Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/January 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) 31 January 2022 [1].

Francis Neale

[edit]
Nominator(s): Ergo Sum 02:14, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about one of the important figures in the development of Catholicism in the Maryland & DC area and a prominent Jesuit in the early United States. Ergo Sum 02:14, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review. The images are good, the rationales, sources and licensing seem in order. I'm slightly puzzled by the "Georgetown College close in appearance to during Neale's tenure" caption. I understand it means "close in appearance to what it was during Neale's tenure", but the current version IMHO makes little sense in terms of grammatical correctness. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 12:22, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Szmenderowiecki I've tweaked the phrasing. How do you think it reads now? Ergo Sum 03:10, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's better now. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 11:29, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Therapyisgood

[edit]

Thank you for your comments, Therapyisgood. Ergo Sum 02:34, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support for featured article status pending a source review. Therapyisgood (talk) 17:32, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review from Ealdgyth

[edit]
  • What makes the following "high quality reliable sources":
  • I'm a bit concerned about age of some of the sources - are there no more recent sources that could be used? Historical methods have changed a lot - and there was not always a lot of rigor in historical works in the late 1800s and early 1900s.... there were a lot of flattering biographical/historical works put out by various publishers ... are these works considered good sources or are they not cited at all in more recent works?
    • Unfortunately not. Most of the detailed coverage of Neale is historical. However, I've been careful to avoid letting some of the polemicizing and hagiographizing tendencies of some historical works to make their way into the article. Older works are cited to strictly for basic factual and biographical information. Ergo Sum 01:13, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Georgetown Chapel, later known as Holy Trinity Church and then as the Chapel of St. Ignatius, was called a "chapel" because it remained uncertain whether it was lawful for Catholics to build public churches in the city." is sourced to two sources - https://historicsites.dcpreservation.org/items/show/828 and https://htsdc.org/about-hts/history-of-hts/. I see that the sources support "The Georgetown Chapel, later known as Holy Trinity Church" but I'm not seeing the "then as the Chapel of St. Ignatius" in either source explicitly.
  • "He returned to St. Thomas Manor, where he became pastor of its church, later known as St. Ignatius Church. He served in this office from 1819 until his death," is sourced to https://web.archive.org/web/20110725154706/http://www.chapelpoint.org/historyPastors.asp but that source doesn't support anything except the "He served in this office from 1819" - strictly speaking it doesn't support "until his death" because the source just gives an end date of 1837, not specifically to the exact date of death nor does the source state the end of his office holding was his death.
  • I randomly googled three sentences and nothing showed up except mirrors. Earwig's tool shows no signs of copyright violations.
Otherwise everything looks good. Note that I will be claiming points from this review for the wikicup. Ealdgyth (talk) 16:27, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Ealdgyth. Ergo Sum 01:23, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've struck the fixed issues. I'll leave the others out for other reviewers to weigh themselves, although I am not bothered enough by them to oppose. Ealdgyth (talk) 16:24, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note

[edit]

This has been open for more than three weeks and has only picked up the one support. Unless it attracts further favourable attention over the next three or four days I am afraid that it is be liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:33, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 15:33, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Kavyansh

[edit]
Lead
  • "in the [[Suppression of the Society of Jesus|Jesuit order's restoration]] in — suggesting "in the [[Suppression of the Society of Jesus#Restoration of the Jesuits|Jesuit order's restoration]] in"
    • I'm generally not a fan of linking to sections in pages unless it's really clear that the section deals directly with the subject discussed and the rest of the article is irrelevant. Here, I think understanding the suppression is necessary to understand the restoration, so I'm inclined to link just to the article. But, I'm open to discussing. Ergo Sum 02:01, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "at the Colleges of Bruges and Liège," — our article calls it Colleges of St Omer, Bruges and Liège; which one of the common name?
    • The colleges article explains that the school relocated to Bruges in 1762. Neale would have been 6 years old at the time. This is too young to have been enrolled in the college, so it would be inaccurate to say he attended the College of St Omer. He only attended the College of Bruges and later the College of Liege. Ergo Sum 02:06, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not asking you to change anything, but Neale opposed Carroll's formation of Georgetown College, but later served as its president! Did his views change?
Rest of the article

That is it. Fine work! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:30, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Kavyansh.Singh Ergo Sum 02:21, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Few replies above. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 13:35, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, addressed them above. Ergo Sum 21:54, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Great work! Supporting! – 18:44, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Comments from Mike Christie

[edit]

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

  • Was the period of ill health that delayed Neale's arrival in Georgetown the same as the illness that prevented him from transferring to Frederick in 1790?
    • I've gone back and checked the source, and it turns out they were, in fact, one and the same. I've slightly tweaked the language in the article to reflect this. I hope it is clearer now. Ergo Sum 01:20, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Construction on the Georgetown Chapel was altogether complete by March 1794": does "altogether" add anything to "complete"?
  • "Maryland clergy who were selected from by their peers": presumably should be "from and by"?
  • "Georgetown College campus, similarly as it appeared during Neale's presidency": "similarly as it appeared" is clumsy. How about "Georgetown College campus in 1829. It would have looked much the same during Neale's presidency."? But do you have a source for the similarity of appearance?
    • I agree that it's not the most elegant phrasing, but in general, I like to keep image captions to one sentence whenever possible. If you have a cleaner way of phrasing it as one sentence, please do recommend it. This caption was the subject of discussion above. I doubt there's a source that will compare how Georgetown's built campus appeared at arbitrarily chosen years. The 1993 Curran book (which contains this image), among other sources, describes the progression of construction on the campus. On that basis, I wrote the caption. However, it would be difficult to pin down to any one page or range of pages that discussion this for a citation. For this reason, I generally think a bit of leeway is allowed in writing image captions. Ergo Sum 01:28, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • If Curran's book describes the progression of construction I think it's fine as the source, and I think it would be OK to cite a large page range, such as a range that covers the entire period up to 1829, the date of the illustration. If you're concerned about a large page range, an embedded comment could explain the reasoning. I think the wording is not just clumsy but ungrammatical; "similarly as it" is what's bothering me. How about "Georgetown College campus in 1829, when it would have been little changed since Neale's presidency"? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 08:53, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Neale assumed of treasurer of the Jesuit's Maryland mission": presumably should be "assumed the role of"?
  • Can we give the date of his stroke? Even to within a couple of years? All we know from the text is that it's "before long" after 1819.
    • This was discussed above. Unfortunately, the source does not get any more specific. The most that can be gleaned is that he had a stroke during the time he was in Alexandria. Ergo Sum 01:30, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:33, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments, Mike Christie. Ergo Sum 01:30, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support. All my concerns have been addressed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:13, 29 January 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) 31 January 2022 [2].

Frozen II

[edit]
Nominator(s): Wingwatchers (talk) 21:26, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about an animated musical fantasy film by The Walt Disney Company. The article has just had a throughout copyedit, and thanks to editors who had made efforts in the process.Wingwatchers (talk) 21:26, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Gerald Waldo Luis

[edit]

Weird that the other candidates get at least one comment, but this doesn't. If you'd like to, I'm opening a film peer review that is still empty. No pressure though :) After all my comments are resolved, I'll support this FAC. I'll also do a source review if nobody does so by the time comments are resolved. GeraldWL 15:04, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Gerald Waldo Luis. All done except "Is there a possibility the citations in the "Attributed to multiple references" notes can be used in prose?" Wingwatchers (talk) 04:05, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Kurniawati comment still not resolved, it seems. Also, mind explaining why the Release subsection is titled "Context"? GeraldWL 05:50, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed; the use of context also appears in the article The Empire Strikes Back. I am not the one merged the sections, but I guess the use here is fairly accurate. Wingwatchers (talk) 15:56, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I respectfully disagree. The Empire Strikes Back uses the Context subsection to describe the conditions of the film's release time period, as well as Fox's ambitions, whilst here there's none of that. GeraldWL 16:04, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to " Theaters and Home Media" Wingwatchers (talk) 17:10, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've made several changes to the article, thought you might wanna review that. Once there's no more issues I'll support this FAC. GeraldWL 17:34, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I found no issue with your changes. Wingwatchers (talk) 21:36, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Aight, then that's a support. Good job with the article! GeraldWL 03:54, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from GeraldWL 03:54, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
=====Lead and infobox=====
  • The alt text merely just describes what's in the image, not what the image is. The caption does that job. Because of that, I suggest removing the "Frozen II theatrical poster showing" part of the poster alt
  • FA infoox generally don't have citations. I think you can put information about the cinematographers in "Animation" and put the citation there; the editor bit belongs well in "Development". Also if you're to follow this suggestion, I also suggest removing the "layout" and "lighting" as it's too specific for an infobox
  • Box office citations are already covered in "Box office", so that should not be in the infobox. I think you can cover the budget in "Conception"
  • I think linking reindeer and snowman is WP:OVERLINK. Otherwise lead looks neat
Plot
  • Suggest linking treaty
  • "Anna then becomes the queen of Arendelle" --> "Anna then becomes Queen of Arendelle"
Themes
  • Concerning paragraphs 4 to 6, this section I think should be retitled "Themes and analysis"
  • "The Northuldra dam reflects recent Sámi history." I think "recent" would be an outdated word as time passes; as of now it's 40 years ago. I think the word can be removed
  • The multiple images must have alt text
  • For the Kurniawati citation, I don't think the journal name can be translated, and since the article itself isn't in Indonesian it mustn't have the

Support from Chompy Ace

[edit]
  • "Frozen II[a] is a 2019 American computer-animated musical fantasy film produced by Walt Disney Animation Studios, the 58th Disney animated film and the sequel to Frozen (2013)." MOS:REDUNDANCY and should be reworded or split. Remove "musical fantasy" to conform WP:NPOV and MOS:SOB.
  • "The animators received real-time feedback from the supervisors, directors, and producer.[69][70] The earth spirits had a long rigging process to avoid making rocks distracting.[37] The water simulation was intended to be more realistic than in Moana.[71]": Last three sentences in #Animation feels monotonous that start with "The", so rewording is recommended.
  • "Tony Smeed and Becky Bresee were the film's heads of animation.[35] Hyun-Min Lee was Elsa's animation supervisor, and Wayne Unten returned as Elsa's animation supervisor. Steve Golberg was the main animation supervisor. [58][59]": Repetition of "animation" and "Elsa".
  • The $150 million budget must be placed in #Development with a <ref name="DeadlineProfit" />, similar to Inside Out (2015 film), then remove the budget at #Box_office once placed.
  • Running time must be placed at the end of the second paragraph in #Marketing_and_release, similar to Inside Out. Then remove the ref if you already have placed in the body per MOS:INFOBOXREF
  • In #Marketing_and_release, here is your ref to have a 4K Ultra HD Blu-ray: https://www.polygon.com/deals/2020/2/25/21152556/frozen-2-dvd-4k-blu-ray-digital-special-features-collectors-editions-amazon-best-buy-walmart-target. Must be placed after the Entertainment Tonight reference.
  • "The production team traveled to Norway, Finland, and Iceland for background research,[33][34] making Elsa a "mythic hero" with magic ice powers and Anna a "fairytale hero" who lives in a magical world but has no magic powers. The team concluded that the first film successfully combined the two elements.[35]" Two sentences are monotonous that start with "The" and must be reworded.
  • "Lee later explained to The New York Times reporter Maureen Dowd that Elsa's main audience did not seem ready for such a relationship.[51] Lee said in a press conference that Frozen II would not acquire elements from the television series Once Upon a Time's non-canonical Frozen storyline:[52]" Two sentences are monotonous that start with "Lee" and must be reworded.
  • In #Critical_response, Remove comparisions to the first Frozen film in Rotten Tomatoes, Metacritic, and CinemaScore for consistency.
  • In #Accolades, add Golden Trailer Awards using this ref: https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-news/2021-golden-trailer-awards-winners-list-1234978230/
  • "The mist parts at Elsa's touch; the air spirit appears as a tornado, catching everyone in its vortex before Elsa stops it by forming ice sculptures. The sisters discover that the sculptures are images from their father's past, and encounter the Northuldra and a troop of Arendellian soldiers who are still in conflict with one another." Two sentences are monotonous that start with "The" and must be reworded.

Chompy Ace 22:10, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chompy Ace, I tried helping nominator here by resolving most of your comments. I did not do the critical response thing as it was my suggestion; I think it's interesting to compare it to its predecessor. Few time also made me unable to do the accolades one. I may do it later. GeraldWL 16:16, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
All done except the conflicted "comparison" in #Critical_response. Wingwatchers (talk) 17:22, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
One last comment, Wingwatchers. Since the accolades table is ordered alphabetically, the Golden Trailer one should be placed after Golden Globe. GeraldWL 09:48, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Gook work! Chompy Ace 20:00, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Wingwatchers (talk) 17:12, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note

[edit]

This has been open for more than three weeks and has picked up only the one support. Unless it attracts considerable further attention over the next two or three days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:43, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from SatDis

[edit]

I will leave some comments for this nomination shortly. SatDis (talk) 05:02, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Does "(an iceman)" need to be specified in the first paragraph? As the same sentence does not go into detail about who Elsa or Anna is.
  • "a Broadway musical of the same name" - could that be changed to "a Broadway musical adaptation of the movie", so that it sounds less like a coincidence they shared a name?
  • Can "CCO" be expanded or linked?
  • ""making Elsa a "mythic hero" - change to "and decided to make"? The sentence doesn't currently read well, as it sounds like their research trip led to Elsa becoming a hero.
  • "Harding's documentary depicted the process of..." - Before this point in the prose, it has not been stated who Harding is, or that there was a documentary except for in the lead. Those two paragraphs go into detail about what was shown in the documentary, so maybe a small introduction to it is required at that point.

I hope these comments help. I think the article has been written well, and must give extra approval to the precise lead. SatDis (talk) 11:17, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed, and Wikipedia does not accept rumors (WP:CRYSTAL)

Wingwatchers did you miss this? (t · c) buidhe 01:00, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No. I replied that "Wikipedia does not accept rumors (WP:CRYSTAL)." Wingwatchers (talk) 02:03, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
SatDis are you intending to enter a support or oppose? (t · c) buidhe 03:07, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Buidhe: Thank you for the notification. @Wingwatchers: Good work making those adjustments. I will support this nomination. I would greatly appreciate it if you could leave some comments on my current featured article nomination if you are able to. Good luck with your nomination. SatDis (talk) 03:13, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

Is Muncy, Julie a reliable source? She seems to be more focused on videogames at Wired. Same for Ed Masley who seems to focus on music more at Arizona Republic. Also I am wondering what Emily Heller's credentials are. Source #146 should probably mention that it is written by the staff. Apart from that the sources seem reliable (from editors, on-topic journalists etc.) and consistently formatted. Why is Maureen Dowd's opinion noteworthy? I like the variety of academic sources used (one Korean and one Indonesian). Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:11, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jo-Jo Eumerus.
Julie Muncy writes for Gizmodo, which is generally reliable for entertainment topics per WP:RSPSOURCES. Where is the Wired source? And who is the first "She?" The Arizona Republic source is not replaceable because there is no suitable context-matching alternative. "Source #146 should probably mention that it is written by the staff." How? Wingwatchers (talk) 00:03, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also "Why is Maureen Dowd's opinion noteworthy?" Fixed; that wasn't Dowd's opinion, but an official statement from Lee. Wingwatchers (talk) 00:55, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"She" is Julie Muncy. I believe one can say "The <website> Staff" in the publisher parameter. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:25, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus, but doesn't Julie Muncy writes for Gizmodo? instead of Wired? Wingwatchers (talk) 16:30, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the Julie Muncy I found writes for Wired. I was assuming that she also works for Gizmodo. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:20, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I removed Muncy's source. Masley's source is impossible to replace because of the lack of a suitable alternative. Heller covers "deals, new releases, and buying guides" at Polygon, so her source is arguably generally reliable.
It is inconsistent to single out ref #146 (The Next Picture) with a special "Staff" parameter; plus there's no valid parameter in Template: Cite Web intended for such use. Can I request keeping ref#146 and Ed Masley's source? Wingwatchers (talk) 02:11, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think we can use |author{{|}}= to this end. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:08, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It did not work; all I got is errors. Wingwatchers (talk) 20:41, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think I got that one. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:07, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Several additional questions raised on my talk page: Are the writers of The Conversation and /Film experts in their field? Plus this and The Numbers might not be good enough for a FA. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:27, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think the Conversation should be OK; they usually only hire subject matter experts as writers. The blog is about postcolonial literature and the author is an expert in postcolonial literature. (t · c) buidhe 05:42, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Replaced Next Best Picture and The Numbers sources. Wingwatchers (talk) 17:00, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]
  • Alt texts need a little work. They should convey the essence of the image to someone who cannot view it. I.e., "Elsa's hair animation evolution process" just repeats the caption and doesn't describe the process to the reader, as ostensibly that is the point of showing the image. Same for the dam screenshot and reindeer—if their depiction is meant to impart visual information that cannot be understood from the text alone, how would you describe those relevant details to someone who cannot view them? Same goes for most of these images.
  • The dam screenshot, especially with its tiny viewbox, I don't think meets WP:NFCC#8 for contextual significance. The viewer can understand the dam concept just as well without the fair use image.
  • The reindeer image claims to be from USFWS via an image repo but unclear where it originated.
  • Consider adding a word or two to caption who these faces are, i.e., voice actors for the main characters
  • Menzel original image link from Dept of Defense is dead
  • The hair animation has the same NFCC#8 issue as the one mentioned above. To justify the fair use argument, it needs to provide context that the text alone cannot. I recommend its removal.
  • It's hard to tell what the Nøkk image is meant to depict; recommend its removal
  • Image licenses and fair use rationales (FURs) otherwise look good!

czar 05:39, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Czar Fixed. Wingwatchers (talk) 03:15, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
[3] I see some images removed but it looks like the alt texts were largely unaltered—do you need a hand? Also the dam image is showing the wrong alt text. re: the below comment, I don't think there was an issue with sandwiching. Now everything is running along the right side of the page. czar 04:15, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Do all these images have alt text issues, or is it only that of the dams and Elsa's hair animation? Wingwatchers (talk) 06:05, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nearly all of the alt texts can be improved. The guidelines give some extra advice on how to make the non-caption descriptions useful for those who cannot see the images. I don't think they need much but they do need your review to not repeat the caption and to describe what visually about the image's depiction would be pertinent to someone using screen reader software. czar 07:37, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hopefully fixed. Wingwatchers (talk) 16:27, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I touched up the remaining ones. Image review passed. czar 17:10, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comments

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 31 January 2022 [4].

September 2019 events in the U.S. repo market

[edit]
Nominator(s): JBchrch talk 19:18, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a sudden and unexpected problem that affected a critical channel of the world’s financial plumbing one beautiful morning. This channel is called the "overnight repo market" and it involves big institutions trading $1 trillion per day. On September 17, 2019, it clogged up, and no one—from the Wall Street big shots to the Fed’s mathematicians—understood why. This is their story. JBchrch talk 19:18, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]
Attempted to fix [5]. Let me know if the problem persists. JBchrch talk 23:01, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Kavyansh.Singh

[edit]

Completely non-expert review

  • "On the morning of September 17, 2019" — Well, morning where? Mention the time zone
  • Added "morning (ET)". Is it sufficient?
  • Not really, in fact it would probably be slightly confusing. Removed.
  • 'Secured Overnight Financing Rate' and 'Effective Federal Funds Rate' are not repeated in the lead. Do we need to define their acronyms?
  • The acronyms are used in the graph on the right and in its caption. I could write Secured Overnight Financing Rate (SOFR) and Effective Federal Funds Rate (EFFR) in the caption, but it would make it significantly longer. What do you think?
  • Federal Reserve over-linked in the lead.
  • Fixed.
  • "Subsequently, economists identified" → "Economists later identified"
  • Fixed.
  • "Other contributing factors have been" → "Other contributing factors have also been"
  • Done
  • "takes place "overnight"" — Why is it quoted
  • Because the term is used in a very specific technical meaning, and I wanted to draw the reader's attention to that. CMOS 17 § 7.57 is sort of lukewarm about doing this though, so I'm open to removing them if you feel like it's clear from the context that the word is used in an unusual way.
  • "to as “repos”" — Why is it quoted (MOS:QUOTEPOV says quoting single-words may imply doubt)? Moreover, if it has to be quoted, the curly quoted needs to be fixed (“ to ")
  • Removed, since the "referred to as" already serves the purposes of the quotation marks.
  • "First, the borrower sells her securities to the lender and receives cash in exchange." — I am not asking to change anything, but am curious about the usage of 'her'. Better would be a gender-neutral term term like 'their'. Same in the next sentence. That being said, I don't have strong feelings towards any pronouns you use here.
  • I considered using the singular they, but I found that it affected the clarity of the sentence, especially since loans involving multiple lenders are extremely prevalent in investment banking. CMOS 17 § 5.255 outlines a number of techniques to achieve gender neutrality, but I don't think anyone of them would really work here. Accordingly, I prefer using "he" or "she"—and since all the finance books, articles and case studies have been using masculine pronouns for the last 200 years, "she" mixes things up a bit 🙃.
  • "in this market... could quickly" — add a non-breaking space before the ellipsis
  • Done
  • "the Bank of New York Mellon, provides" — our article calls it just BNY Mellon. Suggesting to use the common name.
  • Done
  • Done
  • "According to Frederic Mishkin and Stanley Eakins," — who are these both individuals? economists? specify
  • Done
  • ""federal funds have nothing to do with the federal ..." — if this quote is taken from their book, then it should be specified like: "In their 2015 book, economists Frederic Mishkin and Stanley Eakins wrote that ..."
  • I'm having a little trouble with this. Since Mishkin is an economist and Eakins is a finance professor (there is no shorter term for non-economist finance profs to the best of my knowledge), the sentence is already slightly longer, per the previous comment. If we want to identify the book with precision, we would have to say that it's the "8th global edition" or the "2015 global edition" of their textbook. If we try to add this information to the text, I feel like it's really starting to affect the readability of the sentence and the clarity of the information. Let me know what you think.
  • Done
  • 'EFFR' should be defined in the lead as well
  • I've attempted something here. Is it better?
  • "were considered to be quite stable." — by whom?
  • Removed, as both sources state it as fact, and so can we.
  • "2—2.25%" – should be en-dash (–)
  • Done
  • "On the morning of Tuesday, September 17," — same as the lead; morning in which time zone? Also check through the entire article.
  • More important question: why do we need to mention 'morning', 'afternoon' every time. Will removing them cause any harm? (sorry if I am missing something here, but again, this is a completely non-expert review ) – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:04, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • No problem, I don't think you're missing anything important due to your "non-expertise" :). I have now removed the mention in the lead, as it was mainly a stylistic choice to introduce the subject and add a bit of drama, but clearly that was creating more problems. In #Event, the important thing is that readers should get the timeline of how the day of September 17 played out. The problem is that my sources only mention the "morning" and "afternoon" without giving specific times. I could try to see if I can find an access to the Thompson Reuters Tick History database which would give me precise hours for the moment of the spike (6 AM? 7:30 AM?) and allow me to introduce a bit of variety in the wording. Do you think that it would be helpful? JBchrch talk 20:41, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • the Federal Reserve Bank of New York (or New York Fed) — (1) Federal Reserve Bank of New York is already linked before (2) we need to mention 'New York Fed' on Federal Reserve Bank of New York's previous instance?
  • I wanted to relink it and introduce the abbreviation here because the NY Fed is only mentioned as a brief aside in the #The repo market section, whereas here it takes the center stage. What do you think?
  • Would you mind clarifying this? Should the I say the Federal Reserve Bank of New York (or New York Fed) two times, first in #The repo market and then again in #Response by the Federal Reserve? JBchrch talk 04:49, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "At 9 AM," — Add a non-breaking space between 9 and AM. Same for "8:15 AM" and other instances.
  • Done
  • "New York Fed’s" — Fix the curly quote mark.
  • Done
  • Removed
  • "was borrowed from the New York Fed by market participants.[15][26][a]" v. "All three operations were fully subscribed.[b][15][27]" (i.e. article needs to be consistent whether footnote would be after the references or before the references)
  • Fixed, moved before
  • " “sustained smooth functioning” " — the curly quoted needs to be fixed (“ to ")
  • Done
  • "First, quarterly" → "First, the quarterly"
  • I'm not sure about this one. Could you please confirm? Both of my sources use a very similar terminology and omit the "the".
  • ""[a] substantial share of ..." — the prose doesn't makes it clear who said this quote
  • Fixed
  • "The temporary cash shortage is nevertheless insufficient" — suggesting to remove 'nevertheless'
  • I would prefer to keep it in if that's ok for you, as removing it would make the transition slightly abrupt IMO.
  • The first time, the link is through the "MBS" acronym ("Agency MBS"). I am concerned that a reader wanting to go Mortgage-backed security would not find it. An alternative would be to spell out the first occurrence of the term ("Agency mortgage-backed securities"), but these securities are widely called "Agency MBS", and I wanted to preserve that. Let me know what you think.
  • "According to JP Morgan CEO Jamie Dimon," → "According to Jamie Dimon, the CEO of JP Morgan Chase,"
  • Done
  • "Indeed, some economists" — Suggesting to remove 'Indeed' (in my opinion, it makes it appear like a news-article than an encyclopedia article)
  • Done
  • " "even small changes in the supply ..." — the prose doesn't makes it clear who said this quote
  • The problem is that adding "according to Sam Schulhofer-Wohl" sort of makes it seem as if it's his opinion, when it's just him describing an uncontroversial fact. Since WP:MOS#Attribution doesn't mandate in-text attribution in these circumstances, could we leave it as it is?
  • Do we need footnote [b]?
  • I felt that "All three operations were fully subscribed", while the technically correct terminology, is pretty much obscure financial jargon to most readers, and that we could help them out a little.
  • Since we have to introduce the sentence, I changed "in other words" to "which means". Does that work? I don't really have a citation for footnote b, it's just the plain meaning of what the Fed source means by "subscribed", stripped of its jargon. What I will try to do is try to find a source that explains what "subscription" means in a financial context (which might be a dictionary). JBchrch talk 20:50, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "According to Afonso et al." — suggesting to use Template:harvnb to directly link it to the work. Same with footnote [d]
  • To the best of my knowledge, harvnb returns an author-date format, and its usage outside of a reference (<ref></ref>) is deprecated. Maybe there's something that I'm not aware of but, based on what I know, the only way to implement this suggestion would be through an anchor.
  • Inconsistency in sources listing "The Wall Street Journal" v. "Wall Street Journal".
  • Fixed.
  • "p. 452-453", "p. 6-7", "p. 302-303", "p. 18-20", etc. — there are a lot of instances of the same. (1) the dashes needs to be en-dashes (–) (2) I have no strong feelings, but page ranges should use 'pp.' instead of 'p.'. That being said, all we still need in consistency. Wikipedia doesn't mandate a paricular style.
  • Fixed the dashes. Not a fan of the "pp." notation, so I prefer to keep "p." if that's ok.
  • Some sources have the publisher/media outlet linked, some not (needs to be consistent)
  • "Washington, DC" → "Washington, D.C."
  • Done
  • Suggesting to format the ISBNs using this tool
  • Done
  • Just a question: What is more commonly used, "U.S. repo market" or "United States repo market"?
  • "U.S. repo market" is most commonly used, and it would be surprising to read "United States" or "American" outside of vulgarization texts. See e.g. the first sentence here, which refers to the "U.S. money market". Here and here we find "US this" and "US that" all over. Beyond the scope of this article, I found usage of "U.S. repo market" here and here. There may be some WP:SSF about this, but I thought it was the most reasonable title. I should also note that in a lot of publications—news and scholarly alike—, the U.S. repo market is designated just as "the repo market", without specifying "U.S." (by contrast to other markets, which are designated as "the European repo market" etc.).

Except these minor issues, the article is an interesting one. Nice work! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 11:00, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for your thorough review and your comments. Let me know if I understood your suggestions correctly and your thoughts on the few points that need to be worked out. Thanks again! JBchrch talk 05:34, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@JBchrch – Have left a few replies above. Thanks to you for writing this article! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:10, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I support this nomination for promotion as a featured article. The few comments/nitpicks above don't effect my support. Thanks for your work here! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:27, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot @Kavyansh.Singh! I'm not forgetting that there are still comments above that need to be addressed, and I'll make sure to do that later or this week-end (for the ones that require me to find sources). JBchrch talk 17:39, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

[edit]

Nice topic, Recusing to review. I will do a little light copy editing as I go. If you don't like or don't understand a change, could you flag that up here?

  • Multiple P/pp errors in the References section. Eg cites 6, 7, ... 54, 55.
  • Sources: Armour et al - first name for Davies?
  • "which injected $75 billion in liquidity in the repo markets". Suggest 'which injected $75 billion in liquidity into the repo markets'.
  • "a temporary shortage in the level of cash available". Does "in the level" add anything?
  • "exacerbated by the declining level of reserves". Delete "the".
  • "Other contributing factors have also been suggested by economists and observers." Delete "also". (Implicit in "Other".)
  • "BNY Mellon". "When an abbreviation will be used in an article, first introduce it using the full expression".
  • I initially wrote "Bank of New York Mellon" but the review above suggested that I use the COMMONNAME "BNY Mellon" as established by our article. Maybe a compromise could be "This segment is called "tri-party" because a third party, the bank BNY Mellon..."? JBchrch talk 21:32, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If that is the common name, then fine. But yes, giving a reader an in line idea of what something is is usually good.
That's done.
  • "Contrary to repos, however, federal funds are unsecured." I suspect this is USEng. It may be more universally understandable as 'Unlike repos, however, federal funds are unsecured.' And does "however" add anything?
  • "On the morning (ET)". ET in full at first mention.
  • "a sudden and unexpected hike"." I am not sure how general the use of "hike" is. Suggest 'increase'.
  • "9 AM". "Twelve-hour clock times are written in one of two forms: 11:15 a.m. and 2:30 p.m., or 11:15 am and 2:30 pm. Include a non-breaking space."
  • You suddenly introduce Agency securities and Agency mortgage-backed securities without explaining what they are. And why the initial "A"?
  • The initial A was lifted from the New York Fed document, but I see that the Federal Reserve note omits them, so removed. I have to get back to you later on the substantial issue of how to best introduce these things, as this is a sourcing problem. JBchrch talk 11:25, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Gog the Mild: Ok so I have Fabozzi, Frank J.; Jones, Frank J. (2019). Foundations of Global Financial Markets and Institutions (5th ed.). Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press. saying that The collateral in a repo can be money market instruments, Treasury securities, federal agency securities, mortgage-backed securities, asset-backed securities, or a pool of loans.. This would allow me to complete a sentence in #The repo market as follows: "In this context, the repurchased securities are most often Treasury securities[5][9], but can also be agency securities and mortgage-backed securities.[Fabozzi & Jones]" Do you think that this would add sufficient context to avoid their abrupt introduction? If so, I would just need to wait until the libraries I have access to reopen in early January in order to get the specific page of the quote, because all I was able to get is an epub (legally, of course) that does not have the pages mapped out. Also, and most importantly: happy holidays, and best wishes to you and your close ones! ❄️🎅 JBchrch talk 22:25, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much, and the same to you and yours. That looks good to me. I would prefer a footnote as well, briefly explaining what an agency security is, per "Do not unnecessarily make a reader chase links: if a highly technical term can be simply explained with very few words, do so." But if you prefer not to that's acceptable IMO.
Done, expect for the footnote, which is pending (and the Fabozzi page numbers, which will have to wait a little more). JBchrch talk 11:12, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done for the footnote [9]. JBchrch talk 11:29, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "immediately returned to numbers closer to the Federal Reserve's target range." What does "numbers" add to this?

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:28, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for accepting to review @Gog the Mild! Just a note that I might be less responsive than I would like to be until Wednesday, due to to COVID-related disruption. JBchrch talk 15:17, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not a problem.
  • "... seemed to stem from a temporary increase in the demand for cash and, at the same time, a temporary decline in the supply of cash ..." It may be me, but I am not seeing what "at the time" means in this context.
  • I am trying to underline that both the increase in the demand and the decline in the supply happened simultaneously. Would replacing "at the same time" with "simultaneously" be an improvement? JBchrch talk 22:51, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. Maybe '... seemed to stem from a temporary increase in the demand for cash and a simultaneous temporary decline in its supply ...'?
Done as suggested. JBchrch talk 10:24, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The temporary cash shortage is insufficient to explain the size of the movements observed in September 2019. Accordingly, the effects of ...". Perhaps getting a little unencyclopedic? Maybe 'The temporary cash shortage is nevertheless insufficient to explain the intensity of the movements observed. The effects of ...' or similar?
  • Seven uses of "however". Are all of them helpful to the reader?
  • "The tri-party segment's reliance on established relationships between market participants". How or why might this have been a cause?
  • I have removed this bullet altogether. The WP:TRUTH of it is that if interest rates are suddenly increasing, you would expect every institution on Wall Street to begin lending cash on the repo market pretty quickly, which would have the effects of lowering the rates (more supply of cash). But that cannot take place if market players rely on established relationships and are unwilling to trade with companies they are not familiar with. Looking back at my sources, this causal relationship is not explained as clearly and explicitly as I would like per WP:V and it is preferable to strike it. JBchrch talk 13:07, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I had assumed that was the case (my question was largely rhetorical), but felt an explanation was necessary. A pity about the sources, but fair enough. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:05, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A general decrease in the amount of repo lending performed by money market funds". "performed" seems an odd word; is their a more felicitous one?

That is it on a first run through. A great little article. Hopefully the first of many similar to appear here. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:07, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: I think I got to the end. Thanks again! Sorry for the time it took: this last week allowed for less focus-friendly times than I expected. Thanks for your copy-editing: the only thing I don't really understand is the addition of a {{lc}} template in a ref here ({{subst:lc:Repos}} Reflects Liquidity Feast for Dealers"). JBchrch talk 11:35, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ha, me neither. It's a bot, and while I always [usually?] check what bots do as I don't really trust them, I obviously missed this one. Reverted.
It is looking pretty good and so far as I am concerned you tackled my issues in an entirely timely manner. Nice to see high high quality articles on this sort of topic. Supporting. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:53, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review – pass

[edit]
  • 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 and everything that I would expect to be cited, is. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:45, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Spot-checks – pass

[edit]

Will do. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:28, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ref#2 — link — 27 instances
    • Ref#2.3 — OK
    • Ref#2.8 — It doesn't mention 9:00 a.m., is that supported by the other two citations?
      • It's supported by Afonso et al. p. 23. I've corrected it to "shortly after 9:00 a.m.".
    • Ref#2.18 — OK, but the comma should be inside the quotes, as the sentence ends there.
      • Fixed.
    • Ref#2.24 — The peak figure is "2.8 trillion", not "2.4 trillion". Both this and this say 2.8 trillion.
      • Thank you that was a typo.
  • Ref#5 — link — 8 instances
    • Ref#5.3 — OK
    • Ref#5.8 — can you give me a quote from the news article. I can't find it.
      • What caused the repo move? No one really knows precisely what happened. But traders pointed to a number of things happening at once that might have caused securities lenders to suddenly be willing to pay far more to get their hands on cash.
For one, Monday marked the deadline for companies to submit their quarterly federal tax payments. That sucked cash out of vehicles like money-market funds as companies transferred it from their accounts to the Treasury. Monday was also the day Treasury Department auctions of $78 billion in debt were scheduled to settle, meaning that $78 billion in cash was turned into securities.
Together, the factors could have “caused a shortage in cash in the system, causing a huge spike in overnight rates,” said Thomas di Galoma, managing director and head of Treasury trading at Seaport Global Holdings, in an email. Another theory: For whatever reason, traders were unprepared for what should’ve been an anticipated crunch in cash. “Term repo rates showed no bump earlier this month to bridge over the obvious one-day pressures that were due on Monday,” writes Jim Vogel, interest-rate strategist at FTN Financial.
  • Ref#4 — I have the same online copy of the book you cite with same ISBN number, but there is nothing except the title "14.4 Risk-Weighting of Assets" on p. 452. Can you confirm?
    • As I said below, I think you have an PDF made from an EPub that doesn't have the original pagination. At p. 452 you should get section "21.2 Wholesale Funding Markets" with the sentence A repo is effectively a form of short-term secured debt collateralized by financial assets. JBchrch talk 14:17, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref#12 — link — I can't access this, WP:AGF here. But shouldn't this be marked as "|url-access-level=subscription"?
    • I'm happy to give you a quote if you want. BTW, do you want me to mark all paywalled sources as such?
  • Ref#17 — link — 35 instances
    • Ref#17.6 — I can't see 1%/9% figure.
      • It's what Figure 2 represents graphically. You don't get the exact numbers, but you see that the top percentiles of the transactions traded with an enormous difference ("spread") compared to the "baseline" rate that is the IOER (from which you can calculate the intraday repo rate). I don't remember exactly but I must have thought that it was a useful ref. I have no strong views about it and can remove it if you think it's not appropriate.
    • Ref#17.26 — Well, OK
    • Ref#17.27 — OK
    • Ref#17.35 — OK
    • Ref#27 — link — OK
  • Ref#36 — link — OK
  • Ref#47 — link — Yes, OK
  • Ref#52 — link — OK

– Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:30, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Kavyansh.Singh. Thank you very much for this. Will get back to you later for the rest, but for Armour and al., I think you have the PDF converted EPub that has not retained the print pagination. Link to Table of contents. JBchrch talk 10:53, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Kavyansh.Singh I think I have replied to all your comments. Thanks again. JBchrch talk 14:17, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you on the pagination issue, might me my fault. I'll still try to take another look and check few other citations in due course, but this is going pretty well! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 19:20, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot! I have the exact same PDF so I guess we both know whose fault it is 😁. JBchrch talk 20:56, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That is what I don't like, when pagination of the books change. But, as you say: "the truth is paywalled but the lies are free"... – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:30, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Few more spot-checks:

  • Ref#13 — Half OK. I don't have access to the 8th edition, so cannot confirm the page number. But yeah, that quote is included in the book (I checked preview of the 5th edition), so the fact verification is OK, page verification is WP:AGF
  • 16.1 — OK
  • 22 — It doesn't explicitly says "daily", but "The New York Fed publishes the EFFR for the prior business day on the New York Fed's website at approximately 9:00 a.m."
  • 35 — OK
  • 40 — OK
  • 3.3 — OK

Would be happy to consider this a pass once the Ref#22 issue is fixed. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:30, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @Kavyansh.Singh. I've made the following fix: [12]. Does that work? JBchrch talk 22:36, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Happy to consider this a pass for spot-checks. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 06:57, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie

[edit]

This looks to be in excellent shape. I know nothing about this topic, so excuse any misunderstandings on my part. Just a handful of comments.

  • 'Over time, a "confluence of factors" has been suggested by market observers and economists as the causes of the rates hike.' The three word quote is a little ugly and I think unnecessary. How about "Over time, market observers and economists have suggested a combination of several factors as the causes of the rates hike"? The word "factor" isn't enough to require a quote.
  • Agreed and fixed.
  • It would also be nice to rephrase the "[a] substantial share..." quote -- there's nothing about that quote that makes it attractive to keep in its present form.
    I tried (both last year and now) to rephrase this quote, but unfortunately I have been unable to come up with something that wouldn't be WP:CLOSEPARA. So I figured I would simply give credit where credit is due. But if you happen to have an idea of how we could phrase it better, I'm of course happy to consider it.
    Now I think I understand that paragraph a little better, here's a suggestion for a possible rephrasing. How about changing the earlier sentence to be "...meaning that their price was paid by their purchasers, many of whom would have been securities dealers, on this date". Then replace the quote sentence with just "The dealers who had purchased these securities would then normally sell them to their customers, but between..."? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:58, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry Mike but I don't feel like the suggested wording would be an improvement. It seems to me like we would lose a lot of the precision which we get from the Schulhofer-Wohl quote, including the mention that the Treasuries are "gradually" sold to the customers for which—thinking it over once again—there's little room for improvement without entering into CLOSEPARA territory. JBchrch talk 05:12, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Between the moment dealers purchase newly issued Treasury securities and the moment they are able to sell them to customers, they lend the securities on the repo market. Thus, there were more Treasury securities to be financed in the market on September 16, but less cash available to borrowers to purchase them." I don't follow this. The dealers have spent their cash on these securities, so I would have expected that meant they would be short of cash, and hence unable to purchase securities on the repo market, meaning that borrowers would not be able to sell securities to these dealers on the repo market, repurchasing them the next day. But this says they "lend" them on the repo market, which makes it sound like they are the ones temporarily giving up the securities for cash, so they are receiving cash. If that's right, why does it matter that they acquired these securities? I suspect I'm failing to understand the underlying transactions here.
    Yeah, this is complicated topic and my sources do not provide a lot of detail about this, including those that I haven't cited in the article; I've slightly rephrased it to maybe adress part of your concern [13]. If I understand your question correctly, I think the aspect that you are missing is that primary dealers who are in the business of purchasing and reselling Treasury securities from the U.S. government are required to place a bid at Treasuries auctions at reasonably competitive prices [14][15] (p. 9). They can't just say "Bro I'm a bit short on cash at the moment, rain check?". But that is ordinarly not a problem because Treasuries and short term cash are normally interchangeable thanks to the repo market. So, loosely speaking, primary dealers will "use up" their cash reserves to purchase Treasury from the government, and will then use the repo market if they need cash between the purchase (from the government) and the sale (to customers). I debated adding a paragraph on this in the #Background section but decided against it because my sources did not really go in depth about this, and generally take as granted the fact that dealers in Treasury securities were short on cash due to the latest issuance. It would also require an explanation of what primary dealers are, which I think would be beyond the article's scope.
    That is definitely clearer. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:58, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can I just check that the reserves were around $10 billion at the end of 2007? It seems it might be a typo for something like $100 billion, given that reserves of $1.4 trillion are described as "such a low amount of reserves".
    There you go: [16]. You can also see it graphically here at page 4, figure 2.
    That's interesting -- so it looks like the low reserve number is because that's about the point at which reserve requirements were increased, in response to 2007-2008 financial crisis? If so a parenthetical or footnoted comment to that effect would help other readers whose eyebrows go up, as mine did. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:11, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't understand—based on what source do you say that? Liquidity requirements can be met using many different instruments (so-called "high quality liquid assets") and don't require the holding of cash in the form of bank reserves. The source says This increase was mainly due to large-scale asset purchases by the Federal Reserve designed to stimulate the economy when short-term interest rates were very close to zero (Gagnon et al., 2011). As a result, most banks now hold more reserves than needed to satisfy reserve requirements. JBchrch talk 13:30, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Struck; I misunderstood what I was looking at. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:46, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The disappearance of market participants' experience in navigating unexpected interest rates spikes of this kind, which were common prior to the 2007–2008 financial crisis" This is cited as a suggested cause, but how can lack of experience in negotiating an event cause an event? I can see it might exacerbate the event once it had begun.
    What the source says is Some observers also reckon markets just need to regain the experience they once had in navigating short-term markets. Before the financial crisis, it was normal for short-term rates to spike for short and often predictable periods. Market participants were aware of these risks and knew how to navigate them, thus containing any broader risks to the financial system. At the heart of it, this whole affair is about trying (and failing) to get the cash available in the financial system to where it was needed and requested (the repo market). But getting cash to the repo market is not an easy thing, and you need expertise in order to do it. Correa, Du & Liao 2020 sort of touch on the different issues that can arise (albeit in a very technical language). If people don't know how to do it, then markets can experience bad shortages this one. But as I'm re-reading my source, I realize that I may be taking some liberty with the source material by designating as a "cause". What do you think?
    What if we took off the bullet point for that line, and made it something like "Observers have also noted that" instead of calling it a cause? I do think "cause" is the wrong word here. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:13, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. I've preferred to remove it altogether. If it can be labelled a cause, then it's not essential to the encyclopedic treatment of this topic. JBchrch talk 23:56, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 05:28, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your review Mike Christie. Please see my answers above. JBchrch talk 19:50, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've struck one point and left a couple of replies above; the other two I need to think about some more, and I'm out of time this morning. More tonight, or possibly tomorrow. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:14, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I'm not convinced that the quote discussed above can't be effectively paraphrased, but that's a minor point and I see no reason to hold up support for that. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 08:40, 29 January 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) 28 January 2022 [17].

Seychelles parakeet

[edit]
Nominator(s): FunkMonk (talk) 22:48, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about an obscure, extinct parakeet, which I happened to have a lot of sources about, so finally thought it should get the treatment. There is also a little bit of nice art history in the mix. FunkMonk (talk) 22:48, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Image review—pass, no licensing issues found (t · c) buidhe 22:54, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm seeing a big gap to the left of the image captioned "Two male Alexandrine parakeets..." and above the table. IIRC there was a similar issue at a prior FAC and it was fixed by editing the syntax so the descent table could split if there was not space for both schemas. (t · c) buidhe 22:54, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I usually don't see those on my screen. Pinging Jts1882, who might be able to fix it. I think it has something to do with the space between the two cladograms, which should somehow be narrower. FunkMonk (talk) 22:59, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I decreased the space, but can't say if it solved the problem on your screen yet. FunkMonk (talk) 01:30, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Looks fine now. (t · c) buidhe 01:38, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I assume the space is due to a narrow screen. I can still get it if I reduce the screen window so that the image is wider than 40% (the div containing the cladograms is now width:60%). One option is to change the container for the two cladograms so that they appear vertically on narrow screens. —  Jts1882 | talk  08:10, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I think it was fixed (I reduced it from 75% to 60%), but I might ping you again if others have problems. FunkMonk (talk) 08:55, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

AryKun

[edit]

Placeholder, will review soon. AryKun (talk) 16:59, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Some very minor stuff that was easier to do myself. Overall nice work here, mostly very minor comments.
Thanks for edits! FunkMonk (talk) 14:01, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the first sentence, should it be Seychelles islands parakeet? Also, maybe capitalized "islands"?
The source I've seen using that name (Greenway) just says "Seychelles Island Parrot". Since the entire name was capitalised, I can't say if that was the intention for "island" too, since Wikipedia doesn't capitalise bird names, but did it anyway. FunkMonk (talk) 14:01, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • rare by 1867, → comma unnecessary
Removed. FunkMonk (talk) 14:01, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1937 checklist of birds → 1937 Check-list of Birds of the World
I wasn't intending to specifically spell out the name of the book (I leave that for the reflist), check lists are a pretty common category of animal literature. FunkMonk (talk) 14:01, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does Indian Ocean really need a link?
Well, since it's pretty important to the story, I don't think it can hurt. FunkMonk (talk) 14:01, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is the link to stepping stones relevant?
Linked to Oceanic dispersal instead. FunkMonk (talk) 14:01, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • species to group within → species to form a group within
Same meaning just more wordy, but took your suggestion. FunkMonk (talk) 14:01, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could the gloss for paraphyletic be improved (perhaps something like "grouping that excludes some of its subgroups")
Said "an unnatural grouping excluding some of its subgroups". FunkMonk (talk) 14:01, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "[male]" should be after "one of them" instead of where it currently is.
Since this is a direct quote from the source, I can't really change it. FunkMonk (talk) 14:01, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • doomed to extinction, by being → comma unnecessary
Removed. FunkMonk (talk) 14:01, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

[edit]

More dead parrots! I'll have a look. Ping me if I don't get started over the next couple of days. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:07, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, in fact a relative of the last one you reviewed. FunkMonk (talk) 22:06, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "41 cm (16.1 in)". Spurious accuracy. Maybe "|sigfig=2"?
Added, but seems like it didn't do anything. Don't know much about these number thingies... FunkMonk (talk) 22:06, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed.
  • "of which only the granitic mountain tops remain above sea level". Perhaps 'of which he believed/claimed/whatever only the granitic mountain tops remain above sea level', as it ain't the case.
I'm not sure I follow, it's not considered controversial. I've added links to Granitic Seychelles and Seychelles Microcontinent for further details. FunkMonk (talk) 22:06, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK. It reads as if the whole of Gondwanaland has sunk: "the ancient landmass Gondwanaland, of which only the granitic mountain tops remain above sea level". Perhaps a tweak.
The source isn't much more specific, but tried with "of which only their granitic mountain tops remain above sea level", to make it clearer we're referring to the islands, not the ancient landmass. This is how the source puts it: "The granitic Seychelles are an ancient part of the Gondwanaland continental landmass of which only the mountain tops now remain above sea level (Plummer & Belle 1995)." FunkMonk (talk) 14:15, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What the source says and the article doesn't is "are an ancient part of"
Moved "ancient" back before "part of the landmass", should have basically the same meaning either way. FunkMonk (talk) 20:35, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK.
  • "because they did not continue further west." Should "west" be 'east'?
They came from Asia towards the Seychelles and Mascarenes, so west is correct. FunkMonk (talk) 22:06, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "colonised Asia and Africa via these islands rather than vice versa". I don't follow. What is the vice versa?
The alternative is that they came to the islands from Asia and Africa. So the study suggests the ancestors of these birds evolved on the islands and then spread from there to the continents. It's an odd idea that doesn't seem to have been supported by later (or earlier) articles, though. I tweaked it a bit, not sure if it's enough. FunkMonk (talk) 22:06, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Whew. OK. That sounds kinda wacky. Possible I suppose, but still. I think it needs explaining a bit more clearly - maybe something like 'This indicated to them that Indian Ocean islands have been key stepping stones for evolutionary radiation of these species. This suggests that the ancestors of the Seychelles parakeet and other species may have evolved on the islands and colonised Asia and Africa rather than vice versa.'?
The article doesn't say it explicitly, it says "With a number of island-endemic Psittacula taxa inferred as early divergences within their clades, the islands of the Indian Ocean appear to have been key stepping stones in the adaptive radiation of this genus. The extinct P. wardi, which was endemic to the Seychelles, is the first divergence in the P. eupatria species group (all of which occur in continental Asia), and P. echo, endemic to the island of Mauritius, is deep within the P. krameri clade (species of which occur in Africa and Continental Asia), suggesting that Psittacula parrots may have colonised Asia and Africa via the islands of the Indian Ocean rather than vice versa. Analyses of other vertebrate groups in the region have also indicated that Indian Ocean islands have been critical in ‘seeding’ continents (Warren et al., 2010)." So I'm a bit wary of being more specific than the source, though it certainly seems to be what it implies. Since these authors also mention a related group of parrots from Australasia are closely related, it appears they don't rule out they could have come from there, though they don't state so explicitly at all. It's all a bit ambiguous, so I added "They suggested" to make it clearer it's a claim... FunkMonk (talk) 14:15, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ho hum. I take your point. Ok, it needs mentioning and what you have is probably least bad. In passing, some of that paraphrasing looks a little close.
Shook it up by replacing "key" with "important" and replacing "vice versa" with "the other way around". FunkMonk (talk) 20:35, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That should do it.
  • "which had previously only been mentioned in writing". But you include a 1907 illustration yourself! If you mean the specific image, then maybe tweak the image. Someone must have seen it, if only to mention it in writing. OK, you repeat this later in the paragraph; I suggest deleting the first mention.
This refers specifically to North's painting, which I think the full sentence makes clear: "and published an 1883 painting of the Seychelles parakeet for the first time, which had previously only been mentioned in writing". It's the painting, not the bird, that is referred to. I've added "by North" after "painting" to make it clearer. The 1907 image is unrelated to that point, and is actually just based on the image in the taxobox that was drawn after dead birds. The article body also says "Newton and his brother, British ornithologist Alfred Newton, published an illustration depicting both sexes in 1876 by the Dutch artist John Gerrard Keulemans, based on subsequently received specimens." The caption to the North painting already says it's the only depiction from life, so should be a given the others are not. FunkMonk (talk) 22:06, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How would you feel about something along the lines of "which had previously only been mentioned in writing" → '; the image had only previously been known from North's written account.'?
The painting had also been mentioned by others than North, though, reproductions of it were just never published. I tried with "which had previously only been mentioned in writing by North and others", if that's any good. I've also added this sentence for clarity: "Keulemans' illustration of the species for the British zoologist Walter Rothschild's 1907 book Extinct Birds was based on his earlier illustration." FunkMonk (talk) 14:15, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I like that. Re North, how would you feel about 'he located and published for the first time an 1883 painting by North of the Seychelles parakeet for the first time, which had previously only been mentioned in writing by North and others.'?
Took your suggestion. FunkMonk (talk) 20:35, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "make daily flights" → 'making daily flights'.
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 22:06, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lead: "The last confirmed individual was shot in 1893, and no birds could be found by 1906." Article: "In 1907, the British zoologist Walter Rothschild said the bird was confined to the islet of Silhouette, where it would probably become extinct."
Hume's 2017 statement that they probably did not survive past 1906 is more well-founded than Rothschild's 1907 claim (he is notorious for hearsay, but was influential). The IUCN (the ultimate authority on these matters) says "The last known individuals were shot in 1893, and none were found on a survey in 1906", in accordance with Hume FunkMonk (talk) 22:06, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I can work that out. But if Rothchild's claim is unreliable A. Why is it in the article at all? B. Why isn't it clearly labelled as unreliable?
Well, there's a few aspects to this, first, most historical ideas like this tend to be considered inaccurate later on, but they should be kept for historical context, as long as newer sources that give the current views are included. Rothschild was highly influential at the time, and he can't really be ignored, and we wouldn't for example exclude the historical claim that the Earth was flat from the Earth article just because the idea is outdated. Also, as the article explains, he wasn't the only early 20th century writer who speculated the birds may have survived later, but these claims are trumped by the newer sources (Greenway, Hume) cited at the end of the article, and the fact that no birds were observed by 1906. While some sources have questioned Rothschild's reliability when it came to other of his ideas, none comment on this particular statement. Also, hindsight is always easier, Rothschild lived when the bird still existed, so it wouldn't be too far fetched for him to think it survived; his book is from 1907, it was only the year before that no birds were reported, and his book had possibly been in the works for a considerable time by then. FunkMonk (talk) 14:15, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK, then maybe end the sentence with something like ', although this is no longer believed to be the case'?
Hmmm, I think the section already does this by ending on "Hume considered the species highly unlikely to have survived past 1906"? Since the section is written with the claims coming chronologically, it seems a bit like retroactive editorialising to add it earlier. We also have "Peters speculated in 1937 that they still survived on Silhouette" even later on, so it would be odd to single out Rothschild. In any case, no one knows exactly when it went extinct, but I've added the following, which is a bit of a middle ground view that I overlooked: "Forshaw stated in 2017 that the species probably disappeared some time after the last specimen was collected in 1893 and Nicoll's 1906 visit when no birds were reported." FunkMonk (talk) 20:35, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's it! Good.

