Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/September 2023

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 Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 29 September 2023 [1].

Clown (Mariah Carey song)

[edit]
Nominator(s): Heartfox (talk) 19:00, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mariah Carey vs. Eminem round 1... this is my favourite song article I have written so far, let me know what you think ;) Thanks to Ippantekina who kindly conducted the GA review. Heartfox (talk) 19:00, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aoba47

[edit]
  • This article references Carey as both a singer and a songwriter, while other articles, such as "Never Forget You" and "Sweetheart", only use singer to describe. I believe this should be consistent along all of the song articles.
    Adjusted
  • I am uncertain about the wording in the both the lead and the article about Andre Harris and Vidal Davis and Dre & Vidal. It is not immediately clear in the prose that Dre & Vidal is a title used by Harris and Davis when they produce together so it could be misread as these three being separate entities. I would find a way to clarify that.
    Added a note
  • For this part, (Before the release of her film Glitter and its accompanying soundtrack in 2001), I would add a link to the Glitter soundtrack since an article for it exists.
    Added
  • For the audio sample, I do not think it is necessary so specify what part of the song is being played in the title. From my experience, it is more common to include just the song title (or the artist's name if more is added), and I do not see this additional information as particularly beneficial.
    Done
  • For this part, (According to Marcia Alesan Dawkins), I would clarify who Dawkins is in the prose to give readers a better understanding on why she is cited here. I have the same comment for Vincent Stephens.
    Added
  • Is it worth noting in this article that "Obsessed" was also said to be directed at Eminem?
    I would prefer to leave that to the background section of "Obsessed"
    I was leaning in that direction as well, especially if critics or sources do not explicitly make connections between these two songs. I could see this quickly spiraling into tangents and it is best to keep the focus on this specific song, but I wanted to ask anyway as it did come to my mind while reading the article. I agree with your choice and I appreciate your response.
  • I would be consistent with how possessives are done in the article. I see both Nas's and Pet Shop Boys' when the s's or s' should be more consistent throughout the article.
    Done Removed for Pet Shop Boys as "Boys" is a plural noun per MOS:PLURALNOUN
  • The Jaan Uhelszki review is dead so it should be marked as such. I would also revise the wording for her (Amazon.com critic Jaan Uhelszki). From my experience, Amazon.com reviews are not considered reliable or high-quality enough for inclusion in a FA, but it would be appropriate because of the author's background so I would find a way to better incorporate that into the prose as this did catch my attention. The wording makes it out to be just a Amazon.com critic and nothing else.
    It is a live link for me. Reworded.
    Thank you for rewording it. I had a massive brain fart while writing this review. Instead of saying that the link was dead, I meant to say that I get an error screen when I try to reach the page. I get the following message: "We're sorry, an error has occurred. Please reload this page and try again." The page no longer has the Uhelszki review at least on my end. I see the product and I see consumer reviews, just not the review being cited. Apologies again for wording my initial comment poorly and incorrectly, and I hope that this clears it up, but let me know if further clarification is necessary. Aoba47 (talk) 19:23, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you see the review in the archived link?
    I can see the review in the archived link. Aoba47 (talk) 16:18, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I hope these comments are helpful. Once everything has been addressed, I will read through the article a few more times just to make sure I have not overlooked anything. Best of luck with this FAC and great work as always. Aoba47 (talk) 20:15, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments, Aoba47. Heartfox (talk) 13:54, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the responses. I have clarified my point about the Amazon source above. Aoba47 (talk) 19:23, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apologies for adding an additional comment, but I had noticed this and wanted to post it before I forgot about it. I have a quick question about Note B. I was curious if the bit on Carey's 2001 breakdown would need more context for unfamiliar readers. When I was thinking about how to best approach this, I noticed that the primary Wikipedia article on Carey uses a link (breakdown) and I think having that here would be beneficial to provide some context without adding undue weight or making it unnecessarily wordy. Aoba47 (talk) 02:02, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Added the section link
    Thank you for the responses to everything. Unfortunately, I found out today that I have COVID so I cannot complete this review at this time. If the FAC is still up when I am feeling better, I will look back, but I am not mentally or physically in a place right now to finish this review. Apologies for that. Aoba47 (talk) 16:18, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Apologies for the delay in my follow-up message. Everything looks good to me. I support this FAC for promotion. Best of luck with this FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 14:38, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hope you are feeling better! Heartfox (talk) 21:13, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for the message. I am getting there. Hopefully I feel 100% in the near future. Aoba47 (talk) 16:55, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport from Chris

[edit]
  • ""Clown" received analysis from scholars who thought Carey is contending that Eminem's masculine persona is fake" => ""Clown" received analysis from scholars who thought Carey was contending that Eminem's masculine persona was fake"
    Done
  • "the Pet Shop Boys's "The Night I Fell in Love"" => "the Pet Shop Boys' "The Night I Fell in Love"" (you don't put apostrophe + s after a plural noun ending in s - see eg this headline)
    Done
  • "Before the release of her film Glitter and its accompanying soundtrack in 2001, Mariah Carey suffered" => "Before the release of her film Glitter and its accompanying soundtrack in 2001, American singer Mariah Carey suffered" (you introduced her as such in the lead but it probably needs to be in the body too)
    Agreed
  • "a purported romantic relationship with Eminem gone awry" => "a purported romantic relationship gone awry with rapper Eminem"
    Done
  • "The Philadelphia Inquirer critic Tom Moon regarded Carey's "rap-inspired heat" superior" => "The Philadelphia Inquirer critic Tom Moon regarded Carey's "rap-inspired heat" as superior"
    Done
  • "Robinson viewed "Clown" as inferior to his efforts" => "Robinson viewed "Clown" as inferior to Timberlake's efforts" (for total clarity, as technically "his" could refer to Robinson himself)
    Adjusted
  • "Stephens likened it to the Pet Shop Boys's " - as above
    Done
  • "Carey has not acknowledged "Clown" is about Eminem" => "Carey has not acknowledged that "Clown" is about Eminem"
    Added
  • Note d uses UK spellings rather than US, is this because the original source does so.....?
    It is a quote from a journal published by Cambridge University Press (uses UK spelling)
  • That's what I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:36, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@ChrisTheDude: thanks so much for the helpful comments. Heartfox (talk) 02:35, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GWL

[edit]

Hey there, this is a pretty short article so there's also only a few minor comments here, hope they're useful! GeraldWL 08:41, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from GeraldWL 04:50, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
* "of her film Glitter"-- "her film" is a possessory credit for directors/producers, but Carrey only starred in it, she doesn't hold any "a film by" attribution. Suggest "of Glitter, a film she starred in, and its accompanying..."
  • Incorporated the suggestion
  • "A media circus ensued"-- isn't this an idiom? AFAIK, Wikipedia generally discourages idioms.
    Changed to "ensuing media coverage"
  • "Tatum. She produced it"-- might as well just combine these two, having them separate feels awkward with them being equally short sentences.
    Combined
  • "in Capri, Italy, Right Track Studios in New York City, and The Studio in Philadelphia." Should they be separated by semicolon, acknowledging the comma in "Capri, Italy?"
    Done per MOS:COLON
  • "Lorenz and"-- "Lorez, and" to give distinctions, this sentence has three and-s
    Done
  • Shouldn't answer song be linked in the first mention of it at BG section--"She responded further with the song "Clown""?
    Added
  • ""Clown" received scholarly analysis" sounds kinda awkward, suggest adding "several" between received and scholarly.
    Added
  • Why is ref 17 dup?
    There used to be an intermittent sentence with a different ref; removed
  • Perhaps linking hypermasculinity and genderphobia?
    Linked
  • Why is footnote g in a footnote? I thought it can be a wonderful extension to the prose. Ditto fn h.
    Converted to prose
  • Italicize roman a clef
    Italicized
  • Why is there a comma after roman a clef but not 'Youre So Vain', wherein the sentence transitions to a whole other review?
    Added a comma
  • Perhaps linking jersey?
    Would cause a sea of blue
  • "The live performances received reviews"-- should probably add that it's "generally negative reviews"
    Added

Thanks for the very helpful comments! Heartfox (talk) 18:07, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, you resolved the comments pretty well! This is an easy support -- well done! Also if you have time and are interested, I have a film PR open. GeraldWL 04:50, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Media review

[edit]

File:Clown Mariah Carey.ogg – Fair use rationale is good and sample length is fine per WP:SAMPLE (10% of the song length is 19.7 seconds and the sample is 20 seconds; even if rounding up isn't okay under SAMPLE, the length requirement is just a rule of thumb, not a strict requirement).

Can any images be added to the article? Photos of Mariah Carey or the co-writers? voorts (talk/contributions) 04:33, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for doing the media review! I did think about adding a photo of Carey or Eminem (none seem to exist for the co-writers), but they would mostly be decorative in my opniion. The reader is not really going to learn anything from a basic side-by-side of them. If there was a usable picture of them together in 2001 "in a relationship" then that would definitely add context and illustration to the adjacent prose, but that's unfortunately not the case. Heartfox (talk) 05:01, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also no photos from tour performances of the song seem to be available, although there are some for others. Heartfox (talk) 05:02, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Got it. This passes. voorts (talk/contributions) 05:15, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ippantekina

[edit]

Note that I'm reviewing this revision

  • "She likens Eminem to a liar, a puppet, a transitory figure, and a clown whose private personality contradicts his public image." pretty lengthy for the lede. Did she really compare Eminem to all of these?
    All of the references are given in the composition and lyrics section. Removed "transitory figure" for flow.
  • "They compared it to [a plethora of songs]" I think this could be connected with the bit about scholarly analysis of the lyrics
    I didn't see this connection in any of the sources except the Pet Shop Boys song
  • Optional but do we have a YouTube URL for an official audio?
    Added
  • "Before the release of Glitter, a film she starred in, and its accompanying soundtrack in 2001, American singer Mariah Carey suffered an emotional and physical breakdown" quite a few commas! I'd suggest "American singer Mariah Carey suffered an emotional and physical breakdown before she starred in the 2001 film Glitter and released its accompanying soundtrack"
    Honestly I just removed everything to do with Glitter as that level of specificity is better suited to the Charmbracelet album article
  • A photo of Eminem with a caption like "Eminem, the song's subject" would help the "Background" section imo.
    As the article already passed a media review I would prefer not to annoy the other reviewer
  • "Eminem opined about Carey"; eh, quite literary. I'd go for something simple like "Eminem said about Carey"
    Changed to "Eminem spoke of Carey"
  • "It features background vocals by Carey and Trey Lorenz,[10] and lasts for three minutes and seventeen seconds" no need for a comma here
    Removed
  • "the composition,[12] which Carey sings over" shouldn't it be "over which"?
    Done
  • "The first of her songs alluding to a feud,[14] "Clown" aligns with a pattern of Carey's musical output becoming more personal as her career progressed" I would split into two sentences: " 'Clown" is the first song in which Carey alludes to a feud. It is a blueprint for Carey's musical output..."
    Reworded to remove the comma
  • "as did Jim Farber of the New York Daily News, who remarked" I think it should be "New York Daily News' Jim Farber, who remarked"
    Done

Overall a solid article. Happy to support once my comments are addressed. Ippantekina (talk) 07:20, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ippantekina, replied to all above. Heartfox (talk) 15:22, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support on prose. Great work as always. I personally would like to see the inclusion of Eminem's photo but that shouldn't influence my support. Ippantekina (talk) 07:49, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]
  • The citations are reliable and high-quality, particularly for a music article. There are a good mixture of web sources, newspaper and print sources, and academic sources. A consistent citation style is used and there are not any errors in the citation structures. I have just have a few quick clarification questions below:
  • For the Charmbracelet citation, shouldn't Monarc Entertainment be included alongside Island Records?
    Added
  • Do Dateline NBC episodes have titles? The IMDb entries for the show has episode titles (here), but that is not a particularly reliable source, and TV listings like the one here do not include an episode title. Do you have a clearer answer for this one?
    Factiva only includes the transcript from the interview portion of the episode and doesn't give an episode title
    Thank you for the clarification. That makes sense to me. I would not imagine that a show like Dateline NBC would use episode titles anyway. Aoba47 (talk) 14:26, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any reason why this citation is upside-down?
    An error on Newspapers.com's part
    That's what I had thought, but I wanted to make sure. Thank you for the response. Aoba47 (talk) 14:26, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have done a brief spot-check and most of the information from the sources that I have checked match the citations and what is cited in the article. I do have a comments about this below:
  • The Joshua Klein citation points to an unrelated article by Chris Richards (with a different title than the one in the citation). The archived version has the correct article.
    Thanks for catching that
  • The Tom Moon citation has the title, They're Back, and Up-Front, but based on the Newspapers.com clipping, the title appears to be: Houston, Carey back to making music. That being said, the clipping is a continuation of a review from another page so feel free to let me know if the title used in the citations is from the previous page. I've been having issues with accessing Newspapers.com (as I seemingly have to log on to the Wikipedia Library to access it rather than going to the site directly like in the past). Otherwise, I'd check it myself.
    The title is from H1 but the clipping is H13 because only H13 is cited
    Thank you for the explanation. Makes sense to me. Aoba47 (talk) 14:26, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I hope this source review is helpful. Once everything has been addressed, I will be more than happy to pass this. Hopefully, this will help to bring this FAC across the finish line and get promoted in the near future. Aoba47 (talk) 18:24, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for doing this! Heartfox (talk) 22:50, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am glad that I could help. Thank you for the responses. This passes my source review. Aoba47 (talk) 14:26, 29 September 2023 (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) 29 September 2023 [2].

Terry Griffiths

[edit]
Nominator(s): BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 11:34, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Terry Griffiths won the professional World Snooker Championship at his first attempt. Like other players of his era, he often found his progress in tournaments ended with defeat to Steve Davis; Griffiths's determination to match Davis led to changes in technique which commentators have said cost him his natural flair for playing. Griffiths retired the year after he dropped out of the world's top 16 players, and developed a successful career in coaching. I can provide relevant extracts from the offline sources to reviewers. Thanks in advnce for your improvement suggestions. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 11:34, 13 August 2023 (UTC)a[reply]

Image review

  • Thanks for taking on the image review, Nikkimaria. I have searched for, and failed to find, any free-to-use images. Given that Griffiths is still active in coaching and other enterprises, I think it would be difficult to justify a fair use image - I can't see any points that would require an image to illustrate them. There are free-to-use images of some of other players such as Steve Davis and Ray Reardon, but I'm a bit cautious about adding those when there isn't one of the subject; but let me know if you think adding some other player images (with captions relating them to Griffiths) would be worthwhile. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 20:16, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport

[edit]
  • Link grammar school?
  • "future Welsh national-team members" => "future Welsh national team members"
  • "Griffiths, now a bus conductor, had more time available to practise" - this reads a bit oddly. Suggest changing to "Griffiths subsequently began working as a bus conductor, a job which gave him more time to practise"
  • "Defending champion at the World Championship," - for total clarity, I would retain the "1980" which is currently piped out
  • The section heading "professional career" implies that his pro career only started at that point, but you already covered a big chunk of it in the previous section. Is there an alternative title that could be used?
  • "after the first of two-days' play" => "after the first of two days' play"
  • Note a needs a full stop
  • So does note n :-)
  • That's what I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:48, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many thanks, ChrisTheDude. I've amended the aticle. I moved the part about Griffiths becoming a professional into the Early professional career section (and added the opponents and scores for his English Amateur Championship wins into "Early years"). Let me know if there's anything else. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:43, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • @BennyOnTheLoose: sorry to be a pain, but I'd still rather not have the two section headings "Early professional career" and "Professional career". The former implies a subset of the latter, which just doesn't seem right, especially given that the section currently headed simply "professional career" covers only his "declining" years. Maybe it would be as simple as changing the latter to "Later professional career (1983–1997)"? Or even just having all of his pro career as one level 2 section subdivided into 1978–1982, 1983–1989, etc......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:23, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport

[edit]
  • In the lead, "Griffiths became world champion when he won the 1979 World Snooker Championship" feels redundant. The lead also makes so mention of Griffiths's lengthy amateur career, even though he did not turn pro until he was 30 and won significant titles before that point. I'd suggest this as a revision: After winning several amateur titles, including back-to-back English Amateur Championships in 1977 and 1978, Griffiths turned professional in June 1978. He qualified for the 1979 World Snooker Championship, his second professional tournament, and went on to defeat Dennis Taylor by 24 frames to 16 in the final, becoming the second qualifier to win the world title after Alex Higgins in 1972; only Shaun Murphy has emulated the feat since, in 2005.
  • Full stop needed after Ding Junhui in the last sentence of the lead.
  • I'd suggest that the section heads under Professional career should be formatted as 1978–82, etc. — the second year in a date span does not need four digits unless it falls in a different century (e.g., 1992–2002).
  • "was also playing in his first world-championship final" --> "was also playing in his first World Championship final" (caps, no hyphen).
  • "His first appearance at the Masters, it was his only win there." This could be confusing, as it may suggest Griffiths never again won a match at the Masters, when of course he did. I'd suggest: It was his first Masters appearance and his only Masters title, although he was runner-up at the event three times in the subsequent four years.
  • I might elaborate on the Crucible curse in the context of Griffiths, as he was the first. Suggested edit: With this first-round defeat, Griffiths became the first victim of the so-called "Crucible curse," a term later adopted to describe the failure of any first-time champion to defend their title at the venue.
  • No need to hyphenate team-mates — teammates is fine.
  • He also won the 1982 Irish Masters, defeating Davis 9–5. --> He also won the 1982 Irish Masters, his third consecutive title at the event, defeating Davis 9–5 in the final.
  • "After Davis was unexpectedly defeated by Tony Knowles in the first round of the World Championship that year, Griffiths became the bookmakers' favourite for the title he also lost in the first round, however, to Willie Thorne." Needs fixes for grammar. Would suggest: After Tony Knowles's surprise 10–1 win over Davis in the first round of the 1982 World Championship, Griffiths became the bookmakers' favourite for the title. However, Griffiths also exited in the first round, losing 6–10 to Willie Thorne.
  • "Griffiths never again won a ranking event." This was actually true since his first world title — Griffiths won only one ranking title in his career — so I'm not sure why it's dropped in at this point in the article. It may misleadingly suggest that the previously described wins were at ranking events.
  • The narrative of the 1986 World Championship could be fixed for chronology. How about: Two months before the 1986 World Snooker Championship, Griffiths began working with coach Frank Callan. After eliminating Higgins 13–12 in the last 16, he praised Callan for helping his game: "I tried to do the right things myself for three years ... Frank has knitted it all together for me. I didn't think anyone knew that much about snooker." He led eventual winner Johnson 12–9 in their quarter-final match, but Johnson won four consecutive frames, two with century breaks, for a 13–12 victory.
  • "Griffiths again reached the final of the World Snooker Championship in 1988, defeating Steve Longworth, Willie Thorne, Neal Foulds and Jimmy White, to reach the final before losing to Davis 11–18." No need to say twice in the same sentence that Griffiths reached the final. Suggested revision: At the 1988 World Snooker Championship, Griffiths defeated Steve Longworth, Willie Thorne, Neal Foulds and Jimmy White to reach his second world final, but lost 11–18 to defending champion Davis.
  • "After a 4–1 lead against John Parrott, Griffiths saw his opponent level the match at 4–4 by the end of the first session." Overly wordy? Suggested revision: Although Griffiths won four of the first five frames, Parrott tied the scores at 4–4 after the first session.
  • "Griffiths moved back into sixth place after the 1991–92 season, reaching two ranking tournament semi-finals and the semi-final of the 1992 World Championship with victories over Bob Chaperon, Neal Foulds and Peter Ebdon before losing to Stephen Hendry." This is a bit confusing as the World Championship is itself a ranking event. Suggested revision: Griffiths moved back into sixth place after the 1991–92 season, during which he reached three ranking semi-finals, including the semi-finals of the 1992 World Championship, where he scored victories over Bob Chaperon, Neal Foulds and Peter Ebdon before losing to Stephen Hendry.
  • I find the presentation of Griffiths's retirement confusing. The article suggests that he retired after the 1996 World Championship when he was ranked 23rd in the world. Then it notes that he went on to play Mark Williams in the first round of the 1997 World Championship and says he retired at the end of the 1996–97 season, a year later than previously stated. Some clarification could be useful here.
  • As winner of the world championship, UK championship and Masters during his career --> As winner of the World Championship, UK Championship and Masters during his career
  • "He has coached a number of top players, including Mark Williams, Marco Fu, Mark Allen, Ali Carter, Joe Perry, Barry Hawkins, Ding Junhui, Stephen Hendry and Stephen Maguire." Maybe put this list of players in alphabetical order?

Thank you! HurricaneHiggins (talk) 12:41, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Lee Vilenski

[edit]

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

Lede
  • He qualified for the 1979 World Snooker Championship, his second professional tournament, and went on to defeat Dennis Taylor by 24 frames to 16 in the final, becoming the second qualifier to win the world title after Alex Higgins in 1972; only Shaun Murphy has emulated the feat since, in 2005. - this is somehow one sentence. I'd rewrite In his second professional tournament, he qualified for the 1979 World Snooker Championship. He reached the final of the event where he defeated Dennis Taylor by 24 frames to 16. This was only the second time a qualifier had won the World Snooker Championship, after Alex Higgins in 1972 (and since only emulated by Shaun Murphy in 2005). Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:05, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Prose
Additional comments

Additionally, if you liked this review, or are looking for items to review, I have some at my nominations list. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 17:36, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Lee Vilenski. Ive made amendments to the lead. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 08:36, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Lee Vilenski, is there more to come? Gog the Mild (talk) 17:32, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Lee ? Gog the Mild (talk) 17:02, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review (voorts)

[edit]

To come. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:43, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Everything looks good, and the sources are high quality, except for my notes below.

  • For citing books, instead of repeating the cite each time and changing the page number parameters, why not use the {{sfn}} and list the books in a separate section in the references?
  • Sometimes BBC and its sub-outlets (e.g., BBC Sport) are italicized and sometimes not. This should be consistent.
  • Some of the publications are wikilinked (e.g., Snooker Scene) and others are not (e.g., BBC and The Times). This should also be consistent.
  • Change "Sixth ed.", "Seventh ed.", etc. to "6th ed.", "7th ed.", etc.
  • The publisher and location for Snooker Scene is not necessary.
  • Chris Turner's Snooker Archive is an SPS and I'm not sure it meets the "high quality" requirement for FAC. In any event, the citations to that source are inconsistently formatted (compare, e.g., ref 34 and ref 67 to refs 62–66).
  • The cites to Snooker Database are inconsistent. Also, the original site appears to be down. Finally, it appears to be an SPS.
  • Snooker.org is also an SPS and I have the same concerns about quality.
  • I've changed the source as it was easy to do so. It would be interesting to hear more about your concerns, as snooker.org is often used, e.g. it was for Cliff Thorburn. BennyOnTheLoose (talk)
  • Ref 1: I'm not sure if Snooker Zone is an RS. There's no editorial policy and it's run by just one person, but he has been covering Snooker for a long time. Also, the title needs fixing, as it is displaying as follows: "Three Top Tips from the Master Snooker Coach "Griff" Terry Griffiths…". (Note the double quotes for Griff and the random characters at the end.)
  • Ref 2: I'm a bit confused by the structure here; is this a cite to an article about the Queen or about Griffiths?
  • Ref 9: Use the edition parameter.
  • Ref 13: Needs cites to page numbers.
  • Ref 37: Needs a page number.
  • Ref 39: Needs a publisher.
  • It's a self-published source - see here for something on Downer, including a claim that the annual Almanac has "become a key resource for commentators and journalists alike". Snooker journalist Dave Hendon wrote (about the 2010 edition) that it was "A major undertaking for Downer, whose efforts should be applauded. The almanac has become indispensible during the championship and is as comprehensive a reference resource as any sporting event could hope for."(Hendon, Dave, "New Almanac ready", Snooker Scene, September 2010, p.30) BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 09:02, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 42: Title needs to be capitalized.

That's all I've got. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:07, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, Voorts. Let me know if anything else is required. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:24, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@BennyOnTheLoose: I will get to this today or tomorrow. Please ping me if you don't hear from me after 48 hours. voorts (talk/contributions) 13:07, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
One more thing: Ref 73 should use bullets for multiple sources, like ref 94. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:05, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Voorts, I've amended that. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:55, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed. If you have time, BennyOnTheLoose, would you mind taking a look at this FAC? In particular, it needs a source review and spot check. Best, voorts (talk/contributions) 23:52, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from JennyOz

[edit]

Hi Benny, thanks for this bio. I have a few comments...

Lede

  • It was his the only ranking event victory - remove his
  • reached the final of the 1989 European Open - tweak link
  • tournaments, Griffiths' determination - Griffiths' s

Professional career 1978–1982

  • potting the pink ball and went in off, - in off link needs fix
  • and Jim Meadowcroft 9–6 - add link
  • and the first to win it at the Crucible - add location?
  • in front of a 2,323 spectators - remove a
  • His first appearance at the Masters,[26] It was his first Masters appearance - something awry here
  • so-called "Crucible curse," a term later - move comma outside quotes
  • Griffiths and his Wales teammates retained the 1980 World Challenge Cup for Wales, - are both "Wales" necessary? or maybe, 'and his Welsh teammates'?
  • he moved up four places in the rankings to 10th - no ranking previously mentioned
  • after Davis recovered from 3–8 to 8–8 - after Davis had recovered?

1983-1989

  • I tried to do the right things myself for three years ... Frank has - format ellipsis
  • He took the Pot Black title in 1984 - this one out of chronological order?
  • defending champion Davis.[19][41]The players had - add space

1989-1997

  • to sixth, at the end of the season.[45]The - add space
  • fell from sixth to 11th place at - mos:num, make both same format
  • he reached three ranking semi-finals, including the semi-finals of the 1992 World Championship - no need to repeat semi-finals? perhaps 'including that of the 1992'
  • His best performance at a ranking tournament the following season was the - link 1992–93 snooker season
  • "natural flair."[55] Burn - move full stop out of quote

Later career

  • Griffiths resigned as the WPBSA director - add this acronym at first mention of World Professional Billiards and Snooker Association

Career finals

  • Sources for the ranking and ron-ranking final - typo non

Notes

  • note k Snooker Scene reported - add italics

References

  • cite 13 Everton 2012, p. 73–74. - pp
  • cite 34 Everton 2012, p. 95–96. - pp

Template

  • BBC Cymru Wales Sports Personality of the Year - mention this accolade in prose?

Misc

  • no available bio info on marriage, family? (only mention is "His son, Wayne Griffiths, is head snooker coach...")

I have not checked the various tables. Pls let me know if you need clarification on any of my notes. JennyOz (talk) 03:13, 25 September 2023 (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) 27 September 2023 [3].

Dark Archives

[edit]
Nominator(s): Vaticidalprophet 01:22, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think about, when you think about books bound in human skin? Some people think of the French Revolution, the rumoured revolutionary tanneries spreading in propaganda; others think of Nazi Germany, the same grotesque mass dehumanization as the supposed lampshades made from human skin; yet others think of serial killers, individual evil, one-off aberrations of a society that knows better. They're all wrong. The nineteenth-century fad of anthropodermic bibliopegy (I assure you that's what the author calls it) was a practice of respected doctors, high-profile and high-status men acting with the approval of their peers and doing things they never doubted the virtue of for a moment. Medical ethics is a recent creation, a historical aberration; even in the middle of the previous century it wasn't a given that medical school cadavers gave their consent beforehand. Earlier? Do what thou wilt.

Dark Archives is an absolutely fascinating book on this subject. Our article on it, as a minor side effect, actually provides more and clearer background on anthropodermic bibliopegy than the article at that title does. (It's on the list! I'll get to it!) I wrote this explicitly intending FAC, and have gotten it as far as I can on my own; it recently passed a highly complimentary GAN by Premeditated Chaos and survived a solid-views DYK without major issue. Over to you. Vaticidalprophet 01:22, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]
  • File:Dark_Archives_cover.png could use a more expansive purpose of use statement, and is the author also the cover designer?
Cover designer and US tag have been added respectively. The purpose of use statement is the one the upload wizard fills in for book covers (which can't be edited in the wizard) -- is there anything particular that's missing to add now? Will bring it up at the FUW's talk to get that fixed in the future if so. Vaticidalprophet 04:31, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, that's interesting. The version provided by the book-specific template is more comprehensive. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:14, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've replaced it with the infobox version from the book template and will see who to poke about possibly expanding the FUW version. Vaticidalprophet 04:00, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support

[edit]

Comments by Bneu2013

[edit]

Will have comments tomorrow. Working on something else at the moment. Bneu2013 (talk) 01:17, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Suggest linking first use of "DNA testing" in Background section to Genetic testing.
  • Since this is an article about a book by an American author, shouldn't "rumour" be "rumor"? Ditto for any other British English uses that I missed.
  • Suggest changing link appearance of "New York Times" to "The New York Times".

Support pending comments are addressed. Excellent article. Bneu2013 (talk) 06:12, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much, Bneu2013! I believe these should all be addressed. Vaticidalprophet 09:54, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome! Lending my full support now. I'd appreciate if someone else would be willing to take a look at one of my FACs. Bneu2013 (talk) 17:06, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Ian

[edit]

Recusing coord duties to review, it's a fascinating topic and the article reads well. Copyedited per my usual practice, pls let me know if any concerns. I'm leaning support but will await a source review before committing. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:49, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Rose, the article has had a source review now if you're still interested -- thanks so much for being willing to review! Vaticidalprophet 15:08, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ian. I would normally be thinking about looking at this with a view to closing, but your comment is outstanding. Is it still your intention to review? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:07, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I noticed the source review had finished and was considering the Archeota thing -- I not sure how we'd class a student publication as a HQRS so I'd be more comfortable ditching it. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:42, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've just been able to replace that one between two other cites (the NYT review by Hamblin and an LA Times article). Vaticidalprophet 21:56, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good show, happy to support. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:19, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Golden

[edit]

I only have two small comments:

  • I suggest providing a brief description of the Anthropodermic Book Project and its activities.
  • In the Scholarship section, the term Anthropodermic bibliopegy is linked for the second time in the article body. — Golden talk 14:41, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I give some context on the ABP in the synopsis -- they're mostly involved in PMF testing (I assume they do some kind of...outreach?, but I can't find much details on it). Is there any particular context in the background you'd like? I tried to think of ways to revise it, but I ended up with clunky sentences when I did. Regarding the duplink, WP:DUPLINK now permits one-link-per-section rather than one-link-in-the-whole-body. Vaticidalprophet 02:49, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see. That provides sufficient context. I had just expected to see it mentioned at the first reference to the project. — Golden talk 10:48, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support, following the source review. Very good article. — Golden talk 23:46, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from PMC

[edit]

Putting down my marker for a source review. I reviewed this at GAN and found all my prose concerns resolved by the end, so I'm also a support on prose. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:26, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Optional, but author-link may be useful in refs 2 (and 8, 10, 12, 13, 14), 5, and 17
  • All refs are appropriately archived where useful
  • Refs to the primary source are limited and appropriate - referencing things discussed in the book, for example
  • The majority of the sources appear suitable - for the most part, the article relies on scholarly journals, reliable newspapers, and science magazines. A couple of outliers:
    • Archeota is a student publication from San Jose State University. Although it's only used once, it seems to be backing up something non-contentious that's already referenced by a reliable source. Is it necessary?
    • Nerdist is more blog than anything else. Can you sub it for a better source?

That's all I have. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:35, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've swapped out Nerdist for a primary interview with UCLA and a conference paper, which is hopefully good enough (coverage is weirdly sparse of exactly what she does even though everyone's enthusiastic to talk vaguely about the connection). Archeota is hard -- I couldn't actually find anyone else clearly say "she went to Europe and America, and nowhere else" rather than vague allusions. Vaticidalprophet 05:17, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's reasonable. I'm a full support on sourcing and prose. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:31, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SC

[edit]
SchroCat ? Gog the Mild (talk) 16:59, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, soz. Been hectic at work for a week or two - will be here shortly. - SchroCat (talk) 18:00, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Background
  • "A book on the human soul merits that it be given human clothing". I'm not a fan of this at all. It's got no context and, according to MOS:BLOCKQUOTE, a blockquote should only be for forty words or more. We don't tend to have pithy quotes at the start of chapters or sections – that's for books. As a quote box to the side, it may be OK, but not at the start of the body of an article. This would probably be better a bit lower in the description of why some people did this.
  • I presume this is in AmEng? If so, it may have fallen out of favor, not "out of favour"
Synopsis
  • "librarianism": is that actually a word? Even if it is, is there a way to rephrase it to something that doesn't sound made up?!
    • I ended up removing 'in librarianism' -- it wasn't a great phrasing in the first place. Not sure if it's necessary, as I thought while originally writing that, to specify "other librarians, rather than specifically only members of the Anthropodermic Book Project" (who come from multiple backgrounds). Vaticidalprophet 11:18, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "discourage their public reveal": is this OK in AmEng? It jars my BrEng ear, but is it's fine in the US, then no problem
Research and publication
  • "disagreed with Rosenbloom's attitude": I'm not sure you've made her point of view clear yet. You've done excellent work outlining the contents, but not her position or thoughts on the practice.
    • Ye-es, will work on that. The Rosenbloom-Needham juxtaposition is the biggest example, but a little hard to fit into the already-very-full synopsis; I'll take a look at what can be revised.
  • This section has only one very short paragraph on the publication. Is there nothing else available to discuss? (Any second editions or reprints, in audiobook format, sales details, book lists, etc. Probably not, or you would have already included them, I'm sure, but worth asking.
    • Certainly worth asking. Book sale numbers tend to be very sad, and accordingly not well-publicized. Even getting much on the agency is unusually good. It's possible this can be expanded over time (we're not so far from publication for the book to have many editions yet), so I'm looking towards it from a future-proofing/living-document perspective. I like your suggestion about combining the recommendations, and will see what can be done there. Vaticidalprophet 11:18, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reception
  • I have a bit of an issue with the first paragraph here. It's broad and sweeping in the claims it makes, but bases those claims on only two reviews. The opening sentence "Dark Archives received generally positive reviews" needs a citation as it's OR at the moment. The rest of the paragraph has a series of claims (such as "Commentators discussed", "Several reviewers", "stances were also a subject of reviews" etc) that make this look like a meta review of reviews of the work, but the two sources are just two standalone reviews for the book.
  • "The book was praised by reviewers for its depth of scholarship and its reckoning with ethical issues." Again this is OR and needs a source (even if the sources you use elsewhere in the paragraph are dropped in here to justify it, it still needs a citation)
  • "The writing style, aesthetic sensibility, and philosophical leans of Dark Archives attracted attention from reviewers": Another introductory sentence to a paragraph that is OR without citations
    • Yes, all of these are tricky. I've had the opposite query in the past re. "subsections have insufficient context" and am trying to find the neither-decontextualization-nor-OR middle ground. I've cited the first sentence of "Scholarship" and have currently commented out the other two while deliberating what to do with them. I really wasn't happy with the introductory paragraph myself, so am mulling over it a little, but expect it'll probably be removed. Vaticidalprophet 11:18, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Rosenbloom is a high-profile member of the death-positive movement": the first part of this paragraph would be better suited to the background section. You can then start with "Sheilah Ayers at the University of Lethbridge..."
  • "criticised" x 2 -> "criticized"
Recommendations
  • Is it worth moving this up to the "publication" paragraph? It's a topic that straddles both reception and publication and you're thin on one and full on the other. Just a thought and I'll leave it to you.

Interesting piece – I'll have to get hold of a copy of the book now. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 19:36, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for your comments! I've given first replies to most of them and will work towards resolving the lot soon. Vaticidalprophet 11:18, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Working updates: I've tweaked the reception section somewhat to cite more clearly (if creating a bit of a taxi-cab ref rank effect) -- this and other changes can be compared in this diff. I'm still thinking about a good way to make Rosenbloom's stances clearer in Synopsis, but should hopefully get that sorted soon. Vaticidalprophet 16:26, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Vat - just let me know when you're ready for another look and I'll pop back. If you need any suggestions or thoughts, just ask. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 12:12, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Vaticidalprophet, how are you getting on with addressing SC's comments? Gog the Mild (talk) 16:50, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think I'm alright for the reception now and should hopefully have the synopsis resolved in the next couple days for another look (am drafting revisions offwiki). Vaticidalprophet 17:58, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Vaticidalprophet, it has been nearly a week, how is this going? Gog the Mild (talk) 16:59, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've restructured the reception somewhat to make the links between citations and statements clearer, and back up some trickier things (e.g. the generalized "positive reception" statement is now sourced to the aggregator Book Marks). This also saw it trimmed a little, which I hope is okay. The synopsis has been expanded to explicitly mention the range in views on this topic -- I think it's still okay on length. I'm struggling with the quote -- I don't see a good place for it much further down, and I think it genuinely works where it is. SchroCat, what are your thoughts at the moment? Vaticidalprophet 00:08, 27 September 2023 (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) 27 September 2023 [4].

John D. Whitney

[edit]
Nominator(s): Ergo Sum 14:23, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about an American university president and Jesuit who had a fascinating life story. While in the Navy, he converted to Catholicism because he happened to recover a book that had fallen into the sea, read it, and began thinking about his religious beliefs. He then became a university professor and later the president of Georgetown University. Should this FAC pass, it will raise the presidents of Georgetown University good topic to featured topic status. Ergo Sum 14:23, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PCN02WPS

[edit]

I am fond of university president articles (see here if you fancy giving my college president FAC a look) so I'm happy to review this. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 00:31, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I will try to give that a look this week. Ergo Sum 18:13, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

Early life

Georgetown University

  • "was opened, and the first patient" → remove comma
  • "That year, he also received a donation" → this may be picky, but did Whitney receive the donation or did Georgetown?
  • Is there any reason given as to why the dental school was eventually accepted into the school of medicine?
  • "It would eventually become" → "It eventually became" per WP:WOULDCHUCK (which is an essay, but one that I particularly like)
    • I think there is a place for "would." In this instance, it suggests that it happen in the distant rather than immediate future, specifically outside the timeframe of Whitney's presidency. Ergo Sum 18:04, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Later years

Misc

  • In the academic offices box near the bottom of the page, is there a reason why no successor prefect of St. Ignatius is listed?

That's all for now, I'll circle back for another look when you're ready. As a note - I will likely be quite busy with real-life stuff tomorrow so I might not be able to get back to this until Thursday, but I will try to avoid keeping you waiting for too long. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 02:55, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@PCN02WPS: Thank you for your review. Ergo Sum 18:13, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just a couple more things I spotted on my second read-through: "Whitney's tenure as president came to end" should be "came to an end", and I'd link Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians as part of the citation for George 1972. Also, the fact that he was specifically the 32nd president is not mentioned in the body of the article, so I think it would be good to include that with a source. All of my spotchecks looked good so it's just these things as far as I'm concerned, though I would fix the link to Easby-Smith so that the reference doesn't automatically open to pages 226-227; I'd say either have it open to the start of the book or to p.211 since that's the beginning of the page range mentioned in the citation. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 20:09, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed phrasing. Added journal link. The Easby-Smith link for me does already go to page 211. As for the number of his presidency, this has been a discussion on other FACs I've done for university presidents. It's often difficult to find a source that states the number of a particular presidency, and I'm of the opinion that it's one of those minor but useful details that need not be cited because it's evident and can be inferred from e.g. the List of presidents of Georgetown University. Ergo Sum 14:37, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fixes are good and the book link is fine since I realized it just opens to whichever page the user was last on, rather than going to 211 by default. I only brought up the ordinal of his presidency because it was brought up at my last FAC, where I was able to find a source but only because the source was specifically about her in its entirety, rather than just giving her a mention or a blurb. I'm okay with your reasoning (and might adopt your opinion on the subject as my own should I ever run into that on a nomination of mine in the future). Happy to support the FAC. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 19:12, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MyCatIsAChonk

[edit]

Ergo Sum, that's all I got, nice job! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 14:17, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your review, @MyCatIsAChonk:. Ergo Sum 14:44, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 17:40, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Golden

[edit]
  • The "Jesuits" article is linked twice in the lead.
    • The reason I did that is because one is linked from "Jesuits" and the other from "Society of Jesus". To those not familiar with the Jesuits or Catholicism, generally, it is not obvious that those two terms refer to the same thing. Ergo Sum 14:22, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • Perhaps writing "Society of Jesus (Jesuit Order)" would resolve the issue? — Golden talk 14:36, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • My inclination is to leave it as is. Adding parenthetical asides in the lead, in my opinion, breaks up the flow of what is meant to be an overview section. I think the reader should be able to infer from the fact that he was a Jesuit (first sentence) and that he entered the Society of Jesus (later), in conjunction with those two links, that the two are the same organization. This is the setup I have used in other FAs. Ergo Sum 14:42, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we have any information at all about Thomas G. Whitney? What made the family prominent?
  • "His mother was a devout Congregationalist and he was raised in that faith." - To avoid repeating "his mother" in close proximity, you could rephrase the sentence as: "Esther was a devout Congregationalist and raised John in that faith."
  • Could you provide a brief description of the Sisters of the Good Shepherd?

I have no further suggestions. This was a brief but pleasant read. Well done! — Golden talk 09:06, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Golden: Thank you for your review. Ergo Sum 14:23, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy with the changes. Support. — Golden talk 14:47, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

I'll take a look over this. Harrias (he/him) • talk 13:41, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Harrias ? Gog the Mild (talk) 17:57, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Cough! Gog the Mild (talk) 12:20, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Harrias, you still onto this one? Cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:13, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for the delay on this. Harrias (he/him) • talk 15:37, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most citations are formatted consistently in an appropriate format for a FA, with just a couple of minor issues:
  • Does "Easby-Smith, James Stanislaus (1907)" needs the middle name written out; the source itself appears to just have "Easby-Smith, James S." Your call though. Also, there is no need for the page range to be given here, although again, it is no biggie.
  • In "Delany, Joseph F.; Farrelly, Stephen; Meehan, Thomas F., eds. (December 1917)" the "S.J." needs to be spaced out to "S. J." per our MOS.
    • I'm not familiar with an MOS provision concerning this. In the source here, S.J. contains no space, and the convention for post-nominal letters for Catholic religious orders, generally, and the Jesuits, in particular, generally do not put a space between the letters. Ergo Sum 14:11, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't matter, the MoS requires a space. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:51, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've implemented the change, but can you point me to a spot in the MOS? I'm genuinely curious and would like to know for future reference. Ergo Sum 02:44, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I hadn't twigged that they were post-nominals. In the case of post-nominals, the MOS says they should only be included "at relevant places in the main body of a biography subject's own article, in an infobox parameter for post-nominals, when the post-nominals themselves are under discussion in the material, and in other special circumstances such as a list of recipients of an award or other honour". However, I gather they are part of the title of the article, so I would suggest that they should remain, but be styled as post-nominals normally as, such as in the lead of this article, without full-stops at all: "Necrology: Rev. John Dunning Whitney, SJ." Harrias (he/him) • talk 15:08, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • All the sources used individually appear to meet our criteria as reliable sources. However, I have a slight concern that the article is heavily based on sources which could have bias. The subject of the article was a Catholic priest and Jesuit notable as president of Georgetown University. The most heavily used source is the Woodstock Letters, a periodical publication by the Society of Jesus. Following that is what appears a history of Georgetown University written by someone from Georgetown University and an article from a journal published by the United States Catholic Historical Society. A further history of Georgetown University was published by Georgetown University Press, leaving only the "Catalogue of Loyola College, Baltimore" and "Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians", both of which support a single sentence each as independent sources. @FAC coordinators: I would appreciate some guidance on whether it is felt that this meets our requirements for sourcing. Harrias (he/him) • talk 15:37, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just to register my two cents here: I have used the Woodstock Letters extensively in many other FAs and GAs without issue. With rare exception (which primarily only occurs in some of the very earliest WL issues), I have found them to be entirely neutral and balanced when it comes to factual accounts and I am frequently able to verify the facts with other sources. Of course, WL also contains some degree of eulogy in those articles that are obituaries, but I have not observed any of the factual portions to be inaccurate or slanted. Plus, in an article like this and other historical Jesuit academics I have written about, there are just very few sources that go into a lot of detail, so WL is usually the most detailed and extensive. Ergo Sum 14:14, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Harrias (and @FAC coordinators: for information), I take your point and share your concern. Can I just check that we are all agreed that the sources used are all "high-quality". If so, then the MoS and the FAC criteria have little to say about how a series of individually acceptable sources may raise concerns in the aggregate. Assuming that there are no other HQ sources which could be used instead - especially for any more subjective parts of the prose - or which contradict - however subtly - the sources used, then ES has done the best they can with what there is. Which is what Wikipedia and FAC is about. Many academics have axes to grind, but we trust the editorial processes of the works in which they publish to keep them in check.
I generalise broadly here, so feel free to come back for further guidance/opinion/waffle. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:39, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, many sources could be considered biased one way or another, but it is certainly not typical to source most of the material for a FA article to sources that are not independent or have a COI with the subject. I would not nominate an article for FAC if I could not source it from mostly independent sources. However, the difficulty with university related subjects is that a lot of the available sources are published by the university and/or its university press, etc. (t · c) buidhe 14:24, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Buidhe and Gog the Mild: my reading of the above is that although a legitimate question has been raised we're not seeing it as a barrier in this case to the source review passing (and leaving the way open to promotion, all other things being equal) -- is that a fair observation? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:42, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is what I was attempting to communicate in my response. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:51, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Harrias, this is probably ready for you to revisit. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:59, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, with that coord confirmation, I'm happy to mark this as a pass for sources. Harrias (he/him) • talk 07:14, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass

[edit]

All images are appropriately licensed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:53, 3 September 2023 (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) 24 September 2023 [5].

Ohmdenosaurus

[edit]
Nominator(s): Jens Lallensack (talk) 11:48, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A little-known dinosaur whose carcass underwent a long and complicated journey before being deposited in the open ocean. As the first description of this genus is in German, this article is, to my knowledge, the only comprehensive account of the topic in English. Jens Lallensack (talk) 11:48, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

[edit]

Recusing to review.

  • Any chance of a location map show where the specimen was found?
Found and added one. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:04, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the only species is Ohmdenosaurus liasicus." Could that be 'the only known species' or similar?
Fixed. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:04, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "3–4 m (9.8–13.1 ft)". The conversion seems to be spuriously accurate.
Yes, fixed. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:04, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and contained abundant and well-preserved fossils". 'contains'?
Of course, fixed. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:04, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "transported by predators or water currents by at least 100 km". i am unsure that "by" is necessary.
It isn't, removed. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:04, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 1862, Hauff presented an ichthyosaur specimen". You sure about that date? (Seventy-four years before he opened the museum.)
Oops! I made a mistake, it was 1892! Good spot! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:04, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "small remains of fish", Does this mean the remains of small fish, or small fragments of the remains of fish?
The latter, fixed. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:04, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This makes it one of the earliest sauropods known at the time." Known at what time?
The time of first description. I hope I made it clear now. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:04, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It was also the only fossil of a terrestrial saurian known from the Toarcian". Is this still the case?
No, as above, hopefully fixed. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:04, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:08, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reviewing, Gog. I hope I addressed all your comments so far. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:04, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, thank you very much! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 13:28, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from SilverTiger

[edit]
  • Exhibited in a local museum, the Urweltmuseum Hauff, it caught the attention of... Perhaps rephrase to "While being exhibited in local museum,.."
I fear that "while" implies that there was a time when the fossil was not exhibited, but it always was. I tried to formulate it differently, please see if this works. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:53, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • ..and later also to extract oil. "and later to also extract oil."
Done. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:53, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wild recognised the specimen as a misidentified dinosaur fossil, borrowed the specimen for study, and carried out additional preparation. He recognised it as a dinosaur fossil, "misidentified" is redundant here.
Yes of course, changed. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:53, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The fossil, which has no specimen number, consists of .. Is it still the case that it has no specimen number?
Still no specimen number as far as I know. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:53, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • It had long been part of the museum's collection and was collected from one of the early quarries near the village.. Suggest rephrasing to "It had long been part of the museum's collection after it was collected from one of the early quarries near the village.."
I prefer "having been", and changed accordingly, what do you think? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:53, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Having been" works even better, thank you. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 17:43, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • This rock indicates that the fossil stems from the Unterer Schiefer.. "comes from", or "was found in". "Stems" has a different connotation that doesn't fit here.
fixed. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:53, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • ..and in this case might have been preserved thanks to the impregnation of calcium salts. Impregnation? What is that supposed to mean here?
Ah, "impregnation with", probably. Changed. Impregnation means that the fossil is soaked with calcium salts. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:53, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I assume impregnation is the technically correct term here, although it carries vastly different meaning for most people. Since I can't think of a good way to rephrase it, though, I won't suggest changing it further. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 17:43, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to "absorption" which I think should mean the same, does this work better? Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:00, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thank you. SilverTiger12 (talk) 18:59, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • ..the area of the ankle that experienced the highest stresses in the living animal,.. "the area..that experiences the highest stresses in living animals,.."
Changed to "in life", hope that works as well (as I'm not sure it should be generalised to other living animals). --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:53, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, if its meant to refer to sauropods specifically there... well, I don't know enough about how certain that is a hypothesis to really suggest changing it further. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 17:43, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wild only said it would have been the area of highest stress in the living animal, so I am careful with implying that it is the same in every other animal. Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:54, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Later, however, the Vulcanodontidae has been demonstrated to be polyphyletic (does not form a natural group) and therefore fell out of use. -> "Later, however, the Vulcanodontidae was demonstrated to be polyphyletic (not forming a natural group) and therefore fell out of use."
Changed accordingly. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:53, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why are there no cladograms in the Classification section?
There is only a single published cladogram that would qualify. All other studies decided to not include this taxon because it is too fragmentary, and this still seems to be consensus (one other study included it but found it to be instable). I think not including the cladogram would maybe better reflect the scientific consensus, and more honest to our readers. What do you think? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:53, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd prefer a cladogram, both for the normal reasons and also because the Classification section as it currently is, is something of a wall of unrelieved text. A cladogram adds variety and illustration. SilverTiger12 (talk) 17:34, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@FunkMonk: Can we have your opinion please? I am undecided. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:40, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, if I had written the article, I would have included it just for completism/context, but I can see it may be a bit "undue", as most readers would just see that as the final word. Is it this "In 2020, Oliver Rauhut and colleagues included Ohmdenosaurus in a phylogenetic analysis, but found it to be unstable as it was placed in different positions in the tree by different variants of the analysis"? If so, could be interesting to at least state the different positions in prose? FunkMonk (talk) 18:54, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It would be the cladogram from the 2022 article (the last mentioned in the "Systematics" section). I think I will include it, then, also because this study has a whole paragraph of discussion on Ohmdenosaurus, so it is clearly relevant. Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:18, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I now added the cladogram, but it looks a big ugly. Any ideas for a better layout? Thanks. Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:50, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have some close-ups or other angles of the fossil that could be used to fill up the white space? FunkMonk (talk) 08:32, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have. Not very good ones because the specimen is behind glass in poor light. I will see what I can come up with later. Alternatively, I wonder if it is possible to get the cladogram in a box so that it behaves like an image, with text flowing around? Jens Lallensack (talk) 11:44, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'm sure someone at WP:treereq should be able to do what. FunkMonk (talk) 11:53, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • ..the tibia and ankle were found in articulation,.. I suggest "the tibia and ankle were still articulated when found," and link articulated if there is an appropriate article/section.
Yes, did that. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:53, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The life restoration needs alt-text.
Added. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:53, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am happy to hear that! Thank you for your review. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:53, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Since all that is left is the cladogram, which I do not consider an absolute requirement, I am going to Support. SilverTiger12 (talk) 19:00, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from The Morrison Man

[edit]

Just leaving a quick note here that I'm stepping in to review the article. Currently working through it, and should be able to provide my comments within a day. The Morrison Man (talk) 20:55, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • ...it might have been close to - I'd change this to something akin to "it might have been closely related to", I think it would read more clearly
Fixed, and also updated to reflect the most recent study. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:52, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is the only dinosaur fossil known from the shale. - Paleobiota of the Posidonia Shale seems to indicate otherwise. Maybe you're referring to the fact that it’s the only named dinosaur fossil from the shale?
That article is highly problematic because it contains huge amounts of WP:OR. The other dinosaur fossil listed there is based on a study from 1956, which predates all Ohmdenosaurus sources (which clearly say Ohmdenosaurus is the only dinosaur fossil so far). While I do not have that 1956 article (which is somewhat obscure), the WP article states this alledged dinosaur fossil is a sauropodiform, but that clade was only named much later, so this information cannot possibly be in the cited 1956 soure. I therefore want to ignore it. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:52, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was unaware of the problematic nature of the article, apologies!
  • ...that preserves - Should "preserves" not be in past tense here?
Hmm, I don't think so, since the geodes are still present? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:52, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, of course! Oversight on my end
  • ...determined the dinosaur fossil - I'd add "that" inbetween "determined" and "the"
Added, thanks. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:52, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...the Lias, an old name for the Lower Jurassic of Europe - Was this term used unilaterally or only in certain areas? Might be a nice addition to include if it was specific to a certain area.
Hmm, yes, only in Europe, but I already mention that? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:52, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'll consider this fixed then
  • Between tibia and astragalus… - “Between the tibia and astragalus”?
Of course, fixed. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:52, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...cartilage covering - I think this would read better if changed to “cartilaginous covering”
OK, changed. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:52, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sauropodomorpha consists of the quadrupedal sauropods, - Were some early sauropodomorphs not bipedal? I might be misremembering, but if so it might be good to include something like “of the mostly quadrupedal sauropods”.
Yes, but I only say "quadrupedal sauropods", and all sauropods were quadrupedal as far as we know. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:52, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't pose an issue in clarity either when reading through it again, so thats good!
  • ...probably needs to be - Should “needs” here not be in past tense?
I don't think so, because this is what Wild stated, and from his perspective, it should be present tense. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:52, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ohmdenosaurus is the only known dinosaur fossil from this formation - Same concern as listed in my second comment.
See reply above.

Here are all of my comments so far. I should mention that this was an absolute joy to read! The Morrison Man (talk) 08:23, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your review, and that is great to hear! I addressed all of the above. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:52, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Left some comments on your replies, but overall I do believe that everything has been addressed properly. Good work! The Morrison Man (talk) 13:24, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image and source review

[edit]
I presume that File:Ohmdenosaurus-holotype.png is not literally ripped off the source, yes? I wonder if File:Ohmden in ES.svg can be made a little larger. Only one image has ALT text. Image disposition appears to be reasonable.

Regarding sources, reviewing this version. I presume the inconsistent identifiers (DOIs, bibcodes etc.) are due to the sources having different identifiers (e.g not all sources have an ISSN?). It seems like all sources are reliable and suited for their tasks. Were these sources consulted and ruled out before application? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:59, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! To your points:
  • File:Ohmdenosaurus-holotype.png is my own work, based on a photograph I took myself.
  • The map size looks ok on my screen, do you think that the text is too small to read? I am worried that this map in larger will look ugly, but it is not a strong opinion of course.
  • I added some more ISSNs where I could find them. But aren't these redundant for journal articles anyways if we have a doi? From my understanding, only (newer) journals have ISSN, so the book chapters don't.
  • Yes, I believe I incorporated all available sources. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 13:45, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Jo-Jo ? Gog the Mild (talk) 17:34, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like it's a pass, noting that I didn't do much spotchecking. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:55, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley

[edit]
  • "world's major fossil Lagerstätten (fossil deposit of exceptional importance)." I have always seen Lagerstätte used to mean fossil deposits which are important specifically because of their exceptional preservation, rather than important generally. Is this wrong?
    • Yes, the definition is "fossil deposit of exceptional importance". However, there is a type of fossil Lagerstätte called "Konservat Lagerstätte", and their importance indeed lies in their exceptional preservation (and incidentally, the Posidonia Shale is one of them).
  • "In 1892, Hauff presented an ichthyosaur specimen that preserves the original body outline, revealing that ichthyosaurs possessed dorsal fins." This does not seem relevant.
    • This is what made the Hauff collection and the Posidonia Shale famous. It was a big discovery in Paleontology. This is why I included it to provide the reader with some background. But if you think it should be removed, I will do.
  • "As all sauropods, Ohmdenosaurus was a quadrupedal (four-legged) herbivore". "As all" sounds wrong to me. Is it USEng?
    • Changed to "Like all", hope that works.
  • "Based on this evidence, Wild concluded that the specimen must have been transported and deposited twice: once from its place of death to the first site of deposition near the coast, where the weathering took place". I do not understand the logic here. Why should the specimen not have died at its site of deposition near the coast? This needs clarifying.
    • Hmm, the source doesn't say this explicitly, but the point is that the specimen was partly covered by sediment. This means it was at a place where active and significant sediment deposition takes place, maybe somewhere in a river, but certainly not a place where the animal would spend its day voluntarily. So it probably died somewhere else and was washed to this place, if only by a relatively short distance. I added a hint to the sediment cover, but I guess this will not be enough, but I can't think of a way to put this that does not go too much into WP:Synth. I will try to think tomorrow about how to write this more clearly.
  • No change needed, but it seems extraordinary that a predator dragged its prey 100 km. Do you know whether there are definite cases of this behaiour?
    • I agree that it seems a bit unusual. I do not now about other examples. But apparently, Wild thought that transportation of the heavy bone by water currents was even more unlikely (and he did not discard that option). Since it is the only dinosaur found in the Shale, while hundreds of complete skeletons of marine reptiles were found there, it must have been an extraordinary process that brought it there.
  • Looks fine. Just a few minor niggles. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:43, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I am sceptical on two points. I do not see why the body had to be moved twice. Plenty of land animals hunt in intertidal zones. I also find both explanations for the movement of the body 100 km dubious. A storm surge as a result of the collapse of a natural dam of a large lake seems more likely. Of course, you have to go by the sources. Dudley Miles (talk) 08:56, 24 September 2023 (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) 24 September 2023 [6].

