right after as there's only one "Oppose" based on grounds that I consider (maybe wrongly) fixed. A455bcd9 (talk) 16:57, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If the nomination is archived, you're not able to renominate for at least two weeks. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:15, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Good to know, thanks!
@Gog the Mild: Nikkimari has just removed their "oppose" and JBchrch (who did not formally oppose as far as I understand) will go on a wikibreak. Does this still mean that this nomination will be closed? A455bcd9 (talk) 17:50, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not necessarily. If in two or three days it hasn't attracted a couple of substantial general reviews, or at least the start(s) thereof, archiving will probably happen. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:16, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Based on the past 3 weeks with 0 general reviews, I guess it's unlikely that there will be "a couple of substantial general reviews" in the next ~48h. So it's likely that you will archive this nomination. And I'll then reopen it 2 weeks later. And potentially this can go on forever? Why would there be more reviewers in 2 weeks when the nomination will be back on the top of the pile (vs being at the bottom in "Older nominations" where I thought people would have an incentive to reduce the backlog)? I'm just curious because I'm struggling to understand the logic behind this process. A455bcd9 (talk) 18:49, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Logic? This is FAC. Yes, you could keep that up forever. Though it gets old pretty fast. Alternatively, you could ask me or someone who may have a constructive suggestion for thoughts on how a nominator might attract reviewers. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:58, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I would love to know how to attract reviewers, what would you recommend? (by the way, I asked a few users with experience in languages/linguistics for a review in the past, without much success, such as Jeppiz, Greyshark09, Chris Capoccia, kwami, delldot, Casliber, Maunus, Mo-Al, and just before your answer I asked Austronesier).
[I assumed in my previous message—and I was maybe wrong—that it would be impossible to attract two or three reviewers in the next 48/72 hours to conduct a general review. That's why I asked about the reasoning for the FAC process to be follow such a procedure.] A455bcd9 (talk) 19:10, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The reasoning, in so far as there is any, is that if you haven't attracted any/several supports in three weeks, it will probably take you quite a while/forever to gain a consensus for promotion. And rather than clutter up the nominations list, it would be better to go away and think about it.
The accepted wisdom that an editor is well advised to to review a dozen or twenty FACs prior to their own first nomination. It gives them a real grasp of what is needed in an article and the resulting lack of major issues makes FAC regulars more likely to consider reviewing it. While there is no formal quid pro quo, it also generates good will among the FAC regulars and makes them more likely to be sympathetic when they see your name on the list of nominators.
PR can have a similar effect, and reviewers of an article at PR can frequently be cajoled into following up with one at FAC. As you have identified, editors with an interest in a broad area may respond to a neutrally phrased request - perhaps on their talk page. A similar approach may work with editors who are frequent FAC reviewers even if they have no immediately apparent history of reviewing in an article's area.
You will no doubt have identified some potential overlap between the suggestions above. Does any of this help? Gog the Mild (talk) 19:31, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the reasoning in a situation where there's at least one oppose and no or low support, but here there's nothing on both sides, that's why the process surprises me. But I accept it as it is, of course.
As you say, it is what it is. And, IMO, it works passably well.
"The accepted wisdom that an editor is well advised to to review a dozen or twenty FACs prior to their own first nomination.": would be great to mention this on WP:FAC. I did some FAC reviews (Pronunciation of GIF, Jews in Hong Kong, Armenian genocide) but it didn't help because I still don't know what it takes to be a FA. (not being a native English speaker makes me a bit reluctant to review other people's prose as well...)
I wouldn't worry about inexperience, or perceived weaknesses. Just get stuck in. If necessary, specify what you are assessing against, or where you feel less than wholly sure. Most nominators will let you know if they feel you are in error. (Just mention serial commas on one of mine!)
After their GA review, Cerebellum said "I think it has a good shot at FA :)"; in their DYK review (approved by Theleekycauldron), David Eppstein wrote "Very thoroughly sourced, easily meeting the additional sourcing requirements of DYK over GA."; and buidhe started their PR (before FA) with "Article looks promising". I understood these various messages as a "lack of major issues". But reading your message I feel like you imply that there are major issues in the current version in the article and that this is the reason why no one has yet started to review it. Did I misunderstand you?
Yes. I was speaking generally. I have skimmed the lead and read none of the main article.
I'm just asking these questions because it's my first FAC and I'm a bit puzzled and discouraged by the process.
Oh yay. I remember my first couple of FACs. FAC is a high level, and so FAC is a tough process, and can seem brutal. And not having a working ACR system in most areas means there is a chasm in level from GAN. All I can say is that virtually everybody in the process wants articles to be promoted. And that the poor response for this one is a little disappointing; possibly the length and/or the specialist area and/or its esoteric nature have deterred people. Or it may just be one of those things.
What does ACR mean? It's true that the gap between GAN and FAC seems huge. Anyway, thanks for your detailed answers (to my annoying questions 😅). Now back to work... A455bcd9 (talk) 14:20, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've just left another message on all users who reviewed the article in the past (2 PRs + GA). As I mentioned above, I contacted in the past several editors with a broad interest in languages/linguistics/the Levant/the Arab world without much success. I didn't want to contact them again for this FAC nomination because I didn't want to "spam" them. Should I still do it? A455bcd9 (talk) 20:20, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your call, but if it were me, I would. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:33, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Got it, will do! In addition to Cas Liber who has started a review below, Cerebellum will review it and Austronesier said they would try to review as well. A455bcd9 (talk) 08:42, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I contacted again all editors who at some point contributed to the article and all Levantine speakers. A455bcd9 (talk) 14:56, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
FYI: I contacted a total of 63 active contributors, including all Levantine speakers and all main contributors to Levantine Arabic and related subjects (subdialects, other Arabic varieties, Modern Standard Arabic, ancient Arabic languages, etc.). I also announced the FAC at various projects. A455bcd9 (talk) 10:11, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: regarding the process, do we need more participants? (in that case I could try to ping again some of the people I contacted) Or is it more about getting support from existing participants? (esp. Cas Liber? as the buidhe and Cerebellum said they didn't feel qualified to support) A455bcd9 (talk) 09:50, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that you have sufficient. Given the number of reviewers currently looking at the article I would be surprised if they were not to generate sufficient input for a closing decision to be reached. However, as this is your first FAC, it will also need the citations to be spot checked for source to text fidelity. I have requested this at the top of the FAC talk page. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:06, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Got it, thanks a lot for your help! A455bcd9 (talk) 17:58, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: I guess we have enough supports now. As we're waiting for the source review and first timer's sourcing spot check, is there anything I could do in the meantime to make sure they are a success? A455bcd9 (talk) 21:09, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not that I can think of. Pray? Gog the Mild (talk) 21:20, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Haha this is unfortunately the answer I was expecting! I'll pray then... A455bcd9 (talk) 21:49, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Gog the Mild, can anyone do a source review (and/or first timer's source spot check) and what's the process? (as asked by Austronesier here). A455bcd9 (talk) 19:01, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I posted a request for both at the head of the FAC talk page a week ago. This gives some idea of what needs checking for a source review. Looking at source reviews for other nominations should also help. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:36, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
On a sidenote, but not really, there is something wrong with the need for many comments to promote an article. That would mean that ceteris paribus articles from esoteric fields have a lower chance of being promoted even if somebody, like A455bcd9, would bring them up to par, and that sounds not fair. Debresser (talk) 15:18, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Waahaha. Debresser, Your point is on the money in theory, but in practice FAC somehow seems to not work like that. Ie the last eight FACs promoted have been Tom Eastick, First homosexual movement, Jubilee coinage, Clonmacnoise Crozier, Pronunciation of GIF, Pan Am Flight 7, Woodleigh MRT station and Nizar ibn al-Mustansir. They have all made it through the process and I struggle to imagine a more esoteric set of fields. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:58, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Cas Liber[edit]

Have looked at some of this while on a plane...resuming reading and jotting notes below....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:23, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Levantine does not descend from Classical Arabic: they both descend from an unattested common ancestor called Proto-Arabic. - this sounds like you're labouring the point. Would drop the first bit as it means nothing to most readers.
    • Most Arabs and Arabic-speakers think/believe that Levantine dialects descend from Classical Arabic, that's why I thought it would make sense to mention this information in the lead. But because Classical Arabic isn't mentioned before I deleted the whole sentence. A455bcd9 (talk)
      • My understanding is that the numerous varieties of spoken Arabic technically descend from Old Hijazi Arabic. The term Proto-Arabic is probably too ambiguous to be of much use – worse, it typically refers to the most recent common ancestor not of the modern, but of the ancient varieties (which are attested in ancient inscriptions and familiar only to experts). While Classical Arabic is technically not identical with Old Hijazi (c. 1st to 7th centuries), but a standardised literary prestige register between the 7th and 9th centuries – nor, of course, with Old Arabic (which covers various ancient regional dialects of the Arabian Peninsula which later went extinct) nor Proto-Arabic (which is dated to the pre-Christian era) –, the distinction between Old Hijazi and Classical Arabic is fairly subtle, as are questions about chronology, and I can imagine that the usage between scholars is not entirely consistent (but then, I'm not an Arabist). When you try to reconstruct the most recent common ancestor of all the modern spoken Arabic varieties, you probably get something very much like Classical Arabic, so it's not that wrong – not as wrong as, for example, to claim that all North Germanic dialects descend from Old Icelandic. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 14:20, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Florian. According to Al-Jallad 2020a: "In southwest Arabia, some varieties appear to descend directly from Proto-Arabic rather than through the medium of Old Ḥigāzī and have, overall, not converged with major strands of modern Arabic, such as the Rigāl Almaʿ or the Fayfi vernacular." So it may not be the case that "the numerous varieties of spoken Arabic technically descend from Old Hijazi Arabic". And yes, unfortunately, the terminology isn't consistent between scholars... And there's no consensus on most questions. I tried to sum up the situation in Classification of Arabic languages. The term "Classical Arabic" itself isn't clear as explained by Al-Jallad: "Classical Arabic is a vague umbrella term used to cover a wide variety of sources, most often the language documented by the Arabic Grammarians, the reading traditions of the Qur’an, the pre-Islamic Odes, and texts written in the Islamic period. These sources are not homogenous and can vary significantly over time and place. As such Classical Arabic is not a single variety of the Arabic language but should rather be construed as a blanket definition covering what is prescriptively possible in written Arabic in pre-modern times." A455bcd9 (talk) 14:41, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    FYI @Florian Blaschke, Birnstiel writes in Classical Arabic that: "Traditionally, Classical Arabic has been regarded as more or less identical with the ancestor of all varieties of Arabic, ancient and modern, and thus as nearly identical to Proto-Arabic (Fischer 1997: 187–8). However, many varieties of Arabic both ancient and modern preserve features lost in Classical Arabic and present a state corresponding more closely to what is found in other Semitic languages (Al-Jallad 2018b, Huehnergard 2017, Pat-El 2017). This shows that these varieties of Arabic cannot have developed from Classical Arabic." And later: "Classical Arabic crystallized consequently as a unifying literary standard from the (semi-)conscious efforts of the grammarians in evaluating the different materials as well as the (performative-ritual, not necessarily spoken) language of certain Bedouins." So I don't think that the consensus today is that When you try to reconstruct the most recent common ancestor of all the modern spoken Arabic varieties, you probably get something very much like Classical Arabic. (but again, it's not super clear) A455bcd9 (talk) 14:54, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It's news to me that some marginal Arabic varieties in Arabia are thought to be not derivable from Old Hijazi. (Coincidentally, I looked at Razihi and Fayfi recently and thought that they do not look like they descend from Old South Arabian, nor even like they have a strong OSA substratum, already from the phonetics: no ejectives, no laterals, like you might expect, but the usual pharyngealised and dental realisations known from varieties of Arabic. As such, I agree at least that they seem to be some kind of Arabic.) However, we're talking about Levantine Arabic here, and I know of no particular reason (historical or linguistic) why it should not be descended from Old Hijazi (with an Aramaic substratum). For all we know, the Levant was still Aramaic-speaking in the 7th century, except perhaps for the (non-Roman-controlled) hinterland (like the Ghassanid and Tanukhid domains), so it doesn't seem as plausible as in Arabia itself that the local variety of Arabic is descended from some non-Hijazi ancient Arabic variety. So, the mainstream of spoken Arabic at least does seem to be based on Old Hijazi, primarily anyway. Be that as it may, though, this is irrelevant for the present purpose, since you deleted the sentence in question. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 17:55, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the Naming section, how do scholars determine where to demarcate the limits - i.e. why are certain dialects excluded.
    • I don't know because scholars don't explain. It all seems quite arbitrary and I couldn't find any source explaining clearly the demarcation. For instance Versteegh notes that some sedentary Levantine dialects have Levantine Bedouin features: "But the fact that they are all sedentary does not mean that they never have Bedouin features." (p. 188) but doesn't include Bedouin dialects in his classification. A455bcd9 (talk) Actually I should be more accurate: Arabic varieties form a continuum and there's no clear border between one variety and another (it's even a challenge for computers/AI to precisely identify the dialect of a sentence, example). So they're grouped based on existing social constructs (borders, ethnic groups, religion, etc.). Still, these social constructs can have a performative effect and gradually create clear borders between two varieties. This process is ongoing in the Levant. A455bcd9 (talk) 15:39, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Casliber: Have you had a chance to look at my answers yet? Let me know if there are other points I should improve. Cheers, A455bcd9 (talk) 09:57, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The similarity among Levantine dialects is not necessarily determined by geographical location or political boundaries. - "necessarily" redundant here. Examples seems to indicate "not at all" really
  • Avoid 1-2 sentence short paragraphs
    • I've just removed some 2-sentence paragraphs but I kept some that I considered "okay". If it's not, please let me know. A455bcd9 (talk)
  • I don't get any sense of how Levantine Arabic differs from MSA or Classical Arabic from reading this article (this should also be touched on in the lead too). Also am a bit worried that the Arabic article touches on this entity very little.
    • Sources don't expand much on that. They are different languages, sharing about 50% of common words (that's less than French and English). As explained in the article, it's like French vs Romanian. Or French vs Latin. What would you like to see? I can try to find sources. A455bcd9 (talk)
      • Actually if too different this is impossible really. I thought they were more similar. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:24, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, tentative support as it appears comprehensive and written in as accessible a manner without sacrificing meaning. I am not familiar with the linguistics so will defer to those who know more. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:48, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Buidhe[edit]

  • In the #Speakers by country section, where are the overall national population figures coming from? How were these figures calculated and was this done in a comparable way to counting the number of Levantine speakers? Some of the percentage figures look wrong to me and they could be significantly off if there is a discrepancy, for example in the year that these figures are for. I would at least remove the percentage unless there's a RS that specifically gives a percentage. (t · c) buidhe 09:18, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The overall national population figures come from Ethnologue (2022 edition), I added the sources. The number of speakers (for apc and ajp) similarly come from Ethnologue's latest edition. Which percentage figures look wrong to you? The only one that surprised me was Qatar (33%). Ethnologue's estimate dates from 2019 for the language population figures, so it's quite recent and the overall population hasn't changed much since then. And given the large numbers of Lebanese, Palestinians, and Syrians (esp. since the Syrian Civil War), these numbers make sense. (here's another source). Ethnologue gives some of these percentage figures (for Palestine, Jordan, and Syria for instance) but not all of them, so I removed the percentage column. A455bcd9 (talk) 14:10, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a different type of Arabic, rather than just a modified version of the Classical language" I'm not sure what this is trying to say. Would it make more sense to axe this clause and rely on the next one to convey the linguistic view on the relationship of Classical Arabic to Levantine?
I simplified the sentence. What do you think? FWIW the source was: "In the preceding chapters, we have concentrated on the features that the Arabic vernaculars or dialects have in common as against the Classical Standard language. In that context, we have shown that they represent a different type of Arabic, rather than just a modified version of the Classical language." A455bcd9 (talk)
  • Not sure how the second paragraph in Classification is relevant to the article, since it does not seem to be about Levantine specifically. It would be more useful to cite research on how Levantine is understood across the Arab world, if that exists. I would remove this paragraph and merge the section with the previous one into "Naming and classification" (t · c) buidhe 20:20, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I merged the sanction and changed the paragraph. It turns out the same paper was also exploring how Levantine is understood across the Arab world. What do you think? A455bcd9 (talk)
  • Paragraph 2 and 3 in "Diglossia and code-switching" are not about Levantine but about MSA, which seems excessive. I can see a couple sentences about how MSA is used in Arab societies but the article should be about Levantine rather than about MSA.
I simplified these paragraphs to focus less on MSA. Let me know if it's better now. A455bcd9 (talk)
  • "Titles in Levantine are common" -> do you mean headline?
Fixed A455bcd9 (talk)
  • I don't know how helpful it is to include seven separate romanizations. Personally, I would only show the most commonly used 2-4 since large tables can be hard to read.
I agree that it would be great to have fewer romanizations. However, none of them are official or more common. (there's a same issue for Romanization of Arabic and Romanization of Russian btw) If it was up to me I would remove Al-Masri and maybe Liddicoat, just because I'm not a big fan of them, but this seems quite an arbitrary choice. Also, Dimadick wrote below: "My only concern is whether we should add further romanizations to allow for the comprehension of the text for readers who can only read in the Latin alphabet." A455bcd9 (talk)

I made a lot of edits to the page in an attempt to improve readability and conciseness. None of them are absolutely necessary and please feel to revert if I got something wrong. A bot should fix the ref errors soon. (t · c) buidhe 03:33, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • OK, I'm happy with the changes (but don't know enough about the subject to feel comfortable supporting). (t · c) buidhe 10:41, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot for all these edits, the article is way more readable now! I fixed the "citation needed"/"when"/"unreliable source". I made a few changes as well.
Most importantly, I reverted this (your edit message was: "similarity to other Semitic languages does not necessarily say anything about genetic relationship if these are areal features, need clarification if this is to be kept"). According to the source: Traditionally, Classical Arabic has been regarded as more or less identical with the ancestor of all varieties of Arabic, ancient and modern, and thus as nearly identical to Proto-Arabic (Fischer 1997: 187–8). However, many varieties of Arabic both ancient and modern preserve features lost in Classical Arabic and present a state corresponding more closely to what is found in other Semitic languages (Al-Jallad 2018b, Huehnergard 2017, Pat-El 2017). This shows that these varieties of Arabic cannot have developed from Classical Arabic. I think the source is reliable (and cites 3 other reliable sources) and clear so that it is enough to keep the passage as it is. Moreover, it makes sense to me:
  • Areal diffusion only could not explain why some features are shared by all Arabic vernaculars from Morocco to Central Asian Arabic, especially at a time when travel and communication was slow.
  • If the shared features with other Semitic languages are only due to areal diffusion, then Classical Arabic, which was used (spoken and/or written) in the same area would most likely have acquired these features as well (and not be the only Arabic variety that doesn't have them)
  • If vernaculars descended from Classical Arabic, as Classical Arabic is itself a Semitic language, it would be quite unlikely for some common Semitic features to be lost in Classical Arabic but then to "reappear" (through areal diffusion) in Classical Arabic's descendants (aka, vernaculars). A455bcd9 (talk) 11:08, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Cerebellum[edit]

First of all, I want to congratulate A455bcd9 for their dedication to this article – 1500 edits on one article! I should also note that these are comments only, I'm not experienced at FAC so I'm not qualified to support or oppose. I'm reviewing backwards, starting at the end, because in the GA review I was burned out by the time I got to the end.

Thanks 🤗 A455bcd9 (talk) 17:19, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Last sentence of "Vocabulary" - seems like a WP:REFBOMB, the Economist and ref #303 should be sufficient to support the claim. Although personally I disagree, I think Gulf Arabic is closest to MSA ;)
    • #303 only compares MSA to Algerian, Tunisian, Palestinian, Syrian, Jordanian, and Egyptian; that's why another editor (I forgot who) said it wasn't enough. The best is Ethnologue as it is the reference in linguistics (they say: "South Levantine Spoken Arabic [ajp] as spoken in Palestine is the most similar to MSA (Kwaik et al 2018, Harrat et al 2015)"). I removed other references. (for the context: before the paragraph was based only on the scientific papers, then Ethnologue added this sentence based on my suggestion [I'm a contributor to Ethnologue] and around the same time The Economist published their article, with figures based on the Wikipedia article, so it's a bit circular...). A455bcd9 (talk)
  • Regular verb conjugation - After past (perfect) and present (also called imperfect, b-imperfect, or bi-imperfect). I suggest adding a sentence along the lines of The present tense is formed by adding the prefix b- or m- to the verb root. I know the table explains this but it will help readers understand why it is called the b-imperfect.
  • an equivalent passive on forms V and VI I think "on" should be "in".
  • assimilates with "Sun letters" Do the sources capitalize sun?

Other than that, the "Grammar" section strikes me as accurate and comprehensive. More to come. --Cerebellum (talk) 15:56, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. The "Grammar" section is largely the work of @SarahFatimaK. I'm grateful for all her work on Wikipedia, Wiktionary, and Wikibooks. She's on a wikibreak so she may not review this FAC. There's also a longer Levantine Arabic grammar article if you're interested in this topic ;) A455bcd9 (talk) 17:28, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Finished the rest of the article, I think it is great! Particularly enjoyed the medieval and early modern sections of History, looks like you've redone those since the GA review. Only two minor comments:

  • The Damascus Psalm Fragment, dated to the 9th century but possibly earlier, shed light - should be "sheds".
  • They also translated foreign works, such as La Fontaine's Fables - The word "Fables" and "The Little Prince" at the end of the paragraph should be italicized.

I also checked source-to-text integrity for some of the references to Brustad & Zuniga, no issues identified. --Cerebellum (talk) 09:10, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I fixed these two points! A455bcd9 (talk) 09:17, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Cerebellum, I was wondering if you felt in a position to either support or oppose this nomination? Obviously, neither is obligatory. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:47, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: Not sure I'm qualified to give an opinion but I support. --Cerebellum (talk) 08:46, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Csisc[edit]

I have to thank A455bcd9 for what he has done for Levantine Arabic. I should recognize that many efforts have been provided to turn the work to what we currently see as an output. I consequently invite A455bcd9 to consider publishing it in Wikiversity:WikiJournal of Humanities. We need detailed referentials for the Arabic varieties as this one to progress research on the Arabic Linguistics. However, I need to raise several points that have not been pointed out by A455bcd9:

Thanks a lot @Csisc:, I didn't know the WikiJournal, I'll have a look! A455bcd9 (talk) 19:33, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The work did not mention that Early modern Levantine Arabic alongside Egyptian Arabic have been considered when Arabic linguists have created Modern Standard Arabic as a more intelligible formal variety of Arabic. Several features of Levantine Arabic have been considered in Modern Standard Arabic including Phonology and Morphology.
That's an excellent idea. @Onceinawhile: suggested the same thing during the PR. Do you have sources on that? (otherwise I should be able to find it I guess) A455bcd9 (talk)
I've just checked the "Modern Standard Arabic" entry in the Encyclopedia of Arabic Language and Linguistics; it doesn't mention these Egyptian and Levantine influences. It only says: "Whereas Modern Standard Arabic intonation seems fairly uniform over regions, word stress in Modern Standard Arabic reflects the local colloquial dialect. Egyptian and Lebanese seem to represent two major patterns of stress and are briefly summarized here." Let me know if you have another good source about that point. A455bcd9 (talk)
Nothing either in "The Emergence of Modern Standard Arabic" in Kees Versteegh's The Arabic Language. A455bcd9 (talk)
  • Levantine Arabic phonology did not explain very well the differences between Syrian, Lebanese and South Levantine. Multiple points should be considered. An example is the assimilation in Lebanese: عندنا is pronounced عنّا.
There is a dedicated page Levantine Arabic phonology and the article is already quite long. Do you think the main differences can be summed up in one paragraph? If so, do you have a source by any chance? A455bcd9 (talk)
I've just double-checked all sources I had that are centered on Levantine Arabic in general (and not a specific Levantine dialect) and I added almost all the phonetic variations they mention. As the sources say, "The phonology of LA is characterized by rich socio-phonetic variations", so I think it would not be possible to discuss all the differences here. Phonology even varies inside a city (for instance, between the neighborhoods of Beirut). I think these points should be detailed later in Levantine Arabic phonology. What do you think?
  • The History Part can be developed a little bit. You can talk about language contact through colonization and the influence of Phoenician on the spread of Arabic in the region.
I couldn't find good sources on the history of Levantine Arabic. Do you have one? I mentioned language contact through colonization (the Crusades, the Ottomans, the French and British Mandates/Protectorate]), do you think it should be expanded more? Please note that these points are also mentioned in the "Vocabulary" section so here the "History" section is a bit a duplicate unfortunately. And because the article was long, I created Levantine Arabic vocabulary where readers can find more information. Regarding Phoenician, I don't remember any sources mentioning it. Do you have some? A455bcd9 (talk) 19:33, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to ask me for any further information when needed. Thank you. --Csisc (talk) 16:19, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A455bcd9: I thank you for your answer. I will be happy to support you with further references. We generally lack reference works in Arabic Linguistics. Your work can be an excellent resource for people interested in Levantine Arabic. First, feel free to expand the Bibliography to include interesting works discussing all aspects of the considered variety. A Bibliography should include books about the Orthography, Writing Systems, Morphology, Sociolinguistics, Pragmatics, Semantics, and Dialectology for North and South Levantine. You can write it as Further Reading part. Concerning the reference that you can use to expand the parts I mentioned, you can refer to Commons:File:Feghali_-_Le_Parler_de_Kfár'abîda.pdf. I have uploaded this book. --Csisc (talk) 13:10, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Old History and Link with Hebrew and Phoenician: You can find details at https://docenti.unimc.it/marco.lauri/teaching/2018/19450/files/articoli/2017_arabic_in_its_semitic_context.pdf and Al Jallad's Ancient Levantine Arabic. When we deal with the link between Hebrew, Phonenician and Levantine. We are NOT evocating the existence of a Substratum from Hebrew or Phoenician. We are EVOCATING that the use of Hebrew and Phoenician prior to the introduction of Arabic and the similarity between thèse languages and Arabic has allowed an easier spread and usage of Levantine Arabic. --Csisc (talk) 13:21, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. The first link only mentions "Phoenician" once and it's not relevant to Levantine I think. Al Jallad's Ancient Levantine Arabic is 452-page long and yet "Phoenician" is only mentioned on 4 pages (excluding footnotes and references) and I don't see how this is relevant to Levantine. Let me know if there is a specific page and paragraph that I missed. A455bcd9 (talk)
  • The influence of Levantine and Egyptian on the normalization of Modern Standard Arabic: During the 19th Century, Arabic linguists have discovered that Classical Arabic is no longer intelligible to the speakers of the Arabic varieties. They borrowed several morphological, semantic and phonological structures from Egyptian and Levantine to invent a new standard variety of Arabic that is easier to learn for the Middle Eastern Community. An explanation can be found in Modern Arabic: Structures, Functions, and Varieties (pp. 37-46). This variety has grown in use thanks to Arab Renaissance. From a phonological perspective, the description of the IPA for Modern Standard Arabic in 1990 has been based on the observation of a Levantine Arabic speaker. Please refer to https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/44526807.pdf. From a morphological and semantic perspective, all the work has been described at https://library.oapen.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.12657/43774/external_content.pdf?sequence=1#page=65. You can also refer to Remarks on some syntactic trends in Modern Standard Arabic and Beyond lexical variation in modern standard Arabic: Egypt, Lebanon and Morocco. --Csisc (talk) 22:28, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I checked Modern Arabic: Structures, Functions, and Varieties and I don't see where it mentions "The influence of Levantine and Egyptian on the normalization of Modern Standard Arabic". It actually says something quite opposite p. 44: "It recognizes the arabiya as the only "true" variety of Arabic and hence implicitly rejects the spoken dialects as corrupt." The passage doesn't mention "Levantine" btw. I checked the other link and couldn't find anything either. Also, as Buidhe said above, "the article should be about Levantine rather than about MSA" so we shouldn't talk too much about MSA, I think these points are too detailed for this article and (if we find reliable sources) should be added to Modern Standard Arabic. Still, please let me know if you have the exact reference (especially the page) of what you would like to see added. A455bcd9 (talk) 11:40, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As said below, these sources could be used in Levantine Arabic phonology but are too detailed for this article (which is already quite long). A455bcd9 (talk) 11:38, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A455bcd9: Please also add the Romanized Lebanese Transcription for the Example. Feel free to apply all these proposed changes to the main work as well as to Levantine Arabic phonology and Levantine Arabic vocabulary. --Csisc (talk) 11:19, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Csisc Unfortunately, the Romanized Lebanese Transcription (Akl's alphabet) cannot be added as it uses characters that are not part of the Unicode standard. I tried to find an image but it is subject to copyright. (Also, please note that there were many versions of this alphabet over time...) Yes I think your remarks would be more fit for Levantine Arabic phonology, Levantine Arabic grammar, and Levantine Arabic vocabulary because this article is already quite long and we can't cover everything here :) A455bcd9 (talk) 11:36, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@A455bcd9: Several points are relevant to several parts of Levantine Arabic. History and Further Reading should be accordingly expanded. All the Akl's alphabet has been adapted where all the created letters have been substituted by Unicode ones. Please refer to http://www.lebanonlawreview.org/neo-lebanese/. Concerning the points I have raised and that are relevant to Levantine Arabic phonology, Levantine Arabic grammar, and Levantine Arabic vocabulary, feel free to apply them too so that these works can achieve the same quality as the main work. When this is done, feel free to contact me again to publish the work at WikiJournal of Humanities and have credit for it. --Csisc (talk) 12:38, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Csisc: regarding the "History": could you please answer my comments above?
Regarding Akl's alphabet: Lebanonlawreview is not a reliable source in linguistics and I couldn't find their alphabet in a peer-reviewed paper or in a reliable book. So I'm afraid we cannot add it unfortunately. Also, as Buidhe commented earlier that: "I don't know how helpful it is to include seven separate romanizations. Personally, I would only show the most commonly used 2-4 since large tables can be hard to read." so it may be better not to add yet another transcription (still, if we find a Unicode-compatible Akl alphabet we could replace Al-Masri in the table and have the same number of columns).
Regarding "Further Reading": no worries, I will add a bunch of other sources and ping you in due time :) A455bcd9 (talk) 12:49, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A455bcd9: Thank you for your answer. Concerning the transliteration, you can use the same writing system you have use for South Levantine. Concerning Arabizi in Orthography and writing systems part, you can add details from https://repositori.upf.edu/bitstream/handle/10230/27669/Bou_2016.pdf?sequence=3. --Csisc (talk) 13:11, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Csisc. Thanks, unfortunately it's a master's thesis, so it cannot be used in a featured article (only good PhD thesis can I think, per WP:SCHOLARSHIP). A455bcd9 (talk) 13:18, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A455bcd9: Concerning Phonology, I found further references that can be used to expand Levantine Arabic phonology at https://scholar.google.ca/scholar?start=0&q=%22Lebanese+Arabic%22&hl=fr&as_sdt=0,5. Feel free to use it. --Csisc (talk) 13:13, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Csisc, I will! Step by step, first this article, then the subarticles for Grammar, Phonology, Vocabulary. And then... Tunisian Arabic? ;) A455bcd9 (talk) 13:18, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A455bcd9: Of course, I will be absolutely honoured to work again on Tunisian when you will publish the work on Levantine Arabic in WikiJournal of Humanities. --Csisc (talk) 13:32, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A455bcd9: Concerning Modern Arabic: Structures, Functions, and Varieties, it can be used as a reference for language contact and the development of Arabic languages. Concerning the point on the influence on dialects, it can be found on Page 45 (i.e., Anis Furayha proposal "Nahwa 'arabiya muyassara"). You can find details at https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/43191693.pdf. You can find references at https://scholar.google.ca/scholar?hl=fr&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=%22Influence+of+dialects%22+%22Modern+Standard+Arabic%22&btnG=. --Csisc (talk) 13:32, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Csisc I've added all the reference books and articles about Levantine in Levantine Arabic#Further reading. Are you satisfied with the present version or do you have a couple of references you would like to add? (we cannot add dozens of them and more detailed references could be added to the subarticles Grammar, Vocabulary, Phonology, etc.) A455bcd9 (talk) 14:02, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Csisc I check p. 45 of Modern Arabic: Structures, Functions, and Varieties but it says that t he proposal to simplify arabiya to make it closer to natively spoken dialects was refused. And in any case, as buidhe said, this article is about Levantine, not about Modern Standard Arabic. A455bcd9 (talk) 14:05, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A455bcd9: Concerning Al Jallad's Ancient Levantine Arabic, he has evocated the influence of Semantic languages in use on the spread of Arabic language in Levant. However, this was not explicitly evocated. We can drop this. You can instead explain the contributions of Phoenician and Hebrew in the constitution of Proto-Arabic as described in https://www.academia.edu/download/61761938/Al-Jallad_Manual_of_Historical_Arabic_v_2020-1.pdf. --Csisc (talk) 14:13, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Csisc. "the contributions of Phoenician and Hebrew in the constitution of Proto-Arabic" is an interesting subject but it is more for Classification of Arabic languages and the general Arabic article. It is not specific to Levantine either. So I think we can drop it for this article. But for sure we will need to work together on Arabic after ;) A455bcd9 (talk) 14:21, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A455bcd9: Concerning the influence of Levantine Arabic on Modern Standard Arabic, this is a bit detailed. However, you can find all required references at https://scholar.google.ca/scholar?hl=fr&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=%22Influence+of+dialects%22+%22Modern+Standard+Arabic%22&btnG=. You can read https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/412204.pdf (e.g., "A number of borrowings have come into MSA via the dialects. While it is true that some of these may have first been introduced by way of writing, they no doubt soon came into everyday use, and (together with some direct dialect borrowings) were then borrowed into MSA with their plurals and various derivations"). You can also refer to Beyond lexical variation in modern standard Arabic: Egypt, Lebanon and Morocco, Variation in modern standard Arabic in radio news broadcasts: a synchronic descriptive investigation into the use of complementary particles, and Remarks on some syntactic trends in Modern Standard Arabic. If you are not convinced, we drop it. --Csisc (talk) 14:13, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Csisc for the references. I'm convinced that this is an important subject but it is wider than Levantine only. This article should focus as much as possible on Levantine Arabic only so I think that this point (the influence of dialects on MSA) would be better addressed in Modern Standard Arabic (much work is needed on that article by the way...). Therefore, I suggest we drop it for now and take it back when we start working on Modern Standard Arabic. A455bcd9 (talk) 14:25, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

support. The work is outstanding and it needs to become featured. A455bcd9: What I propose is:

  1. Making the History part without subsection titles. Concerning the red link for "Latin alphabet for Lebanese", please let it refer to Said Akl#Lebanese language and alphabet.
  2. Concerning the other points, they are more relevant to Modern Standard Arabic. We will certainly work on them when you finish working on Levantine Arabic phonology, Levantine Arabic grammar, and Levantine Arabic vocabulary and also work on Tunisian Arabic.
  3. Concerning Status and usage, the Education and Films and music parts need to be expanded. Education can become Education and Research. You can talk about when the first linguistic study has been conducted on Levantine Arabic and how research on Levantine Arabic has evolved resulting in NLP and Linguistic research. You can talk about when Levantine Arabic is taught all over the world and whether there are education programs for Levantine. Concerning Films and Music, it can be expanded to include the first traces of songs in Levantine.
  4. Concerning the transcription in Romanized Lebanese, you can use the same writing system as Romanized Palestinian and finish it.