That is all I could find. Excellently written. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:38, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Supporting. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:51, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review from Ealdgyth

[edit]
Otherwise everything looks good. Ealdgyth (talk) 23:57, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Researchgate is just a site for researchers to upload their published papers to make them available. The article itself is from the scientific journal Phelsuma.[18] FunkMonk (talk) 07:28, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

HF - support

[edit]

Looks interesting- will review soon. Hog Farm Talk 18:23, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Psittacula eupatria wardi (Newton, 1867)" - I may well be misunderstanding how scientific synonyms and attribution work, but the article indicates that someone other than Newton referred to it as this?
Yeah, it can be confusing, but the standard is that even a new combination of a name is still attributed to the original namer, just with their name in parenthesis. FunkMonk (talk) 15:34, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The British ornithologist Michael John Nicoll did not see them when he visited in 1906" - is this just Mahe or all of the relevant islands?
Looks like he only visited Mahé and Praslin[19], but the secondary sources don't specify. But it's kind of hard to cite his books directly for an omission, which would be a bit WP:synthy... Personally, I think it's a bit of a weak rationale to base its extinction on him just not mentioning it, who knows if he even looked for it, but multiple secondary sources use this reasoning. FunkMonk (talk) 15:34, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sources look fine, so far as I can tell
  • Image licensing is fine

Couldn't find much to pick on here, excellent work. Hog Farm Talk 03:20, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, answered the above. FunkMonk (talk) 15:34, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Wehwalt

[edit]

Support Very interesting. Just a couple of things:

  • "much of the bird fauna is little differentiated from that of the mainland at the genus level" What mainland is being referred to?
Presumable Africa and Asia, the Hume source only says "much of the Seychelles avifauna is little differentiated from the mainland at the generic level (Prys-Jones & Diamond 1984), and can be considered comparatively recent." I skimmed the citation he mentions, but it doesn't seem to clarify it either. FunkMonk (talk) 21:14, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Forshaw stated in 2017 that the species probably disappeared some time after the last specimen was collected in 1893 and Nicoll's 1906 visit when no birds were reported.[6]" In other words, some time after 1906? It could be clearer.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:56, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Forshaw is as ambiguous "Seychelles Parakeets disappeared sometime after 1893, when the last specimen was collected on Mahé, and 1906, when M. J. Nicoll visited the islands and subsequently made no mention of seeing them in his account of the visit (in Greenway 1967)." I guess it can be interpreted as if it could either have gone extinct between 1893 and 1906, or some time after 1906. FunkMonk (talk) 21:14, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, some answers above. FunkMonk (talk) 21:14, 23 January 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) 28 January 2022 [20].

It's Elementary: Talking About Gay Issues in School

[edit]
Nominator(s): SL93 (talk) 19:37, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a documentary that focuses on LGBTQ topics being taught in schools. The article has passed GA. An editor left a few suggestions on the article talk page that I tried to complete. Another editor did mention that some FA reviewers are only interested in articles that are very long. I do feel that if the article is not long enough, it is close to reaching that as an article about a documentary. It was suggested to me by another editor to look at similar FA film articles so I did and the closest thing that I could find is Trembling Before G-d that passed FA in 2010. I was hoping to find something more recent. I doubt that Trembling Before G-d would pass a FA review in 2022. SL93 (talk) 19:37, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

support from theleekycauldron

[edit]
Source review
[edit]

Version review :D

@SL93: Oh, sorry, one more thing; make sure you're consistent about whether you're using title case or sentence case in sourcing (if you want to use sentence case for newspapers/websites, you may want to start separating sources by type) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 01:31, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
theleekycauldron I'm confused. I just copy and pasted the titles from the sources. SL93 (talk) 01:40, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@SL93: in general, it's better to use a consistent article citation style rather than copy the capitalization used from the article. So, if you want to use title case, e.g. "Titanic Sinks Four Hours After Hitting Iceberg", use that consistently throughout the article; if you want so use sentence case, e.g. "Titanic sinks four hours after hitting iceberg", use that consistently instead. MOS:SMALLCAPS is kind of a guideline here? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 02:07, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
theleekycauldron Done. SL93 (talk) 02:23, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, SL93! this has my support :D great work! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 02:30, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Other comments
[edit]

General

Background

  • The list of cities comes out a little weird; why separate with semicolons?
    • Possibly rephrase to "The schools are in San Francisco and New York City, as well as Madison, Wisconsin and Cambridge, Massachusetts."

Synopsis

  • "encourages her students to brainstorm on the words "gay" and "lesbian," and to talk about the roots of their associations, assumptions, and attitudes": quotes within quotes should be single-quoted (i just said quote a lot)
  • "about gay and lesbians" should be fixed either way
  • "The educators of the toured elementary and middle schools were teaching about homosexuality to their students in multiple ways." I'd recommend "The teachers that were surveyed had varying methods of educating about homosexuality". Some of it's stylistic, some of it's "technically correct", I just think it flows better.
  • "a man and a woman who are homosexual" per the same guideline up above, "homosexual" usually isn't fantastic to use—probably "a gay man and a lesbian woman"?
  • "The film includes similar situations in other classrooms" I read that to mean similar to the last example—clarify?
  • You also probably want to make it clear in the list of examples that they're meant to show the various teaching methods

Release

  • Does the AFA need to be abbreviated if it's a single-mention org.?
  • B. J. Bullert's line seems a little pedestrian—clarify how it relates to scheduling and release?

Reception

  • Should probably be "Reception and impact"
  • According to this source, the film won "Best documentary" at four film festivals (the article mentions two) as well as many, many other awards—this may take a dedicated paragraph?
  • "that are out of context and makes it seem that children are being 'taught to be homosexual in the classroom'": "makes" should probably be "make", and "being taught to be" is a little redundant—"children are "taught to be" works fine
  • "A 1999 journal article from the Women's International League for Peace and Freedom states, 'With inspiring footage shot in schools across the country, the film takes viewers inside first through eighth grade classrooms to find out what young students have to say about a topic that often leaves adults tongue-tied'" — While the beginning is editorial ("inspiring"), and the end is as well ("adults tongue-tied"), i think the middle is just kind of summarizing synopsis. Is there a way to slim this down?
  • "The AFA's film has comments from It's Elementary: Talking About Gay Issues in School"—It's Elementary is probably sufficient here
  • "Philanthropist James Hormel contributed $12,000 to the funding of the film."—Possibly use {{Currency}}, and clarify which film Hormel donated to?
  • "ambassadorship to be blocked by the senate"—senate should be U.S. Senate
  • As much as I love the word "skewers", I'm not convinced it's formal enough for an encyclopedic article

Legacy

  • "said that the flm [sic]"—i'm assuming "flm" is a typo
  • "being able to be included"—should probably just be "being included"
  • "just like the first two films" should probably be "Similar to the first two films"
  • I'd recommend that the second-to-last sentence use the word "follow-up", since it's an easy keyword for people to remember.

That's about all I've got—fantastic work so far, SL93! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 08:06, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@SL93: I've finished adding responses to your responses :) and I added one more thing in the source review section (sorry i didn't see it beforehand) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 00:31, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notes

  1. ^ Ref 5, this unused source, and https://books.google.com/books?id=1uWRAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA23 that url that for some reason doesn't like to exist
  2. ^ I realize that some of the sources don't adhere to that either, but some of these sources are also over 25 years old.


I just fixed a harv error, but looking through the citations there are a bunch of sources using First Last instead of Last, First. Last, First is standard for CS2 templates --Guerillero Parlez Moi 10:10, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Guerillero I took care of it, but I'm not sure it was "a bunch of sources". SL93 (talk) 00:38, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Kavyansh

[edit]
Part I
[edit]

As promised, I am here to help! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 13:04, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Perhaps, a link to gay and lesbian would be helpful in the lead.
  • "It received positive reception, but it also received backlash from conservatives" — "backlash from conservatives" sounds a bit too POV. How about "criticism from few conservatives"?
  • "It's Elementary: Talking About Gay Issues in School was released" — why is the name repeated How about "The film was released"?
  • "The film did not receive much support from PBS" — a casual reader might ask: why is receiving support from PBS important?
  • "from the American Family Association (AFA)." — AFA is not used in the lead again. Do we need to define the abbreviation?
  • " "calls, letters and e-mails urging them not to broadcast It's Elementary" " — although the lead section usually does not has citations, direct quotations need to be cited anywhere/everywhere. Also, the text doesn't make clear who said/wrote this quotation
  • "at the San Francisco International Lesbian and Gay Film Festival and the Chicago International Gay and Lesbian Film Festival" — our articles calls it "Frameline Film Festival" and "Reeling: The Chicago LGBTQ+ International Film Festival". Why are the names changed?
  • "among others, the CINE Golden Eagle for Teacher Education and Best Educational Film at the Northern Lights International Film Festival, and other awards." — "among others" and "and other awards" is repetitive
  • "The film had the two sequels That's A Family!" — would a colon mark after "sequels" be helpful?
  • "Chasnoff wanted to" — we were never introduced to who "Chasnoff" is. First instance in the prose (separate from lead) warrants a full name.
  • "involving people who are gay" — 'gay' here is used as gay men or the broader term for homosexuals?
  • "Chasnoff and producer Cohen" — first instance of "Cohen" warrants a full name
  • "It was hard for them to gain entry into the schools and multiple staff and parents did not want to be recorded" — either replace "schools and multiple" with "schools as multiple", or add a semi colon in place of "and"
  • "The schools are in San Francisco and New York City, as well as Madison, Wisconsin and Cambridge, Massachusetts" — Missing MOS:GEOCOMMA, and why is SF and NYC separately mentioned?
  • "It was directed by Debra Chasnoff and Helen Cohen" — perhaps, the full names should be moved to previous instance and last names (without links) should be used here
  • " "encourages her students to brainstorm on the words 'gay' and 'lesbian', and to talk about the roots of their associations, assumptions, and attitudes" " — citation needed immediately after the quotation
  • "named Love Makes a Family" — suggesting "named "Love Makes a Family" "
  • "educator resources and special features" — oxford comma after 'resources'
  • "on at least 60 PBS stations" — PBS should be linked
  • "In 1999, PBS refused to" — PBS should be de-linked
  • "due to backlash from the American Family Association" — add '(AFA)', as this abbreviation is later used in the prose.
  • " "Schools cannot be neutral when we're dealing with issues of human dignity and human rights". " — shouldn't the full stop be inside the quotes?
  • "set up billboards that opposed the film" — suggesting "set up billboards opposing the film"
  • "The AFA's film has comments from It's Elementary that are out of context and make it seem that children are "taught to be homosexual in the classroom"" — opinion presented as a fact. We'll need attribution for the quote.
  • "contributed US$12,000" — unlink "US$", and do we need to specify that it is US dollar. Seems obvious in this context.
  • "the U.S. Senate" — suggesting to spell U.S., as we have used that format in this article
  • "Frameline Film Festival" v. "San Francisco International Lesbian and Gay Film Festival" — consistency needed
    Done. SL93 (talk) 01:09, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "LQBTQ issues" — did you mean "LGBTQ issues"
  • " "divorced, adoptive, guardian, parents with drugs, multi-racial, multi-religious, or disabled" " — citation needed immediately after the quote.
  • I found few additional sources (book and film reviews). Will they help?
    • Asher, Nina (2002). "It's Elementary; Talking About Gay Issues in School; Two Teenagers Tn 20: Writings by Gay and Lesbian Youth". Theory & Research in Social Education. 30 (2): 313–319. doi:10.1080/00933104.2002.10473199. ISSN 0093-3104.
    • Miletta, Alexandra (2008). "It's STILL Elementary: The Movie and the Movement". Encounter. Vol. 38, no. 1. pp. 49–50. ISSN 1094-3838.
    @SL93: I'm less experienced in this area than Kavyansh.Singh is, but my reading of the comprehensiveness requirement would say that if there's a major and verifiable fact in the sources that's not in the article, it would need to be included to pass that requirement. I've already indicated my support, and this is Kavyansh's section, of course, so I'll defer to them on this. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 02:31, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Theleekycauldron My issue would then be that the fact or facts need to be pointed out to me first. SL93 (talk) 02:34, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I also don't have access to those sources. SL93 (talk) 02:36, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Never mind. I have access through the Wikipedia Library. It doesn't seem that Kavyansh was asking for me to add major facts though - I also wouldn't know what is major to the reviewer. I will wait for a response from them. SL93 (talk) 02:43, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @SL93: I did not directly asked you to include that source. As a reviewer, I tried to find additional sources that may help the article. I have not checked all the sources used in the article, and I do not know if the information available in the works I suggest is unique or already available elsewhere. As nominator and a major contributor to the article, I'd expect that you can better judge whether the sources I suggest are useful or not, if they include a "major fact" or not.

    As to @Theleekycauldron's question, I am not very experienced either, and take my word with a grain of salt, but here is my 2-cent: For FAs, it is expected that if a source is WP:HQRS and it has a unique perspective to add to the topic, it should be cited. Wider topics like Harry S. Truman 1948 presidential campaign (one of my FA), which usually have many sources and citations (it has an entire 200 page book written on it), comprehensiveness is usually not a issue. However, for relatively short articles like this one, "Daisy", or your FAC, we really need to find sources. There is no clear-cut definition for what a comprehensive article is. We have also have a FA less than 4,000 characters long, but that is as comprehensive as it can be.

    For this particular case, I trust SL93's judgement whether the two sources are important/reliable enough to be added, but I'll expect a better rationale for not using them. Will take another look soon. Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 13:28, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Kavyansh.Singh My issue for the first reference is that it is an article for a non-notable teacher's lesson plan that also involves two other things and not just the film. For the second reference, it is about the sequel and this article is not about the sequel. I'm not so sure about adding more information for something that isn't the topic of the article. I don't even have the title of the sequel redirecting to this article just in case it can have its own article. SL93 (talk) 17:02, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough. Rest, I did not find ant other major source for the article. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:34, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That is it for now. Nice article! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 14:58, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Part II
[edit]

Looking much better, just a few more optional suggestions:

  • " who did want PBS program directors to broadcast It's Elementary". " (both in the lead and prose) — erroneous quote mark
  • "It was directed by Chasnoff and Helen Cohen" — just the last name of Cohen would be sufficient. Full name has already been used once.
  • "and special features. The special features are deleted scenes," — suggesting "and special features like deleted scenes,"
  • "at Ohio State University" — "at the Ohio State University"?
  • "by the Director of the Franklin County Education Council Brad Mitchell" — my reading of MOS:JOBTITLE suggests that 'Director' should be lowercased
  • What is your approach to citing sources as short-footnotes (Sfn)? I see that a book which is used twice has been Sfn-ed. But multiple sources which are used more than once are not.

– Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:34, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kavyansh.Singh Is this a support? Thanks for the great review. SL93 (talk) 14:33, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I support this nomination for its promotion as a featured article. Sorry for the delay, was bit busy ... And I don't feel there was anything great with my review. Its a pleasure reading, reviewing, and gaining knowledge, all at the same time! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 04:48, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Tim riley

[edit]

As regards the nominator's worry about the length of the article, my view is that the only measure is that an article should be as long as it needs to be, and no longer. This one seems to me to meet that criterion. A few minor points, none of which affect my support, but may, I hope, be helpful:

  • Lead
  • "The film was the first to provide educators with information on how to prevent discrimination against people who are gay" – the first in America or the first in the world? The former, I imagine, but it would be as well to clarify this.
  • "It received positive reception, but it also received backlash …The film did not receive much support" – wouldn't hurt to trim the repetitions of "received" – along the lines of, e.g., "was generally well received, although there was some backlash from conservatives" or some such.
  • Synopsis
  • There seems to be some inconsistency in the use of present -v- past tenses: "An eighth-grade teacher dismantled stereotypes … A principal of an elementary school held a photography event … A girl with lesbian parents read a Mother's Day essay … A fifth-grade teacher notices that her students have no issues … A Puerto Rican teacher states that her heritage was part of her not being open to LGBTQ matters".
  • Reception and impact
  • Senator Bob Smith of New Hampshire thought that the film discredits a speech that Smith gave in the Senate – I'd be cautious about "thought", here. He may have said so, but it is speculative to say what he thought.

That's all from me. Happy to support the promotion of the article to FA. – Tim riley talk 14:59, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tim riley Thanks for the support. I fixed the issues. As for being the first, there was an editor who was wondering if it really was the first such film even though the reliable source said it was "the first of its kind". I changed the sentences in the lead and body to say that the book mentioned it as "the first of its kind". Do you think that is a fair compromise? SL93 (talk) 19:08, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A shrewd move, I'd say. Tim riley talk 19:38, 20 January 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) 25 January 2022 [21].

Jadran (training ship)

[edit]
Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:47, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is unusual for me, in that it is about a sail training ship, not a warship. AFAIK it is the first sail training ship to come to FAC. Jadran was commissioned in the early 1930s for the Royal Yugoslav Navy, served with the Italians in a training role after she was captured by them in WWII, and was restored to socialist Yugoslavia following the war. She remained in Yugoslav hands until the wars in the 90s, and is now part of the Montenegrin Navy. Her ownership remains disputed between Croatia and Montenegro. The article recently passed GAN and Milhist A-Class review. Have at it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:47, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

All done I think, Nikkimaria. I've had to just make a few tweaks because I can't find a live link for the dead one, the metadata makes it clear it is a USN image. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:52, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria is this a pass for image review? (t · c) buidhe 02:31, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:32, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have collapsed this "review", the reasons I won't be addressing the comments are within. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:59, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose by CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

[edit]

Sorry to be harsh, but the article does not met criteria 4 - length and summary style. Here are some of the examples that I found:

  • Return to Yugoslav service: There is a substantial amount of detail on this section, but I see no organization of facts here. Furthermore, I saw a lot of "fluff", such as:
    • Her hull was in a terrible state, with many hull plates rusting, and her deck planking removed, burned or rotten. Her sails, some rigging, instruments and engines were all missing, and her topmasts, gaffs and yards were rotten. Everything else that was flammable had been burned. (Why this level of detail matter? Can a shorter phrase such as "The ship is in a poor state." do the job just as well?)
    • This involved removing, cleaning and replacing the ballast, renewing the pine deck planking, the replacement of several hull plates and frames, and the kitchen funnel was redirected into a funnel within the main mast in a similar manner as the engine exhaust was ported through the mizzen mast. The lower row of portholes was also removed, which provides a useful visual means of determining when a photograph of the ship was taken. (Again, why this long?)
    • Due to the constant training and periodic refits, the standing crew received less and less training, but all officers and men of the navy spent at least some time aboard her during their naval education. (redundant?)
    • and so on, the examples are not exhaustive
  • Rump Yugoslavia and Montenegro: This section is better in my opinion, since it summarize the details better. However, I have a feeling that this is a mess of details, meaning that there is no "overarching" story here.


It seems like military history stuff are often written in strict chronological order, which can make the article very disorganized, as stuff from one topic are detached from each other. I would really like to see a major rewamp on summarizing facts. Do keep in mind that summarizing is not equal to simplifying: the key thing here is to make the facts organized and clean, with no excess wording. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 06:34, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Sorry to be harsh", CactiStaccingCrane? Brace yourself. I consider your opposition is an ill-considered and precipitous intervention. While you have been here for nearly six months and have over 6,000 edits, the vast majority of your edits relate to the Space X project. Great effort so far on that, getting it to GA (BTW, it could do with a criticism section detailing all the main negative things that have been observed by experts about the project if you want to get it to FA). However, I note the above was your very first FAC review/comment, and that nine minutes after your single intervening edit [22] you then commented/reviewed (and again opposed) at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Nonmetal/archive3, whose primary editor is Sandbh, who has had three previously successful FAC nominations of articles about metals and presumably has some idea what is needed at FA for such articles. Nonmetal is ~4,300 words long, and at a fast reading speed of 160 wpm, would take 27 minutes to read. That alone should give the FAC coordinators pause in giving any credence to your oppose here (and there). I further note that Sandbh intends to take no further action on your comments/oppose. I don't blame them, it is clearly a drive-by oppose from an inexperienced reviewer who doesn't appear to have read the whole article. Nine minutes after you finalised your comments on the Nonmetal review, you made a comment at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Wisconsin Territorial Centennial half dollar/archive1 stating "I support this nomination on criteria 1d, 1e, 2b and 4. These criteria are often overlooked in FAC". Wisconsin Territorial Centennial half dollar is over 2,000 words long, and would take a fast reader over 12 minutes to read. On what possible basis could you draw the conclusion that those criteria are "often overlooked in FAC"? Your entire experience of reviewing FACs at that point began about one hour earlier (I'm being kind here, allowing you half an hour to review this article, which at 4,900 words would take fast reader more than that time). It also seems entirely unlikely you even read all of two (and maybe all) of the articles you reviewed. The following day you commented on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Nicoll Highway MRT station/archive1. This type of drive-by reviewing (and especially opposing in such a manner) is highly disrespectful to Wikipedia and to the editors who have spent many hours locating and checking sources, developing an article, checking it and proof reading it, and taking it through multiple levels of review such as GAN and Milhist A-Class before even getting to FAC. Every article can be improved with fresh eyes, but this sort of behaviour is quite shocking to me, to the extent that I have never struck it before in over 70 FAC nominations. Before reviewing this article, did you familiarise yourself with other FAs or even GAs on wind-powered ships? I have made major contributions to over 20 successful FAC nominations of ship articles (all written in essentially with the same structure, style and level of detail, although this is the first (partly) wind-powered ship article I have developed to this level), and have also reviewed dozens of other ship articles written by other experienced ship article writers at FAC over a decade on WP, and they are all roughly similar in style and detail, although there are of course variations, and of course they could all be improved, even after they are promoted to FA. Your comments aren't based on any experience reviewing at FAC or on having developed articles to FA standard, and they don't reflect the consensus on structure, style or levels of detail expected for a ship article to be comprehensive and meet the FA criteria. I note you have only done one? GAN review so far. I strongly recommend you gain experience reviewing at the GA level to build your knowledge and skills as a reviewer across all article aspects rather than jumping in at FAC which can take a while to get the hang of. For the record, @FAC coordinators: I intend to disregard this "review" for the above reasons, and take no action on the comments made. I will hat it shortly. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:22, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support by A. C. Santacruz

[edit]
  • Note the most I know about sail ships or navies is the 3 years I spent competing in Optimist races as a kid, so many terms and such are unfamiliar to me.
Lead
[edit]
  • I find it unusual that the dates for building and commissioning are not in the same sentence. It forces the reader to go back and check the previous sentence to see when it was built.
Fair enough, fixed I think. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:39, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • After the outbreak of World War II, Yugoslavia was neutral, and short cruises were conducted in the Adriatic Sea. could probably be better phrased as "As Yugoslavia was neutral at the outbreak of WWII, Jadran was able to conduct short cruises in the Adriatic Sea."
Sure, done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:39, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • and Jadran was captured by the Italians who renamed her Marco Polo. is a weird way to phrase the sentence. "Jadran was captured and renamed to Marco Polo by Italy/the Italian Navy/the Italian Armed Forces" is more readable.
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:39, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • She continued to be used as [a] training ship, operating out of Pola on the Istrian Peninsula to cruise in the Adriatic, [...] also has the same issue as previous sentences were there are many clauses in a sentence that are structured one after another rather than cohesively. "She continued to be used as a training ship in the Adriatic, based in the Istrian port/city of Pola, [...]" might be better.
Great, done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:39, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • When the Italians capitulated in September 1943, she was being refitted in Venice and was captured by the Germans, who utilised her as a stationary training ship, and in the final few months of the war as a coal depot ship and floating bridge. should be divided in two as there are two many clauses in this sentence. "During the Italian capitulation in September 1943 she was captured by the Germans while being refitted in Venice. Thereafter, the Germans used her as a stationary training ship and, in the final months of the war, as a coal depot ship and floating bridge." is one way to do so.
Much better. Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:39, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • She underwent major overhauls in 1956 and between 1967 and 1969, and in 1984 undertook her first long-distance cruise in two decades. Not sure how relevant this is for the lead, but I'm sure editors with more experience in this topic can judge that better.
The resumption of long-distance work is important, but dropped the overhauls. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:39, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jadran had been sent to Tivat in the Bay of Kotor for a refit from her home port of Split -> "was undergoing a refit/was being reffited in the Bay of Kotor".
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:39, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • She also sailed to the UK in 2005 for the 200th anniversary of the Battle of Trafalgar celebrations. this reads weirdly in the middle of two sentences about her disputed ownership. I suggest merging it with the later sentence on her Barcelona trip like so (at the end of the paragraph): "She sailed in 2005 to take part in celebrations of the 200th anniversary of the Battle of Trafalgar and in 2008 to Barcelona for the World Conservation Congress."
Implemented something similar. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:39, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • If her overhaul history is worth mentioning in the lead, I suggest doing so at the end, as overhauls don't seem to affect her ownership history or use between the wars. "She has gone through major overhauls in 1956, 1967-1969, and 2013."
Dropped. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:39, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your excellent comments thus far, A. C. Santacruz. Let me know if you don't think I have addressed any sufficiently? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:39, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll check in a bit. Sorry I only commented on the beginning and not the rest! I'm unfamiliar with the whole "long cruise" thing (a previous comment I have since removed was to "drop the unnecessary adjective" lol), I'd appreciate if you could briefly tell me why it's an important event for training sailing ships, Peacemaker67. Have a good weekend :) Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 08:14, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your observations are appreciated. Regarding long-distance cruises, for much of her career she was limited to cruising the Adriatic, so highlighting in the lead that she returned to long-distance cruising is in my view an important change in circumstances to be included in the lead. Have a good weekend. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:24, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarification, Peacemaker67.A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 10:16, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Background
[edit]
  • [...], this arrangement was not suitable, [...] why?
Explained. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:21, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • As budget allocations to the navy were insufficient to purchase a sailing training ship of the required size due to the Royal Yugoslav Army being allocated the vast majority of military funding,[4] in 1925 the semi-official Yugoslav naval association, Jadranska straža (Adriatic Guard), decided to launch an appeal for donations, to be used to purchase one. This sentence is a bit too long. How about "The Royal Yugoslav Army was allocated the vast majority of military funding, leaving the Navy without sufficient funds to purchase a sufficiently-large sailing training ship. Therefore, in 1925 the semi-official Yugoslav naval association Jadranska straža (Adriatic Guard) launched an appeal for donations in order to purchase such a ship."? I think saying "sailing" is unnecessary after the first few mentions as it is understood that the article is referring to training ships of the sailing kind.
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:21, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Discussion of the funds raised is split between this section and the next. I don't necessarily understand why that is. Isn't Despite the shortfall, the Ministry of the Army and Navy then allocated an initial sum of four million dinars for the planned sailing training ship. The remaining funds were to be obtained via loans and German World War I reparations to the Kingdom of Serbia, the territory of which was now part of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia. more suitable for this section than the next, which can then start discussing the design once the ship had actually been ordered?
Sure, good point. Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:21, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Design and construction
[edit]
  • Josip Škarica, a naval engineer. I'd either say "naval engineer Josip Škarica" or remove the naval engineer clarification altogether, as it is my understanding that only naval engineers design ship usually, no?
went with the former. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:28, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The construction contract specified a price of 580,375 Reichsmarks or 7,916,052 dinars. Does this mean the contract specified payment could be done in either currency or that it was to be paid in Reichsmarks equivalent to x dinars?
the latter, clarified. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:28, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Despite the fact that the Stülcken shipyard had not built a steel sailing ship since 1902,[4] the navy had ordered four small tugs from it two years earlier and had been pleased with the vessels when they were delivered.[5] I'd move this to right after talking about the shipyard, as it flows more nicely. See: "It was ordered on 4 September 1930 from the H. C. Stülcken Sohn shipyard in Hamburg, Germany, based on plans drawn up by Josip Škarica, a naval engineer. Despite the fact that the Stülcken shipyard had not built a steel sailing ship since 1902,[4] the navy had ordered four small tugs from it two years earlier and had been pleased with the vessels when they were delivered."
Good idea, done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:28, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • As built, Jadran was constructed of steel [...] I don't understand the phrasing of "as built". Why is that clarification necessary?
Often ships' specifications change over time (this one's certainly did), so it is common to specify in Wikipedia articles what they were when built, and use only those in the infobox, then explain changes in the ship history as they occurred. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:28, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's a cool thing I didn't know ^u^
All done thus far, A. C. Santacruz. Thanks for your additional comments. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:33, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Don't have more comments Peacemaker67. Nice article :)
Thanks very much, your comments resulted in significant improvements and highlighted some assumed knowledge that creeps into ship articles! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:35, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. I'm looking forward to reviewing more of your work in the future ^u^. Enjoy your weekend! A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 22:37, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Nick-D

[edit]

I was impressed by this article when it was at A-class review, and the changes since then have further strengthened it. As a result, I think that the FA criteria are met. The developments regarding the ownership of the ship will need to be monitored post-FAC, of course. Regarding CactiStaccingCrane's comments, I tend to agree that they don't reflect the content that is expected in FA-level articles, and removing the material as suggested would mean that this would no longer meet the FA criteria. Nick-D (talk) 00:00, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking another look, Nick! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:50, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

[edit]

Recusing to review.

  • "Her ownership remains disputed between Montenegro and Croatia. In December 2021, Montenegro and Croatia agreed to form". "... Montenegro and Croatia ... Montenegro and Croatia ...": possibly tweak?
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:28, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Due to the conditions in the Adriatic, her anchors and chains were made stronger than was required by Norddeutscher Lloyd." That doesn't make sense. (To me - a low bar.)
Not sure what you mean here? The Adriatic is a rough sea, so the chains etc were stronger than standard specs. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:28, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but that's not what you have written. Something like 'were made stronger than was usually required' or 'were required to be made stronger than usual' would do it.
Ah, sure. Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:00, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "was located on the main deck as well as in a deckhouse located between". "located ... located"?
Fixed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:28, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Kiel in Nazi Germany". Why is Germany picked out to be prefaced with the ideology of its government?
Forgot to pipe as I have with Weimar Germany earlier. Piped. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:28, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Germany had invaded Poland". Maybe a link?
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:28, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "eight officers, 36 petty officers and 108 sailors". eight → 8?
Fixed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:28, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could Come Si Diventa Marinai be in a lang template.
Yep, done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:28, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "At the time of the capitulation". Perhaps insert 'Italian'?
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:28, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Jadran undertook two training cruises in late 1972 and in 1974". Unless there were four cruises in total, this is easier to read if "two" is deleted. If there were four, perhaps add 'a further two'?
yes, added. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:28, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Jadran was awarded the Order of Merits for the People with Golden Star" Is it known when?
Not clear, but prior to 1983 (date of publication of the source). Should I add that much? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:28, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In May 2018, Jadran had visited Malta during a cruise." Suggest deleting "had".
I included it because the narrative has moved past that point because of concentration on the dispute. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:28, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not how I would have phrased it, but not a deal breaker.
Deleted "had". Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:02, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I have. Very nice. Looks like a labour of love. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:45, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a look, Gog the Mild. See what you think? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:28, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
All done now I think, Gog the Mild? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:02, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review from Ealdgyth

[edit]
Thanks Buidhe. Yes, it is superior even to the national newspapers of record in the Balkans, and takes a neutral editorial line. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:55, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see Večernji list is a newspaper, thank you for the link, saves me asking what it is...
Yes, a fairly good conservative-leaning Croatian and Bosnian daily newspaper. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:55, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't find Freivogel, Zvonimir (2020). Warships of the Royal Yugoslav Navy 1918-1945. Zagreb, Croatia: Despot Infinitus. ISBN 978-953-8218-72-9 in WorldCat - result.? Wrong ISBN?
(talk page stalker) Apparently not. See [[23]] - click on "Author". Gog the Mild (talk) 17:33, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, one thing I use to gauge a book's reliabliity is where it's held - if its in a lot of academic libraries or similar, it's going to likely be reliable and of a high quality... world cat's wonderful for that.. -- Ealdgyth (talk) 17:43, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it is, but it isn't always 100%, especially for recently published books. I have several of his books and several of his articles published in Warship and other reliable naval publications, and he is the most accurate and detailed source on Yugoslav naval vessels by a considerable margin and this book has an exhaustive bibliography, including a lot of sources only published in Serbo-Croatian and Italian. The ISBN is what is in the hard copy book, but there may be some confusion as it is the first volume in a two volume series, and Vol 2 hasn't come out, and there are several ISBNs for the series and each volume in the front of the book. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:55, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'll leave this one out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. -- Ealdgyth (talk) 13:40, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the IUCN and Reuters short footnotes - I know the link to the bibliographical entries, but you're referring to the publishers as the authors in the short footnotes - which makes someone who can't click the links have difficulty figuring out which bibliographical entry is meant. Suggest doing something like "IUCN editors, "Sailing to Barcelona – Saving the Planet? A Balkan odyssey to WCC 2008" (PDF). International Union for Conservation of Nature. 2008. Archived from the original (PDF) on 19 January 2021. Retrieved 19 January 2021" for the bibliographical entry.
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:14, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I randomly googled three sentences and nothing showed up except mirrors. Earwig's tool shows no signs of copyright violations.
Otherwise everything looks good. Note that I will be claiming points from this review for the wikicup. Ealdgyth (talk) 17:17, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the source review, Ealdgyth! See what you think of the above responses. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:14, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've struck through the completed issues and left that one out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Unwatching now! Ealdgyth (talk) 13:40, 21 January 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) 25 January 2022 [24].

The Yankee

[edit]
Nominator(s): Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:39, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For only lasting two years, two centuries ago, under two different names, and for being published in what is today considered a small city and edited by what is today considered a largely unknown historic figure, The Yankee is a magazine that still comes up in histories of American art, literature, drama, and feminism. It's how Whittier, Poe, and Hawthorne got their start and how editor John Neal announced his prophetic cultural predictions. I figured the topic could use an article, so I wrote one and then took it through a peer review and GAN. I'm thinking that after resolving a few comments in this forum, it'll be even better, and deserving of featured status. If you can take the time to read through the article and leave your comments here, I would very much appreciate the help. Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:39, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Why use an image in |title= in the infobox? Especially when the image directly below is topped with the same title?
Good question. Maybe the image doesn't add anything that plain text does not. I just switched it out for the latter. Dugan Murphy (talk) 17:39, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it is kept, File:The_Yankee_Title_January_1_1828.jpg is likely not sufficiently original to have warranted copyright protection
Gone. Dugan Murphy (talk) 17:39, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't found any information on when or where this painting was first put on public display or reproduced. Does that affect the image's status regarding the image policy for a photograph of a painting on public display that was originally produced 199 years ago by someone who has been dead 137 years? Dugan Murphy (talk) 17:39, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It would impact what tagging is most appropriate. What's the earliest publication that can be confirmed? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:30, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. This page on the Portland Museum of Art website says that the portrait was a gift from a private collection and that the accession number is 2013.13. As I understand it, this means that the painting was gifted in 2013, which is likely the time it was put on display at this museum. So if we can't confirm the portrait being on public display any earlier, I guess 2013 is when we can consider it to have been published. Thanks for your help with this. Dugan Murphy (talk) 00:47, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so likely {{PD-US-unpublished}} would apply? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:33, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense. Never seen that tag before. I just swapped it out. Dugan Murphy (talk) 18:26, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I just added this image of Sarah Josepha Hale to the article per Aoba47's suggestion. Dugan Murphy (talk) 18:20, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Two of the three source links here are dead, and same question as above re: publication. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:34, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Image removed. I added it per discussion below, but now I'm not sure it's appropriate.

Sorry to continue complicating this image review, but I just replaced File:Market Square Portland Maine 1874.png with File:Portland, Maine City Hall 1830s.jpg because it focuses more on the building in question and depicts a time period closer to the events in question. I hope I picked the right tag. Dugan Murphy (talk) 18:26, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like the book from which that was taken has an "all rights reserved" notice from the City of Portland. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:02, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for figuring that out. I just replaced it with the city hall image that was there before. Dugan Murphy (talk) 17:50, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Any other image issues? Dugan Murphy (talk) 17:50, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria: Thank you for looking into these images, including the ones I brought in after nominating the article. Did the article pass your image review, or are there still issues to address? Dugan Murphy (talk) 14:35, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, all good. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:17, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Kavyansh

[edit]

Will take a look soon. Note: I reviewed it for GA. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 04:04, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • "When John Neal returned to his native Portland, Maine," — I'd mention who Neal was, as: "When American author John Neal returned to his native Portland, Maine," or any other way you find better.
Makes sense. I'd like to say "writer, critic, lawyer, and activist John Neal", but I think I should stick to one vocation, so I added simply "writer". His nationality is indicated later in the sentence. Dugan Murphy (talk) 18:13, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Residents also engaged with Neal in verbally and physically violent exchanges in the streets" — we have both 'engaged' and 'exchanges', which mostly means the same. Is there a way to avoid this repetition?
Good point. Reworded. Dugan Murphy (talk) 18:13, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Neal established The Yankee at the start of 1828" — Do we know in which month? If not, I feel that "early 1928" would be less wordy.
The first issue is dated January 1, 1828, so it really was "at the start". I've expanded this sentence into two, adding that date. Dugan Murphy (talk) 18:13, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Due to its high proportion of Neal's own work, Neal's unique" — repetition of "Neal's"
Good catch! Fixed. Dugan Murphy (talk) 18:13, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "(later associate justice of the Arkansas Supreme Court)" — if we mention this, shouldn't we also mention that James Brooks later served as a representative from New York?
Sure! Done. Dugan Murphy (talk) 18:13, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "(later associate justice of the Arkansas Supreme Court)" v. "(later Chief Justice of Maine)" — why is 'Chief Justice' capitalised?
Good find! Fixed. Dugan Murphy (talk) 18:13, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Edgar Allan Poe, John Greenleaf Whittier, Nathaniel Hawthorne, and Henry Wadsworth Longfellow all received" — two things: (1) Poe and Whittier are already mentioned before. Is it necessary to write their full name again? (2) I might be wrong, but shouldn't there be a comma after 'Henry Wadsworth Longfellow'?
I just removed first names for Poe and Whittier, but the comma seems unnecessary to me and I couldn't find anything in the MOS saying one way or another, so I'm going to leave it without adding a comma. Dugan Murphy (talk) 18:13, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is 'Feminism' separate from 'Political, social, and civic issues'?
I gave "Feminism" its own section separate from "Political, social, and civic issues" because there seemed to be enough content to do so. And even though feminism is a social issue, it doesn't feel right to make it the only level-3 subsection beneath "Political, social, and civic issues". Let me know if you have more thoughts on that. Dugan Murphy (talk) 18:13, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Works for me. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:37, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • " "Rights of Women" (March 5, 1829) includes " — try to avoid starting a sentence by a quote.
Ok. Changed. Dugan Murphy (talk) 18:13, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note [b] needs a citation.
Good point. Added a dictionary citation. Dugan Murphy (talk) 18:13, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "pp. 69–70, 69–70, 76–77, 84–85, 92–93, 100–101, 109, 117–118" — '69–70' is repeated twice.
Good catch! Fixed. It turns out I am responsible for that exact same typo in two other FLC/FAC-reviewed articles, but you're the first person to spot it. I just fixed it in those two other articles as well. Dugan Murphy (talk) 18:13, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That is it. Great work, as always! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 12:24, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for spending even more time on this article. I think everything you brought up is now addressed. Let me know if anything above deserves more discussion. Otherwise, let me know if you support the nomination. Dugan Murphy (talk) 18:13, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I definitely support this article for promotion as a featured article. And of-course, thanks for your work on this article, perhaps every other John Neal related article. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:37, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Aoba47

[edit]

I am leaving this as a placeholder. Unfortunately, I will not have time to post a review until the weekend so apologies for that. I am looking forward to reading the article as I find the topic to be interesting. I do have one small comment. I am not sure if the John Neal image fits in the "Feminism" sub-section. It would seem appropriate for the "Background" section where Neal is first discussed. I would put this image of Sarah Josepha Hale as it would make more sense to have an image of a woman in this sub-section and Hale is discussed here as one of the female editors promoted by The Yankee. Please ping me if I have not posted a review by this time next week. Aoba47 (talk) 04:23, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks in advance for the review! I agree that Neal's portrait is probably better suited for the "Background" section, so I moved it. I went ahead and added Hale's to the "Feminism" section, because why not, but it's worth noting that this section is all about Neal's writing on feminist topics. As editor, he critiqued and published works by women (covered in the "Literary criticism" section), but I haven't seen anything explicitly feminist in The Yankee written by a woman. Dugan Murphy (talk) 18:20, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the response. If the Hale portrait does not fit with the section, feel free to remove it. I was primarily suggesting it as I did not want to talk about removing an image from a sub-section without offering a potential substitute. I would trust your judgement on this as you know the subject best. Aoba47 (talk) 19:04, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for talking it through. I did end up removing Hale's portrait, in part because of the image review above, but I'm keeping Neal's portrait where it is. Dugan Murphy (talk) 18:49, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • American art is linked in the lead, but I do not think it is linked in the article. I'd link it in the article to be consistent with the lead. I have the same comment for American literature.
Good point. Done. Dugan Murphy (talk) 18:49, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why not! Added in the lead and body. Dugan Murphy (talk) 18:49, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Dugan Murphy (talk) 18:49, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have a question about this part, and is approximately equal to $11,783 in present terms. Wouldn't the phrase "in present terms" be discouraged as this will change in the future? I think it would be better to specify the year or find a way to avoid the above phrasing.
Thanks for bringing this up. I thought that by using Template:Inflation, the phrase "in present terms" was acceptable. I've edited this footnote to match the usage recommendations on that template's page. Dugan Murphy (talk) 18:49, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I hope that my comments are helpful. The article is in great shape, and I really do not have that much for my review. Once everything has been addressed, I will be more than happy to support the FAC for promotion. I hope you are having a great week so far! Aoba47 (talk) 04:21, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely helpful. I appreciate you taking the time to read through the article and find these items. Let me know if you now support the nomination. Dugan Murphy (talk) 18:49, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the responses. I support the FAC for promotion. If possible, I would greatly appreciate any feedback on my current FAC, but I completely understand if you do not have the time or interest. Have a great rest of your week! Aoba47 (talk) 21:39, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

[edit]

Recusing to review.

  • " Unique at the time for independent journalism, Neal used creative control of the magazine ..." Can I suggest that this may flow a little easier as 'The Yankee was unique at the time for its independent journalism. Neal used creative control of the magazine ...'?
Like like it! Done. Dugan Murphy (talk) 00:05, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Many new, predominantly female writers and editors". Should there be a comma after "female"?
Sure. Done. Dugan Murphy (talk) 00:05, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "who are still familiar to modern readers." Delete "still".
Yes! Done. Dugan Murphy (talk) 00:05, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Background": Perhaps a sentence or two covering what Neal did prior to 1827. (I assume he is not related to Athena.)
Seems reasonable. Added. Dugan Murphy (talk) 00:05, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "his unique editorial choices". In a literal sense, surely any editorial selection is unique. Is there not a better word.
Agreed. Reworded. Dugan Murphy (talk) 00:05, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Yankee's greatest impact was uplifting new authors". How does one uplift an author? Is that a thing?
Swapped for "encouraging". Dugan Murphy (talk) 00:05, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "influenced the younger writer's style". Younger than whom? Do you mean 'young'?
Good catch. Changed to "young". Dugan Murphy (talk) 00:05, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "for saying the same thing". Actually the same thing?
Good point. Reworded. I'll work on your other comments in a bit. Dugan Murphy (talk) 00:05, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • MOS:QUOTE states "While quotations are an indispensable part of Wikipedia, try not to overuse them. Using too many quotes is incompatible with an encyclopedic writing style ... It is generally recommended that content be written in Wikipedia editors' own words. Consider paraphrasing quotations into plain and concise text when appropriate". You have a lot of quotes in this, including three big block quotes. I can just about - maybe, I'll reread - grit my teeth over the in text quotes - which you do use well, and this is on a cultural publication - and most of the first block quote. But is there an overwhelming reason why the MoS should not be adhered to re the block quotes in "Political, social, and civic issues" and "Feminism" and they be rewritten in Wikipedia editors' own words? Consider paraphrasing quotations into plain and concise text when appropriate.
Having gone through a few peer reviews, GANs, and FACs over the last year and a half, I think it's safe to say that this comment touches on what may be my most persistent weakness as a Wiki editor. Looking at the three block quotes with MOS:QUOTE in mind, I'm now thinking that the first, while really fun, is totally extraneous, so I cut it. The second I replaced with a prose summary. As you mentioned, this is an article about a cultural publication, which I think should give it a little more leeway on the MOS:QUOTE standard, so I'm hoping that removing two-thirds of the block quotes is sufficient. Dugan Murphy (talk) 01:17, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which he offered in "Woman" (March 26, 1828), is female solidarity". "is" → 'was'.
Sure. Done. Dugan Murphy (talk) 01:17, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it is still quote-heavy. (I say this as someone keen on quotations myself. Only this week I had a run in with a FAC coordinator over this, but they were quibbling over my using quotations totalling five words!) But it is a cultural publication and you have certainly cut them a lot, so ok.
  • I notice that we are not told what the title of the publication/article aludes to.
Fair point. I added something to the "New England" section. Dugan Murphy (talk) 01:17, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • ""Her magnitude, her resources etc". Is "her" Maine or New England?
I see how that's not clear. Fixed. Dugan Murphy (talk) 01:17, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In contrast to most American regionalist works later in the century that sentimentally posed rural traditions in conflict with America's urbanization, The Yankee presented the country's regions as "future-oriented spaces whose identities would—and should—remain elusive"." I feel that this sentence is working too hard. It is very difficult to read.
Ha! I agree. It's still a little heady, but now in two sentences and minus one quotation. Dugan Murphy (talk) 01:17, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The first volume of The Yankee". Could it be clearly stated what constitutes a "volume".
Ah. I changed "(1828)" to "(January 1 – December 24, 1828)" to make that clear. Dugan Murphy (talk) 01:17, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Neat.

Actually, that's all I have. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:51, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fantastic finds! So many opportunities for greater clarity I didn't notice. Thank you. Let me know if you think any of these issues need more attention or if you support the nomination. Dugan Murphy (talk) 01:17, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Lovely stuff. Supporting. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:30, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from SchreiberBike

[edit]

I'm new to the featured articles process, so rather than suggest changes here, I copy edited the article myself. The nominator corrected my misunderstanding of MOS:RANGE and made a few other changes. I now feel that the article meets the criteria to be a featured article. Thank you, SchreiberBike | ⌨  21:00, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review from Ealdgyth - pass

[edit]
  • What makes the following "high quality reliable sources":
    • Barnes, Albert F. (1984). Greater Portland Celebration 350?
I guess I can do better. I used this reference in two places for essentially the same claim. I just replaced with the 1979 article by William Barry (the most highly regarded scholar of Portland, Maine history, from what I can tell). Changing out the citation necessitated changing the wording a little bit to match Barry's claim. Dugan Murphy (talk) 18:37, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and continued with Neal's claim in The Yankee that Garrison was fired from his editorial position for attacking Neal in the paper" is sourced to an arguably primary source - Garrison, Wendell Phillips; Garrison, Francis Jackson (1885). William Lloyd Garrison, 1805-1879: The Story of His Life Told by His Children. What makes the stories told to Garrison's children a high quality reliable source? This feels more like we need a secondary source here.
Fair enough. Citation replaced with the 1933 Richards dissertation, which details the same story. Dugan Murphy (talk) 19:17, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, we're not historians, so when possible, we're always better off using secondary sources, rather than primary ones. Historians get the joys of dealing with primary sources.... not us. -- Ealdgyth (talk) 20:43, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Likewise - Neal, John (1869). Wandering Recollections of a Somewhat Busy Life likewise is a primary source - we should be relying on secondary sources for this information - historians who can weigh the weight to give to Neal's memoirs and how much they can be believed.
Fair. I removed all references to this source, including the article's only remaining footnote, which I guess was superfluous anyway. Dugan Murphy (talk) 20:09, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Richards, Irving T. (1933). The Life and Works of John Neal (PhD). Cambridge, Massachusetts - I'm unclear what the "(PhD)" is meant to impart here?
One of the parameters of Template:Cite thesis is "type" and the top example given uses "PhD" in this way, so I copied that. But it looks like there's a "degree" parameter that renders as "PhD thesis" instead, so I swapped that out to be more clear. Dugan Murphy (talk) 20:09, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I checked Sears, Donald A. (1978). John Neal on WorldCat and it's held by over 400 library, including many university and college libraries so even though I'm not familiar with the publisher, I'm willing to assume it's high quality due to it being held by universities.
I'd say so. David A. Sears was a Harvard-educated historian and literature scholar with plenty of other books and articles in scholarly journals. Dugan Murphy (talk) 20:09, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I randomly googled three sentences and nothing showed up except mirrors. Earwig's tool shows no signs of copyright violations.
Rad. Never heard of Earwig's tool. Dugan Murphy (talk) 20:09, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise everything looks good. Note that I will be claiming points from this review for the wikicup. Ealdgyth (talk) 00:16, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Ealdgyth: Thank you so much for your review! Do you feel that all your comments are addressed? Dugan Murphy (talk) 20:09, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It all looks good now. Unwatching, and good luck! Ealdgyth (talk) 20:43, 20 January 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) 23 January 2022 [25].