Edward Oxford

[edit]
Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 15:21, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

From Victoria to Victoria via Bedlam and Broadmoor, Edward Oxford's life was an interesting one. The first failed assassin of Queen Victoria before incarceration and then relocation to Melbourne for a new life with a new name. He died a respected member of the church and a published author with a wife and family—without anyone in Oz knowing of his old life and crime. A hugely useful PR saw excellent critical commentary from UndercoverClassicist, Tim riley and JennyOz which has helped immeasurably, but any further comments are most welcome. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 15:21, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Support from Tim O'Doherty

[edit]

Bagging a spot now. I would have participated in the PR, but time got away from me. Not making the same mistake twice. Review soon(ish). Tim O'Doherty (talk) 15:53, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

First comments:

  • the private secretary to the Prime Minister - is the link to Prime Minister of the United Kingdom needed? Seems like a bit of an overlink to me.
  • Prime Minister - Per MOS:JOBTITLES, shouldn't "prime minister" be lowercase? I do see a lot of similar cases too, like "Earl of Uxbridge" and "Lord Chamberlain", so they'd need to be consistent. Either way is fine to me; the MoS is a bit strange sometimes.
    I too am often confused by the unclear and seemingly contradictory nature of the MOS on this point. I take the use here to be "a specific person as a substitute for their name during their time in office" because we're referring specifically to Peel. - SchroCat (talk) 09:18, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • At around 6:00 pm Queen Victoria - maybe just "6 pm"?
    MOS:TIME seems to suggest the minutes should be included. - SchroCat (talk) 09:18, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • four months pregnant with her first child, Victoria, the Princess Royal - two commas disrupt the flow a bit: how about "four months pregnant with her first child"?
    I think if we just refer to "her first child", someone will complain about not having the name, but if someone else comments on the name and commas, I'll happily swap it over. - SchroCat (talk) 09:18, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Victoria recorded in her diary - as there are two Victorias mentioned in the preceding sentence, you could do "The Queen recorded in her diary" or something similar.
    Yes, done - SchroCat (talk) 09:18, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The trial took place on 9, 10 and 11 July 1840 at the Old Bailey, central London - Maybe "The trial took place from 9 to 11 July 1840 at the Old Bailey in central London"?
    Yes, done. - SchroCat (talk) 09:18, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I notice that some quotations begin with capital letters in the middle of sentences, like: "They concluded "We find the prisoner, Edward Oxford, guilty of discharging the contents of two pistols, but whether or not they were loaded with ball has not been satisfactorily proved to us, he being of unsound state of mind at the time."". This looks a bit strange to me; I know that if the full sentence is quoted, then the start will have a capital; however, I think lowercase quotations throughout might not look quite so out of place.
    That quote is a full sentence, so the MOS says we should keep the capital. I've been through the rest and I think we're in line with the MOS strictures, but please let me know if I've missed any! - SchroCat (talk) 09:18, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soon after his arrival at Broadmoor ... - what's happening with the spacing just above that paragraph?
    Fixed - SchroCat (talk) 09:18, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Arthur O'Connor worth a redlink?
    Yeah, why not. There doesn't seem to be as much on him as on Oxford, but there is certainly enough for something for him. - SchroCat (talk) 09:18, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All I've got for now. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:43, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just realised: forgot to ping SchroCat. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:50, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks Tim, that's very good of you. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:18, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Update: Further comments tomorrow, just so you know that I've not forgotten to "vote" for either support or oppose. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 18:37, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Update: Not today, alas. My apologies. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 20:53, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Extremely busy in real life, I'm afraid. I've read the article and the PR fully, I take it in good faith that the refs match the content, and I don't take issue with the images. Support as an FA. (By the way, I believe that I've only ever participated in FACs or FARs on people called Edward: III, Dando and Oxford. Weird.) Tim O'Doherty (talk) 20:18, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Don't use fixed px size
    Ah, didn't realise it's finally been deprecated for IBs: now swapped out. - SchroCat (talk) 09:24, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Edward_Oxford_c_1856.jpg: when and where was this first published? Ditto File:Edward_Oxford's_assassination_attempt_on_Queen_Victoria,_G.H.Miles,_watercolor,_1840.jpg, File:Edward_Oxford_in_the_dock_for_regicide.jpg, File:John_Freeman-Edward_Oxford_(1889).png
In terms of the 'when first published' question:
Cheers, as always - SchroCat (talk) 10:51, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That National Archives chart refers to UK status; my question is more on the US status. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:18, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, ok: it is free, if I have read this right: anonymous work becomes free at 120 years post-creation. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 06:45, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The only place I see 120 years in that flowchart is for material not created before 1978; am I missing another one? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:54, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It would have helped if I had read it properly and followed the right lines. Expiry of 31 December 2002, I think. - SchroCat (talk) 08:35, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Tim riley

[edit]

All but one of my comments were satisfactorily addressed at the peer review, but I'd still like an answer to my question about the line in the Incarceration: 1840–1867 section: "Grey ignored the request"– did Grey literally ignore the request, or did he consider and reject it? Over to you, but it isn't enough to stop me adding my support in any case. A balanced, well sourced and highly readable article, nicely illustrated. Meets the FA criteria in my view. Tim riley talk 17:58, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your reviews, Tim. I checked previously about Grey ignoring the case, but then forgot to update the PR with my findings. The source actually uses the word “ignored” on this.
Fair enough. Tim riley talk 11:13, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Source review

No spotcheck needed, looking at formatting/reliability. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 00:36, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Source to the site Queen Victoria's Journal Entry need "registration" in the access parameter
    Does it? I don’t think registration is needed to access it, does it? - SchroCat (talk) 08:52, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unrelated, but why does fn b have wls to the currencies but none of the others do?
    Because LSD is something alien to most people, even in Britain. I was alive when we still had the Carolingian system, but never used it or had to deal with it, and many people younger than me won’t even have heard of it, or know how it worked. - SchroCat (talk) 08:59, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The use of locations of publication is inconsistent. Andrews 1997 says just the city, while Eigen 2003 names the city and state, while Charles 2014 names the city and county, while Garvey 2020 has no location at all.
    Should now be consistent, as far as is possible. Some cities in the UK don't have counties, so that’s the best that can be done. - SchroCat (talk) 08:47, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Queen Victoria 1963 needs the editor- and, since there's no ISBN, add an OCLC
    Yep, both added. - SchroCat (talk) 09:05, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wallis 1892: I think the publisher and location are backwards
    Fixed. - SchroCat (talk) 08:47, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Webb 2012 is listed as dead, but the orig link works fine for me
    I’m not seeing where is says it’s listed as dead. The |dead-link=| parameter isn’t there. - SchroCat (talk) 09:01, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some links could be added to the journal section for better verifiability; there's likely a JSTOR article for the ones with no DOI
    There were two with no link: I’ve added a JSTOR link to one, but the other doesn’t have anything I can see. - SchroCat (talk) 09:16, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Both Bethlem Museum of the Mind sites are also not dead for me. Same for Berkshire Record Office 2009 and The British Museum
    Same as the Webb comment above. - SchroCat (talk) 09:01, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Two of the sources under "Websites" are news articles with no URLs- don't these go under "News"?
    Yep, should have been there all along. Now moved. - 08:47, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

SchroCat, all done, great work! Universal sfn use is painstaking but very visually pleasing. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 00:36, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks MyCatIsAChonk? All sorted as far as I can, with a couple of questions above. Cheers. - SchroCat (talk) 09:16, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@SchroCat:
For QV's journals, it displays a login page for me, and I've never visited the site before, so I'll assume it's the same for other first-time viewers.
Ah: I see the problem: it's registration for non-UK and some non-Commonwealth users, which is why I've never had to register for the site and there is no facility for me to register or login. Fixed. - SchroCat (talk) 07:54, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Webb 2012 and others: this citation is still displaying as dead for me. It probably has something to do with the url-status= parameter; if "live" is not in the parameter, then it will continue to put the archive link where the orig link should be.
Ah, I see - I was confused by you saying the link was showing as dead when it's not. I'm not sure that's really an issue (both links will still remain in the same position), but I've now added this. - SchroCat (talk) 07:54, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 12:03, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks MyCatIsAChonk. All sorted. - SchroCat (talk) 07:54, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - also, if you get time, would appreciate any comments at this FAC. Thanks! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 10:57, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for the review - it's much appreciated. I'll try and make time to to visit your FAC (RL is hectic, but I'll do my best!) Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 12:57, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from PMC

[edit]

Putting myself down here, ping to remind me if I forget :) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:27, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Minor quibble that you use "seedier" and "seedy" in successive sentences in the lead; may want to sub one to prevent repetitiveness
  • "in Hounslow, then in Middlesex" - I realise that what's happened here is that Hounslow is now under another administrative division, but "then in" makes it sound like the city itself moved. No big deal but maybe "then part of" might be better
  • "annoyed at the attention being on someone else" incredible
  • "Numerous others" - I'm not sure about this phrasing. It makes it sound like there were previous people described as visiting the station just to see him, but these are the first ones mentioned.
  • No gripes through the trial
  • "doctors considered him to be sane" - does anybody say why?
    Just that he didn't exhibit any behaviour they considered 'mad' - SchroCat (talk) 09:04, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Wonderfully subjective, isn't it, madness? I'm reminded of the Rosenhan experiment, only in reverse. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 11:25, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The letters Oxford sent to Haydon were kept." passive voice. Could we activate and clarify that it was him and his family who kept them?
  • Really enjoying the way everyone is riffing on the "Lights and Shadows" title
  • As a minor quibble, the image under Legacy is shoving the "Later attempts" section header to the side, can we put it on the right side so it doesn't do that?
    The Leach cartoon? The figure is looking into the article (like the photo further up), so the MOS says it should be on the left. I've dropped it down a paragraph: does that sort the problem? - SchroCat (talk) 09:04, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Mm, that section says it's often preferable, but doesn't mandate it. Fine enough where it is though. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 11:26, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure some of the last paragraph and block quote of the "Later assassination attempts" section is really necessary in this article. I understand up to the establishment of the M'Naghten rules, because his case weighed on those, and the comment about Maclean's verdict, but the rest seems more pertinent for an article about assassination attempts on the Queen than about Oxford. I'm willing to be convinced otherwise.
    Possibly a little too much, but Oxford ties them all together - certainly in Victoria's mind, as she was always a bit miffed that the light treatment Oxford received meant that it was open season for people to claim insanity if they failed to knock her off. She was still complaining about it forty years later when Maclean had his attempt. I'm minded to leave it in for the moment, but if others find it odd, I'll trim it down a bit. Does that sound OK? - SchroCat (talk) 09:04, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I see where you're coming from, that's fine by me. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 11:25, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "One of the book's characters is Sim Tappertit, described as a "vainglorious apprentice" by Murphy and a "sinister and darkly-comical figure" by Hurst, who was modelled on Oxford." - I might move the last clause to be second, so we know he was modelled on Oxford before we start describing him

That's all I have! Nitpicks mostly. Another interesting figure from English history, well-written and -researched as always. Cheers, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:04, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks PMC, as always. All done, except where I've commented otherwise. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:04, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me. I'm happy to support; my comment about the legacy content isn't such an obstacle to me that it overcomes the excellence of the article. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 11:25, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks PMC! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 12:57, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from HAL

[edit]

I'm going to lay claim to this spot. ~ HAL333 05:28, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • "and fired an arrow at another boy, injuring him in the process" -- Isn't "in the process" somewhat redundant?
  • "drew up a document of eleven rules, signed by the fictitious A. W. Smith; the first of these was You do not talk about Young England". Sorry I couldn't resist.
  • We have a sea of blue with "pathologist Thomas Hodgkin"
  • and those incarcerated there had committed crimes while judged to be insane Is a comma needed before "and" to link the two independent clauses? As always, if this is a Br/AmEng issue, disregard.
  • Maybe link opium dens

That's all I got. Very well-written. ~ HAL333 19:37, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks HAL, that’s very good of you. I’ve demurred on one, it followed through on the rest. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 15:54, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

UndercoverClassicist

[edit]

Will review here once others have had their say; as above, please do ping me if I'm "up" and taking too long. UndercoverClassicist T·C 16:19, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi UndercoverClassicist, I think the others are all clear now. No rush - I’m happy to wait until you’ve de-trussed yourself! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 15:59, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Be careful what you wish for, SchroCat. There may be over 30,000 bytes of comments coming your way ;) Tim O'Doherty (talk) 16:19, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
LOL - I like UC’s reviews. They’re one of about five reviewers who really know their stuff. - SchroCat (talk) 16:44, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Am I a member of this inner circle? By the way, will review Gordon-Cumming soon; sorry you've had to wait a week. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 16:47, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Of course! No problems on the delay - I know you've had your hands full of Liz Truss (a horrible thought, I'm sure). - SchroCat (talk) 08:53, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
[edit]
  • In my eternal quest to find the smallest nit to pick... the alt text for the image isn't all that helpful to people who can't actually see it, given that the main point of the image is to tell us what Oxford looked like. Suggest including a brief physical description.
  • he was detained at Her Majesty's pleasure at the two State Criminal Lunatic Asylums: Bethlem Royal Hospital and Broadmoor Hospital. : consider a brief explanation of "at HM pleasure" (detained indefinitely "at Her Majesty's pleasure")? Also suggest putting the two more explicitly in sequence, as he wasn't detained at both simultaneously: perhaps first at Bethlehem... and then, after 1864, in Broadmoor. As there's a long gap, it might be good to say so, but appreciate the demands of brevity in the lead.
  • He worked as a decorator, became a respected figure at his local church and married: cadence is better if "married" is moved to the beginning, but appreciate that this might be a chronological list.
  • The Oxford and the later M'Naghten cases: not quite sure about the grammar here with cases agreeing with both Oxford and M'Naghten but only one of those being later. Perhaps "Oxford's trial, and the later M'Naghten case..}}?
  • Why link Birmingham in lead and infobox but not in the body?
  • His parents were George Oxford and Hannah (née Marklew): it's fairly obvious, but I'd be explicit about his wife Hannah (theoretically, she could have been Hannah Smith, née Marklew).
  • The couple met in the Hope and Anchor tavern,: consider Birmingham's Hope and Anchor tavern: it would not be surprising for someone to be born elsewhere than where their parents met.
  • His parents' relationship was abusive: I think we mean George and Hannah's relationship here, but it reads as if we mean George's parents.
  • fits of unprovoked, maniacal laughter: could restructure this sentence a bit so that the reader is clear that the quote, as well as the judgement, is Murphy's (I'm assuming it is?)
  • I see the inflation figure for Oxford's fine: is there any way to contextualise this via cost of living (that is, how far did 150 2023 pounds actually go?) I imagine we can find some sense of what that much money would represent in terms of daily/weekly wages for a low-paid worker like Oxford? Indeed, from the following sentence, this sounds like about two and a half weeks' wages.
  • he lasted only a few months at the Hat and Flowers in St Luke's; and four months at the Hog in the Pound in Oxford Street: we need a verb after the semicolon.
  • Oxford took a series of other bar jobs: I worry that bar may be anachronistic (or possibly American): particularly in the Victorian period, a public house was more than what we'd think of as a bar. Separately, we move around London a lot in the next few sentences, so I'd suggest a series of jobs in other London pubs to ensure that readers understand the link between Marylebone, St Luke's and Oxford Street.
  • Link shooting gallery to shooting range? Potentially an obscure term, especially to non-native speakers?
  • About a week after he moved in, he hit his mother for no reason: "for no reason" doesn't sound great to me. Presumably, there was a reason for it, even if that reason only existed in Oxford's head or would be considered absurd by most of us. Suggest "apparently for no reason" - or did he actually say that he had no reason for it? If the latter, I'd state as much: it would be interesting if Oxford acknowledged/asserted his own irrationality in light of what follows.
  • Over the next month Oxford also spent his time: also isn't right here; we haven't said anything else he spent his time doing. Perhaps simply "Over the next month, Oxford invented..." - we can take as read that he also did other things?
  • Wikilink brace to brace#Noun at Wiktionary, or consider the more international "pair"?
  • He drew up a list of principal members: none of these members existed, right? I found myself having to look back up the page to make sure.
  • Oxford walked to Constitution Hill, near Buckingham Palace, and waited for two hours.: did Oxford have any reason to believe that the Queen would be coming past here?
  • It seems a little odd to explain "drosky" but assume that readers know "postillions".
  • When that missed: that doesn't really have an antecedent: When his shot missed? Stylistically, a slightly buried lead: you might consider "His shot missed: he said...".
  • Is drew out the same as drew? If so, there's a maxim about this....
  • Suggest replacing the & with and in the diary entry per MOS:CONFORM, and adding a comma after equally loud for the same reason. The quotation conforms so closely in all other respects that these don't really read as period features, if indeed they were.
  • What's the logic as to when the first letter of a quotation is capitalised?
  • openly admitted his culpability: suggest cutting openly here: you can privately admit something, but not by shouting it.
  • Police were soon on the scene: a little bit of cliché.
  • and Oxford was arrested and taken into custody at the nearest police station: double and reads a little awkwardly: could replace the first with a semicolon, or perhaps "police soon arrived and arrested Oxford, who was taken into custody...".
  • I'm not sure exactly what showing the public that they had trust means: is it the same as "showing the public their trust [in them]"?
  • Why quote Murphy rather than paraphrasing here? Seems like a fairly uncontroversial statement of fact, which should generally not be directly quoted.
  • Oxford hinted that he was not acting alone: had not acted?

As ever, mostly small points and extremely quibbleable in almost all cases. More to follow (hopefully not 30,000 bytes, but you never know...) UndercoverClassicist T·C 17:33, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

More follow:

  • I like the three images of the assassination: give a date for Miles?
  • Per WP:POPE, suggest amending Ernest Augustus, King of Hanover., to Ernest Augustus, king of the German state of Hanover.
  • Murphy considers him...: this is interesting, but somewhat beside the point unless Murphy also considers that people in Victorian England would have agreed. Any thoughts here?
  • Although there was some initial doubt about whether his pistols were loaded: put Oxford's name back in, as we've just been talking about Ernest Augustus.
  • were loaded ... he admitted that they were: tense is off here: should be had been (at least the second time) since, when he was asked, the pistols were not loaded (he'd fired them).
  • he said they were only charged with powder, not shot: phrased as if these two things are alternatives: suggest "with powder but not with shot".
  • Among those who were summoned: among those summoned?
  • This carried a possible punishment of hanging, drawing and quartering: I looked this up, expecting to find that it had been centuries since that sentence was actually carried out, and was unpleasantly surprised. I gather that by this point it was practically a sentence of hanging (the corpse was beheaded after death), but not sure that's worth much more than a footnote.
  • A great many witnesses against me: this is only a fragmentary sentence, but I'm happy with that as long as the grammatical error is Oxford's.
Could consider adding [are] after witnesses: would perhaps help non-native speakers for whom copula-dropping isn't as natural as it is for Anglophones. UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:21, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK, added. - SchroCat (talk) 09:09, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • all he would admit to was firing the pistols at the Queen: as distinct from what? Was he denying firing them at Albert?
  • by Sir John Campbell, the Attorney General and Sir Thomas Wilde, the Solicitor General.: how many men are involved here? If two, would put a comma after the Attorney General. Was it usual to hyphenate in those days?
    Military ranks like major-general and lieutenant-general were generally hyphenated until the 1980s or so: my thinking was that if we're going to use the capitals for the actual title, we might consider putting the hyphen in if it would have been used at the time. On reflection, MOS:CONFORM would weigh against that anyway, so I wouldn't advise a change. UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:18, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Positive inaction from me on this! - SchroCat (talk) 09:09, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although when he was first questioned Oxford had said he had loaded the pistols, the arresting officer said he may have misremembered Oxford's exact words: the way that the first part is worded, it sound as if Oxford's admission is a fact whether or not the arresting officer reported it accurately. Do we have some other testimony than the officer's? Otherwise, would rephrase.
    • Looking into. - SchroCat (talk) 23:52, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure about changing this. There were several witnesses on the day when he made the admission, but (and this is a bit of OR), it looks like only the arresting officer that was present in court to be questioned about it. Taylor looks like he was a good enough lawyer to get a policeman tied in knots over a question of the exact wording he later wrote into his notes. - SchroCat (talk) 10:58, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Capitalise the beginning of the long blockquote on Oxford's sanity?
  • Would spell out the abbreviation &c to et cetera (I assume these remarks were made orally?)
  • a lecturer at Charing Cross Hospital on medical jurisprudence: more usual the other way around ("a lecturer in Mathematics at Oxford"), which also removes the grammatical ambiguity as to whether the lecturer or the hospital was focused on medical jurisprudence.
  • You find him not guilty, or he was [guilty], but for his insanity: this reads as question, but isn't reported as one. Have I got the wrong end of the stick?
    It was a statement that the judge meant to clarify the decision of the jury. - SchroCat (talk) 09:09, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consider using SFNM to group consecutive SFNs
    • Still to do. I don't mind seeing two refs together (or two and a footnote), but will combine where there are three of more: does that suit? (There are some where there will have to be three, which is where there are some sources that don't work with SFNM). - SchroCat (talk) 09:29, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You can always use the REFN template and then HARVNB to make the footnote read whatever you like: I recently had to do that a few times in Henry Biard when multi-citing sources that use slightly unorthodox SFN references. UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:06, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Excellent - thank you! - SchroCat (talk) 10:44, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • A journalist from The Times visited Broadmoor in January 1865. They described: appreciate that the journalist is anonymous: can we rephrase to avoid the singular they (and described...)? Perhaps I'm being old-fashioned, but it reads as unstylish unless consciously used as someone's preferred pronoun.
    We don't know the gender of the reporter. (In all likelihood a man, but it's not recorded who wrote the piece). - SchroCat (talk) 09:09, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, of course: I was suggesting A journalist from The Times visited Broadmoor in January 1865, and described... as a way of avoiding a pronoun altogether, or perhaps A journalist from The Times, who visited Broadmoor in January 1865, described... UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:04, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep: works for me! - SchroCat (talk) 10:48, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • who was leading a group of inmates who were decorating the premises: can we get rid of a who here?
  • with the support of the Chairman of Broadmoor, the deputy superintendent, the hospital's resident doctor and the prison surgeon: odd capitalisation here. I think MOS:PEOPLETITLES would decapitalise chairman here.
  • although they were ranked above nurses, attendants and keepers, who were more like servants (footnote): two things: were keepers more like servants, or were nurses and attendants also more like servants? Secondly, what exactly does were more like servants mean: do we mean something like were afforded a similar status to domestic servants or similar?
    OK, done - SchroCat (talk) 11:30, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • an organisation "aimed to improve their members' minds with debate, supplementing the push of the time to create public libraries and other institutions to illuminate the working man's world".: we should always be able to infer the source of a quotation from the text and citation: this sounds like it's quoting some kind of charter or constitution of the club, but that isn't spelled out.
  • Does John Francis rate a redlink?
  • Sinclair notes that "John Oxford" was unlikely to be Edward Oxford: notes implies that this is certainly true: if John Oxford has nothing to do with Edward Oxford, I'm a little at a loss as to what he's doing in Edward Oxford's biography.
  • Sinclair showed that: minor, but I'm a little uncomfortable with showed that being applied to primary research in a PhD thesis: it's very common for scholars to pick those apart and say that, while she may have argued it, the matter is still not settled. I would be more reassured by a secondary source giving its seal of approval that Sinclair had indeed finished the conversation.
    I've softened to "considered" for the moment, but will look further. - SchroCat (talk) 09:09, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Oxford's name thereafter would be associated with the insanity defence, and the divisive medico-legal debate regarding criminal insanity that would continue over the course of the nineteenth century.": perhaps not really quote-worthy, at least not in full: seems to be making a fairly simple point.
  • that the force of the law is entirely put into the Judge's, hands: remove the comma per MOS:CONFORM.
  • The matter of the insanity defence was raised in the House of Lords, which put pressure on the government, which suggested the Lords should ask the judges of the Law Lords to clarify the situation.: can we rework around the double which (in particular, I'm not overly clear whether it was the HoL itself or the raising of the insanity defence there that put pressure on the government).
  • Shortly before his trial Oxford was visited: I know that we disagree on commas, but surely we need one after trial here?
    I'd still demur here, I think. Five words is my trigger point on introductory commas ("From the beginning of September, etc), but I know people differ on when to include. - SchroCat (talk) 09:29, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough. UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:04, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikilink French Revolution.
  • The events took place while Dickens was writing Barnaby Rudge (1841): while the brackets are fairly standard usage, in context it's a little unclear whether we are glossing the publication date of Barnaby Rudge or explaining "while Dickens was writing...". Suggest ... writing Barnaby Rudge (published in 1841).
  • sinister and darkly-comical figure: remove hyphen per MOS:CONFORM.
  • Suggest giving months for the publication of Barnaby Rudge and The Old Curiosity Shop, as both are 1841 and we don't currently have a clear chronology.
  • whose plot centred on one of Oxford's descendants—also called Edward Oxford—who travelled back in time to assassinate Victoria: works of fiction are written about in the present tense: whose plot centres ... who travels ... Later, the book includes...
  • WL BBC Radio (and capitalise)

Many thanks UndercoverClassicist. Pretty much everything covered on a first run, although there are still a few points I've flagged up that I still need to cover. Any more comments always welcome, as well as any further pushback on rationales I've given for inaction above. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:29, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support on the text: all outstanding to-dos are minor and should be no obstacle to the article's passing.
Thank you, as always, for your wonderfully detailed review. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:52, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Image review
[edit]
Added a note that Alamy class this as a PD image - SchroCat (talk) 13:00, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To my mind, there's a strong enough presumption of PD that we should be content here. Frustratingly, no image review was conducted when Queen Victoria, which also uses the image, was re-promoted to an FA in 2011, but overall my inclination would be to say "good enough" on this one. UndercoverClassicist T·C 13:28, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They've taken that description from the British Museum, whose classification of images is, frankly, woeful. It's so filled with errors as to be largely useless when determining PD status. I've added another reference from Alamy that the image is PD. - SchroCat (talk) 13:44, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You may be right on the BM, but it seems to me like the balance of probability is for PD-US-unpublished (that it wasn't published before 2003, and was created before 1903). Unless we have good reason to think that the LoC/BM assessment is wrong, rather than simply unreliable, I'd go with that, as it's a "proper" PD tag and stronger than simply passing the matter to Alamy. UndercoverClassicist T·C 13:47, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK, swapped out the licences. - SchroCat (talk) 13:51, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Added - SchroCat (talk) 12:40, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Missed this one: also now swapped over the licences. - SchroCat (talk) 16:54, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think we're fine with this one. As it was published in the ILN in 1867, it's definitely PD. (If I upload a copy directly from the ILN, I'd certainly publish it as a PD image), - SchroCat (talk) 13:24, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yes, it's certainly PD, but we can't then release it under CC 4.0: only the copyright holder can do that, and we've established that we're not them, since nobody holds the copyright. We just need to change the licence templates to reflect the true reason why it's PD. UndercoverClassicist T·C 13:26, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough: swapped out for better licences. - SchroCat (talk) 13:36, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
None. Swapped the licences out for the right ones. - SchroCat (talk) 13:48, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done - SchroCat (talk) 12:28, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done - SchroCat (talk) 12:28, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Mostly formalities, as is often the case. UndercoverClassicist T·C 11:19, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's a pass as far as I see it. UndercoverClassicist T·C 17:03, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from JennyOz

[edit]

Hi Schrocat, looking good. I've looked over changes since PR. Only a couple of comments...

  • You were going to add an age or two. Maybe at "Oxford accepted, and on 22 October 1867 he was released." -insert 'after 27 years' or 'now aged 55' or somewhere else? (just to emphasize how looong he was in there.)
    Ah - I completely forgot about that! Now added in a couple of places (the sentencing and release points), which seem to be the most appropriate. - SchroCat (talk) 12:02, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • ref 55 Moran 1986, pp. 175–175. - tweak page number/s
    Done - SchroCat (talk) 12:02, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you want to add an external link to his papers at NLA, use the URL from this cite (provided by Trove)[1]
    Thanks! Now added - SchroCat (talk) 12:02, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Unrelated to Oxford article, but there's also a journal of Haydon's from his 5 years in Melbourne for when/if you change his red link to blue[2])
    That's good to know - I'll try and run up a start article when I have time. - SchroCat (talk) 12:02, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Freeman, John; Freeman, John, 1822-ca. 1889. Lights and shadows of Melbourne life (1862), Papers of John Freeman, 1862-1889, retrieved 11 September 2023{{citation}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
  2. ^ Haydon, George Henry; Ker, William (1843), Diary and papers of George Henry Haydon, 1843-1892, retrieved 11 September 2023

Nothing more that I can see to note:) JennyOz (talk) 10:43, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks JennyOz - I'm much obliged to you once again. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 12:02, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All's good! Happy to s'port and thanks for another interesting bio. JennyOz (talk) 14:33, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks JennyOz - I'm much obliged. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 15:35, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support with comments from Cassianto

[edit]
Early life
  • "He was dismissed from the Shepherd and Flock in Marylebone High Street after he attacked a colleague with a knife he lasted only a few months at the Hat and Flowers in St Luke's; and four months at the Hog in the Pound in Oxford Street, where he was on the equivalent salary of £20 a year." -- equivalent to what?
    Tweaked - SchroCat (talk) 09:34, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Trial
Incarceration
  • "The case notes on him in February 1854—probably by Bethlem's superintendent, William Charles Hood—described how Oxford "from the statements of the attendants and those associated with him he appears to have conducted himself with great propriety at all times". Hood recorded that Oxford spent much of the time learning" -- we say it was "probably" Hood, then go on to state it was him. "The notes recorded that Oxford..."?
    Yep, done - SchroCat (talk) 09:34, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Read with gusto. A well written, well researched piece from a writer who has a real knack of picking fascinating, engaging subjects. Despite my nitpicks and any resolution to them, my support stands. CassiantoTalk 21:13, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Cass - much appreciated! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:34, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My pleasure. CassiantoTalk 12:58, 12 September 2023 (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) 24 September 2023 [7].

2022 Hong Kong Masters

[edit]
Nominator(s): Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:47, 6 August 2023 (UTC), User:HurricaneHiggins[reply]

This article is about the non-ranking professional snooker article. A crazy one time event that featured incredibly large crowds and now holds the record for the highest attendance at a snooker event. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:47, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:03, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review from MyCatIsAChonk

[edit]

@Lee Vilenski and HurricaneHiggins: I have no comments on the (very impressive) prose, so I'll focus on sources. I'll do a spotcheck once the following have been addressed so there's no mixups regarding numbering. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 01:04, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport from Chris

[edit]

Source review

[edit]

Reviewing this version. Spot-check upon request and warning that this isn't a topic I know well. Is snooker.org a reliable source? #19 has a byline. Otherwise, the source formatting and information seem OK. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:12, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Yeah, we use snooker.org as an award winning website for statistical results only (things like match results, brackets etc). I do need to write up a page for what sources are good for cue sports related media, but I've had this conversation on a series of FACs, and it's always been fine. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:24, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jo-Jo Eumerus, any more to come on this? Gog the Mild (talk) 12:21, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, nothing really. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:07, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment

[edit]

More than three weeks in and just the single general support. Unless this nomination makes significant further progress towards a consensus to promote over the next three or four days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:34, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from BennyOnTheLoose

[edit]

Looks in good shape. Comments to follow. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 08:57, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Eight players were chosen to compete at the event, the six highest ranked players following the 2022 World Snooker Championship and two players from Hong Kong, Marco Fu and Ng On-yee. - feels incomplete as a sentence. Maybe a semicolon after "event", or "event. "They were..."?
  • It set a new record for the largest live audience at a snooker match, with around 9,000 spectators attending the final - as it's a fairly short article, I'm not sure we need this info in lead, Format AND Final. Maybe remove from "format" and move The previous record of 3,000 spectators had been set at the 2017 edition of the event to the Final section?
  • I'm pretty sure that snooker.org is not "in Norwegian"
Removed :) Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 07:45, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Lee ? Gog the Mild (talk) 14:29, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I think that's it BennyOnTheLoose. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:11, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you're happy with the amendment to the prize fund, then just the point about the snooker.org langauge pending, Lee Vilenski. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 23:09, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ya, that's fine. Removed the lang=no. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 07:45, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:52, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 22 September 2023 [8].

KCPQ

[edit]
Nominator(s): Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 16:51, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For a television station that didn't broadcast in color at all for its first 19 years of broadcasting, channel 13 in western Washington sure has had a colorful history. A summary would run too long even for FAC, but it can be roughly divided into six periods: its foundation as KMO-TV, the short-lived television adjunct of a long-running Tacoma radio station; the J. Elroy McCaw and Blaidon years as KTVW, which saw it run second-fiddle among local independent stations and ended in bankruptcy and a year of silence; its operation by the Clover Park School District as an educational station, curtailed by changing financial circumstances and new local exigencies; return to commercial operation under Kelly Broadcasting, which included Fox affiliation (in 1986), relocation of facilities to Seattle (in 1997), and the beginning of a news department (in 1998) and left KCPQ the definitive fourth force in regional television; 20 years under Tribune Broadcasting, which built KCPQ up substantially in the area of news, and briefly Nexstar Media Group; and its operation as an owned-and-operated station of Fox after the network had coveted it since the 1990s. Along the way, readers will learn of its status as the "funny, fuzzy" station on Seattle's TV dial; the court-appointed trustee who saw enough during an episode of Batman; and Fox's almost-plan to abandon KCPQ and build a Fox-owned station out of the TV equivalent of sticks and stones.

My thanks go to Mike Christie for conducting a pre-FAC content review and providing the only comment on the first FAC last year, SounderBruce for taking a photo for this page (an exhaustive search for libre-licensed images in 2021 came up quite empty-handed), and to Trainsandotherthings for conducting the GA review in 2021. I welcome all comments and suggestions. Please don't be scared by my lowercase-lacking titles. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 16:51, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:49, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support

[edit]

Reiterating my support from last time. I've read through again and have just one suggestion: I would remove the "deceased" notes from the list of notable former staff -- this is not usual practice and I think adds an update burden that is unnecessary. That's a matter of opinion though and does not detract from my support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:06, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good thought. Another one of those things our pages do that they shouldn't. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 23:05, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MyCatIsAChonk

[edit]

A school system owning a station? Now that is new- seems like an interesting article! It looks well-written already, my comments are just going to be on minor grammatical things (which, really, are on a take-them-or-leave-them basis)! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 22:33, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • The buyer for channel 13 was Seattle broadcaster J. Elroy McCaw... - false title
  • During Kelly's 19-year ownership of KCPQ, the station became a Fox affiliate; relocated its studios from Lakewood to Seattle; and established its present local news department. - why are semicolons used in this list of things?
    • Changed.
  • Within a year of starting the TV station, after 27 years of broadcasting dating to the launch of KMO radio, owner Carl E. Haymond... - this is two dependent clauses stacked against each other; not against the rules, but it's rather odd to read (also, false title). Maybe just cut the 27 years detail, or rephrase
    • Flipped order
  • owners of Seattle radio station KAYO (1150 AM) - false title
    • Leaving this one in because it is very hard to reword this well. I have removed most of the other false title issues except where they cause excessive commas.
  • equivalent to $2.85 million in 2022 dollars - this needs a citation
    • Added to all of the inflation items.
  • equivalent to $2.44 million in 2022 dollars - this too
  • KTVW's general manager served as president of the team - "the" president of the team
  • dropped the CBS Evening News with Douglas Edwards to - wouldn't "with Douglas Edwards" be part of the italicized title?
  • which would have come with an upgrade to the maximum 316,000 watts;[7] local residents objected - semicolon is unnecessary, a period would work just fine
    • Leaving this one be, I think there's a causality here that binds the sentences.
  • on short notice, Pat O'Day was called in to do commentary, starting a 46-year streak of announcing the races for various radio and television outlets. - IMO, better fits in her article, using it in this one seems out of focus
  • Wl "the economic slowdown" to Recession of 1969–1970
  • Might just be me, but adding a wl to insolvent would be helpful
  • equivalent to $65.6 million in 2022 dollars - citation needed
  • McCaw's estate sold KTVW to Seattle-based Blaidon Mutual Investors Corporation - sold KTVW to "the" Seattle-based...
  • equivalent to $5.48 million in 2022 dollars - citation
  • hosted by Las Vegas lounge entertainer/singer - false title
  • Despite KTVW's improved and sometimes innovative programming and even ratings that at times were competitive with KTNT-TV - three ands, needs to be seperated with commas instead
    • Removed the "innovative" and the "even". This should not need a comma, even in its original form.
  • approval of the CBN transfer; president Don Wolfstone - first, false title; second, is he the president of Channel 13 or CBN?
    • Reworded. Wolfstone has already been introduced at this point, so I shouldn't even need a title.
  • equivalent to $22.1 million in 2022 dollars - citation
  • As a result, court-appointed trustee Bruce Clements - false title
  • decided he had seen enough - now, I didn't look at the source, but this seems like a very possible WP:OR issue; and, it doesn't sound very encyclopedic; I suggest cutting it and merging the rest with the following sentence
  • By 1975, KPEC-TV's UHF aging equipment, which had been in service for more than a decade, was aging and needed replacement - aging is said twice here
  • and a commercial group headed by Tacoma Twins manager Stan Naccarato also bid - false title
  • equivalent to $1.42 million in 2022 dollars - citation
  • equivalent to $1.98 million in 2022 dollars - this too
  • equivalent to $19.1 million in 2022 dollars - triple threat
  • equivalent to $1.26 million in 2022 dollars - another
  • "8 p.m." should use an nbsp per MOS:TIME; same for 10 p.m. throughout
  • Political reporter John Komen was the only holdover - false title
  • IMO, "The winds of change" isn't a very encyclopedic header; if all the other headers describe the ownership, call sign, or possible sales, I suggest this section header do the same
    • Changed
  • Having large sections that are multiple paragraphs long, followed by two sections only one paragraph odd, is odd. I think the last two sections can be merged under the header "Attempted sales" or similar
    • Combined with a different header than your suggested.
  • hosted by anchor David Rose - false title; but, also, this detail is not needed, since his name is in the shows title

Sammi Brie, that's all I got, very nice work! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 22:33, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review by Vat

[edit]

Putting this down, expect to have few issues. Vaticidalprophet 06:46, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Obvious low-hanging fruit: is citing the original NYP report necessary for reader understanding? To be clear, I'm reasonably convinced it is, just querying that because people will query less politely if a FAC passes without that being raised. (Prose comment: Tribune announced that it had been notified by Fox that its affiliation with KCPQ would be terminated is clause-stacking enough to be difficult to follow.)
    • Reworded that section.
  • Sources otherwise seem unproblematic, with a comprehensive array of local and national news sources as appropriate for the subject matter, all archived when appropriate, no serious formatting qualms.
  • Do refs 76, 124, and 154 (I think a handful of others too, but it's a fiddly text wall, you know) have any kind of byline or is it actually just 'no name given, not even an allusion to a staff writer'? I spotchecked a couple accessible sources that had no byline given and confirmed that they were, but it's easy to misformat a couple times in a huge list like this, so just querying.
    • Just checked all of those. No author.
  • Not a FAC comment: Impressed that there's a real person named By Fish.
    • I later discovered his name is Byron (more on the author). He is indeed "By Fish" on this column ("By BY FISH").

There are a ton of sources here, as should be expected from the nominator's track record for comprehensiveness. These are minor queries considering the absolute number. The NYP one is really the only one that needs attention, and I tend to think "that's a reasonable primary use backed up by a reliable secondary source confirming this is something that matters", but I'm mentioning it in case anyone who reads source reliability differently and hasn't noticed it wants to object. Vaticidalprophet 08:04, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Vaticidalprophet: I believe that citing the Post is justified here because its reporting was then cited by Deadline and Broadcasting & Cable and prompted Tribune to make public statements confirming the report. Also, its ownership—Murdoch—is relevant to the topic at hand. In addition, I have tweaked the clause-stacking issue. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 16:58, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Pass the sourcing here. I left this open for a few days to see if anyone would object or have other queries, and am happy with the general silence (I agree with Alien it'd be nice if we could-in-theory have more non-news sources, but for the individual station articles I get this is implausible, and you're certainly in-depth in your research). Vaticidalprophet 23:46, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Thebiguglyalien

[edit]

General notes:

  • There are a lot of semicolons in this article. For me at least, it can be distracting if there are more than a few.
    • I tend to have longer sentence structure, so I think this is more of an agree to disagree case.
  • A few uses of "however" that can be removed. This word doesn't usually add any additional meaning to the sentence.
    • I left one in as having a bit of a causal link, but otherwise I removed them.
  • I've never heard of any requirement for citations when having a template calculate inflation, especially since the template documentation page is already cited.
    • Believe it or not, this was added in response to early
  • There are a few very short (1-2 sentence) paragraphs. These should be combined with other paragraphs when possible.
    • Done, though I left one or two in because the topical break is noteworthy.
  • Fox is described as "coveting" three different times in the article, including one of the headings, causing it to stand out
    • I've reduced the use of "covets" except for the one header.
  • The sources seem generally reliable, but it's more difficult to say that they're high quality. A lot of them are newspapers (especially local newspapers) rather than higher quality academic or analytic sources. I don't know how avoidable this is for this topic, but it's something worth mentioning.
    • Book sources are few and far between in local broadcasting, and academic sources are even rarer. The general mix I have in my articles of this type consists of trade publications (Broadcasting/Broadcasting & Cable, TVNewsCheck, Variety) and local/regional papers. I'm a bit lucky that there are several relevant papers (two Seattle dailies and the Tacoma newspaper), regarded as newspapers of record in their area, which each had media columnists with regular articles on the matter.

Lead:

  • Is "signed on" a professional term for a radio station beginning operation?
    • Yes.
  • "the adjunct to Tacoma radio station KMO" – Does the average reader know what an adjunct station is?
    • Reworded.
  • "The buyer for channel 13 was J. Elroy McCaw" – To me, this feels backwards. I personally would write something like "Seattle broadcaster J. Elroy McCaw purchased channel 13 and changed the call letters..."
    • Reworded. I had reworded this earlier on a false title concern.
  • "as a competitive independent." – "independent" is better served as an adjective than as a noun. I suggest rewriting this sentence so it can end in "as a competitive independent station".
    • It's used a lot this way in the industry, but changed.

History:

  • "After 27 years of broadcasting dating to the launch of KMO radio and within a year of starting the TV station" – This is a little confusing. Could it be reworded or divided up a little bit for clarity?
  • "the station's lack of network affiliation and financial losses" – This could be read as "lack of financial losses".
    • Added an "its"
  • "warned that it appeared it would" – Reads awkwardly with these "it"s. Can "it appeared" be cut altogether?
    • Reworded
  • "Two months later" – Two months from when the FCC stepped in or two months from when the deal was scrapped? A simple date or month would be clearer.
    • Changed.
  • "with which several of its principals had connections" – Is there a clearer way to say this?
    • Reworded.
  • "McCaw tried to make several moves" – Unclear what "moves" means in this context
    • Reworded.
  • "the station increased its effective radiated power from the Ruston transmitter to 214,000 watts" – This doesn't tell the reader much. What was it before the increase?
    • 100,000. Added.
  • "McCaw was regarded as a penny-pincher" – I'm not sure about this wording, both because it seems informal and because it's a charged claim that should probably have a stronger source.
    • Added a little more here and reworded from "penny-pincher" to "frugal".
  • "fell into a tailspin after his death" – This feels like an idiom
    • Changed
  • "consummate the purchase" – I'd use a different word here
    • I would too, except that's the legal terminology used in this industry and by the FCC.
  • "to the tune of $3.5 million a year" – This feels informal
    • Reworded
  • "it counterprogrammed election returns" – 1980 United States elections might be a more appropriate link target.
    • Changed.
  • "expanded to include a strong offering of college sports (including Washington and Washington State football) and even tried its hand at a full local newscast" – Feels ever so slightly promotional
    • Reworded.
  • The "Fox covets Seattle" section frequently uses the "in month/year, this happened" format, which makes it read like a list.
    • Reworded.
  • "After lead FCC commissioner Ajit Pai publicly rejected the deal after" – Two "after"s in the same sentence
    • Reworded
  • "$6.9 billion in cash and debt" – I understand "in cash" to mean physical paper notes.
    • In this case, companies do pay for M&A with cash (often in actual bank accounts) sometimes. The source states, Nexstar will be paying $46.50 [a share] in cash and values the transaction at $6.4 billion, including the assumption of Tribune’s debt. The cash portion is valued at $4.1 billion.

Local programming:

  • "tried its hand at a regular local newscast" – Feels informal
    • Reworded.
  • "proposed to produce" – Awkward wording
    • Reworded.
  • "channel 13 "wasn't ready" for the venture" – According to whom? The quote suggests that this is someone's opinion.
    • Added.
  • Was there no non-news programming prior to 2008?
    • Specifically this section is for current programming, for the most part.

Ping me if you have any thoughts about any of these comments or feel that they've all been addressed. The nominator and reviewers here might also consider reviewing my open nomination for Barbara Bush. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:27, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Thebiguglyalien: Thanks for taking this one. Addressed pretty much everything. I know this is the first thing of mine you've reviewed, and broadcasting topics can be kinda hard for reviewers, so thank you. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 18:09, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    A couple more thoughts:
    • It now reads "who rebuilt the station as a more competitive independent station". I would swap out "the station" for "it".
    • I think a brief summary of past programming is necessary for comprehensiveness, if such information is available. Obviously it doesn't need to list every program, but a paragraph covering the general idea of what its non-news programming looked like and how it might have changed over time. Currently it's lopsided toward WP:RECENCY.
    Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:13, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Thebiguglyalien First change is fine and done. Second isn't as convincing because there are already passages discussing the station's local programming in the history section. I did another exhaustive search to find more info on non-news local programming in the 1980–2008 period and came up fairly empty. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 20:40, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    In that case I will support this as a featured article. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:50, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 22 September 2023 [9].

Blood on the Floor (Turnage)

[edit]
Nominator(s): Schminnte (talk • contribs) 22:04, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Blood on the Floor is a modern concerto grosso that I stumbled upon while researching the works of Mark-Anthony Turnage, a composer whose works often fuse jazz and classical music. A relatively recent work by classical music standards (composed from 1993 to 1996), it's seen as Turnage's most extensive fusions of these two genres. The suite was written for a large orchestra including many unusual instruments and reflects Turnage's feelings on the death of his brother, Andrew.

I should note here that this is my first ever FAC, so I may need extra explanations if I don't understand some comments. I hope I have done justice to this wonderful work and hope that you will enjoy learning about this piece like I did. (Tim, here is the promised ping!) Thank you all, Schminnte (talk • contribs) 22:04, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MyCatIsAChonk

[edit]

Very exciting to see this at FAC, will review soon! I'll note for other reviewers that I was present at the PR. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 01:06, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Footnote a needs ref
    done, must have been moved during the GA review - S
  • Footnote b: Turnage had previously been a student of Gunther Schuller—the musician who coined the term "third stream"—at Tanglewood. - change the tense to past tense, "Turnage was a student of Gunther Schuller—the musician who coined the term "third stream"—when he attended Tanglewood."
    done - S
  • ...first time that Turnage had integrated improvisation into one of his compositions. - cut "had"
    done - S
  • Caption: "Elegy for Andy" incorporates musical quotations from Madama Buterfly - typo in Butterfly, and wl Madama Butterfly
    partly done: my spellcheck doesn't work on italics, thanks for spotting that. As for Madama Butterfly, it's linked in the prose just next to the image so I'm hesitant to link per MOS:REPEATLINK. Do you think it's necessary to provide a repeat? - S
Schminnte, I usually link things in captions; the aforementioned MOS:REPEATLINK states, "Generally, a link should appear only once in an article, but it may be repeated if helpful for readers, such as in infoboxes, tables, image captions, footnotes, hatnotes, and at the first occurrence in a section." MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 13:54, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
MyCatIsAChonk, I was noting that, but I was unsure due to the proximity of the image to the link. I can't see any harm in doing this though, so I've went ahead and linked. Schminnte (talk • contribs) 13:56, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...fifteen and three-quarter minutes. - never seen time written this way, would be better as "fifteen minutes and 45 seconds"
    I've done this for consistency with the other written out times and MOS:NUMNOTES says to not use mixed figures and words in this situation. - S
Fair enough then. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 13:54, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • All citations should use the same casing (title case or sentence case)- this includes the citations under "Sources"
    Should be done, please tell me if I've missed any. - S
  • Put "none" in the ref parameter of the templates under "Further reading"
    done - S
  • My only other concern is the paragraph indentation. In a number of places, paragraphs are only one or two sentences long, which looks (in my opinion) rather un-encyclopedic. There's some MOS thing about this, but I can't find it for the life of me- oh, well, I'll just have to make another sacrifice to the MOS gods. I suggest formatting more sentences into larger paragraphs, particularly under "Performances"
    I think you're thinking of MOS:PARA? I've tried to combine some sentences to meet this, but it seems to be talking about single sentence paragraphs mainly. - S
Looks much better now! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 13:54, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Schminnte, that's all I got- excellent work since the peer review! Please ping me in replies. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 01:27, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input again @MyCatIsAChonk! I have responded to all your points, some of which I am unsure on. Thanks, Schminnte (talk • contribs) 13:47, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Very nice work! There's one more thing I forgot- also per MOS:CONFORMTITLE, the names of works in citation titles should be italicised too (e.g. imagine a hypothetical review article titled "Review of Turnage's Blood on the Floor") MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 13:55, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think that should be done now as well @MyCatIsAChonk. Thanks, Schminnte (talk • contribs) 14:03, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - very nice work on this article since creation! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 14:11, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]

Support from Tim riley

[edit]

I've followed the progress of this article for a little while, and contributed to the peer review, where my various comments were duly dealt with. On rereading now I find nothing new to quibble at (except possibly for the spelling "infantalize" even though the cited NYT spells it thus). The article seems to me to meet all the FA criteria. It appears to be comprehensive, is well sourced, easy to read and as well illustrated as one could ask for in an article about a work of recent times. Happy to support its apotheosis. Tim riley talk 16:50, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much Tim! As an aside, the Cambridge, Merriam-Webster and Oxford all seem to accept "infantilize", not "infantalize". I've assumed that this is an error and corrected it per MOS:TYPOFIX. All the best, Schminnte (talk • contribs) 17:10, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass

[edit]

Fine, but a few quibbles and comments:

  • We don't usually give both ISBNs and OCLC numbers for books in the list of sources. I see no actual harm in such a work of supererogation here, but a judicious trimming might be in order.
  • I don't think we need to be told in the list of sources that London is in the UK or that New York city is in New York state, or that Cincinnati is in Ohio (as opposed, perhaps, to the numerous Cincinnatis elsewhere).
  • Discussing the sources before FAC, I think I recall concurring with another editor that although published doctoral theses are OK for WP:RS, MA theses might be iffy, but on reflection I don't think it's a problem: a major university has given its imprimatur. There are 16 citations to the Styles thesis, but I think that's all right.
  • The capitalisation of the Styles work in the list of sources looks a bit odd.
  • The magazine and newspaper sources are all eminently WP:RS.

Passing the source review. Tim riley talk 13:40, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The quibbles above are fixed, I've whittled the identifiers down to ISBNs only and removed the unnecessary disambiguators in the location parameters. I did have rationales for the usages of the theses in case they were questioned, so I'll put these down here for anyone else who may be interested: all the doctoral theses have been cited in other works apart from Vellianitis, which can be explained by how relatively new it is. This should be made up for by the fact that the Vellianitis thesis was advised by Professor Peter Franklin, a respected musicologist who has served on the editorial boards of several journals (Nineteenth-Century Music Review, The Wagner Journal and 19th-Century Music). As for Lowery, I consider him a high-quality reliable source as he has served as a lecturer in musicology at institutions like Lewis University. He is also a member of the Society for Ethnomusicology and has given presentations at the society's conferences in the past. All the best, Schminnte (talk • contribs) 16:37, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GWL

[edit]

Hey there! Just got some spare time to scroll through FAC, so I'll give this a shot. See invisible comments for my comments' division based on the sections! Additionally if you're interested, I have a FAC-awaiting PR. GeraldWL 10:50, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Gerald Waldo Luis, I have attempted to respond to all of your many points. Some I have asked questions about, very few have been declined, and the vast majority have been actioned on. Are you happy with these changes? If I have messed something up or missed a note, please tell me. Thanks a lot for your comments, Schminnte (talk • contribs) 19:57, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Gerald Waldo Luis, more replies below, I hope these help! Schminnte (talk • contribs) 16:58, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hey there, I did a couple more replies but they're just confirmations and I think this article looks all good now! I'll give my support once my last comment is resolved, the one about the archives down below. GeraldWL 03:28, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Archives have now been added to the URLs. Thanks again for all of your comments! Schminnte (talk • contribs) 07:33, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Then that makes a support! I tried listening to it (Decca ver.) and found myself enjoy Sweet and Decay :) Also no pressure but if you can stop by my PR that I linked above that'd be great! GeraldWL 08:57, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from GeraldWL 08:57, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
* "This event shaped"-- "which shaped" to merge two short sentences with the same theme
  • I personally feel that the resulting sentence would be too wordy, is this a necessity? - S
    I won't go far as calling is necessity since it isn't a MOS, but the last three sentences of para 1 has a reading speed of 4.77s, 4.57s, and 4.97s when I tried reading in average pace. Generally paragraphs would sound less monotone when each sentence vary by length. In my view it would add to the engaging factor of the article. GeraldWL 04:47, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Does this rewrite do anything for you? - S
    That looks pretty good, yeah. GeraldWL 03:28, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "by Turnage's former"-- by his former, to avoid repetition
    Not done, I think the moving of the point below solves this too. - S
  • "the suite. The suite"-- another repetitive
    Sentence has been moved to a better place, which also fixes the repetitive. - S
  • "music critics. Some critics"-- ditch the second critics, maybe replace with "of them"
    Removed - S
  • I think the premiere is a significant part of this article, thus worthy of inclusion in the lead, probably at para 3
    Added - S
  • Should probably link Ensemble Modern, and like the lead describe the nationality and what it is
    Does my change here work? - S
    I think so! :) GeraldWL 04:47, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "in the jazz trio"-- in the jazz or in jazz?
    I think in the jazz trio is correct English - S
  • I suppose you could coalesce the composition history and inspiration together? I imagine it would work well combined with paragraph 2
    I feel that it makes sense to make a distinction between the history and inspiration, but I see your point. Does my removal of the section header do anything for you? - S
    That looks great to for me. GeraldWL 04:47, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The suite reflects Turnage's personal feelings on the death of his brother Andrew"-- you should also mention how this event happens midway thru composition
    done - S
  • Wikilink YouTube
    done - S
  • "Blood on the Floor is a fusion of classical and jazz styles, and has been described as a "third stream" piece." Third stream AFAIK is a fusion of classical and jazz, but this sentence makes it seem like they're two different stuff. Rewriting to "Blood on the Floor has been described as a "third stream" piece, a fusion of classical and jazz styles" or stuff like that. This is also a problem in the lead.
    changed in both occurrences - S
  • I think harmony and juxtaposition is overlinking
    I feel like if bar is being linked, then harmony is also warranted. Juxtaposition delinked. - S
  • I think here and in the lead, bar must be linked
    linked - S
  • "Juxtaposition features frequently in Blood on the Floor." This sentence I think can be ditched, as rephrasing the later sentence to "Turnage also frequently contrasts thematic ideas with no transitions in between them, creating a juxtaposition" would serve well
    Done - S
  • "employed. These motifs appear" --> "employed, appearing"
    Changed to something similar - S
  • You should probably write which movement number "Dispelling the Fear" is
    done - S
  • Why are there two names (Blood on the Floor, Biting)? you should probably clarify what the second thing is
    they are tempo markings as they appear in the score. I tried to section these off using brackets like in Short Symphony. - S
  • "minutes. The prologue" --> "minutes, and"
    Not done, instead I merged with the previous sentence. - S
  • Why is the quote box so so thin? There's only 1-5 words per line in my display; suggest widening it a little
    Widened slightly, it looks fine to me but maybe not to others? Does this help? - S
    That looks better, though I found that in my display, a 25 or 28% width would make it more noticable as readers on desktop read the prose. GeraldWL 04:47, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I feel that this may produce too much blank space in the quote box: on my screen this leaves an undesirable blank space the size of the quote itself. So, not increased any more for now. - S
  • "for the orchestra. It lasts" --> "for the orchestra, and lasts"
    done - S
  • ""Shout" both starts" --> "It both starts"
    Not done to avoid repeating "it" from the previous sentence - S
  • "scaffolding. Scaffolding is used" --> "scaffolding, which is used"
    done - S
  • "The sketch was not used in the concerto" --> "The sketch was not used there"
    done - S
  • "ABBA"
    Linked - S
  • "This structure is one of the most fractured" --> "This structure is regarded as one of the most fractured"
    done - S
  • "Puccini's Madama Butterfly" --> "Giacomo Puccini's opera Madama Butterfly"
    Not done to avoid a sea of blue - S
    I don't think it's seaofblue here, as both links are separated by "opera". GeraldWL 04:47, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, you're entirely right. Now done: - S
  • Why is jazz fusion hyphen here but not in its article?
    It's most likely that the cited source used this styling and I mindlessly copied it :) Changed - S
  • ""Crackdown" opens" --> "It opens"
    Done - S
  • "pianissimo"
    Linked to Dynamics (music)#Dynamic markings - S
  • "Betts. The movement is dedicated to Betts" --> "Betts, and is dedicated to her"
    Done - S
  • "The movement's style is dissimilar to that of the other movements, bar "Sweet and Decay""-- meaning?
    Does the colon now in place clear that up? - S
    Maybe it's just my ESL position, but I just don't know what "bar "Sweet and Decay"" means. GeraldWL 04:47, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It is a preposition used in British English that means the same as "except for". I prefer this wording, but it can be changed if you think it would be helpful? - S
    No, it's totally fine! I just did a bit of Googling and it seems fine. Gives me a chance to learn new words and stuff too :) GeraldWL 03:28, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Floor. The chromatic" --> Floor: the chromatic"
    done - S
  • The first four sentences here are repetitive "It premiered here. Performed here. Premiered here. Performed here." Suggest changing to "Blood on the Floor was premiered in London in May 1996 at the Queen Elizabeth Hall, before being performed by the Ensemble Modern at the Salzburg Festival in August 1997. It then had its American premiere on 28 September 2001 at the Miller Theatre, New York, performed by the Absolute Ensemble, conducted by Kristjan Järvi."
    I've moved around some sentences. Is this good? - S
  • Should prolly link Miles David and Miller in their img captions.
    Done - S
  • "The Berlin Philharmonic" --> The orchestra
    Done - S
  • "This was a part of their Metropolis concert series, and featured"
    Good call, done - S
  • Why not combine para 3 and 4? Also, suggest adding to start of para 3, "The suite also saw more performances."
    Done - S
  • Suggest doing some paraphrasing here, this section is more of quotes after quotes. See WP:RECEPTION which is a common reference for WP FAs.
    I've tried to paraphrase some of the quotes and to make it a bit more interesting. Is this good? - S
  • "Some critics, like Clements, praised the suite. Writing in The Guardian, Clements commented" --> "Some critics, like Clements, praised the suite, writing in The Guardian"
    Not done: I feel that this wording is fine as it is. - S
  • Music critics is overlink
    Removed - S
    I don't see it removed yet. GeraldWL 04:47, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Now done - S
  • In the table, you can probably merge the Performers cells, & the conductor one
    Done - S
    Sorry, I meant merging cells as in having all rows with one cell; see To Fly!#Accolades "Recipient(s)" row. GeraldWL 04:47, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, I see. Done - S
  • Recommend adding archives to the further readings.


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

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 21 September 2023 [10].

Interstate 40 in Tennessee

[edit]
Nominator(s): Bneu2013 (talk) 01:06, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the second-longest freeway segment within a U.S. state east of the Mississippi River, and arguably the most important road in Tennessee by a long shot. This road is culturally significant in that it passes through one of the most important regions instrumental in the development of popular music (Hence its nickname "Music Highway"), and is also connected to a landmark United States Supreme Court case that has had implications on probably all highway construction projects since. This is my third, and hopefully last, attempt to get this to FA status. There seemed to be broad consensus during the last nomination that it was close, with one user willing to support pending a copyedit. This article received a peer review early this year, and since the last FAC nomination, has received a thorough GOCE copyedit. Bneu2013 (talk) 01:06, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]
  • File:I-40-Nashville-1962.jpg: when and where was this first published? Ditto File:Malfunction_junction_knoxville_1970s.jpg
  • File:TDOT_work_on_Hernando_de_Soto_bridge_fracture.jpg needs a different fair-use tag and a stronger rationale. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:24, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • This wasn't my image. I've improved the rationale, but I don't see what's wrong with the license. While "historic" may bring "old" to mind, this is still technically a "historic image" and doesn't really fall under any of the other fair-use categories. The gist of the rationale is that it would be near-impossible (and illegal at the time) for a civilian to obtain such a photo from this location. Bneu2013 (talk) 07:10, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Nikkimaria, is this all done now? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:29, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
One of the first two images is currently the subject of a deletion discussion. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:51, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild:, Nikkimaria - the first image was deleted, and I have no plans at the moment to reupload it. The holder has not responded to my email. With regards to the image that is currently the subject of a deletion discussion, I recently discovered that it was first published in the state highway department's 1960-62 report. I hope that will solve this problem. Bneu2013 (talk) 00:07, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay - that doesn't fit with the current tagging so that will need to be swapped out. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:09, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: - are you saying the licensing or deletion tag needs to be changed? Bneu2013 (talk) 00:22, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The licensing. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:23, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: - Done. Bneu2013 (talk) 00:27, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, that's fine. Just need to wait for the deletion request to be sorted then. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:28, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: - looks like the issue with this image has been resolved now. Bneu2013 (talk) 18:45, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment

[edit]

Comments from MyCatIsAChonk

[edit]
  • Landscapes on the route vary from flat, level plains and swamplands in the west, to irregular rolling hills... - cut that comma right after west
    • Done.
  • Is there a particular reason for the refs in the lead? They look unnecessary upon first glance.
    • All of these citations are for statements that are only explicitly in the lead (total length, longest in Tennessee, and terrain overview). While similar statements are found throughout the article that the reader can imply, it's best that we at least provide citations here so as not to be accused of OR. Bneu2013 (talk) 07:08, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Initially constructed in segments, I-40 in Tennessee was mostly complete by the late 1960s. - amend the first clause with the construction start date
  • First time under Route description, wl Tennessee and North Carolina
    • Done.
  • Some distance beyond this point, it turns north... - rather vague; if an exact distance is unknown, I'd suggest replacing it with just "Beyond this point, it..."
  • Some distance east of Lebanon... - same issue with "Some distance"
    • Fixed - see above.
  • Near the top, the Interstate reaches an elevation of 1,000 feet (300 m) for the first time in Tennessee, near Silver Point. - near is used twice in this sentence- mix things up a bit
    • Done.
  • The highway hugs the slopes of the plateau's Walden Ridge escarpment for several miles, containing what geologist Harry Moore called... - false title
    • Fixed.
  • Planners intended the highways to be integrated into the proposed nationwide highway network which became the Interstate Highway System, which was expected to be authorized by Congress. - which is used twice in different contexts; reword
    • Done.
  • The final section of I-40 in Knoxville to be completed was the segment connecting US 11W and US 11E/25W/70, which opened on December 19, 1967, to eastbound traffic[134] and on June 21, 1968, to westbound traffic. - why is the ref not after a punctuation mark? That's not entirely against the rules, but the rest of the article puts refs after punctuation (albeit the 2021 cost conversions, but that's justified)
  • The organization filed a lawsuit in the US District Court for the Western District of Tennessee in December 1969 after Secretary of Transportation John A. Volpe authorized the state... - false title
  • The suit was dismissed on February 26, 1970, by judge Bailey Brown, - another!
  • All refs must use the same casing (title case or sentence case) per MOS:CONFORMTITLE
    • Fixed.
  • Refs 15 and 22 have CSS maintenance errors for using the "authors" parameter
    • Fixed.

Bneu2013, that's all I got, mostly small comments on the prose. Nicely written. The only concern I can see coming up in the future in the article's prose size; it is impressively large for a highway, and that may cause concern from other reviewers (not myself, I think it's justified). MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 01:02, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@MyCatIsAChonk: - I've addressed all of your comments. With regards to the length, as I mentioned in the peer review, not only is this one of the longest highways in the country, but it passes through three urban areas with a population greater than one million, as well as near the center of population of the United States. As a result, it has definitely had more post-construction history than other Interstate segments of similar length, such as Interstate 25 in New Mexico or Interstate 80 in Nebraska. Add the Supreme Court case, Music Highway, and geological woes, and there's even more to talk about. At 9.2k words, this is still shorter than the max recommended 10k count at WP:Summary style, and all sections are at summary length, with no more than four paragraphs. I'm probably in danger of being accused of hypocrisy for defending the length, as I have been the one to oppose new additions on more than one occasion. Anyways, thanks for the review! Bneu2013 (talk) 08:49, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 11:01, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Epicgenius

[edit]

I commented at the previous FAC and plan to finish my review within a week or so. I did not have too many comments other than grammatical nitpicks at the previous FAC. – Epicgenius (talk) 01:19, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Epicgenius: - friendly reminder. Bneu2013 (talk) 13:33, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All right, let me see what I can do. – Epicgenius (talk) 13:34, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at the Route description section last time, so I will look at the other sections now.
"Music Highway" and honorary designations:
  • "I-40 also bears a number of honorary names in Tennessee." - I'd change this to clarify that sections of I-40 have honorary names, because it currently sounds like the entire highway carries an honorary name.
  • "The Holston River bridge is named for both Ralph K. Adcock and Bid Anderson," - Does it have two honorary names, or a single name with both men's names?
    • This is an unusual situation. There is currently no signage on the Interstate, just on a road that passes under the bridge. The short answer is that it appears that each direction of travel on the bridge has a separate name. One of the signs below the bridge says "Ralph K. Adcock Memorial Bridge", and the other says "Bid Anderson Memorial Bridge". There is no sign with both men's names. While I'm pretty sure the two directions each have a separate designation, I can't conclusively confirm this from the source, and as such, adding this would constitute OR. Bneu2013 (talk) 21:13, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
History:
  • I noticed a lot of passive-voice sentences (e.g. "this was approved by the Bureau of Public Roads", "Its numbering was approved by the American Association of State Highway Officials on August 14, 1957"). Would it be better to convert these to active voice instead?
    • I'm not sure. This seems to be a common in road articles, but I think I understand your point. I have converted a lot of passive to active, such as "was opened" to "opened", "was completed" to "finished", etc. Bneu2013 (talk) 22:07, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "controlled-access highway in Knoxville, the state's first" - The state's first controlled-access highway?
  • By the way, what time periods are you considering "early construction", and what periods are considered "later construction"? I noticed that thee projects in the "early construction" section extend into 1966, but there's one project in the "later construction" section that started in 1961.
    • The title was originally "earlier construction", but was changed during the copyedit. Some people probably wouldn't like this wording, but it is more accurate. I have such restored this. Considering the length of this route, I think it's best to split the construction by opening dates. Nearly all of the sections took between 2 and 3 years to construct, some even a little quicker; for a highway this long, I don't think we need to list the dates each section began construction, and/or was let to contract, just when major sections began, such as the Nashville-to-Memphis link. While the Pigeon River Gorge section did indeed begin during the earlier years of construction, this is an outlier, and splitting this between the two would run the risk of confusing readers. Although not mentioned in the article, the second-earliest date that a segment in the Later construction section began construction was in 1964, which was also when more half of the route was either completed or under construction. Bneu2013 (talk) 21:13, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The final section of I-40 in Knoxville to be completed was the segment connecting US 11W and US 11E/25W/70, which opened on December 19, 1967, to eastbound traffic and on June 21, 1968, to westbound traffic" - Out of curiosity, why did the two sides open at different times?
    • The sources don't say, but I suspect that either one side was completed early and they decided to open it, or the other direction experienced delays. A similar situation happened with the final section, partially opened in December 1974 and fully opened 9 months later. Although I haven't found any reliable sources that say this, someone I personally know who worked for the department at this time told me that this was done to allow Governor Winfield Dunn, who left office in January 1975, to keep his campaign promise to have all the state's mainline Interstates open by the time he left office. I don't know if this is true or not, but it wouldn't surprise me. Bneu2013 (talk) 21:43, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Epicgenius: - update - I just found this source (already cited in another article) that says the paving contract for this section was let on August 25, 1967. Although the article seems to imply that bridge construction and some grading had already been done, the contract included base, paving, interchange construction, and lighting, and 3-4 months was an unusually quick time to complete such a project, even one this short. So they may have finished the eastbound lanes early, and decided to go ahead and open them. Bneu2013 (talk) 00:13, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        Sounds like a reasonable explanation to me. – Epicgenius (talk) 01:15, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "requiring thousands of tons of earth and rock to be moved" - any specific figures?
  • "The last segment of the planned I-40 in West Tennessee to be completed was the Hernando de Soto Bridge in Memphis" - I noticed that the segment from SR 299 to US 27 near Harriman and Rockwood was completed afterward. Was this not part of the planned I-40? I may have missed this.
I'm up to the "Controversies" section now, and I will have more comments later. – Epicgenius (talk) 19:42, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Epicgenius: - thanks. I've responded to all of your comments so far. Bneu2013 (talk) 22:10, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Epicgenius: - Friendly reminder again. I must confess that I feel like a hypocrite for reminding, as I am extremely busy these days and don't have much time for Wikipedia outside of the weekends, and have to be constantly reminded myself. But I just wanted to make sure.