--Csisc (talk) 14:48, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot! #1: Latin alphabet for Lebanese now points to your suggestion. #2: For sure! #3: "You can talk about when Levantine Arabic is taught all over the world and whether there are education programs for Levantine." => I added this at the beginning of the article (most commonly taught to non-native speakers outside the Arab world). "first traces of songs in Levantine": any idea where I could find a source for that? #4: I'll see what I can do. Thanks again for your help and suggestions :) A455bcd9 (talk) 15:03, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've also just added more references in "Further reading". A455bcd9 (talk) 15:07, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A455bcd9: Metonyms of modernity in contemporary Syrian music and painting and Among the jasmine trees: Music, modernity, and the aesthetics of authenticity in contemporary Syria can provide a description of how music evolved in Levantine. Concerning Education and Research, you can find references online about historical works and NLP for Levantine Arabic. An example is Proverbes et dictons de la province de Syrie of 1883. Another example for NLP is Natural language processing for dialectical Arabic: A Survey. --Csisc (talk) 16:30, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A455bcd9: I have also seen that you did not describe the Pragmatics of Levantine Arabic. You can refer to https://scholar.google.ca/scholar?hl=fr&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=Pragmatics+Levantine&btnG=. --Csisc (talk) 16:34, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Dimadick[edit]

Support Very comprehensive in its current form, and the list of citations is unusually large. It also covers well the diglossia prominent in the relative relative region, and provides written samples of Levantine Arabic. My only concern is whether we should add further romanizations to allow for the comprehension of the text for readers who can only read in the Latin alphabet. Dimadick (talk) 05:37, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! What do you mean by "whether we should add further romanizations"? (I tried to follow WP:MOSAR, even though it's more for MSA) A455bcd9 (talk) 06:43, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging Dimadick. Nehme1499 21:51, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In the "Sample texts" section, part of the Lebanese Arabic text has not been Romanized. Whether it is any different than the Palestinian Arabic is not clear. Dimadick (talk) 06:09, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes unfortunately the book didn't provide the Romanized version (besides the title) and I wondered whether it could be WP:OR to transliterate it. But if it's not and someone (@Nehme1499?) wants to transliterate it please feel free to do so. A455bcd9 (talk) 07:01, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not really able to transliterate in that way. I'm only able to do so in the unofficial "text message" system (see Lebanese Arabic#Writing system). So, I would write "al-amir az-z'ghir" as "l amir l z8ir". Nehme1499 07:16, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Nehme1499[edit]

Very nice article, I was surprised to see that so much effort has been put into it recently! I just wanted to comment regarding the infobox image: I had created the image back in 2018 using Microsoft Paint, to which A455bcd9 made a minor change. I think it would be nice if someone, who had a more sophisticated software at hand, could recreate the image from scratch in better quality. The sources are already listed there, so it would just be a matter of mapping based on the Jordan/Syria language border map. For Turkey, we'd manually include the Adana, Mersin and Hatay provinces. Nehme1499 09:31, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Nehme1499! I agree it would be nice to have a better quality map: I've just posted a request in the map workshop. A455bcd9 (talk) 10:30, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Nehme1499, @Guerillero made File:LevantineArabic.svg. What do you think? Looks great to me, I made a few comments here (mainly on the colors + borders). Feel free to comment there as well. A455bcd9 (talk) 09:17, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A little late here, but shouldn’t the Negev region be excluded from this map, since the article states the Arabic spoken there is not a Levantine dialect in the Naming section? Also not consistent with another map in the article, File:Arabic Dialects.svg. Al Ameer (talk) 01:44, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ideally you're probably right. However, the sources we have include the Negev in their map to say that Levantine is widespread across Israel. Actually if we wanted a really accurate map we would only include localities with significant Arab populations: File:Map of Arabic speaking localities in Israel.png (other areas are either empty or populated mainly by non-Levantine speaking Jews) But anyway, we have to follow the sources. A455bcd9 (talk) 06:13, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be a good idea to have dashes instead of full colour for Israel and the Mersin/Adana/Hatay area (and potentially other areas?), to indicate that Levantine Arabic in those regions isn't the primary language. Regarding the Negev, is there a source that states that Levantine Arabic is spoken there? I'd be very surprised if that was the case. Nehme1499 07:01, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes there are two sources: Ethnologue, which says that South Levantine is "widespread" in Israel (meaning, spoken on the whole territory) and Brustad and Zuniga which have a map coloring the whole Israel. So unfortunately, we cannot use dashes I think and we have to respect whatever sources we have. I would love a better source to exist but despite A LOT of research, I haven't been able to find any...
By the way, if we want to be correct, we should also exclude Jewish settlements from the West Bank. But the map is not the territory, the map will always be wrong, it's just of model of the reality, and I think we have to accept the current one as the best we can have for the moment (unfortunately!). A455bcd9 (talk) 08:00, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This map shows that Eastern Egyptian / Bedawi Spoken Arabic is spoken in the Negev, not Southern Levantine. Nehme1499 08:11, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nevermind, I thought we were talking about the Sinai... Nehme1499 08:18, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the other maps of Levantine Arabic / Arabic dialects in the Levant, once the SVG map is completed:

I'm not against deleting these files but I think the practice on Wikimedia Commons is to keep all files and never to delete them (unless there's a copyright infringement). A455bcd9 (talk) 08:02, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Regrettably, A455bcd9 is right. The most you can do is add a pointer to the higher-quality or more correct file. (t · c) buidhe 19:27, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Nehme1499: I added the new map to Levantine Arabic. As we cannot easily delete the previous files, I added a pointer to the new map as recommended by buidhe saying that "This file has been superseded" (see for instance: File:Levantine Arabic Map 2021.jpg). I also updated all articles on all Wikipedias using one of the old maps. Please let me know if you're in a position to support or if there are other things that need to be improved :) A455bcd9 (talk) 11:47, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
By the way you can actually ask for the old maps to be deleted by following this procedure. A455bcd9 (talk) 12:08, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you (and Guerillero) for taking care of the map, it looks much better now! Regarding my position: unfortunately, I have almost no knowledge about linguistics (as much as the subject is interesting to me), so I don't feel qualified to support. I really hope other users (who have more expertise on the topic) can voice their opinion. Nehme1499 12:19, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, I understand! :) A455bcd9 (talk) 12:56, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Nehme1499, if you don't feel able to support (I know zilch about linguistics and I have to close this!) I would appreciate it if you could confirm that you have no reason to oppose - assuming that that is the case. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:50, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: I do not. I neither have reasons to support nor oppose. Nehme1499 16:52, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just wondering: does "Levant / Greater Syria" violate WP:SLASH? Nehme1499 10:06, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My point wasn't about removing the spaces between "Levant" and "Greater Syria", and the slash. WP:SLASH states: Avoid joining two words with a slash [...] because it suggests that the words are related without specifying how. Replace with clearer wording. Nehme1499 15:32, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ah Ok, I did it because Cerebellum suggested doing so in the past in Talk:Levantine Arabic/GA1. But I have no idea what is the best thing to do. The issue is that the terms are often used as synonyms but have two different Wikipedia pages... (I suggested merging them once) A455bcd9 (talk) 16:24, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Al Ameer[edit]

Great work overall, but some concerns and comments I hope the nominator could address. As I do not know much about linguistics, these will be mainly concerned with History, prose and MoS.

  • "... proving that these varieties cannot have developed from Classical Arabic" reads as a thesis statement. Because it’s in Wikipedia’s voice without attribution, it implies the statement is uncontested. If it is uncontested, could you confirm? If not quite, then I would suggest: "Many Arabic varieties preserve features lost in Classical Arabic and are closer to other Semitic languages, which, to most scholars, indicates these varieties did not develop from Classical Arabic."
According to the source: Traditionally, Classical Arabic has been regarded as more or less identical with the ancestor of all varieties of Arabic, ancient and modern, and thus as nearly identical to Proto-Arabic (Fischer 1997: 187–8). However, many varieties of Arabic both ancient and modern preserve features lost in Classical Arabic and present a state corresponding more closely to what is found in other Semitic languages (Al-Jallad 2018b, Huehnergard 2017, Pat-El 2017). This shows that these varieties of Arabic cannot have developed from Classical Arabic. I didn't find any scholar contesting this statement in recent years. So I think it is uncontested today. But I'm happy to add "according to most scholars" if you think it is necessary. A455bcd9 (talk)
Thank you for providing the direct quote—it appears to be close paraphrasing: "many varieties of Arabic ... preserve features lost in Classical Arabic ... these varieties of Arabic cannot have developed from Classical Arabic") is very close to the wording in this article. Hopefully, it’s a one-off, but as a precaution, I recommend you check for any more incidences throughout the article.
Based on the quote, the author is stating their own conclusion that the varieties cannot have developed from Classical Arabic, contrary to what is (or was) the traditional view. In this case, I recommend attributing to the author specifically as opposed to my initial proposal of "most scholars". How about something like: "Several Arabic varieties are closer to other Semitic languages, maintaining features not found in Classical Arabic. According to [insert source], this indicates Classical Arabic was not the ancestor of these varieties". Al Ameer (talk) 06:01, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I used your suggestion regarding paraphrasing.
I don't understand your second point. Birnstiel cites the conclusion from three authors. Birnstiel's chapter is in a book by Huehnergard (Professor Emeritus in the Department of Middle Eastern Studies at the University of Texas at Austin, and former Professor of Semitic Philology at Harvard University) and Pat-El (Na‘ama Pat-El is Associate Professor of Comparative Semitic Linguistics in the Department of Middle Eastern Studies at the University of Texas at Austin). In the introduction of the book, Huehnergard and Pat-El write: While it is often assumed that the modern forms of Arabic derive from the classical language, the fact that they exhibit features inherited from common Semitic, but not found in Classical Arabic, shows that they derive from other early forms of Proto-Arabic (see, e.g., Pat-El 2017). Figure 1.1 "THE INTERNAL CLASSIFICATION OF THE SEMITIC LANGUAGES" in the introduction (it used to be in the article but I moved it to Classification of Arabic languages, you can find it here as well as Figure 8.1) shows that spoken Arabic doesn't descend from Classical Arabic. They write that While that model in its broadest outline reflects a general consensus among today’s Semitists, it should be noted that some scholars – including some of the contributors to the present volume – prefer other models. Huehnergard in the source cited by Birnstiel (Huehnergard 2017) also writes: The modern colloquial forms of Arabic likewise do not descend directly from the classical written language. I cannot, however, agree with Owens that the colloquials derive from an ancestor or ancestors that existed from the Proto-Semitic period alongside the classical language. There are undoubtedly several Proto-Neo-Arabics along-side the classical form of the language, in a dialect continuum in which—just like today—those that were in contact influenced each other, and each was influenced by, and had its influence on, the classical literary language. But standard comparative-linguistic methodology requires that all of these—the several Proto-Neo-Arabic strains, the classical literary language, the pre-classical poetic language, the forms of Middle Arabic—that all of these various forms of Arabic do descend from a single entity that we can label Proto-Arabic, an entity that itself is a unique descendant of Central Semitic. Owens writes in The Oxford Handbook of Arabic Linguistics: All in all, once one gives up the notion that Classical Arabic is identical to proto-Arabic, then the linguistic door is opened to argue for Classical Arabic itself as having been innovative in various ways. Muhammad al-Sharkawi writes in History and Development of the Arabic Language: It is to be expected that the dialects should have wide phonological, morphological and syntactic similarities with the Classical variety. They share a common origin. It is also expected that the dialects develop all in one direction that is different from the Classical variety because they responded to a set of environmental factors the Classical variety did not face and respond to. Now, as for the phenomenon of the dialects developing similarly away from the Classical variety but the development was formally different, they refer to the previous analysis that was supported in the previous chapter. We have seen earlier that the dialects were formed by means of several koines, which went through processes of simplification and informal language learning. and These two aspects, Ferguson claims, assure us that the dual in the dialects developed from one ancestor variety, which is not the Classical language. So at the very least we should say "according to Birnstiel, Huehnergard, Al-Jallad, Pat-El, Fergson, al-Sharkawi, and Owens". I looked at other sources and it seems to me that they all agree that varieties of Arabic didn't develop from Classical Arabic. But they disagree on which came first, how was the common ancestor, how they developed, whether Classical Arabic was spoken or not in the past or already only a literary language, etc. So I suggest we keep the current wording. Unless we find a recent reliable source that says that modern dialects descend from Classical Arabic? A455bcd9 (talk)
Just found another source: The scenarios drawn by Diem (1978), Versteegh (1984), and others confirm the current opinio communis that the array of historical and modern Arabic dialects cannot be directly derived from Classical Arabic, let alone from some kind of ‘Proto-Arabic’. (Edzard, Lutz (2011), "Convergence", Encyclopedia of Arabic Language and Linguistics, Brill, doi:10.1163/1570-6699_eall_eall_com_0069). So it seems uncontested ("opinio communis") that dialects don't descend from Classical Arabic. I suggest keeping the current paragraph then. A455bcd9 (talk)
Thank you for presenting all of this. The current language is much better and I am more comfortable that this is indeed the widely accepted view among scholars. Only thing is the word "proving" in Wikipedia’s voice is not encyclopedic and more of a thesis statement; I recommend at least revising to "indicating" or similar, or a different configuration altogether. Al Ameer (talk) 22:36, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to "indicating". A455bcd9 (talk) 08:12, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "considered the most beautiful variety by Arabs"—though backed by two RS, this seems too bold of a statement as there are hundreds of millions of Arabic speakers and I cannot imagine they all consider Levantine to be the most beautiful dialect. Perhaps qualify this statement?
The sources are: 1/ a small survey of native (NS) and non-native speakers (NNS) concluding: In response to the question “Which Arabic dialect(s) do you think sound the most beautiful?” both NS and NNS preferred the Levantine dialect. (52% of the votes among native-speakers) and 2/ Schmitt: Any Arabs outside of the Levant consider Levantine Arabic to be more beautiful in comparison to other dialects in the Arab world. I added "by most Arabs" to qualify the statement. Let me know if this is okay for you. A455bcd9 (talk)
A small survey, which concludes little over half of the participants chose Levantine, does not seem like a good source to use for this statement. Schmitt seems to be making an anecdotal assertion (correct me if I’m wrong), which also seems too weak for us to use for this statement. I recommend just doing away with the sentence. Al Ameer (talk) 06:01, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Schmitt writes: Today, Levantine Arabic, especially in Lebanon, is often mixed with French vocabulary. The more highly educated Lebanese sometimes refuse to speak Arabic, only French, as a way to show their social status. This mix of French and Arabic is important because it affects the perception of the Levantine dialect as a whole by Arabs. Any Arabs outside of the Levant consider Levantine Arabic to be more beautiful in comparison to other dialects in the Arab world. In part, this attitude stems from the reputation of Levantine Arabic speakers, who seem to take more pride in their dialect. So it's more than an anecdotal assertion. On the other hand I found this source (p. 20) which concludes that Egyptian is considered the most beautiful, followed by Levantine (especially for women). But anyway, I removed the sentence. A455bcd9 (talk) 09:13, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is for the best because this is still subjective in my opinion. Al Ameer (talk) 22:36, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "With the Muslim conquest of the Levant, some Arabic speakers settled in the Levant". I think more specifics are warranted. Perhaps "The 7th-century Muslim conquest brought a wave of Arabic speakers who settled in the Levant" or something along these lines.
The source only says: With the advent of Islam, the entire Levant became the new home of Arabic speakers originating from the Arabian Peninsula as well I modified a bit the sentence but I'm reluctant to use the term "wave" because we don't know how many Arabs from the Arabian Peninsula settled in the Levant and wave implies a big number I think. What do you think? A455bcd9 (talk)
I am fine with the revision. Al Ameer (talk) 06:01, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since about eight decades passed between the conquest and the institution of Arabic as the language of administration, I would split this off into a separate sentence and state "In the early 8th century, under Umayyad. rule, Arabic replaced Greek as the language of administration".
According to Magidow: Greek had little success in becoming the spoken language of the Levant, in spite of nearly nine hundred years of Greek administration prior its replacement by Arabic in the seventh century CE. Sources I have don't mention the early 8th century, do you have such a source? A455bcd9 (talk)
The language change in Syria's administration took place by order of Abd al-Malik in c. 700 (so six to seven decades after conquest not eight as I stated above). I will add this with sources. Al Ameer (talk) 06:01, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The date was actually mentioned in one of the sources already cited in the article so I added it. A455bcd9 (talk) 10:02, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Great, thanks; I made slight modifications. Al Ameer (talk) 22:36, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Already linked above (in "Ethnicity and religion"). Should I still link it? Or duplicate link? A455bcd9 (talk)
Ah yes, ignore then. Al Ameer (talk) 06:01, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Eventually, Aramaic nearly disappeared", any general idea when?
No because it didn't disappear as it is still spoken today. So we would need to define "nearly". Sources don't mention that. They just say it was a very long and gradual process. A455bcd9 (talk)
I found a source actually and modified the sentence. A455bcd9 (talk)
Thanks for clarifying, I always thought it took much longer. Al Ameer (talk) 06:01, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are Arabic names of places and persons written with diacritics (el-Rāʿi, Ṭannūs al-Ḥurr), while most others do not. I would remove for consistency.
Done A455bcd9 (talk)
I removed many of them. I kept those where different terms point to the same article because I think it can help readers. For instance, "Latinize" and "Romanization" linked to Romanization, or "invisible copula" and "no copula" linked to zero copula. If this is not okay let me know. A455bcd9 (talk)
No issue there. Al Ameer (talk) 06:01, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Will continue over the next day or two. Al Ameer (talk) 03:39, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot @Al Ameer son for taking the time to review this nomination :) Please let me know if my answers addressed your comments. A455bcd9 (talk) 09:22, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is the "common Syrian Arabic" based on Damascene? If so, could you mention this? If not, ignore.
The source says: There is no national standard colloquial comparable to the Cairo dialect in Egypt. The dialect of Damascus does not play this eminent role. There is what one may call a ‘common Syrian Arabic’, which, however, allows regional variants. There are rather local koines like the Damascus dialect, the dialects of Aleppo and £ama, or the Mardìn dialect of Qàmišli in northeastern Syria. Or to put it otherwise: acceptable is what is not too deviant. A455bcd9 (talk)
  • Similar to the Muslim conquest, could we provide a more specific time period for the Seleucid, Roman and Byzantine eras?
I added the period for the Seleucid Empire as it is mentioned in the source but I couldn't find the dates for the Roman and Byzantine eras. It seems that Roman Syria started in 64 BC and ended at the end of 4th century. And that Byzantine Syria lasted from 415 to 630s. If you have sources for that please let me know. A455bcd9 (talk)
Fixed. A455bcd9 (talk)
  • No need for that footnote about the Tanukhids.
Fixed. A455bcd9 (talk)
  • I changed incidences of written centuries (sixth century) into numeric form (6th century) for consistency. Please check for any other instances. It does not matter which form is used, just that it is consistent throughout. Note: to answer your edit summary, it would be fine in this case to replace [twelfth century] with [12th century] despite being in a quote; if you prefer, you could place "in the 12th century" right after the quote.
Thanks. Fixed for the quote. A455bcd9 (talk)
Instances of centuries between first and ninth should be spelled out, and not written as "1st" or "9th" as per MOS:ORDINAL. Nehme1499 13:45, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Consistent style is more important, I believe. 1st through 9th are frequently written in the numeric form in Featured articles. Again, not opposed to written form, but all centuries should be written out if that’s the style chosen for the article. Will not press this either way. Al Ameer (talk) 04:27, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"20th and 21st centuries" would look ugly in written form. I'm fine with the current version, except for "dates to the ninth to 10th centuries, or earlier" which looks terrible. According to MOS:NUMNOTES: "Comparable values should be all spelled out or all in figures, even if one of the numbers would normally be written differently: patients' ages were five, seven, and thirty-two or ages were 5, 7, and 32, but not ages were five, seven, and 32." so I'll change that one back to numeric form. For the other numbers, I don't know what to do. A455bcd9 (talk)
According to MOS:CENTURY: "Centuries and millennia are identified using either "Arabic" numerals (the 18th century) or words (the second millennium). When used adjectivally they contain a hyphen (nineteenth-century painting or 19th-century painting)." MOS:ERA also gives the following example: "Plotinus lived at the end of the 3rd century AD". So both forms seem okay (19th century in written form and third century in numeric form). Thus, I think that the current version respects the MOS. But changing everything to numeric forms would also respect the MOS. So it seems to be a matter of taste/preference. Again, I'm fine with everything, just tell me what to do :) A455bcd9 (talk)
The article seems fine now. Nehme1499 14:08, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Actually per MOS:NUMNOTES "Comparable values should be all spelled out or all in figures, even if one of the numbers would normally be written differently" => I think this applies to the whole article (cf. the discussion here), not only to sentences. Also, all articles on Wikipedia use the numeric form for centuries and millennia, e.g. 1st century BC, 1st century, 5th century, 1st millennium, Christianity in the 1st century, Socialism of the 21st century. So this seems to be the convention. For instance, "second century" leads to 3,868 results vs 12,080 for 2nd century. So I suggest changing back all century and millennium figures to the numeric form. OK for you @Nehme1499? A455bcd9 (talk) 16:56, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I actually wasn't aware of the other guidelines. I'm fine with whatever is decided in the MOS talk page. Nehme1499 17:09, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Go with the numeric. Final offer ;) Al Ameer (talk) 19:31, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
MOS:CENTURY has been updated to make it explicit that in-article consistency is needed so I changed all values to the numeric forms for centuries and millennia. A455bcd9 (talk) 06:05, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "conquest Arabic" → "post-conquest Arabic"?
p. 428 of the source: Unlike the pre-Islamic attestations, the coda of the article in the conquest Arabic assimilates to a following coronal consonant. A455bcd9 (talk)
  • Was Akl’s creation of Latin alphabet for Lebanese in the 1930s? I couldn’t tell from any of our articles on the subject. If so, ignore.
The source says: La politique linguistique de Sa'ìd 'Aql se traduit par : a. l’emploi d’un nouvel alphabet latin daté des années 30 du XXe siècle (plusieurs versions à observer). but then says: La parution de Yaara [1961], le premier recueil de S 'ìd 'Aql publié en langue libanaise et en nouvel alphabet (v. § 2), a donné l’impression qu’il s’agis- sait d’un phénomène tout à fait nouveau dans le monde arabe et d’un phénomène isolé. Pourtant, les plus anciens textes connus, écrits en nouvel alphabet (très différent de celui usité dans les ouvrages publiés après 1961) sont : un poème d’amour et « El bxayra », la traduction du poème « Le lac » de Lamartine [Rù ̇àna, op. cit., p. 89-92]. So I understand that an alphabet was created in the 1930s (by whom? Akl? When he was 20-30yo?) and then modified by Akl in the 1960s-1980s. So I changed to "In the 1960s". A455bcd9 (talk)
  • Israeli-Arabs or Arab-Israelis? I’d choose one for consistency.
I don't know what to do here. As explained in Arab citizens of Israel: "The Arab population is called Israeli-Arabs or simply "Arabs" by Israel,[5][6] and international media often use Arab-Israeli to distinguish them from Palestinians in the Palestinian territories." Initially I used the term from the sources (such as "Palestinian Israeli ") but someone said it wasn't neutral and I should use something else instead. So I changed. Seems impossible to satisfy everyone. I'm happy with anything, but I don't want to have to make a decision myself between terms that are all ideologically connoted... What would you recommend? A455bcd9 (talk)
Personally, I prefer Palestinian-Israeli, but this point was more about consistency. I see Arab-Israeli used more often in the article so I say go with that. If an issue is raised about the neutrality of that term by other users, then we could cross that bridge. Al Ameer (talk) 04:27, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Palestinian-Israeli is problematic as most Druze do not consider themselves Palestinians. I changed to Arab Israeli. A455bcd9 (talk) 08:08, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am at Phonology now; will have this wrapped up soon. Al Ameer (talk) 22:36, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Any reason emerged is linked? Seems unnecessary.
Fixed A455bcd9 (talk)
  • Said Akl is introduced four times in the article as a Lebanese literary figure or Lebanese; one introduction is sufficient.
Fixed. A455bcd9 (talk)
  • It is stated in two places that Modern Hebrew significantly influenced the Palestinian Arabic of Arab Israelis since Israel was established in 1948 (History and Vocabulary). On the second mention (Vocabulary), I recommend just "Modern Hebrew significantly influences the Palestinian dialect spoken by Arab Israelis".
Fixed. A455bcd9 (talk)
  • Lead says Palestinian has 50% common words with MSA, but I did not see this in article body. The last paragraph of Vocabulary mentions 20% identical words. The reference to the Economist article mentions 60%. If the lead is referencing the latter point, it should be in the article prose rather than in a footnote and the lead should also say "about 60%"—unless I missed something.
The Economist says "only about 60% of the local lingo overlaps with MSA", which is most likely based on the previous study: 20% of common words + 40% of derived/similar words. The other source, Ethnologue, is more accurate: "South Levantine Spoken Arabic as spoken in Palestine (52%) is the most similar to Standard Arabic (Kwaik et al 2018, Harrat et al 2015)." A455bcd9 (talk)
This is better explained (with the different studies and figures) here but I trimmed this section in the main article. A455bcd9 (talk)
Since "about 50%" is written in the lead, this figure should also be written out in the body. Al Ameer (talk) 04:27, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. A455bcd9 (talk) 08:11, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I will do one more read-through, but otherwise that should be it from me. Al Ameer (talk) 04:45, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments and edits. Let me know if my answers addressed your remarks :) A455bcd9 (talk) 08:28, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your tremendous efforts, A455bcd9, a job well done. It's a support from me. I truly enjoyed reading this—hits close to home on many levels. Though I'm no linguist and illiterate in Arabic, I'm a decent Levantine speaker and can vouch for the dialectical differences between the various Levantine regions that the article presents. Some of Phonology went over my head, but that is understandable. While the article is very comprehensive, one area I hope can be expanded in the near future is History, because the section appears a bit sketchy. I accept the nominator's explanation to Csisc that it was difficult to find good sources for this. It does not affect my support for the nomination, I just want nominator and interested editors to keep this in mind. Al Ameer (talk) 19:31, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot @Al Ameer son for your support. I also hope that the History section may one day be expanded but I'm afraid it will stay like this for a while, unfortunately. Indeed, as Jérôme Lentin concluded in "The Levant" in Arabic Historical Dialectology (2018, Oxford University Press): It has probably become clear from the preceding pages that the challenging project of writing even an outline history of the Levantine dialects is currently unachievable, and one fears that it will remain an elusive goal for some time to come for various reasons, some of which have been described in detail. A455bcd9 (talk) 20:10, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

I'll do a source review, starting tonight or tomorrow. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:02, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Footnote numbering is based on this version.