SLAPP Suits

[edit]
Nominator(s): theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 06:53, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article details the story of the penultimate episode of Last Week Tonight with John Oliver's sixth season, and the lead-up saga including a segment two years prior, a lawsuit, an amicus brief that must have had them rolling in the courthouse pews, and something known as the "Suck My Balls, Bob" dancers. to be perfectly honest, I'm not sure either. I've put a lot of work into this article in the earlier parts of 2021, picking it up again in November and December—I think it's ready to be labelled as an FA, which would make it my first if passed. This is really exciting for me—any and all feedback is welcome (and I'm sure you've got lots) :) thank you all in advance! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 06:53, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Place drive-by or one-shot comments here!

Image review passes in terms of licensing. Probably redundant, but no one formally checked haha! Good luck :) Sennecaster (Chat) 00:55, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much, Sennecaster! Definitely good to have someone give that tick :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 09:10, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Serial

[edit]

(Placeholder for full review)

This is fucking classic, I was forced to watch it again on principle and pished myself laughing. Great choice. A couple of points before we get forensic. The lead, while technically within the limits of MOS:LEADLENGTH, should be expanded (although whether comprising one longer para or two equal length paras is up to you); also, is it possible to provide more detail as to ACLU's "snarky, humorous tone"d brief? As you note, these are a rarity in the field, and fair use with attribution would certainly allow you fuller quotes (and even better if RS have discussed it discretely!).
Back tomorrow. Luck, ——Serial 07:30, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, it's a fantastic episode :) my personal favourite. I'm happy to expand the lead; as for expanding the ACLU section, I'm already thinking it probably shouldn't be longer than the "lawsuit" section, so I'd like to hear some other voices on that. Can't wait to dig in! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 07:33, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Serial: lead expanded! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 23:29, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Serial, sorry to ping again—any other comments you want to leave? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 02:15, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from TheDoctorWho

[edit]
  • I suppose it isn't a huge issue but at a very first/quick glance I wasn't sure what the overall scope of the article was. The article uses an Infobox for a television episode and it's categorized as an episode but it appears to be solely about a segment within the episode? The information in the Infobox (writer, guest appearances), is that specific to the segment or the Infobox? I also know there's not an Infobox specifically for segments so I won't be the one to say it should be removed, but just wanted to bring it up.
  • It may be useful to link the next and last episode in the Infobox, with [[List of Last Week Tonight with John Oliver episodes#ep177|Election security in the United States]] or by creating a redirect, either works.
  • In the Coal section I would do the same type of link in the portion that says "on his show, titled "Coal"".
  • Later on in that paragraph I'd link the first use of Bob Murray. (MOS:DUPLINK)
  • Same with first mention of HBO in the lawsuit section.
  • It appears the episode was also nominated for Emmy awards in Outstanding Sound Mixing, Outstanding Technical Direction, Camerawork, and Video Control, Outstanding Production Design, Outstanding Directing. These only mention the episode itself and not necessarily the segment, with as notable as the segment seems though, I can't imagine anything else in the episode was responsible for the sound mixing nomination, etc. but that's technically SYNTH I guess. At the very least it may be worth it it to mention them in the episode section, even if it's just "The episode received 6 Emmy nominations.".
  • The writers listed in the Infobox can be added to reference 21.
  • You can also add This URL and an access date.
  • An external links section may be helpful. (IMDb link, Template:IMDb episode, as well as the HBO link from above)

TheDoctorWho (talk) 04:59, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pamzeis

[edit]

...I don't know how to start this, so, um, this is a placeholder. I probably will leave comments in a week... or maybe two? Pamzeis (talk) 11:16, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I will try not to screw this up

  • Is there any reason the director(s) and writer(s) need to be referenced in the Infobox? I'd be under the impression that the segment's credits would render this unneeded
    • snip!
  • "criticized President Barack Obama for" — I've been contemplating whether this is accurate per MOS:PERSONOROFFICE as it seems Obama was not the president at the time. I think it should be "former President" but I'm definitely uncertain.
    • Most of the criticism came during his tenure, so I've added that clause in.
  • Is the second paragraph (of #Coal) describing what happens in the segment "Coal"? I find it rather unclear whether it is/does
    • It does, I've clarified that
  • "coal miners, the miners were" — saying miners in such quick succession does sit well with me...
    • Changed the second to "they"
  • "part of Murray Energy.[9] Murray Energy" — ditto but Murray Energy instead of miners
    • Changed to "The comapny"
  • "dropped a short while later" — can the time be more specific? A "short while" is extremely vague
    • No, none of the sources i could find specified when the lawsuit was dropped. I did put in that it was around the time that Murray Energy was filing for bankruptcy
  • "which was noted for its" — by whom?
    • added stuff there
  • Also, I think the use of noted is WP:VOICE since the "snarky, humo[u]rous tone" seems more like an opinion while noted implies facts
    • I mean, it was noted for its snarky, humourous tone—it seems like the consensus of reliable sources to me
  • In the first paragraph of #Amicus curiae from the ACLU, all the sentences begin with the, making it monotonous
    • fixed
  • "The response criticized ... The response also" — these two sentences both begin with "The (response)", making them kinda monotonous
    • fixed
  • "The response also alleged a financial connection, in that on a segment of Last Week Tonight titled "President-Elect Trump", aired five days after the 2016 presidential election, Oliver encouraged viewers to donate to causes perceived as left-leaning such as Planned Parenthood, the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, the Trevor Project, the Center for Reproductive Rights, or the International Refugee Assistance Project. Murray Energy argued that this encouragement caused an "immediate surge of millions of dollars in donations to the ACLU", although Reuters contended that Murray Energy did not provide suitable evidence for this claim, in that they provided hyperlinks to three articles that did not explicitly support this argument, instead attributing the rise in donations to the result of the presidential election in general." — I find these sentences very hard to read. Can they be split up or simplified?
    • I broke it up into more sentences
  • "titled "SLAPP Suits". SLAPP" — repetition of SLAPP
    • Honestly, I think that's fine?
  • "He further pointed ... He further stated" — kinda monotonous
    • Fixed
  • "not be fortunate enough to be backed by a large company like HBO and have libel insurance" — it's kinda unclear whether they have or don't insurance
    • Clarified :)
  • "against Murray, one of which involved Murray asking a ... that Murray had" — there are three instances or Murray in this sentence. Can this be reduced?
    • Yep!
  • "He then introduced the "Suck My Balls, Bob" dancers,[24] who moved the setting to Times Square as they recounted fictional anecdotes of Murray committing outlandish and horrifying acts, joking that he perpetrated the 1994 Cobo Arena attack on Nancy Kerrigan, spat on the face of the Mona Lisa, shot puppies into outer space, supplied drugs to Bill Cosby, served as Jeffrey Epstein's prison guard, murdered Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria and started World War I, and was the unidentified Zodiac Killer." — This sentence is extremely long and I find it rather hard to follow. Can it be split?
    • Broke that up into two
  • "agreed that Murray's SLAPP suits create a 'culture of fear'" — this kinda makes it sound like the source is agreeing with a fact (which it is not)
    • Agreed with oliver, my bad
  • "of the musical number generally" — ...just the musical number?
    • oops! fixed that
  • This article's citation capitalisation is inconsistent: some are written in sentence-case while other title-case. Can this be consistent?
    • firmly in the sentence-case camp.

Hope this helps. I've also made a few minor tweaks; feel free to revert anything you disagree with. Pamzeis (talk) 14:41, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

AryKun

[edit]

Oh, man, this is awesome, will review soon. AryKun (talk) 13:37, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely not required, but perhaps you'd like to drop by at the FAC for Mini scule?

Comments and support from Gerda

[edit]

Invited long ago, I finally have some free time. Will comment as I read but skip the lead, to look at it after I know what we talk about. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:03, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox looks fine to me, but the titles in the TOC tell someone who has no idea little. "Coal" - so what? "Musical number" - context??

Coal

  • The picture caption for Murray has much information that is not pictured, and comes later in the body. I suggest to trim it to saying who is pictured and why.
    • Checkarooni!
  • "the episode" - at that time, I didn't know which episode, - perhaps the connection should be be detailed in the episode section, and only be mentioned here briefly.
    • Check republic :D

Amicus ...

  • I'd pipe The Trevor Project, for less blue.
    • Check-ered flannels! (i happen to love flannels)

Episode

  • I think the creators of the episode, who appear in the infobox, should also be mentioned in the prose, especially as some of the award nominations are for some of what they did.
    • I mentioned the directors in the Emmy Awards paragraph; anything else you want to see there?
  • The explanation of SLAPP should come sooner.
    • Shuffled the segment around a bit.

Musical number

  • I'd begin the first sentence with the second half about the five minutes, and only then come with the detail of the check writing.
  • Mr. Nutterbutter - I had forgotten who that was, - maybe that's just me.
    • I think I'm going to leave that one as is for now?
  • wl barbershop?
    • linked

Thank you for the article, a pleasure to read. Please write a bit more lead for readers like me wo don't know anything about U.S. television ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:48, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments, gerda! I think I got 'em all :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 23:28, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
tlc, thank you for action, explaining and teaching vocabulary in your replies ;) - The lead is much better!

infobox

  • now that I understand it's only a segment, some ideas:
    • above the pic, say "segment of episode so-and-so", with a close link to that specific episode, which should also be present in lead and article
      • I don't think this is technically feasible, given the template—there's no way to change Last Week Tonight episode to Last Week Tonight episode segment, as far as I can tell. And while this is technically only a segment, it also spanned ~90% of the episode's length and is the only thing that any reliable source remembers. It's basically the episode, it's just that everything on a variety talk show (at least in the United States) has other segments floating around the edges. This is the main attraction, there's no article for the episode as a whole. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 08:46, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • drop the guests unless they have to do with the segment
    • actually drop all personnal not mentioned in this article

pic placement

  • while I like Oliver sooner, I think that now Murray comes too late, - better in law suit
    • Hmm, I disagree—the images of Murray and Oliver (and the infobox images) are the only three I've got. Putting them all as high up as possible leaves the bottom a little sparse—the article's mid-length, so I think it's okay to spread images of the key people throughout the article. I don't necessarily want to put too much voltage in the top and middle of the article, and leave the bottom with just the "external links" box. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 08:42, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • hmm, now I disagree - pics are there to illustrate, and for me, Murray comes too late. Perhaps GRuban could help to another pic of the actual performance? If not, placing Oliver in the infobox, Murray to the lawsuit and the ibox pic to the episode might work better, for me at least.
      • I forgot to ping GRuban. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:03, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

lead

  • mention the connection to the line on the checks, or the title of the musical number remains a mystery
    • Done :)

I have a travel day, + 2 DYK one day, so take your time and don't be surprised about no response. There was only reading no editing on the train ride coming, so I expect the same for the return --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:18, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

of course! no problem with no response, enjoy yourself; I do have some issues with these suggestions, so I've left those up above. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 08:38, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
for a change, the connection on the train is working! - I wonder if we should talk about my ignorance somewhere else. Are there articles on episodes? can you point me at one? or the other way round, could there be a redirect for the episode to this, as covering 90%?
anyway, although it's not yet final, it's already good enough for me to support, especially with a fine new lead. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:03, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments and support by RunningTiger123

[edit]

I remember watching this segment when it was originally broadcast, and I quite enjoyed it. Having worked on a TV episode FA recently, I'll give this one a stab.

Lead and infobox:

  • Where do the directors and writers come from? The writers don't match what's listed at the end of the segment on YouTube or IMDb (though the latter is not an RS).
  • Similarly, where do the episode titles in the chronology come from? The next episode, for instance, is just called "The Census" at HBO's website.
    • Whoops! those come from the wikipedia episode listing article; someone should really fix that
  • "twenty ninth" → "twenty-ninth" (MOS:NUMERAL)
  • "Murray's other SLAPP Suits" → "Murray's other SLAPP suits"
  • "twenty six-minute" → "twenty-six-minute"
  • "were lauded by critics and was nominated" → "were lauded by critics and were nominated"
    • Done!

Background

  • Link to Bob Murray (businessman) is wrong
    • oops!
  • "Murray Energy has sued" → "Murray Energy had sued" (better verb tense)
  • "KISS MY ASS BOB" → "Kiss My Ass Bob" (MOS:CAPS discourages capitalization unless it is deliberate; the cited article uses lowercase, so it's probably just a person's writing style)
    • I put (all capitals) in parentheses next to that, but done
  • Expand text included in the wikilink to Impeachment of the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia from "impeached" to "four of the five justices on that court were impeached" so it's clear the linked article is not about the general term
  • "a legal document; It featured" → "a legal document. It featured" or "a legal document; it featured"
  • Not a source review, but the source from Vanity Fair should be tagged as "limited" URL access
    • Similarly, the source from Law360 should be tagged with "registration"
  • "however contended" → "however, contended"
    • Done!

"SLAPP Suits" segment:

  • "The A. V. Club" → "The A.V. Club" (avoid redirect) – this spelling appears three times, twice in citations and once in prose under "Reaction and impact" without a link
    • ... oh god, you're kidding me, right? do you know how many West Wing episode articles I now have to update?
  • "attorney's fees" → "attorneys' fees" or "attorney fees"
    • Already done
  • "getting very tired of us" → "getting very tired" (avoid shift to first person)
    • Hmm, I not sure I agree? "tired" is just exhausted, "tired of us" implies directed exasperation. There's "getting very tired" of them, but I think it's okay for quotes to reference the speaker/speaker's group.
  • In alt text, "win tubes" → "with oxygen tubes"
  • Source from the Tages-Anzeiger should be tagged as German
    • Done!

Reaction and impact:

  • Did Murray ever respond to this? If so, it's probably worth noting that.
  • Suggest update Emmy Award to Primetime Emmy Award (same thing in lead)
  • Why is the nomination for Directing for a Variety Series listed differently? Every nomination has individual nominees, not just that category.
    • Mostly to reduce the SEAOFBLUE—I didn't want them to all be stacked next to each other, but I also didn't want to list individual nominees in every category. I thought that would be a good way out. Otherwise, done!

External links:

Here are the items that I still see:

  • "Murray's other SLAPP Suits" is not fixed
  • "attorney's fees" is not fixed (there may have been multiple instances, which I failed to note)
  • The A. V. Club is not fixed in citations (but not a huge issue)
  • Something I missed earlier in the "Reaction and impact" section: "as standard SLAPP Suit" → "as a standard SLAPP suit"
  • I understand now why you split the Emmy nomination for directing, but I think the wording is clunky. Maybe try: "Episode directors Christopher Werner and Paul Pennolino earned a nomination for Outstanding Directing for a Variety Series."

— RunningTiger123 (talk) 17:42, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@RunningTiger123: done, thanks! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 20:25, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Everything looks good; happy to support now. RunningTiger123 (talk) 19:42, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

thank you so much! :D theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 23:31, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Kavyansh

[edit]

I tried to add only those comments which are not included above. Apologies if I repeat anything:

  • "Oliver was sued for defamation in 2017, after a segment aired by Oliver" — repetition of Oliver. Second 'Oliver' should be 'him'.
  • Changed to "after a segment he aired concerning the coal mining industry"
  • "the American Civil Liberties Union filed an amicus brief that" — shouldn't amicus breif be in italics? Both in the lead and the prose.
    • Well, I learned something today!
  • What is the title? "Eat Shit, Bob!" or "Eat Shit, Bob" (with or without '!')?
    • It's with the exclamation point, although it should be noted that it wasn't on the original check the miner returned (and it was on the oversized Mr. Nutterbutter check)
  • "Oliver began the piece by showing Donald Trump's affinity" — pipe 's out of the link.
  • "during his 2016 campaign" — should be "during his 2016 presidential campaign"
  • "Robert E. "Bob" Murray" is introduced in the lead, but 'Robert' in never used in the prose except in a direct quotation.
  • "KISS MY ASS BOB" — lowercase
  • "meticulously planned attempt to assassinate the character of and reputation of Mr. Robert E. Murray and his companies". — we'll need a citation immediately after this quote
    • Cited to The Daily Beast
  • "was dropped later" — should be "was later dropped"
  • ""Bob Murray can go fuck himself today!"." — both exclamatory mark and full stop?
  • "murdered Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria and started World War I," — 'and started' should be 'that started'
    • I don't think so? He's saying "bob murray did this, this, this and this, this, this, and this". Or, something like that. i think that works
  • Suggesting to hyphenate ISBNs, using this tool.
  • The "External video" box should really be "External videos". For that, you can use the "|title=" parameter.

That is it for now. This FAC is going pretty well ... – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 06:17, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I was quite confident that this definitely wouldn't be failed. But that fact that you got 4 supports in 5 days is amazing! Maybe because of Wikicup, or maybe because people like John Oliver shouting "Eat Shit, Bob". All of my concerns are addressed, and I am happy to support as well. Thanks for your work on this article. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:20, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, imo, it's probably the "Eat Shit, Bob" thing. AryKun (talk) 09:56, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I see no reason it can't be both :D thanks again, Kavyansh! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 09:59, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review & spot-check by JJE

[edit]

version review :D

  1. Where does it give the date? I am admittedly a little uncomfortable with a source by an "entertainment editor" being used to discuss political actions.
    1. Recited date to new USA Today source
    2. Added ABC News source for Trump's campaign speech
  2. "Repeatedly criticized" isn't in the source? Is a "letter instructing us to cease and desist" the same thing as a cease-and-desist letter? The quote in the article is "any efforts to [...] injure Mr. Murray" but in the source it's "any effort to defame, harass, or otherwise injure Mr. Murray or Murray Energy" - feels a bit cherrypicked, to be honest. "an injunction barring the rebroadcast " in the source sounds a little narrower than the article's "a gag order on broadcasting the piece or airing it online". I can't find "Bob Murray died in October 2020 due to long-term lung illness. The Daily Beast remembered him as a "Coal Magnate and John Oliver Nemesis", highlighting the controversy between the two as a significant source of notoriety." in the source.
    1. Changed to "an outspoken critic" of obama and added The New York Times source
    2. Yeah, it was a cease-and-desist letter, i put that in there
    3. Cited gag order bit to Time magazine
    4. Recited The Daily Beast final paragraph to—wait for it—wait for it—The Daily Beast :D that's my bad, not sure how I forgot to make a new source for that one!
  3. Can't access this source.
    "Mr. Murray has adamantly insisted that the initial fatalities were not foreseeable because the collapse was caused by an earthquake rather than by mining operations."
  4. Apparently both sources speak of a subsidiary of Murray Energy, rather than the company itself.
  5. See above.
    Clarified ownership on that one; added information about Genwal and Agapito Associates
  6. The source does discuss voided bonus checks but does not explain why they were voided - that's OR by the article. And I am not seeing the hyperlink part, either.
    1. Added citations from ABA Journal and Huffpost for miners' checks story
    2. Changed language to "the response cited three news articles that did not support this argument..."
  7. Does the source say that the squirrel taunted Bob Murray?
    The headline says "Court Finds John Oliver Has the Right to Hire a Giant Squirrel Named 'Mr. Nutterbutter' to Insult Coal Barons"—I have to imagine that's pretty close, no?
  8. OK.
  9. OK apart from the Murray Energy thing under #4 which is a problem here too.
    1. Added "subsidiary"
  10. OK
  11. The article says it was dismissed the 24 February 2018 but the source says Wednesday - I think 24 February 2018 was a Saturday?
    My bad, changed to "February 21, 2018"
  12. The source does not specify all the accusations against the West Virginia Supreme Court judges, while the article does.
    Added citation from the West Virginia Record
  13. OK.
  14. OK but the source does not mention the judge's name.
    Not much I can do about this one :l
  15. OKish - I am not sure that I would formulate Croft's words as "either satirical humor or a matter of fact, depending on the statement"
    Another excuse for me to quote the fantastic brief!
  16. Can't read this source.
    Neither can i—the only part i used is available in the grey text that fades out.
  17. Can't read this source. I hope though that it sources all these grandiose jokes about all of Murray's fictitious misdeeds, though.
    Went through with DanCherek on this one, we should be fine
    I didn't receive this ping. Which of the three sources supports the statement about supplying drugs to Bill Cosby? DanCherek (talk) 22:32, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @DanCherek: the noping was on purpose—damn, my mistake, i missed that one. Cut the cosby line theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 23:03, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  18. "a video of Bob Murray promoting his lawsuit on Fox Business." in our article seems like it's overstating the source's case just a wee bit. I also presume that the headline was written by the author of the source. The kidney stone story also doesn't have nearly as much detail in the source as in the article.
    1. Changed it to "including clip of Murray on Fox Business responding to the original segment"—that should be enough
    2. It is with a heavy heart that I cut the kidney stone story—i'd have to rely on PLOTSOURCE to get that in there
  19. Can't access this source.
    "An enthusiastic litigator, Mr. Murray and his company sued many publications, including The New York Times, over coverage that displeased him."
  20. Can't access this source.
    It's a citation to the show itself, you can access it through the "external videos" box for the segment. please do let me know if this is enough to re-include the kidney stone story :D
  21. See under #18
  22. Where does it say that it's a "musical number"?
    Added citation from The Hollywood Reporter
  23. OK
  24. OK
  25. Can't access this source.
    Use "incognito mode" to reset the number of free articles you can obtain
  26. "Power" is plural in the source.
    Corrected :)
  27. OK
  28. According to the source West Virginia has no SLAPP statutes and not "relaxed SLAPP statutes".
    Changed from "have relaxed" to "lack"
  29. OK
  30. Can't access this source.
    That's funny, neither can i...
  31. Apparently the source does not call it "variety series or special", just "variety series".
    For Outstanding Sound Mixing on www.emmys.com? That's not what I'm seeing...

TBH, there a bit too much source-article disagreement for my liking. Which is particularly concerning because this isn't a purely fictional topic but one with real world political aspects. Sources are otherwise consistently formatted and look reliable although I know none of them very well. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:51, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for the review, Jo-Jo Eumerus! I think I got it all :D (a real shame I had to cut the kidney stone story) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 19:39, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure that I like using a headline as a source. The saying "headlines are marketing" exists for a reason and I've seen far too many instances of headlines misrepresenting the article's content. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:15, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: gotcha, fair enough! I recited to The A.V. Club: "Well, perhaps Mr. Nutterbutter will refresh your memory, the 7-foot-tall squirrel mascot Last Week Tonight created to first mock Murray back in 2017..." theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 11:27, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: sorry to bug; howzit goin'? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 12:59, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the squirrel, I presume that "coal barons" means "Murray" and that the court ruling supports the headline. As for the kidney stone story, we can't use the show itself as a source for it IMO. In general, one thing I notice that sometimes it's unclear what happens in the show itself and what transpired in real life. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:39, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: I cut some things that weren't explicitly in the episode, and made it a bit clearer when it was Oliver talking. again, shame about the kidney stone story :) anything else that should be cleared up? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 01:35, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, the main point is that everything needs to be clear on whether it's talking about real events or whether it was shown in the work. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:47, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Hmm, I'm struggling a bit—I've done my best to clarify, but I'm not sure what you're referring to. is there anything that feels like it could be either a real-life occurrence or a feature of the show in particular? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 10:53, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The only thing I still think is a problem is "any efforts to [...] injure Mr. Murray" and I'd rather not rely on the headline to source that the squirrel taunted Bob Murray. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:59, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: fixed the quote! The taunting sentence was recited to The A. V. Club, which mention's the squirrels shenanigans in the body of the article. should be source 12 theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 11:02, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is all. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:21, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for everything! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 11:27, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
One other thing that was flagged on my talk page: Is The Harvard Crimson a good source? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:24, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: I'd argue yes—per WP:RSSM (it seems to be reliable for this topic) and the fact that it's one of three sources used for that sentence, I don't think it poses a huge problem. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 15:30, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
on second thought, given that professional sources are preferred and there's no need for the source, I'll just cut it. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 15:53, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comments by HF

[edit]
  • "The brief claimed Murray Energy was using the court as a vehicle to suppress free speech, arguing that this lawsuit "threaten[s] the fundamental right of the media to criticize public figures and speak candidly on matters of public concern"" - WP:RSP has Mary Sue as no consensus stating that it is used as "It is generally regarded as usable for reviews and opinion," but we're using this for a statement of fact. I'm not convinced that Mary Sue is a high-quality RS for the purpose of this statement
  • RSP says about Daily Beast - "There is no consensus on the reliability of The Daily Beast. Most editors consider The Daily Beast a biased or opinionated source. Some editors advise particular caution when using this source for controversial statements of fact related to living persons." FA requires the higher standard of "high-quality RS" rather than just basic reliability. What makes this source strong enough for FAC, especially given that it's sometimes used to source potentially controversial content about Murray?

Hog Farm Talk 20:12, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Hog Farm! I swapped out the first citation from The Mary Sue to Courthouse News Service—it looks reliable enough, but I'll cut the sentence if you don't think so. As for The Daily Beast, wouldn't it still be reliable for its own opinion per WP:BIASED? It has some level of fact checking and editorialism, i don't think it's unreasonable to include that with inline attribution. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 22:04, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be okay with the attributed opinion if it is considered to be due weight. But I'm concerned about some other usage:
"Oliver began the piece by showing Donald Trump's affinity for the coal industry, including shots of him during his 2016 presidential campaign in a coal miner's hat and delivering a speech in which he told the miners to prepare to work their "asses off" when he became president" - is sourced solely to DB and a news piece about Trump and coal mining from a month before the Oliver segment. So DB is the primary source for the material about Oliver's segment and the connection between the segment and the speech. Not really controversial, but for FA purposes, we should be using a better source than DB here.
"The complaint alleged that Oliver carried out a "meticulously planned attempt to assassinate the character of and reputation of Mr. Robert E. Murray and his companies".[14] The plaintiffs criticized Oliver's coverage of the Crandall Canyon Mine collapse, reiterating their claim that the primary collapse was caused by an earthquake, rather than unsafe mining practices on the part of the Murray Energy subsidiary" - is again factual statements cited solely to DB, ideally a better source should be used here

I don't see any issue with the last usage of DB, which is an attributed statement of opinion. Hog Farm Talk 22:11, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Hog Farm: fair enough—the second one was easy to deal with, the Washington Post covers basically all the same stuff. The first one I had to recite to Mother Jones, which is also biased, but it is still RSP-greenlit—combined with the ABC source, I think we're pretty much there? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 22:49, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I think this is pretty well resolved now. Hog Farm Talk 02:56, 20 January 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) 21 January 2022 [26].

The Empire Strikes Back

[edit]
Nominator(s): Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 09:39, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about The Empire Strikes Back, which modern critics argue is the best film in the Star Wars film series. A conflicting reception at first its legacy is now one of setting new standards in blockbuster trilogies and advancing an overarching narrative. This is a former featured article from a very long time ago, in a galaxy very far away, and now it's back with a vengeance for modern audiences to enjoy once again. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 09:39, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Nick-D

[edit]

I'll probably post a full review, but first some random comments:

  • Watch out for excessive detail. For instance:
    • " at a cost of about $250,000", " the instruments included oboes, piccolos, pianos, and harps" (the LSO doesn't work for free and has lots of instruments, so this is unremarkable)
    • the last para of the 'Commencement in Norway' section is full of unimportant facts
    • "While filming Vader's entrance, the snow troopers preceding Prowse tripped over the polystyrene ice, and the stuntman behind him stood on his cape, breaking it off, causing Prowse to collapse onto the snow troopers" - trivia
  • "the second unit remained through March to film explosions, incidental footage, and battle scenes featuring thirty-five mountain rescue skiers as extras; their work was compensated with a donation to the Norwegian Red Cross." - surely the crew were paid? Or were they working as a donation? Nick-D (talk) 10:19, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of the article discusses the budget of the film and the massive inflation it goes through, so I thought the cost of the music was an interesting addition to it. The instruments mentioned are specifically to note what was involved in the score, for example it doesn't mention guitars. I don't know if that is a full list of the instruments involved it's just what I've found.
I can rewrite it a bit if you'd prefer but per the previous reply, it's in essence discussing things which contributed to massive delays and budget increases because of the extreme cold and technical issues and then they returned with damaged footage anyway.
The Vader's entrance part is just a fun anecdote about filming for me personally, the idea that Kershner wanted the characters to have grand entrances and someone stepped on Vader's cape and they all went flying. I can move it to the Special effects of The Empire Strikes Back if you'd prefer as I'd like to keep it in some form. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:19, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's meant to be the skiers who were paid in a donation. I've reworded it a bit.Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:19, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK, here's my full review. In short, the article is in great shape, except for one section:

  • "Lucas considered replacing producer Gary Kurtz with Howard Kazanjian because of issues that arose when Kurtz had not fulfilled his role while filming Star Wars, but Kurtz convinced him otherwise" - this is beating around the bush a bit. Say what Kurtz didn't do.
  • "Mayhew fell ill from wearing a wool suit in 90 °F (32 °C) heat" - where was this? (given that the article up to this point has stressed how cold conditions at the studio were)
  • "This was a rare feat; only 10% of films typically achieved this figure" - surely few films tried to hit the figure though as they had much lower budgets though? The previous material in this section notes that the studio was very confident the film would be a hit, so this seems out of place.
  • The 'Critical response' section is over long and heavy going - it is unclear who all these critics are, and we don't need anywhere near as much about their views given the article has very good sections providing thematic analysis of the film and how perceptions of it have developed. The quality of the prose is notably inferior to the previous sections, which are very well written and enjoyable to read. I'd suggest a major revamp of this section to simplify and shorten it.
  • "Arnold wrote it is an irreplaceable connecting work, but lacked Star Wars's self-contained narrative and asked audiences to wait two years for a resolution." - this sentence is pretty clunky
  • "was critical that" - also clunky
  • Sentences like "Critics were consistent in their praise for the Yoda character as both a performance and a technical achievement" need a reference that says that 'critics were consistent' or similar, not a bunch of examples of this.
  • "Although Arnold praised Kershner's direction, others believed that Lucas' oversight was obvious because Kershner's influence in his other films was not evident." - this is unclear
  • "and groundbreaking piece of cinema" - it's not clear how the film was 'groundbreaking'?
  • " is now considered as arguably the best film" - is the 'arguably' needed here? This feels unnecessary. Nick-D (talk) 10:33, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'll have to look up what Kurtz's issues were, it doesn't mention specifics in the book, bear with me. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:17, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It was on the Han torture room scene because of the steam, I've elaborated a bit. It gets a bit confusing because I've obviously had to move a lot of content to the special effects page. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:17, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Removed Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:17, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Working reception section for comments 4-8.Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:17, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Working for more detailed sources. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:17, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Removed Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:17, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK Nick-D, I think I've addressed all these. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 23:43, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support I still don't love the 'Critical response' section (still a bit too long and much too US-centric), but I think that my comments are sufficiently addressed given the strength of the rest of the article: nice work. Nick-D (talk) 08:21, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Crit reception sections are the bane of my existence, especially for older films like this. The reviews that are available are mainly US and they barely mention things like the cast, it's all comparisons to the first film so there isn't much info to work with unfortunately. Thanks for your support. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 09:10, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pamzeis

[edit]

I'll probably want to give this a review but haven't got the time at the moment. Ping me if I don't leave comments by Sunday. Pamzeis (talk) 13:42, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Pamzeis Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:15, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not screw this up:

  • "its realistic expressions and" — "realistic expressions" is WP:VOICE
  • "In case the film had failed" — not entirely sure which film the article is referring to
  • "Fox had the right of refusal for a sequel. ... Fox had already given Lucas controlling interest in the series' merchandising" — I'm kind of confused because the article implied earlier on that Lucas did not sell the film to Fox
  • "replacing producer Gary Kurtz with ... that arose when Kurtz had ... but Kurtz convinced him otherwise" — Kurtz's (last) name is dropped three times in this sentence. Try to reduce it
  • "accident after filming Star Wars, (Lucas told Hamill his character would have been replaced if he had died), and" — this seems kinda awkward, probably because the sentence in brackets is a full sentence
  • "embraced their interesting ideas" — "interesting" is WP:VOICE and doesn't add anything IMO
  • "improve his Star Wars performance" — can this be more specific? Did Ford act badly in the original film and want to act better? Did fans dislike him leading to him want to improve his popularity?
  • "According to Fisher, Williams struggled to remember his lines during filming." — not sure why this bit is relevant

That brings me to #Filming. I've made a few tweaks myself; feel free to revert anything you disagree with. Pamzeis (talk) 02:08, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for doing another review Pamzeis on these long articles. I've done all of these apart from the one about Ford. In the source he literally just says "I had no difficulty deciding I would do part two. In fact, I was happy to do it again because I thought I could do it better. I also felt iI had a moral obligation." Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 14:04, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

More comments:

  • "103 days of filming two days later" — per MOS:NUM, be consistent with figures vs spelled-out numbers
  • "Including crew and special effects teams, around 700 people worked on Empire." — I don't see the point of the first part of the sentence because crew and special effects teams would obviously work on the film
  • "Adjusted for inflation, the North American box office is equivalent to $920.8 million, making it the thirteenth highest-grossing film ever adjusted for inflation." — repetitive
  • "His realistic expressions impressed" — WP:VOICE

Not a lot. That brings me to #Thematic analysis. Pamzeis (talk) 10:03, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pamzeis I think I have fixed these, thanks again. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 19:42, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Tim Robey wrote that" — who is he? His name just seems to come out of nowhere
  • "Brandon Katz described Yoda" — same as above
  • "described Luke's journey ... with Luke serving ... to lure Luke toward" — Three instances of Luke in this sentence...
  • I feel like #Duality and evil spends too much time discussing the film's plot: the three of the first paragraph's seven and two to four of the third paragraph's seven. Can this be trimmed?
  • "Luke's impatience to leave for Bespin exemplifies his lack of growth to this point." — I feel like this should be attributed
  • "because it is easy to understand good and evil" — seems like WP:VOICE
  • "one of the more famous lines of improvised" — in comparison to what...?
  • "the bold unresolved ending" — this bit isn't really obviously attributed the Empire magazine
  • Per MOS:CONFORMTITLE, can the citation titles be consistently formatted in either sentence case or title case following MOS:5LETTER?
  • The second book cited has inconsistent cite formatting with the others (that being, it uses a 10-digit ISBN unlike the other 13-digit ISBN ones) Pamzeis (talk) 04:26, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK Pamzeis, I think I've addressed all of these. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 00:22, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Friendly neighbourhood pinger-man Pamzeis Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 13:50, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for the delay. I will finish giving the article another look by Sunday. Pamzeis (talk) 14:00, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Pamzeis (talk) 04:43, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for another detailed review Pamzeis! Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 14:59, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from 👨x🐱

[edit]

Been a while since I have review an FA. This looks bigger than the Star Wars' Empire itself, but here's a couple of comments so far:

  • Inconsistent citing: Why are three New York Times pieces cited the Harvard way, but others are full references?
  • A lot of sections are filled with cite bundles that make the article unreadable. I would do what I and Cat's Tuxedo do and place the cite bundles into notes.

👨x🐱 (Nina CortexxCoco Bandicoot) 16:41, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What are you considering too many bundles, so I know what to look for? The difference in the NYT references is that some are the website and some are the physical paper. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 23:43, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I get the NY Times thing now. As for the cite bundles, it's not the cite bundles themselves or that there are too much of them. In fact, I encourage them as much as possible so that the highest verification of details and opinions is there. It's just we have to make the prose readable at the same time; see the reception sections for Bubsy 3D (recently passed to GA) and Wetrix to see what I mean. 👨x🐱 (Nina CortexxCoco Bandicoot) 00:33, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi HumanxAnthro, I've attacked some of the more egregious examples, not sure where to draw the line so I stuck to anything with >4 references. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 14:40, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'd draw it at three, though that's a good limit too 👨x🐱 (Nina CortexxCoco Bandicoot) 22:49, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK, done HumanxAnthro Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 12:57, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome. Ping me if I forget to comment more on this review in the coming weeks. 👨x🐱 (Nina CortexxCoco Bandicoot) 17:12, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
HumanxAnthro Pinging as requested Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 09:27, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
HumanxAnthro Checking if you got the ping? Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:55, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I did, don't worry. I'm onto it. ;) 👨x🐱 (Nina CortexxCoco Bandicoot) 22:19, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
FunkMonk is done HumanxAnthro, only you can save Christmas now. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 23:31, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Here's some prose comments, real quick:
  • "the rare sequel that is better than its predecessor." Wait… *The* rare sequel that’s better? I understand if some critics think it is the only sequel to be better, but *The* implies its the only one of its kind, and there’s obviously other examples, like Shrek 2, and the second LOTR film.
  • "success" is overused in first paragraph of development section
  • "People" WP:WEASALWORD, was it all types of people or just those in the industry? Did the source specify this?
  • "to control the development of the film and to absorb its liabilities" you do not need two… um…. tos here

👨x🐱 (Nina CortexxCoco Bandicoot) 23:41, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done most. I'm assuming by "people" you mean the line about him receiving unwanted attention and threats? No the source doesn't specify. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 00:02, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm leaving it at that. I trust the other experience reviewers have provided all the comments needed to be made, sources reliable. If someone else wants to spotcheck the book sources, I do not have them on hand, so Support. 👨x🐱 (Nina CortexxCoco Bandicoot) 19:18, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image Review

[edit]

General Kenobi, you are a bold one.
Let me do an image review for this. Images used are either under public domain or have Creative Commons licenses. The poster, while non-free, is being used appropriately under fair use (illustrates the article). No other image copyright issues.
A few ALT issues (see):

  • Missing ALTs for File:Leigh Brackett 1941.JPG and File:Lawrence Kasdan by Gage Skidmore.jpg
  • File:Jokolen.jpg: Suggest a bit more descriptive alt: A top-down photo of the Hardangerjøkulen glacier (a vast snowy plain) in Finse, Norway.
  • File:David Prowse at Mountain-Con III in 2007 (cropped).png and File:James Earl Jones (8516667383).jpg need alts.
  • File:Theempirestrikesback-logo2.svg: Suggest a bit descriptive alt: The logo for The Empire Strikes Back. The movie title has been stylised for the logo.
  • File:Kennedy Center seen from the Potomac River, June 2010.jpg: Suggest a bit more descriptive alt: The Kennedy Center (a low-rise white building) as seen from the Potomac River.
  • File:Fan Expo 2015 - Darth Vader & Yoda (21580250840).jpg. Alt can be: Fans at a convention dressed as Darth Vader (left) and Yoda (right). (if you want, you can be a bit more descriptive with their clothing and physical description).

Sorry for being a bit too nitpicky, but just wanted a bit more descriptive alts for accessibility.
May the Force be with you. Another happy landing. ZKang123 (talk) 13:36, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing nitpicky here and thanks for suggesting alternatives ZKang123. All done Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 16:27, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There are still missing ALTs for the following: File:Leigh Brackett 1941.JPG, File:Lawrence Kasdan by Gage Skidmore.jpg, File:David Prowse at Mountain-Con III in 2007 (cropped).png and File:James Earl Jones (8516667383).jpg --ZKang123 (talk) 09:32, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Does alt footer not work? That's what I've been using. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 09:44, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to alt1 and alt2 Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 09:51, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ok looks good. Another happy landing. Farewell, my friend. May the Force be with you. ZKang123 (talk) 01:03, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And also with you. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 09:48, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Funk

[edit]
Yeah, should begin soonish, just finished the other reviews I had started. FunkMonk (talk) 11:55, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Frank Oz (voice) as Yoda" And puppeteer, no?
  • I wonder if the head-shots used of the actors, crew, etc. should be closer to how they appeared in the film (time wise)?
  • "Hamill recounted being told she might be Leia, which he found disappointing." I'm not sure what this means. That his character would be replaced by Leia? Could be made clearer.
  • "Lucas included elements such as Han's debt to Jabba" Wasn't this already established by the script for the first film, considering the scene where Han talks to Jabba about his debt was already filmed but cut by then (of course, included in the special edition)?
  • "all reprised their Star Wars' roles" Not sure the possessive apostrophe is needed here.
  • Link African-American and Armenian?
  • "Clive Revill provided the character's voice while Marjorie Eaton physically portrayed the Emperor in test footage. The footage proved unsatisfactory, and Elaine Baker wearing a mask, with chimpanzee eyes superimposed over her face, replaced her." Any explanations for these unconventional choices? Always baffled me.
I can't do anything about the photos, the earliest one is like 2001 for Harrison Ford and it's not a particularly clear photo of his face, but I've done the rest of these FunkMonk. The Jabba's debt thing, it doesn't mention anything about hte original film, just that he revived the idea from the treatment as it had not been in the first draft. So it's possible Jabba just wasn't going to be brought up again in hte sequel until they were brainstorming and the New Hope mention was just for that film.Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 23:29, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Yoda puppeteer point was in regard to the cast section, where Oz is only credited for the voice.
  • "Hamill and Fisher were on location, although Fisher only wanted to observe." What is meant by this? She didn't want to to film, or she just wasn't scheduled to film? If the latter, doesn't seem like only observing was her choice. Maybe "she was only there to observe"?
  • Footnote a could need a citation.
  • "causing Prowse to collapse onto the snow troopers" Collapse seems very strong, "fall"? Especially since you use that term again in the following paragraph for Fisher's illness.
  • "dendritic salt, mixed with magnesium sulfate" Link these substances.
  • Isn't tauntaun one word and not capitalised?[27] You now say "Taun Taun".
  • "700 people had worked on Empire." This is one of the only places where you abbreviate the title like that. Why not just say "the film" or similar to avoid confusion?
  • It would seem fitting to use this photo of Hamill at a press conference[28] for the movie somewhere?
Done all but the "700 people" one FunkMonk. Do you mean abbreviating the title to Empire? It's used quite a lot through the article not infrequently. It's even used in the lead. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 09:49, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and a Lucas-modified version in February 1997" Seems odd phrasing instead of just mentioning and linking the special editions?
  • "and the Clive Revill/Elaine Baker Emperor was replaced by Ian McDiarmid who had performed the role since Return of the Jedi (1983)" But wasn't this only done for the much later DVD release? Now it's written as if it was part of the original special edition.
  • "The original, unaltered version became officially unavailable beyond this point." Beyond what point? There is at least one official DVD release where the original versions were included as extras.
  • Some of the films had additional changes on Disney+, is that not the case with this one?
Done FunkMonk, sorry for taking a while to reply. There is no mention of any changes to Empire on Disney+, just the addition of "Maklunkey" to A New Hope. Empire, in general, seems to be the least modified of the three original films. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 20:52, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Harmy's Despecialized Edition is an unofficial project led by Petr Harmáček to remaster and preserve the films without Lucas's alterations." Is this level of detail really necessary in this already very long article? Seems like it makes more sense in the general special edition article.
  • "When the film debuted on television" What date?
  • "Lucas made other alterations." Isn't this redundant, as you already mention changes in the previous section?
  • "Merchandise for The Empire Strikes Back includes Lego sets,[276] posters, children's books, clothing, Funko Pops, character busts and statues, action figures, and furnishings." Considering the gazillion different kinds of figures that were made, seems a little random to mention two specific brands first, especially since those were not among the original merchandise for the film.
  • Much of the info under "Sequels, prequels, and adaptations" seems very tangential to this film. Is it all necessary? Looks like it could easily be cut down to a single paragraph. Especially since essential sections like "Special effects and design" and "Music" are a good deal shorter. For example, what does this level opf detail have to do with anything here? "although reactions to The Rise of Skywalker, as the conclusion to the Skywalker narrative, were typically negative and derisive." and " Retrospectives have highlighted that those who saw the prequel films first were more positive than those who grew up with the original trilogy." Looks like this and similar stuff belongs in a more general article.
  • Since the "Mythology and inspirations" section seems to be mainly based on Yoda's training of Luke, it seems a bit off that there is little to no description of this training in the plot section? Especially since many other parts of the film, like the beginning, is described in small detail.
  • You spell out Anne Lancashire's name at second instead of first mention.
K FunkMonk, done Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 20:59, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Modern reception" The word modern makes it seem like the film was made in the 19th century or something, in The Thing you had the more fitting "Critical reassessment".
  • "She believed that" Probably best to use her name if you're going to start a new paragraph.
  • "his lack of growth to this point." By this point?
  • "Empire magazine named it the third-best film of all time" Always wondered if their name was related to the movie, anything to it?
  • " the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU)" Why establish an abbreviation that you don't even use again?
  • "Critics praised the character Yoda, a diminutive puppet that serves as Luke's teacher" This makes it seem like he's a puppet in-universe, "diminutive alien"?
Done FunkMonk, I can find no evidence or implication that the magazine is named after the film so I'd guess it's just a British thing. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 23:26, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you FunkMonk Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 18:06, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from zmbro

[edit]

I've been checking out your work a lot lately, not just on this article, and am heavily impressed. Very well written and researched. Happy to offer my support. I'd love to see Return of the Jedi get this level of treatment one day. – zmbro (talk) 21:01, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Buidhe, do you think we're ready to promote yet?Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 12:27, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Source review is still needed (t · c) buidhe 12:48, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from SNUGGUMS

[edit]

Source review by Amakuru - Pass

[edit]

Version reviewed on first pass: [29]

Formatting review
  • What criterion have you used for putting things in long reference versus short reference? There seem to be a few inconsistencies, e.g. ref 382 has a Variety article inline, while ref 228 has one with a short ref. Personally I don't really see much need for the split out magazine and newspaper cites myself, I'd leave it at books and journals, since all those can be handled inline with pretty much just a single page number. In any case, it needs to be consistent.
  • I'm not too keen on the display name for some of the short references, for example "VarietyAugust 1980.", which corresponds to the long reference "Smokey 2 No. 1 in Domestic B.O. Maiden Wk. With $17,805,900". Daily Variety. Los Angeles. August 25, 1980. Although these are correctly linked via the sfn anchor, they should also be easily readable and translatable by a human, and formatted with spaces etc. Something like "Daily Variety 1980" might work instead. Similarly, "NYTimesMay24 1980" is not very human readable. Suggest something like "The New York Times, May 1980" or similar.
  • The "Hutchison, David (November 1980)" long reference is not cited anywhere in the article as far as I can see.
  • Mixed styles for volume/number - the "Lancashire, Anne" reference uses the 5 (3) notation while others below say "Vol." and "no.". Make it consistent.
  • "Box office Mojo" - our article is titled Box Office Mojo. Is there a discrepancy?
  • Ref 8 - "11 actors who are Harrison Ford-y enough to pull off a young Han Solo" - minor point, but I might put a {{nowrap}} around "Ford-y". It's splitting it on my screen, and the lone "y" looks a little odd.
  • Ref 18, 246 etc. - "British Film Institute" probably shouldn't be italicised, as it's a publisher rather than a work. Ditto 186, the BBFC.
  • Refs 5 & 19 - both look like website-based news sites, so probably should both be italics or both not, unless there's a fundamental difference between them that I'm missing. Check for other website names.
  • Ben Bova, Spencer Ackerman, John Morton (actor) all have their own pages, so can be linked as authors of refs used in the article. Check for others.
  • Ref 24 - "Franch" is a misspelling of "Franich"
  • Refs 214/218 - inconsistent italics
  • Refs 241, 243 - including the "(Page 3)" as part of the title looks a little odd. Might suggest the usual "p. 3" notation later in the ref

About halfway through now, will continue later on.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:10, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

      • What criterion have you used for putting things in long reference versus short reference? There seem to be a few inconsistencies, e.g. ref 382 has a Variety article inline, while ref 228 has one with a short ref. Personally I don't really see much need for the split out magazine and newspaper cites myself, I'd leave it at books and journals, since all those can be handled inline with pretty much just a single page number. In any case, it needs to be consistent.
The inline ones are the website, the others are physical magazines. I don't choose to use the magazine template for websites, the bot forces the change whenever I change it back and when I explained this to the people in charge of the bot they deemed me stupid for thinking a website was different to a physical magazine, and that it made sense to use a magazine citing template to cite websites. This, of course, is stupid, but I'm not in control of the bot and any time I change it back to website the bot changes it back to magazine. But that is the difference, one is citing websites and one is citing physical media. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 16:19, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not too keen on the display name for some of the short references, for example "VarietyAugust 1980.", which corresponds to the long reference "Smokey 2 No. 1 in Domestic B.O. Maiden Wk. With $17,805,900". Daily Variety. Los Angeles. August 25, 1980. Although these are correctly linked via the sfn anchor, they should also be easily readable and translatable by a human, and formatted with spaces etc. Something like "Daily Variety 1980" might work instead. Similarly, "NYTimesMay24 1980" is not very human readable. Suggest something like "The New York Times, May 1980" or similar.
Fixed Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 16:25, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • The "Hutchison, David (November 1980)" long reference is not cited anywhere in the article as far as I can see.
This was used for the special effects before they were split out so I've removed it. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 16:19, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Mixed styles for volume/number - the "Lancashire, Anne" reference uses the 5 (3) notation while others below say "Vol." and "no.". Make it consistent.
I don't know if changing this is an option. The refs are using the same field name but they're different types of ref (journal vs magazine) so that just seems to be how it's displayed. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 16:19, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Box office Mojo" - our article is titled Box Office Mojo. Is there a discrepancy?
Fixed Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 16:19, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ref 8 - "11 actors who are Harrison Ford-y enough to pull off a young Han Solo" - minor point, but I might put a {{nowrap}} around "Ford-y". It's splitting it on my screen, and the lone "y" looks a little odd.
Fixed Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 16:19, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ref 18, 246 etc. - "British Film Institute" probably shouldn't be italicised, as it's a publisher rather than a work. Ditto 186, the BBFC.
FixedDarkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 16:19, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Refs 5 & 19 - both look like website-based news sites, so probably should both be italics or both not, unless there's a fundamental difference between them that I'm missing. Check for other website names.
The Numbers is just a different site doing what Box Office Mojo does and it's article is not italicized, whereas Deadline Hollywood is a media site so it is italicized. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 16:19, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 16:19, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ref 24 - "Franch" is a misspelling of "Franich"
Fixed Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 16:19, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Refs 214/218 - inconsistent italics
Fixed Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 16:19, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Refs 241, 243 - including the "(Page 3)" as part of the title looks a little odd. Might suggest the usual "p. 3" notation later in the ref
Fixed Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 16:19, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Amakuru Thanks for working on the source review! (t · c) buidhe 14:32, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Buidhe: you're welcome, hopefully I'll finish it off tomorrow. Actually, while you're here, what do you think about the volume/number issue above? It seems a bit odd to me to have a mixture like that, but perhaps if that's the way the templates output it we can accept it? I'm also a little concerned that some bot is forcing our hand here with regard to how references are formatted, but again perhaps this is standard. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 17:18, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen this come up at other FACs, and in this case the best solution might just be using the same template (either cite journal OR cite magazine) for both journals and magazines. (t · c) buidhe 17:26, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Amakuru, I've sorted the "Volume" discrepancy and corrected the websites that were cited to magazine templates. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 20:57, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Amakuru:, got any updates? Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 15:52, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK, back for more... looking at this version now.
  • 289/325 - inconsistent italics for Business Insider
  • 308 - is there a reason why this is "(2020)", when the linked article has a more precise date of June 4, 2020?
  • Den of Geek is italicized in the references, which seems correct, but in the prose of the Critical reassessment section it is written without italics.
  • Rotten Tomatoes is also treated differently in prose and refs. Not sure which is correct here, but make consistent.
  • Ditto Metacritic
Spotchecks
  • 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 - I think this checks out for the Box Office figures, although I can't see the NY Times so will AGF on that one.
  • 6 - checks out
  • 27 - checks out for (a); (b) is part of a larger set of "Attributed to multiple references", for which it verifies the first sentence. Checks out, although formatting that way seems slightly odd to me.
  • 28 and 29 - checks out
  • 267 - checks out
  • 285 - checks out
  • 373 - checks out

I think that's enough spot checks, as the author is an experienced FA contributor. Looks good otherwise, once the few issues above have been looked at. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 14:11, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Amakuru.
I've fixed the Business Insider issue. The date for 308, not sure why that has happened, possibly just oversight from looking at too many refs in one go. Fixed the Den of Geek italics. Now the RT and Metacritic issues, those sites have their own specific templates, Template: Cite Rotten Tomatoes and Template: Cite Metacritic which just italicize the websites, again it's not something I have control over beyond switching those templates to regular Cite Web, which I can do if necessary. I think in this scenario the template italicizes them because they're websites. The cite template system is all a bit convoluted.
RE: The spotchecks, if you ever need to check a site like the NYTimes, use the Wayback Machine, that thing saved my ass, without it most of my best sources would be hidden behind a paywall.Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 14:24, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Darkwarriorblake: Ah, I see. I think I'd prefer it if we did switch over to cite web then, if that's OK. It's a fairly trivial point in the grand scheme of things, but reference consistency is one of the things we look for in an FA review, and personally I don't think we should allow the vagaries of external template designs to impact that consistency in an otherwise internally-logical article. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 14:36, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, done Amakuru Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 14:45, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent, thanks. Happy to pass on sources. Cheers, and great work.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:00, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Darkwarriorblake, could you correct the p/pp errors? Eg cites 54 and 68. There are others :-) . And give the page range for Schneider. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:27, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes no problem. EDIT: Oh wait, I can't for Schneider, it's an e-book with no page numbers, I have to use the chapter. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:58, 21 January 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) 21 January 2022 [30].