Also, I thought I might let you know that I made two minor changes outside of the review last week. First of all, I added the date that I-40 was approved to replace the northern loop of I-240 in order to signify that this did not immediately happen after the Overton Park section was canceled, as the previous wording seemed to imply. I also added the completion date of the last missing section. I had intended to do this almost two years ago when I found one of the sources from the state archives, but it totally flew under my radar. But now all sections have an opening/completion date. With regards to what the sources say, this short section was declared complete on the same day that the Nashville to Memphis section was completed, and one of the sources says the contractor planned to keep it open afterwards. I suspect it didn't receive much coverage due to the much greater milestone that was achieved on the same day. Bneu2013 (talk) 20:28, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No worries @Bneu2013. My job keeps me busy on weekdays as well, but I will have a few more comments tomorrow.
The other changes you mentioned are fine with me. I can understand if no reliable source definitively talks about an opening date - I've been in that position plenty of times. – Epicgenius (talk) 20:35, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Epicgenius: - Friendly reminder again. Bneu2013 (talk) 23:31, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I will look at this more in depth tomorrow, but I don't really see too many other issues. – Epicgenius (talk) 16:31, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Controversies:
  • "When the state announced the routing through the park, a group of local citizens spearheaded by a group of older women called "little old ladies in tennis shoes" by media outlets began a campaign to halt construction." - Do we need to mention the "little old ladies..." name? It seems relatively minor to I-40 itself (it might be noteworthy to mention in a hypothetical article about the protest though).
    • We don't have to, but I don't see any harm in doing so. Apparently the state seems to consider this noteworthy or else they probably wouldn't mention it in their history source. I doubt the protest would ever be worthy of its own article; the Supreme Court case article would be the place to go more in depth. Bneu2013 (talk) 18:47, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "About four miles (6.4 km) of a controlled-access highway was built within the I-240 loop east of the park" - Did construction start after I-40 was rerouted onto the north section of I-240?
Memphis projects:
  • "The eastern interchange was reconstructed with two projects" - Should this be split off the first paragraph? I feel like this may be more related to the second paragraph.
    • That's a tough call to make. The current organization has three paragraphs of similar length, and splitting here would mess with that. Add to the complication the single opening sentence that is about a completely unrelated project. Splitting here would leave the opening paragraph with just two sentences, which is short. Although it would be nice for the eastern interchange to have its own paragraph, this would be difficult considering the size and scope of the two-phase project. Bneu2013 (talk) 18:47, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The single-lane ramp carrying I-40 westbound traffic through the interchange was rerouted as the exit ramp for Summer Avenue," - Looking at a satellite map, it sounds like you mean "repurposed" instead of "rerouted".
  • "The northern merge with I-40 and I-240" - The merge on the northern leg of the intersection? :**Yes - changed to "merge point". Bneu2013 (talk) 18:47, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nashville area:
  • "The system (the first of its kind in the country) experienced technical problems," - Out of curiosity, do you know what type of problems? Or did these sensors just not work?
    • The source says that the system stopped working properly, and the sensors were damaged by heavy trucks, likely due to improper installation. Other than that, I don't know a whole lot. Bneu2013 (talk) 21:20, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Knoxville projects:
  • "While these projects were underway, the concurrent part of I-75 on this segment was rerouted around the western leg of I-640 (completed in December 1980) and the short segment of I-75 north of this segment became I-275." - Was the rerouting completed in December 1980, or was the western leg completed at that time? Unrelated, but this explains why I-75 uses I-640 in that area, rather than continuing straight down I-275.
  • "SmartFIX40, a project between I-275 and Cherry Street" - It may be helpful to briefly summarize the project in a few words.
  • "additional auxiliary lanes" - Were these frontage roads or entrance/exit ramps?
Other projects:
I should review the final sections by Thursday. – Epicgenius (talk) 16:04, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Epicgenius: - thanks. I think I've addressed everything so far. Bneu2013 (talk) 21:44, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Geological difficulties:
  • "A minor rockslide shut down the right lane of westbound I-40 at mile 343 on May 6, 2013." - Is this noteworthy enough to mention here? If so, do you know if there have been any other minor rockslides there over the years?
  • "Another rockslide in the gorge on October 26, 2009, however," - I'd remove "however".
  • "On January 31, 2012, the westbound lanes of I-40 were closed because of a rockslide near the North Carolina border. Traffic was detoured along I-26 and I-81, and the road reopened a few weeks later." - I'd remove the detour info and just combine this into one sentence, e.g. "On January 31, 2012, the westbound lanes of I-40 were closed for a few weeks because of a rockslide near the North Carolina border."
Incidents and closures
  • "10 people were injured, and two people who were inside of homes impacted by the fires later died from their injuries" - Per MOS:NUMERAL, "Avoid beginning a sentence with a figure", so you should spell out 10 as "ten".
    • Done.
  • "the accident.[266] The accident" - This sounds a bit repetitive.
    • Fixed.
  • "A Canadian man was found dead on July 11, 1996" - This entire incident seems to have taken place in a hotel near I-40, not on I-40 itself, so I'm not sure it's related to this article at all.
That's all I have. – Epicgenius (talk) 13:50, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Epicgenius: - all comments addressed. Bneu2013 (talk) 15:33, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Looks good to me. – Epicgenius (talk) 15:37, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by UndercoverClassicist

[edit]

Very much casting a non-expert's eye over this. Reading through the last FAC, it seems that the main sticking points were the use of Google Maps and general copyediting, and those seem to have been at least largely addressed already. There's something almost meditative about following the description of the road's course, and credit must go to the nominator and writers for making the prose so engaging. UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:30, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@UndercoverClassicist: - I believe I've addressed all of your comments. Bneu2013 (talk) 02:09, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to support. There's a small MOS:SANDWICH on my display between the Hernando de Soto Bridge and the infobox, which might be fixed by right-aligning that picture. I'm happy on pretty much every point, and the replies I've left are minor issues that shouldn't affect the outcome. UndercoverClassicist T·C 07:46, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

Reviewing this version, spot-check upon request and with caveat that this isn't a topic I am deeply familiar with. Not sure that we usually give ISSNs to newspapers (#3, #196, #198 and #153), especially since not all cites to The Tennessean have it. Is the master's thesis #6 a high-quality source? #54 is a bill; did it become law? I kind of think that #157 needs a rewrite; a Senate hearing is only the opinion of the people heard, so we need to know their credentials. Are icons like #265 consistently applied to sources? Source formatting seems consistent with available information and other sources seem OK. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:39, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: - While I was the one who retrieved the sources with ISSNs, it was someone else who added them. I don't think they are needed, and I can remove them if you would like. The master's thesis is a high quality source, and is corroborated by other sources, also. With regards to #54 it did become law, and is corroborated by #55. Although it was technically a resolution, not a law. I don't see the issue with #157; this hearing also included a presentation on the history of the controversy, which this source is used for here. Finally, what is the issue with #265 exactly? Thanks. Bneu2013 (talk) 19:26, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The issue with #265 is that these icons are not consistently applied to sources. The problem with #157 is that the Senate isn't the source of the information of the hearing; we need to spell out what the "heard" information comes from. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:48, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: - oh, the lock icon. That wasn't my addition, and I have removed it. There is no need for that icon since the source now links to a newspaper clipping that is visible to everyone. I've corroborated the Senate hearing with additional sources, and also removed the ISSNs. I hope I've addressed all of your concerns. Bneu2013 (talk) 00:25, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are misunderstanding - the problem with the hearing isn't its reliability per se, but rather that the citation gives no information on who was heard and which credentials they have. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:03, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: - are you saying that the citation template parameters need to be modified to say who was heard at the hearing? I don't know if you've looked at the sources or not, but the hearing includes testimony from multiple senators, the Governor of Tennessee, and state and federal transportation officials, among others. It also includes a chronology of the Overton Park controversy (which does not appear to be a transcript of anyone's personal testimony at the hearing) which is what the article relies on. Bneu2013 (talk) 13:15, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, pretty much. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:20, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: - actually, having looked over the source again, the only testimony that is cited is that of then-Secretary of Transportation Brock Adams. But the page numbers are already listed, so I don't see the need to modify. Is there any way I could possibly insert a note in the citation template that directly attributes Adams's testimony? Bneu2013 (talk) 13:30, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd swap it into the author parameter and push the current item in that parameter to a publisher parameter. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:22, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: - done. Bneu2013 (talk) 16:41, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Only thing left to do is that #54 should probably be swapped against a citation to the actual law. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:03, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: - done. Bneu2013 (talk) 18:36, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like a pass, then, my usual caveats about no spotcheck and not much knowledge of the topic. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:52, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from User:Moabdave

[edit]

I reviewed this article, including some sourcing spotchecks at it's last FAC nomination, my comments are here. Unfortunately, I have some real life issues I'm dealing with right now that will likely prevent me from being able to do another review. I will attempt to at least re-check the sections I commented on to see what has changed. However, I'd like to note that by the time the last FAC closed, my lone issues were copyediting. All major issues of sourcing and policy compliance were resolved satisfactorily and I voted support pending a copyeditor review, which appears to have been done.Dave (talk) 07:22, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Moabdave: - that's okay. I'm a lot busier my self than I used to be and have probably been trying to do more than I should at once recently. The only major changes were a few paragraphs about honorary designations, which I combined with the "Music Highway" section, and a few sentences about the planning for the Pigeon River section (which was a controversy in North Carolina). Bneu2013 (talk) 21:42, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 21 September 2023 [11].

Polar bear

[edit]
Nominator(s): LittleJerry (talk) 16:52, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here we have another well-known animal, the top predator of the Arctic and icon of climate change. I've put off doing this article for a long time but a couple months ago I began rewriting it. We already have Knut (polar bear) as an FA, and its time for the species itself to take its rightful place on the mammal list. I wish to have this as a TFA for International Polar Bear Day on February 27. Special thanks to WereSpielChequers and Danbloch. LittleJerry (talk) 16:52, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: FunkMonk, Jens Lallensack and any more reviewers, please add your four ~ at the end of each bulletin so I can reply to each easier. Thank you. LittleJerry (talk) 15:40, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Jens

[edit]
  • The bear is called nanook by the Inuit. The Netsilik cultures have different names for bears – Do the Netsilik also use the word "nanook", since they are Inuit, but have these other words in addition?
Yes. LittleJerry (talk) 16:24, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Different subspecies have been proposed including Ursus maritimus maritimus (Phipps in 1774), U. m. marinus (Pallas 1776). – Why aren't these listed in the taxonbox, while an extinct, also questionable subspecies is listed? And should there be an "and" instead of the comma?
removed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:00, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • With its carnivorous, high fat diet; the species has less copies – need , instead of ;?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 14:59, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Heading "Natural history": Isn't "natural history" a term with a much broader scope? It surely includes evolution, but of all things, this section is under "taxonomy" instead. I suggest to rename it into "Behaviour and life history" or similar. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 01:12, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Natural history refers to the animal in its environment. LittleJerry (talk) 14:59, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I see that some people use this term this way. But I doubt this is what the average reader will understand. Look in the dictionary [12] how many definitions there are, most of them very broad. Why use this vague term that can mean anything, when more precise alternatives are available? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 02:04, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
changed. LittleJerry (talk) 14:28, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I doubt that the maximum running speed is only 20 km/h. That seems too low. For example, [13] estimate 30–40 km/h.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 16:31, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The paper gives this as an extimate though, and explicitly says it was not measured. We have to make clear it's an estimate. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:47, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 21:43, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ursus maritimus maritimus and U. m. marinus However – dot missing
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 16:31, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sexual dimorphism in the species is particularly high compared with most other mammals – Can we remove the "particularly", or is there something else that is also high?
Some other mammals like elephant seals have higher sexual dimporhism. LittleJerry (talk) 16:31, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Male polar bears have larger heads than females. – Proportionally, I assume? And maybe this information is better placed together with the sentence on sexual dimorphism?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 16:31, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Male polar bears have larger heads than females. The snout profile is curved, resembling a "Roman nose". – Two pieces of information that don't fit the reading flow (the text before and after this is about something else; this seem to have been inserted inside but destroys the logical succession of information. Can it be placed somewhere else?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 16:31, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • They move around by walking or galloping. – The implication of this sentence would be that they lack a trot, in contrast to most other larger mammals. Can you check this? If so – it should be explicitly mentioned, as this is the main point.
Removed. LittleJerry (talk) 16:31, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is an important point, though. This paper [14] explicitly states that they never trot. Can we add this back in, stating that they walk and gallop but not trot? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:47, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 21:41, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The feet are hairier than in other bear species, which allows then to walk on snow and sea ice – "which allows them"? Also, please specify what the function is: Traction, insulation, or both?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 16:31, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Males have significantly longer hairs on their forelegs – longer compared to what? Their hindlegs or the hairs of females?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 16:31, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • given that they appear to mostly encounter low-frequency sounds. – Needs information. Why? Where do these low-frequency sounds come from?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 16:31, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They are not very webbed. Not important. LittleJerry (talk) 16:31, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, fair enough. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:47, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is the apex predator of the Arctic – What about orcas, those are apex predators of the Arctic as well?
Changed. LittleJerry (talk) 14:19, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fat reserves allow polar bears to fast for months. – This piece of information is a bit lonely and isolated. I think it is relevant in context of the low-food period during summer, and could be better placed where this is discussed?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 14:19, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The inside of these shelters can be around 1.5 m (4.9 ft) around – With "around" you mean the circumference?
Yes. LittleJerry (talk) 14:19, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But isn't this very (or even impossibly) small when the ceiling height is 1.2 m? The circumference should be greater than twice the ceiling height, right? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 14:40, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
mistake. Its diameter LittleJerry (talk) 16:24, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Increased ice mobility may result in less stable site for dens – "sites"?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 14:19, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • A 2018 study found that ten percent or less of prime bear habitat in the Chukchi Sea is vulnerable to a potential spill, but could harm – I think there is a grammar issue, as it basically says that bear habitat would "harm" which makes no sense.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 14:19, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • polygraphs – link?
Added. LittleJerry (talk) 14:20, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure it links to the correct article? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 14:59, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 16:10, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Svaland – What is Svaland? You mention it two times but without link.
Changes, its Svalbard. LittleJerry (talk) 14:19, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is the children's book series/movies/merchandise of The Little Polar Bear, which got very popular in Europe; worth mentioning?
Added. LittleJerry (talk) 14:19, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Couldn't find much. LittleJerry (talk) 14:19, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK. The Russian article has something but English sources for that stuff are hard to find. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 14:40, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

UndercoverClassicist

[edit]

My admiration always goes to those willing to take on the big topics, especially one with so much call for judicious summarising. Hugely knowledgeable and generally very clear throughout. My main concerns are the heavy reliance on primary sources for scientific claims, which I've explained in a little more detail below; it would also help clarity if certain people, places and concepts were more fully introduced and explained for non-expert readers. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 08:54, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tidyup
  • Suggest briefly introducing people by (some or all of) period, nationality and profession on first mention: the Welsh naturalist Thomas Pennant, the Swedish taxonomist Carl Linnaeus, the British explorer Constantine John Phipps.
I have before, but was told to stop in a previous FA. LittleJerry (talk) 15:12, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not a deal-breaker. UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:10, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Due to its adaptations to a marine environment, some have placed the polar bear in its own genus Thalarctos: I think we want a comma before Thalarctos.
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 15:22, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Phipps in 1774): this looks like parenthetical citation to me, which is deprecated. What's lost by putting these into footnotes?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:22, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mitochondrial DNA studies in the 1990s and 2000s have supported the status of the polar bear as a derivative of the brown bear, finding that some brown bear populations were more closely related to polar bears than other brown bears, particularly the ABC Islands bears.: the three citations cited here look like primary sources to me (that is, the studies themselves rather than someone else talking about the studies). This isn't a medical article, so WP:MEDRS doesn't strictly apply, but that page points out that primary sources are particularly unreliable for scientific studies, since it's common for their results not to be replicated and so for their conclusions to be discarded later. Can we cite to a secondary source? This issue pops up a few times in that section (in fact, it seems to be almost entirely cited to primary sources).
You mean I'm not supposed to cite scientific articles? What? I cited several scientific articles in my other FAs with no problem. I would really like to get a second opinion. @FAC coordinators: ? LittleJerry (talk) 15:32, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not an expert, but I thought replication was more of an issue with experiments than descriptive studies. UndercoverClassicist, what source would you prefer for this information that would state the mainstream scientific view? (t · c) buidhe 17:26, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's a fair point; I'll have a look through and see if any of the cited articles actually report an experiment - please consider this one shelved for now. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 18:09, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK, some are experiments (Owen, M. A.; Swaisgood, R. R.; Slocomb, C.; Amstrup, S. C.; Durner, G. M.; Simac, K.; Pessier, A. P. (2014). "An experimental investigation of chemical communication in the polar bear), some (most?) aren't. I think there's some wisdom in what WP:MEDRS says: Ideal sources for [scientific] information include: review articles (especially systematic reviews) published in reputable medical journals; academic and professional books written by experts in the relevant fields and from respected publishers; and guidelines or position statements from national or international expert bodies. It's not a deal-breaker for me, but I'd encourage the swapping in of secondary sources (books and review articles, in particular) if and when those exist. After all, it's not all that uncommon for the results of a project or investigation to get through peer review to publication, only then to be widely rejected by the academic community for some methodological reason or other, and that holds both for strictly experimental work and that which is more descriptive. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 20:55, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thinking on this a bit more (and I apologise for now replying to myself twice), there's a bit of a WP:SUMMARYSTYLE problem here. Individual scientific studies are very close to the epistemological coal face: a Wikipedia article, particularly a high-level one that might (or does) encapsulate several sub-articles, should be a few steps back. If the information only exists in primary studies/experiments but hasn't made its way into books or review articles yet, and those studies haven't yet been cited by others, are we really summarising the established scholarship? This isn't to say that we should never cite a recent study or experiment, but to raise a query as to the degree to which we're doing it here. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 21:36, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Most scientific articles on animals are observations not experiments. The DNA studies are observations. You can check the that these articles are cited multiple times. Hailer and colleagues (2012) is cited 280 times for example. Papers talk about previous studies all the time. I thought that using "primary sources" is more of a problem for history because citing historical documents requires interpretation and thus would be OR. This is different from citing the conclusions of scientific researchers. Paleontology articles rely heavily on peer-reviewed papers. You can't expect them to cite only books and review articles. If I just cited books, I would be in gross violation of 1c: a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature. Hog Farm, need you to weigh in. LittleJerry (talk) 22:13, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:MEDRS applies to biomedical articles only and so is not, IMO, relevant here. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:09, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All fair points. Given that the replication issue isn't relevant here, I don't think there's a real problem with the current citations. UndercoverClassicist T·C 16:38, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lindqvist and colleagues (2010) estimated that the polar bear lineage split from other brown bears around 150,000 years ago.: definitely parenthetical: if the date is felt important, could change to "In 2010, the biologist Charlotte Lindqvist and her colleagues...". Again, I think this is cited to a primary source. There's a few similar cases in the same section.
See above. LittleJerry (talk) 15:32, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The primary source question is open, but I don't think the parentheses one is? UndercoverClassicist (talk) 20:49, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've addressed this too. In the first bulletin. LittleJerry (talk) 20:51, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah; there's a few still in the article, I'm afraid. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 20:56, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've referenced studies this way before in other FAs and "In 2010, the biologist Charlotte Lindqvist and her colleagues" just seems unnecessary. LittleJerry (talk) 21:19, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Parenthetical referencing seems to me to be a clear-cut break with our style guidelines, which isn't compatible with FA criterion 2: I'm always sympathetic to a WP:IAR argument if there's a situation-specific reason to suspend that part of the criteria, but I'm not sure that "it's got through the net before" is really one of those. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 21:39, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@FAC coordinators: ? You've reviewed and readed my nominations before.. I honestly don't think this violates wiki rules. LittleJerry (talk) 21:49, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Lindqvist needs introducing, and UC's suggestion seems the obvious way of doing this. No doubt there are other ways. If I were reviewing I would also be unhappy with the current phrasing. I do not believe that there is a primary source issue, but have an open mind if someone wishes to persuade me differently. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:09, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Changed. LittleJerry (talk) 16:54, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • particularly high compared to most other mammals: it's less of a rule than people think, but many readers will prefer compared with when not talking about numbers.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 16:19, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • forward scatter UV: suggest spelling out ultraviolet. Is there a way to rephrase to avoid the double-bluelink?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 16:19, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • They can hear best at frequencies of 11.2–22.5 kHz: can we give the readers some idea of what that means; what sort of sounds are these?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 16:19, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The polar bear's liver accumulates high concentrations of vitamin A from their prey, making it toxic: little ambiguity in practice, but grammatically it ought to refer to the prey. Suggest "The polar bear's liver is toxic from the accumulation of..."
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 16:19, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Their range includes Greenland, Canada, the US state of Alaska, Russia and the Svalbard Archipelago of Norway: why "the US state"? It makes the sentence more clunky and we haven't said "the Danish autonomous territory of Greenland".
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 16:19, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • James Bay and Newfoundland/Labrador: the slash is a bit unconventional: suggest "James Bay, Newfoundland and Labrador in Canada".
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 16:19, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • They may independently travel an average of 142,332 km2: that's an area; you can travel a number of km, or over an area of so many km2, but not this.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 16:19, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • One study found they can swim an average of 154.2 km (95.8 mi) with an average duration of 3.4 days: slightly wonky phrasing ("I ran three miles with a duration of half an hour"?): suggest something like "they can swim for an average of 3.4 days at a time, and travel an average of..."
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 16:19, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Adult males require less shelter for sleeping as they are less at risk from other bears.: is it worth spelling out why the others are at risk from other bears?
I would think that would be obvious, males are bigger than females and adult male are of great size and less likely to be messed with. LittleJerry (talk) 16:19, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This links to another point, but (for example) messed with and eaten? UndercoverClassicist (talk) 18:10, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't say specifically. LittleJerry (talk) 18:38, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • other female-offspring units: I think this is a unit of a female and an offspring, in which case it should be an endash rather than a hyphen (MOS:ENBETWEEN). The same goes for blue-violet further up if we mean colours between blue and violet.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 16:19, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • In their southern range, especially near Hudson Bay and James Bay, polar bears endure all summer without sea ice to hunt from. Hence they must subsist more on terrestrial foods: consider joining these two sentences; the second sits a little awkwardly on its own.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 16:19, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Courtship can be somewhat intense: what exactly does this mean? I don't have much of a frame of reference for bear romance.
Changed. LittleJerry (talk) 16:19, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Polar bears are especially susceptible to Trichinella, a parasitic roundworm they contract through cannibalism: we didn't mention cannibalism in the diet section; is this a normal part of bears' diet?
Added. LittleJerry (talk) 17:22, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest adding alt text to images and checking that captions are correct per MOS:CAPFRAG.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 17:22, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The species has been labeled as 'threatened': we're inconsistent on handling things like this, but MOS:WORDSASWORDS would suggest italics are best.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 17:22, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest spelling out what CITES is and means.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 17:22, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • the Japanese writing: writing is odd here as a noun: history book?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 17:22, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • brown and black-coloured bears: assuming both brown and black are strictly colours here, should be brown- and black-coloured bears
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 17:22, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • the 13th century anonymous Norwegian text: hyphenate 13th-century as a compound modifier.
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 17:22, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest telling the reader roughly where Zhokhov Island is.
Clarified. LittleJerry (talk) 17:49, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • In more modern times, Hollywood actors would pose on bearskin rugs: can we be more specific on the time frame? Hollywood has been around as a centre for film since 1911; Monroe didn't start acting for another 35 years.
Clarified LittleJerry (talk) 17:49, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's a lot of people who could do with an introduction in the first paragraph of "Captivity": in particular, we should clarify which James I we're talking about (consider "James VI and I", as he's not James I in Scotland) per MOS:NOFORCELINK.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 17:49, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many zoos in Europe and North America have stopped keeping polar bears due to the costs of their exhibits: what makes these exhibits so expensive?
The source doesn't make it very clear, their design is already discussed. LittleJerry (talk) 20:48, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • MOS:BIRTHDATE advises against giving people's lifespan, except at the start of an article where they're the subject. Admittedly, it doesn't give specific guidance on polar bears, but I'd put the ranges into prose if they're felt important.
Removed. LittleJerry (talk) 17:49, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Give a rough date range for the Dorset culture, The Grimsey Man and the Bear and The Tale of Auðun of the West Fjords.
Give one. No dates are given for the other two. LittleJerry (talk) 20:48, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't follow; we know that the Dorset Culture existed from 500 BCE to between 1000 CE and 1500 CE, and I think it's germane to readers to know that we're talking about something that's very much a historical rather than a contemporary object. I didn't get much on a quick Google for the Grimsey man, unfortunately; appreciate that folklore can be a very tricky one to date even approximately. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 21:02, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see that as necessary, especially such that's such a wide time period. No date is give for the art specifically. LittleJerry (talk) 21:16, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We disagree on this one, but it's not a make-or-break issue for FAC. UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:10, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is considered to be a powerful symbol for the dangers of climate change and has been used to raise awareness: I think you have to raise awarness of something.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 18:47, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

UndercoverClassicist, any more? LittleJerry (talk) 01:43, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

done. LittleJerry (talk) 15:35, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:22, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reading again, this sentence feels a little half-done: do we mean that U. maritimus tyrannus was a large subspecies of the brown bear, or that the example(s) we have are U. arctos pure and simple? UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:10, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The source just says it may be a brown bear. LittleJerry (talk) 13:19, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, but we need to be clear, accurate and as good as a professional encyclopaedia: if we've got one source and it doesn't allow us to do that, we need to find some more. This book (p190) gives some useful context: tyrannus is "known" only from a single bone (an ulna), and the evidence for it belonging to a new species of polar bear is that it's extremely big. However, it might have come from an extremely large but otherwise normal brown bear, meaning that the species never existed. UndercoverClassicist T·C 00:01, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    done. LittleJerry (talk) 00:49, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the "missing link" at the moment is to let readers know that we've only "identified" a single putative animal: if they're imagining a species with multiple members, the sentence is a little confusing. It also seems to be fairly undisputed in post-2000ish HRQS that the ulna was from a brown bear and that tyrannus did not exist (e.g. here p36, which also gives it as a grizzly). Suggest something like:
    "One possible fossil subspecies, Ursus maritimus tyrannus, was posited in 1964 by Björn Kurtén (paper here for citation). Kurtén reconstructed the subspecies from a single fragment of an ulna, approximately 20% larger than expected for a polar bear.(cite: Kurten 1964: p10) However, re-evaluation in the 21st century has indicated that the fragment likely comes from a large brown or grizzly bear."
    As this is still the main article for ursus maritimus tyrannus, I think we're justified in giving it three sentences: I can see an argument for omitting Kurtén's name if brevity is a concern, but most of those details seem to be found in most sources discussing tyrannus, so there's probably a stronger WP:DUEWEIGHT argument for giving the story this much space. UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:51, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    done. LittleJerry (talk) 16:55, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think we're still behind the scholarship with that 2008 article: Harington cites a personal comment from the director of the NHM that it's likely to be a brown bear, and subsequent sources that show more than a passing familiarity with the question are pretty unequivocal that it was (here and here, for instance: see also this very sceptical reception of Kurten from 1999). In other words, I think our article leaves the question more open than it is: suggest citing one or more of these sources and amending to something a bit more decisive. I suggested one formulation in the blockquote above, but am not particularly wedded to that phrasing. UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:14, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Add extra source. LittleJerry (talk) 00:55, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This bit still needs some attention, I'm afraid. Something's gone wrong in the writing or editing. We also need to sort out the final sentence (currently "However, it is currently considered to be a large individual brown bear"), which no longer makes sense in context: we need to be clear that the current understanding is that the ulna itself came from a brown bear. UndercoverClassicist T·C 16:27, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I changed it to your proposed wording. LittleJerry (talk) 21:51, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A real polar bear hunt was filmed for the 1932 documentary Igloo. In the film The Big Show (1961), two people are killed by a circus polar bear. The scenes were shot using animal trainers instead of the actors. The 1974 film The White Dawn features a polar bear being speared but it was simulated and the trained bear was unharmed. Dutch author Hans de Beer created a heroic polar bear named Lars. In the His Dark Materials fantasy novels, armour-clad polar bears perform ritualized combat bouts. In the The Jack Benny Program, Benny has a pet polar bear named Carmichael.
Part of the issue is that it reads somewhat as a grab-bag: what makes these examples interesting, useful, connected or illuminating? Are we simply mentioning every polar bear we (or our source) can find in popular culture? I'd suggest expanding out the meaning of real for Igloo (real as in they followed Inuit or similar people on an unstaged hunt, or that the actors actually shot bears?). The White Dawn sentence needs another look: perhaps something like "features a scene where a polar bear in speared; this was created by simulating the stabbing with a trained bear, who was unharmed". Similarly with Hans de Beer: I think he wrote about a polar bear rather than creating one. It also seems a little odd to give his name but not Philip Pullman's, and indeed it's usual to give the author's when first referring to a book in this article and beyond. UndercoverClassicist T·C 16:10, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They are just examples from different mediums, film, books and radio. His Dark Materials polar bears are particularly well known. Am I not suppose to mention any in modern culture? I made some changes. LittleJerry (talk) 16:33, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It helps if we can give some coherency: things that can help that include guiding the reader through media (so "literary depictions include...") and making it clear that the examples we have picked are particularly special (are they firsts, best-known, award-winning, described as something interesting by critics...?). UndercoverClassicist T·C 17:01, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
changed again. LittleJerry (talk) 17:36, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
UndercoverClassicist has made a policy backed point. You have resisted change on the basis of personal preference. (I am aware that I am simplifying in both cases.) Feel free to decline to change and see if UC thinks that it is a point they wish to oppose over. If they do (actually, even if they don't) the closing FAC coordinator will take it into account with all other reviewer comments in reaching a decision. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:13, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
removed. Why wasn't there demand for articles on movies to do this? LittleJerry (talk) 13:37, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is now the second or third time we've responded to a question-mark over how a piece of content is presented by removing that information altogether. Neither of those details is particularly mission-critical, but I can't see any real argument that an article without the amount is a better article than one with the amount inflated. UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:35, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

UndercoverClassicist? LittleJerry (talk) 13:33, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

UndercoverClassicist, I'd really appreciate it we would wrap this up soon or if you'd at least give me a timeline. Are there any major issues left? You've given a much-appreciated thorough review, but I can't keep working on tiny details like what to call An Inconvenient Truth. Not unless I know there's a light at the end of the tunnel. Thank you. LittleJerry (talk) 12:54, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Very much my fault: it's an FAC, not a PR, but I'd always prefer to help get an article up to FA standards rather than state that it doesn't meet them and clear off. It isn't quite there yet: there are still some small mistakes of English and MoS which mean that c1a and c2 are not yet satisfied. Given that we've made quite a lot of changes in some areas without changing the sourcing, I'd like to take a look at some of those sources before voting to make sure that we're still OK for WP:TSI. I'm happy to stop short and cast a vote on the article as it stands, if you'd like, but I wouldn't be able to vote support for it. UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:58, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok. Keep going. LittleJerry (talk) 21:48, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    UndercoverClassicist, how about waiting for FunkMonk to finish his review? With two finished reviews, the coordinators will give you more time to work on yours. LittleJerry (talk) 18:18, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also a bit on the slow side these days, so would probably drag it out even more to wait for me. FunkMonk (talk) 18:20, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
UndercoverClassicist, ready to continue. LittleJerry (talk) 20:15, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
UndercoverClassicist will you finish your review? LittleJerry (talk) 22:28, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'll give it another look when I get the chance; other things have now come up, unfortunately. Happy to ping you when I do. UndercoverClassicist T·C 07:19, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support: I haven't had time to carry out the checks, but I don't think I'm going to in the near future, and I have no specific concerns that should hold up the FAC process. Nice work on the article and in polishing it up over this nomination. UndercoverClassicist T·C 05:59, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

a455bcd9

[edit]

Hi, just a few comments:

Waiting for the new map at Map Request. LittleJerry (talk) 22:16, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 02:23, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Changed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:16, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Polar bear subpopulation map.svg: a legend is missing for the colors and the meaning of the letters. Letters used are different from the text that says: Polar bears have been divided into 19 subpopulations labeled... For instance WHB is not listed in the article but it's on the map.
Isochrone, could you please add a legend. LittleJerry (talk) 22:43, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@LittleJerry I'm away right now but I might be able to do it tomorrow afternoon, just ping me if I forget – Isochrone (T) 23:16, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @LittleJerry could you please specify if you solely want a legend or some of the changes above? I could add an in map legend, but perhaps one in the caption using {{legend}} would be more appropriate: what do you prefer? – Isochrone (T) 12:17, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that the legend is only part of the problem. The bigger issue is the 16 vs 19 subpopulations and the different names. {{Legend}} is probably more appropriate and easier to update. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 13:07, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Isochrone, I think it would be better to remove the colors and add in the Kane Basin and Norwegian Bay (NB) subpopulations. LittleJerry (talk) 15:07, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The sources mentioned on the map (on Commons) show 19 subpopulations, including Queen Elizabeth Islands* (QE) (this one and this one). If we choose not to display QE on this map, we should add in the description on Commons: Map showing subpopulation of Polar Bears in the Arctic according to the Polar Bear Specialist Group (PBSG). Note: Queen Elizabeth Islands is not considered by the PBSG to be one of the 19 recognized polar bear subpopulations inhabiting the circumpolar Arctic.
Still what I don't understand: PBSG say there are 19 subpopulations but then only list 18 of them. Did I miss something? a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 16:57, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That confused me too, so I changed the wording. LittleJerry (talk) 21:09, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Isochrone? LittleJerry (talk) 22:42, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @LittleJerry apologies I've been slightly busy, but I've done it now. Any other specific things you want addressed? The original map also seems to have included the Queen Elizabeth Islands and I missed that-- I've corrected it now. – Isochrone (T) 19:07, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Isochrone, you can remove QE Islands since its disputed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:20, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

a455bcd9, do you approve of the images now? LittleJerry (talk) 17:15, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We still have "Polar bears have been divided into at least 18 subpopulations" but "Map of 19 polar bear subpopulations." on the map. We could at least write Bears in and around the Queen Elizabeth Islands (QE) have been proposed as a subpopulation but this is not universally accepted.
File:Polar Bear Habitat.png is still hard to read but there's probably nothing we can do.
Otherwise everything looks good to me! a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 17:41, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Added sentence. LittleJerry (talk) 17:55, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
a455bcd9 did you check the licenses for the images? LittleJerry (talk) 01:19, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @LittleJerry, I'm not an expert of licenses. I've just checked all images. I could easily find a libre source for all of them with the exception of:
a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 12:21, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The first two were most likely taken by User:Mbz1 (based on deletion requests for photos from the same source, such as Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Total lunar eclipse and milky way.jpg). Conclusion: ✓ Pass a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 12:29, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Funk

[edit]
I don't see the need. LittleJerry (talk) 15:12, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
First, that's how they're presented in the sources, by binomials, and second, it is important for context, to see which belong to the same or distinct genera. FunkMonk (talk) 21:29, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 21:58, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The right side of the article is pretty much a continuous wall of images, which is a bit uneasy on the eyes. Suggest staggering a bit, pruning, or using some multiple images templates or galleries.
Changed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:11, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Model of a swimming polar bear from the Dorset culture, northern Canada" Is "model" really the right word here?
Changed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:11, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that the term "Natural history" is way too broad to be used for a section about behaviour and ecology.
Changed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:11, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Sow near Kaktovik" huh, never knew they were called that...
changed. LittleJerry (talk) 00:11, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • You present the first person you mention by nationality and occupation, but nothing by the time you reach Carl Linnaeus and others, should be consistent throughout.
changed. LittleJerry (talk) 00:11, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "in his 1758 edition of his work" I'd swap the first "his" with "the" to avoid repetition.
changed. LittleJerry (talk) 00:11, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "some have placed the polar bear in its own genus" Might as well name "them", or at least the author of the name.
changed. LittleJerry (talk) 00:11, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • First you say "it is interfertile with the brown bear" then "Modern hybrids are relatively rare in the wild", which seems a contradiction. If you mean that hybrids between the two are infertile, this should be specified.
Interfertile not infertile. LittleJerry (talk) 00:20, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, hard to see the extra letters when reading through hehe. But I think this could be expanded with a link to hybrid already then. Something like, "is is interfertible with the brown bear (able to produce hybrid offspring)" or similar. FunkMonk (talk) 12:45, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Changed. LittleJerry (talk) 13:50, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The genetic similarities between polar bears and some brown bears were found to be the result of interbreeding" and "Later studies have clarified that gene flow went from polar to brown bears rather than the reverse": this also seems to contradict the above.
It doesn't. LittleJerry (talk) 00:11, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "However these are not widely supported" Are they supported by anyone at all? If not, even "not widely" is an overstatement.
changed. LittleJerry (talk) 00:11, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and the polar bear is officially considered to be monotypic" What does "officially" mean here? Taxonomy is always subjective. There can be a consensus, but that's about it.
changed. LittleJerry (talk) 00:11, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "was posited in 1964 by Björn Kurtén Kurtén reconstructed the" looks like a new sentence is needed after first Kurtén.
changed. LittleJerry (talk) 00:11, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "reconstructed the subspecies from a single fragment of an ulna, approximately 20 percent larger than expected for a polar bear." I'd say "as" instead of the comma, looks like two different statements now, though it seems they should be connected.
changed. LittleJerry (talk) 00:11, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Jumping in, but I think that's a misreading: it's the ulna itself that was 20% larger than expected, not the reconstructed bear. If we want to connect the two clauses, suggest "which was" in place of "and". UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:16, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 16:17, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The bear's thicker coat" Since the preceding sentence mentions multiple species, specify "polar".
changed. LittleJerry (talk) 00:11, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "finding that some brown bear populations were more closely related to polar bears than other brown bears" Than other brown bears or than to other brown bears?
fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 14:40, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This specimen, when mounted, stood 3.39 m (11 ft 1 in) tall on its hind legs." What is their average standing height? If that isn't given, this measurement doesn't mean much.
removed. LittleJerry (talk) 14:40, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But can we get an average standing height still? FunkMonk (talk) 21:27, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
sources don't say. LittleJerry (talk) 22:34, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Polar and brown bear skulls seem to be quite different[15], which is hard to appreciate when you describe the polar bear's features in isolation. Could some skeletal comparison be included? Especially since you include as much as two skeletal images in the section.
Can't find a comparasion. LittleJerry (talk) 14:40, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I found this but its too vertically long and the shelf is too distracting. LittleJerry (talk) 16:53, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I meant text. FunkMonk (talk) 21:27, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It already compares them. I have also added another adjective for the skull. LittleJerry (talk) 00:06, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Males have long hairs on their forelegs, which is thought to attract females." This seems odd, especially since no explanation is given. The reader would expect this kind of information to be either elaborated upon or moved to the section about reproduction.
changed. LittleJerry (talk) 14:40, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd expect info on speed, movement, and other functional biology, to be in the section on behavior, not under physical description.
Seems this was fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 21:27, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Forgot to mark it. LittleJerry (talk) 23:45, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "They have curved snout profile" Seems this could need "a" before "curved".
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 14:40, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The polar bear's liver is toxic to consume, due to the accumulation of vitamin A from their prey.[59]" This looks like it belongs under "exploitation", as it has little bearing on the animal itself.
moved. LittleJerry (talk) 14:41, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A 2022 study has suggested that the bears in northeast and southeast Greenland should be considered different subpopulations" So what line of study are these categories based on?
Clarified. LittleJerry (talk) 14:40, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Bears in and around the Queen Elizabeth Islands have been proposed as a subpopulation but this is not universally accepted." Then what do they belong to?
Source doesn't say. LittleJerry (talk) 14:40, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Archipelagos could be linked.
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 14:40, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "One study found they can swim for an average of 3.4 days at a time" What does this mean, swimming for three days straight?
Yes. LittleJerry (talk) 14:40, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a considerable chunk of text on how they rest and sleep, perhaps show a picture of this?
Added. LittleJerry (talk) 14:40, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FunkMonk can you please sign each sentence with four ~ so I can reply to each individually? LittleJerry (talk) 14:05, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On each point? Usually this is not practiced, what keeps you from replying now? FunkMonk (talk) 14:20, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Its easier. LittleJerry (talk) 14:40, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I've tried with having space between each point, may be even easier, without breaking conventions. FunkMonk (talk) 21:27, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like I forgot it, old habits die hard, but tried with the below haha. FunkMonk (talk) 14:26, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "as well as hoofed mammals" What is there other than reindeer and muskoxes? Why not just list them?
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 23:47, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "trying to kill walruses using rocks and pieces of ice" How?
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 23:47, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "often leave a carcass to an approaching adult male" Why, to distract it?
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 23:47, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The loss of sea ice has lead to" Led?
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 23:47, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Eskimo hunter with polar bear" I was under the impression that the term "eskimo" is discouraged today? The source indicates it's in Alaska anyway.
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 23:47, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Terms and names could be linked in image captions, such as hybrid, bearded seal, Svalbard, Detroit Zoo, ivory carving, and coat of arms of Greenland.
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 23:47, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and recycle bodily waste". How is this done, internally in the body, or after excretion?
clarified. LittleJerry (talk) 19:35, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "t it can bred with the brown bear." Breed?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 19:35, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have multiple photos of rather sizeable juveniles, a bit of a shame that there are none of the smaller ones that you'd normally associate with cubs?
Added. LittleJerry (talk) 19:35, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Considering it is interfertile with brown bears, has it ever been considered a subspecies itself?
Not since Phipps atleast. LittleJerry (talk) 19:35, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "only one population would likely survive extinction in 50 years" Survive extinction seems like redundancy, why not just "survive in 50 years"?
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 21:32, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Polar bears are one of the few marine mammals that can reproduce well in captivity" Doesn't this belong in the captivity section?
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 21:32, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "starting all the way back in" Rather informal and somewhat hyperbolic wording, "already in" would be enough.
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 21:32, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "more Norwegians were harvesting the bears" Sounds a bit odd, are we talking about the number of Norwegians or of bears? Perhaps "more bears were harvested in Norway"?
The number of Norwegians harvesting the bears on Svalbard. LittleJerry (talk) 21:32, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Climate change has increased conflicts between the two species." This also sounds odd, as if it was written by observing aliens. Why not just "between bears and humans"?
I don't see the problem. LittleJerry (talk) 21:32, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "swarmed a town in Novaya Zemlya" Since the place isn't linked, could state where it is.
It is linked above in the previous section. LittleJerry (talk) 21:32, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "is generally not more aggressive" Just say "less" to be concise.
no, those are two different things. LittleJerry (talk) 21:32, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Performing polar bear at the 1973 Nationaal Songfestival" Could state country.
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 21:32, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • What's the WP:Engvar? I see both "archeological" and "behaviour", could be double checked throughout
Canadian English. Changed spelling on one. LittleJerry (talk) 22:16, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He resides underneath the sea floor in an underworld of the dead and had power over sea creatures." Why does it start in present tense but end in past tense, which the following sentence is also in?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:16, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link Quebec?
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 22:16, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The external links seem pretty random, with some links not working.
Trimmed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:16, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The term pagophilic should be mentioned outside the intro too.
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 22:16, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review and spotcheck

[edit]

Making a spotcheck and source review from this version. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:16, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • 1: OK, might want to give a pagenumber though.
  • 42: Easier to verify with a pagenumber.
  • 46: Can't access this source.
  • 49: Can't access this source.
  • 52: OK.
  • 58: OK, but may want to specify that it was about 13 nautical miles.
  • 70: Can't access this source.
  • 86: Can't access this source.
  • 96: Can't access this page.
  • 109: OK.
  • 114: Can't access this page.
  • 117: Can't access this source.
  • 123: Can't access this page.
  • 134: Can't access this page.
  • 135: Can't access this page.
  • 137: Can't access this page.
  • 153: OK.
  • 156: Can't access this source.
  • 159: Can't access this source.
  • 182: Can't access this source.

Some citations seem to have links piped under the title of the cited source, others don't. May want to standardize that. Is #173 the sole example of its kind? On which basis was #174 selected for inclusion? Otherwise, it seems like source formatting is consistent and the sources seem reliable for the task. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:33, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

173 and 174 are news articles reporting on events. Added pages for cite one. Removed urls for journal articles have DOIs. LittleJerry (talk) 14:13, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am pretty sure there are so many incidents of polar bear attacks that it doesn't seem appropriate to me to just cherry-pick one out. Is there something special about these included in the article? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:40, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Its notable because there were so many bears that entered the area that the local government declared a state of emergency. It even has its own wiki article. LittleJerry (talk) 16:53, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Jo-Jo Eumerus all good now? LittleJerry (talk) 22:50, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Meh, OK, on condition that the incident be wikilinked. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:05, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is. LittleJerry (talk) 16:31, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Review by SilverTiger

[edit]

This is a massive article so it may take me a while to go through all of it. But I am impressed by and admire your willingness to bring some of the most well-known animals through GAN and FAC.

  • First off, the lede: It is mostly good, but I am iffy about this sentence "Other food includes walruses, beluga whales and some terrestrial foods." with how it repeats the word food at the beginning and end. Terrestrial animals? Terrestrial plants and animals?
Changed. LittleJerry (talk) 09:31, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why are the Inuit words for polar bear given in the Etymology section, but not the words in any of the other cultures that surely would have been familiar with the species (Scandinavian and other far northern Eurasian cultures, for example)? And why is nanook linked here when the link leads to an article that isn't exactly about the same thing as its use here?
Added Norse names and removed think. LittleJerry (talk) 09:31, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That still skips a number of other circumpolar peoples, but those two are the most well-known groups. So acceptable, if not ideal. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 17:42, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • In particular. a 2011 study concluded that living polar bear populations derived their maternal lines from now extinct Irish brown bears. I think there's a stray period in there...
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 09:31, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Compared with the brown bear, this species has a more slender build, with a narrower, flatter and smaller skull,... "more slender" -> "slenderer", which also matches the narrower/flatter/smaller pattern.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 09:31, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Likely outside of the scope here, but why such a variable number of premolars? I don't know if that's normal for bears but for cats, the dental formula is usually fixed.
Not discussed in sources. LittleJerry (talk) 09:31, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • You say why they turn yellowish, but not why they turn greyish or brownish. Is there a reason besides the bears getting dirty?
Same. LittleJerry (talk) 09:31, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Same? --SilverTiger12 (talk) 17:42, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Same answer as the last bulletin. LittleJerry (talk) 20:31, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Less snow could reduce lead to less insulation and more rain could cause more cave-ins. I feel like I'm missing something in the first half of that.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 09:31, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That is all for now. I'll try and get to the last section tomorrow. Happy editing, SilverTiger12 (talk) 01:00, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • This last section, without a doubt, is probably the trickiest in terms of what should be mentioned or not. I.e. why is the the aside about Horatio Nelson important?
I figured since he is an important figure and the incedent has been the subject of a painting. LittleJerry (talk) 22:58, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link Netslik, please.
Its mentioned and linked in the Naming section. LittleJerry (talk) 20:30, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, Netslik seems to be a misspelling of Netsilik. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 21:44, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • This may be due to the bears being more desperate for food and thus more likely to seek out human settlements. I suggest changing to "due to the bears getting desperate for food and thus more likely to..." And are they seeking out settlements or just venturing closer?
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 20:30, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • As with the other two bear species, polar bears are more likely to target no more than two people at once. "polar bears are unlikely to target more than two people at once."
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 20:30, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • They have a reputation? It isn't mentioned before you correct it.
Clarified. LittleJerry (talk) 20:30, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am mildly disappointed that bjarndýrakóngur does not have an article, it sounds interesting.
  • For the modern portrayals, what qualifies these selections as more noteworthy/representative than other modern depictions? I'm not necessarily asking for changes, just some explanation- here, if not in the article- of why these and not others.
I am citing two books on the animal in culture rather than cherry-pickings sources that are ultimately not about them. Even then, I have to select some. The examples I'm giving represent different mediums: paintings, books, films and radio. LittleJerry (talk) 20:30, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And there ends the main part of my review. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 17:42, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

With most everything I brought up answered, I am pleased to Support. Happy editing, SilverTiger12 (talk) 21:44, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by mujinga

[edit]
  • I have just a few prose comments:
  • Lead says: "specialized for preying on seals, particularly ringed seals and bearded seals" and body says "The most commonly taken species is the ringed seal, but they also prey on bearded seals and harp seals", which seems slightly different
They don't contradict. LittleJerry (talk) 01:02, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The phrases may not contradict but they are saying different things, I'd suggest saying in the lead either "specialized for preying on seals, particularly ringed seals" (which seems most appropriate) or "specialized for preying on seals, particularly ringed seals and also bearded seals and harp seals" Mujinga (talk) 12:33, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 13:43, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Exeter Exchange"suggst "Exeter Exchange in London" since at first I thought it was in Exeter
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 01:02, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Tierpark Hagenbeck Zoo" suggest "Tierpark Hagenbeck Zoo in Hamburg"
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 01:02, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Hellabrunn Zoo " suggest "Hellabrunn Zoo in Munich"
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 01:02, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know if this needs to be in the article, but (for my own interest at least) is there an estimate of how many polar bears are out there in the wild?
It already says in the Conservation section. LittleJerry (talk) 01:02, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
thanks I misread that - worth adding the total to lead? Mujinga (talk) 12:32, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
done. LittleJerry (talk) 00:10, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bonus comment - for the reference The Guinness Book of Animal Records, you give a publisher location (Enfield, Middlesex) and you don't for other books, so I suggest to remove the location in this case
Removed. LittleJerry (talk) 01:02, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Mujinga, 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) 12:53, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
1.5 queries still open! Mujinga (talk) 12:56, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Mujinga? LittleJerry (talk) 21:58, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@LittleJerry, @Gog the Mild support on prose Mujinga (talk) 10:14, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley

[edit]
  • "Mothers give birth to cubs in a maternity den during the winter". I would take this to say that there are several mothers in each den, which I think is incorrect.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 19:59, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "more closely related to polar bears than to other brown bears, particularly the ABC Islands bears". A few words of explanation about ABC bears would be helpful as well as the link.
Whats there to explain about them? LittleJerry (talk) 19:59, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I found the evolution section confusing. You list different studies with different views without making clear which are now regarded as most authoritative. If later studies are considered more reliable than earlier ones then you should spell this out.
I did. "More extensive genetic studies have found that the two species are in fact separate sister lineages". LittleJerry (talk) 19:59, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "More extensive genetic studies have found that the two species are in fact separate sister lineages." This implies that brown and polar bears are both descended from an unnamed ancestor species. Then you say "Studies in 2011 and 2012 concluded that the genetics of brown bears passed into polar bears.[21][24] In particular, a 2011 study concluded that living polar bear populations derived their maternal lines from now extinct Irish brown bears." This implies that polar bears are not a sister lineage but a a brown bear offshoot. Also does the reference to maternal lineage mean that the paternal lineage was different or that the study only looked at mDNA? Then you say that later studies clarified that the gene flow was from polar to brown bears, but you have just said that it was the other way round. If so, it was not clarifying but contradicting.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 19:59, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The transparent guard hairs forward scatter ultraviolet light between the underfur and the skin, leading to a cycle of absorption and re-emission." What is the significance of this? Does it benefit the bear in some way?
Clarified. LittleJerry (talk) 19:59, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "They may cover an average of 142,332 km2 (54,955 sq mi) per year, while drifting ice allows them to move even further at 178,040 km2 (68,740 sq mi) per year." This is False precision, giving a misleadingly exact figure for a number which can only be approximately estimated.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 19:59, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Polar bears have wide home ranges. They may cover an estimated average of 142,332 km2 (54,955 sq mi) per year, while drifting ice allows them to move even further". The source says "the annual geographic range (142,332 km2, range: 3528-381,947 km2). This raises two points 1. Referring to home ranges as the area they cover is misleading both because they may never go into some areas in their home range, and, as you say, the area they cover is even larger. 2. The average you give is in the source, but if I have read it correctly, there is a variation between 3528 and 381,947, and the average tells us next to nothing useful, as well as being false precision. Maybe "Polar bears have widely varying home ranges, some only 3500 km2, while others are as large as 380,000. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:00, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. LittleJerry (talk) 16:55, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "though they may be less likely to if they have not eaten in a long time". "may be" seems an unnecessary double qualification. If the behaviour has been observed, then they are less likely.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 20:45, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The bear's long lifespan and ability to consistently produce young each year". You say above that cubs are weaned at 2 to 2 and a half years old and latating females cannot conceive. This means that a female cannot produce young each year.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 20:45, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Norsemen in Greenland traded polar bear furs in the Middle Ages.[165] In Russia, Novaya Zemlya and Franz Josef Land were important commercial centres for polar bear products, the former already used in 1556." This is confusing. You refer to Norsemen, who were Scandinavians who spoke Old Norse in the early Middle Ages, 5th to 10th centuries. Then, apparently referring to the same period you mention Russian centres, one as early as 1566, which is post-Middle Ages. Also, "the former" presumably refers to Franz Josef Land, but it could be more clearly expressed.
It doesn't say Russians were hunting them in the same period. They are talked about in two different sentences. LittleJerry (talk) 20:45, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Separate sentences does not imply different periods. For clarity, I suggest "furs in the early Middle Ages. In early modern Russia". Dudley Miles (talk) 14:35, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 15:36, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In the next century, more Norwegians were harvesting the bears" More than what?
Than Russians. LittleJerry (talk) 20:45, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "From the 1870s to the 1970s, around 22,000 of the animals were hunted." Presumably, in total not annually, but this should be spelled out.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 20:45, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Over 150,000 polar bears in total were either killed or captured in both Russia and Svalbard," What does "both" mean here? That a total of 300,000 were killed or captured?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 20:45, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • More to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:08, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Though popularly thought of as the most dangerous bear, the polar bear is no more aggressive than other species and the ratio of predatory to non-predatory attacks is similar to the black bear." This seems an odd comment. "the ratio of predatory to non-predatory attacks" is an unclear concept for a layman. More importantly, it does not make sense as a measure of aggression, which would better be reflected by the number of attacks as a ratio of the number of bears of each species.
Removed. LittleJerry (talk) 17:19, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The polar bear was a particularly sought after species for exotic animal collectors". This is vague. You should specify over what period.
It goes into detail later. mention the different years and centuries. LittleJerry (talk) 17:19, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "They are one of the few marine mammals that can reproduce well in captivity." I think "It is one..." would be grammatically correct.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 17:19, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Polar bears have had prominent roles in Inuit culture and religion." "have had" implies that they do not any more. Is this correct?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 17:19, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The World Wide Fund for Nature has sold stuffed polar bears as part of its "Arctic Home" campaign." This is misleading. A "stuffed polar bear" would be a stuffed full sized skin of a real polar bear, but it links to Teddy bear, which is obviously quite different. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:56, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 17:19, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by RoySmith

[edit]

This is my first time commenting on a FA, so weight everything I say appropriately.

There is no policy that says photographs need RS. Some things are just easy to know and observe I've never had to deal with this in previous FAs. LittleJerry (talk) 15:48, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Evolution: The following cladogram is ... per MOS:ACCIM, avoid use of "following", since the image may not actually follow the text in all presentations.
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 15:58, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Characteristics, the "Skull" caption only makes sense in the context of being adjacent to the image captioned "Polar bear skeleton", so another MOS:ACCIM issue.
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 15:58, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Characteristics: The eyes of a polar bear are located close to the top of the head, I would drop the word "located".
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 15:58, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Social life: Young males play-fighting (image caption) What WP:RS says these bears are male? This seems to be taken from the Commons image description, but that's not a WP:RS.
,People can tell the difference between a male and female when up-close. This is a featured video. LittleJerry (talk) 15:48, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Changed. LittleJerry (talk) 17:01, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reproduction and development: Courting male approaching female (image caption). Same question as above. Somebody took a bunch of photos of two bears and uploaded them to commons. What WP:RS identifies these as a male and a female engaged in courtship?
The picture was uploaded as part of Russian Science Photo Competition 2023. It is actually part of a sequence of photos of these bears interacting Polar bear are normally solitary on the sea ice expect for courting bears. Its very easy to tell if two bears are courting. LittleJerry (talk) 15:48, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a general comment, please review all of the images to ensure that the captions are traceable to WP:RS. I do not consider commons image descriptions to be RS.

@FAC coordinators: ? Is this really a policy for photographs?

Ha! I was checking that my understanding of policy was correct as you wrote that. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Captions makes no mention of citations or referencing being necessary, indeed "Not every image needs a caption". So many or most captions will not need to be traceable to WP:RS. The exceptions of course are those "likely to be challenged", in which case they will; reasonable editors may differ over which category any given caption falls into. Perhaps RoySmith could suggest which uncited captions they consider "likely to be challenged"? Gog the Mild (talk) 16:43, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we could have a different conversation about whether information presented in image captions should be held to the same standard as information presented in the main text, but if that's not a FACR, I defer to those more knowledgeable. RoySmith (talk) 17:04, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
One caption is cited already. I think the two others which I would feel a little happier to see cited are:
  • "The loss of sea ice has led to more open water and more pressure on the bears to swim great distances."
  • "Map from the U.S. Geological Survey shows projected changes in polar bear habitat from 2001 to 2010 and 2041 to 2050." Gog the Mild (talk) 16:43, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 17:28, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Mark Arsten: On a non-content note, I see the article was indef semi-protected 10 years ago, apparently due to vandalism. I don't see any reason to keep it protected 10 years later, so I've removed that.


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 September 2023 [16].

Lever House

[edit]
Nominator(s): Epicgenius (talk) 19:58, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a soap company's former headquarters in New York City. Designed by well-known modernist firm Skidmore, Owings & Merrill, Lever House was built from 1950 to 1952. It was the city's second-ever skyscraper with a glass curtain wall, as well as an early example of a skyscraper in NYC that was designed as a rectangular slab, lacking the "wedding-cake" setbacks of earlier towers. After narrowly avoiding demolition in the early 1980s, it was protected as a New York City landmark. Though Lever House is now a regular office building, it has consistently received positive acclaim over the years for its innovative design.