  • In the Sources section, Amara (2017) and Shalaby (2020) are out of alphabetical order.
Fixed. A455bcd9 (talk)
  • You have an ISBN for Cowell (1964), but that date is too early -- if you're using a reprinted edition you may need to use the "orig" parameter.
I removed the ISBN. A455bcd9 (talk)
  • You have 23 citations to Lutz et al.'s 2011 Encyclopedia of Arabic Language and Linguistics in the References, none of which have a page number.
It's an online encyclopedia so articles don't have page numbers as far as I know. I don't have the book (if there's one) but I had access to the online articles (I paid for a 24h access and downloaded what I wanted). A455bcd9 (talk)
  • [153] references "Versteegh 2019" but there's no source by that name and date; I think this should be 2014.
Fixed. A455bcd9 (talk)
  • Can we get a publisher for [188]?
Fixed. (I had to go to the British Library for that one :) ) A455bcd9 (talk)
  • What makes hortensj-garden.org a reliable source?
Fixed, I replaced by the original source (Linguasphere) cited by hortensj-garden.org. A455bcd9 (talk)
  • What makes Al-Jallad (2020a) reliable? I believe academia.edu can contain self-published material, so is the author a scholar in the field?
I think it is reliable because Al-Jallad is a professor and the Chair in Arabic Studies at the Ohio State University. His books, chapters, and articles are cited several times in the article. His Manual of the Historical Grammar of Arabic is cited in Behnstedt and Woidich's Wortatlas der arabischen Dialekte: Band IV (2021). A455bcd9 (talk)
  • For al-Wer (2006), the OCLC takes you here but this is volume 3, which is what you're citing.
Fixed. A455bcd9 (talk)
  • In the listings for Birnstiel (2019) and Brustad & Zuniga (2019) you give an OCLC for Huehnergard that takes you to the physical book, but the ISBN is for an ebook edition.
Fixed. A455bcd9 (talk)
  • The ISBN for Schmitt (2019) leads to an edition with an OCLC that doesn't match the one you give -- did you consult the ebook or the physical edition?
I checked the PDF I have ("ISBN 978-3-030-02437-6 ISBN 978-3-030-02438-3 (eBook) ISBN 978-3-030-02439-0 (print and electronic bundle) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-02438-3") and modified accordingly. A455bcd9 (talk)
  • Check the ISBN for Tiedemann (2020) -- Worldcat can't find that ISBN.
I have the book at home and I've just checked the ISBN inside is "978-1-73446-040-7". Worldcat gives "9781942844419" as the ISBN but that's for the 2015 edition (vs 2020). I guess they made a mistake. A455bcd9 (talk)
  • For Versteegh (2014) it looks like the ISBN and OCLC don't match -- one goes to the ebook and the other to the printed book.
I copied the ISBN from Worldcat so I guess (hope?) it should be fine now. A455bcd9 (talk)
  • The further reading section is quite long. Per WP:Further reading, the list should be enough to give broad bibliographic coverage, but the section is not intended to be an catalogue of all relevant works. Are all these necessary for the reader to get broad coverage of the topic?
Csisc wanted more sources to be added to "Further reading" so I added the main sources cited as references by the sources in "Sources" (if that makes sense). I'm happy to remove some if necessary (although I'm not sure which ones...). A455bcd9 (talk)
I removed 5 that were either redundant (the complement to a dictionary already listed) or too broad (an atlas of Arabic dialects in general). A455bcd9 (talk)
Removed 3 other refs. A455bcd9 (talk)
  • Per OCLC, Bauer (1957) has a co-author, Spitaler.
Fixed. A455bcd9 (talk)

-- More to come. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:56, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for starting the review, I'll comment below each of your points if that's fine. A455bcd9 (talk) 10:48, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, no problem. I'll pause now as you're replying, to avoid edit conflicts, and will come back later this morning. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:58, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Perfect @Mike Christie. I've just answered your comments. I'll answer them all at once in the future (instead of one by one) to avoid edit conflicts. A455bcd9 (talk) 11:36, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

More:

  • Check the ISBN for both Omar (1974) and Omar (1976); OCLC can't find either one.
I used what I found on Google Books for Omar 1974 and Omar 1976. If that's incorrect let me know and I'll remove these ISBNs. A455bcd9 (talk)
  • For Pimsleur (1998) it looks like you've accidentally duplicated the author name into the publisher field.
Fixed.
  • Are all the external links needed? Per WP:EL the links should only be used for material that is not in the article, so for example do the links to the corpus and dictionaries add anything to the sources already linked further up the article?
I removed one link already linked further up (WALS) and two not focused on Levantine and quite broad (the databases). I think the remaining links are needed as they are the only online dictionaries/translators available for Levantine. A455bcd9 (talk)
  • In [143] Miller is a co-editor as well as the author of one of the contributions.
Fixed. A455bcd9 (talk)
  • In [168] the OCLC and ISBN don't match -- one goes to the ebook, the other to the printed edition.
I don't understand because when I click on the OCLC number and check Worldcat they give the same ISBN: 9780865980587. A455bcd9 (talk)
  • [54]'s archive link is just an archive of the Worldcat page. It's not really a problem for FAC but I don't see the point of an archive link like that -- it doesn't help the reader find the text; you already have the bibliographic information in the citation.
Archive link removed. A455bcd9 (talk)
  • The archive link for [37] doesn't work for me; the one for [36] brings up the map, but not [37].
Fixed. A455bcd9 (talk)
  • The archive link for [180] brings up a blank page.
I replaced the PDF link by a normal web page and removed the link to the archive. A455bcd9 (talk)
  • For [249] no content appears in the archive link.
I couldn't solve the problem so I removed the archive link. A455bcd9 (talk)

That's everything. I'll let you reply to these and then go back through your responses to both sections. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:30, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again @Mike Christie. I've just replied to all the points you raised. Let me know if there are still issues. A455bcd9 (talk) 13:09, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review pass. Almost everything above is fixed; in a couple of cases there seems to be something odd about the OCLC entries, but that's not this article's problem. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:41, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for taking the time to do this source review! (and feel free to ping me if you need a review in one of your FAC in the future :) ) A455bcd9 (talk) 21:51, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Spot check[edit]

Since this is your first FAC, a spotcheck of the citations is required. I'm going to pick 10 footnotes, more or less at random, and will ask you for the supporting text if I don't have access to the source myself. Footnote numbers refer to this version.

  • 182: OK.
  • 146: OK.
  • 83: Used to support "Levantine is the second language of Assyrians in Lebanon". The relevant source text appears to be "The most frequent case is situational code-switching, when people alternate between codes depending on a situation or envi-ronment: e.g. an Aramean from Syria would speak his modern Aramaic vernacular within his family, Syrian Arabic in town and write a formal letter in fusḥa." Can you clarify if this is the text I should be looking at, and if so, how it supports the article text?
  • 187: Płonka (2006) is used to support "Foreign works, such as La Fontaine's Fables, were translated into Lebanese using Akl's alphabet". Can you send me the text that supports this?
  • 90: Used to support Turkey's population. I don't have access but independent sources confirm the number, so this is OK.
  • 211: OK.
  • 9: OK.
  • 312 & 313: Used to support "An analysis of spoken words from five-year-old native Palestinian speakers concluded that 40% were not present in MSA; 40% were related to MSA but different in 1 to 6 phonological parameters (such as sound change, addition, or deletion); and 20% were identical to MSA". Can you send me the text that supports this from both sources?
  • 61: Used to support "Differences between Muslim and Christian dialects are minimal, mainly involving some religious vocabulary". Can you send me the supporting text?

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:11, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Mike Christie and thanks again for your help. I can send you the texts by email if that's fine for you. I've just sent you an email to get your address. A455bcd9 (talk) 12:49, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A455bcd9 I think Mike Christie is asking for the specific text that supports each of these points. It would probably be easier just to copy and paste the relevant text here. (t · c) buidhe 12:53, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Either way works -- I just replied to the email, so if they want to send me snips that's fine too. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:55, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ah sorry. So:
  • [83]: Bilingualism is characteristic for Berbers in Maghreb, Arameans in Syria, Lebanon and Turkey, Arabs in Israel, Kurds in Northern Syria and Turkey, Azeris and Arabs in Iran etc. and later: The most frequent case is situational code-switching, when people alternate between codes depending on a situation or environment: e.g. an Aramean from Syria would speak his modern Aramaic vernacular within his family, 'Syrian Arabic in town and write a formal letter in fusḥa.
    • Arameans = Assyrians. Syrian Arabic = Levantine Arabic. We have to consider that "bilingualism" in the case of Arameans in Lebanon means Aramaic-Levantine bilingualism. But someone could argue that this is not explicitly written and that maybe Arameans in Lebanon are bilingual in Aramaic and English or French but don't speak Arabic. In that case please let me know and I'll remove "Assyrians in Lebanon" from the list. Please note that the problem doesn't exist for Assyrians in Syria as Ethnologue (the source cited just before) explicitly lists them as L2 speakers of North Levantine.
  • [187]: Dans la série Çajmal Qe†ub el Áaalam on a publié les ouvrages originaux et les traductions des ouvrages de la littérature mondiale suivants : Ce¥ara Finiçiyyi, Çaayaa† W Íuar (Poètes phéniciens, Versets et images) ; Çaflatoon, Difaa¥ Seçraat we Qri†oon (Platon, L’apologie de Socrate et Critias), trad. Me†rì Ne'màn ; Ceqspiir, Roomyo w Julyee† (Shakespeare, Roméo et Juliette), trad. Kamàl F. ”aràbì (un Syrien, sic) ; Maar Yuxanna, L Çenjiil (l’Évangile selon saint Jean ), trad. Kam àl F. ”aràbì ; L Çimaam Áali, Ceçaf mne n Nahj ('Alì Ibn Abì ˇàlib, fragments du Nah< al-balà©a), trad. Na ≥ìb ¥amàl el-D ìn ; La Fonteen, L Çamsaal (La Fontaine, Les Fables), trad. Kamàl F. Saràbì ; Íalaax Labaqi, Marjuux† l Çamar (Íalà ̇ Labakì, La balançoire de la lune ), publié aussi dans Lebnaan dans la série « nakb men çadab Lebnaan » : 452, p. 2 ; 453, p. 2 ; 454, p. 2 ; 455, p. 2.
  • [312] and [313]:
    • [312] (available here): Saiegh-Haddad & Ali (2009) analyzed the spoken lexicon of fiveyear-old Arabic native speaking children. The children spoke a local dialect of Palestinian Arabic vernacular spoken in the north of Israel. A total of 4,400 word types derived from a corpus of 17,500 word tokens were analyzed and the linguistic distance between each spoken word and its corresponding form in Standard Arabic was qualified. The results showed that 40% of the spoken Arabic words analyzed had phonologically related cognate forms in Standard Arabic and that these cognate words (or paired-lexical items) were different in 1–6 phonological parameters each, with sound change, sound addition and sound deletion characterizing the phonological distance between the two forms (Ali 2009). The results also showed that only 20% of the words that children produced had identical forms in SpA and StA,2 and 40% of them had a unique lexical form in StA.
    • [313]: A total of 96 five-year-old children from the three data collection sites mentioned above participated in the study. [...] The results showed that the most predominant type of lexical items in Child Arabic is the class of cognates making up 40.6 % of the total number of word types. These are words that are used in Spoken Arabic, yet their phonological form is altered in Standard Arabic as a result of various largely predictable computational processes, such as consonant change, or glottal-stop deletion/addition (e.g., Spoken δahab versus Standard dahab ‘gold’ or Spoken sama versus Standard sama: ʕ ‘sky’). 30.9 % of the words were unique words that have a lexical form in Spoken Arabic that is not used in Standard Arabic and hence does not have a conventional written form. In this case, Standard Arabic has a completely different lexical item to encode the same meaning (e.g., Spoken ħaṭ versus Standard waḍaʕ‘he put’). Finally, only 21.2 % of the words in Spoken Arabic were overlapping words that are also used in Standard Arabic (e.g., Spoken and Standard janu:b ‘north’ or daftar ‘notebook’).
    • So I don't know why I cited 313 (by the same author) which cites slightly different figures (that don't add up to 100%!). I attended a conference by the author two weeks ago and she repeated the 40%/40%/20% distribution. I checked her latest book published last month (p. 405), [313] is cited and they give the 40%/40%/20% breakdown. The original source seems to be "Ali, Yasmin. 2009. A corpus linguistic study of the lexicon of five year old Arabic native speaking children. Unpublished MA dissertation. Bar-Ilan University. Israel." (with probably Elinor SAIEGH-HADDAD as the supervisor) but I couldn't find it.
    • Conclusion: I removed 313.
  • [61]: In most cases in Egypt and the Levant, for instance, dialect differences between Muslims and Christians are minimal, involving some vocabulary items, mainly in the religious realm, or non‐existent. A455bcd9 (talk) 14:21, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the detailed quotes. The spot check passes, but you might paraphrase that last sentence a little more, per WP:PARAPHRASE -- it's quite close to the original phrasing. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:29, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot! I changed the last sentence, I hope it's better. I also added another reliable source for Assyrians in Lebanon and their use of Arabic. A455bcd9 (talk) 15:41, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:42, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@WP:FAC coordinators: I'm recused, but it looks like this may be ready to promote! (t · c) buidhe 17:36, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 15 April 2022 [47].

Hamlet chicken processing plant fire[edit]

Nominator(s): Indy beetle (talk) 03:39, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This 1991 chicken processing plant fire was one of worst moments in North Carolina's modern history, killing 25 workers (making it the second deadliest industrial disaster in the state) and disrupting life in the small Southern town of Hamlet for a generation. The tragedy was largely the fault of the owner, who locked the fire exits and had his workers make repairs with improvised parts. He went to jail for a few years and the state government took a brief interest in fixing holes in safety enforcement. The article was originally an FA back in 2007, but was so deficient it was delisted four years later. I have rewritten the article top to bottom, largely thanks to a historian's scholarship which shed much needed-light on the events preceding and following the conflagration. -Indy beetle (talk) 03:39, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder to update Wikipedia:Former featured articles#Former featured articles that have been re-promoted if this is re-promoted. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:46, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image review—pass (t · c) buidhe 04:03, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Since it's a descriptive title it might work better not shoehorning it into the first sentence. I think "On September 3, 1991 an industrial fire caused by a failure in a hydraulic line destroyed the Imperial Food Products chicken processing plant in Hamlet, North Carolina." is better prose than what you have now (t · c) buidhe 05:02, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Done.

Support[edit]

I followed this article on its last go-round as an FA, and am most pleased to see Indy beetle restore this horrific story to the prominence it deserves, using updated and high quality sources, and expanding the article almost three-fold. I picked my nits and reviewed the medical content and sourcing on talk. Nice job on a horrid topic. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:56, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • One more from me. The first paragraph of the lead mentions the 25 dead and 54 injured, but that same info is repeated in para 3 of the lead. In the third para, instead of:
    "Casualties totaled 25 dead and 54 injured to varying degrees; most of the deceased were killed by smoke inhalation. Of the dead, 18 were female and 7 were male. One was a vending deliveryman, the rest were Imperial workers."
    how about --->
    Most of the deceased were killed by smoke inhalation. Of those who died, 18 were female and 7 were male. One was a vending deliveryman, the rest were Imperial workers.
    or some such ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:11, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. -Indy beetle (talk) 01:54, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment from Sdkb[edit]

Hi Indy beetle! I regrettably don't have time to give this a review, but I just wanted to note one thing looking at the infobox. The fields |Accused=, |Convicted=, |Charges=, |Verdict=, |Convictions=, and |Sentence= seem like they ideally ought to be handled in a better way that creates less redundancy. E.g. Roe is currently listed twice, and the fact that there was one conviction is implied from the fact that we only have one name. I'm not sure whether this stems from larger problems with {{Infobox event}} (in which case it's beyond the scope of FAC) or the particular implementation of it here, but just something to consider. Best of luck with this nomination! Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} talk 07:36, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    • I've revised this info, largely a remnant of the old version of the article. I could go without it in the infobox, since while Roe was found guilty of criminal conduct, it's obvious that this incident was much larger than a criminal case. -Indy beetle (talk) 01:54, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Looks better! Best wishes with this nomination! {{u|Sdkb}} talk 05:10, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Serial #[edit]

Placeholder for review. SN54129 19:58, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

92145: Cough! Gog the Mild (talk) 16:25, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I recommend strepsils. SN54129 10:40, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we know how James Neal Hair was related to Roe?
    • Roe's sons' father-in-law. And not Brad, a different son. This seemed like extraneous detail so I left it out. The important thing is the family connection.
  • Might just be my radingh, but "Roe recruited a workforce dominated by..." kind of sounds like he did this deliberately, although I assume it was the demographics?
    • Probably the demographics, though Simon words it in an accusatory way, saying the Roes relied on employment agencies to "funnel the kind of workers no one cared about" to the factory.
  • Lottery? Subject to random safety inspections?
    • "Lottery" is the word from the source. Basically the registered businesses would be randomly selected for inspections. This is in accordance to the definition of lottery used by Merriam-Webster, aka deciding something by random draw.
  • "The city manager got into a dispute..." -- Niland, avoiding repetition, and has just been introduced.
    • Done.
  • "taking on significant debt" - in order to do so or in the process of doing so?
    • In the process I think? He had to borrow money to buy these plants. I've clarified this; it was originally there but removed because FAC!
  • "The plant's top mechanic" -- was he the head mechanic or the best one?
    • Changed to "head".
  • The map's an excellent idea; any chance of colorizing it?
    • Are you referring to the plot showing the factory layout and casualties? It's taken directly from the US Fire Administration report, and the official copy of the document provided by FEMA is in black and white. I don't think color would provide that much of an enhanced understanding.
  • "on October 9 Roe sent another letter" to whom?
    • The workers; clarified.
  • "maintenance supervisor Kinlee D. Mangus" -- would this be the same ain't. man. mentioned in the "Response Criticism" section?
    • Yes, clarified.
  • "attorney Joseph B. Cheshire V. Cheshire" -- may I suggest merging the sentences as "attorney Joseph B. Cheshire V, who..." I don't think it lengths it exponentially, and that "Cheshire V. Cheshire" looks...odd. If length is a problem, though, "For his defense, Emmett Roe hired attorney Joseph B. Cheshire V, who sought a plea bargain for Roe with the prosecutors" would probably achieve the same.
    • Revised.
  • "Many former plant workers were dissatisfied with the sentence" -- I bet they were. I would have thought the sources might be more...robust than that.
    • Simon quotes five different people's reactions as examples; this seemed the best way to summarize that.
  • "Lawyers flocked..." were these individual suits or by way of a class action?
    • Nothing particular at that point, just some ambulance chasing. Some of them were targeting potential individual clients. One attorney offered to pay a local pastor to recommend his legal services to grieving families when they were at church.
  • " an action it had never done before" -- " an action it had never taken before"?
    • Yep, done.
  • I added the {{As of}} to keep it up to date, just an FYI.
  • Quoting Simon, lots of ellipses...what's that "of cheap" doing?
    • The full quote is as follows: "Above all, America became dominated by the idea—the system, really—of cheap. Cheap's central notion was that the combination of less pay, less regulation, and less attention to the economic and racial inequities of the past was the best way to solve the nation's most pressing problems. By 1991, this idea had seeped into every part of the country, every political discussion, every debate about civil rights, and every workplace and government agency until it reached the factory floor and the dinner table. Again and again, those with power valued cheap food, cheap government, and cheap lives over quality ingredients, investment in human capital, and strong oversight and regulation. But the policies of cheap came at a cost, as this story of the fire at Imperial Food Products in 1991 makes clear". As you can see, I did not think it wise to include this entire block.
A harrowing but important story in the struggle. Thanks for this, and apologies for the belated review! SN54129 10:40, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Ovinus[edit]

Will review over the next few days. Ovinus (talk) 02:36, 22 March 2022 (UTC) Extended comments are on talk page. Ovinus (talk) 22:25, 25 March 2022 (UTC) Initial comments:[reply]

  • "with many unable to escape due to blocked exits" feels a bit shoehorned in there. Is the point that the plant was unsafe? I think the last sentence is good enough
    • I can reword it if you want, but if you look up "Hamlet chicken plant fire", particular retrospective news articles, the two most common things you'll find are "blocked exits" and "no safety inspection", so it seemed important to mention this off the bat.
  • Overall the lead is rather plump and overly detailed (e.g., "Of those who died, 18 were female and 7 were male. One was a vending deliveryman and the rest were Imperial workers." "in violation of safety rules" is pretty obvious and the decision's egregiousness speaks for itself.) Perhaps the less salient details could be filtered out so it's less of a play-by-play
    Some of that is probably there because I asked for more detail about the victims in the lead. Indy, whatever you think best here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:49, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) Was sxpecting some disagreement here, so my rationale is that the lead should only contain one to two medium-length paragraphs detailing the incident itself; the (current) first and last paragraphs are much more important by giving context. C.f. recently promoted FA Space Shuttle Challenger disaster which only spends one paragraph on the actual disaster. I think a compromise is reasonable, esp in this case. But Sandy's makes a good point; mentioning that the victims were mostly African American and women is quite sensible. I'm more hesitant about information like "Fueled by a combination of the hydraulic fluid, chicken grease, the fryer vats' soybean oil, and natural gas"... I just don't see how that informs a reader interested in the ramifications of this tragedy, unless they're an engineer.... :P Ovinus (talk) 02:56, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not fussed either way you all decide to go ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:02, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Err, most of those killed were indeed women, but the racial breakdown on victims was split evenly. I've removed the "Fueled by..." bit as I see why its extraneous. I thought it was important to mention that these were explicitly safety violations; not every country has fire and worker safety codes that are supposed to be followed.
    Ah, thanks for the clarifications; I'm convinced. Ovinus (talk) 06:29, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "record-high state-imposed fine for safety violations" quantity?
    • Added.
  • "according to the city manager" Does this quote need to be attributed?
    • It is attributed to the city manager. Since this is the only part of the story that really involves this local official I didn't think it prudent to mention his name, unless you think clarity is necessary.
    • Considering the incriminating statement, I think the attribution is needed, but "city manager" suffices. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:16, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: So far the article is looking very thorough and giving good context. As with the lead, there are spots in the body that I finda bit too much, e.g. "Food safety inspectors from the [USDA] visited the plant daily to examine the quality of the chicken, check for insects and varmints, and ensure that the facility's workers and processes were hygienic" could just be "Inspectors from the [USDA] visited the plant daily." Hopefully others can weigh in Ovinus (talk) 03:19, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • As you'll see below, the fact that USDA inspectors were aware of and did not stop the fire code issues created some problems. Since it was chalked up to a matter of training and jurisdiction, I though it important to detail what the USDA inspectors were actually doing there. -Indy beetle (talk) 05:13, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ovinus, I was wondering if you felt in a position to either support or oppose this nomination? Obviously, neither is obligatory. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:31, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: Soon; I've left a few things to discuss on the talk page. Ovinus (talk) 09:38, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Supporting now. Sorry for the extensive delay. Ovinus (talk) 21:02, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

Spotchecks not done. Version reviewed

  • Was the labelled fire exit blocked or locked? This is inconsistently reported
    • Both are true, more infamously the locked doors (which is very specific, the fire report mentions some doors being "blocked" as well).
      • This needs to be clarified. The lead states that a labelled fire exit was locked; #Investigation states two were blocked. Are these the same doors or different? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:55, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • The Congressional investigation confirms that the marked door was padlocked; I've tweaked the body text to work with this.
  • FN132 is missing page number
    • Web source; url added.
  • FN152: author name doesn't match source, and what makes this a high-quality reliable source?
    • Name corrected. The publisher of the Organica magazine is Aubrey Organics, and while the company still exists, it seems they abandoned their magazine. The company definitely seemed to be attempting to appeal to the young New Age health crowd, and thus you'll see their magazine advertised their organic products (shampoos and whatnot) while also publishing articles about environmental activism and whatnot to get the youngins all excited. So it makes sense why they'd have an article about two filmmakers who created a short documentary on a workers' disaster. Is it "a high-quality reliable source"? Probably not. But the claim it is supporting (that a "20-minute documentary titled Hamlet: Out of the Ashes" was made) is relatively minor, and its clear from the article that the author interviewed the filmmakers and community members. Either way, I'm not beholden to keeping this here, it was just another small fact.
      • My question would be, if this is the best source available to support that claim, does that claim warrant inclusion? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:55, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well as a I said I wasn't married to it, I've chosen to remove it. -Indy beetle (talk) 04:07, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • FNs 130 and 155 should use the same formatting
    • Done.
  • Be consistent about when/whether you include publication locations
    • Should be fixed.
  • How does Dixon meet WP:SCHOLARSHIP?
    • Dixon got his PhD (so we can presume the dissertation was a success) and reviewed Simon's book for the Journal of Social History. He is currently the managing editor of Labor: Studies in Working-Class History, a journal with ties to both Georgetown University and Duke University Press [48][49].
      • This supports that he is now an expert in the field, but for SCHOLARSHIP looking for "cited in the literature; supervised by recognized specialists in the field; or reviewed by independent parties". Nikkimaria (talk) 13:18, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • His adviser thesis adviser was Joseph A. McCartin, who I think would qualify as a "recognized specialists in the field".
  • Be consistent in whether you include publisher for magazines
    • Not sure what you're getting at with this?
      • For example Fishwick includes publisher, but similar refs do not. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:18, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • All of the trade-based publications should now have publishers listed (since the Loss Prevention Bulletin and the NFPA Journal in particular seem inextricably linked to their publishing organizations as a matter of source credibility).
  • The LaBar source is not a news source. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:48, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fixed.
  • Hi Nikkimaria, is this one good now? Gog the Mild (talk) 16:48, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Harry[edit]

Comments mostly on prose, but I do have some experience writing FAs on events.

  • The Hamlet chicken processing plant fire was an industrial fire It's a common pitfall of Wikipedia articles because of the way we structure our lead sentences, but can we avoid saying "the fire was a fire"?
    • I'm not sure how else we'd get a clean link to industrial fire, which seems relevant.
  • injured 54, with many unable to escape the ", with" construction, though tempting and common, is ungrammatical. "Many of whom" or similar would be preferable.
    • Revised.
  • due to locked exits seems a little passive to me, and begs the question "why were the exits locked?"
    • This is explained in the next paragraph.
  • The link on safety is a bit of an Easter egg; fire alarm is probably unnecessary as a commonly understood term; tractor-trailer delivery truck is unnecessary ("truck" would suffice; it's a common English term and the type of truck isn't relevant)
    • Shortened on the truck thing. I don't think the safety thing is that much of an issue, since it's the exact type of safety which is pertinent. I also don't see why linking "fire alarm" is really much of an issue, seeing as it is relevant to the subject and the exact text would be there regardless of the possibility of a wikilink.
  • in violation of safety rules without going to too much detail, whose rules? Legislation, regulation, company policy?
    • Now in violation of federal safety regulations
  • Some were able to escape through the plant's front door, while others could not leave due to locked or obstructed exits That "while" isn't doing anything. Suggest replacing it with a semicolon or full stop. And this is the first we've heard of obstructed exits, as opposed to locked ones?
    • See above. Obstructed does not preclude locked, a lock is a form of obstruction.
  • , while one maintenance worker kicked another unnecessary "while". Joining two semi-related facts like this into one sentence is tempting, but there's nothing inherently wrong with short sentences.
    • Two sentences now.
  • Most of the deceased were killed by smoke inhalation "dead" would suffice per WP:EUPHEMISM and the princniple of writing in plain English
    • Changed. Point taken on plain English, though I'd argue that being "deceased" is not a euphemism.
  • Most of the deceased were killed by smoke inhalation. Of those who died, 18 were female and 7 were male. One was a vending deliveryman and the rest were Imperial workers. I know I just said there's nothing inherently wrong with short sentences, but that's three closely related facts in separate consecutive sentences, making for a choppy read.
    • Semicolon insterted.
  • hit with seems a little informal
    • Revised.
  • Fire survivors just "survivors" would suffice in the context of an article about a fire; "adverse" can also be inferred from the context
    • Removed "fire".
  • he served only about four years "only" is editorialising; stick to the facts and let the reader form their own opinion
    • Removed “only”.
  • including whistleblower protections, while the state inspector corps ", while" again; this one is particularly problematic because it implies the events happened concurrently
    • Changed to "and".

That's just the lead for now but I would imagine similar improvements could be made in several places in the body. I'll be back when I have time. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:51, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Assisted by employment agencies run by the the way the sentence is structured suggests that the local governments/employment agencies deliberately recruited people matching that profile, whereas I'm guessing it's a (mostly) unintentional consequence of the nature of the work and the location.
    • Understood, removed.
  • In 1989, the inspectors noticed a large amount of flies amount → number
    • Done.
  • 90 reported for work, with the other 30 ", with" again
    • Done.
  • ostensibly because of their experience with complex conflagrations "ostensibly" is a loaded word that suggests that what follows in untrue
    • Simon makes it clear that this is Fuller's claim. "Ostensibly" is a little harsh, but it seemed convenient. I don't know how the Cordova Fire Department would have gotten such experience anyway unless one of the town mills had caught fire, but I've never seen any sources to suggest that.
  • He said he felt there were more than sufficient You don't need "he said" and "he felt"
    • Removed "he felt"
  • Between 50 to 60 you need an "and" if you're using "between".
    • Done.
  • municipal officials declined, with the city attorney citing "unresolved liability issues the "with" adds nothing here.
    • Removed "with".

That's it from me. I had some issues with the lead, and I might have a little bit more to say on those, but I'm very impressed with the body. I found it a moving and very readable account of a tragic and disturbing event. The description of the chain of events in particular is excellent—it tells the reader exactly what happened, in plain English, without imparting judgement or opinion. A model of what I look for in an FA about an event. With just a little bit of prose tinkering, I'm sure I'll be supporting. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:11, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support. My comments have been addressed and I like the new opening sentence. It's much punchier and straight to the point. Excellent work. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 08:50, 7 April 2022 (UTC

Comments by Dudley[edit]

  • "the Hamlet structure". "structure" is vague. I think "building" would be better.
    • Done.
  • "Roe recruited a workforce". You should give his first name as there are two Roes.
    • Actually changed to the Roes, since Simon attributes hiring to both of them.
  • "Ultimately, the Imperial facility never underwent a workplace safety inspection." I would delete "Ultimately" as superfluous.
    • Done.
  • "Thus, many municipalities, including Hamlet, lacked the funds to appoint such an official." I would delete "Thus". It does not logically follow.
    • Revised.
  • "Roe shuttered the facility in 1989." Merriam-Webster does not have this meaning of "shutter". "closed" would be better.
    • Done.
  • "North Carolina Commissioner of Labor John C. Brooks. MOS:SEAOFBLUE
    • Removed "North Carolina" from the link
  • "Committee chairman William D. Ford offered increased appropriations to OSHA in the wake of the disaster, but was reportedly turned away by the secretary of labor." The federal secretary? Who was he or she? Was there any evidence whether the report was true? Why would they refuse more money?
    • Federal secretary (there is no state secretary for labor in NC, it's the commissioner). It was Lynn Morley Martin at the time, but she is not mentioned by name in the report. The evidence is Ford's word, he told the author of the article that she turned him away. "Reportedly" might not have been the best way of styling this. Why would they refuse more money? Because it was a Republican administration in Washington and national Republicans post-Nixon have generally disliked OSHA, but this is not stated in the report either.
  • "reportedly" is not the best word as you say as the reader cannot assess how strong the claim is. How about "Committee chairman William D. Ford told journalist Allan Freedman that he had offered increased appropriations to OSHA in the wake of the disaster, but he was turned away by the secretary of labor." (linking secretary of labor) Dudley Miles (talk) 08:19, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've attributed the claim to Ford, but I didn't mention Freedman because its not really relevant who the reporters area and I didn't link the labor secreatry because she is mentioned explicitly in the previous paragraph.
  • "but they did not respond and were financially unable." This is ungrammatical.
    • Ah, good ol' previous copyedit. Fixed.
  • "based off the experiences of some of Imperial's female workers" based on.
    • Done.
  • This is a good article, but I have concerns about the unverified accusations based on newspaper reports, as above about rejection of extra money for OSHA. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:54, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Looks fine now - except that you are inconsistent whether secretary of labor is capitalised. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:54, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 15 April 2022 [50].

White-headed fruit dove[edit]

Nominator(s): AryKun (talk) 08:50, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Another species of pigeon, this time endemic to the Solomon Islands. As you'd expect, the fact that it's endemic to the Solomon Islands means that little is known about it. No free-license photos either, but there is a nice illustration. AryKun (talk) 08:50, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review—pass

Eviolite[edit]

Here's my set of comments (with the caveat that I am not too familiar with biology):

  • Seems comprehensive, based on various searches on Google Scholar and that the format has been used on other similar FAs.
  • "lowland, hill, and ridge forest" - this wording confuses me a bit, are "lowland", "hill", and "ridge" all modifying the word "forest"?
    Yes.
  • Based on the source, it looks like Gray described it as in the genus Ptilonopus (with an o after the l) - they are likely just alternate spellings, but would still like this cleared up as Ptilinopus does not mention this spelling (or Ptilopus, which the catalogue calls it) at all
    Yeah, Ptilonopus and Ptilopus are misspellings of Ptilinopus.
  • Also in the catalog, it seems there's something from 1855? Though I can't comprehend the string of abbreviations there, so maybe it's irrelevant.
    It's Iotreron sp., indicating that someone collected a specimen of this species, identified it as an Iotreron, and that it was subsequently identified as this species after Gould's description.
  • "White-headed fruit dove is the official common name" - "White-headed fruit dove" (and "Eugenie's fruit dove" later on) should probably be formatted per MOS:WAW; italics makes sense since you used that earlier for the ancient Greek, but might be confusing with all the italicized scientific names. Not sure what the best way to do this is; I'm leaning towards quoting.
    Added quotes around the names.
  • "others treat them as different species but treat P. v. vicinus and P. v. lewisii as subspecies of the white-headed fruit dove" - this is a bit confusing to me; based on the next paragraph, it seems that they reassign two of the several subspecies of P. viridus to P. eugeniae. I think this should be clarified because it was unclear to me that P. viridus had more than two subspecies.
    Attempted rewording.
  • "white-breasted fruit dove" - presumably a typo
    Fixed.
  • "A 2014 study of mitochondrial and nuclear DNA by Alice Cibois and colleagues" - would it be helpful to include institution/journal/something else, to have some idea about the credentials of this study (given Cibois does not have a Wikipedia article)?
    There's like five different institutions between the authors and adding an institution wouldn't necessarily be helpful since these guys weren't doing it for the institution.
  • Not sure if "the lewisii subspecies of the claret-breasted fruit dove" is relevant here when you introduce P. v. lewisii in the paragraph before already
    Removed "of the claret-breasted fruit dove".
  • "may either [...], or may" - either the "either" or second "may" is redundant
    Removed second may.
  • What does "secondary forest" refer to?
    Forest that's regrown after logging. Linked.
  • Any more details for "a juvenile was recorded in September", or is that all the source provides?
    That's all the source says.
  • It is probably relevant to add that the population was thought to be decreasing "moderately rapid"ly in 2016 according to the IUCN Red List source (the article currently doesn't explicitly say thet the population is actually decreasing.)
    Added.