Louis Rwagasore

[edit]
Nominator(s): Indy beetle (talk) 19:12, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Louis Rwagasore, the second Prime Minister of Burundi and a national hero, usually viewed as its most preeminent independence activist, though he was assassinated before the country became sovereign from Belgian colonial rule. A son of the Burundian king, he served as prime minister for only a few weeks in 1961 until he was shot dead by political rivals with the probable backing of the Belgian colonial administration. If it passes to Featured Article status, it would be the first article on any Burundian topic on English Wikipedia to do so (to my knowledge). It passed its Good Article nomination in October (link), and I have finished touching it up with a ground-breaking book on his murder that was released a few months ago. -Indy beetle (talk) 19:12, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review—pass

Drive-by comment from Brigade Piron Indy Beetle has done a terrific job here with very limited source material. I do wonder, though, whether it would be worth including this book which might well be valuable as a rare recent academic text covering the subject? Have you been able to consult a copy, @Indy beetle:? —Brigade Piron (talk) 20:30, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Brigade Piron: Yes, my university gives me online access. You will see that I have cited it twice in this article. Russell does not write very much about Rwagasore in ways that other sources do not cover. His analysis of the lead up to independence is mostly a focus on grassroots violence and local politics (bourgmestres and the like). -Indy beetle (talk) 20:41, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for this. I'm not quite sure how I missed the citations, but thanks for pointing it out. I have nothing to add and certainly support its FA status. —Brigade Piron (talk) 21:08, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by JBchrch

[edit]
Suggestions for improvement
[edit]
  • Born to the Ganwa family of Burundian Mwami Mwambutsa IV. Without following the wikilinks, it’s not clear 1. whether Ganwa is a name, a function or caste, 2. what Mwami is and 3. who was Mwambutsa IV and what function he had. Perhaps the problem is very shallow and just requires slight a rewording of the sentence.
    • Put in parentheses that Mwami means "king", but other than that I'd rather not delve too much into Rwagasore's origins in the lede. Ganwa is explained in the "Early life" section.
  • Footnote g should be moved to the infobox, to be displayed just after "Crown Prince of Burundi".
    • Done.
  • in Gitega, Ruanda-Urundi, to Mwami (king). I would add more detail about what Mwami was king of.
  • CCB and foundation of UPRONA: Do we have information about what kind of goods the traders were producing?
    • Sources are not clear about this, though probably most of it was farm produce.
  • building his personal support among Swahili traders of Usumbura Do we have information about why Swahilis specifically?
    • Almost certainly because they had lots of money and connections relative to other Burundians, but I'm having trouble locating a source which specifically says this.
  • Does footnote b need to be a footnote? Can it not be in the main text?
    • Done.
  • He then requested credit for the cooperatives from the Conseil Supérieur du Pays I think we need to have some information – perhaps two or three words – in the main text about what this institution was. With the following sentence, you get the impression that "Belgian administration" and "Conseil supérieur du Pays" may be synonyms or that the latter may be part of the Belgian colonial institutions.
    • To be clear, the Conseil supérieur du Pays was established by the Belgians and ultimately answered to them (their decisions were not always final), but it was staffed by Burundians. I've decided to incorporate the explanatory footnote into the text to clarify what it was.
  • intervened to take over the CCB Do we have more information about what "take over" actually means? If so, the use of "take over" in the lead should also be changed
    • The sources are not clear about this. All we know is that it was ultimately "merged" (term Weinstein uses) with an administration cooperative.
  • administration cooperative. Can we briefly explain what that is?
    • Weinstein and other sources are not clear about what this was. Presumably it was just another economic cooperative that was directly overseen by the Belgian administration.
  • I would lift "although differ on the circumstances of UPRONA's founding and Rwagasore's role in it" from the footnote to the main text.
    • Done.
  • Bezi lineage of Ganwa Maybe we need some sort of designation for the Ganwa here. For instance, "the Ganwa princely group’s Bezi lineage"?
    • Ganwa is already explained in the Early life section (where Bezi is first mentioned).
  • this dynamic Do we have a better word than "dynamic"?
    • Changed to "alignment".
  • Consider moving footnote f in the main text, as it is a very interesting piece of information.
    • Done.
  • He believed that only a constitutional monarchy could maintain legitimacy and that it should yield power to a civilian government Seems like this sentence is internally contradicting? It can’t be both, right?
    • My word choice was poor; revised to say He believed that only a constitutional monarchy could maintain legitimacy and that the Mwami should cede most authority to a civilian government.
  • To protest colonial rule, Rwagasore encouraged boycotts Tell me if I have missed something but this is the first mention of Rwagasore’s anti-colonial activities. If that is the case, perhaps a broader introductory sentence about him opposing colonialism would make the transition smoother.
    • Added that he favoured "immediate independence". Unlike many other African independence leaders, details on Rwagasore's "anti-colonial activities" are not very forthcoming.
  • it liberalised the political sphere This is pretty vague and I think we can do better with the sourcing: cette commission fit libérer ou rentrer d’exil les militants indépendantistes et réhabilita Rwagasore dans ses droits politiques
    • Revised to The UN created a Commission for Ruanda-Urundi which liberalised the political sphere and restored Rwagosore's political rights.
  • Belgian Foreign Minister -> Belgian foreign minister per MOS:JOBTITLES
    • I mean, some of that guidance seems contradictory; I meant it as a title. I could formalise it to "Belgian Minister of Foreign Affairs".
  • Historian Ludo De Witte De Witte is a sociologist per the most reliable sources I could find (see below).
    • See my response below.
  • A separate investigation conducted by the Brussels Public Prosecutor's Office When did that take place?
    • Noted after the initial Burundian proceedings ended i.e. after Kageorgis' appeal in the spring of 1962 had failed but before he was executed.
  • In 1972, the Burundian government issued a document It looks to me like this document is more accurately labeled a "report".
    • Technically that pamphlet of lies and whataboutism was a "white book" (per Weinstein), but "report" sounds fine to me. Changed.
  • Muhirwa succeeded Rwagasore as Prime Minister of Burundi I would relink André Muhirwa here
    • He's already linked thrice in the article; once in the infobox, again at first textual mention, and at the bottom in the PMs of Burundi template.
  • There is a strong belief among some Burundians I would remove the "strong" here, since the belief is only held by "some" Burudians. It kind of adds undue weight to a belief that – per the article – is not widely shared.
    • Done.
On Ludo de Witte
[edit]

Sources consulted:

Since much of the article is sourced to works by Ludo de Witte, I investigated a little bit on his reliability. He is not a professional historian, but a sociologist, alternatively a "writer" or an "independent researcher". However, his works have been positively reviewed and he seems to have a good reputation as a historical researcher. He has a left-wing/anti-Occident bias (per Urquart 2001, Fetter 2002, the Verso publishing house, the Revue Toudi and the recent news articles) but I don't see that affecting the article too much. The only bit I'm on the fence about is the sentence beginning with De Witte surmised, which may be UNDUE considering his leanings. JBchrch talk 13:38, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    • De Witte is definitely something of a Marxist (or at least Marx inspired). I'm familiar with his work since doing a lot of research on Lumumba, which he gained international respect for. Most of the criticisms of his Lumumba work had more to do with style than substance and some of his conterfactual predictions due to his political sympathies, but the fact-based part of his work is well acclaimed. Urquhart particularly disliked De Witte, though that was almost certainly in-part fueled by De Witte's rather uncharitable treatment of the UN in his book on Lumumba, and Urquhart worked for the UN in the Congo in the 1960s. I dubbed De Witte "historian" here because some sources call him that ([31] [32] [33] [34]). This source calls him both a historian and sociologist. I am aware that his background is in sociology. Of all the labels normally applied to academic specialists, "historian" gets thrown around the easiest (e.g. even if the person's background is in another field). I could go either way as far as labeling De Witte goes. I want to leave the quote in, since it seems a perfectly reasonable assumption to make (not exactly Marxist-tinged crazy), it's attributed in text, and removing it would beg the question why the aid was never suspended.
    • @JBchrch: I've responded to your comments. Have a look. -Indy beetle (talk) 05:22, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by Kaiser matias

[edit]

Focusing on content of the article, and not wording:

  • I feel the note about his modern reputation would be better served at the end of the lead, and not the beginning. It feels to me like it would flow better that way, as it caps his legacy.
    • Moved.
  • It's mentioned that Rwagasore is the eldest son, but there's no mention of siblings. Is that information available? Even so, it would be good to note he is the eldest son in the "Early life" section, as it's missing there. Indeed later on another son of Mwambista, Charles Ndizeye, is noted; Charles' own article says they were half-siblings, and that Charles had two other half-sisters, but without a citation.
    • Err, the Early Life section did indeed mention that Rwagasore was the Mwami's eldest son. Although, I have now removed that line and replaced it with more detail on his family situation. Rwagasore was born to the Mwami and his first wife, followed by two daughters. The Mwami then divorced, remarried, and had Charles. This should make it clear that Rwagasore was the first-born.
  • Maybe provide a translation of "Conseil Supérieur du Pays", either in parenthesis or in the note?
    • Added in the note.
  • " In an attempt to distract Rwagasore from politics, the Belgian administration designated him head of the Butanyerera chiefdom (an area in Ngozi Province) in February 1959." Did this appointment come with any responsibility? If so it would be good to note that somewhat, as it seems ignored otherwise and doesn't seem to have impacted Rwagasore's actions.
    • Added that he resigned from the chiefdom to focus on politics (the Belgians' plan didn't work). Chiefdoms were formal parts of the Belgian administration in Burundi until 1960, and chiefs were accorded formal responsibilities (how powerful they were allowed to be was somewhat determined by the attitude of the Belgians towards them, see Pierre Baranyanka for an example of a powerful Burundian chief). Rwagasore was obviously uninterested in running a form of administrative unit that was clearly on its way out the door, and sources don't mention anything of note he did while he technically held the position.
  • "In 1961 the Belgian administration officially renamed Ruanda-Urundi as Rwanda-Burundi." Is there a reason for this name-change, and would it be relevant to include here?
    • I included it because the article changes from using "Urundi" to "Burundi" as with the times. It seemed poor for comprehension to leave that unexplained.
  • Is there anything notable here about so many Greek nationals taking part in the assassination? That seems like something to address, if possible.
    • The sources are keen to mention it (perhaps because their names are obviously neither Burundian nor Belgian), but there appears to be no special "Greek role". Greeks had been in this part of Africa for several decades, mostly working as traders and merchants. The article notes that the probable connection between Kageorgis, Iatrou, and the PDC leaders was money and business, which falls in line with that understanding.
  • For the non-English sources, would it not be prudent to include English translations?
    • Done.
  • Lastly, is there a reason the Poppe work is not cited here?
    • I have not viewed Poppe's 2011/2012 book. I did cite his 2015 Afrika Focus article here for the basic circumstances of the assassination, which I presume, since it's newer, would've included any particularly interesting discoveries he would've made in the book. De Witte reviews Poppe's work in both his 2013 La Revue Toudi article (cited here also) and in his 2021 book on the assassination released just a few months ago (and also cited in this article). De Witte is quite critical on the depth of Poppe's work, writing in the Revue Toudi piece: "This book suffers from serious shortcomings. Poppe's information is essentially limited to a series of notes and documents which come from a superficial investigation in a single archive collection - the Archives of the Belgian Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Contrary to what he claims in his book, Poppe has never done any research in the Archives of the Belgian Ministry of Foreign Affairs. His book is a synthesis of notes and documents drawn up and collected by a third party who has consulted these archives. A cursory consultation? In any case, in his book, neither the correspondence between Brussels and the Guardianship, nor the reports of the Colonial Security, nor the correspondence between the agents of the Guardianship, are studied and taken into account." De Witte reiterates the same points in his 2021 book the assassination, which is the most recent scholarship on the affair, and his own research quite clearly extends beyond Poppe's. So in summation: since we prefer most recent scholarship for our sources, which is De Witte 2021, and De Witte is quite clear that Poppe's work is superficial and builds upon it with more extensive research, this article is not missing much by not including it as a source.

That's all from me. Interesting to see that the way Rwagasore's legacy was utilized, or not, by successive Burundian leaders throughout the years. Solid article, and well-done for covering a topic that is definitely not well-covered here. Kaiser matias (talk) 04:09, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Happy with the comments above, but you didn't address the comment about non-English sources? Kaiser matias (talk) 18:24, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No need to apologize, instead I will be for pre-empting you here. A little too eager on my end to comment here apparently. But I'm happy to say I'm good to support now. Excellent work here. Kaiser matias (talk) 22:11, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Funk

[edit]
  • Marking my spot for now. Seems Congo Crisis is duplinked in the article body. FunkMonk (talk) 13:27, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fixed.
  • The article looks a bit empty, perhaps spice it up with pictures of places or people mentioned?
  • Link Hutu and other terms only linked in the intro at first mention in the article body too.
    • Done.
  • "institutions in Bukeye, Kanyinya, and Gitega" Link these and other places?
    • Gitega is already linked; the other two places do not have articles.
  • "The administration was irritated" Add Belgian or colonial for clarity?
    • Added "colonial".
  • "from the Conseil Supérieur du Pays" Should this be in italics?
    • Rewritten and italicised.
  • Link anti-colonial to something?
  • "He resigned from the post to focus on his political career." How soon after?
    • Sources do not say, though presumably quite quickly.
  • "emancipation of the Murundi people" Is this the same as Urundi?
    • Yes, but explicitly referring to the people and not the land; this is a direct quote. Strange that it is rendered as "Murundi", as Mu- words in Bantu languages like Kirundi are singular, while the plural is Ba- words (e.g. "Barundi" refers to the people of Burundi/Urundi, while "Murundi" would mean a single person from Burundi). But this is how the text puts it.
  • "Wary of the growing Hutu-Tutsi conflict in Ruanda, he sought to counteract tensions by bringing members of both groups into UPRONA's leadership." I wonder if we need some explanation here that it is neighbouring Rwanda, and it has a similar ethnic composition as Burundi? It's implied, but I'm not sure if it comes across to unfamiliar readers.
  • "known as the Front Commun" Italics?
    • Reformatted.
  • You sometimes use the spelling "Rwagosore", should be consistent.
    • Fixed.
  • "members were felt they were" Seems the first "were" is unnecessary.
    • Fixed.
  • "and that prime minister had" Missing "the"?
    • Fixed.
  • Why were so many Greeks involved? What's the connection?
    • See my response to Kaiser matias above. There is a footnote which explains the probable personal motivations of Iatrou and Kageorgis. More of a "businessmen conspiracy" than a "Greek conspiracy".
  • "delegation to Burundi draft a report" Missing "to" before draft?
    • Fixed.
  • "the civil unrrest" Extra r.
  • Support - looking good to me now. FunkMonk (talk) 21:04, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review from Ealdgyth

[edit]
  • http://www.larevuetoudi.org/fr/story/lassassinat-du-premier-ministre-burundais-louis-rwagasore - Belgian newspaper or newsmedia or is this an academic journal? I can't quite tell from the google translate.
    • Here is the French wiki article on it. It's published by the Centre d'études wallonnes et de République (Center for Walloon and Republican Studies) and appears to champion the works of Walloon academics. Appears to be a left-leaning newsletter with an academic focus. At any rate, I'm using it much more on the basis of De Witte's reputation for his thorough studies of assassinations.
    • Ealdgyth if you have doubts about the reliability of this paper, please see my little investigation above which confirms that De Witte is a subject-matter expert. JBchrch talk 20:09, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Current ref 73 (Deutsche Welle) - should Deutsche Welle be in italics?
    • It's not a website name, it's the name of the publisher, and a proper noun in that respect commonly known by its German name even in English, not "German World". We don't italicise it in its own article Deutsche Welle. Per MOS:BADITALICS, A proper name is usually not italicized.
  • I'm going to guess that https://www.iwacu-burundi.org/du-passe-compose-au-futur-simple-les-proces-et-lexecution-des-assassins-du-prince/ is from a Burundian newspaper or other newsmedia? Do we have a wiki article on them to help judge reliablity?
    • Iwacu is Burundi's only private newspaper and faces lots of pressure from the government for its independence. They were the only private Burundian media outlet to survive the government crackdown in the wake of the 2015 Burundian coup d'état attempt. Foreign Policy magazine did a profile on them a few years ago here. It has also been cited by other academic works for coverage on events in Burundi ([35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40]).
  • Current ref 93 (BURUNDI – BELGIUM) ... per MOS:ALLCAPS, we don't use all capitals even when the original does so.
    • Fixed.
  • I see that Scarcrow Press is an imprint of Rowman & Littleman, so that's a good quality publisher even if the name isn't highly familiar to most folks at FAC
  • De Witte, Ludo (2021). Meurtre Au Burundi... lacks a publishing location, unlike all the other books in the referencesa
    • Based off of the publishers, it's almost certainly Paris & Bujumbura, but I have the print edition which does not cite any locations.
  • I randomly googled three sentences and nothing showed up except mirrors. Earwig's tool shows no signs of copyright violations.
Otherwise everything looks good. Note that I will be claiming points from this review for the wikicup. Ealdgyth (talk) 15:11, 18 January 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 January 2022 [41].

Wisconsin Territorial Centennial half dollar

[edit]
Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 14:17, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about... Another of the 1936 commemoratives. This one mostly scandal-free, though not very popular. Enjoy.Wehwalt (talk) 14:17, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Kavyansh.Singh

[edit]
  • Suggesting to link Wisconsin in the lead (it is linked in the prose but not in the lead).
History of Wisconsin linked.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:31, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Its first governor, Henry Dodge, was sworn in on July 4, 1836" — I'm not sure, but our article says that he was in office from April 30, 1836.
It looks like his commission was signed on April 30 (see here at 3.17), but he was appointed effective July 3, 1836, which per our article Wisconsin Terrority was the date of establishment thereof. However, as July 3 was a Sunday, he would not have been sworn in that day, quite apart from the symbolism of being sworn in on July 4.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:31, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "by a subcommittee led by Colorado's Alva B. Adams.[b][14]" v. "each passed without debate or dissent[18][c]" — footnote after reference or before reference? (of-course, just a suggestion)
Fixed.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:31, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Badger is linked twice.
Fixed.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:31, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think the link takes care of any ambiguity.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:31, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Our article, baking soda, makes it clear that it goes by other names in Commonwealth countries. The advice of SOB is useful, but this is the natural way of referring to the brand and substance, and sometimes you have to put links adjacent to each other.
  • I think that Vermeule quote is long enough to deserve a blockquote.
OK
  • "included 15 coins put aside" v. "no fewer than fifteen were issued" (emphasis mine) — I think we need consistency here
OK.
I think the salient point is that it was triple face value. What a half dollar was worth in 1936 is less important than that.
  • "MADISON, WISC". or rubber-stamped" — erroneous full-stop?
Yes. Done.
Undoubtedly, but the books are published as R.S. Yeoman.

That is it. It is a pleasure reading this article. Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 14:52, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with Template:inflation part, feels useless here to know how much 1.5 USD means today, as this part is for readers to know that the coin, with 50 cents face value, sells three times much. That's it, no more no less, the only important part for this is "three times much", not 1.5 USD means how much today, I think even 1.5 billion dollars wouldn't change anything.--Jarodalien (talk) 08:29, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have no issues with that point being ignored, was just a suggestion. Wehwalt, any updates on other points? – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 17:46, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I've been distracted with other things. They're dealt with now.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:45, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No issues. I am satisfied with the changes/responses. Happy to support! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:56, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Tim riley

[edit]

Wehwalt knows my views on reproducing words that were originally in all-caps, and I shan't bleat on about this again: happy to agree to differ. The only drafting point that flitted across my mind was that the 80-odd-word quote at the end of the Design section might look better as a block-quote. I do not press the point. Otherwise, clear, concise, balanced, well illustrated and in all respects of FA standard in my view. Tim riley talk 15:58, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. I'll look at those things.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:08, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Funk

[edit]
  • I don't think I've ever reviewed a coin before, so it'll be a layman review. FunkMonk (talk) 19:09, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • At first glance, it appears badger is duplinked in the article body, but not linked in the intro at all.
Fixed.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:08, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Arm holding pickax with lead ore" Missing e in pickaxe?
I see I'm inconsistent there. Changed.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:01, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "these early miners chose to live in their shafts" What is a shaft in this context? I could imagine other non-native Anglophones would also be confused.
Piped.
  • Were such coins strictly for collection or could they be used as payment too?
I've made it clear now that they were legal tender. It says so in the legislation.
Done.
  • "An exceptional specimen" What does exceptional mean in this context?
Virtually unmarked, well struck. I've provide a pipe.
  • "The Wisconsin Territorial Centennial half dollar was designed by David Parsons and Benjamin Hawkins" Why is Parsons listed first when the text states Hawkins' design was not based on the older version?
The sources give them both credit in various forms.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:01, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:20, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Drive-by comment from HF - the pricing bit. The article currently states "The deluxe edition of R. S. Yeoman's A Guide Book of United States Coins, published in 2020, lists the coin for between $175 and $250, depending on condition". Breaking out my 2021 (non-deluxe) paperback of Yeoman's Blue Book, p. 201 puts the coin at $110 for AU-50, $120 for MS-60, $130 for MS-63, and $160 for MS-65. So either 1) the price was rather volatile between 2020 and 2021 2) Yeoman uses significantly different methodology between the Red Book (which you used) and the Blue Book 3) The price range listed in the Red Book is for higher grades than the Blue Book (which seems somewhat unlikely, given the improbability of finding a piece of 1930s silver coinage graded in a condition above what the Blue Book lists) or some combination of 1) & 3). If the answer here is 1) or 2), I'm not convinced that the product pricing information bar at WP:NOTCATALOG is met. Hog Farm Talk 23:08, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hog Farm, I generally buy the big Red Book every two years, and that has been sufficient. What do you propose? I'm just trying to give a general idea of value. Incidentally, I think it would be that you'd rarely find a lower grade, since these coins were not dumped into circulation by the issuer, and were sold after the worst of the depression, so they would not have been spent to salvage the fifty cents as happened with earlier issues.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:05, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What were the grade ranges given in the Red Book? If it's similar ranges, I guess could the 2021 Blue Book numbers be substituted? The piece seems to have dropped in value by a fair bit, I guess, unless the Red Book range starts somewhere around MS-65. Hog Farm Talk 14:17, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I can get to my copy of the Red Book on Monday, will let you know then.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:31, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hog Farm, grades given in the Red Book are for AU-50, MS-60, then each from 62 to 66.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:47, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So either it dropped quite a bit in value, or there's differing methodologies. Any idea which one? Hog Farm Talk 02:52, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I could only speculate. Is there anything of relevance in the introductory pages of the Blue Book, talking about the coin market?--Wehwalt (talk) 14:58, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't say anything special about the market that I see, the methodology is stated to be "The values shown are representative prices paid by dealers for various United States coins. These are averages of prices assembled from many widely separated sources. On some issues slight differences in price among dealers may result from proximity to the various mints or heavily populated centers. Other factors, such as local supply or demand or dealers' stock conditions, may also cause deviations from the prices listed." before talking about how mint grade coins bring premiums while circulated generally don't, and discusses how rare ones are often sold at auction which causes price fluctuation there. Hog Farm Talk 16:21, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you give me the bibliographic info, I'll sub in the 2021 information.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:49, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to be out of town and away from the book for several days. I don't consider this to be a big sticking point. Are you okay with this waiting until after I'm off wikibreak? I don't think this is anything that affects FA status. Hog Farm Talk 03:13, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hog Farm, do you have that info? I'd like to see if we can wrap up this FAC.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:20, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry this took so long - title is "Handbook of United States Coins 2021" author is given as R. S. Yeoman even though he is dead, Jeff Garrett is listed as Senior Editor, Q. David Bowers is listed as a research editor, and Kenneth Bressett is listed as Editor Emeritus. Publisher is Whitman Publishing, LLC. Publishing location appears to be given as Pelham, Alabama. Edition is "The Official Blue Book 78th Edition". ISBN is 978-0794848057 (yes, the book's isbn is printed in both the back cover and copyright information without all of the dashes). The pricing information for the Wisconsin Terroritial Commemorative half dollar is found on p. 201. Not sure if it makes a difference, but I'm using the paperback version. Hog Farm Talk 23:45, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'll work on this in the morning. Thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:46, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

==== Some support by CactiStaccingCrane (talk) ==== I support this nomination on criteria 1d, 1e, 2b and 4. These criteria are often overlooked in FAC, and the article is a great read too! In my opinion, this should be a model for many articles which is overlong and disorganized. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 07:01, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

Placeholder—will deal with this soon. SN54129 15:30, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • I assume spotchecks are not necessary regarding a FAC from a candidate of the nom's calibre unless told otherwise by @FAC coordinators: .
    The sources appear to be of the highest quality pertaining to the topic, including a liberal sprinkling of expert scholarship, and the few primary sources are used sparingly and only when focussed on points of data. I could not in my—admittedly not in-depth—review of the databases find anything that jumped out as demanding answer to the question, "why is this not used?" nor suggest anything extraneous to the topic.
    The source review is, therefore, passed. The software thing throws up a couple of things, but the important thing is consistency, rather than rectal-probing ourselves over processwonkery. SN54129 19:20, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You got a bit technical for me towards the end there SN, but I'm taking that as a pass. Cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:33, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]
  • File:Wisconsin centennial half dollar commemorative obverse.jpg, File:Wisconsin centennial half dollar commemorative reverse.jpg need separate license tags for the coin and the photograph. (t · c) buidhe 21:00, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We've faced this situation with Bobby131313's images before. I've added a tag.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:17, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by query

[edit]
Yes, also that's the official terminology, see here.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:50, 17 January 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) 18 January 2022 [42].

Fakhr al-Din II

[edit]
Nominator(s): Al Ameer (talk) 05:11, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Fakhr al-Din II, one of a long line of Druze chiefs from the Ma'n dynasty who far exceeded his ancestors in ambition and achievement. He became the governor and tax farmer of Mount Lebanon, Galilee and their ports and eventually much of the western Levant in the early 17th century. In the complex politics of his time, he was both an efficient tax collector and enforcer for the Ottoman Empire and an unprecedentedly autonomous and enterprising rural chief. Eventually his power became too much for the Empire to bear and he was crushed. Fakhr al-Din reinvigorated the ports of Sidon, Beirut and Acre by opening them to European commerce after a centuries-long hiatus and inaugurated the lucrative Lebanese silk industry. His most lasting legacy was the symbiotic union of the Druze and Maronites under his watch, which led to the precursor entities of the modern Lebanese state. Al Ameer (talk) 05:11, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]
  • Suggest presenting the family tree as a template rather than an image, to improve its accessibility and allow for inline citation
  • Could you point me to a recommended template? While I agree, my feeling is that there's too many people in this tree to fit into a template. Alternatively, I could add a template, in addition to this more comprehensive chart, showing only the ancestors of Fakhr al-Din. Al Ameer (talk) 19:49, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Ferdinando_i_de'_medici_12.JPG: source link is dead, missing a US tag
  • File:Emir_Fakhr_al-Din_and_Mustafa_Pasha,_Olfert_Dapper.png needs a US tag. Ditto File:Fakhr_al-Din_al-Maʿani,_Eugene_Roger.png, File:Emirs_Fakher_ad_din_II_%26_Bashir_II,_stamp.jpg
  • File:Boats_at_the_citadel_of_Sidon._Coloured_lithograph_by_Louis_Wellcome_V0049486.jpg: what is the copyright status of the original work?
  • File:Emir_Fakhr_al-Dīn_Statue_in_Baʻaqlīn.jpg: as Lebanon does not have freedom of panorama, this will need a tag for the original work. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:38, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Funk

[edit]
  • Link musket?
  • Link Ottoman?
  • Link Porte. I see it is linked at second instead of first mention.
  • "Ottoman efforts to tax and disarm the peasants of the Druze Mountain, who historically evaded taxes" Was there a religious angle to their persecution?
  • Since he is denoted "II", I'd expect at least a footnote stating who "I" was, and their relation?
  • "Fakhr al-Din was careful to present himself as a Sunni before the government." But didn't everyone know he was Druze?
  • Probably yes, but formally (officially) he presented himself as a Sunni. I have now added in the Origins section that Druze had to pretend being Sunni to obtain any official post so hopefully that adds more context to this. Al Ameer (talk) 03:26, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "redoubt at the Krak des Chevaliers" Add "castle" for clarity?
  • Link Janissarie.
  • "he relocated to the Palazzo Medici Riccardi" The article about the palace states it was only sold to the Riccardi family in 1659, so should it just be called "Palazzo Medici" here?
  • Link Spanish Hapsburgs?
  • "Afterward, Fakhr al-Din was sent to Constantinople. There, he was imprisoned in Yedikule, while his two sons were sent to the Galatasaray." Needs citation.
  • "while his two sons were sent to the Galatasaray." Were these his only remaining sons?
  • State when the Sidon image is from?
  • The very end of the article seems pretty empty, any imagery[43] that would be relevant there? Could show buildings he had built under "Building works" maybe?
  • Moved the picture of the Deir al-Qamar palace to Building works. Unfortunately, the palace in Beirut is no longer extant, and we have no images of the palace or the caravanserais of Sidon that he commissioned. We have images of Ma'nid constructions in Tyre but they were not necessarily built by Fakhr al-Din. May reintroduce them to article in a limited way (I relocated this section to Ma'n dynasty#Architectural works and legacy prior to the FAC). There is a good picture of the Khan al-Franj in Sidon, but this was not built by the Ma'ns, even though they are erroneously credited with it in popular narrative. Al Ameer (talk) 18:33, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This Commons image[44] seems amusing, if we could find the original. It seems to be here:[45] And the book (Histoire des Druses, peuple du Liban) on archive.org also has an image of a wife[46], of his camp[47] and other interesting things. I can upload the images if they're useful, seems some of them are already on Commons but will questionable sourcing. FunkMonk (talk) 16:46, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding that first picture showing the sheikh with the pipe, this is actually a real sketch of Muhammad Turabay, the Bedouin chief and Ottoman governor of Lajjun in north Palestine. See the article cited here by Chehab, Hafez, which is devoted to the artistic representations of Fakhr al-Din. As for the wife, while this is an 18th-century artistic representation (not a sketch of his actual wife), I have no issue including it in the article. Same for the military camp. They are both useful illustrations in my opinion. I do not think we should include the pipe-smoking sheikh since this has been proven to be someone else entirely. Would you please upload them (wife and camp) or correct the sourcing information of their existing images (assuming they are from the same source)? Al Ameer (talk) 18:33, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, that's odd with the pipe pictures. I've uploaded the wife[48] (the version of it here[49]identifies her by name, not sure if it's reliable, don't know much French so can't determine what the book's text says beyond the caption), but it appears the camp image unfortunately isn't folded out in the archive.org scan, I'll see if I can find it elsewhere. It also appears that this image on Commons that is said to be him[50] is also from that book, but actually shows a Druze cavalryman:[51] Not sure what the context is in the book or if it's useful here, but it seems the caption on Commons should be changed at least. FunkMonk (talk) 01:25, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Seems the camp image is also plagiarised, from here[52], so probably not of use. Unless the emir mentioned is our subject, which should be doubtful? FunkMonk (talk) 01:25, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Look at that, good find. I might want to upload it for the Turabay dynasty article since they were grand princes, so-to-speak, of the Bedouin in Mount Carmel, the Jezreel Valley and around Jenin until 1697. The image was "issued" in 1717, but King Louis XIV reigned from 1643 to 1715. Very likely that this sketch dates between 1643 and 1697. The Turabays did maintain low-level diplomatic relations with the French and did not have Bedouin successors. Al Ameer (talk) 21:26, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Tell me if you need help with that, seems the version I linked is plastered with watermarks, should be possible to find a clean version. FunkMonk (talk) 01:31, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I probably will. Also, I just noticed your comments on the wife picture, I will look into it further and probably add it to the Marriages and children section. Al Ameer (talk) 06:55, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Usually, genealogical trees are placed at the end of the article, but not sure if there are really any conventions.
Don't personally think it could hurt, but is there much room left there? FunkMonk (talk) 01:25, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I guess not, will leave it out. Al Ameer (talk) 21:26, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and another large mulberry grove in nearby Hisah" Funny, a lot of my Lebanese family lives there, never saw it mentioned in an article (I created the village's article), hehe.
Cool! FunkMonk (talk) 01:25, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link Venetian at first instead of second mention.
  • Link mulberry tree?
Seems a bit tangential, unless it was from the area? Here is an old picture of silk worms in Lebanon eating mulberry leaves[53], perhaps it would be more relevant. FunkMonk (talk) 01:25, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Man I've been looking for a picture like this. Was planning on a 'silk industry in Mt Lebanon' article. I added the picture here, and will use it in the article I'm planning if I ever get back to it. Al Ameer (talk) 21:26, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nice! FunkMonk (talk) 01:31, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Show one of the structures mentioned under Fortifications and troops?
Looks good! FunkMonk (talk) 01:25, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Fakhr al-Din also had a white concubine" White seems a bit of an odd term to use for the context, what does the source say? Any nationality? Or say European?
  • Odd choice indeed, but this was the author's description. I would have changed it to European (was not uncommon for powerful Ottomans to have Balkan concubines), but “white” could also mean Circassian from the Caucasus (which was not uncommon either). If Caucasus could be considered European, then will change it. Otherwise, might be better to just write 'concubine'. Al Ameer (talk) 18:33, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Probably just keep as is, then. FunkMonk (talk) 01:25, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Will do. Al Ameer (talk) 21:26, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link Janbulad family to Jumblatt under Assessment?
  • The Janbulads referred to here are the Kurdish clan of the Azaz/Kilis area. I will link Ali Janbulad#Family background until there is a separate article on the Kurdish Janbulads. The Jumblatts of the Chouf have been described by 19th-century local Lebanese historians as descendants of the Janbulads, and the family itself seems to claim it, but this is by no means certain and perhaps only a later legend. I have a few RS to work from and will expand on this subject in the Jumblatts article this week or next since you have brought it up. As of now, it would be a stretch to link them here. Perhaps after I add that material, it will make sense to plug in the Legacy section that the Jumblatts, perhaps the most powerful Druze faction of the Mountain and a major political player in local politics since the 17th–18th century, first settled there under the auspices of Fakhr al-Din's rule. Al Ameer (talk) 18:33, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, good to get that cleared up. FunkMonk (talk) 01:25, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "who may have it as his" May have had it?
  • "erroneously calls calls him "Yusuf"" Double call.

CommentsSupport by PM

[edit]

Great work with this. It is always great to see some diversity among Milhist FAC candidates, and Ottoman bios are definitely under-represented. He seems an important figure, so kudos for getting the article to this standard. A few comments:

Lead
  • in the 1620s–1633→in the 1620s and until 1633.
  • suggest the Sublime Porte (Ottoman imperial government)→Ottoman imperial government (Sublime Porte is an anachronistic figure of speech or metaphor that doesn't help the reader, as Porte has several meanings with regard to the Ottomans over time), needs consequent changes throughout
  • "took over northern Mount Lebanon, which was predominantly Maronite"
  • "by timely forwarding of tax revenue"
  • suggest "During a period when the empire was in a long economic crisis"
  • link Sidon and Beirut when they are first mentioned singly, and unlink later mentions
Origins and early life
  • nahiyas should be italicised as an isolated foreign word not in mainstream English dictionaries [54] per: MOS:FOREIGNITALIC. It is best to use template:lang ie {{lang|ar|[[nahiye (Ottoman)|nahiya]]s}} This applies to a number of Arabic terms used in the article, you will need to check each one in Merriam-Webster (if it is not in it, use the template to italicise it)
  • suggest avoiding the parens by rewording as follows: "Like other Ma'nids before him, Qurqumaz was a local rural chieftain in charge of a small area – known as a muqaddam. He was also a multazim of all or part of the Chouf – meaning that he was a holder of a limited-term tax farm known as a iltizam."
  • in a similar vein, suggest "were occasionally forced to pay the poll tax known as jizya which was reserved for Christians and Jews, and were the target of condemnatory treatises and religious edicts known as fatwas." (jizya and fatwa are in M-W)
  • suggest "In countering their incorporation into the Ottoman administrative and fiscal system, the Druze benefited from rugged terrain and possession of muskets, making it difficult to impose Ottoman authority in the Druze Mountain."
  • delete (d. 1702)

Down to Rise. More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:52, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • suggest "When the veteran general Murad Pasha was appointed provincial governor of Damascus – known as beylerbey,..." (beylerbey is in M-W as beglerbeg)
No, just noting that it doesn't need the template as it is in M-W with a different spelling. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:51, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "upon his arrival toat Sidon in September 1593"
  • suggest "Murad Pasha reciprocated by appointing him the district governor – sanjak-bey<insert Note here with "called amir liwa in Arabic sources">, of Sidon-Beirut in December" (sanjak and bey are both in M-W) - why a reference to Turkish words, are they relevant to this period?
  • Revised. As opposed to the Arabic equivalents? I had not thought about it much, just assumed the Turkish terms were more appropriate and commonly used for Ottoman provincial and district offices. No strong preference though. Al Ameer (talk) 18:17, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • suggest "The Ottomans' preoccupation with the wars against Safavid Iran – between 1578 and 1590 and again between 1603 and 1618 – and the war with Habsburg Austria..."
  • Revised.
  • suggest "the Shaqif and Tibnin nahiyas in Jabal Amil – in current-day South Lebanon,"
  • why initial caps for "Emir"?
  • recommend "to drive Yusuf Sayfa Pasha – the beylerbey of Tripoli and local chief of Akkar, from the nahiyas of Beirut and Keserwan" the current formulation is rather confusing
  • suggest "Although the Druze were often in conflict with the Ottomans, in principle the community was loyal to the ruling Sunni Muslim states, in contrast with the Shia Muslims, who formed a large component of the population of the Safed sanjak."
  • suggest "He cultivated close ties with Safed's Sunni religious scholarly class, known as the ulema." (ulema is in M-W)
  • suggest "Among them was Khalidi, who was mufti of the city's Hanafis, the madhab – Islamic school of law – favored by the Ottoman state" (madhab is in M-W)
  • suggest "foreseeing that he would benefit from Khalidi's close ties"
  • suggest "careful to present himself as a Sunni beforeto the Ottoman imperial government" (if that is what is meant)
  • link Levant at first mention
  • "Although Khalidi held Fakhr al-Din's motive was to defend his territory" in what context did he do this? To the imperial authorities at the time, or in later writings etc?
  • perhaps link redoubt to National redoubt, as redoubt is really about the actual fortification, not the concept
  • what was Al-Burini" historian?
  • link Piastre
  • delete (d. 1660)

Down to First conflict with the Porte. More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:01, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • "and promising him sanctuary in Tuscany in 1608 if he backed a future crusade" that he would get sanctuary in 1608, or he was promised it in 1608 for a future occasion?
suggest "After Janbulad's defeat, the Tuscans shifted focus to Fakhr al-Din, sending him an arms shipment originally bound for Janbulad. In 1608 they promising him sanctuary in Tuscany if he backed a future crusade." Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:58, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the Emir"→Fakhr al-Din, it is just potentially confusing, I wouldn't use it at all
  • link Anatolia
  • Janissaries→janissaries there is a later examples, and of unnecessary initial caps with janissary as well
  • what is a kethuda?
  • "presented to his predecessor withby Fakhr al-Din's son Ali in 1607."
  • comma after "the chieftain of Baalbek"
  • "with the Porte and revive their former power"?
  • headquarter→headquarters, headquarters is a plural noun but singular or plural in construction, ie it can take a singular or plural verb in conjugation (eg the headquarters is, or the headquarters are), but itself is always headquarters
Exile in Tuscany and Sicily
  • suggest Paul V→Pope Paul V for clarity, I wondered if this might be a new Tuscan ruler
  • suggest "Fakhr al-Din also began direct attempts to reconcile with the Ottoman government"
  • "in the former apartment of the late Pope Leo X" as it appears currently that there were two popes at the same time, whereas Leo X was long dead at this point
  • "Spanish Habsburgs"

Down to Peak of power. More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:43, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • suggest widening the piping of Sidon Eyalet to include all of "separate eyalet called Sidon"
  • "of the Ma'nid-held fortresses of Shaqif Arnun and Subayba"
  • suggest "their support for Fakhr al-Din's former sekban commander Yaziji" as he has only been briefly mentioned before
  • recommend "The Emir thereafter sent his Maronite ally Abu Safi Khazen, the brother of his fiscal and political adviser and scribe – or mudabbir, Abu Nadir Khazen,..."

Down to Battle of Anjar and aftermath. More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:20, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • "as the sanjak-beys of Ajlun and Nablus respectively"
  • "Fakhr al-Din was notified that the imperial government had reappointed his sons"
  • "is a fabrication" this is a pretty controversial statement. Do scholars other than other than Abu-Husayn agree?
  • delete (d. 1684)
  • 1625–1630 appears to use an emdash?
  • delete (d. 1716)
  • "to smoke out the Fakhr al-Din"
  • suggest "building hostel-warehouses – known as khans – for merchants there,..."
  • "Medicis" is used as the plural of Medici, but I understand that it should just be "Medici"
  • suggest "politically free Lebanon"→"free Lebanon politically"
  • delete (1590–1635)
  • suggest "except its arched doorway entrance with its alternating yellow and white bands of limestone – known as ablaq"
  • suggest "Fakhr al-Din had his government house – known as a saray – built in Sidon as early as 1598."
  • what is a qa'as?
  • "who may have used it as his original residence"?
  • Revised.
  • suggest "in an endowment – known as a waqf, administered from Damascus"
  • suggest "and a bathhouse – or hammam."
  • "mothered" is an unusual word, perhaps "gave birth to"?
  • delete the (b. 1587) etc
  • suggest "where Fakhr al-Din renovated a palace for her."

That's it. Mostly prose and MOS stuff really, a few substantive questions. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:25, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Peacemaker67: Thank you for taking the time to review this article in detail. I accepted your prose recommendations and I believe your other points have been addressed, save for Khalidi's defense of Fakhr al-Din's rebellion in 1606–1607. Will work on that shortly. Also, I used the '—' without spacing, instead of the ' – '. Is this the same thing for practical purposes, or is the latter preferred? --Al Ameer (talk) 18:17, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Great, given this is FAC I'll wait for an answer on the final point of two. As far as mdash vs ndash, they are effectively interchangeable as punctuation, but ndashes need spaces either side, mdashes don't. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:29, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Peacemaker67: I believe that bit has now been cleared up, but let me know. Otherwise, the dashes have been dealt with, courtesy of Ham II. --Al Ameer (talk) 18:08, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is excellent, Al Ameer son. Minor point to address above, but supporting regardless. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:18, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I made that last revision. Thanks for the support! Al Ameer (talk) 05:28, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Drive by comment

Comments Support from Ham II

[edit]

What a fascinating topic! Here are my comments:

  • Note b is missing a full stop before the reference.
  • "in the 1620s and until 1633" – I find this hard to parse; "from the 1620s to 1633"?
  • "his army of sekban mercenaries, who after 1623 mostly replaced the local peasant levies on whom he previously depended" – I would replace "who" and "whom" with "which".
  • "Qurqumaz was a local rural chieftain in charge of a small area—known as a muqaddam." – Space instead of dash here.
  • "He was also a multazim of all or part of the Chouf—meaning that he was a holder of a limited-term tax farm known as an iltizam." → "He was also a multazim (a holder of a limited-term tax farm known as an iltizam) of all or part of the Chouf"
  • Not sure that it does; my order of preference here would be parentheses > dashes > commas, so I think "He was also a multazim—a holder of a limited-term tax farm known as an iltizam—of all or part of the Chouf" would be better than the current version. Also, it's strange that "multazim" still links to Iltizam, but "iltizam" later in the sentence is unlinked – I'd link the latter instead. Ham II (talk) 09:44, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The researcher Alexander Hourani notes Duwayhi's version is more credible" → "The researcher Alexander Hourani notes that Duwayhi's version is more credible"
  • No source for the quotation from the Chevalier d'Arvieux. "of wit infinitely male and harmonious voice" seems to be missing something; should this end "...and a harmonious voice"?
  • "Tax records indicate he had gained" → "Tax records indicate that he had gained"
  • "[When Murad Pasha was appointed] provincial governor‍—‌known as beylerbey" → "[When he was appointed] beylerbey (provincial governor)"
  • "[Murad Pasha reciprocated by appointing him] district governor‍—‌known as sanjak-bey" → "[He appointed him] sanjak-bey (district governor)"
  • Sorry; the text in square brackets (and in black rather than red or green) is simply to make the comment easier to read; I wasn't saying that "Murad Pasha reciprocated by appointing him" should be changed to "He appointed him". Ham II (talk) 09:44, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This Turkish title was called amir liwa in Arabic sources" – No full stop in this note, and no reference.
  • "government records indicate Fakhr al-Din's tax farms [...]" → "government records indicate that Fakhr al-Din's tax farms [...]"
  • As this comes in the middle of a list I think commas impair the readability here, I'm afraid. Again, my order of preference would be parentheses > dashes > commas, so I don't mind there being dashes here – but there should be dashes on both sides of the clause "in present-day South Lebanon", not only at the beginning as previously. Ham II (talk) 09:44, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the madhab—‌Islamic school of law‍—‌favored by the Ottoman state" → "the madhab (Islamic school of law‍) favored by the Ottoman state". Unlike Merriam-Webster, Lexico's American and British English dictionaries have the spelling madhhab, which is consistent with the title of our own article. Is there any reason to prefer "madhab" over "madhhab"?
  • "Abu-Husayn holds he also aimed to take over Beirut and Keserwan, both held by Yusuf." → "Abu-Husayn maintains that [...]", avoiding "holds" because of the "held" later in the sentence.
  • "Fakhr al-Din was instructed by Murad Pasha to assist the new beylerbey of Tripoli, Husayn Pasha al-Jalali, to collect the eyalet's taxes" → "[...] with the collection of the eyalet's taxes"
  • "his chief aide—or kethuda, Mustafa" → "his chief aide, or kethuda, Mustafa"
  • There are still four instances of "Medicis".
  • "He signed a letter in May requesting permission to stay in the country" – what was "the country"? The Grand Duchy of Tuscany?
  • "[The Habsburgs] likely held Fakhr al-Din against his will" → "probably held Fakhr al-Din against his will"
  • "under the guise of assisting Tripoli's beylerbey Umar Kittanji Pasha collect the taxes in his eyalet" – Either "assisting" should be "helping", or it should be "assisting [...] with the collection of taxes".
  • "the Ottoman imperial government, likely seeking to avoid a total victory by the Ma'ns" → "the Ottoman imperial government, probably seeking to avoid a total victory by the Ma'ns"
  • "Homs" is linked at its second appearance, not its first.
Fixed now? Al Ameer (talk) 01:56, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "his fiscal and political adviser and scribe—or mudabbir, Abu Nadir Khazen" – Replace the dash with a comma and space.
  • "The Maronites of Bsharri likely welcomed the end of the muqaddams" → "The Maronites of Bsharri are likely to have welcomed the end of the muqaddams"
  • "the new beylerbey soon after died" → "the new beylerbey died soon after", and "afterward" might be better still.
  • "but does not specify if he held office" → "but does not specify whether he held office"
  • "A sketch of Fakhr al-Din, published in a 1646 work by his physician in 1632–1633, the Nazareth-based Franciscan Eugene Roger. The portrait was likely not drawn from life" – Avoid "sketch" for an engraving. "Eugene" should presumably be "Eugène", and "probably" is better than "likely".
  • "The Ottomans' victories against the Safavids in 1629 had likely freed up their forces" → "[...] are likely to have freed up their forces"
  • "The tax farms which Fakhr al-Din and his family held practically undisturbed from the 1590s, were the principal source of his income." – No comma needed here.
    Removed. Al Ameer (talk) 01:56, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The port town of Sidon (sketched in 1843)" – Again, not a sketch; change this to "depicted" or "pictured" as in other captions. It might be best to use one of these consistently throughout – perhaps "pictured".
  • "resulting in foreign coinage overtaking its internal markets and widespread counterfeiting" → "[...] and in widespread counterfeiting"
  • "building hostel-warehouses—known as khans—for merchants there" → "building hostel-warehouses (known as khans) for merchants there"
  • "the last of which he founded and is today called after him." → "[...] and which is today named after him." How is it named after him, though? I don't see any mention of him in our article Sidon Sea Castle.
  • "utilization" → "use"
  • "sekbans musketeers" → "sekban musketeers"
  • Fixed.
  • "his ties with the French, the Tuscans and the Vatican" – "The Vatican" is rather anachronistic here; try "the Papacy" instead. What does the source for this say?
  • "both share a commendation of Fakhr al-Din, noting his rule was a golden age for the city" – I would simplify this to "both commend Fakhr al-Din and note that his rule was a golden age for the city"
  • "had likely caused a deficit of Druze farm labor" → "had probably caused a deficit of Druze farm labor"
  • "per their own community's conception of the Lebanese state" → "according to their own community's conception of the Lebanese state"
  • "though differ significantly" → "though they differ significantly"
  • "Fakhr al-Din requested from the Medicis assistance" → "Fakhr al-Din requested assistance from the Medici"
  • "his communications with Tuscany indicate Fakhr al-Din's primary concern was utilitarian" → "his communications with Tuscany indicate that Fakhr al-Din's primary concern was utilitarian"
  • "an intrinsic marble fountain" – Why "intrinsic"?
  • "alternating yellow and white bands of limestone—a style known as ablaq" – Comma and space instead of dash here.
  • "Haddad assumes Fagni oversaw" → "Haddad assumes that Fagni oversaw"
  • "Fakhr al-Din had his government house—known as a saray—built in Sidon" → "Fakhr al-Din had his government house (known as a saray) built in Sidon"
  • "an endowment—known as a waqf, administered from Damascus" → "an endowment (known as a waqf) administered from Damascus"
  • "and a bathhouse—or hammam." → "and a bathhouse (or hammam)."
  • This is now the only punctuation left that sticks out like a sore thumb to me. I think it's to do with the gloss being at the end of a sentence (and a paragraph), rather than being a kind of aside in the middle of a sentence; it seems to draw too much attention to itself. You do say below that you prefer using parentheses for glossing foreign terms. Ham II (talk) 20:02, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In the present, the Khan al-Ruzz is in a poor state" → "Today the Khan al-Ruzz is in a poor state"
  • "An 18th-century, artistic representation of a wife of Fakhr al-Din" – Is this meant to imply that artistic licence has been taken by the European artist? I would change this to something like "A fanciful 18th-century representation of a wife of Fakhr al-Din."