This page became a Good Article two years ago after a Good Article review by A person in Georgia, for which I am very grateful. I think it's up to FA quality now, and I look forward to all comments and feedback. While the previous nomination was archived due to lack of commentary, I hope that isn't the case this time around. Epicgenius (talk) 19:58, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from ZKang123

[edit]

I will take a look through this article and provide a source/image review.--ZKang123 (talk) 06:40, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Lead:
    • Swap around the second and third sentences in the first paragraph.
      • I moved "Constructed from 1950 to 1952" to the second sentence. However, I think it's more important to mention the architects than to mention that it was the second NYC skyscraper with a glass curtain wall. I've moved "Originally the headquarters of soap company Lever Brothers, a subsidiary of Unilever" to the third sentence.
    • The building was designed in the International Style by Gordon Bunshaft and Natalie de Blois of Skidmore, Owings & Merrill (SOM) as the headquarters of soap company Lever Brothers, a subsidiary of Unilever. – Reword to: The headquarters of soap company Lever Brothers, a subsidiary of Unilever, the building was designed in the International Style by Gordon Bunshaft and Natalie de Blois of Skidmore, Owings & Merrill (SOM).
    • The building contains 21 office stories topped by a triple-height mechanical section. – what's the total building height/number of levels?
    • Also reword to: The building has...
    • The ground story contains a courtyard and public space, while the second story overhangs the plaza on a set of columns. – At the ground story is a courtyard and public space, with the second story overhanging the plaza on a set of columns.
    • Lever House contains about 260,000 square feet (24,000 m2) of interior space – The interior space of Lever House encompasses 260,000 square feet (24,000 m2).
      • I changed it to "There is about 260,000 square feet (24,000 m2) of interior space in Lever House", since I personally feel that it would be strange to say that a building "encompasses" square feet. Epicgenius (talk) 15:16, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • The building's design was also copied by several other structures worldwide. – Several other structures worldwide copied the building's design.
    • Also, examples of other structures?
    • "Following one such plan" – what plan?
  • Site:
    • spurring development in the surrounding area, Terminal City. – spurring development in the surrounding area designated as Terminal City.
    • On Lever House's site, there were twenty-two rowhouses on 53rd and 54th Streets, owned by Robert Walton Goelet. – Twenty-two rowhouses on 53rd and 54th Streets, owned by Robert Walton Goelet, formerly stood at the Lever House's site.
  • Architecture:
    • are part of a grouping of International Style structures – are considered International Style structures
      • In my opinion, this would make it sound awkward, as the sentence would read: "are considered International Style structures developed on Park Avenue". This implies that people consider the structures to be on Park Avenue, but that fact is not controversial. I've changed it to "considered part of a grouping of International Style structures developed on Park Avenue". Epicgenius (talk) 15:16, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Lever House contains the equivalent of 24 stories, including 21 usable office stories and a triple-height mechanical space,[24][25] and stands 307 feet (94 m) tall. – Lever House is 307 feet (94 m) tall with (about) 24 stories, 21 of which are usable office stories and include a triple-height mechanical space.
      • I have removed "contains the equivalent of 24 stories", since the building is only 21 stories tall, and the mechanical space is not part of the floor count. I've implemented the rest of this suggestion. Epicgenius (talk) 15:16, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Lever House's ground level is largely composed of an outdoor plaza, paved in light- and dark-colored terrazzo, with some indoor sections – The ground level of Lever House consists predominantly of an outdoor plaza, paved in light- and dark-colored terrazzo, with some indoor sections.
    • "in comparison" – "compared"
    • "had contained setbacks as they rose." – "had faced setbacks..."
      • These are literal setbacks (i.e. these buildings stepped back at certain floors), rather than figurative setbacks that one would face. I've changed to "had been developed with setbacks". Epicgenius (talk) 15:16, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • "There are three revolving doors leading to the ground-story lobby" – "Three revolving doors lead to the ground-story lobby. Also remove the comma after
    • There is also a vehicular ramp to the basement garage, as well as a loading dock, from the western section of the 54th Street frontage, at the lot's northwestern corner.
    • "The curtain wall contains vertical steel mullions that are anchored to the floor plates within the building. Between each set of mullions are glass window panes that cannot open."
      • Reword to: "The curtain wall is constructed with vertical steel mullions anchored to the building's floor plates. Each pair of mullions is separated by glass window panes which cannot be opened."
    • Some "as well as" could just be simplified to just "and"
    • "The spandrel panels were intended...", "The mullions are designed...", "Venetian blinds were used" Why the changes in tenses?
      • For "the spandrel panels were intended", it was the intention of the architects, who are now dead. Same with Venetian blinds. On the other hand, the mullions are currently nearly flush with the glass (not just designed that way), so I have changed it. Epicgenius (talk) 15:16, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Additionally, Unilever constructed a window-washing scaffold, which was suspended" – Does the scaffold still exist?
    • "Lever House contains 262,945 square feet (24,428.4 m2) of gross floor area." – replace contains with occupies/encompasses. Similarly for "It contains 22,000 square feet (2,000 m2) of space." and "Each of the upper stories within the slab contains 8,700 square feet (810 m2) of gross floor area."
    • "The lobby contains glass display cases with steel edges" – "Within the lobby are glass display cases with steel edges."
    • "Exhibitions have included such works as" – remove "such"
    • "By 2023, the third-story terrace was being integrated into Lever Club," – any updates on this? Also "is being integrated"

More to come.--ZKang123 (talk) 06:24, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments ZKang123. I've addressed these now. Epicgenius (talk) 15:16, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's all for me.--ZKang123 (talk) 01:22, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review ZKang123. I've addressed all of these now. Epicgenius (talk) 23:46, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--ZKang123 (talk) 01:10, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]

All images are freely licensed with alt text. Might shift File:Lever House Curtain wall.jpg up further in the facade subsection. Otherwise, pass.--ZKang123 (talk) 09:54, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

No spotcheck needed; will look at formatting/reliability. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 16:57, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's all from me, very nice work! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 16:57, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments @MyCatIsAChonk. Sorry, I didn't see these till now, but I'll have a look tomorrow. – Epicgenius (talk) 00:51, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@MyCatIsAChonk, I have now addressed all of these. 18:41, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@MyCatIsAChonk, oops, I realized that I messed up the ping. Thanks again for the source review. Epicgenius (talk) 15:56, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - nice job! By the way, if you get some time, I would appreciate any comments at this FAC. Thanks! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 21:10, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I'd be happy to review that FAC - I love Last Week Tonight, and my very first FA was about a LWT episode. Epicgenius (talk) 15:11, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note

[edit]

This has been open for more than three weeks and while it has attracted a fair bit of attention, it has yet to pick up a general support. Unless it attracts considerable movement towards a consensus to promote over the next three or four days I am afraid that it will have to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 00:14, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild, since your comments two days ago, this nomination has gained three supports. May I be allowed to nominate another FAC soon? – Epicgenius (talk) 16:40, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You may. Apologies for the delay, I have been away. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:05, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vat

[edit]

Section-header-ing. I hope not to have much to say after I'm done find-replacing every use of 'contains' and should be back soon. I see ZKang's taken a fairly comprehensive look at the prose already, so...actually, just starting now so I don't forget...

Extended content
Lead
[edit]
  • Originally the headquarters of soap company Lever Brothers, a subsidiary of Unilever, it was the second skyscraper in New York City with a glass curtain wall, after the United Nations Secretariat Building -- are these connected ideas?
  • International Style is at precisely that title, so doesn't need piping.
  • On that note, could we use any sort of context here on what the International Style is?
  • the building became a New York City designated landmark -- it's a bit nondescript to be a landmark, isn't it? Did anyone comment on this?
    • Not particularly. The structure was designated as a landmark because it was one of the first glass-wall skyscrapers and was about to be demolished; unlike earlier NYC landmarks, it isn't particularly ornate. Epicgenius (talk) 23:46, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Reading through the history sections now (no comments so far -- I hope to support in a few hours or so but will probably sleep at some point), I see The firm in charge of designing Fisher Brothers' proposed building, Swanke Hayden Connell Architects, prepared a white paper for the LPC, which described Lever House as "undistinguished and not worthy of preservation". (I don't think that last comma is necessary.) Of course, some people might consider it unsurprising if the company profiting from a demolition doesn't want a building marked heritage, but since several board members had expressed their wish that the site be redeveloped more lucratively is also interesting in that context. Of course, whether this is due for the lead is a different question, but at least the uncertainty about what the board members felt and decided may be worth it? Vaticidalprophet 23:59, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That is a good point to consider. I have a few responses to that:
  • The last comma in prepared a white paper for the LPC, which described Lever House as "undistinguished and not worthy of preservation" was supposed to clarify that the quote is from Swanke Hayden Connell, not the LPC.
  • Before the Board of Estimate was dissolved in 1990, it was very rare for the board to object to landmark status at all. Out of 1500+ landmarks that the board voted on, it overturned less than a dozen of them. The fact that the board very nearly overturned the landmark designation was quite interesting to me.
  • I do think you bring up a good argument that the owners would be opposed to landmark status if they wanted to demolish it in the first place. I'll consider whether it's still worth mentioning that white paper.
– Epicgenius (talk) 00:42, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I definitely think the white paper is still worth mentioning, was more thinking "well, obviously if all you could add to the lead is 'the company opposed it' that's not enough". But the addendum that overturning landmark status was so rare is definitely interesting -- it would be worth giving that context if you can, and mentioning in the lead that it was apparently a controversial one. Vaticidalprophet 01:01, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've now clarified in the lead that the building was only narrowly approved as a city landmark. Epicgenius (talk) 15:13, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Site
[edit]
  • The Banco Santander building on 53rd Street also abuts Lever House -- any reason this gets its own sentence?
  • During the early 19th century, the site of Lever House was part of a farm, which was developed later in that century with four- and five-story row houses -- unsold on the prose in this sentence. Is this also the earliest that we can trace the site?
    It's still not great at the moment (it might be better to have kept one sentence as something along the lines of "the site, formerly farmland, was developed in the [time?] 19th century with four- and five-story row houses") -- do we also, for that matter, have some sense of when in the 19th century? (Some editors and readers like to mention previous native residency, though this is very individual.) Vaticidalprophet 23:55, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Good point. I've rephrased the sentence to "The site, which was part of Charles McEvers's farm in the early 19th century, had been developed by the 1870s with four- and five-story row houses". According to the Landmarks Preservation Commission, the houses were visible in drawings from the 1870s, so they date from at least that decade. I haven't looked into the details of these houses, as I didn't think it was particularly relevant to Lever House. – Epicgenius (talk) 00:01, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Normandie theater -- should this be a proper name? (Linked?)
  • Contextualizing taxpayer would be nice (it's an interesting concept, and not one I was previously familiar with).
Architecture
[edit]
  • Prior note re. International Style context.
  • To protect against adverse possession, the building's owners have closed the plaza to the public for one day every year since its completion -- how does this protect them? (I don't know that "adverse protection" is the more recognizable name vs. "squatter's rights", so that may be due to contextualize too.)
    • Basically, if the property owner left the plaza open to the public 24/7, it would eventually become a publicly owned space under NYC law, since the owner of the building never reaffirmed his claim to the plaza, so to speak. To ensure that the city government knows that the space is still privately owned (and, thus, that the owner could close the plaza at any time they wish), the owner picks one day out of the year to close the plaza.
      It's kind of like if you let someone else drive your car whenever they pleased without ever objecting to it - at some point, the car would eventually become theirs in practice. This is just a legal version of the car situation. Epicgenius (talk) 23:46, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

More to come. Given the length, these are few comments in relative terms. Vaticidalprophet 14:29, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review Vaticidalprophet. I have now addressed your initial comments. Epicgenius (talk) 23:46, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
History
[edit]
  • Have commented on some of this in relation to the lead.
  • preservationist Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis -- is that the title we're going with?! I see we give her a more fitting title later, and I don't know if this sentence is particularly necessary in the first place (I'm a fan of pull quotes, but it's not an especially distinctive one and it doesn't fit the paragraph's general tenor).
    • Your comment made me realize that I linked Onassis twice; the second link is in the very next paragraph, where she's described as "former U.S. first lady Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis". But since you raise a good point about the quote, I've simply removed the quote. Epicgenius (talk) 15:13, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Brookfield and WatermanClark planned to market Lever House to a single large tenant or to several smaller boutique tenants -- is this vacuous? It's hard as a non-subject-expert to tell if there are actual possibilities other than "moved to one tenant or multiple tenants". Intuitively, that sounds like the only two real options. Is there some nuance being missed here?
Impact
[edit]
  • continental Europe.[174][61] -- would usually change ref orders myself, but I'm probably going to bed shortly after this and they can be weirdly fiddly
  • especially considering that the building's floors were too small to accommodate many modern companies' needs -- what made them okay in the past but not today?
    • Many large firms today would prefer to have their space on as few floors as possible. Because Lever House had only one occupant for half a century, this wasn't a problem, since the company had full control of its space and didn't have to worry about other firms' employees accidentally walking into their space. Nowadays though, the trend in NYC commercial real estate is to consolidate space onto a few large floors so employees don't have to go up or down as many flights to talk to their coworkers - they could just walk across the floor. For this reason, buildings with relatively small floor plates, like Lever House, would not be attractive to such companies.
      But of course, the source says none of that, so I've removed it. Epicgenius (talk) 15:13, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think that should be the lot of it. Great work, as always. Vaticidalprophet 00:05, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again Vaticidalprophet. I've addressed your remaining comments now. Epicgenius (talk) 15:13, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to support now. Vaticidalprophet 15:16, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by AstonishingTunesAdmirer

[edit]

Don't have much to say prose-wise, but here are a few minor issues (should be in chronological order):

Can't promise that I'll find anything else. AstonishingTunesAdmirer 連絡 21:13, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for the review AstonishingTunesAdmirer. I've now addressed all of these points, except for the point about spaces that "women would enjoy working in", which may take me a while to fix. Epicgenius (talk) 23:52, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hopefully a copy of the New Yorker posted above will speed up the process. Meanwhile I went through the article again:
      • "The column layout gives the appearance that the upper stories are floating above ground. These columns give the appearance of an architectural arcade" – sounds somewhat repetitive. Perhaps, combine these sentences?
      • "Other tenants included American General Financial Group; Cosmetics International; and investment bank Thomas Weisel Partners" – is it supposed to be separated by semicolons? MOS:SEMICOLON allows it "when commas alone would result in confusion", but as far as I can tell that's used for especially long items or items containing commas.

Should be all now. AstonishingTunesAdmirer 連絡 08:21, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comments

[edit]
  • Publisher locations: either all books should have them or none. Either is acceptable, but you need to be consistent.
  • You have used the "cite book" template for Interior Design, which is a periodical. "Cite journal" may work better.
  • Could you add the OCLC for Goldberger - 27477023. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:25, 20 September 2023 (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 September 2023 [17].

1981–82 Gillingham F.C. season

[edit]
Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:11, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

After something like 20 successful FACs for seasons from the history of Gillingham F.C. I thought I would give people a bit of a rest. But I couldn't keep away forever :-) So here's the tale of another season in the history of the club, one in which one of their greatest ever players (and my absolute idol when I was 13 years old) made his debut after being (reportedly) swapped for a dozen tracksuits....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:11, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pseud 14

[edit]
  • 30-year old -- hyphen between year and old
  • teenager Gary Sutton had deputised for him since the game against Burnley after Hillyard suffered a groin strain. -- maybe consider this as a separate sentence.
  • Dean White, who scored twice against Portsmouth,[38] repeated the feat in the next game, a 2–1 win over Millwall,[41] which meant that Gillingham had equalled the club record of four consecutive Football League wins away from home and won five consecutive league games for the first time since the 1972–73 season;[42][43] he then scored the only goal in a 1–0 win over Swindon Town. -- same as above, perhaps this could be split as well.
  • who had only two goals to his name since September -- not sure if to his name is needed. I think it should be fine if we say he only had two goals since September.
  • Micky Adams replaced Andy Ford after Ford suffered a knee injury -- maybe the second mention of Ford could be replaced with after the latter suffered a knee injury
  • 19-year old Tony Cascarino -- hyphen between year and old
  • Three days later Lee was named only as the -- comma after three days later
  • A goal-less draw at home to Southend -- other instances were written as goalless, except for this one
  • That's all from me. Excellent work as always on your series. Pseud 14 (talk) 20:30, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Steelkamp

[edit]

I'll take a look at this. I will mainly focus on prose. Steelkamp (talk) 05:24, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is a very good article. These are all the comments I have. Steelkamp (talk) 17:36, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SC

[edit]

Putting down a marker for now. - SchroCat (talk) 17:05, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@SchroCat: - sorry to trouble you, just wondering if you still planned to review this article? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:18, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Chris, I certainly do. Work has taken a turn towards the manically busy over the last couple of weeks and I haven’t had time to do much of anything, but I should be here in the next day or so. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:17, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@SchroCat: - no worries, hope you are able to keep your head above the torrents of stress and I look forward to your review when time allows...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:08, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass

[edit]

Only three images

All images are properly licensed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:36, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass

[edit]
  • Sources are good quality - mostly newspaper articles and books. AGF on book references, which are not available to me.
  • Spot checks: 4, 38, 44, 78, 100, 117 - all okay
    fn 119 points to 1982-83 season and not 1986-87 like it is supposed to.

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:36, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Hawkeye7: - thanks for your review. Dumb-ass copy-paste error on ref 119 fixed -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:42, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Co-ord query

[edit]
@FAC coordinators: , I have another one nearly ready to go (just need to ref a couple of sentences). Given that this one has three prose supports plus completed source and image reviews, would I be permitted to nominate it? Thanks in advance :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:47, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And it has been up for 21 days, so sure. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:02, 13 September 2023 (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) 19 September 2023 [18].

Sun in fiction

[edit]
Nominator(s): TompaDompa (talk) 05:02, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

After my previous nominations for Mars in fiction and Venus in fiction, we move on to the Sun, which has had rather a different history of being depicted in fiction. Somewhat surprisingly, it was portrayed as a physical location—and inhabited—as far back as classical antiquity. In more recent times, fictional depictions have instead mostly focused on its importance for life on Earth, though it is still occasionally visited or even inhabited. TompaDompa (talk) 05:02, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unimportant stuff (not review) from Brachy0008

[edit]

I’m not officially reviewing it, but I just wanted to stop by. I noticed some stuff that might/might not make it a FA.

  • There are two citations in the lead.
  • It is reasonably sourced, which is okay. However, I am a bit concerned by the non-merging of the sources, not sure whether it is part of the criteria, I am inexperienced in FA territory.

Thanks, Brachy08 (Talk) 06:16, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments. The citations in the lead are there because this material does not appear (and thus is not cited) in the body. I didn't find any place where I thought it fit, but if you (or anybody else) have a suggestion I'm certainly open to it. Merging references is not a FA requirement (compare e.g. my earlier FA Mars in fiction), and in cases like these were there are some key sources that are used heavily in various combinations I think it is directly counter-productive (though others may disagree). TompaDompa (talk) 00:39, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Uhm, WP:LEAD... Brachy08 (Talk) 09:27, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would say that the relative uncommonness of the Sun being portrayed in fiction is the kind of basic fact that is appropriate to mention in the lead even if not mentioned in the body (but it needs to be sourced). Or were you getting at something different? TompaDompa (talk) 14:08, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]
TompaDompa: Sorry but I can't add any more than what I wrote back in April. ww2censor (talk) 21:24, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can you clarify why you believe this meets the URAA requirements? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:22, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Created in 1961 => entered the PD in Italy in 1981 => in PD in the US was not restored under URAA as not published in the US, not given a US copyright, and in the PD in Italy on 1996. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:29, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GWL

[edit]

Hey there! Congrats on the Mars in fiction TFA btw, really enjoyed reading that one! GeraldWL 04:25, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, that's very kind. TompaDompa (talk) 11:27, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've responded to some of the replies, feel free to look at 'em. Also hope I'm not being inappropriate here haha, but if you're interested please check out my PR as I'm eyeing for a FAC. GeraldWL 04:08, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Tompa, I'mma move all the unresolved discussions here since my mind has trouble navigating. The remaining ones as I see are the quotebox dash, the combustion image, "night sky" and "marginalized groups" overlink, and further reading subs. Also one new comment: in the See also caption, you said "planets" but there's the Moon.
Since we have pretty strong opinions on the image, I'll pause in arguing further first to see if I perhaps have suggestions. In the meantime, if you wish respond to the other unresolved cmts please do so here :) GeraldWL 04:10, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I stand by my replies the unresolved comments brought up previously. On the image in the "See also" section: I don't think it's a problem. It's strictly speaking correct (clicking on a planet does indeed bring you to the relevant article) even if it is technically incomplete (the caption doesn't mention that clicking on the Moon does likewise). More importantly, I expect people to infer that clicking on the Moon would do the same thing—or to flip the perspective, I expect that readers would be very surprised indeed if clicking on the Moon did not bring them to Moon in science fiction even if the caption only specifies that clicking on planets will bring them to the relevant articles. Any phrasing that also includes the Moon would necessarily be more clunky ("Clicking on a planet or the Moon leads to [...]", "Clicking on a celestial object leads to [...]", and so on), so I think this is the best solution. I think it's worth noting that the same phrasing is used on Mars in fiction and Venus in fiction, and none of the FAC reviewers there were confused by the caption—suggesting that it is intuitive enough. TompaDompa (talk) 22:20, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I see. There shouldn't be any further comments then-- I'm still pretty weirded out by the night sky and marginalized links, as I don't think anyone would confuse it for any other "night sky" or "marginalized groups"-- as well as the combustion image. However I won't hold on to that for too long, so I'll give this a support in a couple hours. GeraldWL 03:31, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. GeraldWL 03:25, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from GeraldWL 03:25, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
* "as a basically Earth-like"-- basically my question is why basically
  • Suggest adding emdash or endash before "Richard"
  • Not sure what the Wikidata links do in improving the article; I've done these in references, but I'm not sure as to prose. But I don't find it that big of a problem. Others might point it out though.
  • Last paragraph, first sentence makes too much short story-s. Suggest changing to "as in short stories like Jack Williamson's 1935 "Islands of the Sun", Raymond Z. Gallun's 1935 "Nova Solis", and Henry J. Kostkos' 1936 "We of the Sun"." Oh and also the apostrophe in "Kostkos"
  • I don't think the stock image of the fire adds any substance to the article
    • I rather like it, myself. TompaDompa (talk) 11:27, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • Normally one would put images if the elements of the image itself provide significant elevation of understanding to the article. At first impression, your caption that "it was expected to burn out in the relatively near future" contradicts the still photo of an ever-burning fire, and doesn't show any "burn out". Plus, such statements aren't really something that require audiovisual material to understand, unless you found artistic depictions of such tropes. GeraldWL 04:08, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's meant to illustrate combustion, which I think it does neatly. TompaDompa (talk) 11:50, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
          • It is definitely a good pict, but the question is, does combustion really need an explanatory image here, and why? It's a way more basic concept compared to the other stuff in this article like, let's say, nuclear fusion. Since paragraph one concerns the death of the Sun more, I think images from categories like white dwarfs would have more meaning. Since that topic is explored more in-depth in the paragraph, an image of it would hold more significance, on par with the images you put on Exploding and Other. GeraldWL 03:47, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
            • Maybe, but those images get kind of esoteric and I suspect many readers would not know what they are looking at or why—the image would likely require a fair bit of explanation, negating much of the point. For that matter, the death of the Sun in these stories is mostly science-fiction mumbo-jumbo rather than extrapolation from real science. TompaDompa (talk) 16:29, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
              • I'm still not convinced, though, that the fire image adds any significant knowledge the prose fails to deliver. If the question is "How could a Sun possibly die from combustion", a more relevant variant of this would be artistic renderings of a Sun powered by combustion, but I can't find such on Commons, at least with a quick skim. GeraldWL 05:09, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
                • Adds information the prose doesn't? No–if it did, I think we would be having the opposite conversation, i.e. "why is this not mentioned in the text?". But the image illustrates a concept that is discussed in the text, namely combustion. I'm not opposed to replacing the image with a better one (whatever that may be), but I do think it's better than nothing and I don't see an obvious replacement that would be an improvement. TompaDompa (talk) 15:24, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In Flammarion's 1894 novel Omega: The Last Days of the World"-- comma
  • Found some duplicate links: Edmond Hamilton in Dimming para 2, and John W Campbell and David Brin in Close Encounters.
  • "the dying earth subgenre"-- it's capitalized in the article
  • "1954 short story "Phoenix" (written c. 1935)"-- why is written year important when other stories don't have their writing years mentioned?
  • "Hugh Kingsmill's 1924 short story "The End of the World""-- "Hugh Kingsmill's similarly-titled 1924 short story"
  • There are some sentences with four-five references placed at a row. For the ones with fives refs I recommend bundling per WP:REFBUNDLE
  • I'm sure this is just me being unfamiliar with such articles, but as I get to the "Exploding" part the article's format slowly becomes dreary. "In XX's 1999 novel "XXX", the Sun is XXXX. In XXXXX's 2000 short story "XII", the Sun is XXIIV." I enjoyed the Exploding's second sentence where you try to weave multiple sources to provide a more engaging comparison.
    • As I said at Talk:Saturn in fiction/GA1: "It's always a balance with these types of articles. If I had my way the article would be wall-to-wall analysis of overarching trends, but the sources are unfortunately comparatively light on that and instead discuss individual examples more." I do try to find interesting ways to group and present the examples, but I have to make sure not to stray into giving my analysis when doing so. TompaDompa (talk) 11:27, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Night sky" is overlink
  • Great job on the clickable images! Although just want to note, it's not really usable on mobile
  • Since the last three further readings only have one source each, why not just combi them under the name "Properties and phenomenas"?


Comments by Wehwalt

[edit]
Is "A Pail of Air" really relevant to the subject matter of the article? There's nothing wrong with the Sun in that story, the issue is what's become of the Earth.
The Greenwood Encyclopedia of Science Fiction and Fantasy finds it relevant ("A dying Sun is a cooler one, and decreased sunlight causes glaciation and other environmental changes in numerous pulp stories, including Nat Schachner's "When the Sun Dies" (1935) and Fritz Leiber's "A Pail of Air" (1951), a superior description of life in a sunless world."). TompaDompa (talk) 01:15, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"The Fourth Profession" Your description is wrong. In TFP, aliens will blow up the Sun to power the light sail on their starship if humanity doesn't build them a launching laser to do the same thing.
Hm. Changed it to say they plan to blow up the Sun. TompaDompa (talk) 01:15, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Inconstant Moon" The characters wake up the next morning, so it definitely was a solar flare.
I think I'll leave the description as it is, i.e. ambiguous. The in-story uncertainty is more relevant to this article than the eventual resolution, I find. TompaDompa (talk) 01:15, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As I was passing: "they later realize that a large solar flare would produce the same effect". No they don't. They note that the observed effects are not, in fact, compatible with a nova and so the event must have been a solar flare; mmeaning that all hope etc. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:40, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is that correct? I haven't read the story itself, but that's not how it's described in either our article "Inconstant Moon" or the story's entry in Don D'Ammassa's Encyclopedia of Science Fiction—they both describe a period of uncertainty. TompaDompa (talk) 13:19, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Gog has it right. I just looked t over. The male character realizes from the fact that the shock wave is merely "a rising wind" rather than "a single vast thunderclap" of "scalding superheated steam" that it can't be a nova. He goes through a number of things that would have happened if it was a nova, such as a tremendous aurora and a devastating shock wave. That, along with the fact that G-0 stars don't go nova, convinces him it is only a flare. The story ends the next morning with the sun having risen. Wehwalt (talk) 19:13, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Alright. Tweaked the sentence to clarify that the brightening of the Moon is what would be seen with either a nova or a flare. TompaDompa (talk) 19:30, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"A proto-variation on the concept appears in Robert A. Heinlein's 1939 short story "Misfit".[54] " I don't see where. I just glanced it over again and I don't see the sun being used for propulsion.
Says The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction, "A somewhat different light-pressure drive, using magic Technology to render the spacecraft briefly inertialess so that it instantly acquires (almost) the speed of light, appears in Robert A Heinlein's "Misfit""
I think you'll find it's in Methuselah's Children. Possibly the confusion is that Andrew Jackson Libby, who invents the drive, appears in both works. But from Methuselah's Children, Part I, Chapter 7:
“Lazarus poked at it tentatively. “What is it?” he asked. “Your model?”
“No, no. That’s it. That’s the space drive.”
Lazarus looked at the younger man not unsympathetically. “Son,” he asked slowly, “have you come unzipped?”
“No, no, no!” Libby sputtered. “I’m as sane as you are. This is a radically new notion. That’s why I want you to take us down near the Sun. If it works at all, it will work best where light pressure is strongest.”
I can bore you with quotations from "Misfit" to show that all they are doing is reaction drives if you like. Or check our plot description for Methuselah's Children.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:25, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I believe you. I have tweaked it so the specific story is not mentioned. TompaDompa (talk) 01:36, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's it.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:21, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wehwalt (talk) 17:00, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by SilverTiger

[edit]

At first glance, this looks like a pretty well-written article, so I don't expect to have many comments.

  • The first section has an awful lot of redlinks though- are you certain all those books are notable enough to eventually get articles of their own?
  • Huh. I was expecting a paragraph at the end of the first section discussing more about how new discoveries ended depictions of an inhabited Sun, forming a sort of chronological bridge into the next section.
  • Using understandingknowledge of the underlying astronomy to be able to predict eclipses mathematically is a common trope—saysaccording to Stableford, it "became a key method by which European explorers could impress superstitious native populations in adventure stories".
  • Could you center the image at the bottom, the one that links to the other planets in fiction articles?
  • This article is long on listing specific examples and short on discussion of the trends over time and popularity/etc of those trends, but as the Sun is oft-overlooked in fiction, I assume this is an issue with the sources (and lack thereof)?

Overall, an interesting article and one I enjoyed reading. Happy editing, SilverTiger12 (talk) 19:38, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

With my comments answered, Support. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 21:59, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

Looking at formatting/reliability since no spotcheck is needed. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 23:34, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Unrelated, but add Template:Use British English or otherwise appropriate
  • The use of locations is inconsistent; for example, ref 5 has just the pub, but ref 9 has just the location, and ref 24 has both
  • The use of quotes is also inconsistent, and sometimes unnecessary; take ref 14, where a quote is present but the viewer can go to the linked Google Books page to see it (also, regarding ref 14, quotes in quotes use apostrophes per MOS:QINQ; ditto 15 and 16, but also any I may have missed)
    • They're used where I deemed them useful, which is a handful of instances. Google Books sometimes removes previews from books that were previously accessible to preview, so I don't think that's a good reason to remove the quotes. Turned the double quotation marks to single ones. TompaDompa (talk) 04:55, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because the link for ref 33 directs to a subsection of the page, the title of the citation should be formatted something like "Sun: In popular culture"
  • Ref 35 missing pub
  • Add "none" to the ref= parameters of cite templates under "Further reading"
  • Some things under further reading, like the Vox article, are already used as citations; is this standard?

TompaDompa, all done, great work MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 23:34, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pass - thanks for the prompt responses. If you get any extra time, would appreciate any comments at this FAC- thank you! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 10:27, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from HAL

[edit]

Nice work. ~ HAL333 21:36, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comments

[edit]
So they are.
Ho hum. Your call I guess. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:57, 19 September 2023 (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) 19 September 2023 [19].

Ormond Beatty

[edit]
Nominator(s): PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 00:57, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The seventh president of Kentucky's Centre College (and the third such president to be the subject of an article I have brought to FAC), Ormond Beatty was impactful to Centre throughout his entire life. He was an alum, class of 1835, and got offered a job to teach there before he'd even graduated (after three years, no less). After studying at Yale for a year, he began teaching at Centre in 1836 and continued for the next thirty-two years. He was president pro tem for two years and then unanimously elected to the full job, which he kept for the next 18. After resigning, he went right back to teaching and died in Danville two years later. He also went to numerous Presbyterian General Assemblies, was a trustee for the Kentucky College for Women, and was a Smithsonian climate observer, among other things. This article is a little on the shorter side but I believe it covers the subject comprehensively, and I would be grateful for any and all feedback I can get! PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 00:57, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]
  • File:Ormond_Beatty_in_1880.jpg: when and where was this first published and what is the author's date of death?
@Nikkimaria I changed the 1880 license to the same as the 1855 photo (though the photographer died in 1919), though neither are listed with dates or locations of publication. Should these images be replaced? PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 03:15, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Both currently include a tag indicating they were published before 1928. Can that be confirmed? If no, what is the earliest publication that can be confirmed? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:16, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria I don't think that I'll be able to find that information as I have no idea where or when (or if) they were first published, only the years that they were taken. As a result I've removed the 1855 one altogether and replaced the 1880 one with an engraving that was published in 1890 in the General Catalogue of the Centre College of Kentucky (see here for information and here (page 24 on the viewer) for the source material. If I end up finding publication info I might put the old ones back in but I'm perfectly satisfied with this image for now. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 03:57, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]
  • "the fourth of five sons of Adam Beatty and Sarah Green" - were his parents not married? Or were they Adam Beatty and his wife Sarah (nee Green)......?
  • "...which began in 1870[2][16] and was dedicated on June 26, 1872" - subject seems to change from the construction of the building to the building itself
  • "Sarah Lewis Rochester, a relative of Nathaniel Rochester" - maybe Americans, or people from Kentucky specifically, know who Nathaniel Rochester was, but I personally have no idea, so could you put a qualifier before his name to indicate who he was/what he was known for.....?
  • "He was still a member of the Centre faculty at the time, having taught for two years after his resignation as president until his death" - given that we already know this paragraph is talking about his death, the last three words are redundant
  • Think that's all I got - nice work! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:27, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @ChrisTheDude Thank you for the review, all comments have been taken care of! PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 16:59, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:22, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Harrias

[edit]
  • "..but changed to Centre College "at the last moment and by the merest chance". Says who? Attribute this quote inline.
  • According to the article, he returned to Centre in 1836, spent nine years in a position, and then in 1847 (eleven years after returning) switched to teaching mathematics. Is it possible to address this mismatch?
  • Generally, the sentence which starts "After spending nine years in this position.." is too long and tries to do too much; split it.
  • "..but spent only five years in this post before resuming teaching his original two subjects in 1852 for another 12 years." Per the MOS, for comparable numbers they should either both be numbers, or both be written out, not a mix. (Recommend switching 12 to twelve.)
  • "In 1863, Abraham Lincoln appointed him to be a visitor to the United States Military Academy in West Point, New York." What does this mean? He went for a day trip there? He studied there? He lectured there? Was Lincoln president at the time?
    • I am not sure - this is the source quote: "In 1863 he was appointed by President Lincoln one of the visitors to the Military Academy at West Point." I haven't found anything that expanded on what he actually did while he was there. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 17:29, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per the MOS, foreign-language text shouldn't use markup for achieve italics, but should use a relevant {{lang}} template.
  • "..became the first Centre president who was not a minister." I assume you mean a religious minister, but it is an ambiguous term, so please clarify.
  • "..and Sarah died after "a year or two"." Again, provide inline attribution.
  • "Beatty was a slaveowner, and the 1860 census lists him as having owned one slave." I think having this as a one sentence paragraph gives it undue precedence; I'd recommend blending it into one of the other paragraphs.
  • "He had been "suffering under an insidious disease" for "three or four years before".." More inline attribution needed.

Overall a nice little article. Harrias (he/him) • talk 13:48, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Harrias Thank you for the kind words and the review - all of your comments have been taken care of or responded to above! PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 17:42, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Harrias Just a courtesy ping if you get the chance to take another look at this at your nearest convenience! PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 16:43, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Golden

[edit]
  • "Beatty involved himself" - I think the flow would improve if we wrote "Beatty also involved himself" since we've only discussed his educational work so far.
  • "This did not happen for some time, but William C. Young, son of former President John C. Young, was elected on June 19, 1888, to fill the role." - For some reason, this sentence does not flow well for me. I think it's because it doesn't connect well with the previous sentence. I suggest changing it to something like: "Although the process was protracted, William C. Young, son of former President John C. Young, was ultimately elected on June 19, 1888, to fill the role."
  • "prevent him from retiring from the college altogether" - Can we elaborate on this a little more? Why were they so determined to retain him at the college in any capacity? Was he truly that good of a professor/president/individual?
  • "Rochester, New York, founder" - Is the second comma supposed to be there? Also, I suggest changing it to "founder of Rochester, New York".

I have no further suggestions. The article was a pleasant read and is in excellent shape. Great job! — Golden talk 22:33, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Golden: Thank you for the review! The first two points have been changed exactly as recommended (and I learned the meaning of the word "protracted"!). The third comment is a good question, and there really isn't a whole lot of reason given beyond what you guessed; the most detailed source quote I could find was this (FN 22 in that part of the article): "But the Trustees were unwilling that the institution should lose altogether the name and influence, the instructions and counsels, the fatherly concern and loving care of one who had been so long and so honorably identified with its history, and who had spared neither himself, nor his time, nor his money, in its behalf." I wasn't sure how to summarize this other than by saying that they didn't want him to leave, but I am very open to suggestions. I followed your suggestion in the fourth comment, though the comma has to stay as per MOS:GEOCOMMA. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 17:08, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@PCN02WPS: Thank you for making the changes. Regarding the third point, perhaps we could include that quote or at least a portion of it? I believe it offers sufficient context to the sentence. — Golden talk 19:02, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Golden I tried to paraphrase that as best I could and add it - does that sound alright to you? PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 16:00, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That looks great, PCN02WPS. Happy to support. — Golden talk 16:02, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

No spotcheck needed; looking at formatting/reliability. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 01:18, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PCN02WPS, all done, very nice work on consistency! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 01:18, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@MyCatIsAChonk: Thanks for taking a look, everything has been fixed or responded to! PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 18:52, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - by the way, if you get some time, I'd appreciate comments at this FAC. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 21:03, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@MyCatIsAChonk I like that segment a lot, so I'd be happy to give that a look! PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 15:52, 31 August 2023 (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 September 2023 [20].

William Anderson (RAAF officer)

[edit]
Nominator(s): Ian Rose (talk) 19:38, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Anderson was one of the founding members of the Royal Australian Air Force. Among his claims to fame: sharing in the first aerial victory credited to No. 3 Squadron of the Australian Flying Corps in World War I; earning the first Distinguished Flying Cross awarded to an Australian; and serving the shortest term as Chief of the Air Staff (one month)...! Although third in seniority to Richard Williams and Stanley Goble for most of his career, Anderson never made as much of an impact on the RAAF's development. He appears to have been well liked but there's the suspicion that he gained his promotions and commands more through convenience and length of tenure than ability and sound judgement (surely not the only such officer!). In any case I hope you find his story interesting, and look forward to your comments. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 19:38, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Support from Hawkeye7

[edit]

My first thought was that Wil Anderson was a comedian.

  • "and Major Anderson" No need for "major" here.
    • Done.
  • I found the Ameria J incident interesting enough to look it up. [21] has a pic of Anderson. [22] Apparently the Ameria J did indeed go down. [23] The men lost were Captain W. J. Stutt and Sergeant A. G. Dalzell. [24][25] Apparently all that was found was Stutts life preserver. (No action required.)
  • A pity the RAAF didn't keep that dress uniform. (No action required.)
  • "interviewed Reg Pollard" who went on to become Chief of the General staff.
    • Could add but felt it might be too much detail there...
      The point here is that both went on to distinguished careers. In fact, while imo the best choice was made, it could easily imagined that if the decision had gone the other way, Pollard might have become Chief of the Air Staff and Scherger the Chief of the General Staff. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:44, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Sure, sliding doors -- okay, done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:50, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the RAAF Director of Transport and Equipment, George Mackinolty" rank?
    • I'd just be an educated guess as the source doesn't specify that...
  • Link 1933 Birthday Honours
    • Done.
  • I would add that Maitland Boucher was a British Royal Navy officer. He was such a distinguished officer that the RN forcibly retired him the day his two-year secondment to the RAN ended in January 1941.
    • Done.

Looks good to me. Happy to support. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:17, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Hawkeye! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:19, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Nick-D

[edit]

This article is in good shape - I have only some generally minor comments.

  • The sentence in the lead starting with 'He flew with the Australian Flying Corps in World War I' is a bit over-complex
    • Hi Nick, I agree there's a fair bit in there but I think splitting it might result in stubby sentences -- did you have a suggestion for how to re-express?
      • Perhaps one sentence for his role as a pilot (for which he seems to have earned the medals) and the other for his role as a commanding officer? The lead is on the short side, so you could add a bit of detail about the CO roles (e.g. that 7 Squadron was a training outfit and 3 Squadron a combat unit) Nick-D (talk) 10:57, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "in what was then German New Guinea" - this is a bit unclear given that it was Australian-occupied at the time (which explains why Anderson was there)
    • Australian-occupied yes but I believe it was still known as German New Guinea for the duration of the war (cited sources also refers to it as such).
  • Can anything more be said about Anderson's time as commanding officer of No. 3 Squadron? Possibly not as the war ended at this time (I'm not sure if it also was taken off the front line for a rest when the Australian Corps was at this time)
    • Sure, I could add that it re-equipped with Bristol Fighters about the time he took over, and a bit about its post-war activity.
  • "That December, Anderson and Brownell interviewed Reg Pollard and Frederick Scherger, two undergraduates at the Royal Military College, Duntroon, who had applied to transfer to the RAAF" - is this and the next sentence needed? It seems to give greater emphasis than necessary to what would have been a routine part of Anderson's job (I imagine that he also interviewed officer cadets who went on to have unsuccessful or unremarkable careers)
    • I was a bit in two minds about adding this bit in but Coulthard-Clark gave it space in the pre-war official history -- I'm happy to bow to consensus on it but I think Hawkeye finds it noteworthy...
  • I'd suggest expanding on Anderson's period as head of Eastern Area; this was one of the peak periods for the ASW campaign, and was a key command as a result (he seems to have left just before the mid-1943 ASW crisis, though I wonder if he played a role in its causes? - coordination between the RAAF and Navy in this area left a lot to be desired). David Stevens' book A Critical Vulnerability should have some material on this topic, though it doesn't mention Anderson by name
    • Yeah, I think I left out Stevens' book because it never referred directly to Anderson, but I've adapted some content from the Eastern Area Command article that utilises it, let me know what you think...
  • I hope that your next RAAF FAC is on the RAAF's dress uniform of the late 1930s! Nick-D (talk) 10:34, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The changes here look good, and I'm happy to support this nomination. Nick-D (talk) 11:19, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

No spotcheck needed, will look at formatting/reliability. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 00:59, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Locations in sources are inconsistent; e.g., Ashworth 2000 uses just the city, but Sewell 1999 includes the state too
    • I've just included the state for non-capital cities.
  • Helson 2006: I've seen PhD, DPhil, and Ph.D., but never Ph. D. Could just be dialect, but the space may be a typo
    • I think you're right, went for Ph.D.
  • IMO, it's best to convert ISBNs to version 13 (useful tool in case you wanted one)

Ian Rose, I got nothing else, fantastic job on consistency! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 00:59, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for reviewing. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:35, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - BTW, if you get time, would appreciate any comments at this FAC. Thanks! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 13:30, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Zawed

[edit]

This is in great shape. Minor nitpicks and I suspect that perhaps some of these could be a matter of style preference:

  • From the lead combat service with Nos. 3 Squadron on : "Nos."?
  • Early life section as battery commander at Rabaul,: should that be "a battery commander"
  • Interwar section in charge of Central Flying School (CFS) at Point Cook, Victoria.: grammatically, should that be "the Central..."?
    • Heh, an interesting one -- since WWII it doesn't seem to take the definite article but in its early days they tended to use "the", so we probably should here...
  • Interwar section The young Air Force staged many public displays: Is the usage of "Air Force" here and elsewhere for variety or should that be expressed as RAAF?
    • Used mainly for variety but I could probably swap a few to "RAAF" if you think best...
  • World War II section seconded from the Royal Air Force, : introduce the RAF abbreviation since it is used later in the section.
  • Retirement: Hippolyte (Frank) De La Rue,: don't think the bracketed nickname is necessary or perhaps pipelink as Frank De La Rue?

As noted, in great shape all round. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 10:08, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tks Zawed! Actioned all except the "Air Force" one... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:01, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Zawed, did you want to follow up? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:05, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All good here, happy to support. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 22:33, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from JennyOz

[edit]

Hello Ian, only a few comments from me...

  • EngvarB not Australian?
  • good article - move to below short description

lede

  • The service's third most senior officer - hyphen third-most? see "playing" below

Early life and World War I

  • artillery ranging - what is that? any link available?
    • Made "artillery spotting" -- this does have a redirect to artillery observer but that's mainly about ground-based spotting, I figure "spotting" is still more intuitively clear than "ranging"?
  • John Bell - are observers also pilots? just checking that it's not John Bell (footballer, born 1886)?
    • The observer could in theory be a pilot but they were there to look about and to fire the aircraft's defensive weaponry -- I don't think the R.E.8 was dual control. Incidentally, I believe this John Bell is the future husband of Mary Bell.

Inter-war years

  • becoming its third most senior officer - see playing below
  • was duly formed at Point Cook later that year - "later" is redundant to a proposal?
  • took part in a mock dogfight - link
  • gave a demonstration of balloon busting - better link Balloon buster?
  • RAAF's first air chief marshal, while - better link Air chief marshal (Australia)?
  • According to the official post-war history of the Air Force - I'm confused (but you need non-milhist reviewers to own up, right?) "official post-war history" had me thinking it covered WWI, but that book is 1921 to 1939 so it's RAAF til WWII? (Cutlack wrote the official history of AFC 1914–1918 as part of CEW Bean's work?)
    • God, that was a howler -- I meant pre-war, not post-war.
  • Joe Hewitt found him "admirable" - introduce Hewitt? without clicking on link, one might think him an author or something else

Captions

References

Categories?

  • Category:People educated at Melbourne Grammar School
  • Category:Recipients of the Croix de guerre (Belgium)

Playing with compounds, consider...

  • Ten of the RAAF's most senior officers walk into a bar assemble in a meeting room. Andrews was the third most senior officer to arrive. Smith was the last of the most senior officers to arrive.
Of the ten, Air Chief Marshal John Jones was the most-senior officer, Air Commodore Bob Smith was the second-most senior officer and Bill Brown was the third-most senior officer in attendance. Andrews, a group captain, was the seventh-most senior officer. White was the least-senior officer and the fourth senior officer to arrive.
Not asking for a definitive answer here, just flummoxed. I've read so much about when to or not hyphenate - our own MOS and more. (Some even say third-most-senior, or third most-senior... good grief!)
However, the use here is not ambiguous so... no problem. But any suggestions for "going forward" will be welcome!
Ha, sorry, but I don't think I want to go here... ;-)

Another interesting bio, thank you Ian. JennyOz (talk) 11:29, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Jenny -- I think I've actioned and/or acknowledged every point. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:55, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Ian, happy to s'port. JennyOz (talk) 10:25, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're a good s'port... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:33, 14 September 2023 (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 September 2023 [26].

Our Lady of Perpetual Exemption

[edit]
Nominator(s): MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 14:33, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a church meant to criticize Televangelists and to draw attention to how easy it is to start a church in the US. Since I think most editors will need some context—basically, a church is a physical (or digital) place consisting of organised events containing prayer that provides a cohesive and often creative expression of beliefs, community, stories or morals. Thanks, LunaEatsTuna, for the idea! This article passed a GA review by Freedom4U in July- excited for everyone's comments! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 14:33, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Serial #

[edit]

Fantastic stuff. Marker for future review. Semen in post. SN54129 15:11, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Serial Number 54129, gentle reminder, no rush :) MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 16:26, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
MyCatIsAChonk apologies for leaving you hanging like that. I couldn't see anything wrong with it a few days ago, and can see even less now, so an unhesitating support from me. It's a nice, tightly wrapped article. SN54129 12:21, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, many thanks for the review! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 13:24, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:1800THISISLEGAL_Recording_(Last_Week_Tonight_with_John_Oliver).ogg: FUR needs cleanup - some parameters are unfilled, and the material in "purpose of use" seems better suited to "respect for commercial opportunities". Nikkimaria (talk) 18:55, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria, thoughts now? MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 19:01, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Parameters are now filled, but more work is needed - the content in "not replaceable with free media" doesn't answer that question, and the "purpose of use" needs to make a better case as to why the non-free media is needed to support the article. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:07, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Tried expanding it a bit, but I'm unsure. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 19:38, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Think about "purpose of use" as justifying why this media is key to the article and to reader understanding. Why is it here? What does it contribute? Leave stuff covered by the other parameters (like no free equivalent) to those parameters to cover. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:40, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria, attempted to fix again. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 19:46, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Better. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:00, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria, does it pass or is more work needed? MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 00:34, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is good enough. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:19, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Unlimitedlead

[edit]
  • Any caption for File:Our Lady of Perpetual Exemption logo.png?
  • "On August 16, 2015, Last Week Tonight with John Oliver broadcast...": Should be "broadcasted".
  • Any information on the closings of the spinoffs?

Overall not much to say: it is short and sweet. Nice work. Unlimitedlead (talk) 01:10, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks! For broadcast: I've gotten into a disagreement about this before, and Arjayay provided a sound argument on my talk page (see here). The sources I could fine said nothing about the closing of the spinoffs. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 01:16, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Then it appears everything is all set. I will be happy to support this nomination. Unlimitedlead (talk) 01:20, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PCN02WPS

[edit]

Review to come. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 15:52, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

Creation

  • "private luxuries, and pointed out that the money was tax-exempt because of its recognition" → remove comma
  • "organization, with Oliver describing the process as "disturbingly easy"" → Oliver's name gets a little repetitive in this section, I think you could just simplify this to "organization and described the process..."
  • "Oliver explained that he was able to found the church due to "vague" legal restrictions. Oliver chose" → same thing with repetition here, recommend "He explained" and "He chose"
  • "comedian Rachel Dratch" → the form "the comedian" is used for Oliver and Dratch in the lead, but is not used here, recommend changing for consistency
  • "the church, and said that donations" → remove comma
  • "Oliver revealed letters of his months-long correspondence with Tilton, in which Oliver initially" → recommend "He revealed" and "in which he initially"

Response and dissolution

Reception

Spinoffs

Awesome article, that's all I have on the first read-through! PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 16:35, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PCN02WPS, thanks a ton for the review! Impressed by the small-detail catches, think I've addressed everything! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 21:38, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Everything looks good! The small details are less a compliment of my reviewing skills and more accurately stuff I've had to fix in countless reviews of mine and so now pay attention to whether I want to or not - in any case I am happy to support! PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 00:32, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hawkeye7

[edit]

Looks good to me. Some nitpicks to prove I read it:

  • "heath care",
  • "megachurch used a toll-free phone number to permit callers to donate to the church,and said that" Space after comma, although it is not required; I think you mean "Oliver" as the one who said it and not megachurch, so maybe want to had subject after the comma.
  • Do we need so many "See also"s? Most are covered by the categories.
  • The piped link to Doctors Without Borders goes via a redirect to its real name Médecins Sans Frontières, which stops you realising that it is already linked above.

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:46, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Hawkeye7, goodness, can't believe I didn't catch these typos before- thank you very much for the review! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 12:07, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's always one more typo. Happy to support. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:46, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass

[edit]
  • All sources are of good quality.
  • fn 8: The only Slate reference with an ISSN. Suggest dropping the ISSN for consistency.
  • fn 15: Same for the Washington Post.
  • fn 36: and this one too
  • Mashable: "In a 2021 RfC, editors achieved a consensus that ... non-sponsored content from Mashable is generally fine" - okay
  • Salon: "There is no consensus on the reliability of Salon. Editors consider Salon biased or opinionated, and its statements should be attributed." But only report John Oliver - okay
  • Spot checks: 5, 6, 19, 22, 35 - okay

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:25, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Hawkeye7, many thanks for the source review, I very much appreciate it- everything should be fixed now! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 10:28, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Query for the coordinators

[edit]

Coord question: @FAC coordinators: , 3 4 supports and the image review- may I open another nom? MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 00:44, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, WikiCup final round. I remember it well. You are going to get limited bonus points from this pair. Feel free to be pushy, so long as you are polite about it. As you always have been. To be fair to all WikiCup participants we have a timescale of 21 days. We may be a bit more flexible in other circumstances, although I am only talking of a day, or, just maybe, two, less. So, barring something significant like an oppose, you may nominate a second at 14:34 16 August. @FAC coordinators: for information. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:50, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Our Lady will hopefully become part of a John Oliver FT, but that may be a hard sell- Appalachian Spring will get 360 points, so that'll hopefully get me up in time, and I have three pending FLCs too. Many things in the works! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 15:56, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Minor quibbles from voorts

[edit]
  • "Vanned Parenthood": This is an EASTEREGG link.
  • "All donations were forwarded to Doctors Without Borders.": Can you choose another verb? "Forwarded" feels like the wrong word but I can't think of a better one off the top of my head.
  • "which owned the health care sharing ministry "JohnnyCare", satirizing the lack of regulations on health care sharing ministries to provide careof such ministries."
  • "and pointed out that the money wassuch donations are tax-exempt because of its recognition by theunder Internal Revenue Service (IRS) as a church donationregulations."
  • "A message found on the church's website"
  • "Many reviewers agreed with Oliver's exposécharacterization of televangelists as "frauds", as one reviewer wrote."
  • "Peter J. Reilly, writing in Forbes, found his criticism "ironic", as one of the reports Oliver cites describes why the IRS has a difficult time auditing churches.": The irony here is unclear to me. Wasn't the point of the parody that the IRS' treatment of megachurches is absurd?
  • "who saidmade multiple incorrect medical claims"
  • "Oliver finished the segment by saying,:"
  • "mandating that HCSMs to disclose"
  • Add relevant portal links in the see also section.

Excellent work! voorts (talk/contributions) 23:21, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Voorts, impressed by the small catches! All were fixed but one: for the Forbes review, the irony is that Oliver criticized the IRS for not auditing churches, but a document he cited described why it was so hard for the IRS to audit churches. I've clarified that in the prose. Thank you! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 01:41, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
With those fixes and that clarification, support. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:57, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Made a couple of tiny tweaks, more than happy to support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:35, 17 September 2023 (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 September 2023 [27].

Assassination of John F. Kennedy

[edit]
Nominator(s): Walloon (talk), HAL333 22:41, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Outside of wartime atrocities, the killing of John F. Kennedy was the greatest crime of the 20th century. No murder in modern history has attracted as much analysis and debate. I have decided to co-nominate this article with the late Walloon, who still has the secondmost share of authorship and edits and laid out the article's foundation. My hope is to promote this article to FA status, so that on November 22—the 60th anniversary of Kennedy's killing—it can appear as TFA. Thanks, ~ HAL333 22:53, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]
  • The present layout results in considerable sandwiching of text between images
  • File:Badgeman.jpg: when and where was this first published? Ditto File:Robert_Croft_photo_showing_JFK's_car_on_Elm_Street.jpg, File:Jack_Ruby_1963_Mugshot.jpg
  • File:JFK_limousine.png: source link is dead. Ditto File:Kennedys_arrive_at_Dallas_11-22-63.JPG
  • File:Sbt2.jpg is tagged as requiring referencing
I'm not sure which exact resources Bradipus used to create that image. However, it is accurate and aligns with mainstream accounts. Can I simply remove that tag? It isn't present on the sister image. Or should I add sources, even if those aren't necessarily the ones that Bradipus used to create it? ~ HAL333 17:23, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you can add sources that confirm its accuracy that's fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:52, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Lee_Harvey_Oswald_1963.jpg: why is this believed to be a US federal government work, when it's credited to municipal police?
  • File:Clay_Shaw.jpg has two different PD tags, but the source site doesn't provide enough information to support either?
  • File:Back-and-to-the-left-fairuse.png needs a stronger FUR and a different fair-use tag. Additionally I'm not sure the non-commercial tag is accurate - the source publication is indeed under an NC-ND license, but the image itself is under a different copyright, unless I'm missing context? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:11, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have expanded the FUR - could you tell me what the correct fair use tag is? And I'm not sure regarding the ND-ND license. That's what the research article says is the license... ~ HAL333 13:08, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
HAL, has this been done? Gog the Mild (talk) 13:14, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Commons is my Achilles heal. I don't know how to add a "generic tag". Where can I find the corresponding HTML code, Nikkimaria. ~ HAL333 16:44, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
{{non-free fair use}}. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:16, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Tell me if that looks alright. ~ HAL333 14:31, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PCN02WPS

[edit]

It might take a while but this is a very interesting topic to me so I'll put my name down for a prose review. Just one thing that I'll let you know off the bat - footnote 150 (The New York Times 2003, pp 197-201) is showing an error as it doesn't point to any cited source. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 14:52, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Background

  • "In summer 1959, he received a" → MOS:SEASON dissuades from using the name of a season to describe a time of year
  • "the Warren Commission attributed this assassination attempt to Oswald" → link Warren Commission since this is the first time it's mentioned in the body
  • "it is believed this package contained Oswald's rifle." → recommend rewording to clarify who believed this (or note that this is a consensus view, which it is as I understand it)

November 22

  • "were: Agent Bill Greer, who drove" → list format is fine, though I think the colon is unneeded
  • "rode in a later vehicle." → recommend a different word instead of "later" as that could imply that they rode over without being part of the motorcade
  • "As it continued down Elm Street, multiple shots were fired. About 80% of the witnesses recalled hearing three shots." → There's nothing wrong with this, so no need to change it if you disagree with me, but I think this would read more smoothly if these sentences were combined; they sound just a bit choppy as is
  • "exited his throat just beneath his larynx" → link larynx; it wouldn't surprise me if plenty of people don't know this term
  • "According to the Warren Commission's single bullet theory" → diagram caption uses "single-bullet" with a hyphen, so I recommend changing one or the other for consistency (if you add a hyphen in the body, one should also be added for "magic bullet")
  • "shattered his right radius bone" → Link "radius bone" to radius (bone)
  • "His brain and bloodspatter landed as far as the following Secret Service car and the motorcycle officers" → link United States Secret Service
  • "jumped off into Elm Street" → this wording sounds awkward to me, since it's already been mentioned that the president's car was on Elm Street at the time the shots were fired, I think simplifying this to "jumped onto the street" or "jumped down onto the street" works better
  • "by which any shooter could flee the grassy knoll; he saw no one leaving the scene." → footnote 96 is cited after the semicolon and after the full stop which ends this sentence - since there's no other footnote cited in between, the one after the semicolon can be removed.
  • "reported that the rifle's report was so loud" → I know "report" is being used to mean two different things in this sentence, but switching one of them would still help to eliminate some repetition
  • In the labeled image of the Depository, circle "A" is explained in the caption but "B" is not - is "B" of any importance?
  • "B" is where he reported seeing witnesses on the fifth floor. If the Depository image is clicked on, it appears as the caption (an issue with dual image templates, but quasi-helpful here). But I can add it to the caption if you want. ~ HAL333 23:36, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "CBS host Walter Cronkite broke the news on live television" → one of the most memorable things I associate with this broadcast was the fact that the studio equipment wasn't fully ready (I think the camera hadn't warmed up or something like that) meaning the report was audio-only for the first minute or something - did this turn up in any of your sources and do you think this is worth mentioning?

Immediate aftermath

  • "Kennedy's personal physician, Rear Admiral George Burkley" → Burkley is already linked near the end of the previous section
  • "Panel member Milton Helpern—Chief Medical Examiner for New York City—said that selecting" → redlink Milton Helpern, since plenty of NYC Chief Medical Examiners have their own articles, and remove link to NYC in favor of a link to Office of Chief Medical Examiner of the City of New York
  • I could have sworn that I had already redlinked that... But done regardless. I'll try to make that article in the next month or so as well. ~ HAL333 23:36, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "On Sunday, November 24 at 11:21 a.m." → comma after "24" per MOS:DATECOMMA
  • I'm assuming that the image of Ruby shooting Oswald was the photo that won Robert Jackson the Pulitzer - if so, can this be noted in the image caption?
  • "Ruby, slated to be retried, died of a pulmonary embolism..." → Another thing that's not technically wrong, but there are a lot of commas in this sentence. Could it be reworded to be a little more straightforward?