That's all, a generally nice article all around. eviolite (talk) 00:12, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Eviolite, think I've addressed all your concerns. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AryKun (talk • contribs)
Thanks AryKun for the edits; happy to support. Great work! eviolite (talk) 21:02, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (not a full source review). The Avibase site appears to be both used as a citation and itself cites this article, creating a circularity problem. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:29, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Avibase doesn't actually cite Wikipedia, it just shows a small excerpt at the top from Wikipedia, the "source" bit is just for the excerpt. The actual information on the site is by Denis Lepage and Birds Canada. AryKun (talk) 04:51, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note[edit]

This has been open for nearly four weeks and has picked up just the single general support. Unless it attracts further attention over the next three or four days I am afraid that it will be liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:15, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Aoba47[edit]

My knowledge on birds is rather limited so I will be approaching this article from an outsider perspective. I do love birds though so I look forward to learning more about this one in particular.

  • I have a question for the map image in the infobox. Would it be helpful to add a caption similar to the one used in the red panda article?
    • Added.
  • For this part, It inhabits lowland, hill, and ridge forest, along with neighbouring agricultural areas, shouldn't it be "lowlands", "hills", and "ridge forests" since agricultural areas and foothills are presented in their plural forms? I have the same question for the "Distribution and habitat" section.
    • Lowland, hill, and ridge are all modifying forest; I could change it to "lowland forest, hill forest, and ridge forest", but that's a bit repetitive.
  • For this part, prefer human-modified areas like secondary forest, gardens, and cocoa plantations, shouldn't it be "secondary forests"?
    • Forest here is used to refer to the habitat and is used this way in the sources: eg "preference for hill forest" in the Pigeons and Doves book.
  • This is more of a clarification question, but is there a reason why the breeding habits of this bird is largely unknown? I'm just curious because it seems like this bird is still around and is not endangered or threatened so it would seem easy (at least to a non-expert like me) to study its breeding habits.
    • Well, there aren't really all too many ornithologists in the Solomon Islands studying this stuff, so that plays a part. Additionally, passing observations like seeing a nest out on a walk only really tell you what the nest looks like and the month that breeding occurs; more in-depth information like the number of eggs and chicks, the time taken for incubation and fledging, the food they feed to chicks, etc requires someone to monitor nesting pairs from the time they lay eggs to when the chicks fledge, which is a lot of work.
  • I really enjoy the infobox image as I believe this kind of illustration is under-appreciated, but I am guessing that a photo of this bird is not available (i.e. one that is free use of course)? It is not an issue, but I wanted to ask to make sure.
    • Nope, no free-use photos.

This was a fun read. I live in Florida so I am more used to seeing sandhill cranes and it is nice to read about something that is outside of my normal area (both in terms of my geographical area and my Wikipedia editing). My comments are primarily restricted to the prose. I have some image-adjacent questions, but since an image review was already done by an experienced editor, I did not look too hard in that area. Since I am not an expert in this field, I cannot really speak with as much confidence with the source quality and coverage, but the citations are well structured. Once my comments are addressed, I will be more than happy to support this FAC for promotion based on the prose. Aoba47 (talk) 13:39, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aoba47, I've dealt with everything you pointed out. AryKun (talk) 09:55, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for addressing everything. I support this FAC for promotion based on the prose. Aoba47 (talk) 14:07, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comments from Morgan695[edit]

  • "but a juvenile was recorded in September" Missing a year
    • Source doesn't give a year. A year isn't necessary either, as the point of this information is to tell what time of the year juveniles are seen, giving an idea as to when the species might breed.
      • I think you need to clarify that in the prose of the article itself, e.g. "but a 2001 survey recorded a juvenile in September, suggesting a summer breeding period" or something to that effect.
        • But the source doesn't mention that, so it would be OR.
  • At just 1106 words of readable prose, this article seems relatively short. While length is not always an indicator of quality or comprehensiveness, a cursory glance at other bird-related featured articles reveals that most bird FAs tend to be double or even triple that length. I don't doubt your claim that this is a topic with limited sources, but from the perspective of a lay reader it just seems somewhat underwritten. Morgan695 (talk) 19:59, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unfortunately, nothing more is known about the species. Most of the longer bird FAs are about North American, European, or Australian birds, because these are very well-studied regions. Articles about S American, African, Asian, and Pacific birds tend to be under 2000 words at the most if their biology is relatively well-known, which it isn't here.

Funk[edit]

  • Looks like this one needs one more review, so I'll have a look soon. FunkMonk (talk) 14:49, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Range of the white-headed fruit dove" Could this caption state the location?
  • "due to its small range and population" Any population estimates?
    No.
  • Any photo of its habitat that could be shown for colour?
    Not really, no decent photos of forest or such from the islands it inhabits. The best I found was File:Kirakira River and Beach.JPG and Algae Rock at Kirakira Beach.JPG, but those aren't really representative since this is a non-coastal species.
  • "The white-headed fruit dove was originally described as Iotreron eugeniae" Was this a monotypic genus? In which case it should be mentioned an redirected here, and explaine don what grounds it was moved to another genus?
    Not monotypic and this isn't the type species either. Gray doesn't provide a rationale for the move.
  • "is in honour of Eugénie de Montijo, wife of Napoleon III" Seems pretty random, do we know why?
    No idea, presumably to get in her good books? All he says is "this beautiful little Pigeon, certainly the most brilliantly coloured of the entire group, has been named in honour of Her Imperial Majesty the Empress of the French", which you can't really infer a motive out of.
  • "The species' generic name comes from the Ancient Greek ptilon" Seems a tad bit misleading since the genus has multiple species, perhaps just say "its generic name"?
    Done.
  • "which may either support transferring the subspecies vicinus and lewisii to the white-headed fruit dove, or have been caused by i" Should be "or may have been caused by" then?
    Done.
  • " Some authorities have treated the two as being conspecific (of the same species), while others treat them as different species but treat P. v. vicinus and P. v. lewisii (two subspecies that are currently treated as part of the claret-breasted fruit dove) as subspecies of the white-headed fruit dove." Could we get to know who holds either view?
    I can't actually find any, all the major checklists seem to keep this monotypic. I've changed from "authorities" to "authors" since that's how the original source puts it and it seems more accurate.
  • Perhaps terms like scapulars, coverts, etc, should have "feathers" after them, so lay readers will know what you're talking about?
    Done for coverts and retrials, but scapulars is the term used, no source I've ever seen uses "scapular feathers" as an alternative.
  • "The yellow­-bibbed fruit dove may be confused with the white-headed fruit dove" What about the closer related claret-breasted fruit dove, how are they told apart, or do their ranges not overlap?
    The ranges don't seem to overlap as they inhabit different islands, but added a bit about that.
  • How do the eggs look?
    No information about the eggs.
  • FunkMonk, all done. AryKun (talk) 15:43, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - looking nice to me now. FunkMonk (talk) 17:33, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

Footnote numbers refer to this version.

  • You're inconsistent about using publisher location: most have a location but [8] does not. Locations don't have to be included but we should be consistent.
    • Added location to 8.
  • There's no publisher in [4], and that archive link is not working for me.
    • Added publisher, removed archive link.
  • The archive link for [9] is not working.
    • Removed archive link.

Otherwise the formatting looks good and the sources are all reliable. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:05, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 13 April 2022 [51].

Paper Mario: Color Splash[edit]

Nominator(s): Panini! • 🥪 21:10, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a video game published by Nintendo back in 2016. It's a part of the Paper Mario series, which you may have seen my work on in the past. This is the part where I try to lure reviewers in by talking about its importance and interesting aspects, but not only are there little positives to say about it, I have never played this game. If you were to ask, "If you have never played this game, why did you work on its article" I would probably respond with, "I don't know".

I was here before with Paper Mario: The Origami King about two years ago. I'm a little frustrated with myself on how I handled some things, and now that I've got a much better grasp of Wikipedia and its policies, things should hopefully go much smoother than last time. This article is currently a good article (review), and received a peer review a little while back (review). It is currently part of a good topic (review), and once this article and one other (probably this) are promoted, will be re-nominated as a featured topic. Panini! • 🥪 21:10, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support on prose. Good work. FrB.TG (talk) 19:35, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I don't have much to add here, but the references from 1 to 6 at this version is hard to verify by an outsider. I think that having a source that does not require you to buy the game would be more independent and reliable. I would also suggest to remove these categories: "Mario role-playing games", "Intelligent Systems games", and "Wii U games", because they are the parent of other categories listed in the article. Overall, it's real great work, the prose is solid, and the text-source integrity is preserved. I wish you the best luck on the FAC, though I don't support the nomination because my drive-by comment is not a complete review of any featured article criterion. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 04:18, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @CactiStaccingCrane, per MOS:PLOTCITE, the game credits itself can be used as a source as it's considered a primary source within itself. Since I couldn't find a secondary source that mentions these staff members by name I had to cite the game directly. I've also removed the parent categories you've mentioned. Panini! • 🥪 04:10, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alright, looks good to me! It's just a bit harder to verify the source, so I asked you for another independent source. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 04:20, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I now can support the nomination following your improvements. That line on chewing with my mouth closed also amused me :P. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 18:37, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I feel good about this and I have changed my opinion to support. I still say that the reception section goes a step passed comprehensive, and it loses the value of a good summary. As a reader, I expect to see a summary of why this received "generally favorable reviews", including a summary of what critics found favorable or not. The approach you took gives me a dense list of individual critical opinions about individual elements, and I'm left without a real understanding of how critics remember this game. I think of Wikipedia's featured articles as being pretty standardized, for the benefit of readers, and there are risks in doing things in your "new" way. Of course, the article is still well-written, and I willingly admit WP:VG/REC is a little ambiguous on how to write a reception section. You should see my comment as something to consider as you complete the review process with other editors. By my eyes, this has reached featured quality and I am happy to support it. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:31, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment[edit]

Nearly three weeks in and just the single general support. Unless this nomination attracts further interest over the next three or four days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:40, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the warning, @Gog the Mild. Has it really been three weeks already? I'll go see who else can leave a review. Panini! • 🥪 16:44, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps ping the peer reviewers? FrB.TG (talk) 17:53, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I reached out to Shooterwalker and Jaguar, and since I've had less personal interaction with the others, I'll ping them here instead: SNUGGUMS, Guyinblack25. If you lack the interest a second time, please ignore. Panini! • 🥪 15:05, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Gog the Mild, an update, this FAC has received and image and source review and five general supports. Panini! • 🥪 20:08, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from ProtoDrake[edit]

I don't really have any comments beyond those already above. Once they've been addressed, I can go through the article again and bring any comments. You can ping me if/when that happens if you like. --ProtoDrake (talk) 10:28, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@ProtoDrake, comments above were addressed. Panini! • 🥪 15:20, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Panini!, when you move comments to talk, as you've been doing, can you leave a clear link to either the diff of the move or to the section on talk that contains the moved comments? To be honest, I'm not a fan of moving comments to talk -- I'd rather leave them on the FAC, or if they're really long, collapse them with {{cot}} and {{cob}} -- but if you feel you have to do it I think it should be obvious to other reviewers what's happened. When I review I usually glance at the other reviews to see if there's anything controversial or outstanding, and in this case I didn't know there was anything to look at. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:03, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Christie, yes, I will do that from now on. I've been doing this due to concerns at WT:FAC#FAC instructions on subheads. Panini! • 🥪 14:12, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My interpretation of that discussion is that the issue is putting the word "Support" into subheadings -- it's not to do with moving comments to the talk page, so (again just speaking personally) I'd rather not see it happen unless there's a really good reason for it. To be clear, there's no proscription, but if you do it I'm sure both reviewers and coordinators would agree it has to be very obvious. The reason I don't like it is because I don't want to have to go back and forth between two pages to understand the review -- I'd rather read it linearly. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:18, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@ProtoDrake, courtesy ping. Panini! • 🥪 19:55, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Panini! Support. --ProtoDrake (talk) 19:59, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Drive by comment[edit]

The references are bolded because those are cited "quotes" directly from the video game; it's lists of names from the credits. This is what I did for Paper Mario: The Origami King (FAC) but if there's something else I should do instead please let me know.
I was not aware that this was an acceptable citation style. But as the criteria only require consistency it would seem that doesn't matter, however odd it seems. And I may merely be demonstrating my ignorance of some citation systems. I know that these are quotes - you put them in quote marks; why add bolding for some words as well? I assume that Mike is happy with it - just checking that this is so. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:07, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Gog, I think it's OK -- it's in the quote parameter, and I think it's OK for the source formatting to be reproduced in that parameter. I don't think it's necessary but it's harmless, and as you say it's consistent. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:00, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment[edit]

  • Can I point out that moving comments to the nomination's talk page is not in line with the FAC instructions. (And that I personally find it difficult to track reviewers comments with a view to closure when they are spread across more than one page.) Gog the Mild (talk) 20:46, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Gog the Mild, very well, but at this point it's practically over and there's not much point moving them back now. The references are bolded because those are cited "quotes" directly from the video game; it's lists of names from the credits. This is what I did for Paper Mario: The Origami King (FAC) but if there's something else I should do instead please let me know. Panini! • 🥪 20:53, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, sure, it was just an observation. As you note, it's practically over. Congratulations. (Almost ;-) .) Gog the Mild (talk) 21:07, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Buidhe via FACBot (talk) 13 April 2022 [52].

Battle of Poitiers[edit]

Nominator(s): Gog the Mild (talk) 23:59, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, here we are. 38 months after my first FAC was promoted (Battle of Neville's Cross) I am nominating my 50th. It has been quite a journey. The company has been excellent and the learning curve has been discombobulating. I offer here another, and my final, Hundred Years' War battle.[note 1] Described as the most important battle of the war, the French snatched defeat from the jaws of victory. Unfurling his sacred standard to indicate that no prisoners would be taken, the French King was himself captured. This, and the resultant collapse of the French government, led to a comprehensive peace four years later on English terms: the war was over.[note 2] We know a lot about this battle, but the sources contain irritating contradictions and lacunae. I hope that I have done a passable job of leading a reader through these. No doubt you will let me know where I haven't.

This is the longest article I have worked on.[note 3] And by some way the one I have put the most time and effort into. It has been through GAN and I believe it is ready for FAC. By way of celebration and thanks for all of the putting up with my shoddy prose along the way I intend to ping every reviewer of my previous 49 nominations to have a look at this one.[note 4] Even those who had me tearing my hair out with their unreasonable readings of perfectly clear text.[note 5] So please feel free to either leave a full review, or simply decry the paucity of commas in the article. I should ping now, but it's late, and sufficient unto the day ... Gog the Mild (talk) 23:59, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The following are the sterling group of editors who have corrected my grammar, unmuddled my thinking and contributed hundreds of hours to help get my first 49 FACs into presentable shape. They are cordially invited to comment on my 50th FAC and/or my cheek for so frivolously pinging them. Thank you one and all - the cliché is true, words cannot express my appreciation. User:Nikkimaria, User:Buidhe, User:Tim riley, User:CPA-5, User:Peacemaker67, User:Hog Farm, User:FunkMonk, User:Harrias, User:Wehwalt, User:Serial Number 54129, User:Brianboulton,[note 6] User:T8612, User:Jens Lallensack, User:JennyOz, User:SchroCat,[note 7] User:Iazyges, User:Jimfbleak, User:Girth Summit, User:Sturmvogel 66, User:Eddie891, User:Jo-Jo Eumerus, User:Dudley Miles, User:Cplakidas, User:Fiamh, User:Lingzhi2, User:Z1720, User:HaEr48, User:Casliber, User:HJ Mitchell, User:Mr rnddude, User:Truflip99, User:Zawed, User:SnowFire, User:The Rambling Man, User:Heartfox, User:AustralianRupert, User:Chidgk1, User:WereSpielChequers, User:Maury Markowitz, User:Borsoka, User:Dank, User:Shooterwalker, User:Vanamonde93, User:Dumelow, User:Hanberke, User:Mike Christie, User:Reidgreg, User:Therapyisgood, User:Urselius, User:Nick-D, User:Lee Vilenski, User:Airborne84, User:Wikibenboy94, User:Anythingyouwant, User:Grapple X, User:Indy beetle, User:No Great Shaker, User:Gerda Arendt, User:AhmadLX, User:Ceoil, User:RetiredDuke, User:Factotem, User:Hawkeye7, User:Catlemur, User:Kablammo, User:Pendright, User:ImaginesTigers, User:L293D, User:Richard Nevell, User:Cassianto, User:BasedMises, User:Praemonitus, User:SusunW, User:Norfolkbigfish, User:In actu, User:CaptainEek, User:Mardus, User:The ed17, User:Horsesizedduck, User:Truflip99, User:KJP1, User:WA8MTWAYC, User:Chetsford, User:Attar-Aram syria Gog the Mild (talk) 12:25, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ If not the last ever, then certainly for several years. Exception, there is still one 100YW collaborative bio in the works which I hope will make it to FAC.
  2. ^ Plot spoiler: it didn't last.
  3. ^ 8,500 words. Sorry.
  4. ^ What, you didn't know the traditional reward for a job well done?
  5. ^ You know who you are!
  6. ^ With head bowed and the last post playing in the background
  7. ^ With a grin and something loud and offensive playing in the background.
Fix pings
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

User:Nikkimaria, User:Buidhe, User:Tim riley, User:CPA-5, User:Peacemaker67, User:Hog Farm, User:FunkMonk, User:Harrias, User:Wehwalt, User:Serial Number 54129, User:Brianboulton, User:T8612, User:Jens Lallensack, User:JennyOz, User:SchroCat, User:Iazyges, User:Jimfbleak, User:Girth Summit, User:Sturmvogel 66, User:Eddie891, User:Jo-Jo Eumerus, User:Dudley Miles, User:Cplakidas, User:Fiamh, User:Lingzhi2, User:Z1720, User:HaEr48, User:Casliber, User:HJ Mitchell, User:Mr rnddude, User:Truflip99, User:Zawed, User:SnowFire, User:The Rambling Man, User:Heartfox, User:AustralianRupert, User:Chidgk1, User:WereSpielChequers, User:Maury Markowitz, User:Borsoka, User:Dank, User:Shooterwalker, User:Vanamonde93, User:Dumelow, User:Hanberke, User:Mike Christie₤. SN54129 14:51, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Clomp
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

User:Nick-D, User:Lee Vilenski, User:Airborne84, User:Wikibenboy94, User:Anythingyouwant, User:Grapple X, User:Indy beetle, User:No Great Shaker, User:Gerda Arendt, User:AhmadLX, User:Ceoil, User:RetiredDuke, User:Factotem, User:Hawkeye7, User:Catlemur, User:Kablammo, User:Pendright, User:ImaginesTigers, User:L293D, User:Richard Nevell, User:Cassianto, User:BasedMises, User:Praemonitus, User:SusunW, User:Norfolkbigfish, User:In actu, User:CaptainEek, User:Mardus, User:The ed17, User:Horsesizedduck, User:Truflip99, User:KJP1, User:WA8MTWAYC, User:Chetsford, User:Attar-Aram syria, User:Reidgreg, User:Therapyisgood, User:Urselius. SN54129 14:58, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review
  • Harv errors: Sumtion 1999, p. 235. Harv error: this link doesn't point to any citation. Rogers & 20014, pp. 381, 383. Harv error: this link doesn't point to any citation. (t · c) buidhe 01:44, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies Buidhe. I must be getting sloppy. Although a newish editor helpfully citing the infobox and rewriting the casualties section to be cited to primary sources after I had done my big pre-FAC copy edit probably befuddled me. Sorted.
  • The only images I have questions about are File:Beauchamp Elsing (cropped).jpg and File:Armborst 4, Nordisk familjebok.png. These 20th century depictions were published centuries after the fact and have minimal artistic merit, what is their accuracy or encyclopedic value?
The first removed. The second is an accurate depiction which conveys how a crossbow of the time was reloaded to a reader more effectively than a hundred words could. As such I feel that it meets the prime objective of Wikipedia: it informs and educates the reader.

(t · c) buidhe 01:58, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks as ever Buidhe, addressed above. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:46, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Truflip99[edit]

How could I possibly decline after getting called out twice (or fourice). Comments soon. --truflip99 (talk) 18:56, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I blame SN. Sorry about that. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:57, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • truflip99 Are you still planning to provide comments? (t · c) buidhe 02:04, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Going to this now. Sorry about the delay, just been one heck of a week for me. --truflip99 (talk) 21:39, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to hear that. No worries. Wikipedia isn't going anywhere, and any thoughts or comments will be appreciated. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:59, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I could. And probably get picked up by reviewers for repetitive prose. The occasional absence of grammatical parallelism is often a deliberate choice in an attempt to stay within "prose is engaging and of a professional standard".
Gone with your second suggestion.
  • Populist revolts broke out across France. -- why?
It's the lead. It's a summary. The full article provides a fuller picture.
I think most people only read the lead? The sentence alone, with no links whatsoever, reads out of place and could use a tad bit more context.
I disagree. And if someone only reads the lead then they surely expect to gain an incomplete impression of the content of the article - pretty much by definition.
  • Negotiations to end the war and ransom John dragged out and Edward launched a further campaign in 1359. -- hard to read; move "in 1359" to the beginning? "to ransom John"? comma after out?
I try to minimise WP:PROSELINE. I have split into two sentences to make it more digestible.
  • initiated a resumption -- better to just say "resumed"?
Done.
  • The French port of Calais fell to the English in August 1347 after the Crécy campaign and shortly after this the Truce of Calais was signed. This was partially the result of both countries being financially exhausted. -- better wording? "Shortly after, the Truce of Calais was signed, partially as a result of both countries being financially exhausted."
Good idea.
  • and is estimated to have killed a third of the population -- "and killed an estimated one third.."
I prefer the original wording.
  • because of lack of money -- a lack of money
Done.

more later. --truflip99 (talk) 18:09, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • later commonly known as the Black Prince -- "commonly" seems unnecessary
Why? It seems the essential element of the statement to me.
  • devastating a wide swathe of French territory -- ; they devastated ... and sacked (parallelism)
See above.
  • "the importance of the economic attrition aspect of the chevauchée can hardly be exaggerated." -- MOS:QUOTE?
I am familiar with it. Which parts do you have in mind? "Brief quotations of copyrighted text may be used to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea" or "quotations are an indispensable part of Wikipedia" perhaps?
Should the full stop not be outside the quotation? Asking for my own reference.
MOS:LQUOTE "Include terminal punctuation within the quotation marks only if it was present in the original material, and otherwise place it after the closing quotation mark."
  • important town of Verneuil -- important in what way?
Culturally, politically, religiously, militarily and financial ly. But it seems unnecessary and to go against a summary style of writing to belabour a reader with all of that.
But this just leaves the reader with more questions than answers, IMO. Esp a reader who's completely unfamiliar with that town, this topic, etc.
"important" removed.
  • John pursued, but bungled several opportunities to bring the English to battle and they escaped. -- who "they" are is ambiguous due to the structure of this sentence
I disagree. We have John - who is plainly singular - and the English - who are plainly not - so who could "they" refer to other than the English?
John pursued the English alone with no army alongside?
  • The modern historian David Green has described the progress of the Black Prince's army as "deliberately destructive, extremely brutal ... methodical and sophisticated." -- omit has, also MOS:QUOTE?
"has" omitted. See above re MOS:QUOTE.
  • and no field army to prevent the Prince's forces from disbursing widely to maximise their destructive effect on the French countryside -- this frag doesn't really make sense to me
Good point. That's me being too close to the military decision making process. I have unpacked a little to "If a French field army had been in the area, the Anglo-Gascon forces would have had to stay relatively close together, ready to support each other if attacked. The absence of any such French force enabled the Prince's formations to disburse widely to maximise their destructive effect on the French countryside." Is that clearer?
Beautiful!

more later. --truflip99 (talk) 21:41, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi truflip99 and thanks for your comments so far. I have addressed them all above and am awaiting with interest the next instalment. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:27, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The French army promptly marched south, as all available forces were concentrated against the Black Prince. -- why not "and" instead of "as"?
Either would work. I feel that "as" is slightly more felicitous and communicates a marginally better feel for the nuances of what was happening.
  • if he could do so under the right circumstances -- such as?
I could unpack the military thinking behind that (a couple of sources go into considerable detail) and define all of the terminology. But I am not sure that the vast majority of readers would be much the wiser. And bear in mind that the next section is pretty much devoted to this and allied issues. Might we not be overwhelming readers with the strategic details? Not to mention that if a fuller explanation is needed it should probably go in Black Prince's chevauchée of 1356.
  • John sent home nearly all of the infantry contingents, leaving an entirely mounted force which had the mobility and speed to match that of the Black Prince's all-mounted army, as well as reducing the French wage bill. -- I personally would prefer this to read as: John sent home nearly all of the infantry contingents, which reduced the French wage bill but left an entirely mounted force that had the mobility and speed to match that of the Black Prince's all-mounted army.
Done.
  • marched hard -- what does this mean?
According to Wiktionary "marched" is the simple past tense of march which means "... to make military advances"; and "hard" means "Difficult or requiring a lot of effort to do".
  • to have consisted of 6,000 men: 3,000 men-at-arms -- there's a much earlier instance of this wikilink
True. Moved.
  • but in similar battles they used their lances as pikes -- wikilink lance? Unless this is also a javelin?
Nope. Linked.
I feel that we are getting well into MOS:OVERLINK territory here, but done.

Done through Anglo-Gascon army section. More later. --truflip99 (talk) 23:19, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • I am away for a couple of days. I hope to get back to these on Wednesday. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:31, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • and 2,000 infantrymen -- were*
Gah! Done.
  • there is an earlier mention of spears in the article that should be wikilinked
Moved.
  • The French army was divided into four divisions or "battles". -- does this need to be translated twice?
Arguably not, so second mention removed.
  • omit duplicate wikilink for dauphin
Omitted.
  • The division's leader, Brienne, the constable of France, was killed -- I thought his name was Walter?
Walter was his given name. Nobles are usually referred to by the highest ranking of their titles. (Except for monarchs, who are so exalted that they transcend this to use just their regnal names.) As with Warwick or Orléans.
  • to let the French men-at-arms through for their final charge.[171] [177] -- Omit the space between refs

I think that's it from me. --truflip99 (talk) 18:02, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again truflip99. Excellent stuff. I think that I have now addressed everything, including your come backs on my initial responses. See what you think. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:08, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Responses and revisions sound good to me! Supporting --truflip99 (talk) 17:26, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Harrias[edit]

Some citation bits and pieces:

  • "Pratt, P.L. (2010)." – Why unspaced initials? Unless the MOS has changed in the period I've been dormant, I thought it preferred spaced? Also, the link provided is a dead link for me.
Yes, it's changed. You need to visit more often. Issues fixed.
  • "Rodger, N.A.M. (2004)." – Ditto.
Fixed.
  • "Rogers, Clifford (1998)" – Seems to be missing his middle initial of J listed in the other three sources of his. Also should only be linked on this, first use to be consistent with your other linking conventions.
Fixed.
  • Citation 26 "Madden 2014, pp. 79ff." should be "p." not "pp."
Fixed.

Infobox:

  • The belligerents are listed as England and France, but the result is listed as an "Anglo-Gascon victory" – I worry that for a layperson just scanning over the infobox for a quick summary (which is the point, after all) might not be able to put these two facts together: can the fact that Anglo-Gascon is being used synonymously with England be made clearer?
That may be stretching what is allowed/appropriate in an infobox. Good point. Changed to English victory, which is how the sources usually describe it. The intricacies of force composition will have to wait for the main article.
  • Strength: It looks very odd that the French strength is listed as:
"11,000
14,000–16,000" – without reading the text, it is not at all clear what this means.
Nor to me. A drive by helpfully cited the infobox and added specific mentions to primary sources after I had done my final check but prior to nomination. I thought I had reverted everything, but clearly not. Fixed.
  • Casualties and losses: the two sides are formatted differently. The English side has no bullet point, and is one block of text, the French side has a bullet point, and is presented as two points of information (albeit the second doesn't have a bullet.)
Standardised.

That's it from me for the minute. I'll start on those eight thousand odd words later... Harrias (he/him) • talk 16:23, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers Harrias and many thanks for making one of your sadly now rare forays to FAC to look at this. I am bracing myself for further incoming. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:09, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Harrias, I hope that things are going well with you. Just checking to see if you were still intending to provide further comment? Which would be most welcome. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:39, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I still hope to come back to it, but I've struggled to dedicate any time to it, and I have a work training trip abroad next week, so I won't have any for a little while still. Coords, please don't let this hold the nomination up, I have no glaring objections. Harrias (he/him) • talk 20:14, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SUPPORT by SusunW[edit]

I'll have to do it in bits and spurts between the visiting guest functions.

  • "The only significant French possession"… I find myself asking when this was. Would it be clearer if this sentence moved to follow the first in the previous section? Maybe something like "Since the Norman Conquest of 1066, English monarchs had held titles and lands within France, the possession of which made them vassals of the kings of France. By the first quarter of the fourteenth century, the only significant…" If you do that, omit the "But" which will start the second paragraph.
Done.
  • "Bordeaux had a population" reads awkwardly to me. Perhaps "Bordeaux's population exceeded London's by 50,000 inhabitants"?
It reads fine to me. I don't insist on it, but your suggestion reads as a circumlocution.
  • "against the expected descent" tripped me up. (My mind went biology and my hubby's take was politics, i.e. ascent/descent) Had to read it several times to get that Edward was going down to France from England. Would advance or assault be a clearer word?
No, as in Wikt:descend: "To make an attack, or incursion, as if from a vantage ground; to come suddenly and with violence." Note in particular the quote there.
Ha! Note here the BBC using "descend" in the same sense I am.
British things are so confusing. LOL
  • Link plenipotentiary
Done. (I repeatedly miss that.)
  • link Clifford Rogers to Clifford J. Rogers
Done. (And that.)
  • "French nobility went over" do you mean they changed allegiance, began supporting the English?
Rephrased as you suggest.
  • "Arras rebelled". Perhaps rephrasing is needed. Explaining this is a town would be helpful (but then a town cannot rebel or kill, so should it be "Townspeople from Arras"?, or maybe in war it is typical phrasing for a town to rebel?)
Clarified that it is a town. Towns can indeed rebel. As can regions, countries, peoples, groups and other corporate entities.
I would prefer towns, regions, countries, people, groups and corporate entities to peacefully negotiate. :(
  • it is either a 50-mile-wide French territory or territory more than 50 miles wide (only compound adjectives preceding nouns use hyphens)
Oops. Fixed.
  • "dismissed Talleyrand and marching hard crossed" seems grammatically odd. Dismissed and marched, crossing? or Dismissed and, marching hard, crossed?
  • "If they attempted to" what? Possibily, "to engage, the French"?
Rephrased to hopefully be clearer.
"the Anglo-Gascons would find it almost impossible to withdraw. If they attempted to". Is that really unclear?
  • Will you rephrase? (We have compound clause, not a sentence, but a dependent clause is joined with a conjunction to an independent clause, i.e. unequal clauses.) "Having to stay concentrated in the presence of the French army and several days' hard marching had reduced the opportunities to forage and food was almost exhausted."
I have tried. See what you think.
I made a wee edit removing "Having" and giving a subject as "The Anglo-Gascons".