Ham II (talk) 10:20, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

G'day Ham II. Just noting that Al Ameer son has already made quite a number of changes to eliminate parens as a result of my suggestions above. My understanding is that dashes are less formal but more intrusive, and serve to draw attention to the additional material, whereas parens are more formal but subtle. Over to Al Ameer son to decide on the best approach, but I would note it is largely a style preference (the MOS is silent on a preference, here is one guide on such things), and suggest that Al Ameer son makes a decision on a case-by-case basis. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:46, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Ham II: - Recently, a discussion at WT:FAC resulted in disallowing the use of the !xt and xt templates on FACs (the instructions above have been changed to indicate the new guidelines) due to the page having a limited number of template calls and those templates taking up an undue amount of our template transclusion space. If you must highlight text in color, please switch to using {{red}} and {{green}} (they change color but not font so take up less space against the transclusion ceiling) or simply indicate the text in quotes. Hog Farm Talk 15:07, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Hog Farm: Thanks; I wasn't aware of the talk page discussion. Now done. I've also created the redirects {{xr}} and {{xg}} as less obtrusive equivalents. Ham II (talk) 09:44, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clarifying this PM and explaining the purposes of both. I personally prefer using parentheses for foreign terms or generally unfamiliar places. Except for potential consistency concerns, I do not see why both approaches cannot coexist so I am taking your case-by-case advice for now. Wherever Ham II recommended a simple comma as an alternative, however, I used that.
@Ham II: Thanks for the thorough review. Other than the bit about how best to explain the foreign terms used in the article, I believe I have addressed the rest of your concerns and suggestions. Al Ameer (talk) 01:56, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It gives me great pleasure to support this candidate! Ham II (talk) 21:01, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

Spot-checks not done. It looks like all sources are consistently formatted. These all look like good sources but I note that many are decades old. Is William Harris (historian) a reliable source for Lebanese topics? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:59, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Thanks for spotting that, it was a mix-up. Not the correct 'William Harris'. The 'William Harris' who is cited as a source here is a reliable source for Lebanese topics. [55].
Most of the sources cited here which date from before the 1990s are by the top authorities for Lebanon's Ottoman history, i.e. Kamal Salibi and his student Abdul-Rahim Abu-Husayn. The others include entries in the Encyclodia of Islam's 2nd edition (including one by Salibi), an expert work by William J. Griswold (which is cited by almost any source discussing Ali Janbulad), and an expert work by V. J. Parry, a noted historian of the Ottoman period. --Al Ameer (talk) 15:34, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I presume these early historians have not had their findings overturned by later research? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:29, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Salibi and Abu-Husayn have actually overturned a lot of what used to be the conventional history of the subject, and Ottoman-era Lebanon in general. In the case of Salibi, he has overturned some of his own conclusions and views from the 50s, 60s, and 70s, in part due to the findings of his student, Abu-Husayn. As for the information in the article, it is all the most current, so-to-speak. However, as Ottoman government records and other contemporary material continues to be researched, conclusions by the historians of this subject will continue to evolve. Al Ameer (talk) 20:17, 12 January 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) 16 January 2022 [56].

Sei pezzi per pianoforte

[edit]
Nominator(s): Wretchskull (talk) 20:31, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A beautiful set of pieces composed by Ottorino Respighi. They are simple and, unlike contemporaries, not boundary-pushing, but they immediately caught my attention. I was disappointed when I realized that there wasn't even an article about them on Wikipedia, so here I am, trying to give them the attention they deserve.

I want to thank @Intforce: for supplying me with incipits, @Gerda Arendt: for reviewing the DYK (and her incredible patience), and @Tim riley: for reviewing the GAN. This wouldn't be possible without you! Wretchskull (talk) 20:31, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]
  • File:Ottorino_Respighi_in_1903.jpg: when and where was this first published and what is its status in the US?
@Nikkimaria: After hours of digging, I think it's best to either change Respighi's image (which will not line up with the article time period) or simply remove it altogether. If there is any other editor who wants to voice their opinion, feel free to do so.
Just noting that this is still pending. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:54, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are no Respighi images that fit the FAC criteria; removed it. Wretchskull (talk) 22:15, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The incipits need tags to reflect the copyright status of the original work
Done.
  • File:6-Pieces-for-Piano-VI.-Intermezzo-Serenata.ogg: the current tagging claims this work is in the public domain because the author died over 100 years ago; however, Respighi only died in 1936. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:43, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed it.

Comments Support from Aza24

[edit]
  • I love this set, especially Scherbakov's recording, which is just incredible! Just a few comments for now, but more later:
  • It should almost certainly be mentioned in the lead how "Notturno" is the best known of the set
  • Maybe add the publishing date (and perhaps publisher) to the lead? The sentence on it seems short anyways
  • Is there anything from here that is of use? It mentions that Michelangeli had a well known performance of the "Notturno"; he seems famous enough for inclusion of something about that
I cited this booklet before switching to the Pedarra & Gatto one, as the previous booklet had minimal info already mentioned in other sources. As per recordings, I agree. There are far more recordings of the Notturno than any other piece of the set. The issue is that there are no reliable sources explicitly stating that the Notturno is the most recorded of the set.
I don't know that specifying that Notturno is the most recorded is necessary. What about a line like, "the Notturno alone has been recorded by ___, ___," etc.?
Do you mean by distinguished pianists? In that case I could have a line akin to "the Notturno alone has been recorded by Arturo Benedetti Michelangeli, Sergei Babayan, ..." and add a citation to each person with their respective recording.
That sounds like a great idea! Aza24 (talk) 02:29, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speaking of the above, maybe a word should be said about the recordings of Notturno—I suspect many better known pianists have recorded that piece separately
  • Pedarra & Gatto should probably introduced by the full names. Aza24 (talk) 21:37, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Aza24: I've addressed your points and left a comment. Wretchskull (talk) 12:06, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • "composed by the Italian composer" still feels awkward, mainly because of the word "composed" twice. Imo "by Ottorino Respighi" is fine, but I'll leave this to your discretion
I understand. The problem with removing it is that "between 1903 and 1905" will be erroneously introduced in the clause ("... is a set of six pieces for piano by the Italian composer Ottorino Respighi between 1903 and 1905"). See this.
The only thing I would suggest is maybe "by Italian composer Ottorino Respighi written between 1903 and 1905" but I leave this to your discretion
  • I am a bit confused why the line "Respighi displayed a prolific output of chamber music" is even there? Generally piano solos are not under the guise of chamber music—what's the reason for this line anyways?
I've removed it. One or two article sources considered the set as chamber music, a claim that isn't shared by any other source.
  • the line "neoclassical compositional style while showing influence from past music" is a bit confusing. Since the neoclassical style by definition shows "influence from past music", the "while" doesn't make sense
I've changed it to "neoclassical compositional style and show influence from music of earlier periods"
  • the Serenata is used, but not mentioned in the list of genres the work employs
Unfortunately there are no sources that explicitly state this even though it is evident. I'm not too sure what to do about that.
tis life, I wouldn't worry about it; you could put a "see also" at the top of that movement's section, but it is probably not necessary
  • Year for Six pieces for piano and violin?
  • Throughout the article a lot of people are mentioned (Nathan A. Hess, Giovanna Gatto, Luca G. Cubisino etc.), ideally they should all have a qualifier (when first mentioned) to explain who they are (and thus demonstrate why they have authority to speak on the subject), otherwise it is just a sea of names
I've added all available info about them. As for Hess and Cubisino, all that is known is each being authors of a PhD thesis. Do you want me to simply introduce them as PhD authors?
Some of them may be better as simply "Musicologist so and so" instead of listing the book, but either is fine. For the PhD ones, you could say "In his study of Respighi's music, Nathan A. Hess..."? Aza24 (talk) 02:29, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would link Largamente to something
  • "Despite its popularity, Alan Becker states that it is a rarely heard nocturne"— does Becker perhaps mean it is rarely heard in comparison to other nocturnes? That might be clarified if so
  • I would link fifths and sixths to the articles on the respective intervals; the terms won't mean anything to non-musicians
  • Looks good otherwise! Aza24 (talk) 04:39, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Aza24: I've addressed your points and left a few comments. Wretchskull (talk) 10:18, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Left a few responses. Aza24 (talk) 02:29, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Aza24: Thank you, done. Wretchskull (talk) 11:50, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Outstanding work! I'm happy to support – Aza24 (talk) 23:40, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Tim riley

[edit]

I reviewed the article for GA and thought it clearly of FA potential. It is one of our more technical articles on music, with many terms that may be unfamiliar to the lay visitor, but they are explained or linked sufficiently, in my view. Unlike the nominator and Aza24 I don't know this set at all, but the descriptions are so careful and clear that I almost feel I do know it. A few very minor points on the prose:

  • Lead
  • "drawing influence from different musical styles and composers, particularly past music" – pretty much by definition the musical influences must have been music of the past, if only of the previous week – I wonder if something like "music of earlier periods" is wanted?
Brilliant suggestion, didn't think of that
  • "Respighi's proficiency of Romanticism" – I think I'd say "in" rather than "of" here.
  • Valse Caressante
  • "the first is an ascending melody in longer note values, while the second consists of falling eighth notes" – I'd be chary of using "while" to mean "and" here: as the principal meaning of "while" is "at the same time" it can cause momentary confusion, as in "Miss Jones sang Schubert while Mr Smith played Beethoven". My own rule-of-thumb is to replace "while" with a semicolon in such cases, but there are other equally good ways of clarifying the construction.
Didn't know that, thank you!
  • Canone
  • "shows influence from César Franck, Ferruccio Busoni and Johann Sebastian Bach" – are the three listed in descending order of the extent of their perceived influence? Fair enough if so, but otherwise I'd be inclined to put them in chronological order.
  • Notturno
  • "chord progression: E-flat minor - G-flat major seventh - C-flat major seventh" – I think the Manual of Style would prefer spaced en-dashes to the hyphens used here.
  • "predominantly pentatonic opening which resolves to B-flat two measures later" – could do with a comma after "opening" I think, this being what grammarians call a non-restrictive clause (descriptive, rather than defining).

Those are my few suggestions after a rereading today. None of them are of any great moment, and I am happy without further ado to add my support for this impressive and well-researched article. It seems to me to meet all the FA criteria. – Tim riley talk 15:13, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Tim riley: Thank you very much! I've addressed your comments, and if there are any prose errors feel more than free to grill me here. Happy new year by the way! Wretchskull (talk) 16:51, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No further questions, m'lud. And new year greetings cordially reciprocated. Tim riley talk 23:01, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Smerus

[edit]

Thanks for this very informative article on music which was previously unknown to me.

A few tedious comments purely as regards the criterion of prose style, where the language seems to me in places a bit awkward (but that's just imo of course) :

- last paragraph of lead.

  • "Some" four times - ? replace the first one with "Critical". Second sentence, I'd replace "the first one" with "the earliest", as "one" at present can only be construed as referring to "the set".

- last paragraph of 'Overview' - I'd suggest

  • Sentence 3. Publishing the pieces together did not "reveal that Respighi did not intend to have uniformity among the pieces": that was only revealed if you knew they had been written separately (unless it is the case, which you do not state, that the differing dates were given in the publication); also best to avoiod having "pieces" twice in the same sentence. How about "Although the pieces were published together, Respighi had not composed them conceiving them as a suite"
I'm honestly confused by this point. The article states "The pieces were composed separately and then published together at different periods in a set under the same title, thus revealing that Respighi did not intend to have uniformity among the pieces" (I've added the bolded "at different periods"). Was this the loose end that I just tied? I really like your suggetion and I'll implement it tomorrow. I just have trouble understanding what is wrong here; probably just tired.
  • Sentence 4: I would suggest, were his first pieces to be published
  • Sentence 5: I would suggest replacing "Multiple" with "Many"
"Many" feels awkward in my opinion, because it is only about six pieces, and five of whom are derived from earlier works.
  • Sentence 6: I suggest "except for the "Cannone" "

- Valse caressante

- Canone

  • I'd say 'the influence of' rather than 'influence from'. and 'the Baroque period' rather than just 'Baroque'
  • "to the point of Hess opining" - maybe "which led Hess to opine".
  • '"the dense chords"; "and are immediately answered" would be better than "which is immediately answered"
I assume this is for the notturno, in that case, done.

- Notturno - last paragraph

  • I'm guessing it's been arranged "for piano and for organ" rather than "for piano and organ"; or, as it was originally written for piano, do you just mean arranged for organ? The citation you give seems to refer only to an organ arrangement.
Source: " "Notturno," by Ottorino Respighi, arranged for organ and piano by Adolph Steuterman". The piece is for both piano and organ. The heading is understandably misleading in this context ("New Music for the Organ").
  • I suggest "those by" rather than "ones by".

- Minuetto

  • "Dedicated to the composer's study companion" would avoid R's name twice in the same sentence, and three times in two lines.
  • " a tonic pedal point" would clarify what could otherwise be obscure if just left as a "pedal"

-Studio

  • In this case the word "pedaling" might benefit from a link to Sustain pedal, as it's conceivable that some looking at the article may not be familiar with what pedaling means.

-Intermezzo-Serenata

  • "fond of"? - maybe better "satisfied with"

That's enough pettifogging from me.--Smerus (talk) 19:46, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Smerus: Please pettifog as much as you want about the language. I'm not a native speaker so you're just helping me improve! I've addressed all your points and left a few replies. Wretchskull (talk) 00:10, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just a couple of brief meta-comments to go with my support.

  • Overview sentence 3. Still not clear to me. Do you mean "The pieces were composed separately, but published together at a later period: Respighi had not conceived them as a suite."?
I've changed the wording and incorporated your suggestion. There are perhaps some things to note. The following quotes are exactly how the sources state the information. If you feel like my new wording still needs to be modified, please tell me.
Pedarra & Gatto pages 9 and 10:
"Although the Sei pezzi per pianoforte, p044, dating from 1903‒5, have attracted some attention, Respighi never wrote a collection of six pieces for piano – neither in his years of apprenticeship nor later in life. It is clear that these Six Pieces were not conceived of as a unity, and that their inclusion inside the same set of covers depended almost exclusively on the publisher’s custom of publishing collections in groups of six or its 10 multiples; indeed, Respighi’s contract with Francesco Bongiovanni detailed these pieces as separate compositions. By contrast, what survives of the (unfinished) Suite, p043, of 1903, manifests a stylistic unity lacking in this collection."
Cubisino page 91:
"Pedarra, mainly thanks to the agreement between the composer and the publisher Bongiovanni, was able to trace their compositional period, which dates from 1903 to 1905. It is interesting to note that they were united by the same title, Sei Pezzi, but published (and composed) in different times. This indicates that Respighi was not aiming for a uniform style among the pieces, like he did for the previous two suites, thus the choice of putting them together was merely editorial."
  • Sentence 5. 'Multiple pieces' doesn't conform with common English usage in the sense you wish. How about, simply, "Five of the six pieces"?
I've changed it to the latter and gave an explanatory note.

In the meantime, I've downloaded the pieces from IMSLP and will try them out today. Many thanks for introducing them to me - --Smerus (talk) 10:46, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Smerus: I've replied to your last two comments, thank you for the review! Hopefully these pieces are in lieu of a late Christmas gift - Wretchskull (talk) 14:14, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

spotchecks not done. Version reviewed

  • "demonstrates Respighi's proficiency in Romanticism" - source?
This is a paraphrase of a quote in this section: "Meanwhile, the right hand plays a simple but intimate melody, showing Respighi "at his most romantic." " (my bold). If this isn't allowed, I'll just change it to the quote itself if you want me to.
Simply being romantic and being proficient at Romanticism are not quite the same thing. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:18, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed it.
  • The OCLCs provided for the recordings don't seem to match up with the bibliographic details provided, and the Allmusic refs don't all include release date
I'll try to fix that.
@Nikkimaria: The first and third OCLCs fit the details, as for the second and fourth, there are none available with correct details. These are the most correct I could find. Are OCLCs even necessary? As for AllMusic, the refs do include release dates, though some of them only show it on the "releases" section. What do you think if I just link all of them to the "releases" section, where the release dates are found?
No, OCLCs are not required. I'm not sure I follow your suggestion though - are you proposing adding those links inline? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:20, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: I've removed the OCLCs. What I meant with AllMusic is to change the ref links, but the AllMusic refs "release" sections do not match up with the release dates on the "information" boxes so ignore that suggestion. I thought about linking the recording refs to their original label sites, but the problem is that the Sandiford, Riccardo recording doesn't have a release date on the original nor on AllMusic. What would I have to do in that case?
Is there another source confirming release date? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:20, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: I've changed only the AllMusic ref links with non-existent release dates and linked them to the "Release" section, where the correct publication year is shown. Issue resolved.
  • "The set has been recorded four times as of 2021" - source?
Isn't this WP:BLUESKY due to this section simply existing?
That section proves there are at least four recordings; it doesn't prove there are only four. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:18, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Removed it. It's unverifiable.
  • Be consistent in how publication locations are formatted and when they are included
Fixed.
Not yet. For example, why include state for Steinberg but not Faurot? Why include location for Becker but not Oliver? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:20, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
All available locations have been added and are uniform with a city-only format.
  • What is REPP?
It's a pseudonym used by an anonymous person.
  • What kind of source is Jacobi?
A news source. Is there something missing?
There doesn't seem to be a publication title present, unless it's just misformatted. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:18, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed it.
  • Is the "National Review" being cited this one or a different one?
It's indeed the one you linked.
What makes that a high-quality reliable source for this subject area? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:18, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't. Removed it.
I've carefully made sure they both meet the criteria. Both were approved by specialists in the field and all quotes and statements are easily verifiable by anyone with basic knowledge of music theory. I've also made sure that facts about the work as a whole (which cannot be verified by anyone), such as in the Overview section, are almost all ubiquitous throughout both theses and the Pedarra booklets. Pedarra is Respighi's cataloguer and most prominent scholar.
Do you mean if they're reliable? In that case, read the point above.
No - my concern is whether they're linkvio. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:18, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Pedarra & Gatto booklet does not violate WP:LINKVIO; it is available on the original product site. As for the Pedarra booklet, I'm not sure. Chandos records simply has the booklet, as displayed There is no proof of collaboration or permission on their main site, even on the "labels" section. I've removed the url for now.

@Nikkimaria: I (hope) I answered your questions. Also left a reply at the image review. Wretchskull (talk) 22:15, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Buidhe: Done. @Nikkimaria: Thank you for the thorough review! Wretchskull (talk) 01:31, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Buidhe: I've fixed the close paraphrasing. All there exists left are the "Sei pezzi per pianoforte", which is the title of the set and is used in the booklet. Also, almost everything close to the source is either a quote, translation, or even coincidentally part of the source. For example "while the left hand plays" is used in this article and the source even though it is not even quoted once in the "Sei pezzi per pianoforte" section of the booklet. Thank you for your time. Wretchskull (talk) 15:04, 16 January 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) 16 January 2022 [57].

No Panties

[edit]
Nominator(s): Aoba47 (talk) 02:32, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Despite its provocative title, this song is actually about keeping one's clothes on and refusing sex from men unless they have money. It was the lead single from Trina's second studio album Diamond Princess (2002), and features vocals from Tweet. I first worked on this article in 2020 as I was interested in women in hip hop and wanted to improve that topic's representation on Wikipedia. Although I dislike this song, I went back to improve the article further earlier this year.

I nominated this article for a FAC last month, but requested a withdrawal to take some time away from Wikipedia. Thank you to @Heartfox:, @ChrisTheDude:, and @Pseud 14: for their reviews in the first FAC, and I hope that they can participate in this one as well. I am more than happy to address any comments and suggestions to further improve the article. I hope everyone is doing well and staying safe. Thank you in advance! Aoba47 (talk) 02:32, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image Review - pass

[edit]

Images look good, have appropriate rationales or are Commons donated. We're good to go here, I think. --TheSandDoctor Talk 22:19, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Ojorojo

  • @Ojorojo: Thank you for the comment and the MOS links. I agree with you that the "Charts" section is repetitive with the prose as there are only two chart appearances for this song. I included this section as it seemed rather standard for other song articles, but I agree that it is not necessary and I have removed it. Aoba47 (talk) 04:02, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review—pass per comments/discussion in previous nom. Heartfox (talk) 21:43, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Pseud 14

[edit]

Support from SatDis

[edit]

I will try and find some comments that help. Quick question... has this article been through the GA process?

  • "only having sex with men that have money" - minor English fix, I'd say "men who have money".
  • "the focus of discussion" - this seems vague... public attention?

Everything else looks good to me! SatDis (talk) 10:21, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • @SatDis: Thank you for the review. I decided to skip the GAN process and bring this directly to the FAC one. I do not have any particular reason for that. Let me know if anything else in the article can be improved. I hope you are having a great day and/or night! Aoba47 (talk) 11:26, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the fixes. I'm just being really picky now:

  • "Retrospective articles have considered" - is it okay to say articles can consider?
  • "incomprehensible from the amount of edits" - maybe "incomprehensible due to the amount of edits/magnitude of explicit language removed"? That is a funny point, by the way!
  • @SatDis: Thank you for your suggestions. That makes sense to me. I have used a version of your suggestion. It is always odd how these types of songs have a radio edit when the entire thing is so explicit, but I guess that they had to figure out a way to play it on radio somehow. Aoba47 (talk) 23:49, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That is all I could find! SatDis (talk) 08:56, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Dugan Murphy

[edit]

I have hardly ever read, and never before reviewed, any articles about music, so I'm mostly looking at the prose and anything that is confusing to someone not steeped in the genre.

  • "No panties coming off / My love is gonna cost / Ain't no way you're gonna get up in this for free." has a period within the quotation marks, which I believe is only supposed to happen when the quote includes a period there. That can't be since you're quoting lyrics, right?
  • Chuck Taylor is first mentioned in "Music and lyrics" but I am not told who he is or offered a Wikilink until "Release and promotion". I think the opposite should be the case.
  • Per MOS:SOB, I recommend rewording so "Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs" and "Billboard chart" are not adjacent (comes up twice).
  • Since Trina is alive, "It was one of only two entries Trina had on the chart" as it is worded doesn't seem right to include a 2006 song. Maybe "Trina has had one other song on the chart since then" or something like that.
  • "Tweet was praised by critics." reads to me like it should be the start of a new paragraph. As a continuation of the paragraph it is currently in, I was momentarily confused at its placement. The following sentences of the paragraph support it well and I think would make a fine paragraph on their own.
  • Maybe this is an issue with Liz Lamb and not the language of the article, but what does her quote mean?
  • From my understanding, Liz Lamb was going for a pun with the quote. She was saying that the song was bad and used the U.K. slang meaning of the word "pants", which means rubbish or worthless, to play off the song title "No Panties". I have decided to remove the Lamb citation entirely as it is not particularly insightful or useful. There are plenty of other reviews included in the section that I believe are more beneficial to the reader. Aoba47 (talk) 02:05, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ha! I wasn't considering the British use of "pants". If you decide to add the quote back in, I recommend adding a brief qualifier for American readers like myself. But if you feel the article is better without it, that's fine too. Dugan Murphy (talk) 13:58, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are there no external links worth including in a section by that name?
  • To be completely honest, I forgot about this section entirely. I have included a link to the music video. It is already cited in a citation, but it may be more helpful to include the link here as well for easier access to readers. Aoba47 (talk) 02:05, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Other than the possibility of an external links section, the article looks comprehensive enough and I think the lead section does a good job of summarizing the body. I like the tone of the article and the grammar looks great. Dugan Murphy (talk) 23:15, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Dugan Murphy: Thank you for your review and kind words! I honestly struggle with writing the lead section so I greatly appreciate that. I have tried my best to make this article on a rather silly song the best that it could be. I believe that I have addressed all of your comments, but please let me know if I either missed anything or something else could be improved. Have a wonderful rest of your week! Aoba47 (talk) 02:05, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Status update

[edit]
It seems to be running smoothly. Speaking just for myself I am inclined to leave it until around the three week mark to see if it attracts any further comments, and then have a proper look at its situation. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:40, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense to me. It is always good to try and get as much feedback as possible. Aoba47 (talk) 13:59, 13 January 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) 15 January 2022 [58].

Mini scule

[edit]
Nominator(s): AryKun (talk) 10:43, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A tiny Malagasy frog that first attracted my attention back when it was described in 2019, and here we are two years later with the article at FAC (pretty much only because of the scientific name). AryKun (talk) 10:43, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Images are all licensed and sourced properly. CC-BY-4 confirmed. Sennecaster (Chat) 03:01, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from ChrisTheDude

[edit]
  • I would merge the two extremely short paragraphs in the Distribution section
Done.
  • "the author of the article in which it is described recommend that it be" - I suspect that author (singular) should actually be authors (plural) and I think the verb should be in the past tene
Changed.
  • Support - with the caveat that I did the GA review. I think it would be nice with more in-depth reviews, and while the article is rather short, it seems unlikely much more info about the species will become available any time soon. FunkMonk (talk) 19:13, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've actually read this already (it's the same as here), and it doesn't really provide much information on this species. It rather discusses the amount of diversity present in microhylid frogs and the challenges facing them in countries like Madagascar. Very in general, and nothing that could be used for this article. AryKun (talk) 12:08, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, I support this FAC. Wretchskull (talk) 12:45, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

revision review' :D

Featured article candidates/Featured log/January 2022 is located in Madagascar
Featured article candidates/Featured log/January 2022
Featured article candidates/Featured log/January 2022 (Madagascar)
  • All images are from this link, which is a credible scientific publisher.
  • The entire article is released under Creative Commons 4.0, making the images contained therein (and when i tell you that they definitely are contained therein–oh yeah) freely licensed and ready for use. sorry, Sennecaster! I didn't see your comment, didn't mean to step on your toes
  • Images contain good captions and alt text
  • Some text is MOS:SANDWICHed between text; that'll need to be resolved
    • I don't see any sandwiching?
      • First two lines of the "Distribution and habitat" section?
        • Weird, it isn't sandwiched in my view.
  • I have an issue with the second infobox image (the known range)—I might just be hallucinating, but that pentagon looks kinda brownish to me, more than yellow. Also, I think the pentagon is too small in the image, so it looks like a circle and is hard to spot. Could this be pinpointed with a map template of some kind?
I think we should stick to the peer reviewed, published map and imagery as much as we can, we're lucky it's free to begin with. Deducing exact coordinates from a map would be borderline OR I agree. FunkMonk (talk) 06:45, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@FunkMonk: the coordinates are given in the article, not just the map? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 06:47, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • All of the images are relevant—however, I think that none of them give an impression of just how tiny the damn thing is. The photo of Mini scule on a human thumb in the same article kinda blew me away, I knew it was small but I didn't think it was that small. i'd strongly suggest using it, even if you have to cut out the top/bottom view images. Or, however you want to make it work is fine by me :)
    • That image is of Mini mum, so I don't think I could cut out a Mini scule image for it.
      • Fair enough.
other things
[edit]
  • The media attention to the specific name (and that of its counterparts) is kind of pedestrian in the "taxonomy" section, stuck in a paragraph—could it be expanded into its own section/paragraph?
    • The article did have a separate section for this, but it was merged by another editor based on MOS:POPCULT.
      • Interesting—I can see why that was done. I wouldn't have called it "in popular culture", since it's not appearing in creative work or the like, but i'll leave that there for now.

I was going to do a source review, but I don't feel qualified—so, I'll leave it here for now. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 10:40, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Kavyansh

[edit]
Removed unnecessary link to frog.
  • "It is very small, measuring only 8.4–10.8 mm (0.33–0.43 in)" — do we need to mention that it is very small, when the size itself conveys that?
I guess it provides a description, just mentioning the size is a bit dry.
  • "by the herpetologist Mark Scherz and colleagues" — "by his colleagues" would be better
Changed to "and his colleagues"
  • "It is part of the family Microhylidae, a widespread family" — repetition of 'family'
Removed first "family".
Can't really be changed without some awkward wording.
  • "snout–vent length" is used in the lead, but not in the prose.
Added in prose.
  • "It has a rectangular body" — When we write biography of a person, the last name of that person is specified at the beginning of each new paragraph instead of using pronouns like "He", "Her". Is the same followed for articles like this as well? If so, should "It" here be replaced by Mini scule?
Replaced all start of paragraph "It"'s with "M. scule" or "The species".
Added.
I would guess that Nat Geo is a reliable source since it's a major science magazine publisher? In any case, that refis't absolutely needed and can be replaced if you want. AryKun (talk) 14:38, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure if National Geographic as whole is considered WP:HQRS; the particular source you use in the article is just fine. But, if you could replace with a better source, I'll suggest to go that way. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 14:54, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Replaced with a Down to Earth article written by Scherz. AryKun (talk) 07:55, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

Spot-checks not done. All sources seem reliable to me and the formatting is consistent. Granted, I'd ask if there is a better source than this one. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:31, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's written by one of the authors of the study describing it, so it's probably reliable. But since it was republished, I've replaced that ref with one to the original publisher. AryKun (talk) 15:20, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Jo-Jo Eumerus Is this a pass for the SR? (t · c) buidhe 20:33, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, with the caveat that I didn't do any spot-check nor did I check any other criterium. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 21:42, 15 January 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) 15 January 2022 [59].

2000–01 Gillingham F.C. season

[edit]
Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:11, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

After six successful nominations, here is a seventh season from the history of English football club Gillingham F.C. for your consideration. In this season the team finally entered the promised land of the second tier of English football for the first time in the club's 107-year history. Happy days....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:11, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from TRM

[edit]
  • "FA Cup and Football League Cup. In the FA Cup the team " reads a bit clunky, can we not describe their progress at the same time as their participation?
  • "over at FA Premier League team Leicester City" why was the situation vacant?
  • "ahead of the first game of" first competitive game?
  • New kit, no mention of socks...
  • You use FA in FA Premier League on the first use but drop FA afterwards, why?
  • BBC Source says the goal was scored after two minutes...
  • "suffering a serious injury" any idea what the nature of the injury was? And six weeks doesn't feel like a "serious" one to me, but perhaps I'm old school (like broken legs, ACL etc)...
  • "defeating Wolverhampton Wanderers 1–0 " home or away?
  • "then lost to Grimsby Town" could say "lost at Grimsby Town"?
  • Maybe I'm being picky but it would be nice to get a sense of the home/away-ness in the prose which seems to be absent, having to wait mostly to the results table.
  • As per a previous review (not of mine), could add a quote or two here, like Hessenthaler saying he was "pleased it was only" a 3-0 loss to Fulham for instance.
  • "score at all in the next" no need for "at all".
  • "after suffering an injury" again, any word on the nature of it?
  • "during the season.[29] During the match" repetitive.
  • "all ended in draws" -> "were all drawn"?
  • Lots of overlinking in this section, Palace, Grimsby, Huddersfield, Sheff Utd, Wimbledon, Tranmere, Scunthorpe, Barnsley, Norwich, relegation, Blackburn.
  • "Wednesday; Asaba scored ... Gillingham; he was transferred ..." too many clauses (I know it's nearly Xmas).
  • "scored one goal" scored once would suffice.
  • "The next two games, however" - against?
  • Any controversy in the season? Any sendings off?
  • "Football League Third Division final table, positions 10–16[56]" third?
  • "played AFC Bournemouth of " contextualise when this happened.
  • "of the Third Division. In front" overlinked.
  • "As Bartram and Hope were in the" > "As they were" (it's unambiguous).
  • "club's youth team. Of the youth team players" repetitive. And to some non-English readers, that may be confusing, why are youth team players getting a game for the first team?
  • "being relegated in 2005" overlinked.

That's all I have for now. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 11:55, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: - many thanks for your review. I've addressed most of the points and should hopefully be able to finish the rest later. I want to check my programmes from that season for more specific details of Paul Shaw's two injuries (which I can't seem to find in any other source) and I didn't have time on my lunch break to dig them out from under a pile of Christmas presents hidden in the same cupboard :-D -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:24, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@The Rambling Man: - all now addressed, I think :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:59, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Happy that my concerns have been addressed. Offer for source review if no-one else gets there first... The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 11:33, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@The Rambling Man:, can I take you up on that offer of a source review.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:02, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Edwininlondon

[edit]

Little to comment on here, it nicely follows the template for a football season. Just a few comments:

That's all I could find. Edwininlondon (talk) 08:53, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sources:

  • Formatting looks good. Just wondering if Tempus Publishing Ltd. is the only Ltd. I suspect the others are as well, so I'd drop Ltd.
  • Spotcheck: #3 4 6 10 11 13 14 15 17 48 51 53 all fine.

All looks fine to me, so I support on prose and sources. Fine work. Edwininlondon (talk) 17:28, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Amakuru

[edit]

Happy to do a review, following the request above. (Sorry it's taken a bit of time to get round to it, I intended to do it over Xmas!)

Background and preseason
  • "In the previous season, the team had finished third in the Football League Second Division and qualified for the play-offs for promotion to the First Division. After defeating Stoke City in the semi-finals, Gillingham beat Wigan Athletic in the final to gain promotion to the second tier of the English football league system" - I found this pair of sentences slightly odd at first, and wonder if it might be a little confusing for a newcomer to the game. In particular, saying "promotion to the First Division" and then "promotion to the second tier" in consecutive sentences - you sort of have to infer that these are the same thing.
  • "Following Gillingham's promotion, the club offered a new contract" - might just be me, but I think "Following their promotion, Gillingham offered..." might work better here, since we already know we're talking about Gillingham.
  • "who had moved to Celtic" - a little bit irrelevant in the context of this article
  • "two of them forwards" - maybe "two of whom were forwards"?
  • "first signing as a manager" -> "first signing as manager"
  • "the third-highest transfer fee ever paid by Gillingham" - is that at the time, or now?
  • "Paul Shaw was one of the club's summer signings" - not an actionable item, but this brought back an old memory of mine - I went to a completely random game in the late 90s between Millwall and Bristol City (even though I don't support either team) and the home fans had a chant "Baldy Shaw, Baldy Shaw, Baldy Baldy Shaw, He's got no hair, But we don't care, Baldy Baldy Shaw". I don't know if that persisted into his time with the Gills!
First division
  • "and the result was a draw" - sounds slightly wrong when there were two matches under discussion. Maybe "each of the matches finished as a draw" or similar.
  • "we just couldn't get near them...quite frankly I'm pleased it was only 3–0" - per MOS:ELLIPSIS I think there should maybe be a non-breaking space before the ... and a normal space after it.
  • "the only First Division match of the season to feature as many as eight goals" - is this across the whole league, or for Gillingham only? Also, might just be me but I think "eight or more goals" might be a clearer way to phrase it.
  • "Their spirit epitomises what their manager is all about....He gives 100 per cent and has taken that infectious enthusiasm into management" - ellipsis as above, and you also have four dots instead of three.
  • "An aggressive confrontation took place involving players from both teams which led to both clubs being fined by the Football Association four months later" - some sort of indication of when this was would be useful... during the match? Afterwards?
FA Cup
  • "third round stage" - one might put a hyphen in "third-round", particularly as "quarter-final stage" is also hyphenated below?

That's about all I can see for now. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 14:16, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Amakuru: - all addressed other than as noted -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:30, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Great, thanks, happy to support.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:40, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Query for the coordinators

[edit]

@FAC coordinators: - can you confirm if it's now OK to nominate another article as this one has had a burst of activity? Hopefully the next one won't limp along quite so much :-D -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:07, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

Placeholder—will deal with this soon. SN54129 15:28, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Serial Number 54129: while I guess it doesn't hurt for the article to have a second source review, the article has actually already had one (see above)......... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:30, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing that out, Chris—it was still listed as requiring a review you see. @FAC coordinators: , we're 110% behind you!  ;) SN54129 15:35, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh OK, I wasn't aware of that page -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:44, 10 January 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 January 2022 [60].

Pali-Aike volcanic field

[edit]
Nominator(s): Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:26, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a volcanic field in southernmost Argentina and Chile, which was active until the last few thousands of years. It features numerous lakes - including Laguna Potrok Aike where paleoclimatic research has been carried out - and caves, which were inhabited by the earliest people of the region. Editorial note: I've been sparing with archeological and paleoclimatological details in this article as it's mainly about the volcanic aspects. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:26, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Comments Support from Opabinia

[edit]
  • Any chance of a map, other than clicking through the coordinates link?
  • The top image is pretty, but it's a little hard to see the texture at thumbnail size. The lead is fairly short and you're not constrained by infobox width, so displaying the image wider seems like a good use of space.
    Added an infobox with a map. I figure one might add an El Tatio like map instead, if people prefer that. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:19, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You mean like this one? No preference for me, I like either one. It took me a surprisingly long time on first look to realize just how far south this was. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:35, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know nothing about volcanoes, so it's not surprising I think the lead is a little jargon-heavy. Brief explanations of some of the relevant terms would help, especially readers on mobile who can't use popups to get a quick look at a linked term. Particularly "...pyroclastic cones, scoria cones, maars and associated lava flows. These vents..." - so all those are types of vents? Or they form at/as a result of vents?
    Added some footnotes. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:19, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Humans have lived there for thousands of years, does anyone live there now? Later in the article sheep farming is mentioned, is it anyone's residence or just a farm area? Even though the article is not focused on human habitation, I think that material is a little thin overall, and it's not clear if that's lack of sources or an editorial choice. Even brief mention of which indigenous groups lived in the area (whoever spoke Tehuelche?) would be useful. Down in the human history section there's some passive voice (eg "...were used as red pigments") but not who did those things. Is that known?
    As far as I know the area is currently uninhabited, although people do come there. The dearth of archaeological information is a bit an editorial choice - this is an article about the volcano rather than its caves and archeological information could quickly overwhelm the article if I were to cover it comprehensively. Incidentally, I looked at some of the sources discussing pigments and lithics and didn't find much discussion on who used them, only the implications for the first peopling of the Americas. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:19, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Seems like some of what I was thinking of is actually covered in Fell Cave now that I've looked at it. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:35, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The size of the field isn't mentioned till the "Local" section. The lead is pretty short and has room to be expanded with a few more details like this - eg size and number of vents, proximity of cities, current human activities in the area, presence of the national park.
    Added it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:19, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consider splitting up the body into smaller sections with more specific headers. Again thinking of reading on mobile, where you don't get a nested TOC and only have the top-level headers to decide which sections to read. Currently there's "Geology and structure" followed by "Geology", which doesn't say much about what's in those sections or what's different about them.
    That section needed a better name, which I've done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:19, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consider moving that first paragraph of the "Regional" section to its own section. This is the only part that's primarily about where this place is in relation to human activities (border locations, cities, roads, etc) rather than geological features.
    Done, but I wonder if there is a better name for "Human geography" Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:19, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sure it makes sense to a volcano expert, but to me the current organization and sectioning of the material is hard to follow. What's covered in the "Local" section feels like the basics about what it's like now, but to get there you first have to get through the "Regional" section's second paragraph that covers how it was formed - except we go back to the formation/history again at the beginning of "Geology". I don't know enough about the topic to relate these two sections; the Geology section says volcanism was only possible after "lateral spreading", but is that the same thing as the hypotheses about slab windows or slab rollback mentioned earlier? You might consider moving some paragraphs around to organize either chronologically, or by grouping the material about the current place first ("Local" and "Composition" sections) followed by the historical material on its formation and geologic record. Placing "Eruptive history" after climate also seems unexpected - this seems like a continuation of the geology material and doesn't depend on having read about climate and vegetation.
    I admit that this structure is mainly derived from Calabozos and Cerro Azul (Chile volcano) and isn't really anything special. I've moved the climate section down and swapped around "regional" and "local". I do have the slight objection that since the volcanic field isn't extinct and the geological processes still ongoing, that part needs to be part of the geology and not presented as if it were history. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:19, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    FWIW I don't get the sense from the current organization that it's not ongoing (more the opposite, in the next bullet, though that's cleaned up now :) I did have a related question, though - the eruptive history section says "The volcano was rated Argentina's 18th (out of 38) most dangerous volcano". But isn't a field multiple volcanoes? Is it a specific one that's potentially active, or is the ranking of groups? Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:35, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    No, just loose usage of "volcano" which I've replaced with "volcanic field". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:10, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some of the text is written in the present tense and if you're skimming it gives the impression of current activity, which I don't think is the case - eg "The vents are origins of lava flows, which sometimes breach the vents."
    Yeah, that sentence and some others were oddballs; I've changed the tense. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:19, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given that windstreak is a redlink and they're apparently uncommon on Earth, I think we need a clearer description in the article. Especially since googling the term does turn up the Mars features, but also a whole bunch of irrelevant stuff like businesses and social media accounts using that name.
    Footnoted. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:19, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • What does "strongly primitive magma signature" mean?
    Yuck. The habit of sources to use the term "primitive" and "evolved" without any explanation is annoying; I've removed it completely as I can't find a good explanation. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:19, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Primitive magma (effectively primitive mantle) is a magma composition thought to reflect the composition of the mantle right after the formation of the Earth and is inferred from studies on chondrite meteorites. Conversely, evolved magma is magma that has changed from this initial primitive composition. This differentiation is usually a result of fractional crystallization. Such magmas will characteristically have lower MgO and/or higher SiO2 relative to primitive magmas. Maxim(talk) 19:54, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Maxim:Sorry for being unclear: The problem isn't so much that I don't know what a primitive magma is, but rather that I don't have a source at hand. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:21, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's only one note, and it's about a fairly small point that seems like it could be integrated into the text without much trouble. With its own top-level section for this single sentence, it ends up disproportionately prominent, rather than the small side point that was presumably intended.
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:19, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you have any numbers on temperature, precipitation, etc to add to the descriptions in the climate section? "Mild winters" and "close to Antarctica" together seem surprising. Is it mild as in "you'll need a light jacket" or "well, at least it's not Antarctica"?
    OK, this one has a source problem: Zolitschka 2006 mentions the Rio Gallegos records but also says Both mean annual temperature and annual precipitation for the Potrok Aike meteorological station are 30–40% lower than the weather station in the coastal city of Rı ́o Gallegos. but does not mention what the Potrok Aike records are. This one does have some of these records but they are pretty incomplete and not summarized. The National Meteorological Service has apparently no records for Potrok Aike and this one lacks them too. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:19, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The phrasing "Present-day animal species on the Chilean side include..." makes it sound like the critters don't have passports and can't cross the border. Guessing this is a source issue? Maybe something like "Animal species present in the Chilean national park" or whatever makes sense to explain the source of the information.
    Yes, source issue. Thanks for that rewrite; it's in. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:19, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The vegetation is not free of human influences" - by this point in the article we know the place has been inhabited for a long time, would it be expected to be "free of human influences"? Just seems like a odd way to put it.
    Rewrote this a bit. I think that unlike say for the Maori there isn't much research on the environmental impact of early humans here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:19, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "archeological artifacts such as obsidian" - presumably something made from obsidian? What does it mean to say use was limited? (Especially, does that mean humans didn't use their obsidian objects much, or they mostly got them from somewhere else, or the record is poor?)
    I've recast this sentence and expanded it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:19, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Category:Volcanic fields has 84 pages in it (did you write most of them? :p) - anything specific about Espenberg volcanic field that makes it an interesting see-also link? Looks like a lot of those articles are about areas closer to this one.
    That's because of they have very large maars - probably better to cover that inside the article, though? (I believe I wrote/expanded about half of the articles in Category:Volcanic fields) Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:19, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The lead mentions xenoliths and one specific maar as notable features - are large/lots of maars also noteworthy? It would be interesting to include, but I think you could also just put a note after the see also entry along the lines of "...another volcanic field with large maars" or something. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:35, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Xenoliths are pretty common so nothing special. I added the explanation. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:10, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why are the full bibliography entries in a section titled "External links"?
    Retitled. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:19, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the length, mostly small stuff on the theme of "I know nothing about volcanoes". Opabinia regalis (talk) 22:12, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Opabinia regalis:Mostly done, thanks for going into detail though we sweat the small stuff at FA(C). For the record, this article is skimpy on paleoclimatic information (Laguna Potrok Aike has yielded a lot of such information) and archeological one (ditto for Cueva Fell and pals) because it's focused on volcanism and covering these in the full detail would likely overwhelm the article - I'd estimate that a full coverage of both would likely triple the length of the article. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:19, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Had a re-read and I support now, with one small nitpick that there's still one reference to "the primitiveness of the magmas" which needs some kind of context - a note or link (is this the same as primitive mantle?). Otherwise looks good to me! Opabinia regalis (talk) 09:08, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, upon rechecking the book Maxim mentioned in an email it seems like there is a vagueish definition of "primitive", which I've now footnoted. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:04, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Maxim

[edit]
  • I made a handful of minor edits (typo fixes and similar).
  • Who is the target audience of the article? My best guesses would be either (a) a layman looking to learn more by following a link from elsewhere or (b) a geologist at any level (undergraduate and upward). In the latter case, it may not be entirely comprehensive. For example, I don't think the article doesn't really go about geological significance of Pali-Aike. For example, some points that D'Orazio et al. (2000) note in their introduction that I don't think are reflected in the article:
    • Pali-Aike is located in an unusual geological setting, as it's near two different types of plate boundaries
    • There is some significance to Pali-Aike when it comes to answering broader geological questions (e.g. evolutionary model for southernmost South America, significance of continental alkaline basalts in a back-arc setting).
    • There's considerable number of citations to this paper (and other works by D'Orazio), particularly with relevance to alkaline basalts, which is suggests there is some geological "unusualness" at Pali-Aike that's not really emphasized here.
  • That said, I'm interested in hearing back about the target audience. I would say it's more targeted to the layman right now, and targeting more towards geologist would need to restructure the article to emphasize the tectonic and geochemical significance of the volcanic field. Right now, I think those aspects are not treated as thoroughly, as opposed to, for example, a descriptive approach towards certain geomorphological features (as in the geography & structure section). Maxim(talk) 15:53, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Maxim:It is primarily aimed at laypeople, although I think I can accomodate some of that stuff from that source. I admit that from the other sources I get the impression that back-arc volcanic fields often are a little "special" so the significance of this one might have passed over my head. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:18, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Could it cater for both laypeople and geologists? For example could you make the lead easier (maybe by integrating the footnotes) and add more info for geologists into the body? Not sure what other reviewers think but a fourth para in the lead would be OK I guess Chidgk1 (talk) 13:13, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It could (but not by integrating the footnotes; they would just jumble the text. The footnotes are a compromise between adding an explanation and not having the explanation distract readers) and I've expanded some of the geological information on slab windows and why Pali-Aike is a volcano. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:10, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Maxim, 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) 21:46, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Coord notes

[edit]

No supports after 3 weeks. May be archived in the future if there is not progress towards promotion. (t · c) buidhe 20:15, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Opabinia regalis and Maxim:. Also, buidhe I take it is fine to ping the people who worked on my past FACses? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:36, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is fine to hit up anyone for reviews assuming you ask for a review (as opposed to support). (t · c) buidhe 20:38, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done for all of them who partook in my last two FACses. Wrote something slightly different for Femkemilene because of the topic of our last conversation. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:45, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I meant to give it a re-read from the top this weekend, but got wrapped up in end-of-year stuff at work. Give me till Friday? Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:16, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think that works. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:45, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: sorry for the slow reply, I've been distracted on many fronts. You mention that you may be able to incorporate information [here, but I don't think you have? If not, do you still intend to do so? Maxim(talk) 18:07, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Maxim:Er, I did, actually. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:43, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Bah, I think I looked last when you pinged me on the 15th and there was no change then. Sorry, Maxim(talk) 20:02, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Chidgk1

[edit]

Chidgk1 (talk) 12:23, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Kavyansh

[edit]
Part I
[edit]

That is on a quick read. Sorry, but aside these inconsistencies and over-linking, as a causal reader, I found the article a bit difficult for me to understand. There are many technical terms, even in the lead, which, while linked, doesn't really help the reader. Can we simplify it? – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 11:26, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done to here. I've footnoted many of the technical terms but it will be difficult to dispense with them altogether, as many cannot be readily replaced with synonyms w/o either including inaccuracies or distracting people with an explanation. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:05, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Looks better, will take another look in a day or two. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 14:54, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Part II
[edit]

Sorry for the delay.

That is it – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 15:53, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass

[edit]

Will do one, either today or tomorrow. Recusing as coordinator. Hog Farm Talk 15:14, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So sorry I'm not now getting to this - was way busier this weekend than expected.

Hog Farm Talk 21:56, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Funk

[edit]

Comments Support from Moisejp

[edit]

Hi Jo-Jo, I saw your request for reviewers a while back. Sorry I wasn't able to get to this until now. I will happily review. Am working my way through the article.

  • "The individual volcanoes are subdivided into three groups, which are referred to as "U2" (the older centres) and "U3" (for the more recent vents); the plateau lavas are hence called "U1"." This seems to be written confusedly. The three groups are U1, U2, U3? But the "which are referred to" clause only lists two kinds. Of course, U1 is subsequently mentioned, but it would be clearer if it was included within the framework of the "which are referred to" clause. Moisejp (talk) 03:31, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Rewrote this. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:03, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Their activity began 16 million years ago, when the Chile Ridge collided with the Peru–Chile Trench and thus caused a tear in the subducting slab and the formation of a slab window beneath Patagonia;[40] later it was suggested that slab rollback might instead be the mechanism by which volcanism is triggered in the Pali-Aike region." In the timeline as is, it jumps from 16 million years ago to someone "later" suggesting another theory. I think there is an intended implied idea that in recent history the earlier theory was the collision–slab window theory, and the later theory was the slab rollback theory. But as it is, I'd argue the current wording doesn't really work. Moisejp (talk) 05:01, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I did a small rewrite; the source says "some workers" so I decided to not imply that it is the more modern theory, such a wording might imply a higher acceptance than it actually has. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:14, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As I've mentioned in previous reviews of Jo-Jo's nominations, I don't know much about volcanoes, but I have read through twice (making several small edits), and based on the prose and seeming comprehensiveness, I believe this is now FA quality. I support.

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) 12 January 2022 [61].