Films and photographs of the assassination

  • "valuing the complete film at $16 million" → the inflation equivalent that follows should be rounded in the same "$xyz million" style as the original "$16 million" figure that is given (details/instructions at Template:Inflation#Rounding); also, removing "2021" from that template will allow the figure to update as the inflation equivalents are calculated (currently 2022 equivalents are available)

Official investigations

  • "2:30 p.m., on November 22, and 11 a.m., on November 24" → I think all three of these commas can be removed
  • "Captain J. W. Fritz of the homicide and robbery bureau" → does "homicide and robbery bureau" need caps?
  • "including the FBI and the Secret Service, and occasionally" → FBI is mentioned plenty of times before being linked here; the link should be moved to the first mention, which (I think) is in the sentence starting "Nine months later, the FBI removed the curb..." in the last paragraph of the "Shooting" subsection
  • "However, the HSCA's Dr. Michael Baden noted" → remove "Dr." per MOS:DOCTOR
  • "no evidence of a CIA or FBI-led conspiracy" → add hyphen after "CIA", as in "CIA- or FBI-led conspiracy"
  • "in these plots against Casto" → typo
  • "and a specially appointed National Academy of Sciences Committee determining" → "specially-appointed"

Conspiracy theories

  • "also rejected the single-bullet theory" → another instance of "single bullet" with a hyphen

Legacy

  • "As with the preceding attack on Pearl Harbor of December 7, 1941" → "preceding" is not needed when the exact date is also given
  • "would become a common topic of discussion" → "became a common topic of discussion" per WP:WOULDCHUCK (which is an essay, not a MOS page or strict guideline, but I like to abide by it regardless)
  • "sold in 1991 for $220,000" → inflation equivalent template would be helpful here

Overall, very well done. Given the length and thoroughness of the article, I really don't have all that much - everything I found is above. Take your time, just send me a ping when you're ready for me to have another look. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 21:47, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PCN02WPS, All comments addressed (or responded to). These were very helpful — thanks! ~ HAL333 00:07, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the delay in getting back to this, I didn't have it on my watchlist and your ping didn't go through (just FYI - if you go back in to fix the ping and don't add your signature within the same edit as a ping, it doesn't work for whatever reason) so this kind of fell off of my radar for a bit. That being said, I'm happy with the changes/responses, and the article is excellent - some of Wikipedia's best work - and a great read so I'm more than happy to support. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 18:18, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much, PCN02WPS! ~ HAL333 02:29, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

caeciliusinhorto

[edit]

Gosh, I don't envy you taking on such a thoroughly-discussed and contentious topic. I read through the article last night, and in the main it looks very good. A few points that came up in my initial readthrough:

  • I see a few infelicities in the prose, probably to be expected in a 7,500 word article. For instance:
    • from the lead: "The Kennedy assassination was also the fourth time that a U.S. president was assassinated, and the most recent time that one died in office." Repetition of assassination/assassinated and fourth time/most recent time reads awkwardly to me. I would suggest the more concise "Kennedy was the fourth U.S. president to be assassinated, and the most recent to die in office."
    • "Oswald requested and met with FBI Special Agent John Quigley while in custody." Picky, perhaps, but I don't like this construction: Oswald isn't requesting FBI Special Agent John Quigley here, he is requesting a meeting. Alternatives could be "Oswald requested a meeting with FBI Special Agent John Quigley..." or, if the fact that the meeting was carried out needs to be explicitly said, "At Oswald's request, he met with FBI Special Agent..."
    • "Dallas policeman thoroughly photographed the rifle" – should either be "A Dallas policeman" or "Dallas policemen"
  • Some words to watch that I am dubious about:
    • "Notably, frame 313 captures the exact moment at which Kennedy's head explodes." This is so obviously notable that explicitly saying so does nothing but weaken the sentence!
    • "Bugliosi emphasized that no witness ever reported seeing anyone—with or without a gun—immediately behind the knoll's picket fence at the time of the shooting": If this isn't in dispute, can we cut "Bugliosi emphasized that"? If it is, I'm not super keen on "emphasized" cited to Bugliosi; I would prefer a more neutral "said" or "stated" unless a reliable source says that Bugliosi is in fact emphasising this fact.
  • Finally, I am not familiar with the JFK assassination literature, so this may be an accurate reflection of the scholarship, but I'm astonished that there doesn't seem to be any discussion of Oswald's motive. Why he did it seems like a crucial question – has nobody really addressed it? Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 09:03, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments addressed. The issue of motive is a great point, and, now that I think about it, it is kind of underdiscussed in the sources. It may be that it's damned difficult to answer (even moreso than the rest of this). I've read too many books on the subject and still don't have a feel for who Oswald really was. I've added that the Warren Commission made no conclusion—only suggestions—about Oswald's motive. I've also added a note on Sylvia Odio's testimony to the WC regarding Oswald and another possible motive. ~ HAL333 12:11, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, second readthrough. A few more comments but these are mostly pretty minor:

  • Grammatical nitpicking, but "Ruby was convicted of Oswald's murder, though it was later overturned on appeal": neither "Ruby" nor "Oswald's murder" make sense as the antecedent for "it" here; very pedantically I think the sentence ought to read "... though this was later overturned ..." or "... though the decision was later overturned ..."
  • In the lead, we have discussion of the HSCA conclusion that the assassination was the result of a conspiracy, followed by "The U.S. Justice Department concluded active investigations and stated that there was no 'persuasive evidence' of a conspiracy." Can we briefly indicate when this was (and possibly that this followed the Justice Department re-examining the dictabelt recordings on which the HSCA based their two gunmen theory)? I realise that we don't want the lead to balloon with detail, but at the moment it seems to me that the two-gunmen theory gets too much weight in the lead compared to the subsequent investigations concluding that there was no evidence for this.
  • "The motorcade route was finalized on November 18 and announced soon thereafter": "thereafter" strikes me as somewhat old-fashioned; is there anything wrong with simply "after"? (And there's another "thereafter" later)
You may have your thereafters if you are attached to them, of course! Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 14:26, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Oswald ... traveled to Finland, where he was issued a Soviet visa. There, Oswald defected to the Soviet Union." Do we know anything about why? This comes up quite suddenly: did he have prior interest in communism?
  • "and Marina befriended Ruth Paine" – Ruth Paine is never mentioned again in the article. Given how much detail we have in this article already, I would be inclined to omit this unless there's some relevance to the assassination, in which case make clear what it is.
  • "In March 1963, Oswald attempted to assassinate General Edwin Walker at his residence" I know the sixties were a different time, but did this have any consequences? Why was Oswald able to wander around with a gun and shoot a president only eight months later?!
  • Fleshed out. It's vary hard to write concisely about Oswald. I could turn pretty much any sentence in the Oswald subsection into a subarticle. ~ HAL333 20:31, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see, so he was only identified as the assassin after the death of JFK - that makes more sense! Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 14:24, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • On my 1080p screen with Vector 2022, the wide image of Dealy Plaza cuts off about halfway along the white pergola, and the scrollbar to show the rest of the image isn't very obvious at all; on my phone with the default mobile browser skin, it's even worse, cutting off before the underpass. Perhaps crop the left side of the image out, so the relevant bits are more likely to appear on most users' screens? (Alternatively, stick |dir=rtl into the wide image template so at least the important bits of the image are the ones which are immediately in view!
  • Some times specify the timezone, others don't. So far as I can determine all the times given are in CST and relate to things happening in Dallas in November, where CST is the expected timezone. I would suggest just cutting the timezone specification throughout, but at least there should be some sort of consistent logic to when it is used; it currently seems fairly random. (And format it consistently, too: is it "1 p.m. CST", "1 p.m., CST" or "1 p.m. (CST)"?)
  • "However, other files were stated to remain sealed until June 2023": we're now into July 2023 – is there a more up to date source saying either that these remaining files were released, or that they still remain sealed?
  • It looks like they actually released them, on the final day on June. I had been checking periodically for that release but had given up. ~ HAL333 20:37, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 14:37, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment from Wretchskull

[edit]

Excellently written article! I would only reflect what I said earlier about the references, namely the lack of JFK biographies and other books mentioned in the talk page. Not my expertise, but I can't spot other issues. Wretchskull (talk) 18:54, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the comment, and I did find some of those sources helpful, particularly Sabato, but Kennedy biographies will ultimately have a more superficial and cursory discussion of the assassination because, unlike a book solely about the murder, that isn't the main focus. And, after a bit of thought, I don't think Vincent Bugliosi is over-represented in the sourcing. As of now, 22.9% of citations are for his 2007 book (the best and most thorough on the Kennedy assassination imho), and 8.1% for his 2008 more narrative-based book (very helpful for figuring out the sequence and timing of events). So about 31% total. But other Featured Articles on assassination sport similar percentages of references from single authors. For comparison, Buidhe's Assassination of Talat Pasha relies on Ihrig for 39.1% of citations. Wehwalt's Assassination of William McKinley uses Leech for 27.1% of citations. Or on the late, great Brianboulton's Assassination of Spencer Perceval, Hanrahan comprises 26.8% of references. ~ HAL333 21:26, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. If none of the books are of any value, I trust your judgement. I can't further quibble so I'll Support. Wretchskull (talk) 18:32, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Much appreciated, Wretchskull. ~ HAL333 16:45, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt

[edit]
I might consider, in the opening sentence, moving the time up next to the date.
I removed it altogether - it's not crucial to a reader's understanding and is already in the IB.
"Ruby was convicted of Oswald's murder, though the decision was later overturned on appeal," "later" is redundant.
Removed.
"The assassination, which left a profound impact, was the first of four major assassinations " I might start "The assassination left a profound impact, and was the first ..."
Done.
"In 1960, after representing Massachusetts in the U.S. Senate," change "after" to "while". Also, the sentence could be read to say that Johnson was the Vice President in 1960.
Adjusted.
I don't think we should use the term "regime" instead of "government", it's become POV.
Removed.
"A 19-year-old Oswald sailed on a freighter from New Orleans to France and then traveled to Finland, where he was issued a Soviet visa.[22] There, Oswald defected to the Soviet Union," Where is "there"?
Finland -- should I remove 'there' and simply say "Oswald then..."?
"teenager Amos Euins" What need the red link? He's only known for this, I assume, and thus any likely attempted article on him will wind up a redirect to here, I'd assume?
Removed.
"Although Vice President Lyndon Johnson had technically become president as soon as Kennedy died, at 2:38 p.m., with Jacqueline Kennedy at his side, he was administered the oath of office by federal judge Sarah Tilghman Hughes aboard Air Force One shortly before departing for Washington with Kennedy's coffin.[136]" There's nothing terribly unusual about this. The constitution simply requires that the president take the oath before undertaking the duties of the office. Every Vice President who succeeded necessarily takes the oath after becoming president, as did newly-elected presidents who took the oath for the first time on Monday because Inauguration Day was a Sunday (Taylor and Hayes, I think).--Wehwalt (talk) 14:07, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point.
More soon.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:07, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All addressed or otherwise responded to. ~ HAL333 22:59, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Following the autopsy, Kennedy laid in repose in the East Room of the White House for 24 hours.[152][153] President Johnson issued Presidential Proclamation 3561, declaring the day to be a national day of mourning" I might say "lay in repose". And "the day"? What day?
"Ruby, slated to be retried,[173] While awaiting retrial in 1967,[174] Ruby died of a pulmonary embolism, secondary to lung and brain cancer. " Some problem here.
"at midnight on November 22, " Just leaving aside the question of what day midnight forms a part of, if it started at midnight, the conference would have taken place on November 23.
"Dallas Police, after the FBI expressed concerns that someone may try to kill Oswald, assured federal authorities that they would provide him adequate protection.[201]" Shouldn't "may" be "might"?
"99 percent of document" So what's left and what do they comprise?
Heck, I would like to know. The White House Memo cites the JFK Act permitting postponement of documents for national seurity reasons, which I cover in the third paragraph of that section. I could find nothing more specific than that. ~ HAL333 17:01, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"" President Lyndon B. Johnson authorized the minting of a new 50-cent piece, the Kennedy half dollar, in December 1963.[300]" Technically it was Congress, which overrode the statute requiring designs to be used for 25 years before being replaced by the US Mint (the Franklin was first struck in 1948)
That's it for now.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:50, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All fixed but one. ~ HAL333 17:01, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Wehwalt (talk) 15:09, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Cerebellum

[edit]

Novice reviewer here. I enjoyed the article :) Just a few comments.

  • Looks like Matza 2022 is missing from the works cited.
  • The caption for the image of Oliver Stone says JFK came out in 1992, it should be 1991.
  • Both Shaw and the neurotic, avidly anti-Castro Ferrie were gay. Homosexual seems more encyclopedic.
  • The article contains lots of “Bugliosi says”, “according to Bugliosi”, etc. I agree with you that Bugliosi's is the best book on the assassination, but this could be confusing for someone who isn't familiar with his work. Maybe at the first mention of Bugliosi’s name include a descriptor like Vincent Bugliosi, an expert on the assassination or Vincent Bugliosi, who wrote an influential book on the assassination.
  • The Shaw trial is now widely regarded as a "travesty of justice" Doesn't MOS:QUOTE require in-text attribution for all quotations? --Cerebellum (talk) 10:52, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nope! Support. --Cerebellum (talk) 10:23, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SC

[edit]

Putting down a marker for now. - SchroCat (talk) 18:17, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well done on taking on such a mammoth subject – there's not many who would dare to take on such a controversial and heavily-covered subject!

Lead & IB
  • If Tippit is mentioned in the IB under deaths, shouldn't Oswald also be?
  • I lean 'no'. Oswald died two days after the assassination. If I include Oswald, it makes it seem as if he died at the scene of the Dealey Plaza shooting. As it is, I've always been on edge as to whether Tippit should even be included... ~ HAL333 14:21, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does it matter it was on a Friday? Won't the date alone do?
  • "charged ... with the murders of Kennedy and Dallas policeman J. D. Tippit": this is the first mention of Tippit, so it's a bit of jump to see this. Maybe a short sentence before "Around 70 minutes after Kennedy" about Oswald murdering him first? Either that, or trimming so that it was Oswald was charged with murder, without giving the names.
  • "In its 1979 report, the United States House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) concluded that Kennedy was likely "assassinated as a result of a conspiracy" based on a police Dictabelt recording later debunked by the U.S. Justice Department." This is a bit of a monster sentence – and the debunking of the recording gets a bit lost. It may be worth thinking about moving the debunking to the end of the following sentence.
Oswald
  • He "traveled to Finland" but "travelled to Mexico City" (further down he "travelled by bus")
  • (Note 3) "governent agent" – check spelling
Shooting
  • InBrEng, "bloodspatter" is two words: is it one in the US?

Done to the end of Shooting – more to follow. – SchroCat (talk) 10:59, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aftermath in Dealey Plaza
  • "colored man... leaning" should there be a space after "man", per WP:ELLIPSIS, or is there no gap in the source?
Oswald's flight
  • [note 11]: " the rideges" – spelling
  • " Furthermore": not needed – it always looks like what follows was crow-barred in as an afterthought.
  • "conspiciuous" – "conspicuous"

Done to the end of Oswald's flight: more to come - SchroCat (talk) 20:36, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. ~ HAL333 23:50, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The final batch:

Kennedy declared dead
  • "he was administered the oath of office": as there's be no reference to Johnson in the rest of the paragraph, the "he" is uncertain
Immediate aftermath
  • "the National Archives": this goes to page that describes what a national archives is. Probably better linked (or piped) to the National Archives and Records Administration (if that is the correct target)
  • "Hundreds of thousands lined up... a quarter million passing": I know you mean people, but best to put it in there (as opposed to "Hundreds of thousands of" soldiers or Kennedy voters, etc)
Dallas Police
  • "and, early on in the investigation" - > "and, early in the investigation"
Rockefeller Commission
  • "Commission for its chairman": is that right in AmEng? In BrEng we'd probably say "Commission after its chairman", but I have no idea on your version... (Ditto on Church Committee, below)
  • It looks like it is, which I never realized. But "after" is equally acceptable in AmEng, and have made the change as it seems more universal. ~ HAL333 13:46, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Church Committee
  • "relevations" - > "revelations"
United States House Select Committee on Assassinations
  • "police channel dictabelt recording": capitalise "Dictabelt"

That's my lot. There's a lot of information crammed into the article, and you’ve dealt with it extremely well, covering all the main points, and only using detail where it is most appropriate. I can't hope to comment on the breadth of sources covered and used or unused (I just don't have the knowledge base), but this article feels as if it covers everything in a balanced and neutral way. - SchroCat (talk) 08:14, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

Reviewing this version, with the caveat that this isn't a topic matter I am familiar with. Spot-check upon request.

  • I notice that some sources have multiple pages but no page numbers given e.g #261 and some news sites have bylines and others don't but otherwise the source formatting seems consistent.
  • In the case of #261, I feel that it's that the totality of the document that I am citing — it's not particularly long. I believe that those without a byline did not have a named author.
  • Looking upon Vincent Bugliosi I notice the somewhat ambiguous statements about a potential conspiracy.
  • What makes "NBC News (1966). There Was a President. Random House." and this website a high-quality reliable source?
  • There is a permanent dead link.
  • Removed.
  • Is Gallup the most important source of polling available?
  • NPR is used as a source for claims on government policies, is it the best source for such things?
Sorry, the issue I was wondering whether citing the government directly may be better in some instances. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:42, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I presume it's a mistake that Pappalardo (2017) links to the Warren item and not the Pappalardo one.
  • Fixed.
  • The "Cultural impact and depictions" section has a list of pop-culture works, on which basis have they been selected for inclusion?
  • My primary consideration was due weight. The films JFK and Executive Action are mentioned as one spurred federal legislation and the other was the first. There are other examples I wish I could include—like Gene Roddenberry's scuttled Star Trek film, which would have had Spock shoot Kennedy—but that would be undue weight. The three novels are given due weight as they are the most prominent novels (there aren't too many with articles) that solely concern the assassination. The late, great Cormac McCarthy's The Passenger does somewhat explore the assassination—and I would love to include it but it's tangential. For the songs, I believe that my selections represent the biggest songs. I, for instance, did not include songs with only passing references to the killing, like the Rolling Stones' "Sympathy for the Devil". Elegy is included because, well, it's by Stravinsky. "Crucifixion" is included because it is commonly referenced in the literature (it is the epigraph and titular inspiration for Pictures of the Pain) and had a direct impact on Bobby Kennedy. "Abraham, Martin and John" is a massively covered song and "Murder Most Foul" is by Bob Dylan—a Nobel laureate. He also covered "Abraham, Martin and John". ~ HAL333 02:31, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, how do you determine which work is due and which one is not? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:48, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Because they are the most represented and discussed in reliable sources. ~ HAL333 23:41, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Out of curiosity, which are these reliable sources? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:34, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Bugliosi for the films. For the books: Guardian, NYT, Guardian, NYT, NPR, WaPo, Britannica, NYT, Guardian, Deadline, Los Angeles Times, The Chicago Tribune, https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/w3cswssl BBC], New Statesman , [28], a literature journal, a literature journal, a literature journal, etc. (you won't find such coverage for the over books listed in the category I previously linked) For music: White House historical association, NYT, Guardian, academic journal, NYT—"Crucifixion"'s inclusion is well-merited so I will not list sources—The Tennessean, Atlanta Journal Constitution, NYT, The Guardian, The New Yorker, MIT Press Reader, NPR, Los Angeles Times, NBC News, Vanity Fair, etc. Hopefully you get my thrust. ~ HAL333 12:52, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but you may want to put a footnote mentioning these sources. Otherwise it looks like you handpicked them. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:54, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm hesitant to do that. It would be citation clutter and I'm not sure if WP:DUE mandates it... ~ HAL333 19:45, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's why I'd put it in a footnote, think the notes at Open Arms (SZA song) for some statements sourced to multiple articles. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:08, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:59, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jo-Jo Eumerus, after some thought about how to do this, I decided to follow what they did at Stalin. All works now have at least 3 RS. ~ HAL333 23:15, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That works for me. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:50, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jo-Jo, how is this looking now? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:08, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Jo-Jo Eumerus ? Gog the Mild (talk) 17:18, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
FBI report on news of JFK's assassination in the Soviet
Better a secondary source than a primary one. Both are fine. Here's the original of the primary source. Another image, HAL333. SN54129 19:06, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Kavyansh

[edit]

Last year, I unsuccessfully tried to save the article on RFK's assassination from being delisted at FAR, but in that process, I learned a lot about the topic. I also remembered nominating the lead image of this article to be featured.

Kindly ping me if I do not start my review within 48 hours. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:15, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kavyansh.Singh, just checking in. ~ HAL333 04:45, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "destroyed the brain to hide the extent of the president's illnesses and consequent medication" — despite the link, I think the article should specify what "illness" we are talking about here.
  • "Vice President Nelson A. Rockefeller." — per our article, "Nelson Rockefeller" is his WP:COMMONNAME, I don't see any need for his middle initials.
  • "Dan Rather opined" —→ "Journalist Dan Rather opined"
  • Check p./pp.
    • Ref#114: "Bugliosi (2007), p. 801−802"
    • Ref#214: "Bugliosi (2007), p. 355, 455"
    • "Testimony of Howard Brennan. Warren Commission Hearings (Report). Vol. III. p. 144-145"
    • Ref#136: "Bugliosi (2007), pp. 110"
  • Needs En Dash:
    • Ref#100: "Bugliosi (2007), pp. 898-899"
    • Ref#117: "Bugliosi (2008), pp. 110-111"
    • Ref#153: "The New York Times (2003), pp. 197-201"

Well researched overall. Just a few nitpicks, none of which is a major issue, and which I am sure would be taken care of. Support – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 03:42, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Kavyansh.Singh! All good catches and all addressed, except for the "illnesses" one. I tried rewriting it, but it interrupted the flow and I couldn't describe it concisely and still be accurate. Kennedy had multiple conditions— probably Addison's disease, back and spinal injuries from World War II, hypothyroidism, a theorized autoimmune disease, and a plethora of conditions brought on by the heavy medication, including possible steroid-induced osteoperosis, etc.— there's quite a bit of postulation and nuance that I can't really do justice. Is it okay if I leave that part as is? ~ HAL333 00:00, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No issues. My support stands. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 05:28, 24 August 2023 (UTC).[reply]
I appreciate it. It may take a few years, but I'll eventually try to revamp Bobby's assassination as well — I'll ping you when I'm in the early stages of that. ~ HAL333 14:56, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by TompaDompa

[edit]

I'll try to get round to this in the next few days. As an initial observation, several images lack alt texts and the alt texts for the two Oswald images in the "Background" section are swapped. TompaDompa (talk) 12:52, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good catches. Fixed. ~ HAL333 00:20, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Several images still lack alt texts, as can be seen here. TompaDompa (talk) 05:17, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think that tool is broken... Only the infobox image lacked alt text. ~ HAL333 19:25, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Lead
  • "Kennedy was the fourth U.S. president to be assassinated, and the most recent to have died in office." – the former will always remain true, while the latter was true then and is true now, but will likely change sooner or later. He was the fourth, and is the most recent (technically he also was the most recent, but that's trivial/tautological).
Background
  • "While passing out pro-Castro literature alongside unknown compatriots, Oswald was arrested after scuffling with anti-Castro Cuban exiles." – might be worth mentioning when this was. I know it's mentioned in the image caption, but readers may not think to look there.
  • "The Mexico City trip is contentious; an internal House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) report claimed that the embassy visitor was an Oswald impostor." – I feel like there's something I'm missing here. This seems almost like a non sequitur.
    • I'm confused. How is it a non sequitur? ~ HAL333 21:05, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yeah, non sequitur is probably not the right way to describe it. My point is that there is obviously more to the story here—so much more that I feel more confused than enlightened by reading this sentence. At face value, "the embassy visitor was an Oswald impostor" strikes me as a rather outlandish claim. TompaDompa (talk) 14:12, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • Pretty much any sentence in the Oswald subsection could be extended into an entire paragraph (I would like to rewrite the entire Oswald article someday). I have to sacrifice detail to adhere to summary style. I think the conclusions regarding the Mexico City period from both of the two big federal investigations are relevant here. And the Mexico City angle isn't pure conspiracy theory mumbo-jumbo. Just as an example, the CIA famously gave this photo (I'v always though he looks more like Liam Neeson) to support their claim that Oswald was in Mexico. Maybe more stupid than sinister, but I don't know. ~ HAL333 16:26, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Vincent Bugliosi accused fellow anti-conspiracy theorists like Gerald Posner of distorting this event in their writings, which provides Oswald with a strong motive to kill Kennedy." – again, I feel like there's something I'm missing here. In what way does Bugliosi think they distort it?
November 22
  • "The bullet created an oval-shaped entry wound" – where on his body, more precisely?
  • "struck and destroyed several inches of Connally's right fifth rib" – would that be upon entering or exiting his chest? Or both?
  • "creating a sucking chest wound" – I don't think this is the best way to describe it. Most people probably don't know what a "sucking chest wound" is. Honestly, I think "pneumothorax" is more likely to be understood by readers. I don't know if that's the best way to phrase it either, though. If the sources state that Connally's right lung was struck (which seems likely), I might describe it as "puncturing and collapsing his lung" or something like that. A phrasing with "chest cavity" could also be used.
    • I really disagree. I work in pre-hospital emergency medicine (for now) and sucking chest wound is much more widely recognizable by both professionals and patients. Even if both are unrecognized by a reader, it's pretty easy to deduce the meaning from "sucking chest wound". ~ HAL333 19:43, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • Interesting, since my experience is the opposite. The first time I came across "sucking chest wound" was many years after I learned what "pneumothorax" is (I wonder if the relative infrequency of e.g. gunshot wounds and stabbings compared to e.g. traffic accidents where I'm at plays a part). I also didn't find "sucking chest wound" to be particularly intuitive when I first encountered the term—to me, "sucking" would more intuitively suggest tension pneumothorax. Anyway, I think we can do way better than "sucking chest wound" here. Posner quotes a Dr. West as saying "His chest wound gave him a pneumothorax [a punctured lung]. When he took his next breath, his lung collapsed [...]", so I think my above suggestion of "puncturing and collapsing his lung" would be a good alternative. TompaDompa (talk) 14:12, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Both committees concluded" – which?
  • ""roughly ovular" [sic]" – if "[sic]" is necessary, a link to wiktionary should probably be included. By the way, we have Template:sic.
  • "120 yards" – I would include unit conversion to metric.
Immediate aftermath
Films and photographs of the assassination
  • "some 65 feet" – I would include unit conversion to metric.
Official investigations
  • "selected Chief Justice Earl Warren" – should probably make it clear to readers unfamiliar with the title "Chief Justice"—which I reckon would likely be most people outside of the United States—that it is a Supreme Court position.
  • "Three commission members" – seems relevant to mention out of how many.
  • "(Both Shaw and the neurotic, avidly anti-Castro Ferrie were homosexual.)" – why is this mentioned here? To explain the comparison to Wilde? If so, that is not clear. The article later states "Other observers have characterized the proceedings as relying on homophobia.", and if that's the reason to mention that they were homosexual then that would seem a more logical place to mention this.
  • "However, some 150,000 Americans were contacts." – is this a point Helms made or one that Holland (the cited source) makes? It should be made clear.
Conspiracy theories
  • "Bugliosi estimated that a total of 42 groups, 82 assassins, and 214 people had been accused in various assassination theories." – I would add when that estimate was made.
Legacy
  • "The agency's budget has also increased, from $5.5 million in 1963 to over $1.6 billion by the 50th anniversary in 2013." – doesn't tell us much without inflation adjustment.
  • "Besides explicit portrayals, some critics have argued that the Zapruder film inspired more graphic depictions of violence in American cinema." – this seems to me a rather novel argument, and I would expect significantly stronger sourcing than we currently have to include it. I don't know if it quite reaches the level of being WP:EXTRAORDINARY, but it is certainly on that axis.
    • I added another claim regarding the Zapruder film. ~ HAL333 01:39, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't think that helps. My reading of the added source is that the Zapruder film was an example of cinéma vérité more than an influence on it. Film history is a subject I am relatively more knowledgable about than the JFK assassination, and this strikes me as overstating the impact of the Zapruder film on cinema, specifically. TompaDompa (talk) 14:12, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think it's important to mention the cultural impact of the Zapruder film. Those two are RS I've rephrased it slightly and added a source that states it has been used in many films and TV shows. ~ HAL333 17:05, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
          • I agree on the covering the impact of the Zapruder film, I just don't know that this is the way to do it. I stand by my assessment that this seems to overstate things, but I don't know how to do the Zapruder film's cultural impact justice in some other way so it won't keep me from supporting the FAC. One possibility: I note that the Zapruder film article mentions that it was inducted into the National Film Registry in 1994. That says a fair amount to me (as something of a film buff) but I don't know if the significance thereof will be apparent to the average reader or mostly lost on them. I'll let you decide. TompaDompa (talk) 15:31, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The citation to "Gates (1998)" leads nowhere.
  • Several of the cultural depictions seem dubious to include to me. In particular, some of them are cited only to sources on the works themselves, rather than to sources on the assassination. This runs counter to MOS:POPCULT (or equivalently, WP:PROPORTION).
    • Which ones seem dubious? ~ HAL333 19:43, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • The sources cited for American Tabloid, 11/22/63, Elegy for J.F.K., "Crucifixion", "Abraham, Martin and John", and "Murder Most Foul" all appear to be sources on the works themselves rather than the assassination. I mean, obviously the assassination is an important WP:ASPECT of the works, but that does not imply the converse. TompaDompa (talk) 14:12, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • As I mentioned in the source review above, the primary subject of these works is the assassination. There are plenty of works where the assassination is merely a backdrop of minor component that I would love to mention but can't. Moreover, works primarily concerned about the assassination mention "Crucifixion" (see the quote box) and you could argue that the White House source is primarily viewing. Is it alright if we leave it as is. I don't want to die on this hill (or should I say knoll). ~ HAL333 16:49, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
          • Ah, missed that source for "Crucifixion"—that's perfectly fine then. I'm something of a stickler for applying our content policies (in particular, WP:PROPORTION) to "in popular culture" sections and articles in the same way they apply to other types of content, and I have spent considerable time working on such content (e.g. rewriting the entirety of Mars in fiction) to keep it from being—effectively—TV Tropes content. This section obviously isn't that, and I don't expect it to devolve into it either (at least not in the near future), but I do agree with the comment from the source review about the works looking hand-picked (or as is so often the case with these kinds of articles/sections—added indiscriminately and then sourced post-hoc). Anyway, I agree about this not being a hill to die on. TompaDompa (talk) 15:31, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Texas State Archives preserves" – surely the Texas State Archives should be treated as plural?

Ping HAL333. TompaDompa (talk) 05:17, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

HAL333 ? Gog the Mild (talk) 16:08, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support This looks very well-researched, comprehensive, and balanced, with the caveat that I would likely not be able to tell if it was not. Most of my comments above have been resolved; the remainder are not deal-breakers at this point. TompaDompa (talk) 15:31, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! You picked up a lot that had flown under the radar. ~ HAL333 20:40, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comments

[edit]
  • Books should either all have publisher locations or none should - either is acceptable so long as you are consistent. So could you either remove the four locations given or add the nineteen missing ones?
  • Done.
  • Four Days: could you give both the full title and the OCLC? (The latter is 923323127.)
  • Done.
  • Could Four days in November have its full title, be in title case and include its OCLC. (1149162285)
  • Done.

Support Like most readers of my generation, I remember exactly where I was when I was told that JFK had been killed, and I don't live in the US. It took me over 30 minutes to read this engaging article, and apart from one minor issue, which I took the liberty of fixing, I found the prose to be exemplary. This FAC has my full support for promotion, but please check the external links; at least one (the PBS documentary) does not work for me and says "video not available". Best regards. - Graham Beards (talk) 08:48, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much! I ended up removing the PBS documentary as it seems to require a payment to view it anyway. Best, ~ HAL333 17:01, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Stray bullet from serial

[edit]

You're very image-heavy (not surprising, considering the sheer wealth of material at your disposal). I wondered what the relevance of Kennedy's Moon speech image was? Just to identify him? Photos of him in the Ibox, photos below him with his wife. Might as well put a picture of Castro in  :) Also, I'd suggest changing the quoteboxes into blockquote; they fit well in the text, and due to the number of images, they aren't needed to break text up—you've already sorted that. Finally, a slight NPOV concern, why the choice of song lyrics you've made (when there's Over 200 songs... released following the assassination). Also your AP publ;ication The Torch Is Passed from 1963 is too early yo have an ISBN assigned to it, suggest either |OCLC= or |orig-year= parameter. Also, your NBC News (1966) cite is lacking any kind of identifier at all. But again, from that age, so an OCLC number might be available.

(talk page stalker) Many pre-ISBN works have had ISBNs retrospectively assigned, and we usually at least allow a nominator's preference. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:13, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Great article though: distilling one of the single most important events of the 20th century into less than 8,000 words, in a fashion that both a Harvard professor and Randy could understand is no mean feat. Congratulations are indeed in order. SN54129 14:51, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. 1) I went ahead and added an image of Castro. If you think there are too many double image templates, I can drop it (It looked somewhat weird to have a single image of Castro under a section entitled "Kennedy". The framing of the Kennedy pic is just great too imho, and I like namedropping the Moonshot speech.) 2) I'm quite partial to my quoteboxes. 3) As far as I know, the "Crucifixion" song is the only piece of media that one of the article's "players" (RFK) interacted with. It's also referenced pretty commonly in the books, with it being the epigraph and titular inspriation for the seminal book on assassination-related film/phography. 4) I added the OCLC and also realized that I had missed that it had actual authors. ~ HAL333 16:27, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@HAL333: Okay. Apologies, I added another query re. NBC citation, if you haven't seen it. Also, if there is an actual interaction between the song and a Kennedy—a 'Kennedy Connection', if you will—can that be referenced in the caption or as a note? I'm still unsure what you mean, and I suspect that not everyone else will know either. But a sentence to clarify the connection would be great. Otherwise, I am happy to support this article's promotion from behind my grassy knoll. SN54129 16:34, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Much appreciated. I've added the ASIN for the NBC book. And, when RFK first heard "Crucifixion", he immediately recognized that it was about Jack and broke down crying. In the third paragraph, I have the bit and Phil Ochs' 1966 song "Crucifixion", which reportedly brought Robert Kennedy to tears. Is that part unclear? Should I expand it? ~ HAL333 16:41, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It was right next to it all the time, of course *facepalm* no problem with it all, and apologies to you for missing something so obvious. Snow blindness, I think. As to expanding it; I'd say, if you could, slightly, do so, because it sounds like an iconic moment and neatly ties in the two brothers together. It's a great story, shame to waste it. Anyway, up to you, still supporting  :) SN54129 17:10, 12 September 2023 (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) 12 September 2023 [29].

Battle of Grand Gulf

[edit]
Nominator(s): Hog Farm Talk 04:48, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mainly a ship vs. shore naval bombardment, there's not a whole lot to the battle itself, but it is inseparable from one of the most significant events in American military history: Grant's crossing of the Mississippi River during the Vicksburg campiagn. Hog Farm Talk 04:48, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]
  • Suggest scaling up all of the images (using upright not px)
    • Have set the one that was previously fixed px to upright=1.8; the other is at upright=1.4 now and both seems to be more readable
  • File:Vicksburg_Campaign_April-July_1863.pdf: see MOS:COLOUR.. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:27, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Nikkimaria: - I have made a request at the graphics lab to see if this is resolvable. This is, quite honestly, the best map we have for the campaign and is from a professional Civil War cartographer who donated these to Wikipedia. So if this isn't fixable - do we put in a poorer map and in the end make it less useful for everyone involved, or do we just close the FAC? The Wikimedia color pallete linked at MOS color also seems to denote dark red and dark blue as OK colors if I'm reading it right. Hog Farm Talk 16:49, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • The Wikimedia colour palette is concerned with branding for Wikimedia products, not accessibility in Wikipedia articles.
      • An alternative, which is already partly in place, is to use non-colour-based differentiation - eg have Confederate lines all be dashed and Union lines all solid. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:37, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • Hopefully graphics lab can come through. As to the dashed/solid lines, the map is currently using dashed lines to indicate retreats and the solid lines to show offensive movements. Creating a new map is beyond me, and I don't know that there's a great alternative map at this point, so I guess let's see what happens with the graphics lab. Hog Farm Talk 01:52, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
          Popping in from the graphics lab! Two things: you don't actually seem to say anywhere what the patterns mean and the confederates seem to have spent almost the whole time retreating because the only solid red arrow I can find is Walker, top left. Assuming I'm correctly interpreting your request, it’ll take 5 minutes to fix once you decide what you want it changed to. ~ Argenti Aertheri(Chat?) 15:15, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review—pass

[edit]

Nice to see you back here. Source review in progress, please ping in a few days if I forget about it. (t · c) buidhe 06:13, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: @Hog Farm: I'm having trouble believing that both "Raymond, Mississippi" and "Battle and Siege of Vicksburg, Mississippi" are both on pp. 164-167 of the Civil War Battlefield Guide. Please re-check. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:12, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Hawkeye7: - that's what I get for copying the citation syntax for each long citation for the book chapters. Raymond was right, but the long citation for Vicksburg was that of Raymond, and Champion Hill's was that for Vicksburg. The short citations inline were correct though. Hog Farm Talk 03:16, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

[edit]

Recusing to review.

  • "The Battle of Grand Gulf was fought ..." Is the upper case B the consensus of the HQ RSs?
    • I'm not sure - the sort of sources I've consulted for this don't really use the specific "battle of grand gulf" phrasing all that much. I reckon it's a proper name though.
Very few battles are considered by HQ RSs to be proper names, although if there is a lack of references I won't push it.
  • "... during the American Civil War. During ..." Synonym time?
    • This issue has been rephrased out of existence
  • "During Major General Ulysses S. Grant's Vicksburg campaign, Union Army forces had failed". Reading this carefully, I note that I am not told either which side Grant commanded, nor the name of the force opposing him.
    • Should be resolved how
  • "Grant decided move his army south, cross the Mississippi River, and then advance on Vicksburg." This presupposes that a reader knows where Grant's army was relative to Vicksburg to begin with.
    • Have rephrased this a bit
  • I am a little unsure which parts of the lead describe the "Battle of Grand Gulf". Clearly some of the information is outwith its scope, but just which bits are considered part of the battle?
    • Have tried to clarify this
  • Perhaps state that there were two fortifications at the first mention of Confederate fortifications rather than the second.
    • Done
  • Why are neither of the units involved in the battle named in the lead?
    • Well, Bowen's people didn't really have an official unit name - Confederate brigades and divisions rarely had permanent names. Have named the two forts though. Have also added in the name of Porter's fleet
Bowen's force - that's what I thought, but they are named in the infobox.
I've made it clearer in the body when Bowen's brigade was upped to a division and have identified the Confederate force in the lead as a division. I can change the infobox to stated "one division" instead of "Bowen's division" if you think that better
  • Why is the Confederate commander not named in the lead?
    • Have added a mention

Um, that's quite a bit for a shortish lead. I'll take a break to give you a chance to come back at me. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:38, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: - I'm evidently a bit out of practice after three months away from FAC. I've made improvements to the lead per the concerns above; is it looking any better? Hog Farm Talk 03:34, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
LOL!
  • "but the Confederates held". What does this mean? And does it refer to Fort Wade, Fort Cobun or both?
    • Rephrased
  • In other respects the revised lead looks good.
  • "a move that was ultimately unsuccessful." Optional: delete "ultimately".
    • Done
  • "an amphibious assault across the river against Vicksburg." Optional: 'an amphibious assault across the river directly against Vicksburg'?
    • Done
  • The last paragraph of "Prelude" is very long.
    • Split
  • "no suitable crossing point north of Grand Gulf could be discovered". Should "north" be 'south'?
    • Actually not, Miller says Grant sent James H. Wilson north of Grand Gulf to look for one. Have rephrased this section
  • "Grant suggested another feint: this one to be made by Sherman up the Yazoo River." What was the outcome of this?
    • this is the operation described in the next two sentences - does it need clarified a bit to make it clearer these are the same thing
Yes. This bit starts "Hoping to further distract the Confederates ..." and you then give the nuts and bolts, but don'r say whether or mot the Confederates were indeed distracted. (My understanding is that they weren't, but what do I know?)
  • "seven Union Navy vessels led by Porter moved down the river". Down the river - from where?
    • Have added
  • "of which about 10,000 were on transports." 'of whom'?
    • Done
  • "The men on the transports, which had pulled away from the landing and were sheltered behind a peninsula, were intended to cross the river and occupy Grand Gulf once the Confederate batteries were subdued. USS Pittsburgh was in the lead, followed by USS Louisville, USS Carondelet, and USS Mound City." Are the ships named the transports mentioned in the previous sentence?
    • No, have rephrased some stuff
  • "repulsing a landing of the transports." Perhaps 'repulsing a landing from the transports'?
    • done
  • "Confederate fire had focused the heaviest on". I don't think that's grammatical. Perhaps 'The heaviest Confederate fire had focused on'?
    • I think it works in AmEng
Good grief! Ok.
  • "Grant's men swung inland towards the railroad supplying Vicksburg, but after the Battle of Raymond on May 12, Grant decided to swing east to". "swung ... swing"?
    • have split the sentence to avoid the issue
  • "divided the Confederacy along the Mississippi River, and along with the Union victory". Suggest deleting the second "along".
    • Done
  • "marked a turning point in the war". a turning point, or the turning point?
    • Definitely "a". There's no consensus to a single turning point, although the combination of Gettysburg on July 3 and Vicksburg on July 4 is generally considered to be the two big ones. Also cited sometimes are the fall of Atlanta, Stonewall's fatal pneumonia, and A. S. Johnston bleeding to death after being shot in the back of the knee by his own troops. Hog Farm Talk 03:04, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
60,000+ casualties equates to one dead general. Ah well.

Gog the Mild (talk) 17:41, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: - Thanks for the review! Replies are above. Hog Farm Talk 03:04, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just my picky point about distraction left. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:28, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: - Have added a sentence from Bearss related to this. Hog Farm Talk 02:52, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am not enthusiastic about what seems to me a hand-wavey "particularly", but am not going to delay my support for another fine nomination over it. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:11, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

No spotcheck needed, will focus on formatting/reliability. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 00:39, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ballard 2004: Wouldn't the first "The" be lowercase, since it's not part of a title? The second the is lowercase too.
    • Upon a second look at the way this source is named in other sources, I'm thinking the comma should be a colon and have made that change, so the capitalization issue should be moot now.
  • In the various citations, what're the years in brackets? Quite honestly, this is just a question, as I've never seen this used before.
    • These are used when you are citing a reprint or other later edition of a work. For instance, the copyright info of my copy of Bearss 1991 indicates that while the edition I have was printed in 1991, it was originally published in 1986
  • The inclusion of states in locations is inconsistent; for example, Bearss 1991 and Weeks 2009 have the city and state, but Kennedy 1998 and Silverstone 2006 do not. Also, I advise against including two cities; there's some MoS guideline that says you should only include one city, but using it is always up for debate
    • Have made it consistent to where all now list the state as well. The Boston/New York issue has come up with this source before at FAC. Essentially, the copyright page of the book itself literally lists "Boston/New York" as the publishing location so it's impossible to narrow it down to one
  • All ISBNs should use version 13- this tool is helpful for conversion
    • I strongly disagree with doing this. I'm a very big stickler for correction pagination, and I've seen too many instances of the ISBN-13 referring to a different edition than the ISBN-10, with the two having different pagination. So I just use the ISBN listed on the physical copy of the book that I consulted. (Silverstone I consulted via Google books, so I that one may end up being a little different from the others in my approach, but all the rest I own physical copies of except the Wright report).
  • If ref 7 uses the "Last updated" date on the website as its date parameter, then 66 should do the same
    • Done. I don't think that website use to include a last updated date, but maybe I never noticed it.

Hog Farm, all done, very nice work! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 00:39, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@MyCatIsAChonk: - I've hopefully fixed all of the formatting issues noted above with the exception of the weird Boston/New York things which I've explained above and then the ISBN issue which I'm uncomfortable with on pagination grounds. I can provide quotes for anything you would like spot-checked although I probably won't be able to respond to any request for that on August 24 (USA time). Hog Farm Talk 01:10, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - fair enough on the ISBNs, and didn't know about the original date thing- thanks! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 01:15, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Funk

[edit]
  • Will review soonish. FunkMonk (talk) 13:36, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The image caption in the infobox seems a bit unhelpful, just repeating the title of the article. Could it be more specific, with date and description of what it depicts?
    • Have specified a bit
Perhaps also add links to that caption? FunkMonk (talk) 22:16, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. FunkMonk (talk) 22:16, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have "| image = File:Battle of Grand Gulf second position.jpg" in the infobox, I don't think the "File:" part is needed. FunkMonk (talk) 22:16, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done
  • "Early in the American Civil War, the Union military leadership developed the Anaconda Plan, which was a strategy to defeat the Confederate States of America" In the first sentence of the article, link all these key terms?
    • Linked; I'm not sure why they weren't
  • Link Mississippi River at first mention in the article body?
    • Linked; I must have been really off my linking game
  • "on the same day as the Holly Springs Raid" Since you mention the day again, I wonder if the exact date should have been stated first time around?
    • Have added the date for this one
  • "An attempt to cut Williams's Canal across a meander of the river, bypassing Vicksburg, failed" Give date?
    • Done
  • " Bowen's troops and a number of slaves were working" Link Slavery during the American Civil War?
    • Done
  • "1st Confederate Battalion were position on a bluff" Positioned?
    • Oops, fixed
  • "while historian Donald L. Miller and Shea and Winschel states" State, plural?
    • Done
  • "The capture of Vicksburg divided the Confederacy along the Mississippi River, and with the Union victory at the Siege of Port Hudson, gave the Union control of the Mississippi River" Is the last "Mississippi" needed? Could just be "control of the river", to avoid repetition?
    • Done
  • "Union forces crossed the Mississippi River at Bruinsburg, Mississippi." Likewise, do we need the first "Mississippi"?
    • Done
  • "The site of the battle is preserved by Grand Gulf Military State Park. The park contains the land where forts Wade and Cobun were located, as well as an observation tower, a museum, and the remains of the old town of Grand Gulf." Worth showing images of any of these?
    • I've added a photograph of some of the earthwork remains; I'm probably going to be vaguely in the area in November and can hopefully stop by and get a better picture taken.
  • "Grant decided move his army" Missing "to"?
    • Added
  • The interesting term "beachhead" is only used in the intro, perhaps also use it in the article body?
    • I had used the similar "bridgehead" in the body; rephrased to use "beachhead"

@FunkMonk: - Thanks for the review! Replies above. Hog Farm Talk 02:18, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support 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 Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 12 September 2023 [30].

Mckenna Grace

[edit]
Nominator(s): Pamzeis (talk) 05:04, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the girl who plays the younger version of every single white, blond actress (Margot Robbie, Kiernan Shipka, Brie Larson, the list goes on) and that creepy kid on Lifetime. At age 17, Mckenna Grace has over 70 credits, making her the most-credited child actor ever. She was nominated for a Primetime Emmy Award at 1615 and has impressive range (she played both Paige in Young Sheldon and Esther Keyes in The Handmaid's Tale). I began expanding this article in June, adding over 80K bytes. It became a GA after being reviewed by MyCatIsAChonk this month. Enjoy the article :) Pamzeis (talk) 05:04, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MyCatIsAChonk - Support

[edit]

I'll do another review once some more experienced reviewers have left comments- I don't see any immediate issues. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 12:01, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya, MyCatIsAChonk. Any updates on the review? Two other users have left comments and declared support. Obviously, it's completely fine if you'd prefer to wait longer/for more reviews. Pamzeis (talk) 07:00, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Pamzeis: Only one technical thing: "none" should be put in the ref parameters of the templates in ref 109 and 149. Otherwise, after another read, I find no problems in the prose! Excellent work! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 12:55, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think I've done this, but I'm not entirely sure whether the way I did it is correct. Would you mind checking? Thanks.​ Pamzeis (talk) 13:22, 21 August 2023 (UTC) P.S. What does it do??[reply]
Support - All good now. Many editors who commonly use sfns (including myself) have User:Ucucha/HarvErrors installed, which displays an error message if a cite template has no sfns referring to it. Putting "none" in the ref parameter stops this error message from showing up. Just a small technical thing! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 13:55, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much! I'll keep that in mind for the future (I mean, if I remember, 'cuz, y'know...) Pamzeis (talk) 14:28, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]
  • "She trained in cheer," - apologies if this is a trans-Atlantic language disconnect, but does this mean she did cheerleading? I didn't know "cheer" could be used as a noun in that context...........
  • " Grace booked her first part in a commercial at five years old" - saying "booked" here makes it sound like she literally arranged it herself, which I doubt very much if she was five. Maybe say that she "secured" or "gained" the part.
    • Done
  • "After Grace booked parts in" - as above
    • Done
  • "She reprised her role in show's second season" => "She reprised her role in the show's second season"
    • Done
  • "According to The New York Observer, the "terrific" Grace has her own " => "According to The New York Observer, the "terrific" Grace had her own "
    • Done
  • "making her tenth youngest actor nominated at the Emmys" => "making her the tenth youngest actor nominated at the Emmys"
    • Done
  • "the sequel to Ghostbusters (1984) and Ghostbuster II (1989)" => "the sequel to Ghostbusters (1984) and Ghostbusters II (1989)"
    • Done
  • "It is the first project produced by Grace's company, Beautiful Ghosts Productions" => "It was the first project produced by Grace's company, Beautiful Ghosts Productions"
    • Done
  • "a thriller film about a very close family is split apart by a new movement" => "a thriller film about a very close family split apart by a new movement"
    • Done
  • "As of 2021, she is vegetarian" => "As of 2021, she was vegetarian" (2021 was two years ago now, so present tense isn't really appropriate)
    • Done
  • "Grace was diagnosed with scoliosis at age 12" - wikilink scoliosis
    • It's already linked in "Music career", though this may be a case of IAR given its significance.
  • That's it, I think - great work!! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:47, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for your comments, ChrisTheDude (and apologies for some very silly mistakes!). I've responded to them above. Hope you're having a great week so far! Pamzeis (talk) 13:23, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review (pass)

[edit]

Pseud 14

[edit]
  • Grace joined the cast of the drama film Gifted (2017).[23] The film tells the story of Mary Adler (Grace), an intellectually gifted seven-year-old. -- I think you can merge this into one sentence so film isn't repeated so close to each other Grace joined the cast of the drama film Gifted (2017), which tells the story of Mary Adler (Grace), an intellectually gifted seven-year-old.
    • Done
  • The film stars her as Emma Grossman, a girl who murders anyone who crosses her. -- I think She portrays Emma Grossman, a girl who murders anyone who crosses her reads much better.
    • Done
  • I, Tonya was well-received by reviewers, with particular praise for its performances -- perhaps it should specify if this is Grace's acting performance being praised or the casts' performance in general
    • Done
  • Grace's performances was praised -- should be performance since it appears to be reviews for Annabelle Comes Homes only
    • Silly typo; fixed
  • Four industry professionals predicted that she would win the award,[78] though this was ultimately not the case.[79] -- I don't think this necessary for inclusion. It's either she was nominated or she won (which is already stated in the preceding statement). For actor BLPs, industry predictions don't really add value to the article and can come across as an embellishment.
    • Removed
  • That's all from me. Great work on her article. Pseud 14 (talk) 15:58, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for your comments, Pseud 14. I've hopefully resolved them all. Lemme know if there's anything else. Pamzeis (talk) 04:20, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

Reviewing this version, spot-check upon request and qualifying that this isn't a topic I know very well. Is BuzzFeed a high-quality reliable source? From what I know post-2010 The Independent isn't necessarily reliable, either. I don't see much consistency in which sources apply the access icon (e.g #3) and which don't. Some sources have the publication date in parenthesis and others don't. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:19, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Jo-Jo Eumerus! Thanks for the review! I've removed BuzzFeed from the article. The Independent is used for a statement of opinion quoted directly from the website. Per RSP, it "is considered a reliable source for non-specialist information", and there seemed to be consensus at the 2021 RfC that it was generally reliable (though the RfC only lasted three days so it's maybe not the best assessment). Regardless, I'm happy to remove the source if needed. In regards to the access icons, those signify whether one needs a subscription to access the source: none means no subscription required, grey means the reader can read a limited number of articles (whether that number is 3 or 20) before being required to pay, and red means the reader can not read the article without subscribing. About the publication dates in brackets, that really depends on the {{cite web}} template. If there's no publication date available it's not listed and if there's no author available, then it's listed after the work/publisher. I don't think I can change this bit because it's based in technical stuff that I don't understand. Again, thanks for the review :) Pamzeis (talk) 16:17, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jo-Jo. Is this one up to scratch? Gog the Mild (talk) 18:10, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the publication dates ought to be consistently formatted, myself. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:10, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They are consistently formatted from what I'm seeing? If the author does not exist, the date's placed after the publisher; if the author does, it is placed in brackets (as per Template:Cite web#Date). It's not like we're switching in between "name (date). "Title". Work. Access-date." and "name. "Title". Work. Date. Access-date." If that were to be adjusted, then {{cite web}}, which has been the WP:STATUSQUO for years, would have to go through a massive change that would probably require a long discussion that would be longer than the timeframe of an FAC. Thanks.​ Pamzeis (talk) 14:01, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I can confirm that the publication dates format differently depending on whether author names are available or not. Nothing of concern there.--NØ 12:25, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK, then this is a pass, with my caveats regarding spotchecks and familiarity. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:20, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Pamzeis (talk) 13:15, 6 September 2023 (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 September 2023 [31].

Tolui

[edit]
Nominator(s): ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:37, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Three million deaths in two sieges in two and a bit months; the mass rape of an enemy army; extraordinary military achievements; dying in a shamanic ritual to appease the curses of angered spirits; his wife and sons eventually ruling a continent... all these things were (allegedly) in a life and death's work for Tolui, the youngest son of Genghis Khan. This nomination will be used in the WikiCup if successful; I hope you enjoy the article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:37, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review—pass

[edit]

(t · c) buidhe 01:57, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unprecedented, that. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 08:52, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Steelkamp

[edit]

Comments to come. I will mostly focus on prose. Steelkamp (talk) 06:57, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [reply]

Prose comments

Lead

  • "Born in the late 1180s or early 1190s". Is this necessary when his approximate birth year is mentioned in the first sentence of the lead?
    • Removed.
  • "Genghis eventually passed him over..." Suggest changing this to "Genghis eventually passed Tolui over..."
    • Added.
  • "Tolui was also the husband of Sorghaghtani Beki; ..." This is worded to imply she is more important than Tolui, which seems incorrect based on page views? This could be reworded to "Tolui's wife was Sorghaghtani Beki; ...".
    • I think she might be, on balance in RS. I'll have a think about this one.
      • Ok. This won't stop me from giving a support.

Life under Genghis

  • "while the historian Christopher Atwood believes he was born in 1191 or 1192, the sinologists Frederick W. Mote and Paul Ratchnevsky placed the date in the late 1180s". The first part of this sentence is in present tense but the second part is in past tense. Is there a reason or should that be fixed? See also "the historian Carl Sverdrup estimates its size at around 7,000 men" which is in present tense.
    • Although Atwood and Sverdrup are alive, and Mote and Ratchnevsky are dead, I'm feeling that I'm violating some MOS guideline—any ideas on what precisely?
      • Not sure what MOS guideline. I checked MOS:TENSE and it does not mention this situation. I think it's fine if it's based on whether the author is alive or dead.
  • "He also had five full sisters". Any half sisters? Or half brother's for that matter. Is there a reason why it specifies "full sisters".
  • "while their final son Ariq Böke was born more than a decade afterwards." I take it a specific year of birth is not known?
    • You are correct.
  • Could it be mentioned when Temüjin became Genghis Khan?
    • Done.
  • Does Dexing have a page it could link to?
    • I don't think so, but I may be wrong—Chinese place names have changed rather often throughout history.

Khorasan campaign (1221)

  • Is is necessary to have a hatnote for Mongol invasion of the Khwarazmian Empire when that page is also linked in the first sentence of that section?
    • I've removed the hatnote.
  • "Genghis dispatched Tolui to Khorasan, to make sure..." Is that comma necessary?
    • Removed.
  • "Tolui had meanwhile marched on, this time in a south-westerly direction towards Nishapur..." This could be simplified to "Tolui had meanwhile marched on south-westerly towards Nishapur..."
    • Altered
  • "He departed on 15 May..." I think this should be changed to "He departed on 15 May 1220", because to be honest I thought this was referring to 1221 at first. Alternatively, this could be changed to "He departed nearly a month later" to make things even clearer and avoid repletion of the year.
    • Altered to something clearer.
  • "...the assault began on 7 April..." This is the same day they arrived in the city right? This could be changed to "...the assault began the day they had arrived..."
    • Changed to another wording.
  • "...on the 9th and the city captured on the 10th." Pretty sure this violates MOS:DATES. Could be rewritten as "...on 9 April and the city captured one day later."
    • That seems like more words for less clarity, so I'm going to decline.
      • I'm still pretty sure this violates MOS:DATES.
        • Humph. Fine.
  • "...cats and dogs..." This seems like overlink.
    • Probably.
  • "...recorded that after an eight-month siege the city was taken and its population slaughtered." Comma could be added after siege.
    • Done.

Regency and succession question (1227–29)

  • "and for Tolui the Mongolian fatherland near the Altai Mountains, as per tradition." Sorry, I'm not sure what the per tradition part means. Could you explain this?
    • Removed, it was basically a vague handwaving in the direction of the first sentences of the paragraph, but was sort of unnecessary.
  • "...and growing his own appanage; his actions during..." I initially thought this was the start of a list. Can the semicolon be replaced with a full stop?
    • Replaced with a "—" because the rest of the sentence is directly connected to the first part.

Life under Ögedei and death (1229–c. 1232)

  • Why is the death year in the section title prefixed with circa? The prose seems to imply people are fairly sure his death year was 1232 and the infobox does not have a circa for the death year.
    • Removed.
  • "Atwood has however theorised..." Can be replaced with "Atwood has theorised..."
  • "...that these suspicions was..." Should be changed to "...that these suspicions were..."
    • Both done
  • From the lead: "Tolui was posthumously elevated to the status of khagan by Kublai..." Is this mentioned in the body?
    • Nope, which is why there's a citation in the lead.
      • Is there a reason this can't be mentioned in the body?
        • Moved.

General

  • Tengriism is only mentioned in the infobox.
  • Borjigin is only mentioned in the infobox and the succession box, not in prose.
  • Infobox mentions there were other spouses. Is this mentioned in prose at all?
  • His age range at death must surely be larger than 40–41 given the uncertainty in his birth year. At the very least, the range should be three years by going off birth years of 1191 or 1192, disregarding the late 1180s.
    • I've removed Tengriism and other spouses from the infobox; I feel Borjigin falls under WP:BLUESKY, and corrected the date ranges.

Thanks for your comments, Steelkamp; responses above, and your next set eagerly awaited. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:29, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support, and good luck with the rest of your review. Steelkamp (talk) 15:32, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie

[edit]
Prose comments
  • "while the historian Christopher Atwood believes he was born in 1191 or 1192,[5] the sinologists Frederick W. Mote and Paul Ratchnevsky placed the date": why the tense change from "believes" to "placed"?
    • Atwood is alive, while Mote and Ratchnevsky are not. I believe this complies with MOS:TENSE.
      I wouldn't think TENSE applies here since the topic of the verb is not the people but their opinions. It's fine as is, though I wouldn't personally want to use a style that required me to keep up to date on the deaths of the scholars I cited. I think it's more common to use the historic present for all opinions of this type. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 06:49, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "shortly after Temüjin's campaign against the Tatars, of whom the kidnapper was one". Not the most fluent phrasing, though not technically wrong. Would it be possible to move the mention of Temüjin's campaign to the start of the paragraph, and then say the kidnapper was a Tatar when first mentioned? I assume the sources draw the causal connection here, and it's not just described as coincidence.
    • Done
  • "Tolui received his niece": suggest "Tolui received Toghrul's niece".
    • Done.
  • Are any maps available? Some of the locations described are quite obscure to modern readers.
    • Added an image of the Khwarazmian Empire; File:Conquest of Jin.png seems quite good but I haven't found a suitable source to attribute it to yet. Will get back to you
  • I'm fond of punctuating with a dash, but in the two middle paragraphs of the "Regency" section you use eight of them in not much more than eight sentences.
    • Reduced in number.
  • Per MOS:POSSESSIVE it should be "Genghis's", not "Genghis".
    • I just looked at five RS's, and not one used "Genghis's". Can I IAR this?
      I wouldn't oppose on this, but since I've raised the point I can't really attest to the coords (by supporting) that this complies with the MoS. I know UndercoverClassicist would agree with you if you proposed changing the MoS to add an exclusion for words ending in an "s" sound, and I'd probably agree as well, but I suspect the argument has come up repeatedly on the talk pages there. Sorry! It's part of MoS I don't particularly like but we have to follow house style where it's defined. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 06:49, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Dang. I suppose I should be grateful that RS has a ready-made alternative in "Genghis Khan's". Removed all instances of "Genghis'", Mike. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:02, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The no-s tradition comes from Classics, where it's the convention for Latinate or Greek names, but we've recently had a few articles within that discipline come up at FAC (I'm thinking of Panagiotis Kavvadias and Kyriakos Pittakis here) and the consensus was that we should follow MOS rather than discipline-specific conventions. UndercoverClassicist T·C 08:58, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It is recorded that Tolui volunteered for this fate, following a prophecy he had made during Genghis' lifetime, a peculiar account that has given rise to suspicions that Ögedei had Tolui murdered." I don't follow this -- if Tolui made this prophecy during Genghis's lifetime, how can that have a bearing on the possibility that it was murder?

Looks very good. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:27, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]
Source review

Links all work.

  • Can you confirm that Barthold, from 1900, is still regarded as reliable scholarship? I'm no expert on the topic but I see no reason to question the reliability of any of the other sources. I did have a look at the Mongolian Preservation Foundation but the book you cite is written by a well-regarded scholar.
  • It is still reliable as a seminal work of Central Asian history.
  • Suggest transliterating the text in FN 2.
  • It was an unreliable source added recently by a drive-by editor; I have removed it.
  • A couple of sources are missing publisher locations: Barthold (1992) and Reinert (2011).
  • The Street edition of The Secret History is missing a publisher and location; looking at the recommended citation in the PDF I can see why. I think this is OK, but I think it would also be OK to make Western Washington University the publisher, and hence make Bellingham the location.
  • Done.
  • For Barthold, is there a chapter title missing? You give Bosworth as the editor but only the book title. Similarly for Boyle.
  • Boyle was an error of duplication; Barthold is correct, as the 1992 edition was posthumous, adding the previously-omitted ending chapter, and so Bosworth edited.
  • You give an ISBN for Boyle but it's dated 1968 which makes it unlikely; is this a later reprint? If so I would use the orig-year parameter.
  • Apparently it's a 2007 reprinting. Thanks for noticing.
  • A couple of missing ISBNs for Reinert and Togan. ISBNs are not required for FAC but if you're going to provide them they should be consistent. The Secret History also does not have an ISBN but I think that's OK.
  • Reinert's template doesn't include ISBNs; added for Togan.

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:23, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much Mike Christie. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:37, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Pass. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:35, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Golden

[edit]

I reviewed this article at GAN and found it fascinating. It's definitely one of my favorite GANs that I've reviewed, so I'm happy to see it at FAC. I'll take another look at it here. — Golden talk 23:07, 29 August 2023 (UTC) [reply]

Comments
  • I echo Steelkamp's point about Sorghaghtani Beki. This was also one of my concerns at the GAN. Is she truly more popular or significant than Tolui?
  • I think they're probably about equal in significance, but I've realised the emphasis should then go on the article subject, so I've changed it.
  • "He commanded armies under his father during the first invasion of Jin China (1211–1215), but his distinguished service during the Mongol invasion of the Khwarazmian Empire secured his reputation" - I think "and" would be a better fit in this sentence than "but".
  • Done (I could've sworn I did this at GAN).
  • There is no wikilink to Genghis at his first mention in the article body: "which Genghis intended to replace".
  • Moved paragraph to better placing.
  • "The ground was subsequently ploughed over." - What's the relevance of this? Did they plough over the dead bodies?
  • No, they ploughed over the city foundations, presumably so that a new settlement couldn't be easily built.
  • "The Secret History of the Mongols, a 13th century epic poem describing Genghis Khan's rise" - You've already introduced "The Secret History of the Mongols" earlier in the article. Is a second description necessary?
  • Removed.
  • I wouldn't wikilink Islam, as I imagine most people know what it is.
  • Done.
  • "The remnants of the Jin dynasty" - Should the wikilink include "the"?
You can. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:49, 8 September 2023 (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 September 2023 [32].

A Very Trainor Christmas

[edit]
Nominator(s): NØ 18:54, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Meghan Trainor's only Christmas album. I know it's not September yet, but this album does have a really nice Earth, Wind & Fire collaboration on it. Also, this one has nothing to do with TikTok, thankfully... which is kind of refreshing! Thanks a lot to everyone who will take the time to give their feedback here.--NØ 18:54, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aoba47

[edit]
  • After doing a very brief Google search, I found that Honest OG Recordings is a record label started by Trainor and I think that is worth mentioning here.
  • Totally agreed. We'll see if the document I have cited passes the source review, lol.
  • I am uncertain about this part, (her first Christmas album), as it is her only Christmas album so this may be interpreted as she has released more than one of these. It might be worthwhile to combine this part with the first sentence to make something along the lines of (is a Christmas album and the fourth major-label studio album) instead.
  • I think it would be worth explicitly saying in the lead that "White Christmas" was a single.
  • This is just a suggestion so feel free to disagree, but I think File:Meghan Trainor - Macy's 2014.jpg would look better to the left. In my view, the infobox pushes the image slightly down and it is always preferable to avoid having an image look away from an article (or at least that's what I've been told in the past).
  • I believe we have a slight WP:SANDWICH situation upon doing that.
  • I would link and spell out extended play on its first use in the article.
  • Again just a suggestion, but I was curious if this part, (for the playlist Spotify Singles: Christmas Collection), would work better as (for a Spotify playlist). Just tried to work in the Spotify link and I was not sure if the link or the playlist title was more valuable for inclusion in the prose.
  • Are the quotation marks necessary in this part, (was done in "July and August"), for saying just the months?
  • I would paraphrase this quote, ("all-time-favorites"), as I find that this paragraph is already quote-heavy.
  • For this part, (contains 10 cover versions of), I would write out the number as later in the same sentence, six is done this way and it is somewhat jarring to have numbers represented in two different ways in the same sentence.
  • I would link lilt for readers unfamiliar with the word and concept.
  • Since the 1980s and the 1960s both get links, I would also link the 1970s in this quote, ("illustrates the connecting threads between '70s R&B/pop and current-day pop").
  • Do you think an audio sample would be helpful? Just to be clear ay audio sample for an album article would have to be used in a way to represent the album as a whole and in a way that cannot be conveyed through prose alone. Maybe if a critic mentions either discusses doo-wop or pop represented in the album and ties it to a song? I have not looked through any of the sources so this is purely a suggestion.
  • I considered it but there isn't a particular song really representing the sound of the entire album, in my opinion.
  • I was initially confused by this wording, (wears accessories on her face), as "accessories" could mean a lot of different things in this context. I checked the source and I find their "ornaments" word choice to be much clearer. Not saying to do a single-word quote for that, but I think this part could be clearer.
  • The prose for the first paragraph of the "Release and promotion" section can come across as rather list-y at times with the repetition of "In X time". I would play around with a few instances of this to avoid the prose from being too repetitive. For instance, this part, (On November 23, a music video for "Holidays" was released), could be changed to (A music video for "Holidays" was released on November 23.).
  • I tried to work on this. Let me know if you think more needs to be done.
  • The lead specifies two themes in the critical reviews (i.e. Trainor's charisma and the material) and that is not immediately clear in the "Reception" section. I think the prose for this section could be improved in generally to have it be more engaging.
  • I sorted this into the two themes expressed in the lead section, hopefully this has improved the engagingness.
  • Idolator is not considered a high-quality source and it should be removed (and replaced where possible).
  • Mike Wass is a reputed critic and has been published in Billboard, Variety, etc. Concerns have been raised about Idolator's factchecking, etc. but they do not apply to subjective critical opinions to which its use is limited to here.