I'll return (start Opposing forces) SusunW (talk) 16:49, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • In the section about the divisions/battles, you say "William, Earl of Salisbury, deputised by Robert…Maurice", but I think it is the opposite. Robert/Maurice didn't appoint/select William. William chose them. So shouldn't it be "William, who deputised Robert/Maurice"?
You what? To deputise, as in deputise "To act as a substitute for a person in their role or office".
AE, to deputize is to make someone a deputy. My guess is that it may be a BE/AE thing, but since one is unsure that one's reader speaks BE…I'd change it. Your call.
  • Do we know which Bartholomew de Burghersh this was and can we link?
Sorry. A primary source added by a drive by. I have removed it.
  • Unlink Clifford Rogers here. Should be at first occurrence and then change to simply Rogers here.
Done. (I think - I can't find it, so I assume already tidied up.)
Overall, well done and congratulations. I notice throughout that there is inconsistent use of oxford commas and commas after years. As BE and AE rules are not the same, I leave these up to your discretion, noting only that they should be consistent throughout.
I cannot find any use of serial commas. I'll go through looking for commas after dates to terminate with prejudice.
I couldn't find any commas after dates not required by normal grammar. If you spot any, perhaps you could let me know, and/or extract them yourself?

Please feel free to ignore anything that in my comments appears irregular from the standpoint of military history. As you know, I know absolutely nothing about war, warcraft, or the like. SusunW (talk) 15:59, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SusunW, you are wonderful. Good points every one. Responded to above. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:02, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Looks fine to me. Happy to support, Gog. SusunW (talk) 14:41, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Reidgreg[edit]

Nice milestone. Mostly ce notes from me (some of these may have already been addressed):

  • The infobox, under strength, has two figures for France: 11,000 and 14,000–16000. The latter is in the lead. The former appears somewhat mysterious. Is this taken from Estimates of the French army vary widely, from 11,000, cited in letters by Bartholomew de Burghersh and Henry Peverel, to Froissart's 60,000.? Please make it clear (in the infobox) whether these are different estimates of the strength of a single force, or the strength of multiple forces.
Apologies. I don't know what happened there. (Possibly part of the "helpful" citing of the infobox a little while ago which I missed when reverting. Removed.
  • John was captured, as was one of his sons and according to different sources 2,000 to 3,000 men-at-arms. Would it be any better with the underlined part as a parenthetic (whether in parentheses or bracketted by commas) or perhaps removed as assumed? It seems a little wordy for the lead.
Good point. Tweaked.
  • As well either 3,800 or 1,500 French common infantry were killed or captured  The surviving French dispersed Full stop.
Not done. Or, possibly, already done.
  • On 4 August 1356 6,000 Gascon and English fighting men headed north from Bergerac. They were accompanied by approximately 4,000 non-combatants. How would you feel about having some separation between the numerals, such as by inserting "approximately" or "about"? If needed, the later "approximately" could be changed to avoid repetition or removed as assumed.
"About" would, strictly, be OR; although it wouldn't over worry me. Tweaked differently
  • more than 50-mile -wide (80 km) remove the leading space in the last parameter of {{convert}}. (i.e.: | -wide → |-wide ) The added space doesn't make a difference for named parameters but with unnamed parameters it is included as part of the passed variable. Similarly with approximately 13-foot -long (4.0 m)
    sOK, I see what needs doing, but not how to do it. Any chance you could do one of them. I will then save it to my bag of tricks page and prove that I can use it - or otherwise - by changing the other.</> Now done. Thanks Hog Farm. And I understand.
    Gog, I've correct this for you (I think). The issue is that when adding the -wide or such parameter at the end, there can't be a space between the dash and the pipe key, or the template will interpret that the space is part of the "-wide" string. Hog Farm Talk 02:33, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, Hog Farm. I had instructions above but I forgot to use the special pipe cheat in my fancy formatting, and failed to notice it wasn't displaying in preview; now shown. – Reidgreg (talk) 18:30, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • to prevent the destruction being wracked in south-west France should this be wreaked?
    No. Wikt:wrack: to wreck; “to cause to suffer pain, etc”; Usage notes Frequently confused with rack (“torture; suffer pain”), though traditionally means “wreck”. Etymologically, wrack and ruin (“complete destruction”) and storm-wracked (“wrecked by a storm”) are the only terms that derive from wrack.
    If that's the meaning you want, why not state it plainly and replace with suffered (or inflicted)? – Reidgreg (talk) 18:30, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Er. It is stated plainly. But changed.
  • and Hélie de Talleyrand-Périgord, Cardinal of Périgord arrived at the Black Prince's camp The underlined phrase should be followed by a comma, as a parenthetic.
Oops. Done.
  • Happy to do battle, but concerned that a two-day delay would leave his army with its back to the Loire in an area with few supplies the Black Prince dismissed Talleyrand similarly I feel a comma is needed after 'supplies'; unless you'd rather remove the first comma and use something else like parentheses.
Comma added.
  • on the 13th MOS recommends against using ordinals for dates (MOS:ORDINALDATE). I would change: the 13th → 13 September, even if it's wordier. Similarly with On the 14th at the end of the paragraph and 17th in the following paragraph.
True. Done.
  • John, aware the outnumbered the Anglo-Gascons, was also eager wipe them out in battle You possibly meant the underlined to be they or he but I might use "his forces" or similar. Make sure there's no confusion with the later them.
Good point. Tweaked.
  • but were about to serendipitously position themselves 20 miles (32 km) south of the Anglo-Gascons and directly in their path back to friendly territory A wonderful choice of word, ordinarily, but I feel that this may be editorializing as with lucky or luckily, and that it would be serendipitous from the French POV. Perhaps "advantageously" would be more neutral and objective?
Removed.
  • Contemporary accounts notethat missing space
Done.
  • campaigning with a similar sized army I would probably hyphenate similar-sized.
Done.
  • The King ordered the French sacred banner, the Oriflamme to be unfurled, which signalled comma after Oriflamme.
Done.
  • The Anglo Gascon command group conferred hyphenate
Gah!
  • only four men by some modern accounts, 400 in others Since the two figures may be compared, you might state four as the numeral 4. (MOS:NUMNOTES)
Done.
  • Some were trampled, their innards torn open... Do you think this boxquote might be too graphic? We should be sensitive to the victims' family members who might read this.[sarcasm]
I am going to refrain from comment in order to avoid revealing my lack of political correctness.
  • Surrounded by enemies  John and his youngest son, Philip, surrendered. I've avoided the urge to recommend commas for most of these, but maybe one here, lest someone momentarily think that Philip surrendered to John and his youngest son, who were enemies. Or better yet, rephrase.
    Grr. Done, but [53].
    Being spineless does offer one a certain fluidity. – Reidgreg (talk) 18:30, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • some fought off their pursuers,[note 11] most escaped while most escaped.
Added.
  • If you're pretty sure this will be the final/finished version of the article, you could put in some non-breaking spaces between the day and month in dates and in names like John II to avoid awkward line-wraps.
nbs's now scattered generously throughout.

I wouldn't be upset if you declined any of this. Very nice work! – Reidgreg (talk) 17:16, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Reidgreg, good to hear from you again. I have, I think, addressed all of you comments. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:32, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Reidgreg, I think that everything is addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:44, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Reidgreg, I was wondering if you felt able to support or oppose the nomination yet? Or is there more to come? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:49, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I don't do a lot of these. Support, yea, verily. – Reidgreg (talk) 16:41, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from HF[edit]

I reviewed this at GAN, and thought it was FA-quality at that time. Hog Farm Talk 20:15, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hawkeye7[edit]

Spelling errors: "over-whelmimgly", "strategem",

Gah! Corrected.

Source review - pass[edit]

  • All sources are high quality books and journals.
  • Some of the journals have ISSNs (eg Magier, Rogers), and others not. ISSNs are not required on the English-language Wikipedia, but they are on some of the others, so I normally add them to help the translators.
  • Done. (I think.)
  • Kaeuper and Kennedy's ISBN is formatted differently to the others. It should be 978-0-8122-3348-3.
Fixed.
  • Some of the multiple author works have ampersands (eg. Kaeuper and Kennedy, Livingstone and Witzel, but others do not. Adopt a consistent style.
Good spot. Standardised.
  • Where you have multiple works by the same author, you currently have them in random order. Suggest chronological order.
I thought they were, but I see that one of Rogers' is misplaced. Fixed.
  • Add page numbers to fn 21 for consistency
D'oh! Done.
  • Spot checks: 24, 36, 68, 138, 155 - okay
  • Fn 36: "the importance of the economic attrition of the chevauchée can hardly be exaggerated." Word missing. It should read: "the importance of the economic attrition aspect of the chevauchée can hardly be exaggerated."
That's my wonky copying across. Thank you. Amended. (I had also made the same error in Black Prince's chevauchée of 1355!)
  • My preference would be for notes 2 and 3 to be merged into the text, so the notes contain only historiographic information.
I have worked the first into "Opposing forces", which is my preferences. I had a request in another FAC for the term to be fully explained at first mention - ie in the lead. Hence the footnote. I think that no. 2 needs to stay as a footnote. (And I am not sure that I see a difference in principle between it and eg footnotes 3, 10, 11 or 12. (Now 2, 9, 10 and 11.))

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:36, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hawkeye7, it is good of you to do this. I have addressed all of your actionable comments. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:40, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:18, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support for prose, from Shooterwalker[edit]

Combed through this to look for any major issues with clarity or flow. I had a few nitpicks, but they seemed to be more style than real issues. Happy to support as is. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:35, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Query for the coordinators[edit]

@WP:FAC coordinators: with four supports (five if Hawkeye7's is a general support as well as a source review pass), source and image review passes and all of Truflip99's comments to date addressed, and with the nomination now three weeks in, could I have permission to launch another? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:31, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Hog Farm Talk 21:46, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Consider mine a general support as well. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:59, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]


One sentence[edit]

Section: 1356 The sentence, In three weeks the expedition had seized a large amount of loot, including many horses, damage had been done to the French economy and prestige, new alliances had been cemented and there had been few casualties. didn't quite work for me. I felt that military gains ie the loot, horses, lack of casuaties and gaining new alliances belong together while the soft power gains of damaging the French economy and prestige were separate.

My version would be: In three weeks the expedition had, with few casualties, seized a large amount of loot (including many horses), cemented new alliances and had damaged the French economy and prestige. Just a thought.Bill Reid | (talk) 16:08, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Billreid, I like it. Done, except I have dropped the parentheses. Thank you. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:22, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support - very enjoyable read. Bill Reid | (talk) 19:47, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from JennyOz[edit]

Hi Gog, Popping in before the other dozens of pingees. This is mammoth. A big read and a 50th! Well done you! I have but a few nitpicks and a couple of questions. (I started this before edits by Billreid so some tweaks may have been done?) For my comments on conversions pls view my templates in edit mode.

lede
  • the eldest son and heir of the English King - pipe Edward III?
I prefer not to. It is not all that clear to a reader that this is Edward III. I feel that linking the second mention is, in this case, more helpful to a reader.
Background
  • Although Gascony was the cause of the war - control of Gascony?
Actually, no. I have already said "the only significant French possession still held by the English in France was Gascony in the south west. But Gascony was disproportionately important: duty levied by the English Crown on wine from Bordeaux, the capital of Gascony, was more than all other English customs duties combined and by far the largest source of state income. Bordeaux had a population of more than 50,000, greater than London's, and Bordeaux was possibly richer ... Philip's Great Council in Paris agreed that the lands held by Edward III in France should be taken back into Philip's hands on the grounds that Edward III was in breach of his obligations as a vassal. This marked the start of the Hundred Years' War". Is this not sufficient explanation of Gascony's role?
  • John II of France attempted - no need for "of France"
Done.
  • In 1355 Edward III's eldest - here be no nbs
  • set out on 5 October - missed nbs
  • Gascony on 2 December - missed nbs
All added.
1356
  • from them on 24 April 1356 - missed nbs
Done.
  • The modern historian Jonathan Sumption describes the French national administration as "fall[ing] apart in jealous acrimony and recrimination". pp=102, 111, 115 - looks like one quote across 3 diff pages, divide them?
Done.
  • On 5 April 1356 John - missed nbs
Done.
  • King John moved to Rouen with - wlink Rouen
Done.
Prelude
  • separated into three divisions - I think it would be helpful here to mention who headed each of the three divisions?
If we knew, I would. No source gives this and at least one states that it is unknown. It is not the same as the people who led the three divisions during the battle. Nor were the compositions of th three divisions the same.
  • more than 50 miles (80 km) wide, yet - use convert ie "more than 50 miles (80 km) wide, yet"
Why. There is no change from a reader's point of view and there is no requirement to use the template.
  • brutal ... methodical - fix ellipsis
In what way?
per last time
h. Done.
  • The populace of most towns fled - populaces
Done.
  • formations to disburse widely - disperse
Done.
  • Map showing the routes... - alt=a map showing the route of the BlackPrince's divisision during - add space BlackPrince's, typo division
Dah!
  • free passage to the Cotentin - wlink
Done.
  • John was marching on Tours - wlink
Done.
  • still hoped to cross the Loire River - Loire hasn't been linked since lede?
Linked.
  • with either Edward's or Lancaster's armies - who is Edward here, use Black Prince?
Edward III. Clarified.
  • The French royal army from Breteuil had moved to Chartres - wlink
this link for Chartres not done?
Sorry. Now done.
  • Two hundred Scottish picked men-at-arms - what does "picked" mean? Is it simply 'selected' ie hand-picked or some military term (just for my info)
Picked men - it is nearly always "men", not sure why - are those "select[ed] carefully and with individual attention." Ire, picked out as the best.
  • an over-whelmingly strong force - one word, remove hyphen
Done.
  • army of the Count of Poitiers - who is this, John, Duke of Berry?
Indeed. Clarified and link moved to the first mention.
you added this 20:55 19 march "where he was joined by the army of his son John, Count of Poitiers." but then removed it with next edit?
Oops. Well spotted. I suspect that I had too many windows open. Fixed.
  • France were still underway and shipping - under way two words
Apparently not: wikt:underway.
Movement to contact
  • in an area with few supplies - needs a comma after supplies
Added.
  • at La Haye on 13 September - fix piped link
Fixed.
Opposing forces
  • when campaigning with a similar-sized army - "sized" is a verb here so use adverb "similarly" (eg a widely held belief, or, as below, "so similarly ignored Talleyrand") so should be "with a similarly sized army" with no hyphen?
Done.
  • attendants of minor land owners - one word landowners
Done.

French army

  • and approximately 13-foot -long (4.0 m); - long is not an adjective here (would be if it said 13 foot-long lances) so no hyphen needed. Just basic 13 feet (4.0 m) long
Done.
  • plate armour sown to them - spelling sewn, onto?
Bleh! Fixed.
  • and possibly chain mail hauberks.- needs hyphen ie chain-mail hauberks (though actually, is chain-mail hauberk a tautology?)
Done. (No. A hauberk could, for example, be made of scale or plate.)
  • of about 220 yards (200 m) - why not simply of about 220 yards (200 m)?
Cus the source says 200 m and I am using imperial units. Not that I much care.
  • and his 19-year-old son and heir (the dauphin) - cap D per all other mentions?
No. This is just referring to him having the general status of being the dauphin, not using it to describe a specific individual.
  • Behind this was a division led jointly by John's uncle and his 19-year-old son and heir - ambiguous? "John's uncle and his 19-year-old son" could read as the uncle's son. Would changing it to "led jointly by John's 19-year-old son and heir (the dauphin) and John's uncle" be OK?
Good thinking. Done.
Battle
Given the level of MOS:OVERLINK we already have, adding this makes sense. Done.
  • laager - is the wiktionary link better than Laager#Variations which mentions "English 'leaguer' ("military camp")"?
Ho hum. Changed.
  • were able to reach the gap in the fence with - is "fence" intentional or hedge?
Good spot. I think that I was trying to paraphrase and went overboard. Changed.
  • the longbowmen turned against them - insert English or Anglo-Gascons
Why? It has already been specified that longbowmen are either English or Welsh, and who else would be firing at the French?
  • who had accompanied the Cardinal during - decap?
Why?
Argh MOSTITLES is sometimes interpreted differently - I wasn't sure your preference eg "was commanded by the king himself" v "many joined the King's division behind" v "aimed directly at the French king" v "still fighting around their King". Again I'm not concerned about this.
Argh back. I had missed the "aimed directly ..." Corrected.
  • As some contemporary sources summarise this phase of the fighting with "the first French division was defeated by the arrows of the English" - "some"? does more than one source use that quote?
Amazingly, yes. Rogers, page 379 note 161, gives six different sources using this identical phrase.
  • The Black Prince was infuriated by the participation of Talleyrand's relatives and companions - why? did he think Talleyrand therefore was not impartial in negotiations?
Er, yes. Wouldn't you?
  • that a relative of the Cardinal - decap?
Why?
  • and when told that a relative of the Cardinal had been captured he ordered him beheaded - the cardinal or the relative?
The one who had been captured and whom it was within his power to behead. I could specify, but it seems redundant to me.
Second attack
  • Peter Hoskins states that most - move his introduction to here from Casualties
Done.

Third attack

  • John had ordered Orléans to escort his four sons to safety - use "John's" instead of "his" to avoid ambiguity
I am not sure there is any ambiguity. If there is, is there not a way to avoid it without clumsily using "John" twice in seven words?
  • Three of John's four sons, including the Dauphin, did leave the field at this point - didn't the Dauphin leave in second attack?
Depends on how you demarcate the attacks. But I say "The Dauphin was accompanied by two of his brothers, Louis and John, and the trio's advisors and bodyguards were perturbed by the intensity of the fighting in their vicinity and forced them to withdraw from the front line to a safer position." Which is not the same as leaving the field. Although the extent to which in reality the first, at the end of the second attack, merged into them actually leaving the field, at the failure of Orléans to launch the third attack, is unclear.
Fourth attack
  • joined by many surviving crossbowmen from the first attack. - this is said just above?
Could you help me out? I just can't find any prior mention of this.
"Many of the survivors of the first two attacks had rallied to the King"
Ah. Me reading what I intended to write, rather than what I had. I have tweaked that first sentence to only refer to men-at-arms.
  • the mile-wide gap (1,600 m) - use conversion "across the 1-mile-wide (1.6 km) gap"?
Er, ok. Done. (Why? I find it more difficult to read that way.)
  • towards the by now exhausted - hyphen by-now? Not sure, maybe just remove by
By needs to be there. Google books has zero cases of this being hyphenated.
Well I certainly think so, delinked.
  • through for their final charge.[171] [177] - remove space between refs
Oops.
  • started others copied them - followed?
Guessing that you are suggesting replacing "copied" with "followed" (yes?), they didn't actually follow them. They did the same thing, which is slightly different and which "copied" seems to communicate well.
  • Champ d’Alexandre - straighten curly apostrophe
Straightened. (I wonder who did thay?)
  • were eager to take them prisoner – in order that they could be ransomed – rather than - "in order" frowned on? maybe 'eager to take them prisoner for ransoming, rather than...'
Why is "in order" frowned on? And by who? It seems to precisely describe the situation here.
I'm not concerned but I've seen it considered superfluous in many good-writing guides both on (eg User:Tony1/How to improve your writing#Misplaced formality) and off enwiki and there was/is at least one co-ord who often trims it out when promoting
That would be Ian; usually I grin and bear it. But over this one we go to the barricades!
As always, if in doubt see what Fowler says. The current (2015) edition concludes its article on "in order to" -v- just "to" like this: "There is clearly room for both constructions. It is hard to pin down reasons for the choice of the longer form, apart from its greater formality. The presence of a different kind of to-infinitive in the vicinity … may sometimes be a factor, as will considerations of rhythm and emphasis." If I were you, I'd take that as amply justifying your resolve to man the barricades in defence of your rhythm and emphasis. Tim riley talk 07:58, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Mopping up
  • Frenchmen who had fled soon after the Captal de Buch's force arrived generally reached their horses and were able to escape. - this is repeat of "Most of the first to run were able to reach their horses and escape" but is intentional?
It is, it seemed worth recapping for clarity, but I could rephrase if you think I am over-egging it.
  • advantageous to capture in order to hold for ransom. - remove "in order"
Why. If pushed hard I will replace it. The phrase would read poorly as "advantageous to capture to hold for ransom" IMO.
  • Among the slain were the French King's uncle; the grand constable of France; the other marshal; the Bishop of Châlons - add names? eg "the other marshal" is Clermont?
I prefer not to. Not least because one only names in full at first mention. The marshal other than the "one of the two marshals of France" mentioned two sentences earlier.
Aftermath
  • overladen as they were with loot, booty and prisoners - what is difference loot and booty?
Not what I thought it was. Switched to "plunder".
Peace
  • between John and Edward led - That's Edward III (not Prince)?
Clarified. Although it looks clumsy to my eye that one monarch has a regnal number and the other not.
  • causing the Treaty to lapse - lowercase t
Done.
  • In October 1359 Edward led another campaign in northern France - Edward III or Black Prince?
Clarified.
  • In October 1359 Edward led another campaign - wlink Reims?
Done.
Consistencies etc
  • advisor x 5 - er per Tim (in prev fac)?
Oops. As I keep telling Tim, I read too much American fiction. And the EngvarB tool doesn't pick this one up.
  • some headings have spaces at equals signs, others not
True. And so?
  • some alts start with a cap, others not (eg "alt=A map of..." v "alt=a map of...")
As the alt text is for voice readers I assume this makes no functional difference.
Refs etc
  • ref 51 Rogers 2014, pp. 342, 244. - second page is 344?
D'oh! Corrected.
  • ref 181 Rogers 2014, pp. 282–383. - first page is 382?
Yes.
  • ref 202 Rogers 2014, p. 348. - not 384 is it?
No.
  • author-link=Richard W. Kaeuper - author-link1
Done.
  • Rogers, Clifford J. (2004) - cite news should be journal?
Yes. Done. Well spotted.
  • Harari, Yuval - move link to first entry?
Done.

That'll do. Sorry for length! Thoroughly enjoyed reading this. JennyOz (talk) 17:39, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jenny, you are wonderful. I don't know how to thank you. It is a bit of a monster, isn't it. I shall try not to do it again. Not your fault that your comments were long, but mine for leaving in so many silly errors for you to find. Everything now addressed, a couple with queries and a couple with disagreements. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:38, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jenny, how's this looking now? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:01, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Gog and Ian, so so sorry for delay (access probs again). Gog, I have added a few comments above. None are major, so I will sign my support now esp as I can't know how long before my proper connection is fixed. Congratulations on your 50th! JennyOz (talk) 20:48, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jen, I am relieved to hear that the delay was not due to health or personal issues. All of your responses addressed. I think; it's me, so who knows? *rolly eyes* And thanks once again for your determination to make this article as good as it can be, in spite of my apparent determination to cock it up. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:43, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by Borsoka[edit]

  • But Gascony... Do we begin a sentence with "but"?
In this case, yes, we do.
  • Bordeaux had a population of more than 50,000, greater than London's, and Bordeaux was possibly richer. Do we need to know it in the article's context?
I can see that where we draw the line is debatable, but I feel that it helps a reader to understand (part of) why Gascony was important to England and its strength in its own right.
  • ...Philip's Great Council in Paris... Great Council or Royal Council? Do we need to know that it happened in Paris?
It's complicated, but the part of the Conseil du Roi which made the decision was the Grand Conseil, or the full council, not the smaller executive body.
  • In 1345 and 1346 Henry, Earl of Lancaster, led a series of successful campaigns in Aquitaine and the Anglo-Gascons were able to push the focus of the fighting away from the heart of Gascony. I assume that Henry fought for the Gascons, perhaps launching campaigns from Gascony to other parts of the former Duchy of Aquitaine. Why Anglo-Gascons instead of Gascons?
Made it clearer that Henry was English. Because 1. that is how most sources refer to them; 2. Henry's forces consisted of a mix of Gascons and a substantial number of English.
  • ...the death rate was over 40% in Southern England Is this a fact or also an estimation? Do we need to know it?
It is what the sources cited give as fact. IMO it helps a reader to understand the magnitude of the event. Given that we have numbers, why use vague phraseology?
  • This catastrophe, which lasted until 1350, temporarily halted the fighting. The statement contradicts the following sentence about naval battles, etc.
In what way? The treaty temporally stopped the fighting - check - it was repeatedly renewed - check - the renewals did not prevent some minor skirmishing - check. I don't see a contradiction, what am I missing?
  • However, the French king, now John II (r. 1350–1364), decided not to ratify it... Why? I understand this is a key event in the background history of the battle.
OK. It seems a minor piece of background to me. Expanded. Let me know if you would like more detail - as I took Treaty of Guînes through FAC last year I could add pretty much all there is.
  • It was clear... Is this encyclopedic?
It seems so to me. I could change to "it was obvious that" or "apparent that" if you preferred, although I slightly prefer the current wording.
  • ...his council... Is the wikilink useful? Borsoka (talk) 04:20, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Link removed.
  • The next day he was formally acknowledged as the king's lieutenant in Gascony, with plenipotentiary powers. Acknowledged or installed? If acknowledged, by whom?
Good point. What it says. By whom added.
  • The Anglo-Gascon force marched from Bordeaux in English-held Gascony 300 miles (480 km) to Narbonne and back to Gascony... We were already informed that Bordeaux was held by the English in Gascony, and Gascony is already linked. Where is Narbonne located?
Ah ha. Gascony removed; location details of Narbonne added.
  • The English component resumed the offensive after Christmas... Perhaps "the offensive from Gascony"?
Done.
  • ...one of the largest landholders in France... Perhaps "in Normandy"? (To better understand the following sentence about the Norman nobles who were not arrested.)
Yes. Done.
  • ...Edward diverted an expedition... I assume he is the king, not the Black Prince. Borsoka (talk) 04:59, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Clarified.
  • Sometime around 20 August he offered the garrison of Breteuil free passage to the Cotentin, a huge bribe and permission to take their valuables and goods, in order to persuade them to vacate the town. The French army promptly marched south, as all available forces were concentrated against the Black Prince. Did the garrison accept the offer? Do we need to know that he offered free passage to the Cotentin?
Rephrased.
  • Who is the Count of Poitiers?
The title at the time of John's son John, later to be Count of Berry. He is introduced in the prelude.
  • Introduce the Dauphin in section "Movement to contact" instead of section "French army", and also name him. Borsoka (talk) 05:01, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done.
  • Crossbowmen usually fought from behind pavises – very large shields with their own bearers, behind each of which three crossbowmen could shelter. A trained crossbowman could shoot his weapon approximately twice a minute and had a shorter effective range than a longbowman of about 220 yards (200 m). Do these statements describe only French crossbowmen?
No. (Or I would have said so.) Although there is no mention of pavises being used by the Gascons in this campaign in the sources. (Which doesn't rule out their use of course.)
Done.
  • ...as was one of Talleyrand's nephews and Robert of Durazzo... Durazzo was Talleyrand's nephew killed in the battle.
Excellently spotted. Thank you. A naff typo from me. Fixed, and the other relative named to avoid any potential confusion/conflation.
  • ...James Audley... Perhaps Audley? (He was introduces in a previous section.)
Good spot. Done.
  • Link John, Duke of Berry when mentioning the Dauphin's brother, John.
Already linked at first mention.
Oops. Done.
It seems an unnecessary detail.
  • Perhaps our readers are interested in the details of his murder. Borsoka (talk) 01:30, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I should hope that they are. And that they are interested in myriad other details which I could includ but haven't - from the care and performance of war, riding and transport horses while on campaign to exactly which villages the two armies passed through on their respective journeys from the Loire to Poitiers and many more. But this is summary style. The name of the senior officer killed by a senior French noble as a small part of the descent of France into ungovernability is pretty remote from the Battle of Poitiers. We are in danger of footnoting the footnotes.
  • Consider consolidating note 6 with the main text.
I don't see how that can be done without clumsily interrupting the flow of the text. If hard pressed I would prefer to remove the note, which would be a shame.
  • Consider consolidating note 11 with the main text or deleting it.
I prefer it how it is.

Congratulations for your 50th FAC. It is an excellent article and its subject is worthy for celebration. Please find my comments above. Most of them present minor issues. Borsoka (talk) 01:54, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I think there are two pending issues: Robert of Durazzo and Charles de la Cerda. Borsoka (talk) 01:30, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Good morning Borsoka, you are being very efficient. Firstly thank you for your kind words about the article and secondly many thanks for the thorough review. Where I had got to above is simply the point at which I went to bed. The two outstanding points now addressed. I think that is all, but please come back if you are not happy with any of my responses or if you spot any other areas for potential improvement. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:17, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am glad to support your nomination. Borsoka (talk) 13:24, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Hog Farm via FACBot (talk) 11 April 2022 [54].

Marvel Tales and Unusual Stories[edit]

Nominator(s): Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:55, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a pair of magazines published by a dedicated science fiction fan in the 1930s. William Crawford's ambitions outran his financial resources, but his two semi-professional magazines were a pioneering effort to expand the new science fiction genre beyond the limits set by pulp magazine publishing standards. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:55, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Image review–pass it's asserted that the license wasn't renewed, and I am agfing that a thorough search was done. (t · c) buidhe 16:28, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the review. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:23, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Aoba47[edit]

This is more of a placeholder. My above comments are limited to the lead, but I will attempt to do a full review either this Thursday or Friday as those are my "weekends" (i.e. when I have time off work). I look forward to reading this article as I do enjoy reading about these kinds of magazines. One of these days, I should really try my hand at one of these articles. Aoba47 (talk) 03:28, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All done; thanks. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:18, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a super nitpick-y comment. For this citation title (The Time Machines: The Story of the Science-Fiction Pulp Magazines from the beginning to 1950), I would capitalize Beginning.
    Surprisingly that's lower case both on the cover and the title page -- see here, though I see Amazon decided to capitalize it in their listing. I'd be inclined to leave it the way the publisher has it. Or is there some MoS rule about title case for book titles? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:24, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for the explanation. I agree that it is best to go with how the book and publisher represent it. I do not believe there is a MoS rule about this, but I am not the best person to ask about that. Aoba47 (talk) 13:54, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have read through the article, and I believe this is the only thing that I have noticed. I will re-read through the article again though in the next few days just to make sure though. Aoba47 (talk) 02:42, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for your patience with my review. I support the FAC based on the prose. If you have the time or interest, I would greatly appreciate any help with my current FAC. Either way, have a great rest of your week! Aoba47 (talk) 02:11, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks! I had a look at your FAC, and I see there are currently three supports; I know more is better but I think I'm going to take a crack at a couple of other FACs that don't have three supports yet -- I hate to see something get archived for lack of commentary. If "Mindful" is still languishing in two or three weeks feel free to ping me again. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:03, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your response, and I agree that it is best to help other FACs who have not received as much commentary. Aoba47 (talk) 14:30, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from ChrisTheDude[edit]

  • "A Pennsylvania fan, William L. Crawford, was an early science fiction fan" - any way to avoid repetition of "fan"? Maybe change the first one to "A Pennsylvania native"....?
    I decided to just cut the mention of Pennsylvania; it's in the bibliographic section but here it's unnecessary detail. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:11, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refs in multiple places in the second paragraph are not in correct numerical order
    I've fixed this, because I know it annoys some people, but I don't think it's a requirement -- I don't usually bother because citation numbers aren't very stable -- if you decide to remove a citation early in the article it cause half a dozen cases of out-of-order citations. Anyway, fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:11, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "increased the size from digest to pulp format" - is it possible to clarify what these sizes actually are (eg give the dimensions)?
    Done, in a note to try to avoid interrupting the text. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:11, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "reprints of two round-robin stories" - what is a "round-robin story"?
    A story in which multiple authors take turns at the writing. I've linked it; is that enough, or do you think a note in the text is needed? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:11, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Doesn't the Bibliographic details section just repeat content from the previous section?
    Well, not exactly -- the point of that section is to include all the fiddly little details that would clog up the flow if I were to put them in running text. It's common in magazine reference works to have a section like this, and I think readers familiar with the field expect something like this. If anything I'd rather remove some details from the rest of the article if it feels too repetitious -- perhaps drop the mentions of the page counts, for example? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:11, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's what I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:35, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the review. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:11, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    ChrisTheDude, pinging in case you didn't see these replies. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:06, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:03, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:45, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass[edit]

Support by TDWB[edit]

  • A small thing but should it not be "Marvel Tales and Unusual Stories are two related". I thought non-biographical things just are, they don't cease to be.
    You're right for most things, but there's an exception for periodicals -- see WP:WAS. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:10, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "believed that the pulp magazines of the time were too limited in what they would publish." MIght be apples and oranges, "day" seems more colloquial than time, to me anyway.
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:10, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I feel that the final sentence should be split at the "and Parnell and Ashley consider that Crawford was "the man who made the greatest effort to bridge the gap between the amateur and professional magazines." It has two and's one after the other with "and Crawford as a pioneer in his attempts to prove..."
    Split. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:10, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Frank Utpatel is a red link, again I don't do reviews often compared to putting things up for review but I thought FAs couldn't have red links.
    No, they're not as common as they once were but red links are still considered a good thing. WP:REDYES is an essay about it, and the FA criteria don't say anything about it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:10, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't really find anything else, it's a brief easy read. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 18:10, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review, Darkwarriorblake; replies above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:10, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

AK

  • Disclaimer: I haven't checked references and will be claiming credit for this at the WikiCup.
  • I've made a couple of minor tweaks based on MOS and links rather than list them here.
    Looks good, but I have one question; should the non-breaking space in e.g "H.P. Lovecraft" be before the "L" or before the "P"? I would have guessed the former, but most of the ones you added are between the initials. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:47, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Per MOS:INITIALS, before the P is correct as the nbsp should be between initials.
  • "his finances were unequal to his ambitions" sounds a bit unencyclopedic and editorial-y to me.
    I'd like to keep this -- the sources are clear that he wanted to do more than he could afford to, and I think the phrase is not unencyclopedic just because it's not colourless. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:47, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure how encyclopedic "sf" in the place of science fiction is.
    It's the abbreviation used by most of the sources, included Ashley and the online SF Encyclopedia. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:47, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "W. Anders Drake's story" → Is the name of the story known?
    Added, and per the source it's a pseudonym so I added that information too. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:47, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Four cover images is a bit repetitive, anything else that could be used?
    Fair point. I will see if I can find a picture of Lovecraft or Howard instead. I'd use one of Crawford but there's nothing that is out of copyright. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:47, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I've substituted a picture of Lovecraft for one of the covers. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:56, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nice article overall. AryKun (talk) 13:21, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    AryKun: thanks for the review; all points now responded to. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:56, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support based on prose.
  • Not necessary, but a review at my FAC would be appreciated. AryKun (talk) 10:00, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the support. I'm out of town at the moment but should be starting to review again next week once I'm back in New York; I usually start at the bottom of FAC and work up but I see your FAC is towards the end so I'll probably review by the end of next week. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:21, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Hog Farm via FACBot (talk) 11 April 2022 [55].