Jesu, meine Freude, BWV 227

[edit]
Nominator(s): Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:56, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Bach's longest motet, with a complex text alternating hymn stanzas from "Jesu, meine Freude" with biblical text from Paul's Letter to the Romans. The music, in a symmetrical arrangement of 11 movements, displays various vocal scorings (from 3 to 5 voices) and compositional variation and finesse. For the longest time, the motet was believed to have been composed for a certain funeral, but recent scholarship questioned that. - The article has a long history, I came in late, Francis Schonken brought it to GA quality, - I wonder how he could receive credit. It received a peer review earlier this year, with good comments by Amitchell125 and Aza 24. There is no similar article, because it's a unique artwork. Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:56, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In response to concerns of several reviewers, I changed two things substantially: I expanded the lead, and I tried to unite the two tables showing the complex structure of the work. Please check those two sections once more, see if your points were covered, and suggest further improvements. I'll go over the individual questions now. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:20, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]
  • File:Jesu,_meine_Freude_(Bach)_Anfangstakte.png is tagged as lacking author info, and should include a tag for the original work
  • File:Jesu_Meine_Freude_Praxis_Cruger_1653_-_extract.jpg needs a US tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:56, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the review! GRuban, can you please help in a field I'm not sure I do the right thing? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:10, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: I fixed the complaining templates on both pages, but not sure what "should include a tag for the original work" meant. It's a score of a Bach composition, do you mean you want a link to our page for the composition, meaning Jesu, meine Freude, BWV 227, this article in question? --GRuban (talk) 19:57, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not a link, but a copyright tag, reflecting that the copyright of the work itself has expired. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:23, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Done --GRuban (talk) 23:25, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Laser brain

[edit]

On first read-through this is very solid, with a cohesive narrative. It does a good job outlining what's of interest to the reader. I suspect I will have some nitpicks that I'll either correct myself or post here for clarity, soon. It's close to ready. --Laser brain (talk) 17:19, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comments:

  • "Bach set both in a symmetrical structure" - I do not understand what this means without an explanation or context.
    What would you expect? --GA
    Please check new lead. ---GA
  • Similarly in the second para, I don't know what "free setting" means.
    The other movements follow rather strict rules, but that one is free. How to say that? --GA
    Please check new lead. ---GA
  • "the genre was regarded as antiquated" by whom?
    Nobody specific, the genre just wasn't as fashionable any more as it had been in the Renaissance and early Baroque. --GA
  • "which at some point or another" is too informal and imprecise for this type of writing.
    That corner of the article was written by Francis. How can we say - what I think he intended - that there is great uncertainty for many works of the 15 if they really are motets by Bach (doubting "motet, doubting "by JS Bach", or both), but for a solid five, there was no question. Aza, can you help with this phrasing, perhaps? Split the sentence? --GA
    I changed it, please check again. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:22, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the large majority of his vocal church music" - similarly, this is imprecise writing. Use "a majority of" if it's more than half. If it's closer to 100%, then I'd recommend writing something like "most of".
    "most of" taken, talking about around 200 cantatas plus four-part chorale settings. I wonder if we should name the few 5-part works: Magnificat and Mass in B minor? --GA
    I added the two works. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:22, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The hymn tune appears in two variants in the uneven movements of the motet." Is any more detail available? What kind of variants?
    That is clarified in the individual movements, and the dating. It seems to suggest that the composition wasn't written at one time. --GA
    The variant is small, in only one measure, but for musicologist, it gives them a clue. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:24, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article contains mixed American and British English (harmonization, analyse)
    I'll check. It should be British, - please feel free to just change when you see the other unless it's in a quotation. --GA

This takes me up to Movements. I will leave more comments soon. --Laser brain (talk) 23:49, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for looking closer. The article was written by many users, which explains mixed spellings. I'll look, but have a few tasks with a time stamp first. The symmetrical construction of the whole composition, as pictured under "Structure and scoring", is the key aspect of it, and how could it be said to be understood by you? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:35, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I just needed to keep reading. --Laser brain (talk) 19:34, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

More comments:

  • Made some small edits for clarity and consistency.
    Thank you for those. I changed one, please check, about the last movement having the same music as the first. --GA
  • Can you provide the passage(s) from Jones p. 203 that support the following text: "Jones noted that the tenor part is particularly expressive. The last movement has the same music as the different text of the last stanza, creating a frame that encloses the whole work"
    I'll have to look, but the tenor thing was again not written by me, and the same music of first and last is illustrated just below. --GA
    From what I can tell, this was derived from the following excerpt (from p. 203): "A1 and A6 are identical four-part chorales, creating an outer frame. [...] The musically identical outer movements, A1 and A6, are plain four-part chorales, albeit of great beauty and with an exceptionally expressive tenor part." DanCherek (talk) 17:51, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, Dan, that's helpful. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:04, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Explanation needed for "rhetorical homophony"
    I wish I could ask Francis. --GA
    User:Laser brain, I began by grouping the sentences differently; the following sentence is perhaps an explanation. RandomCanadian, do you think you could help with the music, perhaps just of the soprano first line? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:04, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Gerda Arendt: Homophony, as you must well know it, involves multiple voices (singing together with the same rhythm and usually same text; as opposed to polyphony). The explanation is already given in the previous sentence and in movement two. I'll try rewriting it. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:58, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "While the soprano sings the chorale melody, the lower voices intensify the gesture dramatically with word painting: 'weg' is repeated several times in fast succession." Is there some significance to this word? What is the translation?
    Yes, significant, and hard to translate. "away", and it's given in the first line of the paragraph. In the St John Passion, the text is "Weg, weg mit dem. Kreuzige, kreuzige ..." = Away, away with that one. Crucify, crucify ..." - Should there be more translation in this article? Or in the hymn article. How about English for the beginnings in the table of movements? --GA
  • "Performers of Jesu, meine Freude have to decide..." The choir are the performers.. wouldn't a director or producer decide? The end of that long sentence doesn't make a lot of sense to me. I would break it up to more clearly articulate what the performance options are.
    Well, the intention is rather "whoever wants to perform it", and decision processes differ. Some small ensembles don't even have a conductor. The smallest group performing it are just five singers, because instruments are not prescribed (but would have been normal at Bach's time). Suggestions? --GA
  • "based on the motet's first (=11th) and seventh movements" I'm not sure what the parenthetical is expressing.
    Again by Francis, and meaning again that the music of the first movement is the same as of the last (=eleventh) movement. I assume that CPE Bach rendered the setting without text. We can drop the (=11th) if it's confusing. --GA

That's all from me for now. It's in fine shape. --Laser brain (talk) 02:43, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for looking closely, User:Laser brain. Sorry about not replying sooner, but I travelled over last days and managed only some of the most time-critical things. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:50, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No worries on the timeframe. I do have serious concerns, though, about how this can move forward without the involvement of someone who has access to and understanding of the sources cited. There are parts of this article that are somewhat inaccessible, although I understand a previous editor wrote them. --Laser brain (talk) 02:40, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we talk about the most prolific editor for Bach's biography, list of works (98%), compositions, Baroque music in general. I wonder how far AGF goes for book sources on historic material. I'd call Mathsci, the other expert on Bach, if he wasn't in an interaction ban with Francis, so could probably be blocked for any comment. Sometimes Wikipedia is that crazy. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:41, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it's unfortunate when user's behavior problems affect their ability to create content. I've seen far too much of that in my years here. Anyway, how do we proceed? I don't see how this can progress without ability to answer questions about the content and cited sources. --Laser brain (talk) 15:23, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria, what do you think? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:05, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Is Jones the only specific source at issue, or others as well? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:15, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That specific source, yes, but there are also several places in the article where the writing is unclear (to me, anyway) and it's problematic that the principal author is not available for inquiries. --Laser brain (talk) 16:22, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Noted, but where there is an issue with source interpretation IMO the solution is to get hold of the source, which Dan has offered below. That applies regardless of who originally added the source, and allows for issues of wording to be addressed. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:37, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In the Jones source, some pages are missing in the google version, but how about AGF there? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:31, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a matter of AGF. If I don't understand what's written here, I'd like to refer to the source so I can read it myself and try to improve the text. --Laser brain (talk) 16:38, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I'm out for today, but think that we can check what exactly is unclear, and if it can we reworded, dropped, or a better source found. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:41, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have institutional access to Jones 2013 and can send pages from it to anyone here who needs it. I replied to Laser brain's comment about the tenor part in the first movement. Happy to supply a longer excerpt if needed. DanCherek (talk) 17:51, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, can I perhaps have all of p.203? It's cited several times and some of the passages are unclear to me (c.f. "rhetorical homophony" above); I'd like to read the source so I can improve the writing here. --Laser brain (talk) 21:23, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, sent via email. Gerda (and anyone else), let me know if you'd like me to email it to you too. DanCherek (talk) 22:13, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Laser brain, please check the new lead and table. ---Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:24, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Will do! --Laser brain (talk) 20:01, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support on re-reading with recent revisions in place. It's in great shape. --Laser brain (talk) 19:08, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment

[edit]

This nomination is nearly at the three week mark and is showing little sign of gathering a consensus to promote. Unless this changes over the next day or two I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:05, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild, I found supporters. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:04, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi TRM, Amitchell125, did you guys have anything to add? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:09, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from GeneralPoxter

[edit]

Should be leaving a review by the end of the week, but I have a lot of outside work on my plate right now. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 13:27, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lead/infobox

  • It may have been composed for a funeral, but scholars have come to doubt the dating (from 1912) to a specific funeral in Leipzig in July 1723, a few months after Bach had moved there. I found the use of the parenthetical to be somewhat confusing in the lead. Looking further in the article indicates that it meant the dating was made in 1912, but I originally thought it meant the scholars began to doubt the dating in 1912. Maybe a better summary of the Time of origin section here would be to say that though some scholars considered the work was composed for a funeral in 1732, others have proposed alternative occassions and dates.
  • Rest of lead reads fine, and infobox looks good.
    please check the new lead ---GA

History

  • exceeding that of a standard SATB choir of soprano, alto, tenor and bass, Isn't soprano, alto, tenor, and bass redundant since it's already implied in "standard SATB choir"? This explicit listing of voices also contributes to the number of commas in this sentence, which can be confusing to read.
    taken with thanks! ---GA
  • Would it be misleading to characterize Johann Michael Bach as J.S. Bach's "ancestor" since the two are not related by blood?
    Thanks for that catch, - what can we do? Is there a different word? ---GA
    Maybe a more general term like "relative"? GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 05:46, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    thank you, taken --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:45, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Around 15 extant compositions were recognised by musicologists as a motet by Bach (BWV 118, 225–231, 1083, 1149, Anh. 159–165), Jesu, meine Freude is one of only five (BWV 225–229) which have always been considered as a Bach motet. Besides the comma splice (in red) and apparent subject-object disagreement ("around 15 extant compositions were recognised as ... a motet by Bach ", "one of only five...which have always been considered as a Bach motet") [should be "motets by Bach" not "a motet by Bach"?], "were recognised" just seems a bit ambiguous here, since it is not revealed until the end of the sentence that these works were not always considered motets. Maybe rephrase "were recognised" to something like "are now recognised" or "were once recognised" (depending on which is the case) to give the reader a better clue at the beginning of the sentence that this list of works were not always considered motets.
    you are right, and let's think, - postponing for now, - perhaps a complete rewrite would be best, focusing on that BWV 227 was always a core motet ---GA
    GeneralPoxter, I tried now to reword it, - please check. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:34, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Compositions with five-part movements are the Magnificat, written in 1723 at the beginning of his tenure in Leipzig, and the Mass in B minor, compiled towards the end of his life. This sentence could be better linked to the previous by prefacing it with something along the lines of "uncommon examples of five-part movements can be found in".
    taken ---GA

GeneralPoxter, thank you for your comments, and please check the new lead and table. ---Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:37, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Structure and scoring

  • Only the alto, the middle voice in the motet's SSATB setting, sings in all movements. Is it necessary to clarify that the alto is the middle voice, given that the order of voices is already specified in the previous sentence?
    taken --GA
  • In great variety, the fifth movement is a free setting of the chorale stanza... It is unclear to me what "great variety" refers to in this sentence.
    added that variety of chorale settings --GA
  • its source naming the stanza in the hymn movements and the Bible verses in the other movements Maybe more concise rephrasing: "its text source in either Franck's hymn or the Bible"?
    taken --GA
  • Any specification of what the dots mean in the Form column of the table? (I assume they're supposed to indicate the symmetry of the work?)
    yes - any suggestions how to clarify? --GA
    Not quite sure, but maybe something on the lines of: "and its form with the number of dots indicating the corresponding movements in the motet's symmetrical structure"? GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 16:43, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I tried something. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:37, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks good to me. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 15:49, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Repeated links to verses from Romans in both the Table and in the Movements section? Also note that movement 2 has no verse attribution in Movements. I also suggest introducing each Epistle-based movement as simply "The xth movement sets Romans 8:[verse number] ...", which would make the text clearer in my opinion. (by referring to the other verses as "verse x from the Epistle" could lead to confusion since the verse numbers pertain only to chapter 8 of Romans, not Romans as a whole)
    Do you mean there should be duplicate links. What would The Rambling Man say? - The other taken, but will implement later. --GA
    I am suggesting that they shouldn't be linked again, since a) they've been linked in the table already and b) the verses are already provided in full in the article. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 16:43, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Now Romans specified for all five, and link removed. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:09, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sopranos often move in "beatific" third parallels. Shouldn't this be "parallel thirds"? Also Jones gives no indication of the frequency/distribution of parallel thirds to justify that they are used "often". From my impressions of both Jones and the score itself, parallel thirds in the sopranos are most frequently used in the first half of the movement. So maybe restrict the analysis to 'The sopranos move in "beatific" parallel thirds in the opening when singing of "life in Christ Jesus"', which better aligns with Jones? GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 07:49, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    will check that one later, off again --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:28, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Now taken unchanged, thank you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:13, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Five voices take part in a dramatic illustration, as they depict defiance, standing firmly, and singing, in the same rhetorical style as the beginning of the second movement, here often expressed in powerful unison. This sentence is particularly confusing with all the comma breaks. Could this be reworded and/or broken into two sentences for clarity?
    tried --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:28, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Newer version is much clearer. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 07:32, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...is set in a homophonic adagio with deeply unsettling harmonies: "not of Christ" Notion of the harmonies being "deeply unsettling" doesn't seem to be supported by Jones p. 205, and the Dellal source appears to redirect to the website's home page, so I can't verify whether this is supported there.
    I searched for that, and found many interesting things, but not that. (I don't remember to have written the line, - "unsettling" not being word I knew. Leaves me too tired. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:40, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Back: I will look at the Jones more, and found a thesis which is very detailed, perhaps too much so. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:31, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Pamela Dellal seems no longer on Emmanuel Music but her own site. Oh dear! I fixed this one and BWV 1. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:44, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I removed the "harmonies" as not mentioned by Jones, - and Dellal was there just for the translation. I looked at the thesis more, but am reluctant to introduce it at this stage. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:40, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It's fine by me to omit the thesis, since theses are rather iffy sources in the first place. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 02:41, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • the lower voices intensify the gesture dramatically with word painting: "weg" is repeated several times in fast succession. The use of word painting specifically on "weg" is not substantiated in Jones p. 203, and Graulich & Wolff and Dahn both appear to be scores w/ no accompanying analysis (thus can't be used to prove this claim).
    You see it in the score, though. Should that be used for a ref? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:44, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Repetition can be verified using the score, but whether this constitutes "dramatic" word painting seems more like analysis to me, which means WP:NOR probably applies. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 15:49, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I keep looking, found this review: a reviewer singles out this movement (and one more) and writes: "Sie peitschte alle Schätze «weg, weg, weg!» mit einer Drastik, die an die Volkschöre der Johannes-Passion erinnerte." (She whipped all the treasures "away, away, away!" with a drasticness reminiscent of the folk choruses of the St John Passion.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:14, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I dropped the drama and word painting. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:44, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should "Sarabande" be linked to the article on the dance?
    yes, done --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:44, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps some overcitation in the first sentences of movements 3 and 11. Jacobi appears to be a superfluous source here, with its English translations not even being used in the article.
    understand, moved Jacobi, an interesting alternate translation, to where it's different. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:26, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reception

  • This section appears to cover more than just Reception (it also includes performance and publication)
    That's a Francis special, who goes by centuries. I added to the header. --GA
  • and is regarded by many as one of Bach's greatest motets. Is Cookson accepted to be reliable? They also mention Tovey's singling out of "Gute Nacht", which I think could be included in the article (using Tovey's original commentary as the source -- wherever that happens to be).
    Will check, Gardiner and Jones also single that movement out. --GA
    I combined the Cookson with another, and better gave Gardiner some space. Please check. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:52, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    New commentary looks good. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 02:41, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The earliest extant of such chorale collections... Not sure if "extant" is used in correctly here, since it's an adjective not a noun.
    taken --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:36, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  • Some Gbooks/archive.org refs have url links to the specific page while others don't. Should adopt a consistent style on this. In addition, Gardiner 2013 appears to have page links, even though there is no preview available on Gbooks (at least for me).
    When a source is used for a specific page or continuous pages, it's usually given in the ref. Jones and others, however, mention the motet at various locations. The link typically goes to the most frequent one, and to the others where used, - at least that's the plan. --GA
    Gardiner: pages 350 to 352, no chapter header on 350, diagram on 351, particular text for central movement 352 - I'll switch the link to 351, for most important piece of info. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:39, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Sounds good then. What about Gardiner though? GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 15:49, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Not quite sure what you mean. I can see all pages of the passage in the 2013 book. If you don't see it, check out the liner notes for the recording, dated 2012. It's not word-by-word the same, but almost. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:55, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm... Google Books seems to make some books previewable to some people while non-previewable to others. As long as some people can see it, then this is fine. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 02:41, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • See Dellal url redirect issue mentioned above
    replied there --GA
  • See Cookson reliability issue mentioned above. "Many judges" seems to be a pretty ambitious claim on Cookson's part, and the lack of cited material in his review to support this is somewhat concerning.
    will back up --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:41, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Cookson has been adequately backed up w/ more scholarly sources. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 02:41, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Other sources appear fine.

Leaning towards a support here, but some issues need to be fixed. An interesting read! GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 18:10, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All concerns in the review have been addressed, so I will be happy to Support this nomination now. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 02:41, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

TRM

[edit]
  • Bach himself isn't linked in the lead which seems a little odd. In the prose (as well as the infobox).
    Please see below under Wehwalt who had the same question. --GA
    I don't see why Bach wouldn't be linked. Simple. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:47, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Projects Classical music and Opera have a convention: when a piece is linked, no link to the composer, because whoever doesn't know him can be sure to find him in the piece's article. Mozart's Requiem. Same for a group of pieces, no? - But I'm open for a solution linking motet without Easter egg and Bach also if you have one. Or should we accept that Easter egg? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:57, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    But this is FAC and this article could end up on the main page where readers are not members of Projects Classical music. We shouldn't be beholden to arcane project rules to the detriment of the general public. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 11:59, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Bach is linked in the new lead. ---GA
  • "for SSATB choir" this is unexplained (albeit linked) so it is intractable to most without clicking on it. And should it be choirs? or "an SSATB choir"? Right now it doesn't read correctly.
    I guess that most readers coming to this article know what SATB means, so will be able to understand SSATB choir, and it's one. There are many things I'd like to see in the lead, but not an explanation of a common abbreviation if we can avoid it. We say: "for cello", not "for a cello". --GA
    It's not a common abbreviation for all readers. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:47, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course not, therefore we have the link. BBC is not a common abbreviation, but we'd still not spell it out or explain, no? I added a bit: "a five-part (SSATB) choir". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:02, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Um, I think BBC is far more common than SSATB (which I have literally never heard of). We shouldn't be demanding readers click away from the article to get even a clue as to what this means. That you have to expand it in the article indicates its relative complexity, and we don't really ever expand "British Broadcasting Corporation" because it's almost universally known as BBC. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 12:09, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    As long as our article name is SATB, and linked on around 1000 pages, I conclude that we don't have to write an explanation (beyond "five-part") in the lead. ---GA
    We still don't use abbreviations or initialisms before their explanations. So you could write it out in plain English and then abbreviate it so our readers don't have to hover over or click on a linked article. This is a MOS requirement, one which previously had issues with "technical terms" like "aggregate" so I'm sorry, it needs to be applied universally. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 19:14, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    (But you wouldn't spell out BBC?) - At that point in the lead, to say "for two sopranos, alto tenor and bass" is a distraction, and not even true for all movements. We can say just "five voices", without specifying which (which seems a disservice to those who know what SATB stands for), or we can pipe. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:38, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    This is an article which will be read by non-experts. And no, I think BBC is universal, like NASA. SSATB is very much "in-universe". It's fine, we can agree to disagree on it, I have been railroaded in other reviews to "inline explanations" which don't require hover-over text or clicking through, and I find it grossly unreasonable that the same standards aren't applied across the board, but perhaps classical music is deemed more important than contemporary sports events, and therefore unexplained jargon is just fine. I don't think it is. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 19:44, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • motet could be linked in the lead as well. In the prose I mean.
    The link supplied for Bach's motets leads to an article with a link to motet. Again, most people reading about one of Bach's 6 motets will already know what that is, plus motet has a very broad meaning much of which doesn't apply to this very unusual one. --GA
    I disagree. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:47, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Compare BWV 1, a recent FA: link to church cantata, not to cantata. - Again: motet has a very broad meaning much of which doesn't apply to this very unusual one. Sending someone there seems a needless detour, prepared or unprepared. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:08, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I think technical terms should be linked. If the target article is sub-optimal, that's a different matter. This article needs to be accessible to all readers, not just music project members. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 12:10, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It is linked in the new lead. --GA
  • "1723 , a " no space after 1723.
    fixed --GA
  • "Romans 8:1–2,9–11" space after that comma.
    not sure because couldn't that mean verses 1 and 2 of chapter 8, plus chapters 9 to 11? (I found that and copied, really not sure) --GA
    Yes, that's exactly what it would mean. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:47, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    and that's wrong because it should concern verses from chapter 8, the first, second, ninth, tenth and eleventh. I guess it's the normal writing for this. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:11, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    No, a space after the comma is normal writing for this. It's no different to a page range where you might say pp. 34–35, 38–40. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:40, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    But you misunderstood it then, no? ---GA
    No, it's just formatted incorrectly. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 19:12, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry. You understand the 9 means the chapter, or what did I misunderstand above? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:41, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    No, "8:1–2,9–11" should be "8:1–2, 9–11", it's not too difficult, or it could be "8:1–2, 8:9–11", but not what it currently is. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 20:25, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I searched for "Romans:8", and in the results I see several where discontinuous verses from one chapter are shown. Some have the comma, as in our example, some have a fullstop instead, - none has the space that you want. I don't know if we have a guideline for Bible quotation. I see that verses are normally separated by comma without space (Romans 8:6-7,27 · Matthew 6:4,8,15,18), and see groups of verses separated also by fullstop (Romans 8:12-22.24-27). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:50, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Unique in its complex..." this is only unique within Bach's canon, according to later in the article, that isn't clear here in the lead.
    Then we should fix the article, because it's unique, period. --GA
    I mean this very article. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:47, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I meant the same. Bach's are the pinnacle of motet writing (which would need to be mentioned and sourced), and this motet is his pinnacle within. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:14, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    This article says " is unique in Bach's work in its complex symmetrical structure" so it needs to be generalised per your comments above. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:42, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It's now "Bach's work", and general can come later, or not. ---GA
  • "sacred cantatas" link cantatas.
    as for motet: cantata has a very broad meaning of which little applies to Bach's specific cantatas. Church cantata (Bach) was linked the previous sentence, and that article includes these wedding and funeral cantatas. We could link to its section §Occasions outside of the liturgical year if that helps. --GA
    But non-experts reading this would appreciate a link to a complex word whether it was 100% directly relevant or not. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:47, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Sacred cantata is a redirect, and not to cantata. Wouldn't that be a dupl link? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:19, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    used now redirect to the specific section ---GA
  • ",[5][6][7].[8] " remove comma, place last ref before full stop.
    that seems fixed already --GA
  • "scored for SSATB voices" this is overlinked.
    It's common to link in lead and body, and in this case also in the scoring section where it matters. --GA
    It's overlinked in the body. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:47, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Intentionally so, yes. Please compare BWV 1 again. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:21, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    it's no longer duplicate as PeneralPoxter made me remove the first occasion ---GA
  • Bible verses appear to be linked in the Movements table but several appear in the preceding prose/table.
    Do we have to switch the tables? Because the links make more sense with the text beginnings, while the other is more an overview (which I inherited) --GA
    Links normally appear on the first instance. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:47, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I know, and am in a dilemma. The overview shows the basics, but we also need a relation to the text, or it remains abstract. I found no solution to have both in one format. I believe the overview is better as the first thing. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:24, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    solved by combinung the tables, please check ---GA
  • "the cantus firmus in" what's that?
    good catch, link added
  • "two soprano parts (S or SS), alto (A), tenor (T) and bass (" each of those is overlinked.
    As said just above, it's common in compositions to have the links duplicate in the scoring section where readers may arrive from the TOC. --GA
    These terms are already linked in the main body. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:47, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, but for composition FAs, we have it also where it's more relevant, compare BWV 1 again, or any other of several cantata FAs. - This is the first motet, but that should be consistent. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:27, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    as before, no longer ---GA
  • "Rom. 8:1" etc, both before and after you don't abbreviate Romans but you do here, suggest consistency.
    "you" in this case is Francis, and he has a point because if we consistently spell it out then also in the first table which would be wider. What should we do? --GA
    There doesn't appear to be an issue with width, so I don't see why the full term shouldn't be used. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:47, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    as before, no longer ---GA
  • Why is the fifth (light blue) column in the Structure and scoring section smaller top and bottom than the other columns?
    I don't find what you mean, sorry. --GA
    On my screen, the fifth column isn't the same size as all the other columns. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:47, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Not what I see, sorry. Others? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:29, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    How would it look on a mobile? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:29, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm going by what I see on my desktop browser. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 22:56, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Jesus – Romans 8:1).[15] " this now links to the Bible passage, but in earlier prose sections you didn't link. I'm not clear on the strategy.
    The "strategy" - well, I thought that the translator might have used a different translation than the King James Version of the Bible but found (earlier today) that she used exactly that one. I dropped the Romans now. --GA
  • "supply vivid lines" this feels like someone's opinion on the lines.
    Could you offer a synonym that sounds more neutral? "lively"? For language fine-tuning, I really need help. --GA
    Either way, it's opinion, who is saying it? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:47, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it's description. Jones (the source given) says "the soprano continues to deliver the plain chorale melody, but the lower parts are more elaborate than usual, often in the interests of text illustration." Which we could quote, or paraphrase, which I thought I did. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:04, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Bible text,[63] regarded" this sentence feels like it needs "and is" before regarded to me.
    added --GA
  • ". "BWV 227.1=227.11"" should that really be an equals sign?
    too bad we can't ask Francis. The music is exactly the same (while the text is not). Would you know a better option? --GA
    I am just asking why that's an equals sign, is it a range? It would be en-dash not equals if it is. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:47, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    All it should say is that the first movement's music is equal to the last movement's. I'll think about it, but - after failing to bring RD article Hilmar Kopper to ITNN format, I'm too tired right now. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:09, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    this appears now only in a ref header ---GA
  • " "Johann Sebastian Bach (1685-1750) / Motets"" en-dsash for year ranges. At least a couple of these in the sources.
    sorry, I'm still blind for those, tried --GA
    Ok, well you can get scripts which address this issue in one click. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:47, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Please help me to it when I'm less busy ;) ---GA

That's a quick pass. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 15:54, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your keen eyes. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:03, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

TRM, prompted mostly by your concern, I rewrote the lead and united the 2 tables, please check. ---Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:00, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The SSATB question
[edit]

The first sentence of the lead currently reads:

Jesu, meine Freude (Jesus, my joy), BWV 227, is an extended motet by Johann Sebastian Bach, set in eleven movements for up to five-voices (SSATB).

Per comments by Aza, I further changed it now to

Jesu, meine Freude (Jesus, my joy), BWV 227, is a motet by Johann Sebastian Bach. The longest and most musically complex of his motets, it is set in eleven movements for up to five voices (SSATB).

TRM thinks that SSATB is an abbreviation that needs to be explained in prose. I think that it is in brackets, is explained by the preceeding "five voices", and can be skipped by those who don't know it. I also think that by the same logic, we'd have to spell out Bach-Werke-Verzeichnis. What do others think about this particular question? Laser brain, GeneralPoxter, Amitchell125, Wehwalt, Mirokado? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:03, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks Gerda for bringing this up. Our own MOS suggests that we shouldn't be expecting people to click away or hover over text to understand it. SSATB is jargon, pure and simple, so it needs explanation within the article itself, not just relying on the wikilink. As esteemed FA editors like Sandy or Gog would agree, we shouldn't be using "in-universe" terms without comprehensive explanation in the article itself, and starting with such jargon initialisms in the lead is a bad experience for our non-expert readers. I don't even know how "five voices" equates to SSATB for non-experts. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 20:24, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    My point: SATB (of which SSATB is a form) is our article title, it's not jargon but widely known as such, and linked in around 1,000 articles. I'm not willing to give the four rather common voice types weight in the first sentence, and would rather drop the specific set of five voices (in brackets) completely. I'd prefer not to do that, in the interest of the many readers of this article for whom it's a common abbreviation. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:27, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    As you like. It's not "widely known" by any means outside the tiny niche of classical music. You don't want to enable our readers to understand this jargon? Ok, but I can't support that. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 21:35, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm, I don't know about this, in the lead it says "five-voices (SSATB)" so I think it is clear enough that following five letters refer tofive respective voice parts, and it would feel like a lot of clutter to spell them out in the lead. In the article text, however, extra clarification by including the vocal parts by name (probably in parentheses) seems to not hurt, so why not? Aza24 (talk) 02:32, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, and the spelling out is done in the Scoring section. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:47, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just changed the intro once more, please check. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:42, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is mostly OK. The most relevant detail does appear in addition ("five voices" in the lead: I removed the hyphen), "five parts" in §History, for the earlier mention. "Motet" also appears without detailed explanation in the lead.

  • The detailed explanation in §Structure and scoring should mention "SSATB" explicitly, so that people searching through the article for more details can find them here.
  • Since SATB has links from so many other articles, including featured articles, it would be very good if someone familiar with suitable sources could add them to that article and remove the tag. --Mirokado (talk) 11:12, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've given it a quick read tonight but I'm afraid I can't support based on prose right now. It's still full of complexity which is is inaccessible to regular readers and also not an article I'd consider to contain "professional" prose. I'll see what I can do about getting back to it soon but real life is causing me no end of issues in spending real time here. The whole SSATB thing is still littered throughout, overlinked, not explained clearly in the lead etc. Once I get free of my real-life commitments for an hour or two, I'll come back to this, but in the meantime it's still not there yet. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 23:49, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm delighted that you'll go over the prose, but SSATB - see separate discussion - I'll rather drop from the lead altogether than explain, as I'd not explain what a motet is in the lead, nor what a movement is. For these really rather common terms in this topic, we have links for those who don't know them, and extra explanations would make the prose clumsy for those who do know them. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:59, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Amitchell125

[edit]

I found this be a well-researched and informative article, but I have concerns about the quality of the prose, the links, and other details. Some of the issues that need to be addressed are:

  • The image that follows "creating a frame that encloses the whole work" seems to be far too large (it's much smaller than the infobox image).
    That is not an image but a lilypond rendition, by RandomCanadian. I don't know if the output is flexible. In the infobox (which covers only the first two measures), I can't read the text. --GA
    Understood. Amitchell125 (talk) 14:31, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the lead section, I would: put (Jesus, my joy) in bold and in italics; link motet (List of motets by Johann Sebastian Bach) and theological (also unlinked in the text); amend in E minor to 'in the key of E minor'; change a 1912 dating to a specific July 1723 funeral, as it sounds as if the text was being dated to 1912; replace to that town with 'there'; amend eleven movements to '11 movements' (it occurs elsewhere); introduce Christoph Wolff; copy-edit for education in both choral singing and theology to improve the prose; add a comma after complex symmetrical structure.
    I adjusted the lead, rewording the sentence to get to Bach sooner. I am reluctant about making "Jesus, my joy" a title, because it's just a translation of the meaning, not a title that would be used (which would be Jesus, Priceless Treasure). I believe that "theological" is a common word. I think that we say "Mass in E minor", not "Mass in the key of E minor", and believe that it is widely understood. I took "there", and tried a different wording for the funeral dating. I don't see "11 movements" elsewhere. The Bach scholar is now introduced as such. Sorry, can you reword the "education"-phrase, because it was the best I could come up with? I am not sure about the comma because the juxtapositioning makes the complexity. --GA
    I disagree, the title of the work, whilst usually in German, can also be in English, as these sources show. Amitchell125 (talk) 15:51, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Could be, but the publisher may also just make it palatable in English. I can't read the title page of the Peters which Boosey wants to sell to an English audience, but I saw Schott: while the "title" is English but no title case, the cover has it only in German. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:07, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I know, and I would also have the word put numerically in the text. Amitchell125 (talk) 15:51, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I normally follow spelling it out up to twelve, but if it pleases you I can make an exception. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:09, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are duplicate links: SSATB; soprano; alto; tenor; bass;
    We commonly repeat them for the scoring section, for readers who jump there, where they are most relevant. --GA
    OK, but are the last four needed? Amitchell125 (talk) 14:46, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    define needed, - strictly, they were already linked before. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:50, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    they should be gone, please check ---GA
  • In the first part of the History section, I would: amend was regarded as antiquated to 'was already regarded as antiquated'; put in E minor like his ancestor's into a separate sentence, and improve the quality of the prose; explain figural music (or Figuralmusik) in a note, as it appears to be a uniquely German term; link continuo (Basso continuo).
    "already" added, but I'd rather drop the "in E minor" than separate it (but then explaining the connection). With the hymn in E minor, it's actually not a surprise. Figural music: Francis planned an article. Perhaps we better do without (tried, please check). "basso continuo" was linked in the previous paragraph. --GA
  • In the Epistle text and chorale subsection, I would query: why italics are not used for "Jesu, meine Freude" in the caption, and why "in the flesh" and "according to the Spirit" are shown in quotes; introduce Franck as "the theologian Johann Franck" at the beginning of this subsection, not later; improve the prose where it says addressing Jesus as joy and support, against enemies and the vanity of existence, which are expressed in stark images; look again at The hymn adds a layer of individuality and emotions to Biblical teaching. - another strange sentence, as how can a hymn add a layer of emotions?
    The image is of the hymn, not the motet. "living in the flesh/spirit" is a theological phrase (or concept) by Paul, no normal language, - would you know a better way to say that? "theologian" now comes sooner. I tried to clarify the individual position of the believer saying "meine Freude" (my joy) and other very personal emotional things, - better wording wanted. The images - "old dragon" and such - come later in the movements when mentioned, - this is just a summary, as in the source. --GA
  • In the 20th and 21st centuries subsection there is an unaddressed 'citation required tag'.
    Will look, but have to jump right now. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:09, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    ref added --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:10, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My comments were made because of my concerns about quality of the prose, amongst other things. Instead of making further comments, which I would if I had the time and energy, I instead suggest the article is checked over by an experienced copy-editor. Amitchell125 (talk) 15:57, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Amitchell125, in the meantime, Wehwalt, TRM and GeneralPoxter improved the prose. Please check the new lead and table. ---Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:45, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: Thanks for the reminder, I'll take another look in the next day or so. Amitchell125 (talk) 07:26, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Since I last looked a great of work has been done on improving the article, and it's now imo in fine shape. Amitchell125 (talk) 08:01, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Aza24

[edit]
  • Currently reviewing GP's article. Please ping or let me know when some of the above comments have settled down, and I'll look through. I think the coords will be more lenient now that there are more commitments to review. Aza24 (talk) 23:02, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't believe the meaning of "extended motet" (the first word specifically) is clear, is this is a specific genre or merely an adjective describing its size? If the latter, something more direct like "large" would probably be clearer
    It may be my language, but I never hear large for a piece of music. Yes it's meant to say that this is not the typical motet (one movement, four parts, Locus iste for example). Better wording wanted! We should probably improve both motet and Motet (Bach), eventually. --GA
    Maybe 'large-scale'? Extended sounds like it has a specific meaning, or refers to the length of the piece.
    That's an option, - I thought of something else, per your comment below, will try that and discuss. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:33, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Perfect! Though do we need the refs in the lead? Aza24 (talk) 09:54, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Presumably Franck's "Jesu, meine Freude" is the text for the odd movements? I don't think this is clear, all it says is that Franck's poem is the namesake
    not sure, - lead says "The motet contains the six hymn stanzas in its odd-numbered movements." --GA
    My mistake!
  • "the longest and most musically complex of Bach's motets" — that seems like lead material as well!
    it is there, - well not the exact wording, do you mean that? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:56, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I see it now, fine how it is I believe.
  • more soon. Aza24 (talk) 02:34, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    thank you for looking! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:54, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some more thoughts:
  • Everything before the "18th and 19th centuries" in the "Reception, performances and publication" section seems somewhat out of place, would it perhaps better after the first paragraph of the Structure and scoring section? The "Performers of Jesu..." part could perhaps stay, thoughts?
    Not sure, but yes, somehow the general "this is the greatest" comments might be better for a conclusion. Suggestion for header then? Aza24
  • Shouldn't the texts in the Movements of Bach's Jesu, meine Freude table still have quotation marks on them? Aza24 (talk) 09:54, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I doubt it. We have quotation to differentiate from ordinary text, but within a table, no misunderstanding seems possible. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:02, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I have (as is evident) struggled to find comments to give throughout and thus I find this article ready for promotion. Aza24 (talk) 23:30, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Wehwalt

[edit]
  • "This Biblical text, which influenced key Lutheran teachings, is contrasted by the hymn" How is it contrasted? I'm not clear on what this means.
    The detail comes later, but at this point, we know already that we have older text (Bible, 1st century) and newer text (hymn, 17th century), and we have teaching (third person) vs. emotional emphasis ("Jesus, my joy", first person). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:06, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • " to Bach's Leipzig years.[26]" It might help the reader if you say when this was, although you do say about when he started in Leipzig. Similarly dating might be helpful for the Weimar period and for Bach's death when mentioned.
    There's now a link to where it's covered in the bio (as Weimar already had), and the years for both. Is that too much, perhaps? - I'm reluctant about the death, because the precise year is rather less important (and same as end of Leipzig period) than saying that the two other 5-part works are one from early in Leipzig and one from late. I wonder if we should add that both are exceptional works. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:19, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • " was documented for event." This could use greater clarity.
    "the" seems to have been missing, and I changed "event" to "funeral", although repetitious - perhaps better than unclear. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:22, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus" Should "which" be "who"? Given that we are discussing humans, or at least their souls, "who", commonly applied to human beings, seems more appropriate than "which". I also see translations of Romans 8:1 that use "who".
    That's all correct, only: Wikipedia's source is the KJV (King James Version), linked to, which has "which", and the translator referenced seems to have used the same. Should we go as far as finding and quoting a different translation, or rather leave it as historic language? The German is also sort of old-fashioned. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:28, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is Bach not linked in the lead?
    Sigh, he was until a reviewer wanted a link for "motet". As motet is very general, I thought that List of motets by Johann Sebastian Bach was better, but how to indicate the difference? My solution was to include his name in that link. If you don't like it, we could copy what the infobox has, but it's a bit of an Easter egg. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:33, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've made a number of hands on edits, please feel free to revert any you do not like.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:28, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for looking, and I'll check your changes. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:33, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the copy-edits, mostly great improvements! I'm not happy - has nothing to do with your change! - with the corner about the continuo accompaniment. Roughly: for centuries, choirs tried the "noble" unaccompanied singing because there was no continuo part; only when looking into sources more did musicologists find that two of the motets came with a continuo part, as was usual at the time. I wonder if that could be clarified, perhaps even naming those two? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:47, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm satisfied by the responses. Support.--Wehwalt (talk)
Wehwalt, kindly check the reworded lead and the table of the structure, combining the former two --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:46, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The first paragraph is a bit long for my taste, but I'm not going to make an issue of it.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:24, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mirokado

[edit]

I've read through this, copyediting en passant.

  • Structure and scoring, the diagram
    • what does "free" mean in the chorale 3 box?
    • there is some numbering confusion here, we have unlabelled numbers 1–6 for the chorale stanzas, but in the final two boxes we have "similar to [movement numbers] 1, 2" so the "2" has different meanings within the diagram
    • apart from those occurrences, the movement numbers don't appear in the diagram, which makes flipping between introductory text, diagram and table a bit confusing. I appreciate that we don't want the diagram to get too cluttered, though.
      • I dropped the first diagram completely, adding it's info to the other table, please check ---GA
  • Movements
    • wl incipit. I read this without noticing the first time, because I studied Latin a bit at school, but I have not so far come across the term in active use. Since we have a nice article about it, I think we should provide the link.
      • done ---GA
  • Movements : 4
    • although the quoted "rhetorical" in §Movements : 2 is explained nicely by the subsequent text, "beatific" here is not. It is quoting the word used by Jones (2003 p. 205) but on first reading it looked like "I will let you work out what I mean here" quotes. Perhaps link to beatific, where the meanings blissful, heavenly apply.

--Mirokado (talk) 17:11, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for looking and the copy-edits, - I'm too tired now and hope for tomorrow. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:11, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Mirokado, thank you for the suggestions, and all taken. I expanded the lead a bit, and combined the tables, please check --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:03, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support: thank you Gerda, the updated lead and table look fine. --Mirokado (talk) 12:50, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

Spot checks not done. There are some source formatting issues - the web sources give nothing but the URL patterns, one URL ([62]) is dead and ISBN sometimes is linked and sometimes isn't. I was wondering if John Eliot Gardiner was a reliable source for a FA but going by the citations of his works it seems like he is. Johann Gottfried Schicht isn't so clear if he's a reliable source on this topic. Spitta's Johann Sebastian Bach is it a reliable source? The article raises some doubts. Is Pamela Dellal a subject-matter expert? Some of the web sources raise questions about the credentials of their authors. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:05, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for stepping up! Perhaps compare BWV 1, source review of the FAC. Spitta was Bach's first biographer, so almost a must. (I mean: much of what he wrote has been proven wrong, but he is the source for what has been believed then. Dellal trtanslated all of Bach's vocal music into English, and is used as a source only for the translations. Schicht is also historical, - we'd have to ask Francis, - similar to Spitta, I assume. Gardiner conducted the Bach Cantata Pilgrimage, and recorded the motets twice, so is my No. one expert. The other questions would need to be more precise. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:23, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If much of what he wrote was proven wrong, then I'd be wary of using him as a source. My question about websites is bach-chorales.com, bach333.com, hymnary.org and ccel.org are not particularly clear on what makes them RS. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:08, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Spitta: If we talk about history of reception, we have to say what a first biographer wrote even if later research proved it to be wrong. Same for the one who wrote that the piece was composed for a specific funeral (writing that in 1912), which is still proclaimed in 2021 concert programs! - bach.chorales supplies only links to three chorale settings, while we have just one in lilypond in the article, - that's good for people reading music. bach333.com is only an additional ref for other motets by Bach which were recorded, - drop it if you find a problem, hymnary.org is given only for the translation by Winckworth, - we can drop the fact (and thus the link to her translation), but it's not contentious, and may be interesting to English-speaking readers. ccel.org has only that translation in larger print, - drop if you find not useful. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:46, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK then. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:32, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Support s by Gerald Waldo Luis

[edit]

Interesting article, despite me not being a huge Bach fan. Will post comments soon; after they're resolved I'll support this FAC GeraldWL 09:18, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the few hours delay, had some IRL issues. Anyways, comments are below. First time FAC-reviewing a classical article, so forgive if I have mistaken something. GeraldWL 14:50, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I like first-time reviewers, it's eye-opening what they/you see! No delay even, - I was sleeping ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:12, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! And with all comments resolved, thy shalt support. Gute Arbeit! GeraldWL 12:47, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from GeraldWL 12:47, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
=====Outside body=====
  • "It is named after the Lutheran hymn "Jesu, meine Freude" with poetry by Johann Franck"-- does that mean there's a poem of the same name by Johann Freude or...? "With poetry" is quite confusing for me. ESL guy here, so please don't mind wrong grammatical concerns.
    most hymns have two creators, one for the poetry/text, one for the melody/music, does that help? --GA
    Definitely, thanks!
  • "More recently" will be outdated as time passes. Suggest changing to "Later"
    English is not my first language, so I don't see the problem. It will alwayys remain more recently, no? --GA
    Well, depends on what you define as "more recently"; but in the year 2050 I doubt 1995 is "more recently" for most readers. I think "Later" suits more.
    I changed to "In the 1990s", finding "later" - in respect to 1912 - too vague. The wording was not by me, anyway ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:20, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough :)
    Actually GA, is it really just 1990s? "Time of origin" section also has sources dated in the 1980s, 2000s, and 2010s, it seems. GeraldWL 11:27, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    the beginning of the doubt - at least in writing - seems to come from Melamed in the 1990s, - better wording welcome. Perhaps the title of the section should be changed, because the middle para rather discusses the structure than the timing, but of course both go together somehow, - finding older pieces in the structure lets you think about when those were composed. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:54, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I can see that now. Perhaps "Since the 1990s", instead of "In the 1990s"; the latter makes it as if the dispute is exclusive to that decade. GeraldWL 12:02, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    changed to that --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:06, 30 December 2021 (UTC)'[reply]
  • Why is "five voices (SSATB)" in the lead, but "five voices SSATB" (without brackets) in the infobox?
    For some reason, the question for the abbreviation has caused more discussion than the music. I guess I'll remove the "five voices" from the infobox --GA
  • In "Cited sources", it should be divided with sub-heading 2 instead of italics. After you do so, the Bach Digital link must be removed as there shouldnt be links in bolds or headings.
    I learned the italics for Kafka, which is a highly visible article for a model, and don't believe the headers deserve bold --GA
    Well if that is not prohibited then I'll give that a pass.
  • I believe you can archive most of the sources, personally I use this tool.
    feel free to do so if you find it a good idea --GA
    :) GeraldWL 10:48, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I've archived all sources except the Gbooks links, which through experience I learn it's unarchivable; as well as the Bach Digital links, where there's no archive parameters it seems in the templates so I think it's all right too.
    thank you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:54, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is the first time I've seen colons on External links, but I don't think there's guidelines against that so I'm fine with that. However: in exlink 1 and 2 "Scores" and "Free" are in title case, but not "performance" in exlink 5. Must be consistent.
    the colons are added by templates for these sources, - German has no title case for headers, - will add "(program book) to the mvmc --GA
  • "mvmc.de 19 January 2019"-- I think you can convert this to a citation like you did in the last exlink, and also provide a translation to the title
    I can convert if it helps - this article had many authors --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:26, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Mm nah it's fine, it looks good now that I re-see it.
  • Move "Florida State University Libraries" to the publisher parameter to unitalicize, then link Florida State University.
    fine, will do --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:26, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Body
History
  • "It is scored for up to five vocal parts (SSATB)" duplicate link.
    please see above that one thought it's such an unusual thing --GA
  • "at the beginning of Bach's tenure in Leipzig"-- link Leipzig.
    They had Thomaskantor before, more relevant than today's city --GA
  • "from two sources,"-- should use a colon instead of a comma.
    if you think so --GA
  • "such as "old dragon" and "death's jaw""-- considering the text is in German, suggest providing the translations of those quotations.
    well, the images were named to illustrate "stark images" and the German would be within the grammar ("dem alten Drachen" instead of "alter Drachen") which made me hesitate --GA
  • "The hymn's first line is also the last line of its final stanza"-- it would be interesting to provide the actual first line.
    Really? "Jesu, meine Freude" - the very title. --GA
  • "the hymnal used in Leipzig"-- remove Leipzig link (see History point 3)
    yes --GA
  • "with the word "Jesus""-- or "Jesu"? If the latter, then I think it should be changed to "Jesu".
    done --GA
  • "The Cambridge musicologist" --> "The Cambridge University Press musicologist"
    would you name a specific publisher instead of the location? --GA
  • "in his 1995 book about Bach's motets"-- a bit too descriptive, suggest trimming to "in his 1995 book" as that's the only relevant bit; also consistent with paragraph 3 sentence 4.
    if you think so (but I think it might tell readers that while others wrote a Bach Biography, or Bach's composition style, this work is specifically dedicated to only the motets) --GA
  • "but the date has still been "nearly universally accepted"". I don't understand what this means.
    It's a quote, so you'd have to ask Melamed. I understand that almost wherever you look, for example in program books, you will still find written as a "fact" that Jesu, meine Freude was composed for that specific funeral. What is unclear? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:38, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Structure and scoring
  • "Bach scored it for a choir of up to five voices (SSATB): two soprano parts (S or SS), alto (A), tenor (T) and bass (B)." Another STAB duplicate link. Additionally, I think this sentence fits more in Background, paragraph 3 sentence 2.
    In consistency with other FAs on Bach compositions, this is where the details of the scoring are discussed, and linked, for people who may come directly from the TOC. --GA
  • "Romans 8:9"-- link to the Wikisource.
    It was linked, but the links removed per the FAC as duplicate to the text section --GA
  • "Movements of Bach's Jesu, meine Freude"-- I don't think "Bach's" is important here.
    agree --GA
  • "Romans 8, setting verse 1"-- "Romans 8:1"
    it was changed, for the sake of those less familiar with how Bible verses are numbered, per a discussion above --GA
  • "Christ Jesus"-- shouldn't it be Jesus Christ? Also translations should be in quotations.
    In other FAs, the translations are given in brackets, without additional quotation marks. It's quoted from the translation, we can't change word order, it's a typical Paul phrasing, in German and in English. --GA
  • "sets the second verse from Romans 8" --> "sets Romans 8:2"
    as above --GA
  • "quoting short motifs from the chorale"-- motif duplicate link.
    removed although I often think a duplicate doesn't hurt --GA
  • "to paintings by Cranach and Grünewald" --> "to paintings by Lucas Cranach the Elder and Matthias Grünewald"
    the source doesn't say "the Elder", - I believe the link suffices --GA
  • "John Eliot Gardiner" --> "Music conductor John Eliot Gardiner". Additionally, I see that prior to this sentence Gardiner has been mentioned a few times; the full name and link must be in the first mention, which is in Time of Origin paragraph 2, last sentence.
    he's much more than a conductor, but fine, reduced to Gardiner here and explained a bit the first time --GA
  • WP:BLOCKQUOTE says only quotes with more than 40 words must use block quotes; since the Gardiner quote only has 31 words you can just combine the quote within the paragraph.
    please IAR: this is perhaps the one sentence a reader should take home, and - next to the image - is still long --GA
  • "verse 9 from Romans 8" --> "Romans 8:9"
    as above --GA
  • "verse 10 from Romans 8" --> "Romans 8:10"
    as above --GA
  • "For the rejection of everything earthly, Bach composed a chorale fantasia"-- chorale fantasia duplicate link.
    removed (but still think it wouldn't hurt) --GA
  • "verse 11 from Romans 8" --> "Romans 8:11"
    as above --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:07, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Reception, performances and publication
  • The three blockquotes are also less than 40 words.
    One left as intended to stand out, one removed as duplicate, one no block. --GA
  • "The motet's SATB"-- SATB or SSATB?
    is it unclear? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:18, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Philippe Herreweghe, second set recorded in 2010" --> "Herreweghe, second set recorded in 2010"
    done --GA
  • "John Eliot Gardiner" --> "Gardiner"
    done --GA
Thank you for helpful comments! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:18, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome, and sorry as I seem to have misunderstood some parts-- first time in a classical article. Notably that I did not read that different movements have different voices. Only issue I have left is the Cambridge part: the source's is Cambridge University Press, and "Cambridge musicologist" makes it seem like the person is born or a citizen of Cambridge; one only refers to the uni as "Cambridge" in a second mention, or beyond. GeraldWL 09:52, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, and I replied to some more above, and changed Cambridge to Cambridge University. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:38, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A coordinator opines

[edit]
  • On the one hand this looks almost ready for promotion. On the other, the unexplained SSATB and SATB clearly (IMO) breach several parts of the MoS. So, as it stands, I would be all but forced to archive the article as not meeting "It follows the style guidelines". Pinging @FAC coordinators: in order to allow them to differ. But Gerda, Wikipedia articles are written in order to explain things to a general reader, and even without the MoS this aspect of the article restricts ready comprehension of the article to aficionados. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:02, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I think either approach is defensible. While you may well be right to consider this a breach of MOS, on the other hand, MOS being a guideline there may be a consensus not to apply it in a specific case (although I certainly don't see such a consensus in the discussion above, most editors are pushing for a greater explanation of the jargon term). While some participants in FAC have expressed that they do not believe that MOS must be followed to the exact letter, or even believe this is impossible, this belief is not reflected in the criteria. (t · c) buidhe 17:08, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I said I'm ready to remove SSATB from the lead and just leave "five voices". On the other hand, compare BWV 1. It pipes SATB to "four-part choir" in the lead which is possible because it has exactly those 4 voices. In this exceptional five-part work, it would be nice to tell those familiar with the abbreviation right away which of the four is doubled to make it five. Those unfamiliar with the abbreviation get "five voices" (whicih is not for aficionados only), and can click and learn. My 2ct. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:38, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
From MOS:LINK, "Do not unnecessarily make a reader chase links: if a highly technical term can be simply explained with very few words, do so." From MOS:ABBR, "an acronym should be written out in full the first time it is used on a page". Gerda, can I strongly urge you to read and reread the third sentence in my comments above. And then make any changes you feel appropriate in a timely manner. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:51, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the abbreviation from the lead. However, it didn't say "for a SSATB choir" (with the acronym coming as a surprise by itself). It said "for up to five voices (SSATB)", SSATB being only a specification of the five voices. To say instead "for up to five voices, two sopranos, alto, tenor and bass (SSATB)" would be clunky, and boring for those who know. Mind that this would come before anything explains the title even. So, I don't think what you said fits the situation, but obliged anyway. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:24, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"SSATB" is an abbreviation. It is not an abbreviation of "for up to five voices". In fact, the way you have written it it is not possible for a reader coming across this for the first time to work out either what it is an abbreviation of nor what it means.
Am I to understand your comment above to mean that the article is, so far as this issue is concerned, it its finished state and you would like the coordinators to close it one way or the other? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:57, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have further tweaked the sentence to bind the clarification of "S", "A" etc directly to "SSATB". Of course feel free to improve further. --Mirokado (talk) 20:23, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Rambling Man mentioned going over it when he has time. As for the "abbreviation": I would't spell out British Broadcasting Corporation although I can imagine that not every reader from around the globe knows what BBC stands for. I think that once our article title is an abbreviation, we might assume that it is known under the abbreviation. That was my premise for the usage, and being told it is a MoS violation hurts, but - last time - as it isn't so for The Rambling Man and for you (while others seem to have had no problems with it): I removed it, for peace in the matter. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:32, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I woke up with this question: how is SSATB an alleged breach of the MoS, but BWV isn't? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:11, 12 January 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) 12 January 2022 [63].