Wonderful work with the article. I always have a soft spot for Christmas music, and I am 100% that lame person that would listen to "All I Want for Christmas Is You" at any point in the year lol. This would be a fun article to run on the main page for Christmas (although not this year as someone has already wants that spot). Once all of my comments above are addressed, I will read through the article again just to make sure I do my due diligence as a reviewer. Best of luck with this FAC as always! Aoba47 (talk) 23:16, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking about this, lol. I have the Christmas and Mother's Day TFAs covered. The original songs on this album can be played all-year-long, in my opinion, so feel free to listen to them right now if you want. Excited for your re-read!--NØ 07:32, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apologies for the terse responses. I was in-between doing a few errands, but I still wanted to get back to this FAC in a timely manner. I should have taken more time and care in my replies. Just to be clear, I agree with all your explanations above, and I only mentioned leaving it up the image and source reviewers as a way to emphasize that my review was focused primarily on the prose. I do agree that it is best to avoid sandwiching whenever possible and that sources have situational uses (and the links to support the author's credibility are always appreciated). Apologies for the double post. Just was on my mind and wanted to clear it up with you as I do value your work on here and appreciate it whenever we get a chance to talk. Aoba47 (talk) 18:47, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Media review

Pseud 14

[edit]

The article looks to be in great shape based on the tweaks after the two other reviews. My only suggestions (nitpick) would probably be:

  • perhaps using production instead of creation in the lead.
  • which features her biting a candy cane while dressed in a Christmas hat and a tinsel and bows-adorned dress. -- she's dressed ... [in a] dress, which is repetitive. Perhaps wearing or something similar.
  • Done

Other than that I can go ahead and support the article for promotion. Great work as usual. Pseud 14 (talk) 19:52, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Much thanks for stopping by. It is greatly appreciated!-NØ 05:10, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from SNUGGUMS

[edit]
  • Commonly terms like "music video", "social media", and "single" don't need to be linked per WP:OVERLINK
  • Removed.
  • If you can pinpoint specific months of 2020 that she recorded the album's tracks, then those would certainly be worth adding. The only clue I've gathered is that June is when things were close to conclusion based on the quote of trying to finish things up.
  • While I certainly agree that would be worth adding, this information is not available.
  • Try to avoid refactoring quotes with the "[]" bits as it compromises integrity of source representation
  • Any examples of usages you think are controversial? I believe they are used appropriately only to adjust the tense where needed.
  • Used both of these. It does read much better in my opinion.
  • Let's be more specific with which of her sons is in a music video and that she dedicated a song to
  • She just says she dedicated a song to "my baby". Assumably referring to the only son she had at the time, this still cannot be specified in the article. I've mentioned that Riley is the one who appears in the music video, though.
  • Putting album chart/sales info under "Reception" gives a false impression that this and reviews are somehow connected. You'd be better off moving that paragraph to "Release and promotion".
  • I don't think so? Unless the section is called "Critical reception", it should be fine. Album chart/sales are part of an album's commercial reception and have little to do with the release or promotion.
  • To be more specific, I was saying that it pertains to a work's release when discussing what followed once it was distributed. Up to you on whether "Promotion" would be separated from those. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 01:17, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a unique album that did not peak pretty much anywhere during its debut week. Most of the chart peaks were attained weeks after the critic reviews had surfaced. Whereas, release and promotion were intermingled and thus form a well-flowing section. I believe both in terms of chronology and flow, the present structure is the best idea and I am hestitant to move anything.
  • If you believe that the peaks coming along later had something to do with more critic's commentary showing up, then maybe add text that somehow links these things (assuming you don't wish to give commercial performance its own section). SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 02:12, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Appreciate you following up, SNUGGUMS. I tested several combinations for this section in my sandbox and none really worked better. "Reception" in general refers to how something was received and can act as an umbrella term for responses both critical and commercial. Anodyne, Blonde on Blonde and to some extent Are You Experienced combine these elements in same sections. I am seeing a preferential matter here rather than any objective problem. This is also my first time hearing that one paragraph needs to cause the second one for them to be included in the same section.--NØ 14:07, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • From what I've observed, the term more often refers to critical, but either way that cause bit was something I thought of to help serve as a transition between matters. I'll now give my support when all my other comments were resolved. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 16:48, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The math of "A Very Trainor Christmas contains ten cover versions of Christmas standards, such as "It's Beginning to Look a Lot Like Christmas" (1951) and "Last Christmas" (1984), as well as six original recordings" doesn't add up when I count 18 total songs under "Track listing".
  • This count does not include bonus tracks. You raise a good point and I have now added a note.
  • Unless you tell me otherwise, I'll presume that the four reviews included were the only quality ones you could find for the album as a whole
  • Yep, this was it. There's the Associated Press's review but it looks like a puff piece and is a little too flowery/positive. What do you think about its suitability for inclusion here?
  • Just added it.
  • Per WP:REPCITE, there's no need to use the same citation more than once in a row within a paragraph, meaning you only have to implement ref#44 after "incorporation of various genres".
  • In the past, I have been asked to repeat cites where direct quotes are involved. The GA reviewer for this article also made this request.

Overall, the page looks like it's in good shape. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 22:22, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments. I've left quite a few responses above.--NØ 23:31, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're quite welcome, and once further tweaks are made, it'll make the page even better. :) SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 01:17, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Did some more tweaks!--NØ 01:48, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

Reviewing this version, spot-check upon request and qualifying that this isn't a topic I am deeply familiar with. What makes https://swedishcharts.com/, https://onairwithryan.iheart.com/ and https://www.ultratop.be/ a reliable source? #25 is a weird source for a music release date. I am normally wary of sources like Pressparty, but since they are for primary information I guess it's OK. Otherwise, source information and formatting seems consistent. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:53, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Jo-Jo! Swedishcharts.com is the official site of Sverigetopplistan, the provider of Swedish national charts so it is a reliable primary source for those; same with Ultratop. Seacrest's show is affiliated with iHeartRadio and is being used for an uncontroversial statement Trainor gave about her own album's completion in an interview. #25 is being used to source Honest OG is Trainor's own entertainment company, the release date occurs in Billboard. Alternatives for the Pressparty usage would be the album liner notes and a retail link to Target but, as you said, for primary information it is probably okay.--NØ 07:06, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Jo-Jo Eumerus, sorry for bothering again. Did you have anything else or this passes?--NØ 06:19, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Pass by a hair (these sources I questioned only barely meet "high-quality" in "high-quality reliable source"), with usual caveats about spotchecks and not knowing the sources well. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:12, 30 August 2023 (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 September 2023 [33].

Double sovereign

[edit]
Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 13:39, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about... another in the sovereign series, and a relatively obscure one which was rarely struck until they started minting them for collectors. Enjoy.Wehwalt (talk) 13:39, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from AviationFreak

[edit]
  • Suggest linking Coining (mint) as a pipe when "struck" is used in the first paragraph of the lead
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:42, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Beginning in 1980, the double sovereign has been sold as a collector's coin by the Royal Mint. - Suggest changing "Beginning" to "Since" or rewording to something along the lines of "Royal Mint began selling as a collector's coin in 1980", as the tenses here feel slightly mismatched.
Tweaked.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:19, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:42, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Almost every speaker supported having a coin valued at twenty shillings - Who are the "speakers" here? I know that (at least today) Parliament is composed of "MPs" and "Lords" - is "speakers" some catchall term?
Clarified. Those who spoke in the debates.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:42, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Capitalization of "St. George and the Dragon" is mismatched between the lead and the body, and inconsistent throughout the article.
I've standardised.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:42, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The double sovereign, designed by Pistrucci, depicts the right-facing bust of the king... while the reverse shows Pistrucci's George and dragon design with no legend or date. - Might want to be explicit that the bust is on the obverse since the reverse is explicitly mentioned, unless this is standard numismatic phrasing.
  • I don't see Wellesley-Pole's initials with Pistrucci's on the reverse in the image?
The source says it is in very small letters at the ground line above the broken spear, and I have no reason to doubt it, but I just looked at the image and I don't see it, so I've deleted that point.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:19, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Appears that "1823" was added to the reverse of that coin; perhaps mentioning in prose.
  • Is the ellipsis intended in the translation of "GEORGIUS IV DEI GRATIA"?
Yes, because it continues onto the reverse.
  • The 1824 issue has the edge inscription (INSCRIPTION), the 1825 issue has no edge inscription, with the 1826 the same as 1824, but changing the final word to SEPTIMO (seventh). - I believe an "and" should be inserted at the beginning of the clause about the 1825 issue, or this should be otherwise reworded to flow a little better.
Rewritten.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:42, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone through that now.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:42, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • In 1831 a proof coin of this denomination was produced as a proof coin,... - Huh?
Oops. Fixed.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:42, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:42, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I have. A fun read, my only other comment would be that the images could be a little smaller and still be readable. Thanks for the great article! AviationFreak💬 15:50, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All done and images shrunk. Thank you for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:42, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me. Prose Support.

Image review

[edit]

All images seem to be appropriately licensed and captioned. The only qualms I have are slight: the coin infobox seemingly does not allow for ALT text; and I am not confident in the licensing of File:1991 double sovereign with box.jpg, although I believe Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International should be enough to cover it. Let me know if I have missed anything; otherwise, this should be a pass for the image review. Unlimitedlead (talk) 02:11, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Tim riley

[edit]

A handful of quibbles, none of which affect my support:

  • William IV double sovereign
  • "In 1831 a proof coin of this denomination was produced part of the proof set" – missing an "as"?
  • "William IV by the grace of God king of the Britians" – typo, I think. It's "the Britains" elsewhere.
  • Victorian and early 20th century issues
  • "According to numismatist G. P. Dyer" – I don't press the point but in a BrE article the false title is better avoided, and a definite article before "numismatist" would be a kindness.
  • "Church Times stated" – I think that too could do with a definite article. (But how pleasing to see The Church Times showing a nice twinkly sense of humour.)
  • "minimize the changes to the coinage, and no change was made" – "–ize" is not wrong in BrE, but "–ise" is more usual these days. And "changes ... change" in close proximity could advantageously be tweaked to avoid repetition, perhaps?

That's my lot. Happy to support the elevation of this article to FA. It seems to me to meet all the criteria. Particularly wonderful illustrations, even by the high standard of Wehwalt's series of numismatic articles. Tim riley talk 17:16, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Much obliged. All done. Yes, the images are great. Heritage Auctions and the permissions people have been most kind in letting me go through Heritage's web site for images and upload them. It's gone a long way towards solving the image problems that we've had in the past. Wehwalt (talk) 20:36, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Moisejp

[edit]

Hi Wehwalt, I hope you've been well. I enjoyed this article. I have not so many comments.

  • "Almost every speaker in the parliamentary debates supported having a coin valued at twenty shillings, rather than continuing to use the guinea, valued at twenty-one shillings." / "One reason for the introduction of gold coinage based on the sovereign was that its value, equal to one pound sterling, was more convenient than the guinea, equal to twenty-one shillings." I found this a bit repetitive. I felt the reason for the support was already implied in the first mention.
Fair enough, cut.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:12, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Pistrucci had refused to adapt the work of another artist." I got confused about the context of this. Does this mean no other artist than Merlen/Chantey, which is why Merlen/Chantey's design was chosen? Or no other artist than Pistrucci, meaning Chantey's design was chosen despite Pistrucci's earlier refusal?
I've made that clearer.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:12, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there information why George VI refused George V's request for the set of pattern coins? Since no more info is given in the article, I was left wondering whether George VI just thought it would be inappropriate, or whether the two had a bad relationship, or another reason... Moisejp (talk) 03:54, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The source mentions an exchange of letters. I couldn't find the text online. Various other sources seem to be based on the one I used, and also mention the letters. The Daily Mail (not that I'd use it as a source) seems to conflate the letters with the fact that these Edward VIII pieces were never proclaimed legal tender, but there's no other indication that was the reason for not giving Edward a set. Obviously the relationship between George and Edward was fraught for a number of reasons that are well-known, but I'd only be speculating if I said that was the reason for refusing.
Thanks for the review and glad you liked it. I hope you're doing well. All's well here, I'm happy to say.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:12, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support on prose and comprehensiveness. I've read through again and it all looks very good. Cheers, Moisejp (talk) 22:59, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

Formatting and consistency:

  • The short citations refer to "Spink 2022a" and "Spink 2022b", but the long citations are "Spink & Son Ltd (2023)" and "Spink & Son Ltd (2022)", so something needs tidying up there.
  • Short ref #30 has a couple of formatting issue: it mixes DMY and MDY date formats, and has a stray ")" in the publisher field.
  • Short ref #42 should have an endash in the title, rather than a hyphen, per our MOS.
  • Be consistent whether titles use sentence case or title case. At the moment, short refs #17 and #30 use title case, while the other short refs seem to use sentence case. This also applies to the long refs.
  • In the long references, be consistent regarding location format, at the moment there is a mix of "City, Country", "City" and "City, County". Pick one and use it throughout.
  • "Skellern, Stephen (October 2013)" could do with volume and issue numbers.
  • Generally, all journals and magazines could do with ISSNs if known.

Spotchecks to follow. Harrias (he/him) • talk 10:11, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done all that except ISSNs. If you know a way to conveniently look up and add them I will. Wehwalt (talk) 16:01, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Spotchecks:

  • Ref #16 is a quote attributed to "Dyer, p. 73." The quote appears in the source and is properly attributed to avoid and copyvio concerns.
  • Ref #21 is used for a quote cited to "Stocker, p. 135." However, the quote does not appear in the source material. I believe it should be cited instead to "Lant, p. 135."
  • Ref #25, the second use of "Stocker" checks out all fine.
  • Ref #30 is doing a lot of work; but all the content quoted appears in the source given, with no close para-phrasing or copyvio concerns.

Nothing major to tidy up here. I've also conducting searches on Google, Amazon, JSTOR and a couple of other journals I have access to, and no glaring omissins present themselves. Harrias (he/him) • talk 13:32, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed that. I added that quote late and obviously went to the wrong PDF.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:49, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Wehwalt, all looks good to me, I'm happy to mark the source review as a pass. Harrias (he/him) • talk 14:48, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. Wehwalt (talk) 18:18, 30 August 2023 (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) 11 September 2023 [34].

Leonardo DiCaprio

[edit]
Nominator(s): FrB.TG (talk) 11:00, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

After resolving a million sourcing issues, I am hoping fourth time is the charm for Mr DiCaprio. Have at it. FrB.TG (talk) 11:00, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review (pass)

[edit]

Pseud 14

[edit]
  • appeal to young female audience members -- I think it should be young female audience, as adding members makes it sound like this refers to an audience gathered on a set while filming.
  • homosexual relationship -- same-sex relationship is more appropriate IMO
  • among teenage girls and young women in general that became known as "Leo-mania." -- I think in general can be dropped from this sentence.
  • a budget of $52 million, it became his second highest-grossing release after Titanic -- becoming his second highest-grossing release after Titanic.
  • starring Vera Farmiga (his co-star in The Departed) -- not sure if we need the parenthetical mentioning this bit, I think this sentence is fine without it
  • and considered relaxing with his friends therapy -- maybe "a form of therapy or something along those lines, so this bit doesn't read ambiguous.
  • A biopic about Hoover, the film focuses on the career -- Since it is Hoover's name on the film title, I don't think his name needs to be repeated. The biopic focuses on the career..
  • That's all from me. A few comments since my last review. Article is pretty-much in solid shape prose-wise. Pseud 14 (talk) 18:04, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All done as suggested. Thank you for your re-review. FrB.TG (talk) 20:59, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Moise

[edit]

I reviewed a couple of earlier rounds of this. I'd like to review again this time too. FrB.TG my old friend, let's see where this goes! Moisejp (talk) 04:47, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Working my way through the article.

  • Suggest merging these to avoid repeating his age of one: "When DiCaprio was one year old, his father moved out of their house after he fell in love with another woman. His parents divorced when he was one." Moisejp (talk) 01:52, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • These details also feel slightly repetitive, and if there was a way to merge them more, that'd be great (but if you can't think of a good way to do so, no worries): "father moved out of their house after he fell in love with another woman ... they moved into twin cottages ... DiCaprio's father lived with his girlfriend and her son". <-- This comment assumes his girlfriend was the same person as "another woman". Moisejp (talk) 02:00, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's because she is.
  • Farrar is described as the son of DiCaprio's father's girlfriend, and later as Dicaprio's stepbrother. It might be better to explicitly say his father married the girlfriend if this is the case, or if that disrupts the flow of ideas, you could instead just leave out the detail of Farrar being his stepbrother. Moisejp (talk) 02:10, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to improve the prose for brevity. Looking forward to the rest of your review. :) FrB.TG (talk) 20:44, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi FrB.TG, I've gotten a bit busy this week, but I'll be back to this review soon, don't you worry! Thanks for your patience. Moisejp (talk) 06:31, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing:

  • Not sure this is very clear or adds anything. Consider removing? "he said, 'The new writing was awful [...] Either that, or I'm not sexy at all.'"
  • Also not sure this is clear: "driven by the desire to showcase an exceptional performance, which would focus on a profound transformation rather than rely on mere physical attractiveness." DiCaprio believed until now he was getting too much attention for his looks, and he believed this role would be especially good for showing people he could deliver an exceptional performance? Maybe the sentence could be rewritten to clarify the intended meaning? Moisejp (talk) 06:08, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done both. FrB.TG (talk) 21:09, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose and comprehensiveness. In addition to my comments above, I've made several small edits throughout the article. Thanks! Moisejp (talk) 01:31, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your re-review, edits and support. I highly appreciate it. FrB.TG (talk) 09:09, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review by MyCatIsAChonk

[edit]

Great to see this back at FAC, Inception is one of my favorite movies and his performance in it is fantastic. Seems like some others have gotten to the prose, so I'll take a look at the sources- no spotcheck necessary, since you have other FAs. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 21:24, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have used whatever case was used in the respective articles.
I'm 50% sure that the casing in the article is irrelevant- at least, that's what I've been told in other FACs and FLCs. Then again, you're a much more experienced editor than I, and I could be entirely incorrect. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 22:20, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
MyCatIsAChonk, done. FrB.TG (talk) 13:13, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The works/publishers of citations should either all be wikilinked or none should be wikilinked. It looks like about half are linked right now, so it's up to you- I would link them all.
I have linked every work/publisher only on their first instance.
Fair enough. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 22:20, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Might just be me, but all the Los Angeles Times citations show a paywall. If it's the same for you, add "subscription" to the access parameters
They all work fine for me. Maybe, LA Times is one of those sources that allow a certain number of free reads before you have to pay?
  • Refs where the publisher should be listed under "Work", so that the name of the site/magazine/whatever is italicized; 24, 33, 48, 102, 122 (just Entertainment.ie), 132, 135, 139, 161, 213, 219, 252, 255, 298, 300, 302, 313,
Done except in case of E! which is a network and doesn't need italicizing.
  • Ref 7 needs author
  • Ref 26's publisher is good, but Harper's Bazaar needs to be named as the work
  • Remove dash from Ref 52's publisher
  • Ref 48 needs date
  • Ref 52's publisher is The Numbers, not The-Numbers; ditto 84, 90, 99, 104, and 134
  • Ref 54 is incorrectly listed as dead; ditto 88
  • Ref 57 is dead
  • Ref 75's title has a typo: it's the Golden Globe Awards, no "s" after globe
  • Ref 76's date is wrong
  • Ref 79 needs author
  • Why is ref 81 listed with the "limited" lock, but none of the other The Independent citations have such a lock?
  • Ref 85 is dead
  • Ref 87 needs date
  • Ref 95 needs author
  • Ref 100 links to a page that links to IMDbPro- replace this source since IMDb is unreliable
Box Office Mojo is a reliable source, and the premium version is owned by IMDbPro, which isn't user-generated like IMDb.
  • Ref 101's author is not listed on the website
  • Ref 111 needs author
  • Ref 114 needs date
The source lists 1 Jan 2000 as the publication date for the review of a film released in 2004.
  • Ref 121 is incorrectly labeled as dead
  • Ref 127 is dead
  • Ref 129 should have "Associated Press" listed under the "agency" parameter
  • Ref 136's date is wrong
  • Ref 137 is dead
  • Ref 142 is incorrectly labeled as dead
  • Ref 149's title: "Inception" should be italicized
  • Ref 157's work is incorrect
  • Ref 165 is incorrectly listed as dead
  • Ref 171 is dead
  • Ref 189's publisher is appended with ".com"- remove the extension
Cowspiracy without the domain refers to the film, and I wanted to differentiate the film and website.
  • Ref 199's date is wrong
  • Ref 205 is incorrectly labeled as dead
  • Ref 206 needs "Associated Press" in the agency parameter
  • Ref 207's author is wrong
  • Ref 208 needs author
  • Ref 209's date is wrong
  • Ref 210's author needs a full last name
  • Ref 211: Oscars's and BAFTA's dates are wrong, Golden Globes is incorrectly labeled as dead
  • Ref 215: remove the inc from "Insider Inc"
The article is called Insider Inc. on Wikipedia though.
  • Refs 217 and 218 need authors
  • Ref 220 needs author
  • Ref 223 needs date- look at the archive date for reference; also, list "Variety" under agency parameter
  • Ref 228 is incorrectly labeled as dead; also, needs "subscription" under access parameter
I have intentionally left the archive link since one can read it without any payment restriction.
  • Ref 229 is incorrectly labeled as dead; also, needs author
  • Refs 232, 233, and 235's dates are wrong
  • Ref 240 is dead; also, date is wrong
Updated the live link whose date for some reason differs from that of the archive.
  • Ref 241's date is wrong
  • Ref 242 is not dead, but the website is essentially broken
  • Ref 244's date is wrong
  • Ref 250 is dead
  • Ref 254's title is not what's listed on the site
  • Ref 255 is not in French, and "TIME" in the title should be lowercase
  • The titles of the various citations in ref 256 are inconsistent- most use slideshow format and just name the article's title, but the last three use the title on the slide.
  • Ref 257s' citation's author is actually the editor of the article; also, the last one is incorrectly listed as dead
  • Ref 260 is dead
  • Refs 263, 265 are incorrectly listed as dead
  • Ref 270 needs author
  • Refs 278, 283, 284, 285 are incorrectly listed as dead
  • Ref 289 should have "Indo-Asian News Service" in the agency parameter
  • Ref 290 needs author
  • Ref 298 is dead
  • Ref 305 is incorrectly listed as dead
  • Ref 306 needs author
  • Ref 307 should have "Asian News International" in the agency parameter
  • Ref 311 is the same as 246
  • Ref 319's date is wrong
It says Sep 27, 2018, the same as in the article.
  • Ref 320's work should just be "Insider"- no .com
  • Ref 322's date is wrong
  • Ref 331's title needs a space before the dollar sign
  • Ref 333 is dead
  • Ref 336's date is wrong

@FrB.TG: Review done- don't feel obligated to respond to each one individually, just reply to this comment with your oppositions. No sources made me raise an eyebrow- all seem reliable. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 22:29, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MyCatIsAChonk, thank you so much for such a detailed source review. I have listed my disagreements/discussions of individual points directly below the comment. The ones I haven't commented on are done as suggested. FrB.TG (talk) 21:09, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@FrB.TG: Replied to the casing comment above- other than that, the source formatting is good. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 22:20, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support on sources. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 19:42, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support

[edit]

I've followed the progress of this article over many years now, and have made small contributions myself. Overall, it's a rock solid and consistently engaging bio that passes all the requirements of a featured article. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 09:46, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much. :) FrB.TG (talk) 21:09, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@FAC coordinators: could I get a status update on this, please? This has been open for four weeks now and the last activity on it was almost two weeks ago. FrB.TG (talk) 14:27, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi FrB, yes this has been stable for a while and was next on my list to go over for potential closure, so sit tight. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:22, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ian is probably a bit keener than me (autotranslate: I'm lazy). Not yet having been open for four weeks, I was keeping an eye on it to see if it would attract another general review or two. However, obviously I bow to my colleague's superior experience (autotranslate: he's right and I'm just being lazy). Gog the Mild (talk) 15:36, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, not at all Gog, if you've had your eye on this one (I haven't till now) then I'm happy to leave to your judgement -- a little more commentary would certainly be preferable for such a high-profile subject... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:41, 26 August 2023 (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) 11 September 2023 [35].

City Hall MRT station

[edit]
Nominator(s): ZKang123 (talk) 00:56, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a cross-platform interchange in Singapore. ZKang123 (talk) 00:56, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MyCatIsAChonk

[edit]

Congrats on getting the TFA slot and a DYK hook on the same day, quite impressive. Good to see you're taking another station to FAC! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 01:36, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I got, nice work. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 01:36, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support - very nice job. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 18:03, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]
  • Licensing is good but the image in the history section sandwiches with the infobox.

(t · c) buidhe 01:58, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Buidhe: Fixed the image.--ZKang123 (talk) 08:48, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Gerald Waldo Luis

[edit]

Even four years since my last visit to S'pore, the arrival announcement to this and Raffles still haunts me haha. GeraldWL 06:12, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sammi Brie

[edit]

Not much to complain about here. These are my suggestions for @ZKang123:: Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 21:52, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

John M Wolfson

[edit]
  • City Hall MRT station is an underground Mass Rapid Transit (MRT) interchange station on the North–South line (NSL) and East–West line (EWL). mention in the first sentence, rather than the second, that this is in Singapore.
  • It was renamed to City Hall in November that year for historical reasons What historical reasons?
    • It's not elaborated much in the source, I'm afraid.
  • Why are inflated figures given in US dollars, and not in Singaporean dollars? I am aware that the former is far more useful internationally, but I would assume native Singaporeans would be well served with modern Singaporean values if {{Inflation}} allows it.
    • I'm not sure if I should use both modern Singapore and US values, and the article after all is more to an international audience, not just Singaporeans.
  • Due to requirements by the Ministry of Environment ensuring that the work site does not occupy more than 40% of the river width either remove "does" for the subjunctive or change it to "did" for the past tense.
  • Train services commenced on 12 December 1987 when the line extension to Outram Park station was completed.[28][29] The station was part of a route that ran continuously from Yishun station in the north to Lakeside station in the west. From 28 October 1989, it began to serve as the interchange station for both the East–West (EWL) and North–South (NSL) lines with the split of MRT operations. I'm not overly familiar with MRT, have the EWL and NSL always been referred to as such?
  • Any ridership details?

Otherwise good work; please consider attending my FAC for Marshfield station, especially as the last FAC for it was closed owing to low turnout. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 23:35, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@John M Wolfson: any further comments?--ZKang123 (talk) 07:08, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
None from me, other than a reiteration of my invitation for the Marshfield FAC. Happy to support. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 01:17, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

Reviewing this version, spotcheck upon request and with the caveat that this isn't a topic I know well. Is there some more information on the nature of the source of #5? Is The Straits Times a reliable source - if it's a mouthpiece of an authoritarian political party, it seems like it might not be top-notch reliable. Otherwise, source formatting seems consistent and the sources OKish since I don't think we blanket-disqualify sources associated with authoritarian governments. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:44, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not nominator here, but The Straits Times is a reliable source, one of the biggest newspapers in SG, and is frequently used in FA MRT articles. GeraldWL 09:45, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if you read the consensus discussion on The Straits Times, it is generally reliable for this case, when it's about MRT construction instead of a political commentary.
Also, FN 5 links to the database API from which the passenger numbers were obtained...--ZKang123 (talk) 09:47, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Other issues I still need to address?--ZKang123 (talk) 10:23, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's all, with usual qualifiers about no spotcheck and not being very familiar with these sources. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 21:24, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 8 September 2023 [36].

Sarcophagus of Eshmunazar II

[edit]
Nominator(s): el.ziade (talkallam), Onceinawhile (talk) 18:06, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the sarcophagus of Eshmunazar II, a Phoenician King of Sidon from the 6th century BC. It was unearthed in 1855 in an ancient necropolis near Sidon, Lebanon. The sarcophagus is notable for its long Phoenician inscriptions, which provide insights into the king's identity, lineage, and achievements, including his involvement in the conquest of Egypt. The sarcophagus is of Egyptian manufacture. Its discovery sparked enthusiasm for archaeological research in the Levant. el.ziade (talkallam) 18:06, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for this. I'm not too keen on the numerous stubby sections, nor that they often comprise one- or two-sentence paragraphs. Someone with this script installed will be along shortly to point out that in your references, you lack page ranges for several book chapters, articles, hyphenation, omitting some publisher locations etc. To the degree of this depth. You're free, of course, to wikilawyer about whether the FAC guidelines actually mandate these things. But consistency is the un/written rule. Perhaps some florid language? "...rushed to translate", for example, jumps out in the lead.
    For the rest of it, eh bien, je l'approuve presque. This is the kind of article that actually makes this an encyclopedia. A thorough investigation of extant scholarship has been brought to FAC with merely stylistic concerns with it to be raised. This is a landmark in the history of these pages. Bloody well done. Fantastic stuff. And looking at its history, a prime example of collaboration between editors. Almost tempted to support it RIGHT NOW. SN54129 18:51, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • My concerns have almost wholly been resolved, so pleased to support this article's promotion. SN54129 16:02, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Serial Number 54129 Thank you for your note and amazing kind words. I will be reviewing the sources shortly. Thank you el.ziade (talkallam) 21:14, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
image review

working (t · c) buidhe 02:40, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note

[edit]

This has been open for more than three weeks and has yet to pick up a support. Unless it attracts considerable movement towards a consensus to promote over the next three or four days I am afraid that it will have to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:21, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - I usually don't comment on FACs I GA reviewed, but I reviewed this article with FAC in mind, and I wouldn't want to see it stall, so here it is. The reviewer above also seems to have mostly approved it. FunkMonk (talk) 11:50, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@FunkMonk: I imagine the reviewer above can probably speak for himself. And, indeed, has done :p SN54129 16:04, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild Could you please keep it open for a few more days, I pinged a few editors who have reviewed my FA noms earlier. Is there anywhere else where I can enlist more help? el.ziade (talkallam) 15:19, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. That's an impressive set of quality reviewers, I would imagine that they will set the nomination straight. My boilerplate for finding reviewers is:

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

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

Gog the Mild (talk) 16:26, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Super! Thank you for the resources. I will enlist any number I can. Among those I pinged are subject matter experts or operate in a related field. And on a personal note, I would love to review articles but it is terribly intimidating to me to point out areas for improvement that others would disagree with. I tend to be super systematic at the expense of other attributes that more appreciated by other editors. My latest unpleasant altercation was on a DYK nomination where the nominator reverted my edits and didn’t appreciate the incidental findings I noted (those not affecting the DYK review), during my DYK review. I’ll get to spreading the word more widely. el.ziade (talkallam) 17:27, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ping at @Gog the Mild el.ziade (talkallam) 17:27, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mirokado

[edit]

I have installed noto-sans-phoenician-fonts (in the current openSUSE Tumbleweed rolling release) and the Phoenician script is displaying nicely. I am pleased to see the note about rendering support at the bottom of the infobox.

I'm a bit busy reviewing TRAPPIST-1 at present, but I hope to have a look at this next. In the meantime:

Comments from casliber

[edit]

(Awoken from eternal slumber) - ok will take a look soon...

Comments from Carlstak

[edit]

I read the entire article and made some copy edits. A most interesting read. Well done, Elias Ziade. Carlstak (talk) 01:13, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Carlstak I'm very pleased you liked it :) el.ziade (talkallam) 14:58, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Carlstak, 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) 15:01, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
*Support I wholeheartedly support the nomination. It's a well-written article—Elias Ziade has done a great job. Good to see on WP. Carlstak (talk) 18:32, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments and support from Gerda

[edit]

Thank you for the invitation! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:53, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

lead

  • The first sentence is very long, and I'd like "modern Lebanon" a bit sooner, before the clause about the naming of the metropole ;)
  • I'd like to know sooner who Eshmunazar was, and what function made him get such a sarcophagus (before wanting to know how that piece of art traveled from owner to owner after the discovery).
  • I'd also prefer the word "Phoenician" somewhat sooner.

That's all, interesting reading, - thank you --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:17, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I must say that I agree with Gerda's points. I had the same thought about knowing sooner "who Eshmunazar was, and what function made him get such a sarcophagus" when I was reading the article last night. I wanted to respond to Gog the Mild after I saw his query today, and rather hurriedly sent a reply in between beers at lunch.;-) Carlstak (talk) 23:56, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
PS: I still support the nomination. Carlstak (talk) 23:57, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Gerda! I was also going to mention the first sentence. I think that "(dubbed Nécropole Phénicienne by French Semitic philologist and biblical scholar Ernest Renan)" can be removed here: it is tangential to the subject, makes that sentence too complicated and appears verbatim in §Modern discovery. -- Mirokado (talk) 04:47, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Very pertinent points. You're absolutely right, I should have considered the reader. el.ziade (talkallam) 14:30, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Gerda Arendt@Carlstak Thank you both. el.ziade (talkallam) 14:31, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the changes, I support this for FA. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:23, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Gerda Arendt <3 el.ziade (talkallam) 10:54, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from A. Parrot

[edit]

I'm extremely busy this month and am not sure if I'll have time to do a full review, but these points struck me when looking through it. A. Parrot (talk) 04:52, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't see a reason to emphasize that Renan dubbed the Sidon burial sites "Nécropole Phénicienne" in the lead. For that matter, considering that it just means "Phoenician necropolis", an obviously applicable description (and one that wouldn't be unique to Sidon as opposed to other Phoenician cities), I don't see why it needs to be mentioned at all.
  • The article inconsistently refers to scholars by surname only ("Turner" on the first reference to William Wadden Turner) or by full name ("Joseph-Léandre Bargès" on the first reference to him).
  • The page range of the Versluys footnote seems awfully expansive; seem like you only need to cite page 14.
  • The reference to the third Egyptian sarcophagus, the one presumed to have belonged to Amoashtart, feels rather offhand. Can anything more be said about it? For that matter, my first skim of the article missed the link to the article on the Tabnit sarcophagus; you might mention it and the presumed Amoashtart sarcophagus in the lead.
Thank you for your insightful feedback. I fixed the points above and I appreciate your point about the reference to the third Egyptian sarcophagus. The mention does indeed seem offhand, unfortunately, I don't have additional material to provide further elaboration on this point. Classical historian Elayi, for instance, speculates that the sarcophagus could belong to the queen mother based on her standing and her son's inscription. However, this speculation lacks material evidence. I will include a link to the article on the Tabnit sarcophagus in the lead. Thanks again. el.ziade (talkallam) 22:16, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Elie, I have done some more research into the third sarcophagus following A Parrot’s comment. I will make some edits to address it – I have a few ideas, including a new parent article for all three sarcophagi (as a sister article to Egyptian Stelae in the Levant) and a mention in the lede of Kelly’s statement that these are the only three Egyptian sarcophagi ever found outside Egypt. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:27, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Onceinawhile I love this guy. el.ziade (talkallam) 22:48, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have addressed this with a series of small edits to the body and lede - apologies for the delay while working on our related project at User:Elias Ziade/sandbox2. Having reviewed the sources, there are no appropriately detailed sources to justify an article on Egyptian Sarcophagi in the Levant, but the upcoming article at Royal Necropolis of Ayaʿa should do the trick.
@A. Parrot: I would be grateful if you could confirm that these edits have addressed your excellent observation about the importance of properly explaining the relationship with the Tabnit and Amoashtart sarcophagi. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:07, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, all my points have been addressed. A. Parrot (talk) 02:49, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@A. Parrot@Onceinawhile Thank you both, sorry was away. el.ziade (talkallam) 10:04, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Iry-Hor

[edit]

I am back from vacations and just saw this beauty. Thank for pinging me on this article that is looking amazing. I am especially impressed by the "English translation of the lid inscription" section. This is very good work. I will post a few detailed comments here soon.Iry-Hor (talk) 13:37, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest I don't see anything to add to this article, how come the other reviewers find things to comment on ? Perhaps on ref formats and the like ? Anyhow, to me this is a shining example of good work and of the depth of Wikipedia. I was mesmerized imagining the story of the sarcophagus from Egypt to the Levantine coast following ancient events. Congratulations ! I know my review is short but it still counts as one vote: I gladly support this nomination. I wish all articles were that good !Iry-Hor (talk) 11:52, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Iry-Hor Thank you for your words of encouragement :) el.ziade (talkallam) 09:29, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

Reviewing this version, spot-check on request. Some sources don't display pagenumbers even though they are multipage. #35 needs a space. There is a lot of century-old sources here, is this normal? Probably also the reason why the identifiers vary from one citation to the other? Otherwise the sources look reliable to me and formatting is mostly consistent. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:35, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jo-Jo Eumerus thank you for your feedback. The sources without page numbers were intentional, as the entire cited work provides support for the discussed points. However, I will consider adding page numbers for clarity where necessary. The missing space in ref 35 is probably caused by the footnote template glitch. el.ziade (talkallam) 20:34, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For example, #15 doesn't seem to need an all-pages like citation. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:22, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi el.ziade, any further come back on this. If you are sticking with citing entire works, you need to be confident that every page of every such case is necessary to support the prose it is attached to. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:16, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild @Jo-Jo Eumerus I added pages where missing and/or explanations. el.ziade (talkallam) 10:03, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jo-Jo Eumerus, is that enough to call it? Gog the Mild (talk) 16:25, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:04, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support Some general comments

[edit]
  • The lid inscription was of great significance upon its discovery as it was the first Phoenician language inscription to be discovered in Phoenicia proper, the most detailed Phoenician text ever found anywhere up to that point, and is today the second longest extant Phoenician inscription, after the Karatepe bilingual inscription. These superlatives need to be cited, IMO.  See comment below Onceinawhile (talk) 20:28, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The 1860–61 date range needs to be expanded to the full years as per MOS:DATERANGE
  • I agree with A. Parrot that there is no need to give the French name for the necropolis at all.
If it's not bothersome, let's keep it in the body. el.ziade (talkallam) 10:52, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link necropolis, Lebanon (I don't think that that country is well-known enough to invoke WP:OL, Dorchester on first use.
  • under the Ottoman rule over Lebanon This reads oddly to me. Rephrase and consider hiding the link behind a pipe.
  • Why did Habib Ayela think he had a claim to the sarcophagus?  Added explanation with source Onceinawhile (talk) 20:28, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that you mean loaded rather than boarded
  • lifting it to the military corvette. The corvette commander The reader already knows that the ship belongs to the French navy. And use some synonyms instead of corvette so often.
  • How much did the sarcophagus weigh?
I don't have this info el.ziade (talkallam) 10:52, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exactly what is the trough? Is it the underside of the lid?
the trough is hollowed out sarcophagus body. el.ziade (talkallam) 10:52, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You know, I am inclined to accept that as an excuse for a delay. :-) Gog the Mild (talk) 18:24, 2 September 2023
@Gog the Mild and Elias Ziade: when it promotes, instead of a bronze star, how about confetti?  :) SN54129 12:15, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Serial Number 54129 you cracked me up lol. @Sturmvogel 66 I believe I covered everything, please let me know if there's anything I missed. @Gog the Mild you're an icon :) , thank you for your patience. el.ziade (talkallam) 10:54, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've made a few changes, including the correct name of the corvette. Feel free to revert.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:37, 7 September 2023 (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) 6 September 2023 [37].

Paradise Airlines Flight 901A

[edit]
Nominator(s): RecycledPixels (talk) 21:16, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Paradise Airlines Flight 901A is about an airline flight from Oakland to South Lake Tahoe that never reached its destination. The article describes the flight, the aircraft, and the aftermath of the investigations that were launched when the aircraft crashed into a mountain.

I nominated the article for FA this past May, but it was closed for a lack of participation. That discussion is available at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Paradise Airlines Flight 901A/archive1. By the time it had closed, however, it had received a thorough review from Vaticidalprophet and PCN02WPS. It also received a review during the GA process and has appeared on the DYK section of the front page. I feel that it's ready to appear on the main page in the Featured Article slot. Do you? RecycledPixels (talk) 21:16, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vat

[edit]

Will read back through this soon! I expect to have few if any additional comments :) Vaticidalprophet 21:21, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Given I commented extensively at the archived review, I don't have much to say here, and think I can get away with such. I've split a long paragraph with a natural breakpoint, and did the same for another shortly after the previous nom. I really only note that you refer to the company's president by his full name and title twice in the same section ("Airline grounded"); this might actually be defensible, because it's at opposite ends of a long section with a whole lot going on in it. I'm happy to support again per my feedback last time. Vaticidalprophet 07:08, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PCN02WPS

[edit]

Ditto to what Vat said above! Looking forward to taking another look at this one. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 21:52, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • In the lead, when you say "He likely tried to fly through", it sounds like "He" is referring to the flight crew instead of the pilot, based on the sentence before (even though that pronoun wouldn't make sense for "the flight crew"). I'd change to "The pilot likely tried..."
    Good catch, changed. RecycledPixels (talk) 15:57, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • In "Accident", "the second worst" should be hyphenated (second-worst)
    Fixed in previously suggested rewording. RecycledPixels (talk) 15:57, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "An additional 43 were brought the next day" → sort of sounds like you're talking about FBI technicians being brought in, recommend "An additional 43 victims..."
    Fixed. RecycledPixels (talk) 15:57, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Paradise Airlines president Herman Jones" → I was going to say that "President" here should be caps, per MOS:JOBTITLE, but looking at that page (and seeing "Mao met with US president Richard Nixon in 1972." as a correct example), I think this may be correct and in that case you could change "Douglas County District Attorney John Chrislaw" to "district attorney" to follow the same format (unless I am misunderstanding something)
    Fixed. RecycledPixels (talk) 15:57, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I've got, well done as before! Almost all of my concerns were addressed at the first FAC so this is just what I've picked up on my second read-through. 15:13, 20 August 2023 (UTC)PCN02WPS (talk | contribs)

PCN02WPS, thanks for the additional read-through. I have addressed those issues. RecycledPixels (talk) 15:57, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome stuff, article looks great. In combination with my comments at the first FAC, I am happy to support. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 19:59, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hawkeye7

[edit]

For future reference, your chance can be enhanced by transcluding the nomination on the review page. I have done this for you. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:40, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops! Thank you. RecycledPixels (talk) 01:46, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

AviationFreak

[edit]

Given my username and interest in the topic, I figured I'd give this one a go.

  • The search for the crashed plane and the recovery of the wreckage and the bodies of the victims took most of a month - While this appears to be technically true, I think it might paint the wrong picture given that the aircraft was found within 24 hours and searchers had located and recovered all but two of the victims within a week.
    I have reworded that sentence. RecycledPixels (talk) 22:25, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • aborting the landing attempt links to go-around, which occurs when an aircraft is on final; whether the aircraft was actually on final at any point is not mentioned in the article, but my suspicion is that it didn't.
    I don't have any evidence that the plane was on final approach, and I doubt it as well due to the communication between the pilots and the airline representative at the airport. I have unlinked it. RecycledPixels (talk) 22:25, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • the pilot lost awareness of his location... - This wording implies the captain was the only one involved in the operation of the plane, but it appears a first officer and flight engineer were aboard as well
    Changed pilot to flight crew. RecycledPixels (talk) 22:25, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think using phrases like "second-deadliest" would be more descriptive than "second-worst", as "worst" is colloquially a pretty subjective term.
    Changed wording. RecycledPixels (talk) 22:25, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Flight 901A... On the morning of Sunday, March 1, 1964, it took off from the company's base... - In my mind, a "flight" is a set route between a number of airports that is served by one or more "aircraft". This paragraph muddles the two, implying that the "flight" took off from KOAK (which was not even part of its route).
    Changed "it" to the aircraft type.
  • where a full load was waiting - It appears 78 were waiting, but 81 is a full load. Suggest changing to "where more were waiting".
    Done. RecycledPixels (talk) 22:25, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although the U.S. Weather Bureau forecast for the Lake Tahoe region predicted weather conditions that would have been unsuitable for flights, the Paradise Airlines dispatcher estimated that by Flight 901A's scheduled arrival time... - Was the NWS' forecast a "prediction" of future weather conditions or a statement of current ones (at time of the forecast's release)? In other words, was the dispatcher directly disagreeing with the NWS publication?
    The CAB report (page 2) states, "He then proceeded to the Paradise Airlines dispatch office where he reviewed weather sequences and forecasts from Service "A" teletype. Although the USWB forecast poor flying conditions at Lake Tahoe, the company dispatcher forecast more favorable weather based on his evaluation of the weather data, and so briefed the pilot of [the aircraft]". So, yes, the source is saying that the dispatcher was directly disagreeing with the NWS publication. The dispatcher's actions were further discussed in the CAB report on pages 12 and 13. RecycledPixels (talk) 22:25, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • A map of KTVL's position relative to South Lake Tahoe and Genoa Peak (especially one that includes 901A's estimated flight path) would be useful.
    • I've done this one (I'm a sucker for a good map) - Feel free to play around with the image sizing, placement, etc. if you feel it ought to be changed.
  • Suggest linking visual approach.
    Done. RecycledPixels (talk) 22:25, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • At 11:21 a.m., the pilot of Flight 901A, near Lake Tahoe, reported... - To whom?
    Oakland ARTCC. Clarified and cited. RecycledPixels (talk) 22:25, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Usage of both "Lake Tahoe Airport" and "Tahoe Valley Airport" is confusing, given they refer to the same airport.
    I've searched out all uses of Lake Tahoe Airport and replaced them with Tahoe Valley Airport. RecycledPixels (talk) 22:25, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest linking Ceiling (cloud)
  • Is there any information regarding the timing of the aircraft's maneuvers above the lake and the subsequent crash? I know that might not exist given these are eyewitness statements, but if there's even an eyewitness estimate of the crash time that would be worth including.
    The CAB report reports one of the witness statements reported "approximately 11:30" when they heard the aircraft overhead then later heard the engines stop, but the information provided from witness statements was imprecise enough that I didn't think it should be included, especially since the pilots had only just contacted the passenger agent at the airport at 11:27. RecycledPixels (talk) 22:25, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest linking Daggett Pass
    Ah, that's a new article that didn't exist before. Linked. RecycledPixels (talk) 22:25, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Natural feature heights are explicitly noted as ASL, whereas flight altitudes are not. I'm a bit torn about whether to make any change over this since it could make things confusing, but I noticed it and I figure I'll point it out in case anyone has suggestions.
  • flying almost level - Do we know if it was slightly nose-up or nose-down?
    "The aircraft initially struck several trees on the west slope of the ridge, at approximately 8,675 feet m.s.l., slightly right-wing-low in a nearly level flight attitude." was what the CAB report says on page 8, but noted that elevator trim was set to three degrees nose up. RecycledPixels (talk) 22:25, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • leaving a trail of wreckage approximately 900 feet (270 m) long and no survivors - Are we sure everyone died on impact, or is it possible some died in the hours that followed with exposure as a factor (it sounds like it was pretty cold)? To me, the current wording implies that all died on impact.
    I have removed the mention of no survivors from the description of the impact site. It is later mentioned in the aftermath section that initial searchers found no survivors, so no need to make the assumption that the impact with the mountain was not survivable. RecycledPixels (talk) 22:25, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • discovered to be missing sounds sort of contradictory IMO. Suggest "determined to be missing".
    Changed. RecycledPixels (talk) 22:25, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • found no traces of the missing aircraft - I think "no trace" is standard.
    Fixed. RecycledPixels (talk) 22:25, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Our article suggests "lieutenant colonel" should be abbreviated "Lt. Col." or "Lt Col" - all or nothing with the periods.
    Fixed. RecycledPixels (talk) 22:25, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is not a sourcing review, but personally I'd like a more reliable source for the claim that Looters had already been to the site and stolen cash and jewelry from the crash victims before rescuers found them than an interview in a USA Today article.
    It's a Salinas local paper, not USA today, but I haven't found one. I have found other reports from victims families telling of the same thing such as [38] and [39]. My lack of finding anything suggests that it was not widely reported at the time and only came out later, but perhaps someone else would have more success in finding something from around the same time frame.
    Gotcha. The paper is part of the USA TODAY network, but (from their website) it looks like they do a good job of letting local journalists freely tell their stories. This is more of a concern for a source review anyway.
  • Our article and cursory Googling suggests that Sheriff deputies should be pluralized to "Sheriff's deputies".
    Fixed. RecycledPixels (talk) 22:25, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • for clues to why it crashed - Suggest "for clues as to why it crashed"§
    Fixed. RecycledPixels (talk) 00:35, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • aircraft's nose wheel - Suggest slightly more technical "nose gear" (perhaps with a link to landing gear).
    Change made with alternate wording since it was just the wheel, as I understand it. RecycledPixels (talk) 00:35, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest linking Carson Valley Improvement Club Hall
    Wow, in all my searching for what the heck the CVIC hall was, I never realized that we already had an article on it. This CIVC hall came up in the previous FAC Reviews. RecycledPixels (talk) 00:35, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did a flight fly between the morning of March 3 and the noon suspension of flights?
    I had to re-review the source. A flight was completed on the 3rd, which triggered the FAA suspension which actually took effect at noon on March 4. I had the date wrong. The flight scheduled for the morning of March 4 was cancelled for mechanical reasons. I fixed the suspension date but I didn't mention the cancelled March 4th flight. RecycledPixels (talk) 00:35, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The agency said that the airline could appeal the suspension, but that in the meantime, it could not conduct flights until a decision was made on the appeal - "in the meantime" would mean the time between the suspension and the appeal, so this wording doesn't make sense.
    The suspension was effective at noon on March 4. The airline could appeal the decision to suspend the FAA order, but the order would remain in effect until a hearing was held and a ruling to overturn the order was made. The final ruling in favor of the FAA wasn't made until April 6. Between March 4 and April 6, the airline could not operate flights. And it couldn't operate flights after April 6, either, because they lost their appeal of the FAA's order to suspend their operating certificate. After some grandstanding where the company owner said it would just fly the flights anyway, and the FAA advised him that such actions wouldn't have a happy ending, and the company shut down for good. RecycledPixels (talk) 00:35, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest changing front edges to "leading edges"
    You don't think that's too technical? I wavered about that earlier and concluded that the front edges of the wings was more understandable to the average reader than leading edges of the wings. I can change it, I haven't yet though. RecycledPixels (talk) 00:35, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it's probably understandable in context, but the decision ultimately lies with you (I don't have strong feelings). Either way, our article should probably be linked.
  • the FAA's "over-restrictive rules" about flying in adverse weather conditions was to blame for the accident - "was" should be "were", as "rules" is plural
    Fixed. RecycledPixels (talk) 00:35, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to him, the aircraft was only three or four miles from the Tahoe Airport and that the pilots might have already had had the airport in sight by the time the Tahoe Airport agent told them that the weather report stated that there was only a 2,000-foot (610 m) ceiling - The first "that" should be removed, and this sentence is a bit unwieldy IMO given the additional clause about the ceiling. Might be worth breaking into two if possible.
    Reworded. RecycledPixels (talk) 00:35, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Once the hearing commenced - Didn't the hearing commence with the jurisdiction argument? If the jurisdiction argument was outside of the hearing itself, At the outset of the appeal hearing before the FAA should be reworded.
    The way I understood the events was that the hearing was expected to take the form of the FAA making the case for the suspension, followed by the airline offering a rebuttal, but at the very beginning, before testimony started, the airline made a procedural objection as to whether or not the hearing should take place at all since it claimed the FAA did not have any jurisdiction over the airline. I've changed the second sentence to "once testimony commenced..." RecycledPixels (talk) 00:35, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • He was not very fluent with the English language - Suggest just "He was not fully proficient in English"
    This wording was a compromise from an earlier review. The original wording, and the wording of the source, was "limited fluency in English", which to me sounds like his English was far worse than "not fully proficient in English"
  • Paradise Airlines president Herman Jones called the hearings as "a great miscarriage of justice" - "as" should be removed
    Fixed. RecycledPixels (talk) 00:35, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest unlinking "serial number" since it's a pretty common and nonspecific term; aircraft registration (especially the United States section) could be pipe linked to "tail number" though.
    Done. RecycledPixels (talk) 00:35, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • In its past, it had been operated by Trans World Airlines before it was retired. - To a reader who is not familiar with the meaning of "retired" within aviation, this could be confusing IMO. Suggest "It had been previously operated by Trans World Airlines."
    Changed to similar. RecycledPixels (talk) 00:35, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is "pilot" proper terminology here? I'm more familiar with the term "captain", but this could have been different in the '60s or there could be more nuance.
    Changed to captain. The CAB report refers to him as the captain. RecycledPixels (talk) 00:35, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Three different clauses separated by "and"s in the penultimate sentence on Norris; suggest using commas instead.
    Fixed. RecycledPixels (talk) 20:50, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we know how many hours Worthley had in general (i.e., not just as flight engineer)?
    I have found no sources suggesting that Worthley had ever accumulated hours as a pilot. RecycledPixels (talk) 20:50, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Might be worth linking first officer and flight engineer (and captain if it's linked). I'm not sure though, I'm "in" the aviation world enough that I'm not sure how recognizable those terms are to a non-aviationfreak.
    I have linked the terms. RecycledPixels (talk) 20:50, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • At the start of the "Investigation" section, it might be worth spelling out "Civil Aeronautics Bureau" again since it was last spelled out two sections above and is referred to extensively.
    Not done, I have been challenged when I have done that in the past, per MOS:ACRO1STUSE. RecycledPixels (talk) 20:50, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • pilots had made 11 reports of problems with the plane's directional instruments in the months before the crash - Do we know how many months?
    June 14, 1963 to February 29, 1964, so a bit less than nine months. Added with citation. RecycledPixels (talk) 20:50, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • instrument repairmen had worked on both altimeters in the plane that crashed on the day before - Suggest appending "the incident" just to make it clear what this is referring to.
    I'm not quite sure what you are suggesting, but I changed "plane that crashed on the day before" to "plane that crashed in the incident". RecycledPixels (talk) 15:52, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • right-hand fluxgate compass - I think referring to this as the "first officer's fluxgate compass" would be more appropriate, assuming they used the same seating arrangement as is used today.
    Done. RecycledPixels (talk) 15:52, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest linking VFR in the quote
    Done. RecycledPixels (talk) 15:52, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The technicians who had performed the work had also inspected and signed off on their own work - This is fairly standard, no? Don't see the need for inclusion.
    It is something that is mentioned at least twice in the accident report (I fixed the citation that was referencing the wrong page). On page 18, in the analysis section, the report states, The installation of one fluxgate compass transmitter and the two altimeters was done by mechanics who worked without reference to available, approved maintenance manuals; the compasses were not swung, the pitot static system was not checked for leaks, and unauthorized personnel "inspected" their own work. RecycledPixels (talk) 15:52, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • would have caused the pilot to believe the aircraft was flying 280 feet (85 m) higher than its true altitude - The FO's altimeter (and presumably the FE's, though I don't know how a 3-person cockpit runs) would have apparently been working properly, and it's possible the pilots had caught the discrepancy and/or were wary of the instruments' accuracy. Suggest a reword to "would have indicated the aircraft was flying 280 feet..."
    Done. RecycledPixels (talk) 15:52, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • which would have meant that the aircraft's actual course could have been more to the north than what the instruments were indicating to the pilots - This feels clunky IMO. Suggest a reword to "which could have caused the indicated heading to be more southerly than the aircraft's true heading"
    Done. RecycledPixels (talk) 15:52, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...its course, altitude, or both, were not being accurately shown on the aircraft's instruments... - AFAIK there were no instruments available in the '60s that would have displayed an aircraft's course. Suggest changing to "heading", assuming that's what's meant (unless the source specifically says "course")
    Done. RecycledPixels (talk) 15:52, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Final paragraph both begins and ends with sentences starting in The report concluded that... - Suggest changing one so they're not stepping on each other's toes.
    Done. RecycledPixels (talk) 15:52, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I have. I know I can be nitpicky, so if you have questions about these please let me know. Excellent work on the article, great to see an aviation-based article up at FAC! AviationFreak💬 03:44, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

AviationFreak, thank you for your feedback. I ended up getting busier in RL than expected, so it took longer than expected to get through this list, but I believe all items have been addressed. When you get a chance, I would appreciate it if you take another look and see if you see anything else. RecycledPixels (talk) 15:52, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, this looks great! Thanks for the work you've put in, I don't see anything else from a second look at the article. Happy to support on prose. AviationFreak💬 14:18, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review and comments by Gerald Waldo Luis

[edit]

Hey there. I'm gonna put an image review first, then add prose comments. GeraldWL 06:02, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • The Constellation silhouette rationale says it's licensed in CC-BY SA 3.0, but then also says it is in PD because its made by the UK Government. Which one is correct?
    I'm diving into WP Commons territory here with which I am very unfamiliar, but when the image was uploaded to Commons in 2009, it was originally assigned tagged with CC-BY SA 3.0, but a minute later the same uploaded added the PD-UK tag. I believe that the CC-BY SA tag is a mistake that the uploaded attempted to correct, but did so incorrectly. Hopefully I addressed it correctly, but I edited the image on Commons to revert the CC-BY SA license. RecycledPixels (talk) 16:09, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Similar case with the Lake Tahoe image, where there are GNU, CC BY-SA 3.0, and CC BY 2.5 licenses.
    I really don't know what to do with that. All three licenses were put on at the same time by the uploader, and the file has a statement that says "you may select the license of your choice", so I don't know enough about image copyright to determine if anything is wrong with it. RecycledPixels (talk) 16:09, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Apologies for my misunderstanding; I just learned that some images allow for multi-licensing in PD and CCs, so you're good on this one.
  • The other licenses look good.
  • The alt texts look all good, sufficient and succint descriptions.
  • The Lake Tahoe caption shouldn't end with a dot as it's not a full sentence
    Fixed. RecycledPixels (talk) 16:09, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The last image caption could prob be expanded to like "Lockheed L-049 Constellation model" or something
    Changed. RecycledPixels (talk) 16:09, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Gerald Waldo Luis Thank you for the suggestions. I have responded to your comments above. RecycledPixels (talk) 16:09, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
With all the issues above resolved I suppose this is a pass on images. I'll see if I can move on to prose comments soon! GeraldWL 17:21, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from GeraldWL 04:55, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
* At the infobox, I'm not sure the just in "(just east of Lake Tahoe)" is needed
  • After "Tahoe Valley Airport" suggest adding in the U.S. just to be consistent with the infobox, it never hurts to identify the country too
  • "the plane. After the crashed plane was located"-- suggest changing crashed plane to crash site to avoid repetition of plane
  • "at the Oakland International Airport"-- remove the
  • "where a more passengers were waiting"-- a more?
  • Suggest using the redirect link of U.S. Weather Bureau instead of piping
  • I've linked to the redirect. I can't find it now, but my memory was that "back in the day", it was considered to be bad form to intentionally link to a redirect. But my searching for that guidance in article histories has been unsuccessful, and I'm probably confusing it with don't link to disambiguation pages. RecycledPixels (talk) 00:25, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "it was not showing it any obvious mechanical problems"-- two it
  • Why is Genoa linked in "accident" but not on the lead?
  • "exceeded only by"-- why only?
  • "Most of the wreckage" --> Most of it
  • The previous sentence used "it" to refer to the aircraft. Using "it" in the next sentence to change it from "most of the wreckage was shattered into tiny pieces" into "most of (the aircraft) was shattered into tiny pieces" which while probably technically true, is enough of a change in meaning that I'm not comfortable with it. The sentence was trying to refer to the parts of the wreckage that the investigators saw upon arrival. I've added "they found" after the second use of "wreckage" to clarify that. RecycledPixels (talk) 00:25, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link Las Vegas and San Fran per consistency with the other cities
    I've linked Vegas and San Francisco as well as San Francisco Bay Area. RecycledPixels (talk) 00:25, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Just as company president Herman Jones"-- I thought we already knew who this guy is
    He's actually identified four times in the article. His name is common enough and his role was minor enough that it seems harmless to re-identify him to the reader so they don't need to pause and rediscover who this Herman Jones character is each time. RecycledPixels (talk) 00:25, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • In Investigation: para 2, 11 is in digits; para 1, thirty is in text. WP:SPELL09 isn't really clear on this, but I think it must be consistent
  • "that the flat fee payment arrangements" --> "that the arrangements" would suffice, restating it in full, one sentence later, feels repetitive
    Changed to financial arrangements to separate it from the procedures for operating in bad weather. RecycledPixels (talk) 00:25, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The attribution in the blockquote is unecessary given that we have known it is from the final report, so this again merely repeats information. The ref can be easily moved to "stated:".
    Moved. RecycledPixels (talk) 00:25, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's a "[5]:9-10" followed by a "[5]:10", why not remove the first and change the second to 9-10 since they're in the same area?
    Not done. I've tried to keep the article relatively uncluttered from citation marks while still being verifiable, I don't feel that a somewhat similar-looking citation a few sentences before makes things too cluttered, and prevents someone from having to wade through page 9 when looking at the source for the next 3 sentences, the source of which are on page 10 only. RecycledPixels (talk) 00:25, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That is all I have for the comments! I'm pretty sure I missed some stuff and ended up pointing at a sentence with nothing wrong, but hopefully some are useful! GeraldWL 05:00, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RecycledPixels ? Gog the Mild (talk) 12:23, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Gerald Waldo Luis: Thanks for the feedback, please take a look at my responses above and the edit to the article. RecycledPixels (talk) 00:25, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think it looks much better now! I still find the attribution in the blockquote weird, but I find the same format in other FAs so I'll let that aside. Other than that, you've addressed my concerns, so regardless of my remaining ick I'm supporting this piece. (Also if you're interested, I'm looking for feedback in a PR). GeraldWL 04:55, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review by MyCatIsAChonk

[edit]

No spotcheck needed, looking at formatting/reliability. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 00:21, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Unrelated, but add Template:Use American English or otherwise appropriate
    Done. RecycledPixels (talk) 16:22, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The use of the via parameter is inconsistent. Some citations say "Clipping from Newspapers.com" but some say "Clipping at Newspapers.com", and which part of it is linked is also inconsistent
    I verified that all Newspapers.com citations are using the via= parameter. There were just a couple from the Californian that weren't. Removed wikilinks to the Newspapers.com article. RecycledPixels (talk) 21:05, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • In some citations, Newspapers.com is wikilinked, but in some it's not- either link all or none for consistency
    Addressed. RecycledPixels (talk) 21:05, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • IMO, having the word "clipping" present is odd in itself; in most articles I've seen that cite newspapers.com, the title's link directs to the clipping. I prefer this because otherwise the article is locked to the general reader

RecycledPixels, that's all from me, nice work! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 00:21, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MyCatIsAChonk: Sigh. The clippings were recently added by another editor, but were not done in a very standardized way. I have always found clippings from Newspapers.com to be problematic, especially with large articles that span multiple pages and columns. My original citations were to the printed newspaper at the time, and I provided a link to the first page of the article if the reader had a newspapers.com account for additional convenience. Adding universal access web links to those 1960's newspapers is convenient for the readers, but there's just not currently a way to do it well. I'm inclined to nuke all the links to the clippings if it's going to lead to a FAC objection, but I'll spend some time looking at it to see if there is any way to salvage the formatting and keep the links accessible. RecycledPixels (talk) 16:22, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
MyCatIsAChonk: I have reformatted the Newspapers.com citations according to the citation guidelines given at Wikipedia:Newspapers.com to link the clippings in the page number parameters. What really needs to happen is someone needs to come up with a {{cite newspapers.com}} citation template to deal with all the clipping URLs, archive URLs, and the fact that Wikipedia Library now no longer gives direct access to newspapers.com but through www-newspapers-com.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org URLs which aren't accessible to readers with normal newspapers.com accounts or users that don't meet the activity requirements. Hope that works for you. RecycledPixels (talk) 21:05, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - that was quick, great work! Also, if you get time, I'd appreciate any comments at this (less serious) FAC! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 21:10, 30 August 2023 (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) 5 September 2023 [40].