1993–94 Gillingham F.C. season[edit]

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:34, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

After nine successful promotions, here's another season from the history of English football club Gillingham F.C. This will probably be the last one I nominate for a while, as I have finally exhausted my collection of old editions of the Rothmans Football Yearbook :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:34, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Image review—pass (t · c) buidhe 19:42, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Lee Vilenski[edit]

I'll begin a review of this article very soon! My reviews tend to focus on prose and MOS issues, especially on the lede, but I will also comment on anything that could be improved. I'll post up some comments below over the next couple days, which you should either respond to, or ask me questions on issues you are unsure of. I'll be claiming points towards the wikicup once this review is over.

Lede
  • until the eighth league game of the season, but in the next game - this is a bit clunky, are we saying they won away from home in their ninth game of the season? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:00, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • first time since March 1992 - might be better to also say the rough date when they did win. I'm guessing it was around October 1993. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:00, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • knock-out competitions - pipes to a redirect. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:00, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Prose

{| class="wikitable plainrowheaders sortable" |+Results{{sfn|Rollin|1994|p=232}}

instead of

;Results{{sfn|Rollin|1994|p=232}} {| class="wikitable plainrowheaders sortable"

  • Rochdale pipes to a redirect in the table. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:00, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gillingham played away to Plymouth Argyle of the Second Division and lost 2–0 to their higher-division opponents - seems a little throwaway. Could we get just a tad more info? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:00, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can't really find any more to say, it seems to have been a pretty uneventful game..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:43, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • I was just thinking about mentioning the stadium name or number of spectators or something. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:24, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comments

Additionally, if you liked this review, or are looking for items to review, I have some at my nominations list. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:26, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Lee Vilenski: - all done, I think -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:04, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to support this promotion, with the regular previso on issues being raised by other nominators. Good work. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:59, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Mike Christie[edit]

Support. I had a few comments, but it was easier to fix them myself. Another very competent article; not much to criticize. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:56, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

Spotchecks not done. Version reviewed

Pass. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:47, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some of the details in the infobox don't appear to be cited anywhere, eg the chairman
    • @Nikkimaria: That's the only element that wasn't sourced elsewhere in the article, a source has now been added -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:24, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are the matchday programmes paginated?
  • The Bateson ISBN is not turning up in searches on Worldcat, GBooks or Open Library - can you confirm that it is correct? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:20, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: - any further comments on this, or can you confirm a pass on the source review.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:41, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from mujinga[edit]

  • If you've got a comma before and in "winning 14, drawing 17, and losing 18" then I'd suggest one in "The team struggled in August and September and did not win a Third Division" as well
  • " the club's original shirts when it was founded in 1893 featured black and white stripes" might read better as "when it was founded in 1893, the club's original shirts had featured black and white stripes" but it's a nitpick
  • "who lost 2–0 to their higher-division opponents" not sure if you need "higher-division opponents" since you've just said "Plymouth Argyle of the Second Division"
  • In the "Cup matches" section, should the match details be a fourth level header? Since they seem to be subsidiary to FA Cup, Football League Cup, Football League Trophy
  • "News Of The World Football Annual but Images of England: Gillingham Football Club.
  • All very nitpicky, hope it can be of use Mujinga (talk) 00:11, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Query for the coordinators[edit]

@WP:FAC coordinators: - got another one ready to go already, is it OK to nominate it now or should I leave it a bit longer......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:06, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think two weeks is sufficient. Feel free to nominate a second. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:08, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 9 April 2022 [56].

1838 Jesuit slave sale[edit]

Nominator(s): Ergo Sum 05:06, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been a long time in the making and is long overdue. It is about a fascinating historical event that has become the subject of much inquiry in recent years. I believe the article is now at featured quality and suitable for submission. Ergo Sum 05:06, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

  • The switcher does not appear to be tab-accessible - suggest moving this into the body as a more standard multi-image
    • What do you mean by tab-accessible? Ergo Sum 01:26, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • I was referring to [57] but I think I was mistaken on this point - although I still think it makes sense to present this in a multi-image inline, it's less pressing. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:05, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • I tried to think of the best way to present the images, but I since the images really don't do much as thumbnails (you can't really read the text without clicking on and enlarging the images), I think having all the images presented at once might not be terribly useful for a reader. Ergo Sum 02:34, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • Why then is it useful in the present form? All that changes is you need more clicks and the rest of the content gets pushed down. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:17, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
            • I think it's the same logic of having an image of the first page of the Constitution of the United States in its infobox. It gives readers a visual idea of what kind of document represents the ideas discussed in the article, e.g. on parchment, handwritten, its formality, etc. And, if readers are so inclined, they can flip through the whole document, especially to the signature pages and list of slaves, which are of interest. Ergo Sum 12:27, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Looks pretty bad on my screen too[58], and it appears the long row of pages is pushing other images down, so that the two photos of building are now in the reference section, with references superimposed over them. I would also suggest a better solution would be some sort of gallery or multiple image template. FunkMonk (talk) 17:49, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Having just the first page, as in the constitution article, would also work. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:36, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've done a bit of reorganizing. What do you think now? Ergo Sum 02:11, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely better. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:25, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yep! FunkMonk (talk) 08:47, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't use fixed px size
    • For some reason, it seems I can't use an upright scaling factor. It has no effect on the image's size. Ergo Sum 01:41, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • It does so long as your default is set to something other than that. Perhaps that is an issue with the switcher template? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:05, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think I found a solution. Added |frameless, which allows an upright scaling factor to be added and have effect, but it seems it's not really necessary anyway. Ergo Sum 02:38, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • When and where were the articles of agreement first published?
    • Corrected the license. Ergo Sum 01:38, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Mulledy_Hall_1898.jpg: when and where was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:10, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Corrected the license. Ergo Sum 01:26, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • For both this and the above, what checks were made to determine these were unpublished? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:05, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • Did a reverse Google Image search, checked the image links in Internet Archive, and checked the major books about Georgetown University history. Ergo Sum 02:32, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Nikkimaria, is this one satisfactory? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:43, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by ChrisTheDude[edit]

  • Making a start on this now but probably won't make it all the way through as I only have 15 minutes of my lunch break left :-)
  • "Roothaan removed Mulledy as provincial" - feels like there's a word missing there, unless his title was simply "provincial".....?
    • Provincial is a common shorthand for provincial superior that the Jesuits use. I've added the full name of the position for clarity. Ergo Sum 01:11, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would merge the last two paragraphs of the lead as they are both very short
  • That's all I got as far as the end of the "background" section. More later.......... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:39, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
More comments
  • "It provided that 51 slaves would be sent to Alexandria, Virginia, immediately, where they were then shipped to Louisiana" => "It provided that 51 slaves would be sent to Alexandria, Virginia, immediately, where they would then be shipped to Louisiana"
  • "Johnson allowed these slaves to remain in Maryland because he intended return" => "Johnson allowed these slaves to remain in Maryland because he intended to return"
  • "Soon after the sale, Rooathaan decided that Mulledy should removed" => "Soon after the sale, Rooathaan decided that Mulledy should be removed"
  • "published an article that brought the history of the Jesuits' and university's relationship with slavery came to national attention" => "published an article that brought the history of the Jesuits' and university's relationship with slavery to national attention"
  • "On April 18, 2017, the DeGioia" => "On April 18, 2017, DeGioia"
  • "apologized on behalf of their respective institutions institutions" - duplicated word
  • That's what I got. An interesting read! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:32, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your review, ChrisTheDude. Glad you found it interesting. Ergo Sum 01:21, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie[edit]

  • I would give Mulledy's full name in the lead, and link his article from there.
  • "on the Lord Baltimore, Cecil Calvert's, voyage" and "from the Lord Baltimore in 1636": can we make this just "on Lord Baltimore's voyage" and "from Lord Baltimore in 1636"? I don't think we need the "the", and his name is available via the link if a reader is interested.
  • "Due to these extensive landholdings, the Catholic superiors at the Propaganda Fide in Rome had come to view the American Jesuits negatively for living opulently like manorial lords." Two -ly words near each other is unharmonious, but another issue is that the reader takes this at face value, but finds out in the next sentence that it is a mistaken view. And I think we could lose "like manorial lords" or "opulently"; they mean more or less the same thing. Can we use a verb like "assumed" or find another way to warn the reader what's coming?
    • I've tweaked the sentence slightly to make it flow better. I'd be hesitant to rephrase because I think it might just become wordier at the cost of clarity. I also think opulence and manorial lords are both necessary because they communicate different things; simply saying like a manorial lord could mean a variety of things and saying only opulently does not communicate exactly the way they were viewed. I'm not really sure a preview is necessary since the contradiction occurs in the very next sentence, which begins with a transition. Ergo Sum 02:38, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "as a canonical visitor in 1820": I think most readers won't realize that this "visitor" is there to find and correct abuses; a couple of words of clarification would be good.
    • Added a brief word of explanation. Ergo Sum 02:42, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The condition of slaves on the plantations varied over time, as did the condition of the Jesuits living with them. While Kenney found the slaves facing arbitrary discipline, a meager diet, pastoral neglect, and engaging in vice, by the 1830s, their physical and religious conditions had improved considerably." Does the first sentence give us any information not in the second sentence? And instead of "While" for the second sentence the date would help the reader, since we are comparing decades. How about tweaking the sentence order here to mention Kenney's visit at the end, instead of in the middle? That naturally gives us the 1820 date for comparison with the 1830s.
    • On second look, I think it makes sense to split this into two sentences. 02:45, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
  • "The Maryland Jesuits, having been elevated from a mission to the status of province in 1833": "province" clearly has some specific meaning in the Society of Jesus; is there a suitable link?
  • "Not all of the 272 slaves intended to be sold to Louisiana met that fate. In total, only 206 are known to have been transported to Louisiana, while 91 remained in Maryland." Reading the rest of the paragraph I see how the arithmetic works, but can we make it clearer on first reading that 91 + 206 is not intended to equal 272? Perhaps delay giving the number 91 until after the explanation. I see there's a footnote, but something inline would be better.
    • Added a bit of explanation to the sentence. Ergo Sum 02:58, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "There was outcry from numerous Maryland Jesuits": this sounds wrong to my ear. I assume you're avoiding "an outcry" because it's multiple Jesuits? I think that would be better, but if you don't like that I think another word or a rephrase is needed. Also, the second clause as structured ought to be referring to the subject of the first clause, but here that's "outcry". How about "Numerous Maryland Jesuits considered the sale to be immoral and were outraged, and many of them wrote..."? Or ""Numerous Maryland Jesuits were outraged by the sale, which they considered to be immoral, and many of them wrote..."?
    • Went with your phrasing. Ergo Sum 02:50, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "However, the remaining $90,000 did go to funding Jesuit formation": how can this be squared with the statement in the next paragraph that the Jesuits never received the full balance of the sale money?
    • That was sloppy math on my part. I've changed it to just the remainder, since it is unclear/unknown how much was actually received. Ergo Sum 02:52, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Johnson's sale of his slaves in 1844 is mentioned twice, once in the financial outcome section and once in the subsequent fate section. I think if you combine these sections under a title such as "Outcome" you could reorganize this a little and avoid the duplication.
    • I think it's worth keeping them separate, since they deal with quite different subjects: one is finances and the other is the "human factor." It's really only a minimal duplication, as it stands. Ergo Sum 02:53, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      OK. I tweaked the phrasing so the reader is aware we're referring to something that has already been referred to. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:21, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "While the 1838 slave sale gave rise to scandal at the time, the event largely faded out of the public awareness over time." Can we avoid "...at the time...over time"?

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:53, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your review, Mike Christie. Sorry for the delay. Ergo Sum 02:58, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support. My issues have been addressed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:21, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

Coming up. JBchrch talk 04:19, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • The correct hyperlink for ref 44 has changed, it's now https://gu272.americanancestors.org/historical-timeline. JBchrch talk 14:02, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have the same problem for ref 29, but maybe it's me: is it possible that the hyperlink has changed? JBchrch talk 14:07, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hmm, it does seem that that website has moved around some of its pages, changing their addresses. The old page redirects to the homepage and this other page, which appears to be a cached version of the old page, doesn't seem to be working at the moment. It might start working in the future, but since I can't find another location of the old page right now, I'm going to set the archive link as the active one. Ergo Sum 22:15, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The 1838 slave sale returned to the public's awareness in the mid-2010s, due to new attention paid to two buildings on Georgetown University's campus named after Thomas Mulledy and William McSherry. Is this sourced?
    • Not really. I meant it as a general sentence to introduce the rest of the section, which would otherwise seem a bit disjointed. I suppose I could trim it a bit to minimize any perception of OR. What do you think? Ergo Sum 22:54, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • I see. To me, the paragraph seems legible if we just drop the whole thing altogether, but I don't want to encroach on your style too much. So yes, if you could trim it a little bit, that would be great. For instance, if we just keep The 1838 slave sale returned to the public's awareness in the mid-2010s, that is IMO sufficient. JBchrch talk 23:53, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think that works. Trimmed it. Ergo Sum 00:29, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aren't there any chapters from Facing Georgetown's History: A Reader on Slavery, Memory, and Reconciliation that would be worth citing in the article? JBchrch talk 14:18, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I only have access to the preview through Google Books. But, from the table of contents, it seems that everything that is encyclopedic (i.e. not a primary source or purely opinion) has already been cited. There isn't anything that strikes me as lacking. Ergo Sum 22:19, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your review, JBchrch. Ergo Sum 22:55, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Ergo Sum. There's only one point outstanding above, and no other problems, so I will move to the spot checks. I will do about 10-15. JBchrch talk 23:53, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Spot checks

  • 2 OK
  • 5a OK
  • 8a OK
  • 18b OK
  • 24f Does the source say that it was contrary to Roothan’s orders? 90k out of the 115k were still allocated to training.
    • I've modified the citation to include p. 46, which explains that Roothaan said all the money had to go to Jesuit training. Ergo Sum 02:56, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, I had seen that part, but does it say that all the money had to go to training and that the actions were contrary to Roothan's order? I have not read Cooran's primary source but perhaps it was acceptable under his orders ("that the money be invested for the support of Jesuits in training") that 20% of it go to repay some debts? JBchrch talk 03:54, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The source does not explicitly say that his order said all of the money should go to training. It just simply says that the money should go to training, which in my mind implies all. Ergo Sum 13:15, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • In that case, would you be willing to change the "contrary to"? JBchrch talk 15:05, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure it would change the sentence much. Even removing that, the sentence would still indicate that the money was spent against Roothaan's order. Ergo Sum 01:14, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, do you have a proposition about how you could tweak the wording to match the source more closely? JBchrch talk 01:28, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't really see an issue with how it is phrased now. I think it accurately reflects the text. The text (pp. 46-47) says that Roothaan said the money had to go to Jesuit training and that part of it didn't go to that, so I think it's not a stretch to say that that was contrary to his order. Ergo Sum 02:00, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm reading that Roothaan said that the proceeds needed to go to training, and the money was then allocated at 80% to training and at 20% to repay some debts. The concept that the actions were in contradiction to Roothaan's instruction is not evident from the sourcing. I don't intend to fail this source review for this point, so I'll let you decide what you want to do. JBchrch talk 02:36, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, I've rephrased that sentence to adhere as closely as possible to the source. Ergo Sum 17:19, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • 26 OK. I’m reading "the sale got the Jesuits out of an unprofitable business and raised much-needed capital for their operations". Is this covered somewhere in the article?
    • The unprofitable business was the plantations and, by extension, slavery itself. The floundering finances of the plantations are discussed in the Background section. Ergo Sum 02:45, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    👍 JBchrch talk 03:45, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • 27d OK
  • 31 OK
  • 47 OK
  • 48 OK
  • 51c OK
  • 67 OK
  • 70 OK

JBchrch talk 02:19, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.wsj.com/articles/for-georgetown-jesuits-and-slavery-descendants-bid-for-racial-healing-sours-over-reparations-11648232089. Interesting article from today. Maybe there's something useful in there. JBchrch talk 15:05, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a few points to the article from this WSJ article. Ergo Sum 17:17, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, that's fine. Source review is a pass. JBchrch talk 17:21, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

HF - support[edit]

Seeing as this needs another review, I'll take a look at this. Hog Farm Talk 01:36, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • "The Ark and The Dove on Lord Baltimore's, voyage to settle Maryland in 1634" - I don't believe the comma belongs there
  • I think it should be directly glossed somewhere the Society of Jesus = Jesuit as it's not a necessarily obvious connection (I don't think I learned this until college)
    • Added a brief explanation at the outset of the first section. Ergo Sum 14:06, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since they owned land in both MD and PA, wouldn't it be significant to mention that slavery was allowed in MD but not in PA by the 1800s?
    • Maybe it's just me, but it strikes me as just a bit too far outside the scope of the article's narrative, since PA is really only mentioned in passing. Ergo Sum 14:18, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "three-week voyage aboard the Katherine Jackson" - is the type of ship known? Presumably a steamer?
    • Everything I can find just refers to it as the "Ship Katherine Jackson." Ergo Sum 14:08, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • So in August 1839, McSherry is still in a position to get Mulledy to resign, but he's described as being in a dying state back in 1837?
    • Yes, the William McSherry article explains how even though he was dying, he was given substantial responsibilities, over his protests. Ergo Sum 14:09, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • " This coincided with a protest by a group of students the day before" - for or against the name change?
  • "This admissions preference has been described by historian Craig Steven Wilder as the most significant measure taken by a university to account for its historical relationship with slavery" - not sure this is the best way to summarize the source. We've got "go beyond any initiatives enacted by a university in the past 10 years" but our article doesn't time-limit it, and "“It goes farther than just about any institution,” he said. “I think it’s to Georgetown’s credit. It’s taking steps that a lot of universities have been reluctant to take.”" but our article seems to be phrased a bit stronger than the second one as well
    • Perhaps a simple "recently" will do. How does it read now? Ergo Sum 14:17, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should the Facing Georgetown's History source in the further reading be used?
    • I discussed this above. The book is a compilation of other works. Those that are relevant and encyclopedic have already been cited directly. Ergo Sum 14:14, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's it from me. Hog Farm Talk 03:05, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review, Hog Farm. Ergo Sum 14:18, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 8 April 2022 [59].

Tom Holland[edit]

Nominator(s): FrB.TG (talk) 19:50, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Having recently watched a lot of Marvel films, I chose Holland's article to improve due to my lack of time to undertake a bigger actor's article. At 3.3k words, this is the shortest article I have brought to FAC. That said, it is a comprehensive account of the movies Holland has done so far. Enjoy. FrB.TG (talk) 19:50, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support - ChrisTheDude[edit]

  • "he bagged a supporting part" - "bagged" seems a bit slangy IMO
  • "Holland resides in Kingston upon Thames in South West London" - you already linked Kingston a couple of sentences earlier, also would it not make more sense to clarify at that point that it's in SW London?
  • "In 2017, he told Interview Magazine that he hopes" => "In 2017, he told Interview Magazine that he hoped"
  • "Peter advised Holland" => "Darling advised Holland"
  • "Made on a budget of 45 million" - 45 million what?
  • "he and costars, including Chris Hemsworth lost" - need a comma after Hemsworth to close the clause
  • "Brian Truitt of the USA Today wrote Holland" => "Brian Truitt of the USA Today wrote that Holland"
  • "directors Russo brothers" => "directors the Russo brothers"
  • "through November" - as Holland is British, this article should be written in UK English, and we don't say "through [date]" in the UK. "Up to and including November" would work.
  • "reunited him with Avengers directors Russo brothers" => "reunited him with Avengers directors the Russo brothers", also no need to link them again
  • "Holland reprised his role as Peter Parker" - no need to link again
  • "In November 2021, Holland told GQ that he is doubtful" => "In November 2021, Holland told GQ that he was doubtful"
  • "In December 2021, Holland confirmed that he is set to" => "In December 2021, Holland confirmed that he was set to"
  • Everything in the first paragraph of the Image section should be in the past tense
I am not sure about the past tense here. Public image is usually about general observations made by other people about one's personality and style. Writing these in the past tense without giving a year does not seem correct. I checked similar FA-class articles to see how they do it. Amy Adams#Reception and acting style, for example, does this ("Hadley Freeman of The Guardian wrote in 2016", "The journalist Alex Bilmes believes that"):
  • "He is currently" - better to give a specific "as of" date
  • That's what I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:03, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comments, Chris. These are the changes I have made in response to them. FrB.TG (talk) 19:01, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Re the use of the past tense when talking about what someone said about him, my view is that the opinion is as at a point in time so should be framed accordingly. Consider this....if this article is still around in 2080, when Holland is pushing 90, would it be appropriate for it still to say "Jonathan Dean of The Sunday Times [..] takes note (present tense) of his maturity"? I dunno, maybe let's see what other people think...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:14, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I was wrong. It is in fact correct to use the past tense without having to specify a time. And what you say makes sense as well. I have changed it to the past tense. FrB.TG (talk) 19:26, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Panini![edit]

You reached out to me by saying you have "another actor article" as if I wouldn't know who Tom Holland was. I'm wrapped up with another article, so I'll be back soon. One quick check-in, however: a reviewer is only allowed to have one FAC open at a time, and Leonardo DiCaprio doesn't appear to be completed yet. Did you get the greenlight to begin this nomination? Panini! • 🥪 19:21, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. FrB.TG (talk) 19:32, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Lead
  • "Some publications have called him one of the popular actors of his generation." Is a "most" supposed to be here?
  • Considering how you specify "the sequels", you can shorten the second movie titles to Far From Home and No Way Home.
Good idea. Done.
Life and career
  • The last three sentences of the first paragraph cover similar stuff and gets pretty repetitive, and can be shortened; "Since his parents have creative professions he is often inspired by them; he considered his father a role model, who serves as his unofficial manager due to his experience in the industry."
  • "In 2017, he told Interview Magazine that he hoped to direct films in 20 years because he likes working with actors." This doesn't really apply to his "early life". Could this find a home elsewhere in the article?
Definitely not in the No Way Home section. ;) Rearranged.
  • "While his performance was praised, he visited the doctor the following day." The way these two statements are combined makes it sound like he did well because of the tonsilitis.
  • "Bayona then arranged a meeting, and had Holland write a letter to his mother and recite it as an audition" - As in, the mother in the movie or his real life mother? Did he merely read it aloud or use it as a monologue?
We have only this info: "..the director pushed Holland to write a heartfelt letter to his mother and then recite it".
  • "The Impossible premiered at the Toronto International Film Festival in September to critical success.[25] Made on a budget of $45 million, it earned $180.3 million worldwide."   -> "The Impossible premiered at the Toronto International Film Festival in September to critical and commercial success, earning $180.3 million worldwide against a $45 million budget."
  • "Holland received critical praise" - For what specifically? This is a general statement, but only one cites one critic afterward.
The source is not a review of his performance but provides general info about the film. It says, "his performance as the strong-willed and determined eldest son is garnering critical acclaim."
  • "and briefly appeared in Billy Elliot the Musical Live" - Was this a cameo? If so, I feel it'd be better to explicitly say so. "Briefly appeared" is vague in comparison.
Breakthrough as Spider-Man (aka the second half of career)
  • "he directed a 3-minute short film called Tweet" - Since there's no article on this subject, could you give a brief description on what it is about?
  • "and Peter Travers of Rolling Stone found him 'terrific'." - Simply put, this doesn't add much. If this is all that Travers says about Holland, I don't think it's important enough for inclusion.
  • "he owned 30 costumes and bed sheet covers of the character." What a nerd.
  • I'd prefer a link to the MCU character instead of the comic character for Ant-Man.
  • Similar to my above comment, "having previously won for Captain America: Civil War and Spider-Man: Homecoming" can be shortened to Civil War and Homecoming.
  • "He voiced roles in the Blue Sky Studios animation Spies in Disguise (2019), the live-action film Dolittle (2020), and the Pixar animation Onward (2020)." - Wo-wait-hold on-slow down there! These are three large movies spanned across two years that are breezed over in a sentence. It'd be great to hear his experience with these movies as well as what the critics thought, and although it should e kept short for balancing reasons I bet there's some things to say. I'd also like to note that he did a movie "alongside Avengers co-star Sebastian Stan", but he also did this with Chris Pratt and Robert Downey Jr. with two of the above.
I've added about his costars and box-office performances of the films.
  • 'methodical and thoughtful and sensitive', and called him a kind person" - Lots of "and" here.
  • "Chaos Walking failed to recoup its budget and received poor reviews." - Anything critical about Holland?
Yes, two things. Added.
  • "No Way Home quickly emerged as the highest-grossing film of 2021" - You link to 2019 in film here.
Not sure why I did that. I think it was Dr Strange time-travelling. Corrected.
  • "a fortune hunter and bartender" - I went to see this movie, and I remember the bartender portion being barely relevant to the plot (although I may be forgetting something). Instead, could you one or two words to describe Nathan's personality in the film?
  • I see now that the following sentence needs this bartender piece to make sense. I would say to include the bartender portion in this sentence instead: "Since the character is a bartender, Holland practiced bartending by working shifts at the Chiltern Firehouse, a pub in London."
I have left the treasure hunting part. For the bartending bit to make sense, I have tweaked the second sentence to "In preparation for scenes where his character is bartending, Holland practiced the work by working shifts.."
  • I'd link biopic in "Upcoming projects"
  • I like how the "Public image and personal life" section reads; Good Job! However, I think the paragraphs need to be reorganized; paragraphs 1 and 4 are about his public image and 2 and 3 are about his personal life. I'd move paragraph four up to the second paragraphs place to align with the order of the header.

That's all from me! Deal with this and I'll lend a support. Panini! • 🥪 23:43, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Panini, for your review. It was very helpful as usual. I think I have addressed all of your comments now. Let me know if I missed something. FrB.TG (talk) 11:23, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, shoot, did I never support this nomination? Because I Support this noination. Good work, as usual! Panini! • 🥪 13:11, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by DWB[edit]

FYI This is a solicited review but I am impartial about it as I know next to nothing about Holland or film actor articles in general. I have already removed two duplicate links. I am a bit wary of promoting such articles only because he potentially has so much future ahead of him that the article will inevitably expand and change significantly, but it appears to be as complete as it can be for this moment in time.

I totally understand your concern but I have previously written 10 FAs about actors in their 20s or 30s. One that I wrote was promoted six years ago, and so far I haven't had any problem maintaining any of them. In fact, this is partly why I write such biographies, i.e. they keep me active around here even when I'm not writing something new.
  • I can see that Ref #50 is not archived, check for others to make sure this article remains verifiable.
  • Ref titles are inconsistent, some are in Title Case and others are in Proper Case. Make it consistent.
I went for what they're called in the sources. Some refrain from title case so I did exactly that.
  • Ref #60, Box Office Mojo isn't linked, and there are other instances of this throughout. My past experience is that every instance of a website/publisher/work should be linked where an article exists as the first instance might not always be the first instance.
AFAIK, there are usually two standards: linking works on their first instances to avoid overlinking (especially in ones that are crowded with references)—this is usually my preference—or link them every time, although I have seen some not linking publishers at all. It makes me think there is no set rule for this.
  • You mention Holland's Instagram in the content, are we allowed to add it under External links?
  • I would upgrade "upcoming projects" to a third tier head, there's no reason for it to be a subset of "2018–present: Blockbuster films and mature roles"
  • I would maybe change "At one point, he considered becoming a primary school teacher, as he likes children." to "At one point, he considered becoming a primary school teacher, as he enjoys being around children"
  • This line "He said she taught him how to properly interact with his fans and thought the media attention to their relationship breached their privacy." Did Zendaya say the attention on their relationship breached their privacy or did Holland?
  • I May be alone on this and I'm willing to hear opinions from yourself and others who may want to weight in such as Panini! and ChrisTheDude, but my knowledge of actor articles suggests there is usually a seprate section to discuss awards/accolades/and reception instead of integrating it into his bio, or as well as integrating it. I can see there is a separate article for these, but I would like opinions on if there should be a subsection summary in this top-level article where that content belongs instead.
Reviews of an actor's each works (usually ones from reputable critics/newspapers/magazines that are representative of other reviews) are included in summary style in career section. Such reception section that discusses the themes, acting style and general reception of an actor's works do not always exist, especially in cases of young actors like Holland because they usually end up being WP:UNDUE quotes of excessive praise from costars or directors. And my research showed exactly this: praise from Spider-Man producers or costars about how excellent an actor he is. This can be done in 10 years or so when Holland begins taking on roles of greater substance and such general analysis can be written then (e.g. like how I have written Leonardo DiCaprio#Reception and acting style).
Many thanks, Darkwarriorblake. Some really insightful thoughts. Let me know if I addressed your concerns properly. FrB.TG (talk) 16:26, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi FrB, did you see the comment about the Instagram? Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 23:01, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, as per WP:INSTAGRAM, such links should only be used when the subject has no official website or little presence in web, which is not the case here. It was there under external links until a few days ago where an editor made the same argument. FrB.TG (talk) 23:21, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, good luck FrB. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE!