David Berman (musician)

[edit]
Nominator(s): DMT Biscuit (talk) 15:32, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

He wrote sad songs and got paid by the tear. They’re motel masterpieces about dream attacks and beer drinking robots. His mother named him after a king and he was the son of “possibly the most evil man in America”. In 2003, he was hospitalised for approaching death; shined out in the wild kindness; and left this world behind on the back of a black camel. Here's hoping he gets that Pulitzer for the "frontline series 'Iowa Jima' published in the 2022 A.D. Pittsburgh Daily Humanoid," his words. DMT Biscuit (talk) 15:32, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from blz 2049

[edit]

Hi DMT! Having skimmed the article as a whole and explored a few crannies in detail, I'm already hugely impressed by the scope, depth, sophistication, and sensitivity of the article, which is immensely deserved for a subject like Berman. I've already started with some direct edits to the article; please let me know if there are any issues with these edits. I have three initial, intertwined, article-wide comments:

  • Lots of long sentences here—there are semicolons and em dashes galore; I even found a sentence that had both a semicolon and an em dash. I'd advise curbing these wherever possible in favor of more bite-size sentences.
  • Implementation of the Harvard-style citations with {{sfn}} and {{sfnm}} looks OK throughout, but the cites are often bundled together in ways that make it difficult to quickly ascertain which source(s) contributed which bit(s) of info within a given sentence. This can be particularly unclear when a footnote attached to a direct quote provides a range of sources. For example, in the "Poetry" section, nine sources are cited within a single footnote for a list of eight distinct qualities critics have found in both Berman's poetry and his lyrics. But are all nine sources in unanimous agreement about all eight items...? There should be eight footnotes here splitting out exactly who said what.
  • In the case of some complicated-yet-necessary multi-source footnotes, I'd also recommend using the |nps= parameter to provide a brief snippet quote indicating what exact language is backing up what portion of a particular claim and how. This is especially useful when each source supports a certain phrase of a sentence but not the rest, or where sources say the same thing in a different way that may be worth clarifying to avoid confusion or disagreement. For instance, if one critic describes Berman's poetry as "direct" while another said "blunt", both words would reasonably support a claim that critics have found a quality of "directness" in his poetry, but without a parenthetical quote in the cite a reader may find it slightly more tedious to try to pinpoint where the second critic's article says anything about the poetry being "direct" at all (⌘-F would be no help).
    Here's an example from one of my articles to show you what I mean; each of the three sources provided some of the information I needed, but each was missing necessary components, too, and I wanted to clarify for future reference (and my own future sanity). Plus here's a second example that's more quotation-heavy. Plus plus, here's some example code for you to try (the weird manual HTML space thing &#32; seems necessary to force the first "ps" space, fwiw):
{{Sfnm|1a1=Smith|1y=1998|1ps=&#32;{{nowrap|("[t]ogehter")}}|2a1=Jones|2y=1998|2ps=&#32;("forever").}}

These two comments are intertwined in the sense that breaking up long sentences should also generally make it easier to use more precise citation. More clarity in citations also makes it easier to later revise/split/combine sentences. —blz 2049 ➠ ❏ 13:55, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Blz 2049: thank you for these comments and the relevant examples. They're the type of in-depth assessment befit for here. I intend to fulfil them but should perhaps explain their predication. The article is somewhat of a chimera; despite his acclaim and pithy prose, Berman has received little academic - or otherwise in-depth - attention. To be properly comprehensive I've essentially had to glue together ephemera.
With regards to the long sentences, that's more a matter of personal viewpoint. My, admittedly idiosyncratic, style favours citations to be as intrusive as possible; invisible, if I had my way. Previously there were sequences of 8 plus citations. It was far from great. But I very much see the value in your suggestions. DMT Biscuit (talk) 19:07, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Blz 2049: I believe I have done all the relevant copyediting. If there' other areas you wish to flag up feel free to say. DMT Biscuit (talk) 15:14, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I gotchu—I'm 100% on the same page that minimal footnotes with Harvard-style citations is vastly preferable to stacking a mess of footnotes like "[84][1][7][75][76][63][33][39][3]". Like you, I've written on some (relatively) obscure subjects that required creative stitching among sources when no single source standing alone quite gets to some big essential obvious point, so I understand the practical difficulties you're working within (and, I have to say, you've done a phenomenal job aggregating the extant source material and assembling it into a meaningful overall package). I should also maybe clarify for the record that, from what I've seen so far, my issue was not so much about any improper synthesis, but about the much smaller issue of the convenience of verification—not even capital-V Verifiability as such, more so clarity and the ease for a reviewer/reader while navigating the text and sources—plus my own personal sense of how to enhance the utility of citations in some cases. This is mainly important for direct quotes if attribution is not made clear by the text itself, but beyond that it becomes more a matter of personal preference. The revisions you've made on this front look excellent and are pretty much exactly what I had in mind, btw, so kudos for that.

I also am not feeling too harshly about the long sentence thing, fwiw. I myself am addicted to semicolons, em dashes, even parenthetical remarks (see, for instance, this comment). If anything, my advice there reflects my long-term observation that others have improved on my sentences by chopping them down to size. Popcornfud's influence has probably improved my writing technique more than that of any English teacher from high school onward, so shouts out.

I came across two potentially interesting sources; you may have already come across yourself, but I figured I would highlight them just in case given the relative dearth of material. I haven't read through these in any great detail yet, but I figure you'd have the better perspective on what can be gleaned from these. If nothing else, these might make sense as entries in a "Further reading" section.

  • This literary journal is extinct but it can be found cited in academic bibliographies ([64], [65]), so it's legit. Might be a worthwhile "Further reading" if nothing else, though I bet there'll be some decent insight and/or info in there. Shouts out to Kathleen for providing the scan.
@Blz 2049: Thanks for finding these sources, they certainly eluded me. The first, as you said, seems reputable enough and I have cited; feel free to inspect such additions. It's worth mentioning that Kathleen Rooney even has her own article. Is she Harold Bloom? No, but she's got some credentials. I'd recommend a read. Trademark humour from Berman and some sadly prescient material.
The second one fares less well. The bibliography you linked returns to the above article; so, it is a scattered interview banished to obscurity written by a then-student. Best not. Thanks, all the same. How did you even find these? Skilled sleuthing. DMT Biscuit (talk) 01:02, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops, I goofed on that bibliographic link; fixed now. Even so, if that second source isn't useful that's fine. Honestly nice that one of those panned out. Wish I could retrace my steps and explain how I find things like that beyond saying I enter a meditative fugue state and commune directly with the Internet Archive itself. —blz 2049 ➠ ❏ 11:36, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Blz 2049: Funny, you'd mention the archive; found a nice profile there by Plan B. The founder, and writer of the relevant article, Everett True, has some respectable credentials, in my opinion. Free to inspect my additions. DMT Biscuit (talk) 19:16, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

More comments:

  • As I noted in an edit summary, it'd be a good idea to unpack Robert Bingham's connection to Berman in more tangible terms, particularly his role as Berman's publisher (and indeed, as a person who evidently established a company to publish Berman's poetry). Right now it's not clear why Bingham's death should be singled out, but it easily could be. Their friendship and working relationship would be worth highlighting regardless of whether Bingham had died.
I added a sentence about Bingham being the founder of Open City. If you think there could be more, just say.
  • This is a minor point, but be sure whenever you have square brackets next to quotation marks to use {{nowrap}} like so: {{nowrap|"[e]xample}} quote phrase". This keeps the quotation mark glued to the bracket, otherwise they split at the end of a line of text, resulting in an awkward dangling quotation mark. —blz 2049 ➠ ❏ 02:27, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, done all these. DMT Biscuit (talk) 19:16, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Berman's discography entails not merely his contributions to Silver Jews and Purple Mountains, but also (as you note throughout the article) several noteworthy guest appearances/production credits/etc. AllMusic provides a decent place to start here, though again many (if not all?) of his notable credits are already mentioned throughout the article body. These miscellaneous credits aren't so extensive that they necessitate an entire separate "David Berman discography" article, but since there is no separate article there probably should be some more detailed listing of his "solo" (i.e. non-SJ, non-PM) recording credits in the discography section.
  • Hi @Blz 2049:. I don't necessarily object to this addition but I am somewhat unsure of how to approach it. The allmusic list is dubious, given it goes as far back as 1979 with no distinction. Should I just list the credits already mentioned? DMT Biscuit (talk) 14:56, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Lots of responsive and new comments; I've broken it into sections to make it all easier to process, lol. Apologies for the extreme infodump.
Discography

I'm thinking it could look something like David Bowie discography § Guest appearances, which handles credits both for individual tracks and across entire albums within a single table in a coherent way. I'd probably title it "Other contributions" though as it encompasses both "guest appearances" along with production & songwriting. It should be strictly Berman-only—non-SJs, non-PMs. As far as what to include/exclude, I've included some notes below, including comments on what potential additions to the article body text based on what I found:

I think the discography subsection can and should include Berman's original lyrical/co-songwriting contributions to other artists. These are distinct from other artists covering songs credited as written Berman, which shows up a few times in the AllMusic discography. This also does not count times when Berman gets a songwriting credit because an artist quotes or uses Berman's old lines, as happened on the Avalanches' We Will Always Love You; you could include those credits if you'd like, but they don't seem as essential. Rather, what I'm referring to here are times when Berman, whether formally credited or not, contributed new lines to another artists's song.

  • Royal Trux – "Granny Grunt" and "(Have You Met) Horror James?", from Thank You (1995), with formal songwriting credits
  • Unfortunately, I'm not convinced Hang the DJ is high quality enough. If you inspect the credited author/editor you'll find he's the Publishing Director at Faber & Faber, who "has a great personal passion for music." Seems less academic/authoritative and more vanity publishing/pet project. DMT Biscuit (talk) 13:55, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Will Oldham – "Apocalypse, No!" (also spelled "Apocolypse, No!"), from Joya (1997), uncredited
  • Will Oldham on Bonnie "Prince" Billy (2012), p. 126; "'Apocolypse, No!' began as a single line that David Berman had written on the wall of our house in Charlottesville, when we were supposed to be making a Silver Palace record."
  • Oldham wrote: "The beginning came from D. C. Berman, the rest rushed out in an effort to describe some parts of our complicated dynamic." Oldham, Will (2018). "Apocalypse, No!". Songs of Love and Horror: Collected Lyrics of Will Oldham. New York: W. W. Norton & Company. p. 12. ISBN 978-0-393-65120-1.

That's probably a wrap on that; other stray Silver Jews tracks and appearances would belong with a Silver Jews discography, not a Berman discography.

  • Expanded the discography.
Silver Palace

Regarding that "Silver Palace" novelty record mentioned in the previous section: the possibility of a "Silver Palace" collab intrigued me—was it just a joke, was it more serious? Here's what I found:

  • Fizz magazine, November 1994: "I'm going to do another project with Will Oldham (of the Palace Brothers) that's going to be called the Silver Palace."
  • CMJ New Music Monthly, June 1998: "Berman and Will Oldham lived in town [i.e., Charlottesville], working on a new Silver Palace project, which unfortunately hasn't seen release yet."
  • Nashville Scene, April 11, 2002: "At present, he's working on a new book of poetry, preparing a reprint of his first poetry collection, Actual Air, and about to start working with Will Oldham on the collaborative Silver Palace project."
  • Frequency magazine, undated: "No, I don't think anything is going to come out of it [Silver Palace]{{tq|. It seems like a good idea but at a certain point, the reality of a collaboration is always more disappointing than you want it to be. I can't think of any collaborations that were any better than the people who collaborated's individual work. I don't think think it would mix very well. But it was a good idea."
  • Berman to Brooklyn Rail, 2005: {{tq|"Will and I have been friends since a summer in '95 when he came to the town I lived in (Charlottesville) and rented a house and we set out to make a Silver Palace record. Nothing got recorded that summer but we've been close ever since."}
  • GQ, 2018: noted that Oldham's upcoming record Songs of Love and Horror would include "one seriously deep cut from an unfinished collaboration with Silver Jews founder David Berman". Not clear which song it's supposed to be, and whichever one it is, it'd be an Oldham original without any Berman co-writing credit.

Based on all of the above, Brooklyn Rail provides enough to say that Berman and Oldham cohabitated for a time and had long considered a collaboration under the name Silver Palace, which was never realized.

  • I've added material from Brooklyn Rail (2005): "a close friendship between Oldham and Berman arose at this time and the two conceptualized a collaborative project, entitled Silver Palace."
Other random findings:
  • Here's yet more archived fanpage ephemera via The Reef hosted at virginia.edu. This one interestingly notes Berman contributed some short fiction to The Baffler; the latter link also has some old articles.
  • A pretty remarkable encyclopedic overview of Berman-as-poet, with an in-depth literary analysis of his poem "Snow", can be found at: Dorsch, Kristen A., ed. (2019). "Snow". Poetry for Students. Poetry for Students. Vol. 60. Farmington Hills, Michigan: Gale. pp. 213–231. ISBN 978-1-4103-6554-5. ISSN 1094-7019. Gale CX3670300024.
  • Very good for the Actual Air air - less so here, tertiary and all that. I don't think we have to crack out the Marxist critique just yet. Let that be the foley of AFD.
  • At PoetryFoundation.org, Cathy Park Hong's wry comment re Berman's Silver Jews Resignation Letter—"I guess one can interpret his decision to turn to muckraking as some serious Oedipal revenge shit"—could serve to provide a little of the "read[ing] between the lines" on this issue that Ceoil suggested, in so far as it's a muted skeptical reaction that doesn't take Berman's moral crusading against his father 100% at face value (I'm watching Succession right now and am reminded somewhat of a father–son relationship in that show). That point aside, Hong also echoes a claim made in Poetry for Students: Berman's poetry has been considered an unusually accessible starting point when teaching poetry to college students with no interest in poetry.
    Hi @Blz 2049: In the Brooklyn Rail article you linked - good find - Berman actually makes reference to Oedipus, tangentially referring it back to his own experience. Given this and the Oedipal description, I'm sure others made, do you think an image of Oedipus in early life or influences would work? Possible caption: Referencing his experience of reinforced empathy via substantial reading, Berman referenced Oedipus as an example of a character who should do the same to others.[citation] His long-standing conflict with his father has been called Oedipal.DMT Biscuit (talk) 11:40, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per Houston Press, there was a stage production of Actual Air by Infernal Bridegroom Productions. Strikes me that there's more than enough for an Actual Air article, and while that's neither here nor there w/r/t this FAC I wonder if you've considered it. I've worked on some poetry-related articles and that seems to me like a fun project.
  • I've considered bringing it to FAC. Doesn't seem to be extraneous, maybe one day. There's other article I'm presently interested in right now.
  • Came across a June 2021 Uncut article about Oldham & Matt Sweeney's Superwolves collab; has some asides on Oldham's early encounters with Berman and the impact of Berman's death. Not essential, but there's at least one good Oldham quote re: Berman's death that may have utility, if not here, then probably elsewhere (e.g. there's no Superwolves article yet).
  • Berman makes stray comments on the Silver Jews' last show in an archived blog post at Nashville Scene.
  • Per Poets.org, a planned second collection of Berman's poetry may have once had the working title Richard Simmons 1950–?.
  • 1998 MTV article – some useful info re American Water and Actual Air, but probably for those specific articles.

Two comments that are non-FAC-essential, more to do with the way Wikipedia is stitched together, but probably worth raising now:

Last but not least, here's a totally inessential blog piece of no reliability and trivial merit, but just for fun it gives an unusual behind-the-curtain read on Berman's character. Personally I'm shocked and scandalized to learn that David apparently really, passionately loathed Can. No action item here whatsoever, just thought this was mildly interesting.

What are the chances: in one of the interviews you linked he mentioned his disdain for Can. I suppose we have all that one or two bands we just don't get. For more of his perplexing music taste. Sometimes Twitter is nice. DMT Biscuit (talk) 15:45, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Phew. Let me know what you think about any of the above at your convenience. —blz 2049 ➠ ❏ 02:37, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@DMT Biscuit: @Buidhe: (for doing the first part of the file review): Quick note, a few days ago I uploaded four new Berman-related images to Commons:

I've already added the signature to the page, but I figure DMT Biscuit should choose which of the three photos to use in the "Early life" section based on his editorial judgment/preference.

@Blz 2049: Wow, this is really going above and beyond the order. Thanks. I've elected to use the first photo. As endearing as heartthrob and Got Milk Berman are, the first is just more fitting for an encyclopedia. DMT Biscuit (talk) 09:02, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll recuse myself from doing any file review for this FAC, but I can summarize the contents and copyright statuses to streamline the process for another reviewer. All of these images are sourced from Berman's 1985 yearbook, a complete digital copy of which is available via Classmates.com (with a subscription). The signature is public domain because most American signature are ineligible for copyright and thus public domain; nothing about Berman's simple signature rises above the threshold of originality required to establish copyright. The yearbook photos of Berman entered the public domain because the yearbook was first published in the US between January 1, 1978–March 1, 1989, without a valid copyright notice (this can be verified if necessary by inspecting the complete scan at Classmates.com), and copyright on the yearbook was not subsequently registered within five years. —blz 2049 ➠ ❏ 02:47, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confirming that the images listed above are in the public domain and can be used as desired in the article. (t · c) buidhe 03:03, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blz 2049 - Do you feel like you are in a position to formally support the promotion of this article? Hog Farm Talk 19:55, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Hog Farm: @DMT Biscuit: Apologies for my recent silence/delay—I've been busy irl + spending time with family + waylaid by a minor case of COVID-19 (I'm on the upswing now). I'm confident I'm reasonably close to a support and I plan to finish my review in the next day or two. —blz 2049 ➠ ❏ 23:59, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Some fresh comments:

  • "After the release of Purple Mountains he feared he would be seen as a 'sad sack' ..." – "sad sack" is a direct quotation from Hyden 2019b, but is a quote from the article author, not Berman himself—yet because the text is about Berman's personal feelings, the sentence reads like "sad sack" is a direct quotation of Berman himself. I'd reword this somehow; the overall point being made in the sentence is germane but it may need a different paraphrase. "Depressive" would be my suggested paraphrase.
  • Done.
  • "A number of musicians wrote and recorded tributes in their releases following Berman's death, including:" – The list that follows should probably be converted into prose, at least to some extent. It'd be nice to understand a little bit better to what extent and in what sense each cited work was intended as a "tribute" to Berman.
  • Retained the list but with additional prose, per your input. I think the list is best for readability. I have chalked up a prose list, for your consideration:
"A number of musicians alluded to Berman and wrote tributes in their releases following his death. The Avalanches quoted Berman in their song "Running Red Light". Fleet Foxes recalled Berman's death in their song "Shore"; with "Sunblind", they made allusions to American Water and memorialized Berman; Mogwai memorialized Berman with "Ritchie Sacramento"; Cassandra Jenkins alluded to American Water on “Ambiguous Norway” and recollected her grief on "New Bikini". The Mountain Goats dedicated their song "Arguing With the Ghost of Peter Laughner About His Coney Island Baby Review" to Berman; Daniel Blumberg and John Vanderslice dedicated their respective works On&On and I can't believe civilization is still going here in 2021! Congratulations to all of us, Love DCB to Berman."
  • "Influences" – This section is brief and while it isn't entirely about Berman's poetic influences, that seems to be the bulk of it. Is there more out there about his musical influences? I feel like he's frequently compared to certain artists—Neil Young comes up a lot—but I don't really know who, if anyone, he personally counted as a major influence on his own work. If there's not much to add it may be worth splitting the parts here into the other sections. —blz 2049 ➠ ❏ 03:39, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll look. The reason it's a section in of itself is because Berman rarely distinguishes between the two forms. He just says that they're influences. This is primarily why I'd vouch for it remaining. For what it's worth, McCann (2007): "on musical influences, he's cagier, neatly sidestepping the question". DMT Biscuit (talk) 21:37, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Blz 2049: Time to see it clearer and I have axed the section. The poets are in the poetry sections; the artists are by the Witney'. Faulkner gets a little notice to himself amidst mentions of literature and the Torah is entrenched in the talks of Judaism. DMT Biscuit (talk) 13:26, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Ceoil

[edit]

Have had this on my watchlist since before DMT's impressive expansion. Catching up now, with more comments to follow:

  • Lead: In 2009, he announced his withdrawal from music in a public letter expressing his opposition to his father - that's what he said, maybe can we contextualize and read between the lines more.
  • @Ceoil: Berman had expressed a dislike/debt to his father during preceding years. Is that what you have in mind?
  • No, more that there were another reasons for the breakdown, but blamed his father (who he had know was a world class prick for years presumably) but blamed him as the trigger in this instance. It does seem like deflection, something he later said, once, to excuse....if not solid and admitted a few times, would leave the claim out of the lead. Ceoil (talk) 01:43, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why does the biblo list two works when the lead says that Actual Air was his only published vol of poetry.
  • The Portable February is a book of cartoons. It's a pretty minor release so I feel it doesn't warrant a mention in the lead
  • Critics are not always right. For eg, there is a contradiction here..."his register was baritone and he would concurrently sing and speak. Reviewing Starlite Walker for The Guardian, Jonathan Romney described Berman's approach as "whiny, archetypally slackerish" with "vaguely country inflections". Maybe distinguish between his early and late career singing voices? Ceoil (talk) 23:04, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't necessarily think this is a contradiction; his register would still be baritone then. He only enunciated it differently, correlating with the country presence in his work. It's also a matter of perception, which the article should strive to reflect.
  • I've changed the clause to subjective: identified, described so forth.
  • Re live "symbotic" performances with Cassie'; can you attribute the claim
  • The claim was based upon Malitz (2019); removed.
  • "[he made] gestures with his arms that accentuate the punchiness and the hard consonants of the sing-a-long verses" - Chen (2019)
  • Berman publicly announced, for the first time, that his father was the lobbyist Richard Berman - say when

Coordinator comment

[edit]

This has been open for six weeks and has the single general support. I have added it to Urgents, but unless it receives further indications of a consensus to promote forming over the next four or five days I am afraid that it is going to time out. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:48, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Moise

[edit]

DMT, I'm sorry I'm jumping in so late, at the eleventh hour. I'm going to try really hard to finish this review in the next couple of days, and if you can address my comments quickly, who knows, I may be able to support within the time frame set by Gog above. In the worst case scenario, if I've come too late, I guess whatever issues you resolve now will still be helpful towards it being ready soon after. The article has good qualities including being engaging and having good comprehensiveness. I hope the prose comments I've found today in the first part of the article, and any in the rest of my review, will be easy to fix.

  • "Berman ultimately took control of Ectoslavia, having excluded Malkmus and Nastanovich." Can you give more information about "excluded"? The word gives the impression of being aggressive/unfriendly, but it appears their relationship remained good.
  • Unfortunately, there's little information on Ectoslavia so expansion isn't really viable. "Excluded" was extrapolated from Charles (2010): "They formed a noise rock group called Ectoslavia. David eventually took control of the group. He gave Stephen and Bob the heave-ho."
  • DMT Biscuit: This sentence still bothers me a bit. I see the explanation you give about there not being more information, but I feel the sentence raises more questions than it answers, which is not a good thing. And I'd argue we don't even know for sure what "take control of" or "exclude" mean. He kicked them out of the band? He told them flatly he didn't want their creative input even if they were still in the band? He held some rehearsals with them and some without them so that his own songs were prioritized? We don't know. How would you feel with just stating "The quartet formed the band Ectoslavia", and ending there, since so little is known about the specifics or dynamics of the band anyway? Moisejp (talk) 03:04, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Removed, per your reasoning.
  • "Berman recalled a diminished sense of being authentically Jewish." Could you clarify this too?
  • "Berman recalled that while living there he did not feel authentically Jewish" - essentially, he didn't feel like a jew when he lived in New York, for whatever reason.
  • "but gained them attention in a cult-like manner". Not sure the best way to express this. Maybe if in doubt remove the "in a cult-like manner" detail, and just more generally say that it gained them attention?
  • "He later characterized his resentment at the erroneous perception of Silver Jews as entitled, noting by 2000 it was less of an issue." Sorry, I'm not totally sure what is meant by this ("entitled" and why was it less of an issue later?). Could you possibly reword it?
  • Berman was very indifferent to the question in the source so there's no real expansion possible; hardly the most important aspect, I exercised cautioned and vetoed it.
  • "The supposed 'centeral command' of art, found at university, he held reservations about." Should this be "central"? This detail is also a little unclear to me. But the passage would seem to flow without it. Could this detail be removed?
  • Thanks for noticing that typo. Personally speaking, I think it's a nice insight into his artistic opinion and time there. By central command, he means university, or more specifically, MFA programmes and the respective professors. I can make that more clear in the prose if you think so.
  • Hopefully clarified.
  • "he recollected, in an aloof manner". Does "in an aloof manner" add anything here? It seems unclear who he was being aloof towards or generally what its relevance is.

"The resulting pain helped Berman, alongside Malkmus, to formulate a new Silver Jews album". I'm not sure specifically what pain, and resulting from what, is being referred to here.

  • The turmoil caused by The Natural Bridge. Can be removed, if so.
  • Yep, good.
  • "his songwriting having been at the foreground of the former album". Should this just be "of the album"? I believe it's talking about American Water?
  • It's referring to The Natural Bridge. Can be removed, if so.
  • "Four years later, proposed with a similar question in an interview". Perhaps it could be made clearer what "similar question" means exactly.

More comments very soon. Moisejp (talk) 09:04, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • "later buying a house alleviated quandaries for Berman and the perceived ubiquity and understanding of music as a career was praised by him". This sentence seems a bit confusing, and I'm especially unclear where "was praised by him" fits in with the overall meaning. Moisejp (talk) 19:59, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hopefully clarified.
  • Sorry, DMT, I promise I'm not trying to be difficult, but I sincerely still don't think I understand this. Does it mean "it was a relief to Berman to live in a city where he felt pursuing a career in music was well accepted"? Moisejp (talk) 07:03, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "he would soon consider Judaism as that which he would labor over for the rest of his life". Perhaps clarify "that which". Something more specific about the role it played in his life. For example, was it "the pillar which he would labor over"? (That's just an example off the top of my head.) Moisejp (talk) 20:45, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • :* Hopefully clarified.
  • "in defiance of his sobriety". Not sure the nuance intended here; clarification may be good. Not sure if sobriety only refers to alcohol or can also refer to an absence of drugs. If it can include drugs, then there's a contradiction in "his sobriety", as he was not actually sober. Or if sobriety doesn't include drugs, and only includes alcohol, still not sure whether this means an intentional (literally "defiant") defiance, or a more passive one, or whether such a decision constitutes a defiance at all (if it happens sobriety only refers to alcohol, he wasn't technically being inconsistent with the policy of sobriety). Moisejp (talk) 20:58, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Removed the notice altogether. As you say, the defiant nature is ambiguous; he was "only 100% sober for Tanglewood Numbers", otherwise there's the implication of sporadic intake of either drugs or alcohol. Was he defiant in sobriety? Yeah, but it's not worth mentioning.
  • "In 2005, Jeremy Blake enlisted Berman for Sodium Fox, an artwork centered around Berman." What kind of artwork was it?
  • Conceptual.
  • Blake's suicide is merely noted as a "profound influence" - I imagine you could surmise the effect a suicide would have upon a creative work. Berman discussed his feelings of withdrawal as a result of the eye condition, which assumedly would be absent following the operation; I've mentioned that. DMT Biscuit (talk) 19:39, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Berman's decision to tour, no longer dependent on drugs, was based upon his greater age—which to him meant he was "uncorruptable"—his expanded discography, and the infuriation caused by separation from his audience." I'd suggest clarifying how being "uncorruptable" was relevant, and what "infuriation caused by separation from his audience" means. OK, I see now that there is a little more info in the sentences following this, and in the footnote, but I still found it a bit much to sift through to try to figure out what it means. Maybe try to make this part a little more compact and direct. Moisejp (talk) 21:06, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hopefully clarified.
  • "Berman reported being indebted to Richard and once donated to a supposed investigation of Richard." Seems unclear to me. The paragraph is about how he didn't like his father, but this sentence suggests he had some feelings of gratitude towards his father, without going into any details about how this fits in with a bigger picture of their relationship. Also "supposed investigation of Richard" seems cryptic—more clarification is recommended here too. Moisejp (talk) 21:14, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • How about changing "reported being indebted to Richard" to "reported owing Richard money"? Then there's less ambiguity, as "be indebted to" can mean other things than financial debt. Moisejp (talk) 20:23, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done.
  • "His public perception became intertwined with fabrications—significant speculation upon the events of his suicide attempt had reportedly occurred before this time." Is there more info about the specifics of the speculation? And I'm not sure that "fabrications" is appropriate here, as it suggests probably intentional untruths as opposed to just misguided speculation.
  • There's no more on the suicide: "After battling depression and other demons, Berman allegedly took an intentional overdose of drugs and tried to end it all at a Nashville hotel in 2003. There are many theories about what really happened". There she wrote. Changed fabrications to fiction. DMT Biscuit (talk) 06:50, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Berman intended to write new Silver Jews songs, for an undisclosed purpose". I'm not sure what "for an undisclosed purpose" means. I think most people's albums don't necessarily have a "purpose" other than being a collection of songs, even if there may be a theme to the album or artistic bent. So I'm not sure if it adds anything here to say "for an undisclosed purpose", which implies there was a purpose but doesn't say what it was. Moisejp (talk) 22:04, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Removed.
  • "positioning himself as adjacent to Jews". Not sure what "adjacent" means here.
  • From the man himself: "I’m not Jewish. In a way “silver Jews” has become a category for me of someone who’s a fellow traveler of the Jews...A non-Jew applying for status."
  • "I've got a credit card rotisserie system that would dazzle the ancients". I think this means where you borrow from one card to pay off another, but will this be clear enough to all readers? Is there a related article you can wiki-link to?
  • There isn't a related article. Do you think it should be converted to prose?
  • Yes, kind of. It was Sodomsky and such a notice proceeds the quote. "said" is a typo, very "The Grauniad"-eseque.
  • For the bulleted list the Posthumous Tributes section, I recommend mentioning specifically what song(s) on each album referred to Berman (or otherwise acted as a tribute to him). Otherwsie it may imply each album was one big tribute to him. Moisejp (talk) 22:26, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

More:

  • Hopefully clarified.
  • "Purple Mountains is Berman's most direct, conventional album, although all of his discography is relatively conventional." Suggest attributing this to Kornhaber and Rothband within the text itself, since this is could be considered a quite subjective statement.
  • "Silver Jews' songs were often sparse and deceptively simple". Can you qualify "deceptively"? Or at least attribute this to the person who said it within the text, as this also sounds like it could be subjective. Moisejp (talk) 22:50, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Removed as it's implicit and, as you say, ambiguously objective.
  • "Berman understood his musical abilities were limited, the nature of which was initially obscured by the lo-fi sound.[168] For a while, he questioned as to why he was without natural talent, eventually renouncing his self-consciousness." Neither of these sentences are as clear as would be ideal. The unclear parts for me are "the nature of which was initially obscured by the lo-fi sound" and "eventually renouncing his self-consciousness".
  • Hopefully clarified.
  • "His austere style proved to be influential." It feels like this sentence could be removed or merged into somewhere else where his influence is discussed. If you'd like to keep it here as it is, I feel it needs a good more amount of detail about how it was influential.Moisejp (talk) 22:57, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Removed
  • "For the first four Silver Jews albums, Berman wrote all the songs—to Malkmus' gratitude who comparative to Pavement played more melodic and simple material." The second half of this sentence is very awkwardly structured and would require some rearrangement.
  • Removed the second half, better suited for the Silver Jews article.
  • "With Tanglewood Numbers, Berman exercised greater care and control, in regards to its final state". Here "in regards to its final state" doesn't seem clear. So that means he exercised more care and control to the final state, as opposed to earlier states? Not sure what the relevance is. Moisejp (talk) 23:04, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Removed.
  • Is there a synonym you could use for "loquacious"? It feels like an unnecessarily hard word that I admit I had to look up (but it may just be me).
  • Switched for talkative, although that may be too informal.
  • "The pair having "shared a brightening chemistry". Consider mentioning Cassie before mentioning "the pair", because the last pair that was mentioned was Malkmus and Berman.
  • Done
  • "him embellishing a concert documented on the film Silver Jew with incisive gestures". I don't think this works well as is. Maybe just a new sentence with a bit more context added.
  • This has been brought up before as vague; removed, as a result
  • "started writing poems because [he] wanted to make poems so good they would make everyone else quit. I don't have the voice or the technical skills to blow people away with my music. But I have a chance to do that with my poetry". It's not always easy to switch person (here "I" in the quotation to "he" in the narrative of the text) and I also don't always know the perfect solution. But in this particular case I think the fact that it switches from "he" to "I" within the same quotation is a little more problematic than is acceptable. Moisejp (talk) 23:21, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Removed
  • "Heidi Julavits noted that Berman often distorted familiar concepts in his poetry". Are there any examples for further context?
  • See below
  • "The world concocted, analogous to that featured in his songs, is eccentric—with "plausible contexts" quickly altered by "an odd word" and domestic scenes "tinged with gothic weirdness".[191] The collection, which treads "between surrealism and confession", "reads like a novel written in two-sentence paragraphs". Like for my comment above, this passage has too much high-level description without enough tangible examples or details that the readers can sink their teeth into to really grasp what it means. Also the second sentence with two quotation separated by a comma feels awkward. And maybe here too cite some of the stuff to such-and-such writer directly within the text.
  • Included examples of imagery; included poem except which is noted in the text. Removed the first quote in the second sentence and converted the second quote to text, although with attribution.
  • "Berman's poetry has amassed admiration, being praised by Dara Wier and Billy Collins". I'd argue "amassed" suggests lots of people's admiration, but then "being praised by" (which sounds like it is supposed to be a qualifier of what precedes it) only mentions two people. The ideas are good, but I'd suggest rearranging the text a bit so that the two halves of the sentence mesh better. Moisejp (talk) 23:39, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Swapped around.

@Moisejp: I think that's all qualms resolved. DMT Biscuit (talk) 20:30, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Second read-through:

  • Small issue, but Pavement's introduction is in the sentence "Though Berman sometimes felt irritated by a common view that Silver Jews were merely a side project to Malkmus's more popular band Pavement" but if the reader reads the footnotes as they appear in the text, there is already mention of the band in footnote a (which is written to sound like the band has already been mentioned). Sometimes footnotes can be tricky (for me too) in terms of the assumed ordered that the info is read. The easiest solution might be if you can somehow fit in a mention of Pavement before footnote a. But if you can't make that work, I won't insist on this point. Moisejp (talk) 03:17, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Was able to mention Pavement right before the footnote; both bands arose almost concurrently.
  • Likewise, in footnote c, Open City is mentioned as though it has been mentioned before, but it is not introduced with a wiki-link until the middle of Critical acclaim and substance abuse: 1996–2001. Moisejp (talk) 06:46, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wiki-linked and described them as "a publisher of Berman's poetry".
  • Ah, that's now a remnant of a past state. Remember "cult-like manner", we etched it out earlier; that was the relevant status. From the source: "The albums have become cult favourites...making it easier for him to recruit musicians." The footnote is a bit liminal now; do you think it should remain?
  • Mini-suggestion to paraphrase "who no longer '[had] to work'" instead of using a direct quote, which feels unnecessary here. (Maybe "who no longer felt he needed to work"? But perhaps clarify what work refers to. Does it mean having a side job, on the side from his poetry and music—these could also be considered "work" depending on the intended scope.) Moisejp (talk) 06:49, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The source only refers to a general sense of "work", although one could guess it refers to wage labour. Maybe that could be wiki-linked or is that getting a bit original research-y.
  • Just ported over the original quote. The ellipsis isn't needed.
  • "Reflective of Silver Jews' impact on Nashville's mid-2000s music scene, the final show meant "a chapter in this city’s artistic evolution closed""." Not sure what "reflective" means here. Does it mean Maloney reflected on the impact, and came up with this conclusion? (I'm guessing it's this?) Or perhaps that Berman reflected on this? Or that the Silver Jews were reflective/representative of the Nashville music scene? In any case, I'd argue the word "reflective" may not work here, and that it would be better to clarify in the text itself whose conclusion it is about "a chapter in this city’s artistic evolution closed". Moisejp (talk) 20:19, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Moisejp: I think that's all qualms resolved. DMT Biscuit (talk) 12:21, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Update for Gog the Mild: Hi Gog, I'm expecting to support, but if I could have a few more days to finish off my second read-through, that would be great. I was hoping to finish it today (the last day of the holidays!), but it's a long article. But I can say DMT Biscuit has been very good and quick about responding to my comments, so I'm pretty confident that within a few days it's likely I'll be able to wind up this review and, I expect, declare support. Thanks. Moisejp (talk) 21:10, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No problem Moisejp. I wouldn't want to promote unless all reviewers were entirely happy - or I understood why they weren't and was was prepared to discount it - and I wouldn't want to rush them into a premature oppose or support. Take your time and let's do it right. Thanks for keeping me informed. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:23, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Getting close to the end:

  • "The pair had differing approaches and were "longtime musical foil[s]"." Does "the pair" refer to Berman and Malkmus? Was direct mention of Malkmus accidentally edited out of this section? (Or possibly Cassie and Berman?) Moisejp (talk) 03:49, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He expressed ambivalence toward his inability to reach a larger audience and had amassed a reputation as "perhaps the finest lyricist of his generation" with his diligence being a frequent point of discussion." Not sure why these two points are side by side? If the two ideas are closely related, I'm not sure how. Would one of the points be better moved to elsewhere in this section? Moisejp (talk) 04:34, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've finished my second read-through. Hopefully tomorrow I'll try to look at your final recent changes and comments. Moisejp (talk) 04:41, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All right, all of my concerns are now addressed, and I'm happy to support on prose and comprehensiveness. Moisejp (talk) 02:58, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments and support from Gerda

[edit]

This caught my attention, although or because I know nothing about the subject. I finally have a bit of free time, - still silently hoped to see many supports (and then skip to the next three waiting). As this is not so, here we go, - I'll skip the lead and comment as I read. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:04, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox

  • fine, but I miss the bolded names from the lead

TOC

  • not sure if "rehab" isn't too sloppy
    • Changed to rehabilitation.
      thank you - general request: please follow indenting as explained at the top of User talk:Drmies. ---GA
  • would expect posthumous after artistry
  • "Image and self-perception" - to me, "Image" adds nothing, please explain what I miss
    • Image here pertains to his public image, how others perceived him: fans, critics, whatnot...Hence "self-perception".
      would it be asking too much to change to "Public image", as image has so many meanings? ---GA
  • I was taught to drop "Selective" from such collections, as it makes a reader ask selected by whom by which criteria

Silver Jews

  • "Berman's personal life was affected by the deaths of friends, which would influence his songwriting; a close friendship between Oldham and Berman arose at this time and the two conceptualized a collaborative project, entitled Silver Palace." - I don't see a connection between the two things mentioned.
    • Resolved.

Acclaim

  • "Poetry can never counter propaganda. A song might be able to". - that quote remains a bit too unconnected. If to stay so, the full stop should be within the quotation marks.
    • The quote's intended purpose is to highlight how he distinguished songwriting and poetry, as mentioned in the preceding sentence.
  • "Cassie was a source of relief for Berman and she helped him feel young, later considering their relationship the "best thing that ever happened to me"." - not sure if he or she speaks in the quote
    • Resolved.
  • "including Robert Bingham, the founder and editor of Open City,[55] who died in 1999 after a heroin overdose. Malkmus and Berman performed at Bingham's wedding." - sounds to me as if Bingham first died, then married

need a break --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:55, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for good discussion and changes, all fine so far, - will read further now. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:31, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Attempted suicide

  • "his sobriety made him more receptive to candidness" - English isn't my first languish, and I am not sure I understand this bit.
    • Being sober made him more willing (receptive) to be open in interviews (candid) about his struggles.
  • "Before Berman toured, he occasionally made caricatures of fans, considering it more rewarding." - what's "it" here?
    • Caricatures - changed it to them
  • "Blake's suicide and Berman's eye operation would affect the next Silver Jews album—before the operation, Berman reported feeling "less aggressive and less tenacious"." - I read that a few times, but am not sure how the surgery "would affect", or rather his feelings before? - Nor the other's suicide. - Clarify?
    • This has been flagged up before, almost verbatim. Unfortunately, the sources don't expand. As a result, do you think this should be removed?
  • The last three paras: first deals with tours, second with finances and an album to come, third with tours again. Why?
    • Personally speaking, regarding biographies, I like to have a sense of a chronological timeline and overview separated. Thus, in that section, the first four paras showcase the successive events - imagine the view of a voyeur - while the final para collects and provides context and an overview of the preceding events. It's just a style, admittedly idiosyncratic; I can change it, if you so desire.
  • Within the last: do we really say "greater age"? (may be my lack of language), and how does expanded discography explain the decision to tour?
    • Eh, "older age" has connotations of world-weariness and whatnot; "greater age" just appears more objective. His expanded discography simply means that he had more songs to play. Berman was hardly the most prideful, makes sense that he would want a large pool to choose from.

Hiatus

  • "Upon considering the commercialization of modern musicians, he began to see his and Richard's lives intertwining; this, alongside his guilt about his father, were the reasons he retired Silver Jews, saying:" - I understand the quote that follows better than this rather complex construction, in which a singular "this" doesn't match a plural "were". I don't quite get what the commercialization has to do with his father. I also wonder how we could avoid calling his father by just first name, while the son goes by last name.
    • From the source: "Berman’s explanation of his departure from music led to his central subject. Contemporary musicians, he disparaged, were “expected to become entrepreneurs.” The increased commercialism he saw while performing brought him to a daunting conclusion: “My dad’s world has subsumed my world."
  • "In 2010, he spoke about his difficulties with writing about his father—seeking to become his "nemesis"; HBO nearly adapted the book" - which book?
    • Oops. Those writings pertain to a planned book. Oversight on my part; sometimes, notions become so commonplace you neglect to mention them. Oh well, spoiled milk.
  • If Cloud was important enough to adopt the name, do we know a bit more about their friendship? I suggest to show "Cloud" in the infobox if in the first sentence.
    • No, not really. It seems he was a personal friend, compared to the likes of Malkmus. For a noted recluse he did have many friends; sometimes he was "tantamount to cordial".

Purple Mountains

  • The quote right below the title seems to match the last sentence of the previous section well.
    • I'm inclined to agree. Amended.
  • "while he considered her part of his family and was "all [he] had"" - "her" doesn't work with "was all", - rephrase, perhaps without a quote?*
    • Amended
  • "Auerbach has called Berman "one of [his] heroes"" - why not "Auerbach called Berman ..."?
    • No real reason; change made.
  • New York's Met Breuer Museum - will that become a blue link?
    • No real intention from me. Weird remmenant, gone now.

need another break -- ... needed it so badly that I forgot to sign. I'm on my morning watchlist round, thanks for the replies, and most already settle the concerns. I'll be back later for the few others, and hopefully also can read further. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:43, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I read now to the end, and found those sections much easier. I'm ready to support at this point, which doesn't mean we can't talk on this or that. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:03, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note

[edit]

The article still needs a review of non-free media and a source review, which I've asked for at Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Image and source check requests. (t · c) buidhe 09:54, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free media review (pass)

[edit]
  • File:Random Rules.ogg: The audio sample has a clear caption which demonstrates its purpose in the article that supports its inclusion. However, the sample is too long. According to the MOS guideline on music samples, audio samples can only be 10% of the length of the original song. From my understanding (and please correct me if I am wrong), "Random Rules" is 3:59 and 10% of that is 23.9 seconds so the current sample is roughly three seconds too long.
  • File:All My Happiness is Gone.ogg: This audio sample also has a clear purpose in the article as supported by its caption. This one meets the length requirements as "All My Happiness is Gone" is 4:20 and 10% of that is 26 seconds. Since the current audio sample is 20 seconds, it meets the non-free media rules.

I believe the audio samples are the only pieces of non-free media, but please let me know if I have overlooked something. I appreciate that you have put in timed text for both songs. The only issue is the "Random Rules" sample is a tad too long, but once that is handled, this should pass my review. Aoba47 (talk) 00:21, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: Ammended the files. The first stanza of a poem, "New York, New York", is cited in the text. I don't know to what degree that constitutes "non-free media" but maybe something worth discussing. DMT Biscuit (talk) 01:48, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for addressing my point about the "Random Rules" audio sample. The placement of the "New York, New York" stanza within the "Poetry" sub-section does a good job in clearly demonstrating its purpose in the article. This FAC passes my non-free media review. Unfortunately, I am unable to do a source review (as I am not quite experienced enough in that area to do a good job with it), but I hope this review was helpful. Best of luck with the FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 02:15, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review—passed

[edit]

To come. @FAC coordinators: are spot checks required? SN54129 12:59, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't think I can find a bad source among the—phenomenally extensive—selection used. These include, but are not limited to, institutional sources (Academy of American Poets, Billboard, etc), newspapers (The Guardian, The Philadelphia Inquirer, Los Angeles Times, The Globe and Mail, Washington PostMother Jones. etc), and other literature (Slate, Politico, Stereogum, etc) is generally of the quality of papers of record or specialists inn their select fields. I can't find any use of primary sources, indicating that either there are none or so few as to be trivial.
I'm quite impressed by the layout, particularly the technique of bundling quotes with internal commentary as what they discretely support. Original.
No spot checks per co-ord. SN54129 14:59, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]
  • Copyright review: Close paraphrasing from[66] (the bit about the security guard)
  • So, I was coming along to promote this article but I noticed something that gave me pause: the length of the notes section. While it's not wrong to have a few notes, 18 of them is definitely too many. Most of these should either be cut or integrated into the article. As a general rule of thumb, if it's important enough to mention at all, it should be mentioned in the article text. Some of the notes are of questionable value, such as note n.: "Berman and Roberts identified a "miniature" quality to Berman's poetry" What does this even mean? The note on touring especially seems important to put in the article because without reading the note we don't know that he changed his mind on this issue. (t · c) buidhe 00:38, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Buidhe: Hopefully resolved both. Most notes faced the axe, on account of being trivial or more well-suited for the Silver Jews article; four of them: The mention of touring, advertisement, lo-fi sound and "Jewish tradition" were integrated into the text. You can find them in the respective sections: Critical acclaim and substance abuse: 1996–2001, Public image and self-perception, Purple Mountains and death: 2018–2019.
  • @Gog the Mild: Oh, yeah. That citation was featured in one of the aforementioned notes that meet the chopping block; hashed out the other stray sources, as well.
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) 10 January 2022 [67].

Fearless (Taylor Swift album)

[edit]
Nominator(s): Ippantekina (talk) 04:25, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ignore this part if you do not care about pop culture—POV: it's 2009 and you turn on the radio. After some electronic Gaga-esque songs, you hear acoustic guitars and mandolins? It is so cheesy, but you can't resist the adrenaline rush of the refrain, "Romeo take me somewhere we can be alone," and you begin singing along. One night you tune in for the VMAs because pop culture is fun. Some moderately attractive blonde girl is speaking, and out-of-nowhere Kanye West snatches her mic and says, "Yo Taylor, I'll let you finish but—" Oh, snap, grab your popcorn fast. But your attention is now wholly on that blonde girl: Taylor Swift. You realise she is the author of that cheesy guitar-mandolin-whatever tune. Damn it, you listen to the whole album, and you find the songs insanely catchy with beefy hooks that engrave in your brain.

Main point: this article is about the 2008 album by Taylor Swift when she was a country music goody-two-cowboy-boots. Although it contains skippable cookie-cutters and Swift's below average vocals, it offers a mildly pleasant listen. After an extensive GAN and a thorough copyedit, I nominate this article for FAC candidacy, believing it satisfies the criteria. Cheers, Ippantekina (talk) 04:25, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source Review by Guerillero (pass)

[edit]

Why are these high quality reliable sources?

--Guerillero Parlez Moi 12:08, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You cover the popular press, but there is little mention of academic work. What did you do to make sure that this article is comprehensive? --Guerillero Parlez Moi 12:21, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Much of the material I found through Google Scholar are either self-published sources (dissertations, theses) or re-published news articles. I used the Wikipedia Library Platform but most sources discuss Swift's career in general. The most comprehensive one I have found so far is the Spencer book which discusses much of the album's conception and recording. Regarding the album's content and impact, the popular press is comprehensive enough to give readers how significant this album is. Trusted music critics such as Jody Rosen or Jon Pareles are, I believe, on par with academic sources. Ippantekina (talk) 14:34, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from TheSandDoctor

[edit]

Overall I think that this is okay, but have one point here:

  • Can we define what the ""Triple Crown" of country music" is? I linked to Academy_of_Country_Music_Awards#Triple-Crown_Award as it was the only thing I could find, but she isn't listed there? We need to confirm this and define (or link to) whatever it is because, as it stands, I have absolutely no idea what this is talking about.

Otherwise I think it looks okay. --TheSandDoctor Talk 17:48, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • I tried to figure out what Billboard means by "Triple Crown" but it is not the same as the Triple Crown Award by the ACM. Since Billboard is the only source discussing this type of "Triple Crown" (three top prizes for a country album by the ACM, CMA, and Grammys), I removed it as it is potentially UNDUE. Ippantekina (talk) 14:38, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Ippantekina: Thank you for removing that. I support this nomination. --TheSandDoctor Talk 18:38, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for your support. Ippantekina (talk) 04:23, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image and media review (pass)

[edit]

Unfortunately, I will not be able to do a full prose review of the article, but I will look through the images and media. Apologies for that. My comments are below:

  • File:Taylor Swift - Fearless.png: The cover has a completed WP:FUR, appropriate WP:ALT text, and a clear purpose in the article.
  • File:Colbie Caillat playing in Paradiso, Amsterdam 03.jpg: The image has a clear purpose in the article since it is situated next to information about Caillat and Swift. It also has clear ALT text. The source link is active and the licensing seems clear to me.
  • File:FifteenSample.ogg: I am uncertain if this audio sample is entirely necessary. I've been told to keep non-free media to a minimal and only to use it for instances where it illustrates a point that cannot be conveyed through the prose alone. The audio sample is currently being used to discuss a common theme through the album's lyrics, and I believe readers can understand that just by reading the prose.
  • File:You Belong with Me by Taylor Swift.ogg: By comparison to the above, this audio sample has a clearer purpose as readers may not be familiar with these genres and sounds so it adds a better understanding to the topic that cannot be accomplished with just prose. The WP:FUR is complete. For the timed text, I'd recommend adding text for the instrumental part (something as simple as instrumental would work) as I honestly thought the timed text was just not working when I first listened to it.
  • File:Taylor Swift at 2009 MTV VMA's 2.jpg: The source link works and I trust the licensing. It has clear ALT text and a clear purpose in the article.
  • File:Taylor Swift Fearless Tour 03.jpg: The source link works and I trust the licensing. It has clear ALT text and a clear purpose in the article. It is a good image choice as it fits the space allotted without crossing over into the other section headings (at least in my view of the article).