Fuzuli (poet)

[edit]
Nominator(s): — Golden call me maybe? 18:44, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fuzuli, a trilingual poet, lived his life in three different empires without ever leaving his home region of Iraq. Despite being one of the greatest Turkic poets to have ever lived, he was barely recognised for his works during his lifetime. He lived in relative poverty and never found a patron to his heart's desire. Nevertheless, his poetry outlived him, with his fame reaching as far Central Asia and India. Playing a pivotal role in the development of the Azerbaijani language, today he is one of the most famous poets in both Azerbaijan and Turkey.

I rewrote this article in April 2023 and it received a GA review from UndercoverClassicist in May. It also received very helpful comments in a peer review from UndercoverClassicist, Ssilvers, AirshipJungleman29, Tim riley, and Caeciliusinhorto. Now I'm nominating it to be a Featured Article. Enjoy reading! — Golden call me maybe? 18:44, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

First-time nomination

[edit]
  • Hi Golden, and welcome to FAC. Just noting that as a first time nominator at FAC, this article will need to pass a source to text integrity spot check and a review for over-close paraphrasing to be considered for promotion. Good luck with the nomination. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:03, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aza

[edit]
That's a great idea, Aza24. I've added an excerpt from his Persian divan in the Persian works section — Golden call me maybe? 20:32, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]
  • File:Füzuli._Əzim_Əzimzadə.png: when and where was this first published?
  • File:Kerbela_Hussein_Moschee.jpg: as Iraq does not have freedom of panorama, this will need an explicit tag for the original work
  • File:Brooklyn_Museum_-_Manuscript_of_the_Hadiqat_al-Su`ada_(Garden_of_the_Blessed)_of_Fuzuli_-_Muhammad_bin_Sulayman,_known_as_Fuzuli.png needs a US tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:10, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Nikkimaria: I am still trying to determine where the first image was originally published (I will probably visit the museum to find the painting myself), and I have added a US tag to the third picture. But, I have a question for the second picture. What do you mean by an "explicit tag"? I apologise for my lack of knowledge; my understanding of copyright is quite limited. — Golden call me maybe? 15:28, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • When you take a picture of a 3D work, you have to consider the copyright of both the photograph and (except where freedom of panorama exceptions apply) the original work. The image currently has a tag indicating the copyright status of the photograph, but needs one for the mosque itself. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:34, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        @Nikkimaria: Unfortunately, I'm not sure where to look for a tag for the mosque or if one even exists (I did try, but with no success). Regarding the picture of Fuzuli, I couldn't find the painting in the museum, but I did find this painting by the same artist from 1914, which was confirmed by the museum. Would it be permissible to use that painting? Also, when you ask when and where it was first published, are you referring to the painting or the photograph of the painting? If it's the latter, I could probably upload the one I took today and use that. — Golden call me maybe? 21:19, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • Do you know when the mosque was constructed?
        • What exactly did the museum confirm about the potential alternative painting? Essentially what we need is for the painting to have met this definition of "published" by the date specified on a US copyright tag. (Under US law reproducing a 2D work - for example taking a photo of a painting - doesn't garner a separate copyright). Nikkimaria (talk) 23:04, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
          @Nikkimaria: According to the Imam Husayn Shrine article, the mosque was built in 977. There is an image of the mosque in Commons from before 1900 as well (Link). Regarding the alternative painting, I've uploaded the museum label for it to Commons (Link). The label confirms that the painting was created in 1914, so {{PD-US-expired}} should be applicable, I think? — Golden talk 19:46, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

UndercoverClassicist

[edit]

I've already stuck my oar in on this article at GA and PR: it's come on massively and I've been hugely impressed with the nominator's work in improving it at each of these stages.

  • You're right, it should be plural. Amended. — Golden talk
  • I've changed "empires" to "states" in the lead. — Golden talk
  • His style has been described as being distinguished by his "intense expression of feelings" and his use of mystic metaphors and symbols, with his poetry showing influences from Persian poets like Nizami, Jami, and Hafez, as well as Azerbaijani poets like Habibi and Nasimi: a bit of a run-on; advise splitting. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 20:01, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is the hyphenation in Fuzuli-yi Baghdadi correct: the yi goes with his name, not Baghdadi?
  • Yes, it is correct. I have also made some changes to align it with the ALA-LC transliteration scheme. — Golden talk
  • His father, who was reported to have been a mufti (Islamic jurist) in Hilla at one time, suggests that Fuzuli likely came from an educated family: two points of wonkiness here; his father didn't say that; we infer it from his father's position. Secondly, at one time is ambiguous: was he reported at one time, or was he reported to have once been a mufti? UndercoverClassicist (talk) 20:01, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fuzuli lived in Iraq under the Aq Qoyunlu confederation, which ruled the region between 1470 and 1508, when Shah Ismail I of the Iranian Safavid dynasty took over.: this could do with a rewrite to make clear that Ismail's conquest goes with the year 1508. Perhaps something like "between 1470 and the conquest of the region by Shah Ismail I ... in 1508?" UndercoverClassicist (talk) 20:01, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am using the ALA-LC transliteration scheme throughout the article, and according to it, the correct spelling is Leylī. Switching to Leyli would disrupt the consistency, I'm afraid. — Golden talk
  • They do not. I've amended it to name the sources instead. — Golden talk
  • Although the work does not specify its date of creation, it is believed to have been written before 1546.: consider simply cutting to The work is believed to have been written before 1546; most works don't specify the dates of their own creation. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 20:01, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fuzuli also wrote several works in Persian, including a divan that comprises 410 ghazals, 46 qit'as, several dozen qasidas, over a hundred ruba'is, and other works.: needs a rephrase, I think: it's not clear whether all this is a single divan. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 20:01, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems clear to me that everything after "that comprises" refers to the divan. Perhaps the comma after "ruba'is" is causing confusion? I have removed it. — Golden talk
  • Unfortunately, no. The source only cites "Fuzūlī, Persian Dīvān" as the source of the poem. — Golden talk
  • Another Persian masnavi by the poet is Ṣiḥḥat va Maraz̤ (lit. 'Health and Sickness', also called Ḥusn va ‘Ishq, lit. 'Beauty and Love'), which was inspired by the 15th-century Persian poet Fattahi Nishapuri's Ḥusn va Dil (lit. 'Beauty and Heart') and is an important work in demonstrating Fuzuli's knowledge of both medicine and well-being of the body and the soul.: consider splitting in half. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 20:01, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • He had a major influence on Azerbaijani and Ottoman literature, and is sometimes considered an Ottoman poet, not because of his language or culture, but because he composed most of his poetry after the Ottoman conquest of Iraq.: I might decouple these two sentences: they're written as if the second should follow from the first, but they're not really related. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 20:01, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Removed "not because of his language or culture". — Golden talk
  • He was previously wikilinked, but I'm not sure what happened. I have added the wikilink back. — Golden talk
  • Karahan regarded Fuzuli as a "brilliant linguist" because of his ability to compose poetry in non-native languages without any errors in language or technique, and while he drew inspiration from earlier Persian works for most of his Azerbaijani pieces, he was able to add a "particular stamp of his personality" on his interpretations of subjects, which made them popular: suggest splitting. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 20:01, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have removed the link for Turkologist in the footnote. However, the two links for Azerbaijani lead to different articles. One is for the Azerbaijani language, while the other is for Azerbaijani literature. I'm not sure if that's still a problem. — Golden talk
  • There's quite a lot of hits for Fuzuli on Google Books; I can't see that many of those on the first few pages are cited in the article. If you can read Turkish, there's a particularly beefy biography by Mahmut Kaplan which would seem, at the very least, deserving of a place in "Further Reading". There's also an interesting discussion of his impact in South Africa (of all places) here. UndercoverClassicist T·C 07:41, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @UndercoverClassicist: I have added the source discussing South Africa. Unfortunately, I cannot find the full version of the Kaplan source, and the Google Books version does not provide page numbers, so I cannot cite any information available in the preview. From what I saw in the preview, however, it does not provide any new information that is not already in the article or cited sources. Additionally, I have added a nearly 500-page thesis by Hamide Odelli as a source to the article. I could not find any other highly reliable sources on Google Books or other search engines that provide new information about the poet. — Golden talk 18:41, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd include the Kaplan source under "Further Reading" in the hope that future editors might have access to the full text and mine it more fully than we can. I don't see a problem with not citing it for FAC unless we think that there's important material in there not already covered, and we don't. UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:35, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. — Golden talk 20:45, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • @UndercoverClassicist: I cannot thank you enough for the thorough reviews you have provided for this article in GA, PR, and now here. I have implemented your suggestions and responded to your points above. — Golden talk 22:15, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Airship

[edit]

I'll get a few in now. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:38, 13 August 2023 (UTC) As always, these are suggestions, not demands. Feel free to refuse with justifications.[reply]

Lead
  • "the Persianate Turkic cultural domain" seems a bit unclear. I obviously know what you mean, but I'm not sure the general reader would.
  • I have replaced it with "Turkic cultural domain in the Middle East" since it covers the same area as "Persianate Turkic cultural domain". — Golden talk
  • "Fuzuli's poetry ... with his writings" I think the "poetry" is redundant; just Fuzuli is fine.
  • Do we need the "He also frequently incorporated themes of love into his poetry" at the end of the lead seeing as his love poetry is discussed in the third paragraph?
Biography
  • Is italicising names a thing? I'm not actually sure.
  • It's either that or putting it in quotes. I'm unsure on which to choose. — Golden talk
  • "He was probably a Shia Muslim ... it is probable that he was a moderate Shia Muslim" according to who? these things attract controversy, so it's better to be precise.
  • Süleyman Nazif appears to have been the most vocal supporter of the idea. I have added this to the note. — Golden talk
  • "getting his first poetic inspiration" is there a more passive word we can find than "get"? He didn't actively seek active inspiration, I assume.
  • That works.
  • "He had an interest in poetry since his childhood, getting his first poetic inspiration from the poems of the late-15th-century Azerbaijani poet Habibi." That's four instances of words beginning with "poe-" in one sentence; perhaps try reducing that?
  • I'm finding how you translate local terms interesting. For poetical terms—divan, masnavi, qasida—you use [term] ([English translation]), for his Baghdad epithet you use [English translation] ([italicised local term]), and for poems you use [italicised local name] (lit. [English name in quotes]), even in cases where the Wikipedia article is under the English name. Is all that intentional?
  • I have now switched the order of the names in the Baghdad epithet. I am trying to use the format [non-English name/term] ([English translation]) for all non-English titles and terms. For work titles, I have consistently used the ALA-LC transliteration scheme as the main titles. That is why I use "Bang va Bādah" instead of "Hashish and Wine" as the main name for the work throughout the article. — Golden talk
  • "Fuzuli lost his patron and moved to either Hilla or Najaf, likely because he could not find another reliable patron" ... "he worked as a custodian of the shrine" ... "he did not have much money and relied on different patrons" these very related events feel like they should be presented more cohesively than currently.
  • "he never travelled outside Iraq" considering the fluid nature of borders then, perhaps it's better to say "present-day Iraq" or similar
  • "The majority of his life was spent in the cities of Karbala, Hilla, Najaf, and Baghdad." is this sentence necessary, considering we've just read about him spending his life in these cities?

To be continued. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:01, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Airship ? Gog the Mild (talk) 15:24, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Legacy section is excellent. A couple of points on the poetry section:

  • About the maqtal Ḥadīqat al-Su'adā, might be best to specify whose the historic death was?
  • "The work is believed to have been written before 1546. This estimation is based on the oldest available copy, the Cairo manuscript, which was recorded in library records as dating back to 1546." Might be better as one sentence, seeing as the date is repeated.
  • I've trimmed these two a notch.
  • "Nonetheless, Fuzuli's ghazals were more popular." does this mean the ghazals in general, or the ones in the Azerbaijani divan?
  • "and images a dispute between wine and hashish" I'm not sure if the verb "images" has been used in this context since the 19th century.
  • That was a typo. Changed to "imagines". — Golden talk
  • "demonstrates the poet's proficiency in Persian equal to that of any classical Iranian poet." is it just me or are a "that" and "was" missing?

~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:50, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@AirshipJungleman29: Thank you very much for the review. I have implemented your changes. — Golden talk 11:18, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to support. Great work. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:37, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Airship. I really appreciate it. — Golden talk 11:38, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vat

[edit]

Putting a marker here, next couple days or so. Nothing obvious on a skim. Vaticidalprophet 11:16, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see Airship and UC are getting quite in-depth into the prose, and don't see any clear errors that they haven't. My comments mostly revolve around the poetry snippets:
  • Would it be possible to add footnotes of the original text to the translated blockquotes?
  • Azerbaijani Wikisource has a number of his works; links in those quotes are probably viable/justified cross-project links. (I also note for the one at the very end -- English Wikisource's section for him is actually empty, so may be less useful.)
  • I have changed the link to Azerbaijani Wikisource. However, I can't cite anything from there as the poems are not in their original versions. The original versions were written in Azerbaijani using the Arabic script, while the Azerbaijani Wikisource uses the Latin script. — Golden talk
  • Are there earlier translations in the public domain that may be a better fit for WP:FREER?
  • Unfortunately, I could not find any. — Golden talk
Vaticidalprophet 20:19, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Vaticidalprophet: Thank you very much for the review. I have responded to your points above. — Golden talk 15:06, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Willing to support. The article is outside my usual range, but I see no issues with the prose or content that haven't been brought up and resolved already, and believe to the best of my ability to judge that this is a worthy candidate for FA status. Excellent read. Vaticidalprophet 20:11, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Vat. That's very kind of you. — Golden talk 20:16, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Spotcheck - pass

[edit]

It seems this nomination still requires a spotcheck. This will be a little tricky since various sources are in Turkish, which I don't know. I'll see how far I get with English sources and automatic translations.

Thank you so much for picking this up, Phlsph7. Do let me know if you need any help translating any of the sources. — Golden talk 17:38, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the offer. I'll see how it goes. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:44, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • When Sultan Suleiman I of the Ottoman Empire captured Baghdad in 1534, Fuzuli was already in his fifties.[3] supported
  • The work has been described by the Encyclopædia Iranica as "the culmination of the Turk[ic] mas̱navī tradition in that it raised the personal and human love-tragedy to the plane of mystical longing and ethereal aspiration".[3] supported
  • a translation of the Persian poet Jami's Forty Hadith titled Ḥadīs̱-i Arba'īn tarcümasī [azb] (lit. 'Translation of Forty Hadiths')...[63] supported by Encyclopædia Iranica 2000
  • He had an interest in poetry since his childhood, obtaining his first inspiration from the works of the late-15th-century Azerbaijani poet Habibi.[21] According to an automatic translation of Karahan 1996, the sentence in the source is "However, from the traces in Fuzûlî's poems, it is estimated that he got his first literary taste from Habîbî, the famous name of Azerbaijani literature." This sounds like it is not certain whether this influence was really there. You could do one of the following things: (1) check that the automatic translation is correct, (2) check whether the other source supports the stronger version, or (3) adust our formulation.
    • A more precise translation would be: "However, from the traces in Fuzûlî's poems, it can be estimated/assumed [can be translated as both] that he got his first literay taste from the famous name of Azerbaijani literature, Habibi." I've adjusted the sentence to match the source better. — Golden talk
  • After Mawsillu was murdered by his own nephew in 1527, Fuzuli lost his patron and moved to either Hilla or Najaf, likely because he could not find another reliable patron among the Safavid nobles.[26] supported by Karahan 1996
  • Bektashis consider Fuzuli to be one of the "Seven Great Poets" who lived between 14th and 16th centuries and represent Bektashi literature.[o][80] supported by Çelebioğlu 2017, p. 570. However it says "Seven Divine Poets", not "Seven Great Poets".
  • In the preface of his dīvān, he emphasises the importance of science to poetry, writing that "poetry without science cannot be permanent, just like a wall without a pillar".[58] Çelebioğlu 2017 p. 601 is only partially relevant here: it talks about the importance he ascribed to education in general rather than the importance of science in his dīvān. I don't have access to Mazıoğlu 1992 but if it contains the quote then it would also verify the first part of the sentence. Could you or someone else verify that?
    • You can access Mazıoğlu 1992 from the following link: [41]. Here is the relevant quote from Mazıoğlu, with the part you’re looking for underlined: "Türkçe Divan'ının önsözünde şiire olan meylinin doğuştan geldiğini, yaratılışındaki şiir sevgisi tohumunun o mektebin havasından nem kaparak filizlenip geliştiğini, böylece oradaki güneş yüzlü güzellerin şevkiyle şiirler yazdığını ve az zamanda şairliğinin herkesçe kabul edildiğini yazar. Ne var ki o, şiir güzelinin ilim ve marifet süsünden yoksun olmasını istemez. İlimsiz şiiri temelsiz duvara benzeterek temelsiz duvarın sağlam olmayacağını söyler." — Golden talk
      • Just to clarify: is the quote from Fuzuli or from Mazıoğlu writing about Fuzuli? The current expression in our article seems to suggest the former but the automatic translation I get seems to suggest the latter. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:53, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • It seems I had forgotten to add the source for the English quote, which is from Macit 2014. I'm inclined to believe that it's a quote from Fuzuli since two different sources in different languages write the same thing. — Golden talk
  • While Mazıoğlu and Karahan state that the dīvān contained 302 ghazals, with Mazıoğlu also providing a count of 72 rübā'īs,[56] supported by Karahan 1996.
  • In the dīvān, he shows influences from Persian poets like Hafez and Jami.[66] supported

Phlsph7 (talk) 17:13, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Before beginning the work, he studied Persian versions of the story, particularly drawing inspiration from the 12th-century poet Nizami's rendition. Despite this, Fuzuli made significant changes to the narrative.[3] supported
  • The collection opens with a prose preface, where the poet praises the merits of poetry, his enduring fascination with it, and its ability to turn pain into pleasure.[3] supported
  • His work has been characterised as a reconciliation of Azerbaijani, Persian, and Arabic literary practices, as well as of Shia and Sunni beliefs.[5] This is supported, but the page is X and not 10. This probably need to be fixed for the other mentions of Abbas 2021 as well.
  • His frequent use of love themes in his poetry has earned him the nickname poet of love by scholars.[5] supported by page X.
  • He was probably a Shia Muslim[d] of Azerbaijani Turkic origin, descending from the Bayat tribe.[15] supported by Abbas 2021 pp. IX–X
  • As a child, he studied literature, mathematics, astronomy and languages,[19] supported by Abbas 2021 pp. X and by Encyclopædia Iranica 2000. They don't explicit support "As a child" but the context suggests it.

Phlsph7 (talk) 08:43, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • His father was reported to have once been a mufti (Islamic jurist) in Hilla,[17] supported
  • By the time of the Safavid takeover, Fuzuli was already a popular young poet[22] supported
  • Despite expressing a strong desire to see places like Tabriz in modern-day Iran, Anatolia, and India, he never travelled outside modern-day Iraq.[35] supported by Odelli 1970, p. 48.
  • Another well-known work by Fuzuli is the maqtal (a poem about a historic death) Ḥadīqat al-Su'adā [az] (lit. 'The Garden of the Blessed'), which is about the death of Husayn ibn Ali, the grandson of the Islamic prophet Muhammad, in the Battle of Karbala, which he fought in 680 CE against the second Umayyad Caliph Yazid I.[51] supported
  • It was written before 1546, as library records show that the oldest available copy, the Cairo manuscript, dates back to that year.[54] supported
  • Additionally, an administrative region and its capital city are also named after the poet.[88] supported
  • Superiority of lineage and nobility of birth are accidental. O base man, take no pride in anything but your own virtue. Do not lean on kinship with rulers and service of princes, or take credit for these things, as they are vain. If the prerequisite of a craft is a sound hand, do not commit yourself to it, do not set your hopes on it! Do not base a firm structure of hope on property and wealth, which are impermanent and transitory. If you have a desire for lasting merit, strive for knowledge and do not be ashamed to learn. — Persian dīvān, trans. Hamide Demirel[64][k] supported
  • Demirel states that the language used in the work is stronger than a typical naṣīḥatnāmah and even possesses characteristics of a revolutionary manifesto. She concludes from Fuzuli's works that "he must have been no less highminded as a man than he was great as a poet".[72] supported

Phlsph7 (talk) 08:18, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Phlsph7. I was wondering if you were able to pass or fail the spot check yet? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:31, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Pass. There were a few minor concerns but they have all been sorted out. The passages I checked supported their claims and I didn't spot any close paraphrasing. Phlsph7 (talk) 18:38, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

I see a spot-check is already underway, so I'll be doing a source review on this version. Source formatting seems largely consistent. Is the information on places named after Fuzuli sourced to the Supreme Court og Azerbaijan in the video? Reliability-wise, nothing jumps out to me that would be inappropriate so as long as we aren't using the Supreme Court for anything political, except for Guliyeva, Kemale - what makes them a reliable source? Does Ibrahimov, Mirza (1969) not have any identifiers? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:11, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking this on, Jo-Jo Eumerus. The text on the Supreme Court website supports the information that a district and a city are named after the poet. As for the street and square, I feel that they don't really need a citation, as it can easily be verified. A simple Google search for "Fuzuli square" and "Fuzuli street" confirms that these places do exist. Regarding Guliyeva, I don't have any specific knowledge of her previous work, but the journal in which it is published is an academic one, and the article itself appears to be of high quality, considering the depth of research in it. As for Ibrahimov, I was unable to find an ISBN for his book. I can find the book on BookFinder [42], but none of the results list an ISBN. — Golden talk 11:49, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It has no ISBN, but does have an OCLC - 561423619.
Jo-Jo Eumerus, is there anything else? Gog the Mild (talk) 16:29, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure if I feel comfortable with having the placenames referenced to a source that doesn't mention them. Probably better to add another source there. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:42, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Added OCLC for Ibrahimov. @Jo-Jo Eumerus: I have removed the unsourced sentence and replaced it with a new, sourced sentence. — Golden talk 18:29, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That works for me. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:19, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Books should either all have publisher locations or none should - either is acceptable so long as you are consistent. So could you remove the location from Laguna.
  • Asgharzadeh needs an OCLC - 8668600115.
  • Demirel: is the OCLC 862362930? I am unsure. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:15, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, Gog the Mild. I've implemented your suggestions. Regarding Demirel, it appears that the OCLC is correct, although the year is mistakenly marked as 1972 instead of 1971, which is stated in the book. I've still added it, though. — Golden talk 14:49, 5 September 2023 (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) 5 September 2023 [43].

Art Deco architecture of New York City

[edit]
Nominator(s): Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 19:02, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Art Deco got its start in Europe, but perhaps nowhere did the architectural style make as big an impact as in New York City, where it came to define some of the greatest skyscrapers of the city, as well as numerous smaller structures across the city. Article has had a thorough GAN by Premeditated Chaos and smaller contributions by others, and I think it's pretty close to FA quality. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 19:02, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]
  • File:Art_Deco_architecture_of_New_York_City_collage.jpg needs copyright info for the 2D artworks included
  • File:Drawing,_Study_for_Maximum_Mass_Permitted_by_the_1916_New_York_Zoning_Law,_Stage_4,_1922_(CH_18468717).jpg: where was this first published and what is the author's date of death?
  • File:Queens_Boulevard,_New_York_City_(1920).jpg: source link is dead. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:29, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hey Nikkimaria, I've fleshed out the image descriptions of the Queens Boulevard pic and the Ferriss drawing. Ferriss died in 1962, but I think the relevant matter for the image is it was created in 1922 and promulgated to some degree; I've never seen a source saying exactly how it was published, but it must have been mass-market since it was pretty influential (so presumably at least an architectural digest/journal or the like.) Otherwise, it was published in 1929, and I haven't seen a government copyright license for a renewal, so either way it's PD-US at this point. As for the collage, do you mean copyright info for the mural that's part of File:Large mural.jpg? I would think that would be permissible per de minimis usage, but if you think it's too major a component of the collage I can swap. It's a WPA mural so the ownership is with the US government, but I don't know if James Brooks was technically an employee (and I've never seen a clear explanation about the copyright status of WPA works versus the usual PD-government employee clearances we have.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 20:18, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from PMC

[edit]

I reviewed this at GA under the assumption it would be going to FA at some point. I was satisfied with the result from the GAN - the article gives a thorough overview without getting bogged down in any details, and is well-written and well-sourced. Delighted to see it here at FAC, and it's an easy support. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:37, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from HAL

[edit]

I absolutely adore Art Deco, so I'm staking a plot here. ~ HAL333 17:25, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey HAL333, just checking in. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 17:07, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
HAL333, nudge :) . Gog the Mild (talk) 17:47, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I went AWOL — here's all I got:

  • Is "middle class" usually hyphenated?
    • In the noun usage in the article versus middle-class adjective, I don't believe so.
  • "laws that would impact Art Deco architecture" --> "laws that impacted Art Deco architecture" per WP:WOULDCHUCK
    • Done.
  • "While the United States would not"
  • Unless required by the rules of English grammar, I would purge all uses of "would" in the article. There's 20 or so.
    • I've removed it save for one quotation and three other cases where we're in the past talking chronologically about future events; I think it works better because those are cases talking about Art Deco before it was a formed architectural movement.
  • Is "expo" encyclopedic?
    • Wrote it out completely.
  • I might abbreviate "United States" after its first usage. With that, I might change "as the United States's entry into World War I" to "American entry".
    • Done.
  • Should "Classical" be capitalized?
    • Capitalized it one place it appears, left it lower case for one spot where it's talking about modern versus classical forms in general, rather than Classical architecture specifically.
  • "It was eventually restored" -- what year?
    • There's not a specific timeframe in the article, but I added the decade.
  • "historic landmarks of the city" --> "historic city landmarks"
    • Done.
  • On a side note, that image of the el train in Queens is mindblowing.
    • Yeah, it's one of my favorite photos. There's a couple even earlier that are surprisingly even more rural. It's really a train to nowhere.

In the final analysis, it looks very good — definitely featured quality. ~ HAL333 21:58, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks HAL333 for the review. I responded inline. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 16:46, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment

[edit]

More than three weeks in and just the single general support. Unless this nomination makes significant further progress towards a consensus to promote over the next three or four days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:23, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Epicgenius

[edit]

PMC alerted me to this off-wiki. I hope to have some comments up soon, but ping me if I forget. – Epicgenius (talk) 17:37, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just to start off, in the "Landmarked buildings" section, I'd suggest noting that this may not be a complete list of buildings, but rather a list of the most notable ones. There are other buildings mentioned in Robins's book and the LPC website that aren't mentioned in this table, like the Fuller Building, but I completely understand if this is intended to be a sampling of notable landmarked buildings. – Epicgenius (talk) 17:41, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Epicgenius I've tweaked the wording, does that work better for you? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 18:10, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that looks fine to me. I'll be away from the computer today, but I can look at this article in more depth tomorrow. Epicgenius (talk) 18:31, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ? Gog the Mild (talk) 17:48, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Epicgenius, any more to come on this? Gog the Mild (talk) 14:08, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I will come back to this tomorrow, but I'm not finding much to critique on a quick glance. – Epicgenius (talk) 20:10, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Epicgenius ? Gog the Mild (talk) 17:20, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Over the past week, I've gone through the article and modified some of the captions myself. However, I did not really find much to critique besides prose. I will leave these comments tomorrow. – Epicgenius (talk) 00:21, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Lead:
  • I suggest adding slightly more detail about Art Deco elements to the lead. Currently, the lead feels a bit short relative to how detailed the rest of the article is.
Background:
  • "German expressionism" links to German expressionist cinema. Is this the right link?
  • "Builders demolished twice as many buildings as went up, with the new buildings occupying multiple old lots." - The first part of this sentence sounds strange to me, as it sounds like the builders went up. I'd say "Twice as many buildings were demolished as went up" or something similar. For the second part of the sentence, I would clarify that builders could construct larger edifices on larger lots; otherwise, it would be unclear why the next sentence mentions that the amount of office space increased by 92%.
  • "Once a building rose up and set back to cover 25 percent of the lot, clients and architects were not constrained by height." - I would reword this to clarify that a building could rise without restriction as long as it covered no more than 25 percent of the lot.
  • "The ironwork was provided" - Optionally, you may want to clarify that it's the ironwork on the Madison Belmont Building's lower stories
  • "One of the first "true" Art Deco skyscrapers" - True according to whom?
More in a bit. – Epicgenius (talk) 22:53, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Epicgenius tweaked the above. German expressionism does indeed refer to the style of the films (I suppose you could have a separate article on it beyond the media, but that's really its enduring influence beyond general expressionism.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 20:03, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me. I'll check the other sections tomorrow, but this looks to be in pretty good shape so far. – Epicgenius (talk) 21:06, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by Vacant0

[edit]

Incoming. --Vacant0 (talk) 14:31, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Missing pages: Ref 1c, Ref 13, Ref 27 (both instances).
  • Mind adding Al Smith's political occupation, like how you did for architects, historians, and financiers in the article.
  • The New York Times and Roaring Twenties could be wikilinked in the Commercial section.

Besides this, and what HAL333 said yesterday, I'd say that the article meets the FA criteria. --Vacant0 (talk) 16:00, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review from MyCatIsAChonk

[edit]

No spotcheck necessary, so I'll focus on formatting and reliability. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 14:19, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • All citations must use the same casing (title case or sentence case) per MOS:CONFORMTITLE
  • The publishers/names of works seem to be linked randomly; in my opinion, I think it's better to either link all or link none, but I've seen some editors just link the first instance of a publisher/work.
  • Why do only some of the NYT sources have ISSN numbers, but others don't? I'd exclude ISSNs because otherwise you'd need to add them to every single site (at least, every site that has ISSNs)
  • Only some of the books have OCLCs. Either exclude OCLCs from all or keep OCLCs for all.
  • All the ISBN numbers should use proper hyphenation. This tool is good for easily converting them into proper hyphenation.
  • Some of the books have locations of publication but some don't. For consistency, either all should have them or none should.
  • Refs 18, 21 needs "registration" in access parameter
  • Ref 23 needs full date and author (if there is one)
  • Refs 23, 25 need "subscription" in the access parameter, since they're from the subscription-only TimesMachine
  • Make ref 29 all lowercase per MOS:ALLCAPS
  • Ref 39 (6sqft 2018): what makes 6sqft reliable?
  • Refs 41 and 42 are dead
  • Ref 45: The NPS should be the publisher, not the name of work, and spell out the name in full: National Park Service
  • Ref 52: the author isn't what's listed on the website
  • Refs 67 and 73: remove "US" from publisher; just "National Park Service" is correct
  • Put "none" in the ref parameter of the "Further reading" sources

David Fuchs, that's all from me, nice work on keeping consist formatting for the NYCL sources. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 14:19, 18 August 2023 (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) 3 September 2023 [44].

TRAPPIST-1

[edit]
Nominator(s): Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:23, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So, this has been at FAC twice before but maybe third time's the charm. This article is about a dim star that happens to host a system of 7 possibly Earth-like planets, two or three of which may have temperatures that allow the existence of liquid water. It's featured in science as a case study of habitability on planets around such low-mass stars, including the important question of whether such planets can host atmospheres. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:23, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy Georgia

[edit]

Comments by Nimbus 227

[edit]

As an amateur astronomer and experienced Wikipedian I thought I should read through this, it's a long article so I didn't get very far but I noticed a couple of things that should be corrected for FA level text.

The first sentence of the lead describes the temperature with a surface temperature of about 2,566 K (2,293 °C; 4,159 °F). 'About' is an odd term to use when the temperature is given to an accuracy of 1°, the exact same temperature is repeated in the body text without 'about'. The temperature uses the abbreviation 'K' which is not explained, not everyone will know that it is Kelvin, it should be linked, explained or possibly better still left out so that only the familiar centigrade/Fahrenheit remain (and Kelvin is in the text for readers who want that level of detail).
Let's see if it now displays links and spell-out and rounds to a multiple of 10. Or do you recommend a different roundination? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:23, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Featured Articles with numbers in the lead often have them rounded to prevent readers' eyes glazing over, there is some guidance at MOS:LARGENUM, I would round the light year and parsec distances to 41 and 12.5, the precise distance being in the body text. Of course other editors come along and change it back because it's 'wrong'!!
The word 'transit' appears about 20 times but it is not explained or wikilinked, it should be linked to astronomical transit at the first instance (third paragraph in the 'Description' section) and possibly linked again later.
Added one link to begin with. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:23, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I will try to read further down this evening (UTC!), cheers. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 14:45, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(Continued) Some terms are not wikilinked at first instance (or at all), exoplanet could be mentioned in the lead as that's what they are, orbital resonance and stellar eclipse.
Added links. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:23, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The list of planets seems to be disconnected from the planets section above by the atmosphere section, could the two tables be combined? Perhaps the section header levels need adjusting?
Hrmm. I think I deliberately wrote it that way because the question of atmospheres is really front and centre when we discuss the habitability of exoplanets around red dwarfs. That and I begin writing first about the planets as a whole and only later lead into discussing the specific planets. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:23, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
'As of 2020' appears a few times, have there been any discoveries in the last three years?
Yes, but not all of the "unsettled as of 2020" questions have had new answers. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:23, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Could the 'as of 2020s' be changed to 'as of 2023' so that the article appears to be up to date? Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 17:00, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd prefer not - sourcing a text "as of 2023" to a 2020 publication when there is no new information is a bit too much original research. I don't want to treat "absence of evidence" as "evidence of new evidence". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:44, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Footnote A is not cited (appears to be the only one).
I believe this falls under WP:CALC. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:23, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Referencing, have not looked at formatting or quality of sources, some facts are cited twice, looks unnecessary for uncontentious facts. Citations and footnotes appear mid-sentence which seems to be against WP:REFPUNCT.
That's going to be hard to fix - sometimes a sentence needs to stand on more than one source. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:23, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Might be worth asking one of the FA co-ords for advice on this. The effect is jarring while reading, perhaps that's why REFPUNCT was devised? Some of the sentences are quite short with only one fact stated but two citations. I like the footnote explanations, caters for the PDF version where blue links don't work. It is possible that an editor working on a potential FA sees this article's citations and copies the style. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 17:43, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
REFPUNCT was devised way back in the olden days when people placed citations before punctuation, and we even had scripts going around fixing them. Nowhere does any guideline say you can't place a citation mid-sentence, AFAIK. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:27, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The idea that references cannot be placed mid-sentence is a misreading of WP:REFPUNCT. That guideline tells us the citations are placed after punctuation, and says nothing about citation placement in instances where there is no puncutation, and it never says citations can't be placed mid-sentence (as in practice they often are). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:26, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The exoplanet navbox (Template:Exoplanet) does not contain a link to this article, strictly it could be removed per WP:BIDIRECTIONAL though I see its usefulness, the navbox is also used in the related planets articles with the same problem. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 18:30, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Removed it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:23, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The infobox links apparent magnitude six times and color index four times (WP:OVERLINK) and 'Luminosity (bolometric)' is not linked (the only parameter that's not linked), it could be linked to Luminosity. Template:Starbox character (and its related templates) coding should be revised. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 08:34, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Jo-Jo ? Gog the Mild (talk) 17:50, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds like a problem with Template:Starbox character and not with this article, though? BTW, I already pinged the people who have commented so far, on their talk pages. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:02, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that readers and potential FA editors/nominators might not realise it is a template, they just see it as text on the page. Technically it is a problem in over 5,000 articles. Perhaps things have changed but FA nominators were encouraged to improve related articles and templates, a request at Template talk:Starbox begin would be pertinent. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 09:58, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've asked for a fix on the template's talk page, but since I doubt that it will happen quickly I've done a change on the article page, until the template is resolved. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:44, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support by WereSpielChequers

[edit]

I've kicked the tyres a few times on this one, and I think it is up to snuff. Hopefully it will need a lot of updating in the future as this is clearly at the leading edge of astronomy. More is to be discovered here, so it is good to have an article at this standard with our current level of knowledge. ϢereSpielChequers 07:46, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is an important topic, thanks for your work on it. If found it an interesting read and not too impenetrable for someone who knows little of astronomy other than what one would expect of any hardcore Science Fiction fan. I have made some tweaks, hope you like them.
"and would, in many cases, appear larger than Earth's Moon in the sky of Earth"; Surely that would be "at closest approaches"? Most of the time these planets are going to be far further away than at their closest approach and sometimes will be on the other side of the star. Especially when we are comparing planets to each other rather than a planet to its moon.
Yes, it's just not spelled out like that in the source. Worth adding anyway? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:23, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would think so, would it be possible to add a comparison to Venus at its closest approach? ϢereSpielChequers 09:15, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Its mass is approximately 9% of that of the Sun,[27] being just sufficient to allow nuclear fusion to take place." and "With a radius 12% of that of the sun, it is only slightly larger than the planet Jupiter." these two statements in combination give the impression that Jupiter is only a little short of becoming a star. But there is a big gulf between Jupiter and TRAPPIST-1, a gulf bigger than a Brown Dwarf. My back of the envelope calculation shows that if TRAPPIST-1 had a few Jupiter masses less it would be a Brown Dwarf. So perhaps "just sufficient to allow fusion of hydrogen and only a few Jupiter sized masses heavier than a Brown Dwarf star". And with a radius more than 10% greater than Jupiter I think we can go with something stronger than only slightly larger, also it might be worth adding their respective masses, Jupiter's being around 1% that of TRAPPIST-1.
Mmm, this is where my background knowledge kicks in - star radius is extremely unrelated to star mass. I don't think 10% is a big radius difference, even if the mass difference is indeed substantial. And I don't like linking to Brown dwarf because that implicitly assumes that the mass cutoff is a fixed value, when in reality it depends on metallicity. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:23, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The lede says "Discovered in 2000, it is slightly larger than Jupiter and has a mass of about 9% of the Sun" I think that's what threw me - comparing it to Jupiter by volume but the sun by mass. I suspect a general reader would be as likely as me to get confused by that. May I suggest that in the lede you use mass for both comparisons. ϢereSpielChequers 18:27, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Went with a radius and mass thing instead, since folks will want to know the radius too. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:14, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes that's better. Thanks ϢereSpielChequers 09:18, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How about adding (though much more massive) after "only slightly larger than the planet Jupiter"? ϢereSpielChequers 13:16, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Added, but I don't like the lack of sourcing. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:32, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Eventually the surfaces would cool until the magma oceans solidified, which may have taken between a few billions of years, or a few millions of years in the case of TRAPPIST-1b." As Trappist-1b is the closest to the star I would have thought it would have taken longest to cool?
Clarified with a small transposition. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:23, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK I guess this means we are still at early days in this subject. That's quite a range. ϢereSpielChequers 22:41, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Stellar wind-driven escape in the Solar System is largely independent on planetary properties such as mass" should that be "independent of" or is this some sort of astronomy jargon?
No, just a bad word choice; resolved it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:23, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"the age of TRAPPIST-1 has been established at about 7.6±2.2 billion years" with such a wide margin of error I don't think we should use the word established.
I admit that I am not sure what other word to use here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:23, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How about "TRAPPIST-1's age is estimated as 7.6±2.2 billion years" ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:35, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That works; it's in. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:20, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I like the use of estimate instead of established. Is this an unusually wide range for the possible age of a star, and if so should we say that? I'm thinking something more like "As of 2013 the age of Trappist-1 has not been precisely established, estimates range from a similar age as our sun to about twice that" and then put the figures. ϢereSpielChequers 10:32, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am a bit concerned about OR with such a formulation; I don't think that this age range is unusually large. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:42, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Whether the range is large or not, 5.4 to 9.8 is not necesssarily that much greater than Sol, with that margin of error it is roughly one or two times the age of Sol. ϢereSpielChequers 13:28, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That still doesn't solve the source/OR issue. I've added the Solar System age. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:32, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's all for now, but I enjoyed reading it and will likely be back for more ϢereSpielChequers 18:14, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"and their orbits have been constrained by measurements" would "calculated using" be more understandable to a general audience? ϢereSpielChequers 13:16, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Probably yes, so it's in. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:32, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

[edit]

Could the recent JWST result be incorporated into the article? SevenSpheres (talk) 17:12, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the "In November-December it will" needs some explanation, or reviewers may reasonably query whether it meets "it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context" and "it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gog the Mild (talk • contribs)
@FAC coordinators: I have some minor doubts about these two studies - they mostly disregard tidal heating and many leave the possibility of a very thin atmosphere open. So I'd prefer to see a bit more commentary on them, rather than immediate addition. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:22, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That seems reasonable to me. There is an obvious tension between the consensus of scholarly sources, which will take time to form, and "a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature". Gog the Mild (talk) 19:30, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sandbh comments

[edit]

Below I’ve listed the topic sentences of each paragraph of the article so that I can check its logical flow. My specific comments have been indented.

Lede

TRAPPIST-1 is a cold dwarf star in the constellation Aquarius, with a surface temperature of about 2,566 kelvins (2,290 degrees Celsius; 4,160 degrees Fahrenheit).

Is it not an "ultra-cool" red dwarf star?
Yes, but that's encompassed by "cold" without using a technical term. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:19, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was expecting to see how far away T1 is from us. Later in the article, in the List of Planets section, the planets are first referred to in terms of their distance from T1, and then their orbital period. Is there some reason why T1's distance from us is not first mentioned?
It's now mentioned. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:19, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The star has a planetary system of seven known exoplanets.

The dual use of "planet" strikes me as being not up to FAC prose standard.
I am minded to disagree; it's two different words with the same component. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:19, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My objection remains. Sandbh (talk) 06:04, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So do I - it's two words with different meaning, sharing only one string. Perhaps you have an alternative wording choice? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:14, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This paragraph goes on to say, "…the discovery of two terrestrial planets in orbit around TRAPPIST-1. In 2017, further analysis of the original observations identified five more planets."
Are not all seven planets thought to be rocky i.e. terrestrial?
Yes, but here the repetition doesn't add anything. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:19, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was not looking for a repetition. Rather, if you specify that two of the planets are rocky it is courteous to the reader to clarify the status of the other fiven given they are mentioned in the same sentence. Sandbh (talk) 06:04, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Courteus yes, but not sourceable, I'm afraid. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:14, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The last two sentences of this second paragraph of the lede start, "These seven planets…" and "The planets…". This kind of alliteration strikes me as being not up to FAC prose standard.
I am not sure that "bodies" would be better, as folks might think that it refers to additional bodies. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:19, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My concern about not being up to FAC standard remains. Sandbh (talk) 06:04, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Pulled it, but my concern about clarity remains and clarity is also a component of good writing. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:14, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As many as four of the planets – designated d, e, f and g – orbit at distances where temperatures are suitable for the existence of liquid water, and are thus potentially hospitable to life.

General comment: What’s the novelty of T1? Is it because it has seven Earth-sized planets?
Jo-Jo Eumerus? Sandbh (talk) 06:04, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
First multiple terrestrial planets around a very cold star, with multiple ones in the habitable zone. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:14, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Contents
1. Description
2. Planetary system
3. Potential planetary atmospheres
4. List of planets
5. Possible life
6. Research history and reception

It seems peculiar to discuss the planetary system in section 2 and have a table of the planets therein and to then have a section 4 called "List of planets", and another table of the planets therein. A better flow of contents could look like:
1. Star
2. Planets
3. Habitability
4. Research history and reception
You are not the first one to question this structure. However, I think there is an advantage to first discuss the planets as a whole, then a major aspect of their habitability and scientific interest, and then only delve into planet-specific details. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:19, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My concern remains. Sandbh (talk) 06:04, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Noted, but I find my structure better - besides, atmosphere needs a separate section altogether, given its sheer importance. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:14, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Description
[edit]

TRAPPIST-1 is in the constellation Aquarius,[15] five degrees south of the celestial equator.

The first two sentences start, “TRAPPIST-1 is…” and “TRAPPIST-1 is…”. This repetition is not up to FAC prose standard.
Fixed. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:19, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The last sentence of this paragraph starts: "It has…" The next two sentences of the second para, read “It is…” and “Its…”. This repetition is not up to FAC prose standard.
Changed a bit, but I am not sure that there are many other ways to say this; ideas? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:19, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Alternate between "TRAPPIST-1" and "its". Sandbh (talk) 06:04, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Took care of this, also elsewhere in the article. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:14, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is a red dwarf of spectral class M8.0±0.5,[e][25][26] making it a relatively small and cold star.

This now reads, "The star is a red dwarf of spectral class M8.0±0.5,[e][25][26] making it a relatively small and cold star." The repetition of "star" is not up to FAC prose standard. Sandbh (talk) 06:04, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The penultimate sentence reads, “The star also emits Lyman-alpha radiation and X-rays,[34] but no detectable radio waves.[35]” The end of the third paragraph then says, “The star emits faint radiation at short wavelengths such as x-rays and UV radiation…”. Why the dual mention of X-rays?
Writing screw-up; I've remedied but maybe the wording can be improved. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:19, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why is the temperature of T1 mentioned in the topic sentence of the first paragraph of the lede but not in any of the topic sentences of this Description section?
Because I didn't see a source that could be used to write it in a temperature->spectral type->implications form. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:19, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delrez et al. 2022, p. 21. Sandbh (talk) 06:12, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I see no such information there? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:14, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

TRAPPIST-1 is cold enough for condensates to form in its photosphere[h]; these have been detected through the polarization they induce in its radiation during transits of its planets.

Rotation period and age

Measurements of TRAPPIST-1's rotation have yielded a period of 3.3 days; earlier measurements of 1.4 days appear to have been caused by changes in the distribution of starspots.

"Age" needs to be mentioned in the topic sentence.
I don't think you can do that without jerking the flow around by first mentioning rotation period and age, then rotation period, then returning to age? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:19, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Activity

My concern remains. Sandbh (talk) 06:12, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So does my objection. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:14, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Numerous photospheric features have been detected on TRAPPIST-1.[50]

This paragraph includes the sentence, “The Kepler and Spitzer Space Telescopes have observed possible bright spots, which may be faculae,[j][52][53] although some of these may be too large to qualify as faculae.[54]” Such repetition is not up to FAC prose standard.
That was my thinking as well, but when it was written without the repetition folks thought that it wasn't clear. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:19, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My concern remains. Sandbh (talk) 06:12, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So does my objection. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:14, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The star has a strong magnetic field[58] with a mean intensity of about 600 gauss.[l][60]

TRAPPIST-1 loses about 3×10−14 solar masses per year[62] to the stellar wind, a rate which is about 1.5 times that of the Sun.

Planetary system
[edit]

TRAPPIST-1 is orbited by seven planets, designated TRAPPIST-1b, 1c, 1d, 1e, 1f, 1g, and 1h[65] in alphabetic order going out from the star.[o][68]

All of the planets are much closer to their star than Mercury is to the Sun,[73] making the TRAPPIST-1 system very compact.[74]

The inclinations of the orbits relative to the system's ecliptic are less than 0.1 degrees,[79] making TRAPPIST-1 the flattest planetary system in the NASA Exoplanet Archive.[80]

Size and composition

The radii of the planets are estimated to range between 75% and 150% of Earth's radius.[85]

The topic sentence needs to say something about composition.
Again, I don't think you can do this without jerking the flow around. Besides, isn't the header the topic sentence already? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:19, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My concern remains. Relying on the header is lazy prose, not up to FAC standard prose. Sandbh (talk) 06:34, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So does my objection. And badly flowing sentences honestly are a bigger problem than relying on a header - introducing a section topic is the header's job! Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:14, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The TRAPPIST-1 planets are expected to have compositions that resemble each other[87] as well as Earth.[88]

At 63 words, the second sentence is a too long, “The estimated densities of the planets are lower than Earth's[89] which may imply that their cores are smaller than that of Earth, that they have large amounts of volatile chemicals,[r] that their iron exists in an oxidised form rather than as a core,[91] that their cores includes large amounts of other elements,[92] or that they are rocky planets with less iron than Earth.”
I've split it up a bit, but it needs double checking. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:19, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It still doesn't work, and now includes a spelling mistake. Sandbh (talk) 06:34, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Don't see it, nor a better way to write, other than perhaps a bulleted list? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:14, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Resonance

The planets are in orbital resonances;[100] the durations of their orbits have ratios of 8:5, 5:3, 3:2, 3:2, 4:3 and 3:2 between neighbouring planet pairs,[101] and each set of three is in a Laplace resonance.[t][74]

Since the resonances are listed here why are they listed again in the "List of planets" section?
One's a table about planets, the other is prose. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:19, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The closeness of the planets to TRAPPIST-1 results in tidal interactions[107] stronger than those on Earth.[108]

Is this a resonance thing?
No. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:19, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So why is that paragraph in this section? Sandbh (talk) 06:34, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Changed the header. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:14, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This second paragraph has a too long 45 word sentence:
“The mutual interactions of the planets, however, could prevent them from reaching full synchronisation by forcing periodic or episodic full rotations of the planets' surfaces with respect to the star on timescales of several Earth years, which would have important implications for the planets' climates.[111]”
I think it can be split, just need some feedback if by topic (rotation vs climate) or by fact vs explanation and implications. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:19, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's up to you. Sandbh (talk) 06:34, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Split done, and I repeat "interaction" because otherwise it's not clear what we are talking about. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:14, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The resonances continually excite the eccentricities of the TRAPPIST-1 planets, preventing their orbits from becoming fully circular.

Tidal heating could influence temperatures of the night sides and cold areas where volatiles may be trapped, and gases are expected to accumulate; it would also influence the properties of any subsurface oceans[120] where volcanism and hydrothermal venting[x] could occur.[122]

Is this a resonance thing?
No. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:19, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So why is it mentioned in this section? Sandbh (talk) 06:34, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why is tidal heating mentioned in paragraph 2 and again in paragraph 4?
To me it seems like it's mentioned in paragraphs 3 and 4? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:19, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's right. So why is tidal heating mentioned in this section? Sandbh (talk) 06:34, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Answered above, I think. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:14, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Skies and impact of stellar light

Because most of TRAPPIST-1's radiation is in the infrared region, there may be very little visible light on the planets' surfaces; Amaury Triaud, one of the system's co-discoverers, said the skies would never be brighter than Earth's sky at sunset[130] and only a little brighter than a night with a full moon.

Does stellar light have an "impact"?
Yes, if by "impact" we mean "effects" which I think is a reasonable use. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:19, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. Sandbh (talk) 06:34, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a better word, then? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:14, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Habitable zone

For a dim star like TRAPPIST-1, the habitable zone[z] is located closer to the star than for the Sun.[137]

Intense extreme ultraviolet (XUV) and X-ray radiation[148] can split water into its component parts of hydrogen and oxygen, and heat the upper atmosphere until they escape from the planet.

Relevance to habitability?
Indeed, as it's hard to have life without an atmosphere or water. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:19, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Then its relevance should be explained. Sandbh (talk) 06:34, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Moons

No moons with a size comparable to Earth's have been detected in the TRAPPIST-1 system,[152] and moons are unlikely in such a densely packed planetary system.

Doubling up: moons and moons. Not up to FAC prose standard.

Magnetic effects

The TRAPPIST-1 planets are expected to be within the Alfvén surface of their host star,[157] the area around the star within which any planet would directly magnetically interact with the corona of the star, possibly destabilising any atmosphere the planet has.[158]

Doubling up. Not up to FAC prose standard.
Fixed. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:19, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Now it has three mentions of "star". Sandbh (talk) 06:34, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Formation history

The TRAPPIST-1 planets most likely formed further from the star and migrated inwards,[163] although it is possible they formed in their current locations.[164]

The presence of additional bodies and planetesimals early in the system's history would have destabilised the TRAPPIST-1 resonance if the bodies were massive enough.[176]

Resonance with what?
Explained. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:19, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is US English in operation here? Stablized? Sandbh (talk) 06:34, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Due to a combination of high insolation, the greenhouse effect of water vapour atmospheres and remnant heat from the process of planet assembly, the TRAPPIST-1 planets would likely initially have had molten surfaces.

Potential planetary atmospheres
[edit]

As of 2020, there is no definitive evidence that any of the TRAPPIST-1 planets have an atmosphere,[ac][182] but atmospheres could be detected in the future.[183]

Doubling up. Not up to FAC prose standard.
Hmm. I see, but if I put in "they" might people think it refers to "planets"? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:19, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The existence of atmospheres around TRAPPIST-1's planets depends on the balance between the amount of atmosphere initially present, its rate of evaporation, and the rate at which it is built back up by meteorite impacts,[74] incoming material from a protoplanetary disk,[188] and outgassing and volcanic activity.[189]

If the planets are tidally locked to TRAPPIST-1, surfaces that permanently face away from the star can cool sufficiently for any atmosphere to freeze out on the night side.[193]

Numerical modelling and observations constrain the properties of hypothetical atmospheres around TRAPPIST-1 planets:[163]

The topic sentence needs to say, in summary form, what the following six dot points say.
My concern remains. Sandbh (talk) 06:39, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It does - "hypothetical atmospheres". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:14, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Theoretical modelling by Krissansen-Totton and Fortney (2022) suggests the inner planets most likely have, if any, oxygen-and-CO2-rich atmospheres.[213]

Stability

The emission of extreme ultraviolet (XUV) radiation by a star has an important influence on the stability of its planets' atmospheres, their composition and the habitability of their surfaces.[216] 

Is this the case for T1?
Yes. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:19, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So why not say so? Sandbh (talk) 06:39, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why specify? It's a general fact and this is an article about a star. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:14, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

TRAPPIST-1 is moderately to highly active,[25] and this may be an additional difficulty for the persistence of atmospheres and water on the planets:

Active in what sense? The topic sentence needs to say, in summary form, what the following three dot points say.
Put in an explanation. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:19, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The star's history also influences the atmospheres of its planets.[231]

In what way?
As explained in the following sentences. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:19, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Laziness and not up to FAC prose standard. The rest of the paragraph is only about the impact of radiation, so why not flag this in the topic sentence? Sandbh (talk) 06:39, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Because I don't think that is necessary right there. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:14, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
List of planets
[edit]

TRAPPIST-1b has an average distance from its star of 0.0115 astronomical units (1,720,000 km)[233] and orbits same in 1.51 Earth days. It is expected to be tidally locked to the star.

What is its semi-major axis?
It's in the link? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:19, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

TRAPPIST-1c has a semi-major axis of 0.0158 AU (2,360,000 km)[233] and orbits its star every 2.42 Earth days.

Is it tidally locked?

TRAPPIST-1d has a semi-major axis of 0.022 AU (3,300,000 km) and an orbital period of 4.05 Earth days.

ditto

TRAPPIST-1e has a semi-major axis of 0.029 AU (4,300,000 km)[233] and orbits its star every 6.10 Earth days.[245]

ditto

TRAPPIST-1f has a semi-major axis of 0.038 AU (5,700,000 km)[233] and orbits its star every 9.21 Earth days.[245]

ditto

TRAPPIST-1g has a semi-major axis of 0.047 AU (7,000,000 km)[233] and orbits its star every 12.4 Earth days.[245]

ditto

TRAPPIST-1h has a semi-major axis of 0.062 astronomical units (9,300,000 km); it is the system's least massive known planet[233] and orbits its star every 18.9 Earth days.[245]

Which is the most massive?
We don't know for certain if any of the planets are tidally locked. As for most massive, probably TRAPPIST-1b but I think in this system we know more of minimum masses than maximum ones. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:19, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So why is tidal locking mentioned for 1b and 1c? As for mass, how is that surface gravity is known but not mass? Sandbh (talk) 06:43, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Because it is more certain for these than for the more distant planets. Do you want to merge the tables? The other one contains the mass. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:14, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"For masses, ChatGPT advises as follows:
Based on the available data as of my knowledge cutoff in September 2021, here are the estimated masses of the planets in the TRAPPIST-1 system:
TRAPPIST-1b: Approximately 1.017 Earth masses
TRAPPIST-1c: Approximately 1.156 Earth masses
TRAPPIST-1d: Approximately 0.297 Earth masses
TRAPPIST-1e: Approximately 0.772 Earth masses
TRAPPIST-1f: Approximately 0.934 Earth masses
TRAPPIST-1g: Approximately 1.148 Earth masses
TRAPPIST-1h: Approximately 0.331 Earth masses
Please note that these mass estimates are subject to revision as new observations and improved techniques provide more accurate measurements. It is always recommended to refer to the latest scientific research for the most up-to-date information on the TRAPPIST-1 system." Sandbh (talk) 06:53, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Possible life
[edit]

Life may be possible in the TRAPPIST-1 system, and the star's planets are considered a promising target for its detection.[220]

Why is this content here, separated out from the Habitable zone subsection in the Planetary system section?
Because in the context of exoplanets, "habitable zone" specifically refers to surface temperature, which gets treated by itself. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:19, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My concern remains. Sandbh (talk) 06:44, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And so does my reason, sorry. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:14, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Research history and reception
[edit]

TRAPPIST-1 was discovered in 1999[ao] by astronomer John Gizis and colleagues[279] during a survey of Two Micron All-Sky Survey data for the identification of close-by ultra-cool dwarf stars.[280][282]

TRAPPIST's planetary system was discovered by a team led by Michaël Gillon, a Belgian astronomer[287] at the University of Liege,[15] in 2016[73] during observations made at La Silla Observatory, Chile,[220][288] using the TRAPPIST telescope; the system's discovery was based on anomalies in the light curves[aq] measured by the telescope in 2015.

The observations of TRAPPIST-1 are considered among the most important research findings of the Spitzer Space Telescope.[290]

Why?

Public reaction and cultural impact

The discovery of the TRAPPIST-1 planets drew widespread attention in major world newspapers, social media, streaming television and websites.[293][294]

Why such widespread attention?
Chat GPT advises:
"Earth-sized planets: The TRAPPIST-1 system is notable because it contains seven planets that are roughly the size of Earth. The prospect of finding Earth-sized planets is exciting because it raises the possibility of habitable environments and the potential for extraterrestrial life.
Habitable zone: Several of the TRAPPIST-1 planets orbit within the star's habitable zone, also known as the Goldilocks zone. This is the region around a star where conditions may be just right for the presence of liquid water, a crucial ingredient for life as we know it. The presence of potentially habitable planets generated immense interest and speculation about the possibility of finding life beyond Earth.
Proximity: The TRAPPIST-1 system is relatively close to Earth, at a distance of approximately 39 light-years. While still incredibly far away, this proximity in astronomical terms made the system more accessible for future observations and potential follow-up studies.
Multi-planet system: The fact that the TRAPPIST-1 system contains seven planets orbiting the same star is remarkable. Multi-planet systems provide researchers with a unique opportunity to study planetary formation and dynamics, as well as the potential for complex interactions among the planets.
Potential for follow-up observations: The discovery of the TRAPPIST-1 planets generated excitement because it presented an opportunity for further scientific investigation. Astronomers and researchers hoped to use more advanced telescopes and observational techniques to gather additional data on these planets, including their atmospheres and potential signs of life.
Public interest in exoplanets: Over the years, there has been a growing interest among the general public in the search for exoplanets (planets orbiting stars outside our solar system). The TRAPPIST-1 discovery captured the public's imagination and fascination, leading to extensive coverage in major newspapers, social media platforms, streaming television, and websites.
The combination of these factors—Earth-sized planets, potential habitability, proximity, a multi-planet system, potential for follow-up observations, and public interest—contributed to the widespread attention and coverage the TRAPPIST-1 discovery received." Sandbh (talk) 06:54, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Exoplanets are often featured in science-fiction works; books, comics and video games have featured the TRAPPIST-1 system, the earliest being The Terminator, a short story by Swiss author Laurence Suhner published in the academic journal that announced the system's discovery.[303]

Scientific importance

TRAPPIST-1 has drawn intense scientific interest.[182]

Why?

The role EU funding played in the discovery of TRAPPIST-1 has been cited as an example of the importance of EU projects,[292] and the involvement of a Moroccan observatory as an indication of the Arab world's role in science.

Exploration

TRAPPIST-1 is too distant from Earth to be reached by humans with current or expected technology.[326]

Oppose, General comment
[edit]

"Water" is mentioned so many times in the article (60) that I found it hard to keep track of its relevance.

--- Sandbh (talk) 04:59, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Noting, this oppose was entered as a heading on July 5, over a June 10 sig. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:16, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Dealt with some things. On why the star is so important: I dunno, sorry. Probably because of the multiplicity. On the topic sentence question, I think you mean a lead-like sentence in every section explaining what it is about? If so, I don't think that's standard in any article - it would be the header's job and you can't easily source such a sentence. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:19, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sandbh ? Gog the Mild (talk) 17:52, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Gog the Mild. Real life obligations will delay my response but I will get around to it. Sandbh (talk) 07:17, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Am now looking and hope to be able to spend up to a few hours on it, if needs be. Sandbh (talk) 05:19, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Re a lead-like sentence in every section, I am only referring to a lead-like sentence at the start of every paragraph i.e. the topic sentence, so that I can follow the gist or logic of the article just by reading its topic sentences. That's how paragraphs work, to help the reader. Headers are fine to give the article an overarching structure, but they don't stand-in for topic sentences. Sandbh (talk) 06:59, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, for now (reluctantly), in light of the article having so many "FAC prose standard" shortcomings, and several other deficiencies. As currently written I feel it does not yet exemplify Wikipedia's *very best* work. I note prose concerns were raised at FAC1 and FAC2. My reluctant qualifier refers to there being insufficient science-based FA's. Sandbh (talk) 07:27, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that a lead sentence at a paragraph is really a requirement of a FA and it's still an invitation to OR. And to be honest, I think the prose concerns from the previous FACses were largely addressed during the stage before this FAC. I am not sure what else there is to do. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:50, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK, half-nevermind on the above. I didn't notice that you had put more comments. Still, I think most of the actionable ones are done, and with many I think your proposed changes would reduce the quality of the text. So I must disagree with many. I've seen the ChatGPT proposal but some of it borders on OR or is rather imprecise. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:14, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've spent about two hours reading through the article (inc. notes and references) and have noticed about 175 items needing a closer look. I don't know yet if I'll post further comments here or on the talk page. I now intend to review my earlier comments and strike out those that have been addressed. Sandbh (talk) 02:29, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
About 75 of the 175 items remain of concern to me in the context that:
  • FA's are supposed to exemplify Wikipedia's **very best** work; and
  • criterion 1a namely "Its prose is engaging and of a professional standard".
I intend to write up these concerns tomorrow. Sandbh (talk) 07:13, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just my opinion, but it's probably best to enumerate such things on the talk page, the FAC main page is already quite long. However, please don't restate the article text while doing so; mixing in comments with the text they pertain to makes it hard to read. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:38, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jo-Jo Eumerus: I feel the article is within reach of FA prose standard, subject to some copy editing which I've begun. I've so far done the lede, and Discovery and naming sections. I intend to spend the rest of the afternoon on copy editing.