Comments from Aoba47[edit]

I am leaving this as a placeholder. If I have not posted a review by this time next week, please ping me as a reminder. Aoba47 (talk) 17:17, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looking forward. :) FrB.TG (talk) 20:59, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • For File:Tom Holland by Gage Skidmore.jpg, I think it would be beneficial to expand the caption to include where the photo was taken (i.e. 2016 San Diego Comic-Con International).
  • Would it be constructive or beneficial to include Holland's response to Martin Scorsese's comments (i.e. the difference between art films and blockbusters like the MCU films)? I'm not familiar with Holland's work, and I honestly know him more for these comments. That could likely be because Holland comments were recent, but comments like "But [Scorsese] doesn’t know what it’s like because he’s never made one" rubs me the wrong way and it may be helpful to add some of these less than stellar moments from him for balance.
Agreed, it suits in the public image section particularly well, where he calls himself "mouthy" for spoiling plot information to the public. I have also added another one where he said his film Uncharted revived Hollywood cinemas and not Tom Cruise's Mission Impossible 7. A little cheeky on Holland's part to be honest. I hope it also addresses your concern of the article not being balanced enough.
  • Thank you for adding both to the article. I was actually unaware of the Tom Cruise remarks. Aoba47 (talk) 15:43, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • This sentence (Shifting from live audience to camera made the transition from stage to screen challenging for Holland.) reads rather awkwardly to me and I think it would benefit from revision.
  • I do not think the sentence with this quote ("scary environment [...] You can imagine how tiring and brutal that was.") is necessary. The previous sentence already made this quite clear so it feels repetitive to me.
  • The lead says Holland chose to pursue an acting career because of his success with The Impossible, but the article attributes his decision to working with Naomi Watts. I would either be consistent with which is the reason or clarify that it was more than one thing that led to this choice.
  • In the sentences about The Lost City of Z, there is a fair bit of repetition of "film". (i.e. "first film", "last day of filming", "In the film", "making the film"), and it makes the prose feel rather repetitious and not as fully engaging as it could be.
  • There seems to be only quotes for the films he has received positive reviews in. For instance, The Current War does not go into more detail on the negative reviews and even more films like In the Heart of the Sea that had more mixed reviews tilt more positively (although admittedly "adequate" is pretty faint phrase). Just as a note though, I have not fully read the article as this point so I could just be missing it at the moment.
I have added a negative review for his performance in The Current War. The problem here is that he played little parts in these films and critics didn't weigh in much when it came to Holland. For ITHOTS, most of the reviews focused on his costars but the ones I did find only talked positively about him ("Holland was one of the youngest actors on set but held his own among his well-known castmates by Collider.com, "Holland is a clear stand-out" by Screen Daily, and Holland is "terrific" by renowned critic Peter Travers. The media seems to love him in whatever he is for some reason.
  • That is understandable. Thank you for your response. Aoba47 (talk) 15:43, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it is notable to mention that Holland performed "Umbrella" in drag for the Lip Sync Battle as that is what makes it notable in my opinion. There's even coverage about how his dad apparently tried to talk him out doing drag for the performance.

My comments go up to the "2018–present: Blockbuster films and mature roles" sub-section. I will attempt to finish my review tonight, but feel free to respond to my comments in the meantime. I hope that my review does not sound too critical of Holland. I am largely indifferent to him, but as I have already said above, I am not a fan of his response to Scorsese (and I am not saying he is always right either lol). Aoba47 (talk) 22:08, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, Aoba. Some really great points. I thought his response to Scorcese, who is a masterful filmmaker and was only expressing his personal distaste for superhero films, was rather uncalled for, especially when Scorcese made that comment over two years ago and was not taking a cheap shot at someone's work. Note that this is only my reply to how I personally feel about this situation. My reply on how/if this should affect the article will come tomorrow when I’ll attempt to also resolve your other concerns. FrB.TG (talk) 23:21, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the response. I appreciate hearing your perspective about these comments. I am glad that I was not the only one who did not enjoy Holland's responses. I have posted the rest of my review below:
  • I have a comment about this part: with Endgame briefly becoming the highest-grossing film of all time. I would avoid this sentence structure (i.e. with X verb-ing). I have been told and seen this note quite a bit in the FAC space. I do not have strong feelings about it, but I just wanted to bring it to your attention.
  • To go off of one of my earlier comments, the "Blockbuster films and mature roles" sub-section does a better job in expanding on more negative or less than positive reviews of Holland's work.
  • For File:Tom Holland MTV 2018 (02).jpg, I would expand the caption to include where the potion was taken (i.e. a MTV interview) to provide further context to readers.

This should be the end of my review. The article is very well-written, and I believe that once everything has been addressed, I will be more than happy to support this FAC for promotion based on the prose. Aoba47 (talk) 01:34, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Aoba, once again. While I am not a Holland fan myself, it was great to see neutral perspectives from you and other reviewers. The balance between praise and criticism of Holland is really much better now. FrB.TG (talk) 10:06, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your comments. I believe that you have addressed all of my comments, but I wanted to double-check with you just to make absolutely sure. If so, then I will be more than happy to support this article for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 15:43, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    No problem. As far as I can see, I adapted all your suggestions unless I stated otherwise. FrB.TG (talk) 16:18, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for addressing everything. I support this FAC for promotion based on the prose. Aoba47 (talk) 17:36, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Suggest adding alt text
  • File:Portrait_of_a_Young_Man,_c._1535-40,_Hans_Holbein_the_Younger.jpg: location link is dead
  • File:Thomas_Nickerson_portrait.jpeg: source link is dead; when/where was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:33, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks, Nikkimaria. I have updated both links (although the one from Nickerson only shows the details) and added alt text. FrB.TG (talk) 20:59, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Lee Vilenski[edit]

I'll begin a review of this article very soon! My reviews tend to focus on prose and MOS issues, especially on the lede, but I will also comment on anything that could be improved. I'll post up some comments below over the next couple days, which you should either respond to, or ask me questions on issues you are unsure of. I'll be claiming points towards the wikicup once this review is over.

Lede
Tsunami linked. As for the other two, I think choreography is a pretty common term and we generally tend not to link genres (unless they are super specific), especially in a film-related BLP, as they can get messy.
Prose
Replaced with co-star.
Changed, thank you. FrB.TG (talk) 16:35, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comments

Additionally, if you liked this review, or are looking for items to review, I have some at my nominations list. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:11, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Vilenski, just a gentle reminder in case you forgot about this. No worries if you don't have the time for it yet. FrB.TG (talk) 19:16, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Lee Vilenski ? Gog the Mild (talk) 17:09, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review (pass)[edit]

  • This is not entirely necessary, but I always find it helpful to put citations in numeric order in the prose. So for this part, that Holland was visiting at the time, I would put Citation 9 before Citation 10.
  • This is more of a clarification question, but are you only linking the work/publisher on the first instance? That is a perfectly valid choice, but I just wanted to make sure that this was intentional.
Yes, that's right.
  • Thank you for confirming this. Aoba47 (talk) 15:28, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would link Zendaya in Citation 5.
  • In Citation 13, I would clarify that this was uploaded to YouTube, which can be done through the via= parameter. If you have other YouTube citations, I would do the same. Citation 16 mentions YouTube, but I think it would be better and clearer to use the via= parameter.
  • Citation 26 should include a note that a subscription is required to access the page as it is an article from The New York Times.
  • For Citation 81, I would avoid having "Exclusive" in all caps even if it is represented like this in the article itself. I would only use all caps for acronyms as it can come across as shouting. The same comment applies to Citation 109.
  • Ranked is still in all caps for Citation 109. Aoba47 (talk) 15:29, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Citation 92 should be Deadline Hollywood and not just Deadline.
  • This is super nitpick-y so apologies in advance, but some of the titles for the Rotten Tomatoes citations include the release year and others do not and it would ideal to be consistent throughout with this.

These are my comments so far. I will look through some of the citations in the near future to make sure all the information is accurately represented, and I will look through the citations again to make sure I did not miss anything. Aoba47 (talk) 14:10, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All done, look forward to the next batch. Thank you for the source review as well. FrB.TG (talk) 15:14, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for addressing my comments. I will try to post my next batch of comments by the end of today. Aoba47 (talk) 15:28, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the Roger Ebert citations, I would use the RogerEbert.com link instead since a Wikipedia article exists for the website.
Done.
  • I hate to be this person, but how/why is Dominic Holland's website a high-quality source in this context?
Dominic is Tom's father and since the things he's talking about is also his own experience (and not just Tom's), it should be fine IMO. FrB.TG (talk) 16:35, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense to me. For whatever reason, I did not make the connection between the two. Aoba47 (talk) 01:00, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just adding these two quick comments before I run off to work. Aoba47 (talk) 15:33, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Citation 11 is being used to support that Holland attended Wimbledon College, but I do not see that supported in the prose or in the video interview.
  • Could you provide a time-stamp for Citation 13? It's a 13:18 video so it would be beneficial to know where the information is being supported. For videos like this, it would be helpful to have a time-stamp if a certain portion of it is being used to support information. Another example is Citation 16.
  • Citation 19 does not support that Holland left Billy Elliot on May 2010.

I have done a spot-check through other citations and everything looks good there. Once my above comments have been addressed, this should pass my source review. I hope that this was helpful! Aoba47 (talk) 02:55, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All done, thank you. This was more than helpful. FrB.TG (talk) 07:30, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for addressing everything. This passes my source review. Aoba47 (talk) 17:20, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@WP:FAC coordinators: Sorry for the ping but could I get a status update on this, if possible? Thank you. FrB.TG (talk) 11:14, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 7 April 2022 [60].

Red panda[edit]

Nominator(s): LittleJerry (talk) and BhagyaMani (talk) 14:27, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In time for the release of the new Disney/Pixar film Turning Red. This article was at GA for some years and the user who brought it there appears to be inactive. We've re-written and revise it, got a peer review, a copyedit and source cleanup. The time has come for FAC. LittleJerry (talk) 14:27, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review—pass[edit]

  • Sources are cited for the panda distribution on File:RedPanda distribution.png, but not the source of the underlying topographic map. Is it freely licensed?
BhagyaMani? LittleJerry (talk) 20:00, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the underlying topo map is freely licensed. – BhagyaMani (talk) 20:27, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
BhagyaMani Where does the topo map come from, or did you draw it? Even if it's a free license, it might require attribution or not be compatible with CC-By-SA-4.0, so it's essential to list the sources you used in the image description. (t · c) buidhe 08:23, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I changed the map using the basemap by Wikimedia. BhagyaMani (talk) 10:38, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Other licensing, and image placement, looks ok (t · c) buidhe 19:53, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Sdkb[edit]

Resolved comments from {{u|Sdkb}} talk 17:05, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As background, I have no particular expertise in biology or animal articles on Wikipedia, so I'll be reviewing this from a lay perspective. Looking forward to it! {{u|Sdkb}} talk 19:54, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Lead
  • The unbolding of the scientific name threw me off for a minute, but on checking it appears to conform to our recommended style. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 19:54, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I question whether there's a need to wikilink million years ago—everyone knows what years are, and multiplying that by a million is a pretty straightforward calculation. The wikilink to the toolforge page very much caught me off guard, but I assume that's our normal way of handling links like that? {{u|Sdkb}} talk 19:54, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is threatened by poaching, destruction and fragmentation of habitat due to deforestation. This isn't grammatically correct, since it's a list of only two items (the second being a compound item) separated only by a comma. I'd suggest changing to It is threatened by poaching, as well as destruction and fragmentation of habitat due to deforestation. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 19:54, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Added. LittleJerry (talk) 21:04, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should [Ee]ndangered be capitalized? {{u|Sdkb}} talk 19:54, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think so, because it is also capitalised by default in the taxobox. – BhagyaMani (talk) 21:01, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The taxobox is part of the infobox, and we begin each line in the infobox in sentence case, so I think that's likely why it's capitalized there. But we don't capitalize it at the endangered species article, and it doesn't look like a word typically capitalized in normal usage. Is it a formal term or just a word? We could look at MOS:LINK, ask at that talk, or look to examples of other featured animals to get more clarity on this. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 21:42, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I consider it as a formal term when used in the context of Red List classification, like the other terms as well, e.g. Least Concern, Near Threatened that are capitalised in taxoboxes. – BhagyaMani (talk) 08:02, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's been some recent discussion on whether to wikilink lesser-known countries that found a consensus that articles about less recognizable countries...can and should be wikilinked if doing so would benefit the reader. Bhutan seems likely to be in that category, and perhaps Nepal as well. This is an editorial discretion thing, so I'm fine with whatever you decide, but just something to consider. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 19:54, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I linked them all. – BhagyaMani (talk) 21:09, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm, I definitely wouldn't link China, though; that's a clear MOS:OVERLINK. Sorry it's such a blurry line haha, but it's somewhere in the middle. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 21:21, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Unlinked China. LittleJerry (talk) 23:48, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • International Red Panda Day is italicized in the lead but not the body; which is correct? {{u|Sdkb}} talk 19:54, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done. – BhagyaMani (talk) 21:00, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    What guidance does MOS:ITAL have on italicizing this or not? {{u|Sdkb}} talk 23:14, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This is now italicized in the lead but not the body. Please address. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 22:14, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 22:37, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Overall impressions so far are good! The lead photo is fantastically cute {{u|Sdkb}} talk 19:54, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sdkb any more? LittleJerry (talk) 19:48, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't yet change the sentence in the lead .. by poaching, as well as .. suggested by Sdkb. LittleJerry: if you also think that this is necessary, please amend. – BhagyaMani (talk) 20:01, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 21:04, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The [Ee]ndangered capitalization question and the holiday italicization question are the two other things I'd still like to see resolved a little more thoroughly, but happy to move on while those are being addressed. (I also may return to the lead at the end for any lead-body integrity stuff.) Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} talk 21:19, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done. – BhagyaMani (talk) 22:44, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Etymology
  • I'm surprised {{transl}} doesn't have a |lit= parameter for "claw" or "paw", but seems not, and that's outside the scope here (just noting in case anyone's interested in taking it on). {{u|Sdkb}} talk 22:02, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I made this tweak. Deciding when to write out the full term vs. just use "it" is always a tricky balance. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 22:02, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some editors might object to wikilinking Latin and Ancient Greek per MOS:OVERLINK, which advises against linking major languages, but IAR I don't have an issue with it, and Nepali language is certainly linkable. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 22:02, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Taxonomy
  • There's inconsistent Oxford comma usage, given no comma after "jawbones" but one after "comic books" in lead. MOS:OXFORD merely requires consistency, but as a dedicated Oxford comma partisan, I'm afraid I'll have to instafail this if you decide to leave it out 😛 {{u|Sdkb}} talk 22:02, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sichuan should probably be wikilinked. More generally, I'd suggest reviewing the geographic wikilinking decisions throughout the article, as having Northeast India linked but this not is inconsistent no matter where one falls on the overlink-underlink continuum. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 22:02, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The introductory portion of this section cites a lot of people by name, but then the 2020 phylogenetic analysis doesn't give any name(s). Is this deliberate? {{u|Sdkb}} talk 22:02, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, the linked people are authorities for scientific names. – BhagyaMani (talk) 22:44, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • A 1982 study examined the dental and cranial similarities and differences between the red panda and the giant panda, other bears and procyonids would lead to the species being placed in its own family Ailuridae. Do you mean 1982 study that examined? {{u|Sdkb}} talk 22:02, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 23:37, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The following cladogram is based on This seems like a WP:SELFREF; is there any way to avoid it, or is this typical for articles of this type? {{u|Sdkb}} talk 22:02, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is not a selfref, but not uncommon to explain the basis of a cladogram. – BhagyaMani (talk) 22:44, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you point to any recently promoted animal articles that have something similar? {{u|Sdkb}} talk 06:19, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Turtle. LittleJerry (talk) 18:21, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dentition is a potentially unfamiliar term and should probably be wikilinked. More generally, as a lay reader, I'm finding all the taxonomy section rather jargony and hard to follow, but that may be unavoidable. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 22:02, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Removed some jargon. LittleJerry (talk) 00:33, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Looks better! {{u|Sdkb}} talk 06:20, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is Alopecoyon not linked? {{u|Sdkb}} talk 22:02, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • the phylogeny section begins with "The placement of the red panda on the evolutionary tree has been debated." re-emphasised in the lead as "The red panda's place on the evolutionary tree has been debated, but modern genetic evidence places it … " is this an extraordinary fact? ~ cygnis insignis 13:54, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • When we started to overhaul this page, there was a similar sentence in this section. I suppose, ↑ sentence is a kind of residue of this old version. LittleJerry? – BhagyaMani (talk) 16:28, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand the question. The red panda's taxonomy was historically debated but DNA evidence has clarified it. LittleJerry (talk) 20:33, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Characteristics
  • The red panda's coat has a striking colour pattern Is it our place to say what's striking vs. not? Seems a little questionable on neutrality grounds. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 22:11, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article appears to use British English (or some non-American variant), so it might be a good idea to put {{Use British English}} at the top to aid editors or bots in knowing this. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 22:11, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sdkb: what do you think of the sequence of paragraphs in this section? – BhagyaMani (talk) 22:58, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure I care all that much. Putting size first is definitely good, but beyond that I don't see a clear order among coat, thumb, and skull. I might have done size, skull, coat, thumb, trying to put the most important aspects first. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 06:23, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I moved coat up to first. The size section is really meant to be an "overall body description" section and the skull section is about its adaptations to its bamboo diet. LittleJerry (talk) 12:45, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for moving. I like this sequence much better. – BhagyaMani (talk) 16:33, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Distribution and habitat
  • The image captions seem a little inconsistent, in that some say a red panda whereas others just say red panda. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 06:45, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 13:04, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • You've got another clear overlink with India. Could you go through the article overall to refine the linking so I don't have to keep pointing out specific instances? {{u|Sdkb}} talk 06:45, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 13:04, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • A trickier linking situation: Gongshan Mountains. I can't find any article on them here or (using Google Translate) on zh-WP, but I'd think a mountain range would be notable. Should they be a redlink? {{u|Sdkb}} talk 06:45, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Same with Liangshan Mountains. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 06:45, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Linked both. LittleJerry (talk) 13:06, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rhododendron looks to be a scientific name italicized at its article; should it be here, too? {{u|Sdkb}} talk 06:45, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 13:04, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is slope linked to wiktionary? {{u|Sdkb}} talk 06:45, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Removed. LittleJerry (talk) 13:29, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The % symbols go against MOS:PERCENT, I think, but IAR I don't mind them (perhaps that guideline should be revised?). {{u|Sdkb}} talk 06:45, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 13:29, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Fengtongzhai and Yele nature reserves seem like the sort of topic that would 100% have articles if they were in a western country; for here, that means redlinks or ILLs. I found Fēngtǒngzhài (Q22329689), which has an article in one language, which is of course...Ukrainian... Not sure about Yele, but if you don't speak Chinese, probably worth asking someone who does. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 06:45, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Added redlinks. LittleJerry (talk) 13:25, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should the habitat map appear in this section, not just the lead? (Also, it probably needs a reference, as I'm not sure it's enough just to have the reference on Commons, as that's external.) {{u|Sdkb}} talk 06:45, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is typical for animal and mammal articles. LittleJerry (talk) 13:04, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Reviewing WP:IMAGEOR, it does not appear to offer an exemption for a circumstance like this. I'd like to see either a reference to be safe or a pointer to a non-local discussion establishing that range maps don't need references. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 19:42, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see what the application is. The range map is sourced in commons. There's no policy that says it needs to be sourced in the article. If anything it is tedious. LittleJerry (talk) 23:12, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The relevant policy would be WP:V. I've requested broader input there, as this question applies widely to many map images. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 00:31, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This should be a wider discussion for another time. Does it really have to be in the middle of FAC? LittleJerry (talk) 00:40, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fine. Added cites. LittleJerry (talk) 01:04, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Behaviour and ecology
  • The majority of studies between 1827 and 2020 have been based in captivity. I think you mean based on animals in captivity—the studies themselves are not captive haha. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 06:05, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's some plurality inconsistency—compare singular It typically rests to plural Their lifespan in captivity. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 06:05, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I assume it likes to hang out in trees due to predators at ground level, but I haven't found any discussion of predators yet. Could that be added? {{u|Sdkb}} talk 06:05, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nothing is known about potential predators. I thought we made clear that it hangs around in trees because that's were it finds the majority of its food?– BhagyaMani (talk) 09:39, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I feel like it's rather unusual for a small animal like that not to have predators. Could a note about that be added somewhere? {{u|Sdkb}} talk 03:28, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I searched for info on predators multiple times, but found only two mentioned in grey literature without any reference. Several potential ones come to mind, but nobody published anything about a single red panda having been killed by a cat or a raptor. But to state this on the page itself would be WP:OR. – BhagyaMani (talk) 06:26, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I found the Smithsonian saying leopards and jackals. Could you look further? An animal's predators are a key fact about it, and although I grant that competition isn't as fierce in the mountains as in e.g. a jungle, I still think we need discussion here to meet WP:FACRIT 1b. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 22:52, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If scientific papers and academic books don't mention predators then it is not that important. I don't see the need to dig up a Smithsonian website. Predators are not always necessary for animal articles. Certainly not as important as diet. LittleJerry (talk) 23:39, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If a simple fact sheet lists the predators, I'd be surprised if none of the more academic treatments discuss them. I don't think we need a whole section on predators, but something that eats them and that they've evolved to avoid certainly seems relevant enough for a sentence to me. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 01:02, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it really lists them. It states "Red pandas will climb trees and rocks to escape predators, such as leopards and jackals." It seems to be mentioning these offhandedly as potential predators. There doesn't seem to any documentation of red pandas being preyed on. Believe me, BM and I would have put them there if they were mentioned in the literature. LittleJerry (talk) 01:25, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note the absence of an explicit statement on this website that any of the 2 carnivores actually preyed on a red panda. Or that hair, teeth, claws, paws were ever found in their scat. This is an arbitrary selection. – BhagyaMani (talk) 06:25, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are there any estimates of average lifespan in the wild? {{u|Sdkb}} talk 06:05, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. To figure this out, somebody would have needed to identify and observe individuals from birth to death. – BhagyaMani (talk) 09:39, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would it be possible to use "stem" or "stalk" instead of "culm", or would that be inaccurate? It's jargon, and although it's linked on first mention in the previous section, readers who jump around (which is many/most of them) may be thrown off by it. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 06:05, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Culm is the term used in several sources. – BhagyaMani (talk) 09:39, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Changed, Culm is a type of stem. LittleJerry (talk) 12:50, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The red panda is a poor digester of bamboo, which passes through its gut in two to four hours. I'm curious why this would be—aren't most animals adapted to be good digesters of their primary food? {{u|Sdkb}} talk 06:05, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 12:46, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How is : shoots are *easier* digestable than ... ?? – BhagyaMani (talk) 13:07, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • shoots are better digestible than leaves This sounds a little weird; maybe more digestible instead? {{u|Sdkb}} talk 06:05, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 12:46, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bleating is recorded after scent-marking and sniffing and males may bleat during courtship, particularly before mounting, while twittering is made by mating females. I feel like this could be worded better. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 06:05, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Split up. LittleJerry (talk) 12:46, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • adopt a bipedal posture "Bipedal" is unlinked jargon. Linking it would help, but I think it'd probably be even better to just use plain language, e.g. "stand up on their hind legs". {{u|Sdkb}} talk 06:05, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sentence about lordosis pose might be better placed in the reproduction section. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 06:05, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Moved. LittleJerry (talk) 12:38, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • builds a nest using material from nearby This is a little vague—are there typical materials? {{u|Sdkb}} talk 06:05, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Added. LittleJerry (talk) 12:57, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's inconsistency between "faeces" and "feces"; choose one and stick with it. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 06:05, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed one of them has to be chosen, but keep in mind that changing to "feces" will require the whole article to be changed to American English, which in its current state is in British English. Wretchskull (talk) 09:41, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for your note! Changed this again. – BhagyaMani (talk) 09:52, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "health" subsection might be more specifically titled "diseases". {{u|Sdkb}} talk 06:05, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 23:33, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Threats
  • The primary threats to the red panda are destruction and fragmentation of habitat caused by multiple circumstances such as increasing human population, deforestation, illegal collection of non-timber forest products and poaching, disturbances by herders and livestock, lack of law enforcement and funding. We need to decide which level we're listing on. Having both poaching and "lack of law enforcement and funding" doesn't make sense, as presumably the poaching is just a consequence of the lack of law enforcement. I'd suggest removing that last item, as it's not particularly clear. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 03:31, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that lack of funding is not a threat : removed. – BhagyaMani (talk) 06:29, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What about lack of law enforcement? And increasing human population. Neither of those things directly lead to red panda deaths in the way that e.g. poaching does. Instead, lack of law enforcement presumably leads to poaching, and increasing population presumably leads to habitat destruction. We shouldn't be mixing direct causes and root causes together in the same sentence. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 20:19, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 21:03, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • 3,597.9 km2 (1,389.2 sq mi) of red panda habitat were logged between the mid 1970s and late 1990s. I highly doubt they were able to measure that precisely. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 20:19, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 20:40, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • since roads to the border with China were built starting in the early 2000s, red panda skins and live animals are traded and smuggled across the border. Tense mismatch between "since" and "are". {{u|Sdkb}} talk 20:19, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 17:51, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Describing the uses of the fur in Chinese culture in the "threats" section rather than the "cultural significance" section is a highly loaded choice, and one I don't think we can justify as neutral. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 20:19, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Moved. LittleJerry (talk) 17:58, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I made a similar tweak here for Nepal. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 02:24, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a lot of overlinking in this section. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 20:19, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Trimmed. LittleJerry (talk) 21:08, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The cut lumber stock in Sichuan alone reached 2,661,000 m3 (94,000,000 cu ft) in 1958–1960 This is an extremely old statistic. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 22:14, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems important for historical perspective. LittleJerry (talk) 22:42, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Are there any more recent numbers to add too, then? {{u|Sdkb}} talk 22:43, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This was during the peak of deforestation in China (Great Leap Forward). BhagyaMani? LittleJerry (talk) 22:46, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Correct. I checked again, but did not find more recent figures about deforestation in Chinese red panda range. Figures on deforestation after 2000 have no whatsoever connection to red panda habitats. – BhagyaMani (talk) 08:50, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay; sounds alright. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 01:34, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Conservation
  • The International Red Panda Studbook is the only italicized link in this section that makes clear sense to me. Can you justify the others under MOS:ITALIC, or do they need correction? (I made a query on this same question in the lead.) {{u|Sdkb}} talk 22:03, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 23:06, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To preserve the link to studbook, how about In 1978, a breed registry, the International Red Panda Studbook, was set up, followed...? {{u|Sdkb}} talk 22:16, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 01:55, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Nepal government ratified I think we want Nepali government here, since it would sound odd if it were e.g. The France government ratified rather than French government. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 22:03, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 23:06, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cubs that were born later were sent to other zoos so that about 250 red pandas had been exhibited in zoos by 1969. Needs rephrasing for grammar; I'd suggest Cubs that were born later were sent to other zoos; by 1969, about 250 red pandas had been exhibited in zoos. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 22:03, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 23:06, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the protected areas, we should either just give the numbers or we should list them out; we shouldn't mix the formats by listing those out in other countries but not in China. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 22:03, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
BhagyaMani? Perhaps we should remove the table? LittleJerry (talk) 17:47, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, protected areas form the core of nature conservation, so would be missing if we now omitted such details, in particular in view of so many details in all the other sections. – BhagyaMani (talk) 07:49, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'll check whether the Chinese authors provided their names. – BhagyaMani (talk) 07:49, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How about just giving the number of parks for each country? LittleJerry (talk) 18:18, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wei et al. (2021) did not provide their full names, hence it is complicated to figure them out. E.g. they list "Qomolangma" in Tibet, but unclear is whether they refer to this huge Qomolangma National Nature Preserve or Qomolangma Feng National Nature Reserve : I did not find anything about records in either one. Nor did I find records in most of the others listed by Wei et al. (2021). Re Sichuan : acc. to Dong et al. (2021), Giant Panda National Park was established in 2017 + encompasses several nature reserves where it has been recorded. Therefore, I propose to list ONLY those with published records in the table. That way we can keep the table but without having to redlink some 30+ reserves. – BhagyaMani (talk) 15:31, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You've revised the conservation table to list ONLY those with published records, but it's not clear to me what "published records" means, and there is nothing in the article itself saying that it's only a partial list. It seems like a rather hard thing to establish—how do you know there aren't "published records" in Chinese that list out the reserves? {{u|Sdkb}} talk 22:15, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Clarified that is just a partial list. LittleJerry (talk) 22:51, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to Sdkb : a published record is evidence that the red panda indeed occurs in a particular site, published in an article or book. Wei et al. (1999) listed counties and areas such as mountain ranges east of .., northwest of .., but NOT a protected area or nature reserve. Nor does their list of references include a publication in Chinese about records in a protected area. And the book chapter by Wei et al. (2021) is largely based on earlier articles by Wei and colleagues. – BhagyaMani (talk) 23:52, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to LittleJerry: we should then also clarify that the list is complete for PAs in Nepal, Myanmar, Bhutan and India. But : I'm very confident that also the ones in China are all in. – BhagyaMani (talk) 23:52, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 23:06, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would presume that all national parks are notable, so Imawbum National Park should be redlinked or {{ill}} linked if it exists in Burmese (which I'd hope it would). {{u|Sdkb}} talk 22:03, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 23:09, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • This section feels a little like it's just listing out individual conservation programs rather than giving a broader overview. Without subject-area knowledge, it's hard for me to tell whether the listed examples were carefully curated or are just a mix with geographic or other biases, but I'd encourage other reviewers to scrutinize. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 22:03, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another MOS:PARTIALNAMELINK issue with studbook. Oh, and later in that sentence, too. Both of these links are valuable, but we should rephrase so that they can be kept without this issue. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 22:03, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 23:06, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is the 2015 Japan sentence after the 2019 Europe sentence and 2016 Padmaja sentence? If this section is chronological, stick to it. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 22:03, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 23:06, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Cultural significance
  • an ethnic group is vague. Specify. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 22:23, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 23:20, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 23:20, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tribal people in Arunachal Pradesh Is it several groups or just one? If just one, same concern as above. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 22:23, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Clarified. LittleJerry (talk) 23:20, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • an Indian artist Any reason not to name them? {{u|Sdkb}} talk 22:23, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thomas Hardwicke commissioned several Indian artists to paint animals, but their names are not known. – BhagyaMani (talk) 08:33, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay; maybe write an unknown Indian artist, then? {{u|Sdkb}} talk 04:07, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The 1820 painting is presumably in the public domain; it (or another cultural depiction of the red panda) should be included as a visual for this section. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 22:23, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did not find this watercolour painting in Commons. Likely that not all the paintings of Hardwicke's large collection of some 4500 paintings were made available. This painting is not part of the small selection published by John Edward Gray in 2 volumes in 1830–1835. – BhagyaMani (talk) 08:50, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Per Hardwicke's article, The collection was bequeathed to the British Museum in 1835 which was later partly moved to the Natural History Museum. So reach out to the museums if you have to, but it should be possible to obtain. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 19:03, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It seems a bit much for a Wikipedian to have to track down an image not available on the web or commons. The best I got was a reproduced copy in the sourced article. I don't know if we can use remade copies of PD works. LittleJerry (talk) 20:54, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agree! Lowther explicitly stated that the painting has not been published, hence is not license-free. – BhagyaMani (talk) 21:28, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Work from 1820 is in the public domain, no matter if it's been published before or not. See the Hirtle chart. The good news: sourcing from a reproduced copy from the article is fine, so long as it's of sufficient quality—a PD work is still a PD work, even if it appears (unmodified) in a licensed work. It's a similar situation to commons:Commons:Reuse of PD-Art photographs. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 04:06, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That may be true for a large number of art pieces. But not for all : some drawings by Hemprich & Ehrenberg from the 1830s are worth so much money that collectors did not make them public. – BhagyaMani (talk) 07:10, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Added drawing, but it is more fitting for the taxonomy section. There are hardly any available red panda art in commons that count as "culture" but are more for education/science. LittleJerry (talk) 15:29, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
hardly any available red panda art? What about File:Tobu Zoo Park Shuttle Bus lesser panda.jpg, or (just imported from Flickr) File:Flower red panda.jpg / File:Ruby the red panda, mascot of the 2018 IAAF World Indoor Championships.jpg / File:International Red Panda Day sign at the San Francisco Zoo.jpg? File:Firefox logo, 2019.svg is free, too. We have enough for an entire gallery if we wanted. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 19:54, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Added firefox logo. LittleJerry (talk) 22:16, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you consider the firefox logo relevant here, and not e.g. the 19th century painting that used to be in the section *Taxonomy*? – BhagyaMani (talk) 09:10, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I explained above. The 19th century painting is scientific/education. LittleJerry (talk) 13:25, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 23:31, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The red panda is the namesake of the Firefox browser, and it has been used as the namesake of companies and music bands. This should be rephrased, as Firefox is a company, whereas this holds it in a separate category. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 22:23, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 23:31, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cultural significance sections quite often become listcruft, so I'm glad to see that avoided here, and I'd suggest adding a hidden comment with some strongly worded language as an WP:ENDURE precaution. However, overall, this section feels rather anemic compared to the quite detailed coverage above of e.g. conservation, so I'd like to see more. I clicked through to doi:10.1016/B978-0-12-823753-3.00002-8, which seems like an excellent source, but it doesn't appear fully mined, as even just in the abstract, things like do not seem to constitute a substantial part of the culture or folklore of their range states and particularly popular on the social media seem highly relevant but are not included. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 22:23, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Expanded. LittleJerry (talk) 14:41, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Looks better. I wonder, should we give in-text attribution for Glatson/Gebauer? And sorry to be picky on this after I asked you to expand, but the local brewery thing is the type of listcruft I'd like us to avoid—I can't see any way that'd be due. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 19:09, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Removed. LittleJerry (talk) 19:53, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And about the WP:INTEXT comment for the first two sentences of this section? {{u|Sdkb}} talk 22:16, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why thats needed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:35, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest it since the sentences are close enough to opinion/speculation that it'll help readers to know where the opinion/speculation is coming from. But I don't feel super strongly on this, so I'll leave it up to you. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 22:42, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I also don't see why that is needed. Nor do I see that these 2 sentences are needed because of the speculation. – BhagyaMani (talk) 00:17, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re the image in this section : I still liked the one of the old Chinese hunting scene much better than this logo, as showing the logo has a whiff of advertisement. The animal in the logo really looks more like a fox than a red panda because of its pointed nose. – BhagyaMani (talk) 06:03, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reference re the watercolour painting commissioned by Hardwicke is not relevant in the section on *Taxonomy*. Hardwicke did not even use it in conjunction with his taxonomic description of the "Wha", but his article only shows drawings of red panda paws. – BhagyaMani (talk) 07:00, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I can see where LittleJerry is coming from on this. The art of scientific drawings is somewhat lost nowadays since we have photography, but back in 1820 it was very distinct from non-scientific art. The artist wasn't making it as a contribution to culture: it was a technical document to help scientists understand the animal. Given that, it's not as appropriate for the cultural significance section, as it has never been widely exhibited in culture. The Firefox logo, on the other hand, is probably the single most prominent depiction of a red panda ever created, so it's a great fit. I don't think it's really advertising, as we're not being paid by Mozilla or anything—we're just acknowledging that brands are a part of the world. In other words, it's neutral rather than anti-corporate. That said, we do have other options from commons:Category:Ailurus fulgens in art and its subcategory, and as mentioned above we could do a gallery. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 07:47, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The section on *Taxonomy* is about the classification of a taxon, i.e. who described the taxon when and the geographical location where the described specimen/s were originally found. I think it ok to keep the image of the painting in this section, but the info about its artist is not relevant in the context of taxonomy. – BhagyaMani (talk) 11:15, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The naming of the browser has been discussed over several years, see arguments at Talk:Red panda#Firefox browser name redux and the sections #Add the information "Firefox Cubs" + #Naming the panda. And I still agree with those who argued that the logo shows a red fox, see File:Fox Head.jpg and also because the tail in the logo is NOT ringed like in all the other illustrations of the red panda. So I propose to replace the logo by a different unambiguous file, e.g. File:International Red Panda Day sign at the San Francisco Zoo.jpg. – BhagyaMani (talk) 11:59, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Other alternatives : File:Stamp of India - 2009 - Colnect 159926 - Red Panda Ailurus fulgens.jpeg or File:Stamp of India - 1963 - Colnect 238977 - Red Panda Ailurus fulgens.jpeg – BhagyaMani (talk) 12:34, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Added 2009 India stamp. LittleJerry (talk) 15:23, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
External links
Changed. LittleJerry (talk) 12:59, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is perhaps a hot take, but I have to question the presence of {{Wikispecies}}. The external links guideline recommends against including Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article. Looking at Wikispecies' rather pitiful entry on the red panda, I'm not seeing anything of value there that we don't also have here. (Or am I missing something?) For neutrality reasons, we shouldn't give preference to other sites just because they're WMF-affiliated, as past precedent with {{Wikinews}} has affirmed. So is there really any reason to include it? Note that even if it's removed here, it'll still be present in the left sidebar under "in other projects". {{u|Sdkb}} talk 07:02, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It is a fairly standard wikispecies entry, afaik, I don't see it as comparable to linking wikinews ~ cygnis insignis 10:59, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I realize it's been used elsewhere, but that's other stuff; is there any justification under the external links guideline for including it? {{u|Sdkb}} talk 05:32, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not presenting an argument either way, it was a response to the description as a "rather pitiful entry". ~ cygnis insignis 06:43, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Could this be addressed? {{u|Sdkb}} talk 22:17, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think external link guidelines applies to linking to other wikiprojects. LittleJerry (talk) 22:48, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    What benefit is there for readers, then, to have the box linking to the Wikispecies entry? {{u|Sdkb}} talk 23:03, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Removed. LittleJerry (talk) 23:24, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sdkb, I think we fixed everything. LittleJerry (talk) 21:28, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@LittleJerry, I've followed up above about several remaining concerns (and one new thing I spotted). We're close! {{u|Sdkb}} talk 22:18, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The only remaining things now are "studbook" above and you two figuring out how you want to present the protected areas table in a way that's equitable between countries and accurate about its scope. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 01:42, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with BM's changes to the current chart. LittleJerry (talk) 01:56, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Are we done? LittleJerry (talk) 02:33, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • No further concerns. Although I lack enough expertise with the subject to make a formal support, all of my concerns above have been sufficiently addressed. Thanks for bearing with me through this—I know that there were some tricky things that came up, but I think the article is measurably stronger for having worked through them. Once other editors have gotten a chance to offer their comments and do things like a source check, I look forward to seeing this get its gold star! Thanks both LittleJerry and BhagyaMani for your hard work! {{u|Sdkb}} talk 02:46, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sdkb, you don't need expertise to make a give a final conclusion. You've given a detailed review that lasted weeks and we are getting closer to a month since this was nominated. I think you should give a formal conclusion. LittleJerry (talk) 02:52, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, sure—support on prose, style issues, and comprehensive from a lay perspective. Congrats again on your hard work on this! {{u|Sdkb}} talk 05:42, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sdkb, would you mind putting your comments in a Resolved comments template? They're taking up a large amount of space and necessitate a lot of scrolling to reach the bottom. AryKun (talk) 15:40, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 17:05, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from AryKun[edit]