My only real issue is with the "Fifteen" audio sample. It's a great song, but I do not see a strong rationale for its inclusion. I have a minor suggestion for the "You Belong with Me" audio sample, but it is super, super nitpick-y. I hope this is helpful, and have a great rest of your weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 23:53, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the image review. I have tweaked the TimedText to "You Belong with Me". I believe a sample for "Fifteen" should be included because many critics singled out that song in Fearless album reviews. A 21-second sample does not do justice to the very intricate narrative, but a glimpse of it, through this sample, is pretty sufficient (the opening line "Abigail gave everything she had to a boy who changed his mind" is pretty striking, don't you think?) Ippantekina (talk) 14:43, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for adding the instrumental part to "You Belong with Me". I am still somewhat on the fence with "Fifteen". I do not think lyrics alone is a great rationale, but I can see how an audio sample would help readers to better understand how these themes are explored and performed in the song rather than by just reading it. For that reason, the audio sample works for me. This FAC passes my source and media review. Best of luck with the FAC! Taylor Swift is very well represented on Wikipedia because of editors like you. Aoba47 (talk) 18:13, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for your image/file review. Should other editors deem the "Fifteen" rationale too weak, I shall remove it. Ippantekina (talk) 04:24, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Aoba on the "Fifteen" sample. The FUR implies that it is used mostly for its lyrics, which is replaceable with text and therefore fails WP:NFCC#1. (t · c) buidhe 05:49, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the input. I was uncertain if I was being overly harsh with my comments. Aoba47 (talk) 20:08, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comments. I added a review from Jody Rosen which is quite significant. Though it does not reappear in the prose, I believe it justifies its inclusion here. @Aoba47: @Buidhe: I removed the "Fifteen" sample and included another for "The Way I Loved You". I believe its use is justified by the critical discussion on its sound and instrumentation. Ippantekina (talk) 02:19, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apologies for the delay in my response. I am not convinced "The Way I Loved You" sample works for this article. The caption is about this specific song, when it would be more ideal to have a sample that would better illustrate something that is more representative of the album as a whole. For instance, I could see a sample for "White Horse" and "You're Not Sorry" to better illustrate this point, "a more balladic production also feature pop hooks", but that is just a suggestion. I also preferred the "Exemplifying Fearless's sound," part of the original "You Belong with Me" caption as that was what really solidified its purpose in the article for me. I am pinging @Buidhe: to get their opinion. Aoba47 (talk) 17:29, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pinging @Ippantekina: in case they missed my response. Aoba47 (talk) 01:00, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the ping. I removed the bit "Exemplifying Fearless's sound" because it comes off as OR. I believe any cut on this album can be used to demonstrate the pop hooks, but "The Way I Loved You" works specifically because Perone's commentary links it to a genre (seemingly) disparate to country, plus the guitar in the sample is close to what Perone described, unlike a sample of "White Horse" or "You're Not Sorry", which, if used to demonstrate the pop hooks, is rather vague. Ippantekina (talk) 13:26, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Ippantekina: My issue with both audio samples is they are about the individual songs and are not being used to represent something about the album as a whole. If "Exemplifying Fearless's sound" is not supported by citations, it should not be in the caption, but that was the part that justified its inclusion the most to me. Unless Perone contrasts grunge and country, that comparison could also fall into OR. The "White Horse" or "You're Not Sorry" part was only a suggestion, and I agree that it's weak, but upon further review, neither audio sample has a particularly strong rationale for an album article, and seem more geared to a song article instead. Apologies for the double ping @Buidhe:. Just wanted to get their opinion. Aoba47 (talk) 16:04, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The way the NFCC is written is to err on the side of non-inclusion of non-free content if we can't find a strong justification for why it's important to reader understanding. I mean, any of our readers can just go over to youtube to listen to the music so I don't see any audio files as essential in this case. (t · c) buidhe 16:09, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for the response. From my experience, I've always been told to only use audio samples in album articles if they somehow represent something about the album as a whole (such as genre, instruments, etc. that would benefit from sound rather than just prose alone). I think audio samples can be helpful, but I believe a stronger case would be necessary here for both. I think it is possible though. Aoba47 (talk) 17:55, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree readers can go directly to YouTube to find music, but as a reader I do expect an album article to contain one or two samples to get a rough idea of what the album sounds like/talks about (this is my personal viewpoint, I am uncertain what other readers expect in samples in an album article). Because this album is consistent throughout, as discussed in the prose, any sample could work to represent the album's sound, but if two samples are too much, I shall cut it down to one. Ippantekina (talk) 01:20, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My issue is not the amount of audio samples, but the rationale for them. Neither of them are used to represent something about the album as a whole. I appreciate (and frankly prefer) audio sample(s) in articles for albums and songs. I have used two audio samples in album articles before. It's just the rationale here that needs further work. 02:23, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
I understand. As I said because this album is consistent throughout, any song could work, so no specific song really stands out. Ippantekina (talk) 02:29, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'd look for instances when critics point out a specific song when discussing larger trends on the album. I'd imagine given the coverage on the album, that critics have done something similar to this, such as discussing a genre that recurs through the album, certain instruments, or even the way Swift sings. However, if you cannot find instances of this, I'd remove both audio samples (which I agree would be less than ideal). Aoba47 (talk) 03:00, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Then both would qualify per your descriptions because the samples features electric guitars in the bridge - which critics highlighted as a major point of the Fearless songs (intertwined with dynamic electric guitar and strings in the build-up; a dramatic bridge that recurs on each track. The captions only mention what is said about the tracks, but they do give an insight into the album's sound as discussed. Ippantekina (talk) 03:19, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • That sounds like a good idea to me. To be clear, I was never against having audio samples in this article. The point about the electric guitars in the bridge is good and would justify an audio sample in my opinion. It would not be necessary to have two audio samples to illustrate this point though, but you could look for a different rationale for the second one. Aoba47 (talk) 03:26, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's still not quite there yet. The caption does not clearly define that "The Way I Loved You" has these country music instruments and electric guitars. The first sentence seems more like a general one just added to the caption, and it is not clearly related to the song. I would go for the following or something similar: James E. Perone commented that the distorted electric guitars in "The Way I Loved You" were influenced by grunge. According to critics, songs throughout Fearless also feature electrical guitars and have influences from genres other than country music. I think that would more clearly define how "The Way I Loved You" is being used to say something about the album as the whole (i.e. it represents how the album uses these electrical guitars and genres outside of country music). Aoba47 (talk) 18:57, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Hurricanehink

[edit]

Just some minor notes:

  • ”and has sold twelve million copies sold worldwide.” - as of?
  • ”The album won Album of the Year” - I suggest “Fearless won Album of the Year” to avoid saying album twice in such close succession.
  • ”Released on October 24, 2006, it was the longest-charting album on the US Billboard 200 of the 2000s.” - I suggest linking 2000s to the decade, so it’s a bit clearer you’re referring to the decade, and presumably not the ongoing millennium.
  • ”"The Best Day" is Fearless's most understated track, featuring a stripped-down production accompanied by guitar strums.” - most understated feels a bit POV to me. Maybe just “The Best Day features stripped down production…”?
  • Ah Kanyegate. Good way of mentioning it without going into too much detail.
  • ”This made Fearless the first album since Bruce Springsteen's Born in the U.S.A. (1984) to have five top-ten hits with none reaching number one.” - that seems important enough to be in plain text and not a note, IMO, but no biggie.

These comments are all fairly small. Having read the article with a critical lens, I wanted to find something to oppose the article’s candidacy over, but my comments are quibbles, and I’m sure quite easy to fix/address. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 18:06, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your support and comments. I have addressed them all except the final one; I believe the section should prioritise Fearless alone, that's why I left the Bruce Springsteen comparison in the note. Ippantekina (talk) 04:27, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's fair! Thanks for the quick reply. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:06, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Hawkeye7

[edit]

Article meets my standards for a featured article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:08, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your support! Ippantekina (talk) 00:25, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from SNUGGUMS

[edit]
Resolved
  • Out of curiosity, is it known when in 2007 Taylor started recording this album? If not, then I'd just go with "2007–2008" for the infobox as it looks awkward and incomplete to only use a month for one of these years in the range and not the other.
  • In the lead, starting three consecutive sentences with "the" feels repetitive
  • No need to link commonly recognized terms like "CD", "imagery", "music critics", "re-recording", "record producer", "promotional single", "singles", "lead single", "download", and "streaming" per WP:OVERLINK
  • Some links are helpful IMO; linking music critics to music journalism, for example, differentiates the modern critic from the classical "critic" (in a more academic sense). "Streaming" is a relatively new phenomenon and some older (whoops) readers may not be well informed. Ditto "re-recording" (thanks to Swift this is gaining traction) and "imagery" (I have seen this word being incorrectly used). Otherwise I will remove the other links. Ippantekina (talk) 08:11, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The use of "formulaic" from "the formulaic production" carries a negative connotation, so I'd rework that bit
  • I don't recommend altering quotes as you've done with "best first date that [she hadn't] been on yet"; it feels like a deceptive presentation. Just go with what the source actually says, which is "best first date that I haven't been on yet".
  • Even though it's clear what you're trying to do with "the romantic themes of Taylor Swift, Swift chose to write songs", using her surname twice in such quick succession doesn't read very well.
  • "She started recording the album as soon as she finished touring with George Strait."..... When exactly was that? Some digging might be needed when the given link doesn't specify.
  • "After your tour with George Strait is over, what are your plans? -- We've already grouped the songs for the next album, and I begin to record in the next couple months." Tweaked a bit so it does not sound like OR. Ippantekina (talk) 07:16, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the original's tragic conclusion with a happy ending" is blatant POV. Yes, I know what the intent was, but that's not a valid excuse to defy Wikipedia's neutrality policy.
  • What part exactly? The drama is (rightfully) a tragedy, so I am assuming you are talking about the "happy ending" part. If Swift herself said it was a happy ending, I do not think this is POV. Ippantekina (talk) 08:11, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Likewise, "has a crossover appeal" is biased phrasing.
  • "Commercial performance" feels rather US-centric and problematically neglects to mention anything for non-English speaking nations aside from Japan and Singapore. You'll need to expand it, preferably with some non-American sales figures too that aren't just worldwide. Also, simply saying "see Taylor Swift singles discography" within a note for chart peaks feels lazy.
  • It is unfortunate but looking at the sales/charts stats overall, Fearless was significantly more successful in the Anglophone compared to the mainland Europe. Going into further details about chart positions would be trivial as it did not crack the top 10 in any other European/Asian charts. I added certifications it received in other European countries though. Ippantekina (talk) 07:16, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not trivial at all; lower peaks isn't a valid reason to leave something out from there. That just feels like a cheap cop-out. I'm not saying you have to go into as much detail on them as other nations, just that everywhere it did chart should have at least some mention. Even ranges (e.g. "Fearless reached the top 20 in X, Y, and Z") and certifications are better than nothing. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 23:43, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "acknowledged" from "acknowledged the songs were well-written" should be changed to avoid treating an opinion like a fact. Same goes for "praised Fearless's crossover appeal" as well as "noted that Swift's weak vocals" and "acknowledged her songwriting skills".
  • "proved her capability of becoming a pop star" feels like puffery
  • Is anything better than "The Music Network" available for sales in Australia (which would be a good thing to add into commercial performance)? While definitely not the worst publication I can think of, it's not the strongest either and isn't affiliated with ARIA (the most authoritative source for Australian music statistics).
  • That last paragraph talking about re-recordings doesn't feel like it fits under "Legacy". I'd recommend moving most of it to "Writing and production", and new peaks can go into "Commercial performance".
  • In the references, don't italicize MTV News, AllMusic, Yahoo! Music, CMT News, Metacritic, CBS News, CNN, or indies.ca.
  • Per WP:MOSTITLE (in the notes): "Do not abuse incorrect template parameters (e.g. by putting the work title in |publisher= or |via=) in an attempt to avoid italicizing digital sources." Sources like MTV News, CBS News or CNN are news sources so I italicise them. I am not sure about italicising AllMusic or Metacritic though. Ippantekina (talk) 08:11, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's all from me. I just made one minor change here and don't think this is too far off from being FA material. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 02:51, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the comments. I have responded to some above, and will proceed to work on the article within a few days. Ippantekina (talk) 08:11, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have responded to all of your comments. Thank you very much once again for taking your time. Cheers, Ippantekina (talk) 07:16, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sure thing. This definitely looks better now than when I previously viewed it. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 23:43, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
All are addressed now, I believe. Ippantekina (talk) 00:26, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not exactly; your use of "noted" when discussing a "crossover appeal" comes off as treating personal thoughts like facts ("felt" or "believed" would be preferable), and the prose still doesn't have anything on charts/certifications in Belgium, Brazil, Greece, or Spain. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 00:43, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Music critics noted" does not state it as a concrete fact but frames the information within the knowledge of trustworthy professionals; if we get nitpick-y about what construes as facts vs. opinions then any genres could be POV because they are the approximate categorisation and not the sound per-se—Especially when a lot of artists leave the genre labelling to the critics. As much as I hate "other stuff", an example from the recently promoted FA Hunky Dory is, Bowie opted for a warmer, more melodic piano-based pop rock and art pop style ("warmer, more melodic" are the opinions of two cited critics/biographers). Otherwise done. Ippantekina (talk) 04:28, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It turns out I somehow missed Mexico and the Netherlands Facepalm Facepalm. Those along with Spain and Brazil (which continue to be left out) should have some mention in the prose, whether with ranges or specific numbers. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 00:21, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ippantekina, have these been addressed? Gog the Mild (talk) 18:11, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Gog the Mild, Thank you for the ping. I forgot to put the {{wikibreak}} template on my user page, but I have returned from my Christmas/New Year's break. I will proceed to resolve all by 5 January. Best, Ippantekina (talk) 11:50, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
SNUGGUMS I added Brazil in the top 20 range. Adding positions beyond this range (I am assuming you mentioned Mexico and Spain because they are in the top 40? The album hit #43 in the Netherlands so I am unsure) is unhelpful because the section would read like a listicle, and there are lists in later sections. Ippantekina (talk) 10:31, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Very well. Just get rid of the improper italics (not sure why those were kept for things that are clearly not print works or TV shows), and you'll be set. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 13:57, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am a little hesitant of what WP:MOSTITLE says ("Do not abuse incorrect template parameters in an attempt to avoid italicizing digital sources") but I de-italicized Metacritic, AllMusic, and Yahoo! Music. I left the rest (news sources i.e. CBS News, CMT News) in the website field. Ippantekina (talk) 01:48, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Following sufficient improvements, I now support this nomination. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 02:06, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your review. Ippantekina (talk) 05:23, 4 January 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) 10 January 2022 [71].

Battle of St. Charles

[edit]
Nominator(s): Hog Farm Talk 19:30, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

After a Union army gets bogged down without a supply line in northern Arkansas, a mixed navy and army force moves upriver to resupply them. During a brief action with Confederate fortifications on the bluffs above the river, a stray shot hits one of the Union ships in the boiler, horrifically killing or injuring almost everyone aboard with scalding steam. The Confederates are flushed out, but low water levels keep the ships from successfully resupplying the Union army in northern Arkansas, which eventually extricates itself on its own. Hog Farm Talk 19:30, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]

Query by WereSpielChequers

[edit]

Support, thanks for responding to my pedanticisms. Nicely written. Have you considered breaking Battle_of_St._Charles#Kilty_moves_up_the_White into two sections, Union and Confederate actions in the lead up to the battle? In the current format the second paragraph starts "meanwhile", but then talks of dates preceding the first paragraph. ϢereSpielChequers 15:09, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@WereSpielChequers: - Thanks for taking a look at this! I've generally rejigged that region of the article to have one section for Union movements, and the other for the Confederates. Hog Farm Talk 07:34, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Hog Farm, "Fry demanded that the remaining Union sailors aboard to surrender" reads awkwardly to me, I was thinking of removing the "to" but hesitated as this might for all I know be an American English thing. however wouldn't "Fry offered the remaining Union sailors aboard the chance to surrender" be a more normal phrasing for this situation? Afterall they were combatants who hadn't hoist a white flag, and he wasn't in a position to know that he was firing at a boat full of dead and dying men.
I've removed the "to", as it was an error. I've also tried to clarify in the text that it was fairly obvious the ship was a wreck, with scalded men on the decks and steam billowing out of all orifices. The source does refer to Fry's statement as a demand. Also clarified that Fry's firing order was to shoot at those trying to swim away in the river Hog Farm Talk 18:11, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's better. Firing at men who are swimming from a wreck is clearly worse than firing at a damged ship that hasn't surrendered. ϢereSpielChequers 20:31, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think it might be worth mentioning that unusually for US Civil War actions the dead of both sides are listed on the memorial. ϢereSpielChequers 10:11, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Added (sorry it took so long to get to this) Hog Farm Talk 04:36, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, and sorry for my far longer dallying away from this. ϢereSpielChequers 15:23, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
" those that were armed had only single-shot pistols that had already been emptied at Mound City's survivors." Such guns take a little time to reload, but had this all happened so quickly that people couldn't reload? ϢereSpielChequers 20:31, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Per the Barnhart source, there hadn't been time to reload, so clarified using that. Hog Farm Talk 04:36, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
G'day WereSpielChequers, are you likely to support here? If not, I will take a look. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:50, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Switching to support. ϢereSpielChequers 15:23, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

[edit]

Recusing to review.

  • "to attack the works on land". Most readers won't understand "works". Maybe stick with 'fortifications'? And elsewhere in the text.
    • Done, using a variety of synonyms
  • "A small offensive across the Little Red on May 27 was successful, but lack of supplies forced Curtis to withdraw back across both rivers". What is the second river?
    • The White and the Little Red. Clarified
  • Any chance of what an "ironclad" and a "timberclad" were? Maybe "steamboat" and "ram" too. Even a brief operational history of the river war 1861-1862?
    • I've footnoted an explanation of ironclad vs timberclad. I would assume that what a ram was should be fairly obvious based on the name. Steamboat I'm not sure about - My guess is that it's a pretty widely-known term in the United States, not sure how well known elsewhere. I've added a brief synopsis of the general bit of river warfare relevant to here - mainly the Union push down the river and capturing beyond Memphis.
  • A campaign box with a single article in it strikes me as less than useful.
  • "and a third piece". Piece of what?
    • Clarified it as "artillery piece", is this still too much jargon?
  • Link sharpshooters.
    • Done
  • Could we have an in line explanation of steam drum? Given the role it plays.
    • This was harder to find a decent source for that I expected, but done
  • "Fry had the lower battery abandoned and its guns spiked". Maybe put the events into chronological order.
    • Done
  • Battery is duplinked.
    • Fixed
  • Maybe an in line explanation of "spiked", as it crops up several times.
    • Done

That's all from me. Nice one. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:44, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: - Sorry it took me so long here. I've tried to implement almost everything, although the synopsis of the river warfare going on can almost certainly be done better - I was having trouble coming up with where to put it. Hog Farm Talk 05:59, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Funk

[edit]
  • Marking my spot. At first glance, Memphis is duplinked. FunkMonk (talk) 01:06, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link more terms and names in image captions?
    • I've linked the St. Louis and the White River. I've also linked the places within the pushpin map, although the way the map works you have to click on the red dot instead of the name.
  • Add "killed" after "c. 160" under union casualties for clarity? It is a bit ambiguous now because the confederacy casualties are broken down in categories.
    • It's killed and wounded combined, as the sources don't make a good breakdown for the Union losses, so I've specified that it's c. 160 killed and wounded
  • Perhaps the first map need a caption? At first glance at the article, I'm not really sure what to focus on in the map, so some direction would be nice.
    • I've added one, does it make the purpose of the map sufficiently clear?
Yep. FunkMonk (talk) 02:15, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

Spotchecks not done. Version reviewed

  • Given the different casualty counts reported in text, how did you decide on the specific figures in the infobox?
    • I've removed these from the infobox. For the Confederates - the 29 + Fry captured isn't really debated, and the 8 killed is corroborated both by Christ's statement and the burial of the dead (Hindman's statement can be ignored here, as the officially reported numbers for battles in this war were often wrong, especially given that Hindman wasn't even present at this battle). Kennedy doesn't give specific details, but with her number of ~40, there's not enough room for 30 captured + 8 dead + Christ's number of 24 wounded. For the Union, sources mainly focus on the loss solely on Mound City, so there's not much to compare to Kennedy's statement of ~160. Hog Farm Talk 21:27, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN1: perhaps it's a date formatting issue, but I don't think that date matches the source?
    • Appears to have been a typographic error of 12/13 instead of 12/03
  • Given Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_168#historynet.com, what makes HistoryNet a high-quality reliable source?
    • This is actually a copy of a piece originally published in the Civil War Times, a respected and long-running magazine in this area. In the linked discussion, Carrite points to a list of magazines related to historynet that are reliable, and CWT is one of them. (historynet.com and CWT both seem to be owned now by Weider, so this isn't a COPYLINK issue, either). The author Barnhart has been repeatedly published in sources such as CWT and America's Civil War on the topic of naval actions in the American Civil War. I think this particular piece is usable for the subject at hand. Hog Farm Talk 21:27, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • How are you ordering Sources? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:01, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Assuming that's a reference to Shea being listed above McPherson; I've corrected that

@Nikkimaria: - Are these sourcing-related items okay, or do I need to make additional changes here? For spot-checking purposes, I can provide scans for all the print sources except Shea 1994, which is back at the library. Hog Farm Talk 19:31, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

These look fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:49, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Pendright

[edit]

Back after the above review is settled. 20:04, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi Pendright, FYI, settled. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:16, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: Thank you. Pendright (talk) 05:53, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lead:

  • The Battle of St. Charles was fought on June 17, 1862, during the American Civil War. A Union Army force commanded by Major General Samuel R. Curtis moved against Little Rock, Arkansas, after winning the Battle of Pea Ridge in March, but became bogged down in the Batesville area due to lack of supplies. The Union leadership decided to send a naval force from Memphis, Tennessee, up the White River to resupply Curtis's men.
  • Why not inform readers up-front that St Charles is in Arkansas and it was a Confederate state?
  • Done
  • Could use a transistional phrase to bridge the 1st with the 2nd sentence
  • Added
  • "after winning the Battle of Pea Ridge in March" -> This detail could be dropped w/o affectimg the meaning of the sentence.
  • Removed
  • During the fighting, a Confederate solid shot struck the ironclad USS Mound City, puncturing the ship's steam drum.
The ship had more than one steam drum - might frame it as "a" steam drum?
  • Went with a slightly different phrasing "one of the"
  • The 46th Indiana overran the Confederate defenses on land, and the position was taken.
Drop the comma
  • Done

Early activity:

  • After the election of Abraham Lincoln as President of the United States in 1860, several southern states considered seceding [from the union].
Add "from the union"
  • Done
  • The southern state of Arkansas held a statewide election on February 18, 1861 to create a convention to vote on secession, with anti-secessionist delegates initially holding the majority.
  • Add a comma after 1861
  • Added
  • After opening on March 4, the convention adjourned on March 21 without reaching a conclusion.
  • opening -> convening
  • Done
  • Lincoln was also sworn in that day -> Could it be woven into the sentence or perhaps reported as a footnote?
  • Added
  • The bombardment of Fort Sumter on April 12 swung political opinion to secession, and the convention was recalled on May 6, voting to secede later that day.
  • The bombardment of Fort Sumter on April -> Who bombarded Ft. Sumter and what triggered it?
  • Clarified briefly
  • recalled -> reconvened
  • Done
  • In early March 1862, Major General Earl Van Dorn of the Confederate States Army formed the Army of the West from forces commanded by Missouri State Guard Major General Sterling Price and Confederate Brigadier General Ben McCulloch.
The dates of the above sucessvive sentences suggest that no military action had taken place in almost a year?
  • I have very briefly stated that stuff was going on in Missouri during 1861 so it's clearer that this was a continuation of prior fighting. There was more important stuff in Virginia, but it would be rather off-topic to delve into that here.
  • They re-entered Arkansas on April 29, heading for Batesville.[4]
Drop the comma after April 28 add replace "heading" with "and headed"
  • Done
  • Curtis absorbed Steele's men into his force and began to move on the state capital of Little Rock.[5]
of Litte Rock - at Litte Rock
  • Done
  • On May 19, a small Union force crossed the Little Red River to forage, but was attacked by Confederate cavalry near Searcy; some of the Union soldiers, including wounded men, were murdered while attempting to surrender.
Might be a good place for a citation?
  • Added, as this is a strong claim supported by the source (same as the next one)
  • Curtis was informed the next day that his line of supply was at the breaking point, and decided that further advance without a new supply line was untenable.
and "he" decided?
  • Done
  • The message was forwarded to Major General Henry W. Halleck, who then asked Flag Officer Charles H. Davis to send a flotilla up the White River to Jacksonport to resupply Curtis, as the roads in that region of Arkansas were too poor for easy resupply by land.[9]
asked -> "ordered or directed"
  • Changed
  • Davis received Welles's telegram on June 12, and began making immediate preparations for the movement.
Comma unnecessary
  • Removed
  • He asked Colonel Charles R. Ellet, commander of the Ram Fleet, to send some of the rams to serve with the vessels of Davis's Western Flotilla, but Ellet would only agree to this under the condition that the Ram Fleet and Western Flotilla vessels would be separate commands, which Davis refused.[10]
  • He "directed" or "ordered"
  • Actually, in this case, asked is more accurate and is the word used by the source. I'm not sure the explanation is really due detail for the article, but basically the Ram Fleet wasn't part of the Navy so Davis didn't have authority to order it to do specific things
  • "rams -> "ram ships
  • Done
  • The furthest north Confederate stronghold on the Mississippi was now Vicksburg, Mississippi, as positions upriver at Columbus, Kentucky, and Island Number Ten had been taken earlier in the year.
Mississippi "River"
  • Done

Kilty:

  • The two groups of ships united on June 16.[15] June 16 also saw Kilty's ships approach St. Charles.
Substitute one June 16th
  • Done

Confederate preparations:

  • Two rifled 32-pounder guns were taken from the gunboat CSS Pontchartrain and mounted in the main battery on June 8,[21] while two 3-inch Parrott rifles were sent from Little Rock and placed in a smaller position 400 yards (370 m) away.
Wouldn't it be mounted on?
  • Actually, in is the right word. Battery in ACW contexts can also refer to fortifications designed to protect fixed artillery positions, and the guns were in such a fortification
  • Pontchartrain's pieces were placed on a commanding position on a bluff 75 feet (23 m) above a bend in the river.
pieces -> guns?
  • Changed

Battle:

  • Before daybreak on June 17, the Confederates made dispositions to receive the attack.
"to receive the attack" -> to defend against the attack?
  • Done
  • The shot then punctured the ship's steam drum,[23] part of the ship's engine that contained pressurized steam.[3
  • The ship had more than one steam drum where steam was held
  • The ship had more than one boiler and upon each there was a steam drum.
  • The ship had coal fired boilers that heated the water in the steam drum thus generating the steam in the steam drum that was fed to the engine(s).
Mould City had two engines, one driving each side of the paddlewheel, mounted 90 degrees apart. Each engine had a single cylinder of bore 22 inches (0.56 m) and stroke 6 feet (1.8 m).[7] These were able to drive her at a maximum speed of 8 knots (15 km/h). The engines for the class were built by Hartupee and Company of Pittsburgh, Eagle Foundry of St. Louis, or Fulton Foundry, also of St. Louis.[6] The steam drums were at first mounted so low that the engines worked with water rather than steam, so the drums had to be moved to the top of the boilers. In their new position, they were not protected by the extra armor that was given to the engines.[8]
  • Is "The shot then punctured one of the ship's poorly protected steam drums,[24] which connected to the ship's engines and fed them pressurized steam" an improvement in the article?
<>I believe it to be more accurate. Pendright (talk) 00:57, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of the roughly 175 men onboard Mound City, 105[23] or 125 were killed and a further 25[21] or 44 wounded; only 25[23] or 26 escaped unhurt.[33][30]
<>::As used, or is a bit confusing to me? Pendright (talk) 00:57, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sorry, but I'm not quite understanding this comment
  • Fry demanded that the remaining Union sailors aboard surrender, and when this was refused, ordered his men to fire on Union sailors in the river trying to swim to safety.
he ordered?
  • Not done, as Fry couldn't really order opposing combatants to do anything
  • A final cannon shot was fired at St. Louis, and the Confederates then scattered, with Union troops within 50 yards (46 m).[38]
Drop the comma after scattered
  • Done

Aftermath:

  • A 58- or 59-man replacement crew for Mound City was drawn from the 46th Indiana.
  • A -> The
  • Done
  • I'm sorry, but I'm not entirely sure which spacing needs to be corrected here (copy editing ain't my strong suit)
  • I believe my high school English teacher said they should be used in such circumstances, but I couldn't tell you why. (maybe because the number is an adjective?) They can be removed if desired. Hog Farm Talk 00:59, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
<><>It's your call. Pendright (talk) 04:42, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Finished! Happy New Year @Hog Farm: Pendright (talk) 23:48, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Pendright: - I've replied to everything above, although there's several I have queries on. Hog Farm Talk 06:54, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Hog Farm: Supporting! Pendright (talk) 00:57, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
<><>Thank you for following up. All commen6s have been responded to and I'm pleased to support this nom. Pendright (talk) 04:42, 8 January 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 January 2022 [72].

Duriavenator

[edit]
Nominator(s): FunkMonk (talk) 22:39, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is the first FAC about a megalosaurid, one of the few major groups of carnivorous dinosaurs that have not yet been represented at FAC. This particular animal was long thought to be the same as Megalosaurus itself (the first named dinosaur, and historically very important), though was much later recognised as distinct, and that's the gist of the story here. The entire literature has been summarised, and there were some nice free images available. FunkMonk (talk) 22:39, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Image review
    • File:Megalosaurus display.JPG isn't the display copyrighted?
The fossils themselves can't be copyrighted, as for the imagery on the wall behind, most of it is from the 19th century, and I think it would fall under de minimis anyway, as they're not the focus of the photo by any means. But this is of course debatable. In any case, only the drawing on the far right is recent enough to be copyrighted, and it is partially cropped out and covered by bones, which again, could indicate de minimis. FunkMonk (talk) 23:19, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Could be possible to divide it into sections about the upper and lower jaw, I'll have a look tomorrow. FunkMonk (talk) 23:19, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Made two subsections. FunkMonk (talk) 08:53, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Cas Liber

[edit]

Taking a look now...

this name means "the West" or "western". - strictly speaking it's the epithet that means western not the binomial as such....
Oh yeah, I removed the word "specific name" from the intro on request at the GAN, but now re-added it for clarity. FunkMonk (talk) 11:55, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Later researchers doubted whether the species belonged in Megalosaurus - I'd write either, "Later researchers questioned/pondered/deliberated/queried whether the species belonged in Megalosaurus" or "Later researchers doubted the species belonged in Megalosaurus" (i.e. doubting is not questioning but naysaying)
Said questioned. FunkMonk (talk) 11:55, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you can, avoid having both paras of lead start with "Duriavenator..."
Tried with "Estimated to have been 5–7 m (16–23 ft) long and weighed 1 t (2,200 lb), Duriavenator has been described as a medium-sized theropod." FunkMonk (talk) 11:55, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That works Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:43, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
why is freestone in quotation marks
One source did this, not sure why, so removed. FunkMonk (talk) 11:55, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
... it would have been massively constructed - odd use of "constructed" - I'd say "built" but I'd not use "constructed" in the same way...
That was how the source put it, but changed to built. FunkMonk (talk) 11:55, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

more later looks pretty good otherwise Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:31, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, all should now be fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 11:55, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Cas Liber ? Gog the Mild (talk) 22:48, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's marked as support in the section header. There is one indicated future review further below. FunkMonk (talk) 22:59, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HF - support

[edit]

Recusing to review. Hog Farm Talk 14:23, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • I see the infobox gives a range of 169.1-168.7 mya, while the body just says about 168 mya, is the infobox figure false precision?
Not sure what that's based on, just changed to 168. FunkMonk (talk) 01:41, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "surface of the maxilla adheres to the counterpart slab" - is there a way to link or gloss counterpart slab?
Linked to Compression fossil, which is not a perfect match, but covers some of the same ground. FunkMonk (talk) 01:41, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Cast of the holotype dentary, showing the long teeth at the front, YM (left) and an isolated tooth, NHM (right)" - this caption is a bit confusing. Does this indication some sort of specimen number? It's not clear what YM and NHM mean here
It's just abbreviations of museum names mentioned in full in earlier captions. Those abbreviations are parts of the specimen numbers too, so in a sense you're right, but I'm not sure it is needed to write the names in full again? FunkMonk (talk) 01:41, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • What are Mortimer's credentials for the theropod database?
Mortimer has been at least co-author of some peer-reviewed dinosaur articles, and their database website has also been cited in such articles:[73] I believe it would count as an expert source, per WP:SPS. Furthermore, this information isn't covered in any peer-reviewed papers, which tend to completely ignore unppublished names, so that they are not inadvertently published. FunkMonk (talk) 01:41, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ditto with Tracy L. Ford
Same as above:[74] FunkMonk (talk) 01:41, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Carrano/Benson/Sampson - any way to make that page range a bit more specific, range given is almost 90 pages
Specified to the three pages used. FunkMonk (talk) 01:41, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • " Holtz Jr., Thomas R. (2000). "A new phylogeny of the carnivorous dinosaurs". Gaia: 5–61." - any chance for volume/issue numbers here?
Added volume. FunkMonk (talk) 01:41, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Holtz Jr., Thomas R. (2012). Dinosaurs: The Most Complete, Up-to-date Encyclopedia for Dinosaur Lovers of All Ages. New York: Random House. p. 92]. ISBN 978-0-375-82419-7." - I can't tell if the bracket after p. 92 is spurious or if there's a missing bracket somewhere else (My childhood copy of the 2007 edition is somewhere in my parents attic, seeing it here makes me want to dig it out when I visit for Christmas)
Removed, it was a remnant of when the citation included a link to an online version of the book which seemed illegal. FunkMonk (talk) 01:41, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do any of the sources perchance indicate how they estimate length/size? I image they estimated based on a comparison of head size to that of similar, more complete, specimens, but it would be nice if that could get spelled out.
Paul makes a general statement about his methodology, not about this particular taxon. But I've added "(size estimates of incompletely known dinosaurs are extrapolated from better known relatives)". FunkMonk (talk) 01:41, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good work here, I found this one quite interesting. Hog Farm Talk 04:58, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, answers above. Holtz's book still holds up, I believe I got it for Christmas too! FunkMonk (talk) 01:41, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from LittleLazyLass

[edit]

Just reserving a spot here to make sure this doesn't close without me; I'm swamped in exam prep for the next week, but sometime later than the 16th I'll be giving this a look through. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 23:56, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi LittleLazyLass, nudge. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:18, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review — Pass

[edit]
Linked. FunkMonk (talk) 00:32, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • #2: As can Cassell & Company Limited. I'd also capitalize the "C" in "Company" and the "L" in "Limited". And the name of the chapter being cited can also be added.
Did both. FunkMonk (talk) 00:32, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • #3: Volume/issue number?
Not sure how to get this info, or if it even exists. Neither volume or issue is mentioned in the sources that cite it, and I can't see the front page (I was sent the specific article at WP:RX)... FunkMonk (talk) 00:32, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 00:32, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 00:32, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 00:32, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 00:32, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer to avoid linking authors in citations because 99% of the time they're just duplinks of names already mentioned and linked in the main text. Also, it looks odd when citations by the same author is linked multiple times. Is it necessary? If there is no guideline that encourages this, I'd prefer not (it is also very tedious work). Same goes for similar suggestions below. But note I spelled out full names this time, hehe... FunkMonk (talk) 00:32, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Linked journal, but would like to discuss linking of author names as per above. FunkMonk (talk) 00:32, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • #10: What makes this wall of text reliable?
Here's what I said to HF about this above: Mortimer has been at least co-author of some peer-reviewed dinosaur articles, and their database website has also been cited in such articles:[75] I believe it would count as an expert source, per WP:SPS. Furthermore, this information isn't covered in any peer-reviewed papers, which tend to completely ignore unppublished names, so that they are not inadvertently published. FunkMonk (talk) 00:32, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • #11: What makes this reliable?
Same as above:[76] FunkMonk (talk) 00:32, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Linked in the article, which I think suffices. FunkMonk (talk) 23:24, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Linked publisher. FunkMonk (talk) 23:24, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • #14: University of California Press. Why "Berkeley chapter" instead of "Berkeley" (compare with refs #16 & #30)? Are there subsequent editions, that make the "1st ed." necessary"? Suggest using the "| name-list-style = amp" parameter. Any authors/editors with articles?
Added amp, "chapter" was a mistake, was adding the chapter parameter but forgot to finish it, it seems, now fixed hehe... FunkMonk (talk) 23:24, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Linked the journal. FunkMonk (talk) 23:24, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • #16: University of California Press and The Dinosauria can take links. "2 ed." should be "2nd ed." Suggest using the "| name-list-style = amp" parameter. Any authors/editors with articles (besides Holtz Jr., who can be linked again)?
Added amp and added nd, but refrained from doing duplinks. FunkMonk (talk) 23:24, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Linked the journal. FunkMonk (talk) 23:24, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • #18: Palaeontology can take a link. What about the authors? Suggest using the "| name-list-style = amp" parameter.
Added the amp parameter. Why duplink journals in citations, though? FunkMonk (talk) 00:32, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Added date and linked Smithsonian Institution. Not sure if Riley Black will turn blue again, so I think it can wait in any case. FunkMonk (talk) 23:24, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Avoided as duplink. FunkMonk (talk) 23:24, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • #21: Holtz Jr. can take another link. 12 January 2012, not 2011. What is this thing?
It's an online appendix to the book that is currently ref 27. It basically has some additional size estimates and other odds and end, should count as self published by a topic expert. I've changed the date and the too specific title (what it was called from where I copied it from). FunkMonk (talk) 00:32, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Linked publisher, added nd, and en dash. FunkMonk (talk) 23:24, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • #23: ISBN should be hyphenated.
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 00:32, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Linked journal, added amp, and added strangely missing page numbers. FunkMonk (talk) 00:32, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Linked and amped, added missing page numbers (the html version has no pages). FunkMonk (talk) 00:32, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • #26: Suggest using the "| name-list-style = amp" parameter.
Added amp. FunkMonk (talk) 23:24, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Linked Random House, but would like discussion of the author names. FunkMonk (talk) 00:32, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to Cambridge University Press, seems only the online version is Elsevier. Added location. FunkMonk (talk) 00:32, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Added amp and journal link. FunkMonk (talk) 23:24, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Added amp and 2nd, but the rest would be dulinks it seems. FunkMonk (talk) 23:24, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This version looked at. FunkMonk, one or two (or three dozen) comments above, but they're all minor. The one more significant comment is that a lot of sources are cited without any indication of what the relevant page(s) are. If someone wants to check out source #51, which of the 57 pages should they be looking at? I would normally use pin cites (i.e., separate "References" and "Bibliography" sections, like in The Colossus of Rhodes (Dalí)), but here it make more sense to use the style of cite that looks like "ARTICLE TEXT.[15]:24–26". --Usernameunique (talk) 07:35, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that probably comes back to the old discussion about whether journal articles need more specific page ranges, I think there is an upper limit to what should be accepted, and in some of these cases only some of the pages are needed, so I've substantially cut the one you mentioned (I guess you meant #15?) and some others. FunkMonk (talk) 00:32, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
All responded to now, did most, except the duplink issues. FunkMonk (talk) 23:24, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry for the delay, Gog the Mild. Looks good to me. FunkMonk, a delight to see the full names! All those links aren't required, I just tend to think they're good practice. Especially for the author names, I'm not always going to think to look through the rest of the article to see if a particular author has a Wikipedia article. --Usernameunique (talk) 00:19, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

AryKun

[edit]
  • I have just one very minor comment: Could the gloss explaining that the Bajocian is "a stage in the Middle Jurassic" also be added to the mention in the lead? Otherwise excellent work here. AryKun (talk) 11:53, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Added, though the Middle Jurassic is mentioned in the first sentence of the intro. Anything else? Feel free to nitpick, especially about whether technical issues are improperly explained. FunkMonk (talk) 19:04, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "there was no reason to divide them" → "thought there was no reason to divide them"?
Good catch, done. FunkMonk (talk) 18:23, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should Walkersaurus be italicized instead of in quotes?
Since it's an invalid name, that's how such are formatted in the literature to distinguish them from validly published names. FunkMonk (talk) 18:23, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe link the ? in "Megalosaurus?" (or just the whole name), as people are unlikely to know what the ? means.
Added (the question mark indicating incertae sedis, uncertain placement). FunkMonk (talk) 18:23, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the first paragraph of upper jaw, what exactly does "process" mean?
Linked Process (anatomy) and added (outgrowths). FunkMonk (talk) 18:23, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's all I could find after going through this again, besides some small edits not worth mentioning here. This is very well explained, easy to get through even for someone with little knowledge of dinos beside what you pick up in the elementary school stage of being obsessed with them. AryKun (talk) 08:19, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the good points and edits, now addressed the above. FunkMonk (talk) 18:23, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt

[edit]

Support A few comments.

  • "heavily plastered" I'm not clear on what this means, unless the Dino was intoxicated.
Changed to "is covered in plaster". But I like your idea better. FunkMonk (talk) 21:15, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Later examinations by Benson of British fossils earlier assigned to M. bucklandii accepted some these a belonging to the species.[20][5] " Some confusion in this sentence. Also, did you intend to have the refs in reverse numerical order?
Changed to "Benson later examined British fossils that had earlier assigned to M. bucklandii and found that some of them belonged to the species after all." Changed order of refs, but not something I look for actively. FunkMonk (talk) 21:15, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • " two preserved as tooth crowns" How is this a preservation? Does this mean someone supplied what they guessed was the proper size casts?
Changed to "two preserving the tooth crowns, one preserved as a cross-section". The source worded it in a way perhaps too jargony for us. FunkMonk (talk) 21:15, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's it.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:05, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, all should be addressed. FunkMonk (talk) 21:15, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Wehwalt (talk) 22:29, 7 January 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) 1 January 2022 [77].

Draft Eisenhower movement

[edit]
Nominator(s): Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:59, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about how General Dwight D. Eisenhower was persuaded by both the Democratic and Republican Party to contest the presidency. We won't see that today! Both in the 1948 and 1952 presidential election: politicians, news organizations, columnist, composers, and many citizens campaigned to "Draft Eisenhower". And "Ike" (nickname of Eisenhower, because you can't remember that long name!) refused all requests to enter politics. The Draft movement failed in 1948, but the upset victory of Harry S. Truman made many Republicans to again campaign for Eisenhower in 1952. Democrats to tried to persuade him, saying that he can win only as a Democrat. Senator Paul Douglas even suggested both parties to nominate Eisenhower with different vice-presidential running mates. The famous "I like Ike" campaign slogan was associated with this movement. Eisenhower at-last agreed to contest Republican primaries, and won few of them despite never actively campaigning himself. He was elected president as a Republican, and served two terms.

This is currently a Military history A-class article. It was reviewed for GA by A. C. Santacruz. Also, it was copy-edited by late Twofingered Typist (a great copy-editor and a Wikipedia veteran. This was the last article copy-edited by him particularly for FAC ...) I have tried to keep the article comprehensive, but concise. I added many things related to the "Draft movement", and separate article about the Republican primaries/vice-presidential selection exist. Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:59, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by ExcellentWheatFarmer

[edit]
  • "Several politicians, including New York Representative W. Sterling Cole, voiced their opposition to the nomination of Eisenhower or any other military leader for the presidency." - Why did they oppose this? Also, what is the significance of Cole's opinion specifically?
  • "In 1951, more Republican politicians announced their support for Eisenhower, while Democrats continued to assure him he could win the presidency only as a Democrat." -> "In 1951, more Republican politicians announced their support for Eisenhower, while Democrats continued to assure him he could only win the presidency as a Democrat."
  • "Eisenhower replied in the affirmative" Odd wording here - change it to just "Eisenhower agreed".
  • What is the relevance of George VI's state funeral? Either elaborate on its significance or remove it.
  • "On June 4, he made his first political speech in his hometown of Abilene, Kansas." About what?
  • Is there any more information on the 1956 Draft movements that could be added in the Aftermath and legacy section? It's a bit short as of now.
  • All images seem well-captioned and are all free to use!

@ExcellentWheatFarmer – Thanks for your comments. I tried to address all. Let me know if anything else is required. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:57, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by TheTechnician27

[edit]

Upon a first reading, I could find few issues or questions outside of what ExcellentWheatFarmer already mentioned. The trivial nitpicks I did have I cleaned up. I'll go through the 'Works cited' and try to find full text versions for the sake of reader accessibility and give a tentative Support prior to a second reading. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 16:43, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by ErnestKrause

[edit]

Support. This is a straightforward article which has already been copy edited 2-3 times and speaks to the important issue of why it took seven years for Eisenhower to make it to the Presidency when he had achieved such large popularity as General of the Allied Forces which defeated National Socialism in 1945. Although I will offer some optional comments, the article is already highly refined due to the number of copy editors who have done previous reviews of this article. Supporting this as a important part of Eisenhower's biography covering his career on the way to his White House years. ErnestKrause (talk) 00:30, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Optional comments:

(1) Background section: "MacArthur in Washington..." to "MacArthur both in Washington, D.C. and the Philippines."

Done. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:06, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(2) Background: "Field marshall Lord Montgomery..." to caps for title "Field Marshall...".

Done. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:06, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(3) Both main sections: Currently both sections use popular quotes for titles, though optionally they could emphasize one of the main themes of this article which is that the Democratic Party was unsuccessful in convincing Eisenhower to run in 1948 whereas the Republican Party was successful in convincing Eisenhower to run in 1952. Optionally, could this be used to give explicit emphasis in the section titles, for example, "Unsuccessful Democratic phase in 1948" and "Successful Republican phase in 1952".

I this we are fine as it is. It wasn't that just Democrats convinced him in 1948 and Republicans in 1952. Both Democrats and Republicans persuaded him in both 1948 and 1952 (just that Democratic movement was stronger in 1948, and Republican movement was successful in 1952). – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:06, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(4) "Eisenhower boom" section: "Eisenhower told" to "Eisenhower was told that since George Washington's presidency, the office of president had..."

I think that would change the meaning ... – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:06, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Article is supported. ErnestKrause (talk) 00:30, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for you review and support! Much appreciated! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:06, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image and source review

[edit]
All images appear to be properly licenced, placed and have ALT text.

I didn't do any thorough spot-checks. The way sources #40 and #41 are used bother me - the sentence as a whole implies that the re-emergence of the Draft Eisenhower movement is due to Truman's low approval ratings, but neither of the sources explicitly says so. Also, the sentence supported by sources #88 and #89 strongly implies that there were other "draft X" movements but #89 explicitly says otherwise.

I note that Stephen E. Ambrose is used as a source and the article we have on them has a criticism section about his characterization of Eisenhower. The sources appear to be consistently formatted and have the necessary information. I am fine with the use of contemporary newspapers here, it doesn't look like they are used for evaluative claims.

To sum it up, the images are fine but the way some sources are used gives me a bit of worry. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:24, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Jo-Jo Eumerus – Thanks for taking the image and source review. As for source #40 and #41, I have rephrased it to make sure everything in the article is said in the sources. As for sources #88 and #89, yes, there are other draft movement which were compared with Draft Eisenhower movement, or Draft Eisenhower movement was referenced in them. I am not entirely sure why this says that: "A real presidential draft movement hasn’t happened since 1952, when Republicans urged Eisenhower to get into the race.", as another source says that 1992 Draft Perot movement was compared with Draft Eisenhower movement. Have added that in the article. I don't think there should be an issue in citing Stephen E. Ambrose. Despite the criticism part, I think what more important here is that Ambrose was an American historian and professor of history at UNO. And I don't think I have cited any part from Ambrose's book which expressed his opinion, just facts and evaluative claims are cited. Does that answers your concerns. Let me know of there is anything else I can do. Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:11, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's mostly it. I stress though that I didn't do a thorough source review, so if someone else finds more source-text incongruities my findings here shouldn't be held against theirs. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:24, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: - Are you comfortable with this counting as a source review, or would you like me to add one? Hog Farm Talk 19:42, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to. My review was not super deep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:00, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt

[edit]
  • While it's great to describe USMA class of 1915 as the class the stars fell on, I might also mention the year in the sentence.
  • "rose to five-star general in the United States Army" that's awfully late in the day to mention that Eisenhower was in the US Army.
  • "All of Truman's efforts to persuade him failed.[17] " you haven't mentioned any such efforts.
  • Changes to "Truman's efforts&; – the efforts are mentioned in the previous sentence: "President Harry S. Truman considered him..." and "Truman even agreed to run as Eisenhower's vice-presidential nominee" (really can't imagine president agreeing to be vp) – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 19:32, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In January 1948, few Republican politicians from New Hampshire entered a group of delegates pledged to Eisenhower in the primary contest." Should this be "a few Republican ..."?
  • "Later that month, Eisenhower told that since George Washington's presidency, the office of president "historically and properly fallen only to aspirants", and repeated that he had no political ambition.[19]"There's a need for a "has" somewhere in there.
  • "Strom Thurmond" perhaps "Governor Strom Thurmond of South Carolina"
  • The timeline for the Nixon nomination as Vice President seems a bit muddled. From what I recall from my research on the subject, no real thought was given to who would be Ike's running mate until after he defeated Taft at the convention, and he didn't know he was expected to pick a running mate, and more or less left it for an ad-hoc committee of advisors and Republican notables to decide.
  • "Republican politicians argued that they can lose the election without Eisenhower as their presidential nominee." Should "can" be "could"?
That's it.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:07, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments, @Wehwalt! I think I addressed them all. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 19:38, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks a lot, Wehwalt! And may I mention (if I haven't already) that your work on American history/politics and virtually any other topic is among the finest I have seen on Wikipedia! Thanks again! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 15:26, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

[edit]

I went through this at PR and was pleasantly surprised at how little I found to pick at, and so have nothing further to add other than my support. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:53, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for your support and your help during the peer review!! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 15:39, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Secondary source review (HF) - pass

[edit]

Based on JJE's comment above, I'll be giving this one a source review over the next couple days. Hog Farm Talk 20:46, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Pickett is available on Internet Archive with free registration. Has it been consulted for potential usefulness? Based on a couple scholarly book reviews I've seen, it's considered to be significant in the field, and represents a somewhat different viewpoint than most of the other sources in the article
  • Wikipedia Library ProQuest brings up a piece in Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly titled "They liked Ike: Pro-Eisenhower publishers and his decision to run for president" that looks useful here, as well
    • Have added this source, though haven't used it substantially, as most of this source is about how various publishers and journalists wrote letters and urged Ike to run, something which the article already discussed in very brief. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 08:46, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm questioning Welch's reliability here - This is by the same Robert Welch who cofounded the conspiracy theory peddling John Birch Society, and "Robert Welch University" looks suspiciously like an arm of the JBS, given that it's from the same place the JBS is, and both were previously based out of Belmont, MA around the same time.

Aside from that, I didn't turn up much that could be issues with the "thorough and representative survey" bit from criteria 1c

  • "Because of his popularity, Eisenhower was widely expected to run for the presidency" - possibly in a pagination issue, but I'm not finding this on p. 50 of Metz?
  • "Former Minnesota governor Harold Stassen, known for his steadfast internationalism," - this is exactly the same as in the source; there has to be a way to reduce the closeness here
  • "Sherman Adams, the Republican governor of New Hampshire, became the manager for the Draft Eisenhower movement in his state" - cited to Birkner p. 1, but there's no Birkner page 1. You seem to be going off of the pagination on the scanned pages with the other Birkner refs, but Birkner starts at page 5 (it is the first page of the source material, just not number p. 1, so I can see how this happened pretty easily)
  • "With Eisenhower's inauguration on January 20, 1953, he became the first Republican president in 20 years" - cited page does not provide the inauguration date

I checked all of the citations to Metz, Mason, Birkner, Griffith, Dishman, and Keefer. Hog Farm Talk 03:35, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nice to see this second source review, happening after promotion! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 08:46, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I started to promote but decided to hold off, until I could figure out how closely the previous source review was done Hog Farm Talk 14:19, 30 December 2021 (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/January_2022&oldid=1069153180"