Resolved comments from AryKun (talk) 07:56, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
* Link described in the Taxonomy section.
  • "his paper was published only six years later" → "his paper was only published six years after Cuvier's"
  • Revised and added ta ref to this article. – BhagyaMani (talk) 07:38, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "For a long time" → Kind of ambiguous, any exact-ish dates?
  • I removed this sentence, as knowledge about the red panda's behaviour is anyway not relevant in this section. – BhagyaMani (talk) 07:38, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "(sensu stricto)" Sensu stricto should be italicized, and perhaps consider using a less technical phrase.
  • "lineage of the modern panda" → Presumably you mean red panda, but just panda is usually used to refer to the giant panda.
  • Many of the images lack alt text.
Added. LittleJerry (talk) 14:45, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • More to come. AryKun (talk) 06:53, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "side angle of the eyes" → What is a side angle?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 12:20, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The inside of the ears are covered" → Tense mismatch, should be either "The insides of the ears are covered" or "The inside of the ears is covered"
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 12:20, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "red and buff" → Link buff.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 12:20, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "red moss- and" → Should the hyphen be there.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 12:20, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The pelvis and hindlimbs" → Link pelvis.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 12:20, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "tail acts as support" → "tail acts as a support"
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 12:20, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "distributed from" → You don't give a range, but rather a list of regions it inhabits, so "distributed from" is incorrect here AryKun (talk) 11:00, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 12:20, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • You use British English in the article, so all mentions of "percent" should be replaced with "per cent" per MOS:PERCENT.
  • Just noticed this, but in Subspecies and species, you use Siang River, although it is much more commonly called the Brahmaputra.
  • We use Siang River in accordance with the ref'ed source, and we know that that the link redirects to Brahmaputra. – BhagyaMani (talk) 09:16, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The London Zoo acquired two red pandas in 1869 and 1876 that were caught in Darjeeling" → "The London Zoo acquired two red pandas that were caught in Darjeeling in 1869 and 1876" would be better
  • .. but not correct. The source does not explicitly state WHEN they were caught, but only that they were acquired in those years. – BhagyaMani (talk) 09:16, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "first red panda cubs" → "first captive-born red panda cubs"
  • Revised, but without duplicating the word 'born'. – BhagyaMani (talk) 09:16, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the San Diego Zoo imported four red pandas via India that had been caught in Nepal" → "the San Diego Zoo imported four red pandas that had been caught in Nepal via India"
  • " ubs" is a typo
  • "watercolour painting by an unknown Indian artist" → Any date or date range for when the painting was made?
  • It was commissioned in about 1820, see caption in section *Taxonomy*, but exact date is not given. – BhagyaMani (talk) 09:16, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I question the relevance of the Youtube statistic; it not only needs a time reference as it is prone to changing, 3,000 out of around 800 million seems like an insignificant number. Honestly, pretty much anything is likely to have a couple thousand YT videos with its name if it's even remotely well-known. AryKun (talk) 17:13, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree. What do you think of changing the figure > a few thousand ? – BhagyaMani (talk) 19:15, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Removed. LittleJerry (talk) 20:30, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review from Ealdgyth[edit]

  • "Cuvier, G. (1829). "Le Panda éclatant". Le règne animal distribué d'après son organisation. Vol. Tome 1. Chez Déterville, Paris. p. 138." needs to note its in French.
  • "Flynn, J. J.; Finarelli, J. A.; Zehr, S.; Hsu, J. & Nedbal, M. A. (2005). "Molecular phylogeny of the Carnivora (Mammalia): Assessing the impact of increased sampling on resolving enigmatic relationships". Systematic Biology. 54 (2): 317–337." - this page gives a doi - should list to be consistent with other entries.
  • If doi access is free, a url is not needed. – BhagyaMani (talk) 21:07, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The DOI should be listed, that's what is being asked for. As of right now, there is no doi. But most other journal articles list it, so to be consistent, you should list it. Refs for FAs should be consistently formatted across the type of ref. (And I've never seen a "if doi access is free an url is not needed") Ealdgyth (talk) 21:29, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    DOI added/ LittleJerry (talk) 22:54, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Double check that all the journals without doi's are lacking them in the actual publication. Since you are linking to research gate rather than to the journal websites, I shouldn't have to be expected to double check those...Note that WP:RSP on it's entry for ResearchGate (where it is deemed to be "self-published") it states "ResearchGate is a social network that hosts a repository of user-generated publications, including preprints. ResearchGate does not perform fact checking or peer reviewing, and is considered a self-published source. Verify whether a paper on ResearchGate is also published in a peer-reviewed academic journal; in these cases, cite the more reliable journal and provide an open access link to the paper (which may be hosted on ResearchGate)." We should link to the offical journal publication in the title of the article (using the url parameter) and then put in
  • These journals do not use doi: Current Science, Small Carnivore Conservation, The Himalayan Naturalist, Journal of Zoo and Wildlife Medicine, Journal of the Bhutan Ecological Society and Zoological Studies. – BhagyaMani (talk) 21:41, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I replaced the links to researchgate. LittleJerry (talk) 22:24, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I randomly googled three sentences and nothing showed up except mirrors. Earwig's tool shows no signs of copyright violations - this site's comparison to our article is not useful because - the top of the actual outside site says "This is the interpretation of the species as published in English Wikipedia - Species Pages". The other things flagged appear to be short statements that would be very difficult to phrase in other ways.
Otherwise everything looks good. Ealdgyth (talk) 20:08, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Another thing about ResearchGate links is that in almost all cases, the published versions of papers that are not open access are the copyright of the journal and the author does not have the right to publish them separately. Since free access versions available online are technically copyright violations, they must not be linked per WP:COPYLINK. (I almost never link preprint repositories for this reason...) (t · c) buidhe 21:10, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I replaced the links to researchgate link with links to pdfs from the publishers' websites. LittleJerry (talk) 22:49, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ealdgyth, how is this one looking now? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:41, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I struck everything and noted in this edit that we're good.... Ealdgyth (talk) 18:26, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from SilverTiger[edit]

Placeholder section for when I get to read through this article later today. SilverTiger12 (talk) 14:22, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • In Fossil Record, first paragraph "Other early or basal aliruds include..." (bolding mine) Is that supposed to be ailurids?
  • Similar problem in the first sentence of the second paragraph, same section. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 04:56, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could the etymology of the Chinese species/subspecies' name styani be included in the etymology section?
  • This is already explained in the *Taxonomy* section that it was named after Frederick William Styan. – BhagyaMani (talk) 15:05, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond those nitpicks, though, I honestly have nothing.--SilverTiger12 (talk) 04:56, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • These weren't really nitpicks : at least 6 people oversaw these typos. Thanks for reading this with the eyes of a hawk !! – BhagyaMani (talk) 06:40, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SilverTiger12, all done. LittleJerry (talk) 14:21, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, Support. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 17:38, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Funk[edit]

  • I'll have a look soonish. FunkMonk (talk) 17:59, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems unclear to me from the etymology section what you're saying in regard to the giant panda. Was the name of the red panda applied to the giant panda later, or was it originally used for both? The giant panda article gives a clearer explanation, perhaps it could also be made clearer here.
  • "The red panda was classified and described in 1825" Described and named would be the more logical wording here?
  • Link Thomas Hardwicke in image caption.
  • This page is already linked in the text. – BhagyaMani (talk) 18:00, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Image captions are separate from the article body, so should have the same links at first occurrences. Same with the intro. FunkMonk (talk) 14:22, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 15:31, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 1847, Brian Houghton Hodgson described a red panda from the Himalayas, for which he proposed the name Ailurus ochraceus." You mention this but never follow it up; you should also state if it is considered invalid now, and if it's a synonym, or remove the mention.
Not addressed? FunkMonk (talk) 14:22, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Removed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:32, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • What does styani mean? Since the subspecies are covered here, such info about them should also be.
Still don't see the meaning of the word. It is ok if you can't find it. FunkMonk (talk) 14:22, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Revised again. Why is the meaning of the family name Styan important? BhagyaMani (talk) 15:22, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Reconstructed skull and head of Simocyon" Captions should establish why the image is relevant to this article.
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 18:35, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
More understandable now. FunkMonk (talk) 19:19, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The researchers suggested that the two subspecies should be treated as distinct species." Seems it would be helpful to state which subspecies are shown in image captions, where possible.
They aren't labelled and and it will be OR for us to do it. LittleJerry (talk) 18:35, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not if they are defined by where they are found, then the location of wild animals would pretty much be confirmation. Anyway, not a big deal now, but I can imagine we'll have to try to identify images to species once they are formally recognised as split. FunkMonk (talk) 14:22, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and placed the species in its own family Ailuridae." But that taxon was named in 1843, so surely it was suspected before? Seems some history is missing here, and I'm sure the giant panda was already proposed to be a bear before the 1980s, and that there were just competing theories until then. Not the article makes it seem as if it wasn't realised until then, when it was only finally confirmed.
The book does not mention Ailuridae being named by Gray in 1843, but that in the early 20th century "Only Pocock separated it into a family of its own, Ailuridae...". LittleJerry (talk) 18:35, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Then something surely must have been overlooked, if Gray is the proper author of that taxon? FunkMonk (talk) 14:22, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
BhagyaMani? Can you find Gray's original paper? LittleJerry (talk) 16:28, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Must be this one https://archive.org/details/listofspecimenso00brit_0/page/42/mode/2up?view=theater, where he used 'Ailurina'. But he didn't repeat this term nor described the family on page 75, see

https://archive.org/details/listofspecimenso00brit_0/page/208/mode/2up?view=theater, where he lists 'The Wah'. – BhagyaMani (talk) 18:32, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • "The following cladogram is based on the molecular phylogeny of six genes,[18] with the musteloids updated following a multigene analysis.[19]" This cladogram is WP:original synthesis, as it combines the findings of two different studies. Would be better to just use one. The issue was discussed here earlier:[61] I will try to get a discussion up about this issue at WP:TOL so we can figure out if we need written guidelines for this.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 18:48, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note that a newer paper[62] has been pointed out at the bottom here that includes both groups in a single cladogram, and would therefore be better to use:[63] FunkMonk (talk) 16:58, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Added. LittleJerry (talk) 11:41, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. FunkMonk (talk) 14:22, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, you should give the date for the cladogram you end up using, because the only one you mention is one from 1995, which the reader would assume is the one you show otherwise.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 18:48, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FunkMonk, done. LittleJerry (talk) 14:56, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • There is a mix of ise/ize throughout which should be made consistent. There may also be UK/US inconsistencies, but I'll check for that as I read along.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 16:34, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The puma-sized Simocyon was likely a tree-climber and shares a "false thumb"—an extended wrist bone—with the modern species" Jarring with the present "shares" when the sentences starts in past tense.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 16:34, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Magerictis should be linked, even if it doesn't have an article, since it warrants an article.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 16:34, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "uncomplex crown" Simple crown?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 16:34, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "he face is mostly white and has red marks that stretch from the eyes to the corners of the mouth." Seems most of the head and upper face is red, though, which is not mentioned?
The article already mentions that the Chinese red panda has more red on its face. LittleJerry (talk) 20:26, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 14:33, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should you give the scientific name of bamboo at first mention as you do with all other plants?
Fixed. Tried to use common names as much as possible. LittleJerry (talk) 20:26, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • " Its bushy tail has alternating rings of red and buff" Looks like the tip of the tail is black, but this is not mentioned?
Added. LittleJerry (talk) 21:00, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "whereas the giant panda prefers gentle slopes with taller bamboo but lower densities of stems, logs and stumps. Such niche separation lessens competition between the two bamboo-eating species" This is the only indication that the range of the two pandas overlap, could this be stated more clearly earlier, maybe already the first time the two are discussed together?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 20:26, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In Wolong National Nature Reserve, leaves of Bashania fangiana were found" You could specify this is also bamboo, as this genus is not mentioned among the bamboo types it feeds on earlier.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 01:46, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "vocalisations have been recorded in the red panda" From? In sounds a bit odd...
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 01:46, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Two individuals "stare" each other" Stare at? Stare down?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 01:46, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The modern red panda's lineage became adapted for a specialised bamboo diet, having molar-like premolars and more highly crowned cusps." Any theories on why it turned its diet to bamboo?
Not made clear. Bamboo is just widely available apparently. LittleJerry (talk) 01:46, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "At least three wild pandas, two adults and one cub, were preyed on by leopards" This is a bit of an odd, detached statement. More context? Wouldn't it make more sense to just say it has been recorded that leopards preyed on red pandas, instead of this extremely specific example?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 01:46, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are a bunch of duplinks (not counting those in the cladograms) throughout that can be highlighted with the usual script.[64]
Removed all expect for the cladogram ones and Sichan which should be linked in distribution as well. LittleJerry (talk) 23:03, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Hog Farm via FACBot (talk) 4 April 2022 [65].

Nizar ibn al-Mustansir[edit]

Nominator(s): Constantine ✍ 15:00, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a Fatimid prince who should have become imam and caliph at the death of his father, al-Mustansir, in 1094, but was thwarted by the machinations of the powerful vizier al-Afdal. Nizar led a revolt in Alexandria, but was ultimately defeated and killed. Given the close intertwining of religious and political leadership in the Fatimid-sponsored Isma'ili faith, this succession dispute also caused one of the major rifts in Isma'ilism, with the supporters of Nizar (among whom were the famous Assassins) breaking off to form the Nizari sect, against the supporters of the puppet caliph, al-Mu'stali. The article was rewritten from scratch in January 2020, and became GA shortly after. It has been edited with some slight additions and improvements since. I think that by now it is comprehensive enough for FA. I also hope that it provides sufficient context to the uninitiated reader, but of course any suggestions for improvement are welcome. Constantine ✍ 15:00, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

  • The succession diagram is not currently legible - suggest presenting this using a chart template rather than as an image
  • Don't use fixed px size
    • Done, since no image is now used apart from the infobox.
  • File:1a_Fatimid_Coin_of_Imam_Nizar.jpg: can we confirm the institute has released the image under that license? Also a tag for the coin itself will be needed
    • That is a good question. I have sent an email to the IIS and am awaiting a reply.
  • File:Shiite_Calligraphy_symbolising_Ali_as_Tiger_of_God.svg: what's the copyright status of the original design? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:28, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • The original png is properly licensed, but the question is whether the png creator also drew the design. Such zoomorphic representations of Ali are fairly common for centuries now, however, and given that the image has been online on WP since 2008, I don't know that we can trace it. I am pinking the original user, Ishvara7, just in case. Constantine ✍ 13:27, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Nikkimaria, it's been two weeks now, and no response to my email. How shall we proceed? The coin designitself is obviously PD (old and non-original design), and IIRC coins are considered two-dimensional works of art, hence their photos fall under PD-Art (I've added the tag to the file), so the copyright situation should be clear (unless I am mistaken). On the calligraphy file, I don't know how to best proceed. Constantine ✍ 10:11, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
PD-art cannot be used for coins - see commons:Commons:When_to_use_the_PD-Art_tag#Photograph_of_an_old_coin_found_on_the_Internet. As for the calligraphy, can a pre-2008 model be located? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:23, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: OK, then I will remove the coin image pending a possible reply, as its copyright status is unclear. On the calligraphy, I just found the original from as Sotheby's action. Anonymous, Persia 19th/20th century, I suppose it qualifies as PD. Constantine ✍ 14:30, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: a small reminder :) Constantine ✍ 11:32, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The calligraphy image needs tagging reflecting the status of the original design. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:00, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria what would be appropriate here? It is PD in Iran, per this, but I have no idea what would apply for the US for an anonymous work published in the 19th or early 20th century. Constantine ✍ 14:33, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If it was published then, {{PD-US-expired}} should apply. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:44, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, added, along with the PD-Iran tag. Constantine ✍ 15:28, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from 54129 BC[edit]

  • Suggest paragraphing the lead, a possible break is at /Many Isma'ilis, especially in Persia. Also tweak the first sentence of which, it's quite complex  :)
  • Good point, done.
  • "Internal turmoils led the dynasty close" -- something like "Internal turmoil threatened the dynasty..." or something.
  • Rephrased.
  • "Likely involved" -- you mean in its planning, or that he was sent elsewhere as well? If the latter, then you've already said the sons were being scattered.
  • Changed, hopefully clearer now. I also discovered that I had not associated this event with the one mentioned later on, which are actually the same. Now fixed, hopefully without making it more convoluted than the whole succession affair already is. ;)
  • "This flight" -- their absence/disappearance etc
  • Rephrased.
  • " by attempting to appoint another to the vizierate" -- this sounds redundant to me? As you've already said he was a figurehead.
  • Good point, removed.
  • "In 1022, al-Mu'stali's son...not even allowed to leave the palace" is a massive sentence, combining both colons and semicolons. Perhaps

In 1022, al-Mu'stali's son and successor, al-Amir (r. 1101–1130), issued a public proclamation, the al-Hidāya al-Āmiriyya, to defend his father's succession and counter the claims of Nizar's partisans. He put forth a number of arguments, such as the fact that when al-Mustansir sent his sons to the army, he did so by rank, those closest to Cairo being the highest. Abu Abdallah was to go to Acre, Abu'l-Qasim Muhammad (father of the Caliph al-Hafiz) to Ascalon, Nizar to Damietta, while al-Musta'li was not allowed to leave the palace.

There's a few linkable things in their too?

  • You mean the various princes? Unfortunately they are mostly names to us, we don't have much information about them other than what is included here.
  • If someone is immured, aren't they inevitably alive? Also—if you happen to know—was he later reinterred after the eventual collapse of the regime? (Or any other time of course.)
  • True, and no, unfortunately, but very unlikely. The Fatimid regime was very anti-Nizari until its end, and its successors were Sunnis, with little interest in an Isma'ili pretender's burial place.
  • New sentence at "A grand assembly of officials..."?
  • Done.
  • Might want to use a WP:NBSP at "as a ruler [...] it was the"
  • Done.
  • Done.
  • " heralded the final decline " --- "final" is unnecessary here as it preceded an "eventual collapse".
  • Removed.
  • Thanks for this, nice article. SN54129 16:11, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Serial Number 54129, thanks a lot for your review, and I am glad you liked it! I've tried to address the points you raised, and have had to make some rewrites as to the dispersal of the princes. Please have another look. Constantine ✍ 14:16, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very nicely done, Cplakidas, and thanks for the interesting points you made here, very informative. SN54129 14:26, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Gog the Mild[edit]

Recusing to review.

  • "a deep-seated enmity between the two men". Which two men? Of the three just mentioned.
  • Fixed.
  • "would preclude him from being sent to the army either way." What does "either way" mean in this context?
  • This has been removed in a rewrite about the sending of the princes away from Cairo, please have a look.
  • "Ibn Masal abandoned the city with most of the remaining treasure". Just checking that you mean that he abandoned both the city and the treasure.
  • Indeed no. Rephrased.
  • No, there was no such attempt. None of Nizar's known sons is attested to have claimed the caliphal title or designated ministers etc.
  • "dāʿı̄s and ḥujjas ('seals, proofs')." Should that be 'dāʿı̄s and ḥujjas ('seals', 'proofs').'?
  • hujja means 'seal' or 'proof', da'i simply means missionary, as explained further above. Rephrased slightly to avoid confusion.
I have added some colour above to try and emphasise the change I was suggesting.
  • Ah, of course. Fixed.

An excellent article. I expected no less. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:50, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review and the kind words, Gog the Mild, it means a lot. I've addressed the issues you raised, anything else? Constantine ✍ 15:50, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
One minor issue above outstanding, but insufficient to prevent my supporting. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:14, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Gog the Mild! Constantine ✍ 16:35, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie[edit]

  • I'm not keen on "(see below)" in article text; I think it would be better to give a very brief parenthetical gloss, and then give the details later in the succession section.
  • Indeed. Done.
  • "In 1022, al-Mu'stali's son and successor, al-Amir (r. 1101–1130), issued a public proclamation": presumably a typo for 1122? I tried checking other articles but I see the same date is given in Al-Musta'li
  • Yes, of course. Fixed.
  • Reading the first paragraph of the succession section, I didn't immediately realize that the enmity between Nizar and al-Afdal might have only been of a few months duration. According to our article on him, Badr al-Jamali's date of death is known; any reason not to use that? Do we know if the machinations that al-Maqrizi refers to were before or after Badr's death? The description of al-Afdal attempting to enter the palace on horseback refers to him as "the vizier", so it seems to be afterwards. If any of this can be recast in a more linear chronological way I think it would help readers unfamiliar with the material. Then "who himself had only recently succeeded" would be unnecessary, for example.
  • Good point. Have rewritten this part.
  • "whose birth had been publicly announced in 1160": surely 1060?
  • Yes, fixed. Thanks.
  • "In November, Ibn Masal": it's been a while since Ibn Masal was mentioned; how about a word or two to give the reader context? Maybe "In November, Nizar's military commander Ibn Masal" if that's an accurate description?
  • Good suggestion, done.
  • What's a writ of safety?
  • Rephrased and clarified.
  • "but the events surrounding al-Musta'li's accession was the first time": needs rephrasing; "events" is plural, but "were" won't work because the object is "the first time".
  • Deleted 'the events surrounding' as superfluous
  • "a convenient excuse to rid himself of Cairo's tutelage": I don't think "tutelage" is the best word here; it does mean a position of authority but has connotations of instruction. Perhaps just "rule"?
  • Replaced with 'control'.

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:03, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mike Christie and thanks for the very good suggestions. I think I've addressed them. Anything else? Constantine ✍ 10:03, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support. All my concerns have been addressed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:15, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review from Ealdgyth[edit]

  • Someone rang for a source review??
  • The one source in German shows a suitable number of academic libraries in the US holding it so it meets the test of being a high quality source. World Cat results
  • All the other sources are from suitable academic publishers and presumably by experts in the field or they wouldn't be published by the publishers...
  • It looks like "Walker, Paul E. (1995). "Succession to Rule in the Shiite Caliphate"." is actually "Walker, Paul E., Walker, Paul (1995). "Succession to Rule in the Shiite Caliphate"." according to JSTOR? But the top page of the article just says "Paul E. Walker"... odd...
  • Spot checks (since I'm here...)
    • "Over the following decades, the Nizaris were among the most bitter enemies of the Musta'li rulers of Egypt." is sourced to Stern 1950 p. 20, which it supports.
    • "Given the pivotal role of the imam in the Isma'ili faith, this was of momentous importance: the issue of succession was not merely a matter of political intrigue, but also intensely religious. In the words of Stern, "on it depended the continuity of institutional religion as well as the personal salvation of the believer"." is sourced to Stern 1951 p. 194 which it supports (not just the quote, but the preceeding sentence also)
    • "There are indications that another of Nizar's sons, named Muhammad, left for Yemen." is sourced to Walker p. 256 which it supports.
  • I randomly googled three sentences and nothing showed up except mirrors. Earwig's tool shows no signs of copyright violations.
  • The one weirdness should not hold up promotion (it may just be JSTOR being .. weird... )
Otherwise everything looks good. Ealdgyth (talk) 15:47, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Ealdgyth, I can't explain the JSTOR discrepancy, likely some error in data input. Paul Walker is well known in the field, and is obviously the same person as Paul E. Walker. Constantine ✍ 10:11, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support by AhmadLX[edit]

Seems very interesting. Just a few points below.

  • In the 2nd para of "Life" little background is given of the turmoil, but the detail of which princes were sent to which places (which to me seems irrelevant) is given with detail.
    • Agreed, this is a discrepancy. The sending of the princes is important in so far as it was used in the pro-Musta'li polemics later on, so it should be mentioned. On the turmoil, I will add a brief summary as soon as I can.
      • Added a very brief summary of the crisis and its reasons. Constantine ✍ 10:47, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "until the Armenian commander Badr al-Jamali assumed power in 1073". At the first reading, it seems as if he was a commander in the Armenia region and seems weird that he became Fatimid vizier. Only after hovering over the link does it become clear. Maybe you should note that he was Fatimid commander of Armenian ethnicity. Also, that he was Armenian and a commander is given at the second mention; the first mention occurs without context and one wonders "who was he".
    • I've stricken the Armenian part as it is irrelevant, but I have linked Badr now at the first occurrence.
  • al-Hidāya al-Āmiriyya → al-Hidaya al-Amiriyya; dāʿı̄ → da'i; qāḍī → qadi; al-Muṣṭafā li-Dīn Allāh → al-Mustafa li-Din Allah; amān → aman; daʿwa → da'wa; daʿwa jadīda → da'wa jadida; ḥujja → hujja; naṣṣ → nass; ʿiṣma → isma
    • Done.
  • "According to the historian Paul Walker..."; later on you call him "the historian Paul E. Walker" as if they were two different persons.
    • Fixed.
  • " In the words of Stern..." Please introduce him.
    • Done.
  • The historian Paul Walker in the first footnote links to the American actor ;) AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 15:39, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Standardized to 'Paul E. Walker' throughout, per the name in the references section.
  • Constantine? Gog the Mild (talk) 15:32, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks Constantine. Support. A very nice and informative article. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 17:18, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Featured_log/April_2022&oldid=1085495556"