I've completed copy editing up to the end of section 3 Planetary system. Sandbh (talk) 13:17, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Now done up to the end of section 4 List of planets. Next step is to look at a single table rather than two in sections 3 and 4. Sandbh (talk) 13:41, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've done some modifications, for reasons given in the summaries. In the "Resonance and tides" section, did you merely reshuffle sentences or was there a bigger rewrite? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:41, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I expect your modifications will be OK.
  • I'll check the "Resonance and tides" section later.
There was reshuffling, copy-editing and trimming. Sandbh (talk) 04:37, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've finished copy-editing. I believe there are 25 outstanding items where I'll need your technical advice and support. I'll post these to the talk page of this FAC page. Sandbh (talk) 01:41, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've placed the list of o/s items on the talk page. Sandbh (talk) 02:26, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Actioned them, but I've noticed that you removed the margins of error when merging the tables. Please don't do that; it gives a misleading impression about the accuracy of these figures. Also, the footnotes added in that edit are now completely unsourced. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:06, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a note about margins of error just underneath the table heading. For sources, these were included with the legend just underneath the table. Sandbh (talk) 06:07, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this solves the issue, and to be honest I think the margins of error should remain in the table. Here the need for accuracy outweighs clutter problems, as even scientists sometimes come to bogus conclusions by taking values while ignoring the MoE. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:13, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Noted. I intend to have a look at this shortly (later this afternoon my time). Sandbh (talk) 02:23, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I moved the MoE back into the table. All columns remain sortable. Sandbh (talk) 06:09, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I expect the only things left after that will be some technical issues where I'll need your help.

BTW the flow of the article now appears logical with the exception of the two property tables, which is something I intend to address during copy editing.

Gog the Mild: I seek your indulgence to leave the article on the FAC list while I complete my ce and Jo-Jo Eumerus and I tackle any finally o/s technical issues. I anticipate being able to support the article thereafter. Sandbh (talk) 03:13, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kusma: support

[edit]

Saw this on Urgents, planning to review, but it might not happen until the weekend. —Kusma (talk) 22:39, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • The lead seems to be on the shorter side; does it really have everything important in the article?
    Expanded a bit, but if there are other things that can be added, let me know. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:48, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The distance doesn't need to be stated twice (once from Earth, once from Sun); would suggest to drop the first one for simplicity.
    Just re @Anarchyte, the distance between Earth and Sun is 8 light minutes (0.000016 light years), so the distances from Earth to Trappist-1 and from Sun to Trappist-1 are the same within the tolerance given (and there is no need to account for seasonal variations). —Kusma (talk) 07:02, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Um, where does it show an additional distance. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:48, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    In the first paragraph of the lead section: "TRAPPIST-1 is a cold dwarf star discovered in 2000 in the constellation Aquarius about 40.66 light-years away from Earth, [...] Located 40 light-years (12.47 parsecs) from the Sun" we have the 40 light years twice, once from Earth, once from the Sun. —Kusma (talk) 13:02, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    ...talk about me not noticing. I've deleted the Sun mention, the Earth one works just as well and Sun-Earth distance isn't even a rounding error here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:13, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Precision in the lead is inconsistent (40.66±0.04 light-years, but "about 2,566 kelvins" instead of 2,566±26 K)
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:48, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Description: I am a bit lost after looking at the comparisons. The density is 0.09/(0.12)^3=52 times larger than that of the Sun, and 100 times that of roughly equal-sized Jupiter?
    Yes; one thing about stars is that their densities can vary widely. A neutron star packs a mass larger than the Sun in a volume smaller than many cities. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:48, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "TRAPPIST-1 is cold enough for condensates to form in its photosphere" what kind of condensates?
    Presumably vanadium and iron oxides, but I am hesitant to spell it out w/o a source specifically about TRAPPIST-1. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:48, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The star emits faint radiation at short wavelengths such as x-rays and UV radiation[i], as measured with the XMM-Newton satellite[39] and other facilities[40] with low precision.[41] There is no detectable radio waves.[42]" can you rewrite this? "Low precision measurements from XMM-Newton and other facilities show that the star emits faint radiation at short wavelengths (ultraviolet and X-rays)." For the last sentence, either "there are no detectable radio waves" or "There is no detectable emission in the radio frequency spectrum".
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:48, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • It could be helpful to give a short description of what red dwarfs are.
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:48, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "earlier measurements of 1.4 days" this is more "history of discovery and observation" than it is "description".
    Yes, but it would be somewhat disconnected from the rest of the section if put there. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:48, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the effect of bright spots on the luminosity of TRAPPIST-1 may lead to the planets' densities being underestimated by 8+20
       -7     percent" first, what does the notation mean? is it necessary to use such notation here? second, do we need to talk about people being wrong about their measurements of the planets in a section about the star?
    It means that the margin of error isn't identical between the directions. I've moved it down. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:48, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Dong et al. (2018) simulated the observed properties of TRAPPIST-1 with a mass loss of 4.1×10^−15 solar masses per year" but we know that the mass loss is ten times greater from the previous sentence, so why do we care about this simulation using wrong data? Or am I misunderstanding this?
    No, we don't know which mass loss estimate is more exact, I think. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:48, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If that is the case, you shouldn't present one of the estimates in wikivoice and the other one with attribution. —Kusma (talk) 09:56, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Fixed. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 21:10, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the mass loss due to stellar wind continues at the same rate indefinitely, won't the star be gone before the "ten trillion years" that it is supposed to shine?
    Not discussed in the specific context of TRAPPIST-1, but the stellar wind weakens over time as stars spin down. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 21:10, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overall the "Description" section has lots of short paragraphs and subsections breaking it up into very short pieces. I am wondering whether it is possible to improve the flow.

Further sections later! —Kusma (talk) 22:10, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Second pass at lead section:

  • As I said above, perhaps you should clarify that this is an article about the star system, not just some random dwarf star.
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 21:10, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overall, still too short I think. There is a lot of information that could be put here: planetary sizes, the flatness and circularity of the orbits, that the plane is nicely aligned so the planets pass in front of their star from our point of view, massive amounts of planetary science speculation what the planets could be like. Lack of moons.
    Added a bit more. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 21:10, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The possibility of life and the subsequent impact on science, public perception and science fiction merits a longer treatment than "The system has drawn interest from researchers and in popular culture."
    Problem is that most sources don't provide much detail on how exactly it draws interest. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 21:10, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Overall a very interesting read, worth more detailed scrutiny by others instead of timing out. I am a bit concerned by the imbalance between study of the star and scientific speculation about its planets in the article, and would suggest another look at images and their captions. And of course, some smaller things as mentioned above need to be looked at. —Kusma (talk) 09:56, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To summarise: we disagree about the structural question whether the discovery and naming section should come much earlier, and about the beginning of the "List of planets" section (I think there should be text before the table, and I am not too happy about the table itself or the wide image). Other than these disagreements, this is an excellent article worthy of support; I would be happy to hear other opinions and will gladly shut up about these issues when it turns out I am the only one who thinks this way. —Kusma (talk) 20:58, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear, my point about the table isn't that I disagree with merging the tables. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:13, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Right. So our only major disagreement left is the sorting of the sections, which I will also shut up about if most other people think it is better the way it is. —Kusma (talk) 16:49, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]
@FAC coordinators: I have seen elsewhere that Sandbh strongly believes that there should be a topic sentence for each paragraph (so the reader can skim paragraphs for topic sentences and get the gist); I agree that may be generally and even a highly useful style of writing outside of Wikipedia, on Wikipedia, it is quite often an invitation to original research, which is and can be a much bigger problem. (This problem is present throughout the FAs of one now-deceased but formerly prolific FA writer.). While I appreciate Sandbh's intent, I feel it not helpful here, and encourage FAC Coords to take personal preferences into account relative to FA criteria. It should also be noted how damaging it is to fill a FAC page with personal preferences in terms of discouraging further reviews from others; this kind of lengthy commentary did not belong sitting at FAC for over a month, discouraging other reviews, and should have been placed on article talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:10, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Separately, noting that this contrary-to-FAC instructions system in use lately, forcing to sub-headers which are explicitly discouraged by the FAC instructions, results in things like an oppose registered on July 5 over a June 10 commentary which sat on this page for almost a month without the original editor returning to strike or move addressed comments. This is misuse of this page that has prejudiced the article. If a reviewer does not return to strike and remove addressed comments for almost a month, FAC Coords should be moving them off the page so the FAC can proceed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:16, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi SandyGeorgia and thanks for the input. Re the first part of your comments, I think that you will find that the coordinators are on pretty much the same page as you re personal preferences, bearing in mind that that one editor's personal preference may be another's strict adherence to policy and/or FA criteria. Given that I gave the prose of this article a (rough and ready) copy edit immediately prior to its nomination you can guess where I sit re this specific case.
Re your other comments, it may well be that negative comments perceived as personal preferences are likely to generate more input from experienced reviewers rather than discourage them. In any event, coordinators are cautious about being seen as dismissive of critical comments, whether or not they personally feel that the criticism amounts to personal preference. (Again, note that I copy edited the prose immediately prior to nomination.) Few editors oppose at FAC lightly and given that coordinators will be taking them strongly into account when closing ("the main thrust of the process is to generate and resolve critical comments in relation to the criteria, and ... such resolution is given considerably more weight than declarations of support") we want to advertise such critical comments, so that other editors can agree or otherwise with them.
And the coordinators are of course perfectly capable of deciding that a nomination has a consensus to promote in spite of an open and well reasoned Oppose. You probably noted me doing just that three days ago.
I have added this to Urgents.
And thanks again for the thoughts above, which I hope that editors considering reviewing will take on board. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:54, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Gog; I'm concerned that the voluminous commentary sitting here with no response for almost a month kept other reviewers from digging in, and I hope we will see additional review now. It seems unjust that this article would need to go for a fourth FAC after so much considerable review, including at PR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:57, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
PS, in Sandbh's defense, I should add that in my own writing, I have tried to take their concern about organizing paragraphs around topic sentences on board as long as those topic sentences can be cited. In the writing of the other editor I mentioned, the sources are not available online, and in almost every case, those articles have had to be defeatured because no one has been able to sort whether these "topic sentence summaries" are original research or can be cited. I'd not like to see that problem introduced here, and agree with Jo-Jo for refusing to go there. That is, I believe Jo-Jo has reasonably addressed everything that should be addressed in Sandbh's oppose. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:09, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The nominator may wish to consider placing a polite neutrally phrased request on the talk pages of a few of the more frequent FAC reviewers or on the talk pages of relevant Wikiprojects, or of editors they know are interested in the topic, or who have contributed at PR, or reviewed at previous FACs, or edited the article, which may help attract further reviewers. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:14, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My contribution, but I feel awkward about that in spite of its neutrality, because this new system of using headings introduces POV (the first thing a new reviewer will see is my support in a bold heading). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:34, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
During the FAC process of one article that I nominated a reviewer used the FAC talk page 'due to length' which was very thoughtful. The talk page of this FAC has not been used so far, surely it would be fair for co-ords to move lengthy comments to an FAC talk page? Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 14:42, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
YES. Even more so when the reviewer is not striking comments that have been addressed. It is not unreasonable to expect the reviewer who is opposing to have the voluminous post moved to talk, and to ask them to resummarize anything they feel is still outstanding. The placement of this amount of text on a FAC page, where immediate changes were not responded to for almost a month, is not how the FAC process should be used and introduced unjust prejudice to the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:23, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Anarchyte

[edit]

Looking to become more familiar with the FA process, so happy to review this (I've read #Discussion). Forgive me if I make any glaring rookie mistakes. Note that I have no experience with astronomy, so this review is purely "how does an outsider perceive this article?" I understand reviews are needed urgently, so I'll start tomorrow and finish within the next couple of days. Anarchyte (talk) 12:24, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Anarchyte that's a valid, useful, and helpful kind of review! If you are unsure about the FA standards, one thing you might do is put your initial commentary at Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/TRAPPIST-1/archive3#Comments from Anarchyte, or on article talk, and then summarize your impression (support, oppose, comments, all concerns resolved, etc.) back to this page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:58, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the note, SandyGeorgia. I've written a couple of FAs and reviewed a few in the past, but I've been meaning to devote more time to writing articles so what better way than to increase participation in the FA process? I included the mention of inexperience as a note that I might be unaware of the subject-specific or obscure MOS requirements that wouldn't have mattered for what I've written. Anarchyte (talk) 14:14, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
General comments
  • Lead says discovered in 2000. #Research history and reception says 1999.
    I believe this was discussed elsewhere in this conversation? Is it now resolved? Losing track a bit myself... Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:11, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Lead
  • I've looked at Kusma's initial comments to make sure we don't overlap, but I disagree with removing either the distance from the Earth and Sun. However, I think the current construction of the first paragraph is a bit jumpy. It would be better if the distances were mentioned simultaneously, with the secondary one paranthesised: i.e., "40.66±0.04 light-years away from Earth (40 light-years from the Sun, or 12.47 parsecs)". Alternatively, the distance to the Sun could be left outside of parentheses and have the opening sentence end there: "TRAPPIST-1 is a cold dwarf star in the constellation Aquarius 40.66±0.04 light-years away from Earth and 40 light-years from the Sun (12.47 parsecs). The star has a surface temperature...". As a reader, I'm more interested in knowing how far away it is from Earth than the Sun which is why I'd mention Earth first.
    • Based on the reply from Kusma above, I now understand why there's some redundancy here. However, if it's decided that the distance from Earth should be cut, then the distance parameter in the infobox should be adjusted accordingly (currently, the +- is only provided in the context of the Earth. If it's applicable to both, then the lead should reflect this). Anarchyte (talk) 07:33, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ah, so it's in the infobox? I am inclined to have the measurement in only one place; which do folks prefer? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:48, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • Perhaps the "about 40.66 light-years from Earth" and the "12.47 parsecs" can stay in the lead (i.e., limit the measurements from the Sun to only parsecs), while the exact "40.66 ± 0.04 ly" can remain in the infobox and main article. Although, the infobox needs to be updated to establish what the distance is measuring from. Anarchyte (talk) 13:31, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The dates in the lead would benefit from being together. Being discovered in 2000 does not lead into its radius. It does however provide an introduction to the history of its observations.
Description
  • "It is a very close star located at 40.66±0.04 light-years from Earth" — this is not exact, so can "at" be removed?
  • "There is no detectable radio waves" — should this not be "are no"?
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:48, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Kepler and Spitzer Space Telescopes have observed possible bright spots, which may be faculae, although some of these may be too large to qualify as faculae. Bright spots are correlated to the occurrence of some stellar flares." — should be reordered so that the cause (solar flares) comes before the explanation (faculae).
    I don't think that faculae are either cause or consequence of flares. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:48, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I must have misinterpreted. Anarchyte (talk) 13:31, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The photospheric features may introduce inaccuracies in measurements of TRAPPIST-1's planets; the effect of bright spots on the luminosity of TRAPPIST-1 may lead to the planets' densities being underestimated by [] percent and to incorrect estimates of their water content." — repeating content here. Could be reduced to "The photospheric features may introduce inaccuracies in measurements of TRAPPIST-1's planets, including their densities being underestimated by [] percent and incorrect estimates of their water content" (or something similar).
    Done, might be one thing where folks asked for an explanation of "photospheric features" Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:48, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Instead of "and to incorrect estimates of their water content", can it be "and causing incorrect..."? Anarchyte (talk) 13:31, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:13, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sure I can have a reasonable guess, but why does the lack of direct observation cause issues in simulations? Something at the end of the sentence like "direct observation, meaning they must be [predicted/guessed/assumed/taken from unreliable data/???]".
    They must be predicted, yes. A simulation isn't the actual thing, it can be erroneous. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:48, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Will continue later. Anarchyte (talk) 06:06, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Planetary system (through to Skies and impact of stellar light)
  • "The inclinations of the orbits relative to the system's ecliptic are less than 0.1 degrees" — could you add a note comparing this to Earth's?
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:13, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gas giant is linked on second mention rather than first. Same with outgassing.
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:13, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "expected to have compositions that resemble [...] Earth", but then several differences are listed with no explicit similarities mentioned.
    I think that means "rocky" rather than "gaseous". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:13, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is "composition" the correct word? Could "structure" be better? "Composition of Earth" returns 412,000,000 google results, while "Structure of Earth" returns 1,320,000,000. If there's an astronomical difference, ignore this.
    "Structure" implies a 3D concept, not a chemical one. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:13, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Tidal forces are dominated by the star's contributions" — contributions?
    Fixed. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:13, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The interaction could force periodic or episodic full rotations of the planets' surfaces with respect to the star on timescales of several Earth years." — confusing. Is this saying it's possible they're not tidally locked and could complete a full rotation eventually?
    Yes, one rotation every few Earth years, essentially. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:13, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This heat source is likely dominant over radioactive decay, both of which have substantial uncertainties and are considerably less than the stellar radiation received." — unclear where the connection comes from. Is radiation another theory?
    Radiation in the sense of starlight, not radioactivity. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:13, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The same amount of radiation" — "This amount of radiation"?
    No; it's important that we are comparing two cases with the same radiation. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:13, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Anarchyte (talk) 13:13, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

General comments
Planetary system (continued)
  • "A synchronously rotating planet might not entirely freeze over if it receives too little radiation from its star because the day-side could be sufficiently heated to halt the progress of glaciation" — can this be reworded to "A synchronously rotating planet might not entirely freeze over because the day-side could be sufficiently heated by the radiation of its star to halt the progress of glaciation"?
    That would imply that no planet gets enough instellation to stop freezing, which isn't the case here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 21:10, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The effects of volcanic activity may extend the system's habitable zone to TRAPPIST-1h" — if this is so, why isn't it included in the three to four count (which I assume consists of d, e, f, g)?
    Mostly, I think, b/c the parameters for tidal heating are so unclear that scientists don't like factoring it in when discussing habitability. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 21:10, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "consistent with inference from observations" — "consistent with the observational inferences"?
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 21:10, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Potential planetary atmospheres
List of planets

That's all from me. Anarchyte (talk) 03:01, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for looking over them Jo-Jo Eumerus. I've replied above. Anarchyte (talk) 08:33, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To summarise, all of my prose and general concerns have been addressed. The only issue I have left is the arrangement of the "List of planets" section within the article, but I'm happy to let that go if other reviewers disagree with me. Anarchyte (talk) 16:25, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jo-Jo Eumerus ? Gog the Mild (talk) 13:44, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I believe Anarchyte's section issue is the same as the one mentioned by Kusma, but I'll check. Regarding Sandbh's concerns, I've resolved some, but for the others, I have objections to the proposed changes. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:06, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think the section issues are slightly different. Anarchyte seems to say "List of planets" should be moved up before "Potential planetary atmospheres"; I had not thought of that but agree it would be a slight improvement. My point is that I would like to see the first two or three paragraphs of "Research history and reception" moved right after the lead section as "Discovery and naming", which would make this article's structure more similar to other astronomy FAs. You could just try the suggested changes, see what the result is like, and then revert again if you truly hate it? Similar to what Anarchyte said, I would be happy to hear the opinion of other people and would not mind being overruled by reviewer consensus. —Kusma (talk) 20:27, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You know, yeah, it's an improvement. I've enacted Anarchyte's proposed change. I've tried Kusma's change; how does it look?

Also, while more of a personal issue, but I'd love being able to remove that blob of markup that we are using to circumvent the fact that Template:Starbox begin links the same pages repeatedly. That sounds like a maintenance/editability issue in the making. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:05, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I like it, and have put a "support" in my section header. —Kusma (talk) 09:20, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Anarchyte (talk) 14:03, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

HF- support

[edit]

Will review this one soon. Because this FAC is already exceeding my limits to follow easily due to length/poor discussion layout, I plan on leaving any trivial comments at Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/TRAPPIST-1/archive3 and posting only major ones that would noteworthy for the non-recused coords and other reviewers here, unless someone objects to that. Hog Farm Talk 23:31, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome! Jo-Jo and HF, please ping me for a new look when HF is done, as there has now been considerable useful commentary since my support. FYI, I hate the first sentence in the new lead ("noted for" is cliche). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:43, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "are possible considering the large uncertainties in their densities" - but the image to the right references "price measurements of the planet densities"
    Yeah, that image is overselling the precision. I've commented it out, pending an image edit at commons:Commons:Graphic Lab/Illustration workshop Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:13, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • " Planets b, d, f, g and h are expected to contain large quantities of volatile compounds" - is this a consensus view, or just that of one paper? Because the prior part of the paragraph is listing a bunch of alternatives to the volatile compounds theory
    I believe this is pretty much the consensus, largely I think because the alternative theories would be hard up at providing densities that low. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:13, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ready for 'potential planetary atmospheres'; hope to be back tomorrow. Hog Farm Talk 01:52, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • "the probability that it does is considerably less than that of Earth" - I think I get what you're trying to say here but it just seems off phrasing-wise, since we know that the probability that Earth supports life is 100%
    Yeah, I myself don't know how to formulate this - the point is that if we ignore that life currently very definitively exists on Earth, the probability of it forming here is higher than on a TRAPPIST-1 planet. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:11, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Determann, Jörg Matthias (2019). Space science and the Arab world: astronauts, observatories and nationalism in the Middle East. ISBN 978-1-83860-015-0. OCLC 1122719747." - publisher needed
  • "Meadows, Victoria S; Schmidt, Britney E (2020). Planetary astrobiology. ISBN 978-0-8165-4006-8. OCLC 1096534611." - publisher needed
  • "Madhusudhan, Nikku (2020). Exofrontiers: big questions in exoplanetary science. ISBN 978-0-7503-1472-5. OCLC 1285004266." - publisher needed
  • ""Handbook of Scientific Tables". May 2022. doi:10.1142/9789813278523_0001." - uses the cite journal template, but no journal (or any other publisher is provided)?
  • "Short, Kendra; Stapelfeldt, Karl (2017). Exoplanet exploration program update (PDF) (Report)." source link leads to "1 to 10 of 37,576 Results" making the link of dubious utility and the publisher needs provided as well
Fixed most of this, but I can't tell what the publisher for the last item is. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:11, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: - I think it's the NASA Exoplanet Exploration Program; does that seem right? Hog Farm Talk 01:54, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:05, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's all from me for the first pass. Hog Farm Talk 04:25, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

HF, did you still want to take a second look? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:20, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm comfortable supporting. Hog Farm Talk 02:49, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass

[edit]
I am struggling to find it. What does it say? Gog the Mild (talk) 17:13, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You can see it in source mode or using WP:POP. The alt text given is "Distances between TRAPPIST-1 planets are roughly comparable with Earth-Moon distances". —Kusma (talk) 17:51, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Request for update

[edit]

@FAC coordinators: Asking where we are at this. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:27, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We are waiting for it to receive and pass a source review. When/if that happens, one of us will go through with a view to closing it one way or the other. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:12, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It has been suggested that the source review be split between several reviewers. I will start working back through the Reception and scientific importance section. I'm thinking we can have source review sections for each reviewer, stating which section or whatever area of the article they intend to cover. I've started a section below. Coordinators please refactor as necessary for clarity and sanity! ---- Mirokado (talk) 18:53, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]
Source review from Mirokado
[edit]

Working backwards through §Reception and scientific importance. Discussion ongoing about what is needed. -- Mirokado (talk) 21:03, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I will start by checking the citation links (bullet 3 in the discussion). -- Mirokado (talk) 13:48, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am making a few trivial changes, so far related to source checking, en passant:

  • §Sources, changed refbegin to specify column width rather than the deprecated number of columns. This is generally more user friendly with better support for different screen widths and will help during the source review since I can set the window width to give a single-column display. -- Mirokado (talk) 14:24, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed param names editorn-last to editor-lastn and so on for consistency.

-- Mirokado (talk) 18:51, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have now checked all the citations down to Meadows et al. where JBL took over. I may have a few more comments since I took some notes on the way. I was checking the citations themselves for correctness, completeness and consistency. They all correspond to reliable sources, but I have not been checking how well they support the article content in detail. -- Mirokado (talk) 01:38, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pass for citation links, formatting and the reliability of the sources. I will add any comments about the use of the citations and content coverage below. -- Mirokado (talk)

Source review from JayBeeEll
[edit]

I am doing the same thing as Mirokado, starting from the middle (Meadows et al.) and working my way down. --JBL (talk) 23:24, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

More below. I've made it to the end (starting from Meadows). --JBL (talk) 17:51, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Am I supposed to declare a final judgement? I think this article is a pass on the sourcing requirements, at least as far as the portion of the sources I checked. --JBL (talk) 20:13, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Very few articles get a 100% check on sourcing, virtually none that aren't by first-time nominators. The efforts by JBL and Mirokado above constitute a thorough check of the sourcing IMO and I am going to accept their two passes as an overall pass on the source review. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:01, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SC

[edit]

Support by Sandbh

[edit]

@Jo-Jo Eumerus and Gog the Mild: All of my concerns have now been addressed. Sandbh (talk) 02:39, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note

[edit]

Thanks all, it appears critical comments are now resolved. I do however share SandyGeorgia's distaste for "noted for" in the opening sentence -- anything in WP should be notable. I see that this version six months ago didn't require the phrase; is there any reason we shouldn't return to that, minus "in the constellation Aquarius", which is currently in the second sentence? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 19:17, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK, removed it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 21:24, 2 September 2023 (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) 2 September 2023 [48].

Logic

[edit]
Nominator(s): Phlsph7 (talk) 07:53, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the study of correct reasoning. It is one of the main branches of philosophy. Since this is a level 2 vital article, it would be great to get it to FA status or at least find out which additional steps would be needed. Thanks to Botterweg14, GuineaPigC77, Lingzhi.Renascence, Onegreatjoke, Gog the Mild, Buidhe, and BennyOnTheLoose for your reviews and other feedback on the article. This is my first featured article nomination. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:53, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

First-time nomination

[edit]
  • Hi Phlsph7, and welcome to FAC. Just noting that as a first time nominator at FAC, this article will need to pass a source to text integrity spot check and a review for over-close paraphrasing to be considered for promotion. Good luck with the nomination. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:12, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be happy to do a source spot-check (although as I am to philosophy what whales are to hang-gliding, I may duck out of doing a general FAC review). Tim riley talk 22:27, 27 July 2023 (UTC) (Though in a quick canter through just now I noticed a "criticised" in an otherwise AmE text, and I'm not convinced that "Aristotlian" is a real word. Tim riley talk 22:38, 27 July 2023 (UTC))[reply]
Thanks for your offer! I took care of the spelling mistakes. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:49, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn placeholder

[edit]

Will leave comments soon. Hope this goes well. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 08:02, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

AirshipJungleman29, nudge. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:36, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, am fairly pressed for time at the minute. I don't think I'll be able to comment in the detail/quality I want in the next week and a half. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:47, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]
  • Don't use fixed px size
    Done
  • File:Philbar_3.png: this needs a tag for the original work for Buddha, a US PD tag for all "others", an author date of death for File:Kant_Raab.tif, and a specific source for File:Andrea_di_Bonaiuto._Santa_Maria_Novella_1366-7_fresco_0016.jpg
    I added the tags "PD-old-auto" and "PD-US" to Philbar_3.png.
  • You'll need an additional US tag for Buddha. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:35, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Done.
    I added the author date of death to File:Kant_Raab.tif
    I'm not sure about File:Andrea_di_Bonaiuto._Santa_Maria_Novella_1366-7_fresco_0016.jpg. Its current source field says "Self-scanned". Should this be changed to "own photograph" or something else?
  • File:Young_frege.jpg is tagged as lacking source information and needs a US tag
    I was unable to find a source so I replaced it with File:Wismar Marienkirche Bronzebüste Gottlob Frege (01-1).JPG
  • File:Aristotle_Altemps_Inv8575.jpg needs a tag for the original work
    I added the tag "PD-old-auto".
  • File:GUILHERME_DE_OCCAM_(1285_-_1347)._Filósofo_inglês,_também_conhecido_como_o_"doutor_invencível"_(Doctor_Invincibilis)_e_o_"iniciador_venerável"_(Venerabilis_Inceptor),.jpg is incorrectly tagged. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:25, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I replaced it with File:Guillaume Occam.jpg
    I've tried to make the corresponding changes. I'm not sure that I succeeded since my knowledge of image policies is very limited. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:14, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source spot-check - pass

[edit]

I have so far checked refs 13, 22, 24, 27, 28, 37, 39, 40, 41, 49, 50, 58, 73, 99, 102, 103, 108, 110, 123, 130, 131, 132, 140, 172, 181, 182, 192 and 196 and I had no concerns about the accuracy with which the sources are represented in the article. It is difficult to comment on close paraphrase, as in all but five of the above, two or three different sources are cited. All I can truthfully say is that in the 28 citations I found no close paraphrase from one of the sources listed, but for the citations with two or three sources I have not been able to check against the other sources cited in each case.

Elsewhere there were, I fear, some citations not specific enough to verify. For instance refs 19–22 give a page range of ten pages for Haack 1978 – far too big. Specific page numbers (or very short page ranges) are needed. Likewise for Blair & Johnson 2000, pp. 93–107, Clocksin & Mellish 2003, pp. 237–257, Johnson 1999, pp. 265–274, Korb 2004, pp. 41–70 and others, including, particularly unhelpfully, Walton 1987, where we are expected to wade through pp. 1–32, 1. "A new model of argument" and pp. 63–96, 3. "Logic of propositions". Those sections have subsections that could be cited to narrow the search, but, better, why not give the relevant page numbers from which the quoted information is taken?

And for some of the online articles a similar lack of precision is a stumbling block: for instance although Louis F. Groarke's 15,500-word article has no page numbers to cite, there are section headings that would considerably narrow the search in pursuance of WP:V.

For my own part I am confident that the sources are properly interpreted and presented in the article, and I have found no cause for concern as regards close transcription, but I cannot in conscience sign off this source spot-check until more precise information is given about the location within the sources on which the present text is based. To my layman's eye the article seems superb, but we need to follow due process for FAC. – Tim riley talk 19:13, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the spot-check and sorry for the big page ranges. Especially with a difficult subject like logic, this could take a very long for someone not already familiar with the sources to find the relevant passages. I'll have a look at them and I'll ping you when I have the exact page numbers. Phlsph7 (talk) 19:50, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Tim riley: Done. I hope I covered all the main points you mentioned. There are still a few that are more than 3 pages but I hope it's managable now. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:06, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
At first glance this looks more manageable. I'm a bit busy IRL, but may have time to revisit on Tuesday evening or failing that on Wednesday. Tim riley talk 16:33, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's much more manageable. I have now checked a 15% sample of the references for accuracy and close paraphrase, and have no quibbles on either count. Happy to sign off the source spot-check. Excuse me for ducking out of a general FA review, but this topic really, really isn't within my comfort zone. I could do a purely prose review, if pressed, as long as I haven't got to understand the content of the article, but I'd prefer to leave it to others. Tim riley talk 11:56, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for investing your time into this thorough source check! Let's hope that some other editors start coming for a general review now that we have the source check and the image review. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:47, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Tim riley. Please do not feel pressured, but as chance would have it, this nom has just received two reviews from editors who seem to know their Ockham from their Organon. As a coordinator, what I would like now is a review from someone not at home with the topic, to see if the article is over-clunky in broad terms to a subject neophyte. Wadaya think? Gog the Mild (talk) 19:55, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • By all means. An opportunity to parade my pristine and perfect ignorance is never to be passed up. As it happens I have a rare blank day in my diary tomorrow, so I'll give the text the once-over then. Tim riley talk 20:08, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Tim riley

[edit]

Right ho! Further to the above, though I intermittently lost the will to live when things got algebraic, I quite see why excursions into what to me might as well be Babylonic cuneiform are needed, and I can no more carp at such things in this article than I could at, say, Einstein's equations in our General relativity article: I don't understand them but they plainly have got to be there. I sometimes write about music, bandying technical terms about such as "modulation to the mediant, C♯ minor". Same sort of thing. Just can't be avoided sometimes.

The prose, otherwise, seems to me well shaped and as easy to read as a highly technical subject allows, which I think, Gog, is what you're asking about.

On more minor matters, I think there are more blue links than will be helpful to the reader. Does s/he need to be taken away from this page to learn what ambiguous, information, mathematics, reality, science, statistics, vague, and the English language mean? And there are duplicate links to deductive reasoning (twice), informal fallacies, informal logic, and syntax. A shame to smack the reader in the eyeball with a barrage of blue if it isn't necessary.

I wasn't thrilled at the caption for Bertrand Russell's photo: "various significant contributions". The second adjective seems to me a bit slack. Here is Plain Words on "significant": This is a good and useful word, but it has a special flavour of its own and it should not be thoughtlessly used as a mere variant of important, considerable, appreciable, or quite large … it ought to be used only where there is a ready answer to the reader's unspoken question 'Significant, is it? And what does it signify?' There is another "significant" later in the History section that, again, I don't think is quantifiably significant.

Be all that as it may, you, Gog, have asked me for "a review from someone not at home with the topic, to see if the article is over-clunky in broad terms to a subject neophyte". I think it is written as elegantly and as comprehensibly for the layman as a 4,000+-word article on the subject could be. I believe I got a pretty good idea of what each section is telling us, and from the commanding heights of almost complete ignorance I am happy to support the promotion of the article, particularly as it has the support of people who evidently know what they are talking about. – Tim riley talk 11:58, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your review and support! I put up arms against the sea of blue and I hope to limit myself to only significant uses of "significant". Phlsph7 (talk) 16:17, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Shapeyness

[edit]

Hi Phlsph7, might have to do several rounds of comments as I read through. Here are some initial thoughts from the lead. It's well written and clear but I think there's some places where things can be clarified even further. Feel free to push back, most of these aren't necessary for a support and are mostly stylistic. Hopefully I will be able to get to the rest of the article soon and give some comments on the actual body and substance of the article! Shapeyness (talk) 15:53, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Shapeyness and thanks for reviewing this nomination and your helpful comments! Phlsph7 (talk) 17:05, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Logic is the study of correct reasoning at first I was quite sceptical of this being stated in wikivoice immediately in the lead, but after checking a few (philosophy) logic textbooks, this appears to be given quite universally as a definition of logic to introduce the subject. Nonetheless, perhaps there is room in the "Philosophy of logic" section to provide alternative views as I know there is a tradition of non-normative views of logic (i.e. against the view that logic tells us how we should think). On the other hand, I'm aware large overview topics like this need a lot of care to avoid excessive detail, so I'm of two minds about this one. There's also the issue of due weight and there might be more important things to include in that section first if it's expanded.
    One could also define it as the study of correct arguments or inferences or as the study of the laws of thought. However, I don't think that the difference matters much. If we want to be on the safe side, we could write something like "Logic is often defined as the study of correct reasoning". However, this might be seen as a violation of MOS:REFERS. Some individual views characterize logic differently but the definition presented here is mostly standard. Generally speaking, logic is interested in the norms of correct reasoning while psychology is interested in the empirical observations of how correct and incorrect reasoning actually takes place. The section on the philosophy of logic could be expanded in various ways but I'm not sure that I would focus on this point.
    I just remembered: a similar point was already discussed a while back at Talk:Logic/Archive_1#Shortdesc_vs_hatnote.
    Thanks for the link and yep, I agree with the MOS:REFERS point. Just to clarify, I wasn't suggesting any change to the lead as it appears this is a very standard definition, just wondered if there was room to include in the body anywhere. But if there are more central problems in phil of logic which would take priority if that section were expanded, then this point is probably best left to the philosophy of logic page and left out of this article. I am probably slightly distorted in assessing due weight here as this is the only area of phil of logic that I have read about! Shapeyness (talk) 20:02, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Understood. If you have some relevant sources then I would have a look. We could probably add something to the article philosophy of logic and maybe I find a way to fit it into the article logic as well. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:36, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I've left a comment here with some sources. I will hopefully get through the rest of the article soon and can check whether this issue is generally covered in other sources too. Shapeyness (talk) 14:41, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I added a short paragraph on this issue to the article Philosophy of logic. In theory, a similar paragraph could be added to the article Logic as well. However, we would have to attribute this position to Gilbert Harman and it seems to focus primarily on deductive logic. Maybe we could find a place for it in the subsection "Formal logic" but it might be better to leave this topic to the article Philosophy of logic. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:57, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep, definitely better to leave this to philosophy of logic now that I've looked through a few more sources, sorry intended to have more comments by now but quite busy this week irl. Shapeyness (talk) 13:48, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • It studies how conclusions follow from premises independent of their topic and content correct me if I'm wrong, but it appears you're trying to get across the idea that logic is concerned with form rather than content, but don't want to use the word "form" as this is likely to be unhelpful as a definition of formal logic. I do still think this would be clearer and more helpful if that idea was explicitly included - maybe It studies how conclusions follow from premises due to the structure of arguments alone, independent of their topic and content?
    Good point, I implemented your suggestion. It's a little bit more wordy but makes the main point clearer.
  • Premises and conclusions express propositions I think there should be a link to proposition here (possibly also a statement of what a proposition is, although it's probably easier said than done to do that without derailing the lead into needless detail so maybe not)
    I added the wikilink. We could add something like or claims that can be true or false. I'm not sure if that is helpful or distracting. My hope was that it's clear from the example and the context.
    I quite like the idea of that little aside, but I leave it up to you as this is a very minor point :) Shapeyness (talk) 20:01, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Implemented. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:36, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • logical structure independent of their other parts Other parts? Logical structure is not a part - should this be logical structure regardless of (the meaning of) their individual parts? Maybe I'm misreading the idea.
    Done.
  • Simple propositions also have parts, like "Sunday" or "work" in the example this seems awkward, but I'm not sure what to suggest to improve it, so I'll just leave the comment here and hope it's useful :)
    One alternative would be to add a new example. But that might bloat the lead. Another option would be to remove the second clause, which would make it a more abstract.
  • More comments to come.
Shapeyness ? Gog the Mild (talk) 13:35, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Unexpectedly busy last week, will hopefully be able to get back on it tomorrow! Shapeyness (talk) 13:49, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, here are a few more comments below. I will continue working through and should have more comments tomorrow/next few days as well. Shapeyness (talk) 13:03, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Logic is interested in whether arguments are correct, i.e. whether their premises support the conclusion just wondered if "correct" here is a technical term or just mirroring language of the fact that logic studies correct reasoning stated previously?
    If we were only talking about formal logic, we could talk of "deductively valid arguments". But the term "correct argument" is better here since it covers both formal and informal logic. For examples of this usage, see [50] and [51].
    The only reason I ask is that if "correct" is being used in an everyday way, then this sentence seems a fair rewording of the idea in the sources. But if it's a technical term then perhaps a source that explicitly uses that language would be better to include as well. The Craig 1996 source does refer to correct/incorrect arguments though so could use that one possibly, or if it's not a technical term then no need to add in any additional sources at all. Shapeyness (talk) 12:56, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Formal logic is the traditionally dominant field, and some logicians restrict logic to formal logic I can’t find the text that supports this in the Craig source - I can access the other sources but they seem more limited in scope so just wanted to check with this one too.
    From Craig 1996: Informal logic...never received the same consistent and more serious attention that formal logic did in the subsequent history of logic.
    From Barnes 2007, p. 274: The preceding remarks...have at least served to introduce the notion of form; and perphaps they have also served to suggest that all logic is...formal logic. The position that all logic is formal logic is discussed in more detail in the following two paragraphs on the same page. Have a look if you think this is sufficient. Otherwise, I could try to find a few additional sources.
    I think another good source would definitely help if it's not too hard to find. The Craig source is great and supporting the first half of the sentence well, but not the second half. The Barnes source is better for the second half but doesn't actually say that view has been held, it is just being put forward for consideration/discussion (maybe that is a little bit nitpick-y but hopefully another source should not be hard to find). And in terms of the Planty-Bonjour source, this seems to be discussing views of logic within the context of marxist ideas in philosophy so a bit more limited in scope; it does verify the last part of the sentence but I would worry about due weight if this was the best source for the claim. I will attempt to look for a source for this too and will let you know if I find anything useful. Shapeyness (talk) 12:56, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I added one more source that makes this claim explicitly for W. D. Ross and Aristotle's logic. Phlsph7 (talk) 15:38, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Perfect, that source also explicitly states "This is a position about the nature of logic which logicians once subscribed to more widely". I would have suggested this article might be useful but I think this is already well-supported now anyway. Shapeyness (talk) 12:21, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would be useful if sections are provided for the Hintikka 2019 source in citations where possible, e.g. citation 6, not sure if there are other examples too
    I added the section for citation 6. I'll add the locations for the other mentions of Hintikka 2019 when I have the time.
    Done.
  • According to this view, they concern not just to the language used but more generally to the standards, criteria, and procedures of argumentation perhaps there could be an extra sentence here on what this means - ok, informal applies not just to language but also to standards, criteria, and procedures of argumentation but what does it mean for these things to be formal or informal?
    I simplified this passage and I added a few examples about the wider scope.
  • Other theorists distinguish between formal and informal logic based on whether general forms or particular instances of arguments are studied. Another method differentiates the two in relation to whether substantive concepts play a role in correctness rather than only logical constants. Maybe this could be more specific in terms of which is formal/informal - I know it is quite obvious from context and preceding content but still think it might make things clearer. On the other hand, if you think this is the simplest/most concise wording then feel free to ignore!
    Done.
  • Propositions are the denotations of sentences and are usually seen as abstract objects. Do you think giving the example of the same proposition in different languages would be useful clarification here or would be straying out of topic? IMO this would make this a little less technical and may help illuminate Other arguments concern the challenges involved in specifying the identity criteria of propositions later on too.
    Good idea, I added a short example that hopefully makes the difference more concrete.

More comments below - getting through quite slowly but hopefully it's still useful! Feel free to push back on these btw. Shapeyness (talk) 14:08, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all the helpful comment. Please take your time. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:32, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Truth tables: can you add a sentence or a footnote explicitly stating that T means true and F means false - I could imagine somebody unaware of the topic being confused
    Done.
  • Truth tables can be used to show how logical connectives work or how the truth of complex propositions depends on their parts. I think this should say truth values
    Done.
  • Alfred Tarski holds that deductive arguments have three essential features Can something be added here to show the reader why Tarski’s view matters, why it is being presented. Even just something mirroring the source’s “One popular answer derives from the work of Alfred Tarski”.
    Done.
  • Because of the first feature, the focus on formality, deductive inference is usually identified with rules of inference I think this could be clarified slightly - why does a focus on formality lead to prominence of rules of inference?
    I reformulated the following sentence: I hope this makes the point clear.
  • Also on this section: there is a paragraph on the first and third feature but not even a sentence on the second
    The main characterization of the 2nd feature already happens in the paragraph introducing Tarski's view. Do you feel that the second feature needs to be discussed in more detail? My impression is that this not that widely discussed in logic since it belongs more to the field of epistemology. But it would be possible to expand a little on the difference between a priori and a posteriori knowledge.
  • A different characterization distinguishes between surface and depth information. On this view, deductive inferences are uninformative on the depth level but can be highly informative on the surface level, as may be the case for mathematical proofs. I don’t think I understand the idea here - maybe surface and depth information can be quickly defined as this isn’t the most intuitive.
    I tried to clarify it but this is a difficult point. The explanation of surface and depth information is not absolutely necessary and could be removed if it is not helpful.
    I found the explanation useful but it depends if anyone else thinks it was better before. Shapeyness (talk) 12:28, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • But in a more narrow sense, induction is only one type of ampliative argument besides abductive arguments. I think maybe “alongside” works better than “besides” here - what do you think?
    Done.
  • Some philosophers, like Leo Groarke, also allow conductive arguments as one more type. There is no explanation of what a conductive argument is, maybe this can be relegated to a footnote if it is less important?
    Done.
  • Definitory and strategic rules: are these widely discussed concepts?
    They are frequently discussed in the philosophy of logic. I don't think that introductory logic textbooks often explain the difference.
    Phlsph7 Maybe this paragraph could be altered slightly and moved to the philosophy of logic section as these concepts seem less central than the others in this section. This is completely optional, in fact I am also using this edit to support! Shapeyness (talk) 11:20, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Your suggestions would also work but I'm not sure that it would be a significant improvement. I think discussing this topic in the section "Basic concepts" is not a must but there are also good reasons in favor of it. For example, the Britannica article on logic in general has a main section dedicated specifically to this topic. For now, I think I'll keep it as it is.
    Thanks a lot for your support, your in-depth reading, and all the detailed suggestions! Phlsph7 (talk) 11:55, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The subject and the predicate are the terms of the proposition. In this sense, Aristotelian logic does not contain complex propositions made up of simple propositions. I don’t follow how the second sentence follows from the first (which seems to be implied by “in this sense”).
    Good point. It is implied by the sentence before the example but it feels a little out of place so I removed the expression "in this sense".
  • Aristotelian logic differs from predicate logic in that the subject is either universal, particular, indefinite, or singular Is the idea of this paragraph that Aristotelian logic uses different types of subjects whereas predicate logic uses different types of quantifier to distinguish between universal and particular propositions? I think this could be made a little clearer.
    see below
  • In predicate logic, on the other hand, universal and particular propositions would be expressed by using a quantifier and two predicates. An example here might be useful
    see below
  • Another key difference is that Aristotelian logic only includes predicates for simple properties of entities. But it lacks predicates corresponding to relations between entities maybe it is better to introduce how predicates are used in Aristotelian logic before contrasting with classical logic, otherwise it makes this paragraph look like it is focusing on differences between the two at first glance.
    I decided to remove the comparison with predicate logic since the main point here is Aristotelian logic and properly explaining the difference would take up too much space.
    OK, this also works. Shapeyness (talk) 12:28, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Only a few more comments this time - there may be one set more after this one, not sure yet. Shapeyness (talk) 12:56, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • The development of first-order logic is usually attributed to Gottlob Frege. The analytical generality of first-order logic allowed the formalization of mathematics and drove the investigation of set theory. It also made Alfred Tarski's approach to model theory possible. It provides the foundation of modern mathematical logic. Should this maybe be in the history section?
    Yes, it fits better there.
  • In this sense, logical normativity consists in epistemic success or rationality I think this sentence is splitting up the sentences before and after it
    Done.
  • More general question: is there enough that is different in Avicennian logic compared to Aristotelian logic to justify a subsection in systems of logic? I only ask because, from the history section, it seems to be a historically significant form of logic.
    Avicenna's logic was very influential in the Islamic world. But its influence outside the Islamic world was limited compared to Aristotle. For example, many standard textbooks on logic today discuss Aristotle's syllogistics as a concrete introduction to more abstract ideas. But it's not common to have separate discussion of Avicenna's logic in them. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:50, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Jens

[edit]
  • Important article. Will take me some time.
    Hello Jens Lallensack and thanks for taking the time to review this article.Phlsph7 (talk) 08:15, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know that this would add more clutter, but, for general readers like me, it would be really helpful: In the lead, add examples for inductive and abductive arguments when you first mention these terms.
    Done. I hope that the increased length of the lead is not yet a problem.
  • Arguments that fall short of the standards of correct reasoning are called fallacies. – is it really the argument that is the fallacy (e.g., can you say "your argument is a fallacy"?), or is it the logic mistake in the argument that is the fallacy?
    Fallacies are often explicitly defined as "bad arguments". See, for example, [52] and [53]. However, the two characterizations do not need to exclude each other, as is argued in [54].
  • These two definitions of formal logic are not identical, but they are closely related. – I don't fully understand. Aren't these two definitions just describing the very same concept? Or does one definition includes some special cases that the other does not?
    This is a fine and difficult point. The two definitions disagree about what the essential features of formal logic are. As I understand it, this would pertain to the intension of the concept of logic or what is meant by the term. I'm not sure whether this also affects the extension of the concept of logic, i.e. whether one definition includes some cases that the other does not. The two definitions are discussed in more detail in the article Philosophy of logic in the section "Nature of logic". But a detailed explanation here might go too far.
  • This means that they have a truth value: they are either true or false. Thus contemporary philosophy generally sees them either as propositions or as sentences. – I don't understand why you use "Thus" here. It suggests that the sentence is somehow the consequence of the previous statement, but I can't see that connection.
    Agreed, the "Thus" is not very helpful here. I removed it.
  • This position is known as psychologism and was heavily criticized around the turn of the 20th century. – I think the "was heavily criticized" part lacks clarification (or, alternatively, should be removed). What is the significance/consequence of this criticism? Is this position now considered to be outdated?
    I reformulated that passage. One result of the debate (known as Psychologismus-Streit) is that psychologism is not widely accepted today.
  • "If Mars is red, then Mars is red" – is it possible to add a more complicated proposition, too? This one is so simple that I struggle to see the point. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:17, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I changed the example to "either Mars is red or Mars is not red". Maybe that makes the point more straightforward. In principle, any tautology could be used as an example. The point is interesting from a logical point of view but from an everyday perspective, logical truths are trivial and uninteresting. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:15, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jens, is there more to come? Gog the Mild (talk) 17:39, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I will come to it as soon as possible. This article just requires some concentration because of its difficulty, so I have to find a quiet minute. Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:42, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • A third type of rules concerns empirical descriptive rules. – This paragraph first talks about strategic rules, then about empirical descriptive rules, and then about strategic rules again (in the last sentence). I found this confusing. If "empirical descriptive rules" are really a separate thing, should the three types of rules maybe discussed one after the other?
    The main contrast relevant to logic is between definitory and strategic rules. I removed the passage on descriptive rules to avoid confusion and keep the focus on the main point.
  • The term "a logic" is used as a countable noun to refer to a particular formal system of logic. – This has already been pointed out in an earlier section ("Formal logic"). --Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:39, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I removed the sentence in the section "Formal systems" to avoid the repetition. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:18, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I am supporting. Very nice work. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:30, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass

[edit]

Recusing to review.

  • Bibliography: all article titles should be consistently in either sentence case or title case - your choice - irrespective of how they appear in their originals.
    See next response.
  • Similarly, all book titles should be in title case.
    I hope I got everything. I was not sure what to do about chapter titles and section headings so I left them as they are. There was one German title for which I did not apply title case.
  • Works which are not cited to should not be in the bibliography. Ie Goertzel et al; Klement 1995a; Okeke
    Done.
  • Was Invitation to formal semantics ever actually published?
    I don't think so. I replaced it with another source.
  • Łukasiewicz needs an OCLC. (656161566)
    Done.
  • Further reading: could we have a page range for Belnap.
    Done.
  • There is an ISBN available for A Precis of Mathematical Logic. (9789401705929)
    Done.
  • Principia Mathematica needs an OCLC. (872285723)
    Done.
  • Encyclopedia of Mathematics needs an ISBN.
    Encyclopedia of Mathematics links to a website. We could use the ISBN of an early publication, like the CD-ROM version of 1998 (ISBN: 0-7923-4805-2). But I don't know whether the article is the same as the one linked here.
My error. I confused it with the book of the same name by James Tanton.
  • Parts of the first paragraph of the lead are uncomfortably close to the first match picked up by Earwig. Could it be paraphrased.

Gog the Mild (talk) 13:42, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Scientific Research Publishing is a predatory Chinese publisher. The book in question was published in February 2023. It seems the text is a direct copy-paste from an earlier version of this article. For example, see the 2022 version of our article at [55]. I add the template "Backward copy" to the talkpage. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:30, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oops. Apologies.


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) 2 September 2023 [56].


Cross Road Blues

[edit]
Nominator(s): Ojorojo (talk) 19:25, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a song recorded by blues musician Robert Johnson in 1936. It is popularly associated with a deal he supposedly made with the Devil, but current views offer different interpretations. As "Crossroads" in the late 1960s, it became one of Cream's most popular songs and Eric Clapton and a variety of artists continue to perform it. Hope you find the article informative and interesting (anyone doing a plagiarism check might want to read this first). Ojorojo (talk) 19:25, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

First-time nomination

[edit]

Image review

  • Suggest adding alt text
    Added.
  • File:Cross_Road_Blues_single_cover.jpg has an inadequate fair-use rationale
    Updated with better FUR template.
  • Have you considered whether the article would benefit from a sample?
    There was a 48 second sample in the article, but I removed it. The maximum time limit for a ~2:30 recording is ~15 seconds, which is too short to adequately demonstrate the points in the article. There's an official Vevo link in EL that has the entire recording.
  • File:Crossroads_marker.jpg: what's the copyright status of the marker? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:31, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It's cropped from a photo in Commons, which was released by the photographer.[65] The file page for the article image includes: "Adapting the work (cropping & retouching) is permitted under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported (CC BY-SA 3.0) license; work is attributed and distributed under same license." Ojorojo (talk) 15:15, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's for the photo - I'm asking about the marker itself. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:18, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The Clarksdale, Mississippi, website includes "Clarksdale, the birthplace of the blues, lays claim to the location of Highways 61 and 49 and has staked that claim with a giant guitar sign", but does not mention anything else about it.[66] The Mississippi Blues Trail/Travellers website includes photos of the sign, but also doesn't say anything about it.[67] Ojorojo (talk) 15:37, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, is it known when the sign was erected? A copyright tag will be needed on the image description page. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:44, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    A book preview is missing pages, but includes that it was installed May 11, 1999, and that the designer (a local school shop teacher) received no compensation "nor did he copyright his design".[68] Perhaps the city or some other entity did, but since it is unverifiable, the image has been removed. Ojorojo (talk) 14:41, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from HAL

[edit]
  • "his soul to the Devil in exchange for his musical talents" --> "his soul to the Devil in exchange for musical talent"
  • "Both Johnson's and Cream's recordings" --> "Both Johnson and Cream's recordings"
  • "The material Johnson chose shows more variety than that for his first date and he reached back into his long-standing repertoire for songs to record" is kind of awkward imo
  • Comma needed before "and some have attached a supernatural significance to the song"
  • Comma needed before "and Johnson's tunes were found in jukeboxes in the region"
  • "in the latter days of the American folk music revival" --> "later" would be more accurate.
  • Comma needed before "and Baker adds fills and more complex techniques typical of drummers in jazz trios"
  • Comma needed before "and James' slide guitar was placed further back in the mix"
  • Comma needed before "and it recalls their"
  • The article could use a few more images, per Criteria 3

As a Mississippian pro tempore, who finds himself on country roads and crossroads in the middle of the night relatively often, I've always been fascinated by Johnson. Solid work. ~ HAL333 18:00, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've added your suggested fixes. Unfortunately, there are no photos of Johnson or Elmore James in the public domain and the copyrighted ones don't qualify for use here. So, I've added some relevant photos from Commons to meet FACr 3. Thanks. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:29, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to support. ~ HAL333 18:15, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

I won't be able to undertake a full source to text integrity spot check and paraphrasing check as I don't have access to Komara (2007) (which isn't even held by the British Library) and some of the other sources, but I'll do what I can. Hopefully that will make it easier for another source reviewer. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 00:51, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. WorldCat shows that Komara's book is available at the University of Edinburgh and libraries in other English speaking countries, if that helps.
  • Gillett, Charlie (1972); Litwack, Leon F. (1998); Wardlow, Gayle Dean (1998); and Whitburn, Joel (1988) are not used as references to directly support the text so could be moved to a "General references" section (MOS:REFERENCES) or to a "Further reading" section (MOS:FURTHER).
    These may have been used in previous versions, but since they are no longer, I removed them.
  • Some of the AllMusic urls have moved - these could either be updated, or hopefully located by running IAbot. Please check these.
    I replaced several of these with stable sources. Of the four that remain, only Gilliam's review of Cream's version doesn't work. It's too bad, since he has some good quotes. I don't know about IAbot, any other suggestions? —Ojorojo (talk) 19:18, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. To run IABot you can go to the "View history" tab at the article, then click "Fix dead links", and the tick "Add archives to all non-dead references (Optional)"; then click the "Analyze" button. The bot isn't always up but when it is, it's good for adding archived pages. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 21:48, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't agree to the terms and conditions, so I removed Gilliam. The three remaining AM review links have been rechecked and new dates added.
  • Talk:Cross_Road_Blues#Wardlow/Conforth_similarity seemed familiar; then I remembered why: it came up at Talk:Robert Johnson recordings/GA1.
    Yes, you may recognize some of the same sources from that GA review.
  • I've learnt that Template:Cite web says "For no date, or "undated", use date=n.d."
    I didn't see the point of using n.d. before, but since it is in the template guidance, I added it.

Check with Earwig's Copyvio detector

  • Only two non-zero matches. R&R HoF (5.7%): matches are titles. Rolling Stone (3.8%): Just the title, and "Roll Hall of Fame induction ceremony". So no issues.

Detailed checks (version at the start of the review.)

  • 4 - no issues
  • 7 - doesn't seem relevant for "The material reflects the styles of country blues performers Charley Patton and Son House, who influenced Johnson in his youth"; no other issues
    There are already two citations, so removed.
  • 9 - no issues
  • 13 no issues. ("used a portable disc cutting machine" isn't explicit on that page, but given the venue and that they were recording, seems a reasonable statement based on the source)
    It's a rather minor point, so I've removed it anyway.
  • 19 - no issues
  • 24, 25 - no issues
  • 34 - no issues
  • 41, 43, 46, 48 - no issues
  • 54 - Page title doesn't match, quite possibly because the page has been changed. The linked page doesn't verify that the song was inducted in 1986; and it doesn't mention Diggs. Quote from O'Neil is fine but in the source it is a complete sentence so I think the quote should start with a capital R and include the period within the quotation marks. (the Goldmine source can be used to verify 1986)
    I fixed the title (same text, but different titles/heading). The Blues HOF announcement page showing the 1986 induction date cannot be linked directly and the Goldmine article only mentions the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. Is there a preferred format for adding the Blues HOF search page with instructions for how to search? I've added a better source that mentions Driggs' choice and fixed the O'Neil quote.
    I added the search page with instructions. See if it works for you. —Ojorojo (talk) 19:18, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • 70 - no issues.
  • 73 - no issues
  • 76 - no issues
  • 78 - no issues
  • 79 - doesn't verify "Cream recorded the song on November 28, 1966, for broadcast on the BBC Guitar Club radio program" or "Clapton only sings the first and last sections, with his guitar solo replacing the middle "Traveling Riverside Blues" verse. It appeared on bootleg albums before finally being released in 2003 on BBC Sessions"
    Added new source for recording date, duration, and official release, and removed the rest.
  • 82 - the source doesn't specify the threshold for a US Platinum album. Maybe you could link to Music_recording_certification#Certification_thresholds
    Added link. Apparently, double LPs were counted differently.
  • 84 - no issues
  • 91 - no issues
  • 93 - no issues
  • 96, 97, 98 - no issues
  • 99 - no issues, but I suggest adding the year into the text.
    Added.
  • 101 - no issues
  • 102 - I have no idea whether "arwulf arwulf" should be "arwulf, arwulf"; it's inconsistent on other pages in Wikipedia. Otherwise, no issues.
    It's a toss up. Some editors insist that pseudonyms shouldn't be split. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:32, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • 108 - no issues
  • 109 - I think it would be better to list artists named in the text, e.g. "Dave Grohl" rather than "members of ... Foo Fighters. "(see video in external links)" in the text doesn't look appropriate to me, but may be OK.
    To be consistent, should the three members of Rush be mentioned? The source lists "Chuck D., Darryl DMC, Ann Wilson, Nancy Wilson, Dave Grohl, Taylor Hawkins, Rush, John Fogerty, Tom Morello, Gary Clark Jr., and Chris Cornell". —Ojorojo (talk) 17:46, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Stuck to source: Rush plus named artists. Removed "see video". —Ojorojo (talk) 16:03, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Detailed checks part 2 (version)

  • 8b (Palmer 1981)- I didn't see this supported; what part of the source does it rely on? (p. 126 has "If a white law officer or a passing redneck discovers him there, he could be jailed, or worse." but I don't think that's enough to support the current article text.)
    Added better source.
  • 8a, 17, 18, 50 (Palmer 1981): no issues. However the uncited "This was written in 1981 before the re-release of the original single in 1990, so it is possible that he is referring to the second take that was released in 1961." after [50] looks like potential WP:ORIGINAL research.
    Removed the second part of the efn.
  • 21, 28 (Schroeder 2004): no issues. (but I wasn't able to check if the rest of "Robert Johnson later recorded two songs that include such themes: in "Hellhound on My Trail" tells of trying to stay ahead of the demon hound which is pursuing him and in "Me and the Devil Blues" he sings, "Early this mornin' when you knocked upon my door, and I said 'Hello Satan I believe it's time to go' is supported by LaVere 1990 as I don't have access to it.
    LaVere is included as the source for the lyrics (full transcriptions of all of Johnson's lyrics, with footnotes).
  • 22 (Schroeder 2004): In the third and fourth sections, he expresses apprehension at being stranded as darkness approaches and asks that his friend Willie Brown be advised that "I'm sinkin' down" - I'm not seeing the support for this. (p.95 mentions that Willie Brown is invoked in the song)
    Added second Schroeder page and LaVere for the lyrics (Conforth & Wardlow nearly copy WP on this in their book).
  • 30 (Gioia 2008): no issues
  • 32 Charlton 2008): no issues with use of the source; however I noticed that Charlton has "The speed of the basic beat is approximately 88 beats per minute, but Johnson speeds up and slows down at will."; this is a bit different to "Both begin slower and speed up; the first is about 106 beats per minute (bpm), while the second is about 96 bpm" which is in the article sourced to Kmoara 2007 (which I don't have). Does this merit an addition to the text or a footbote?
    From the preview, it's unclear which take Charlton is referring to, so it may not be useful. The tempos vary though, as do many pre-click track recordings.
    You're right, Charlton doesn't mention which take. (I liked her remarks on p.12: "he was not confined by the rhythmic strictness observed by later blues musicians. He added extra beats to bars and extra bars to phrases seemingly at random, and sometimes even sang in a rhythmic pattern that differed from what he was playing on his guitar.") BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:13, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It's good, but she is saying basically the same as Headlam in the block quote "Meter itself ..." I prefer Headlam, because 1) "later blues musicians", such as Muddy Waters, Howlin' Wolf, and of course John Lee Hooker often weren't so strict, so she is somewhat overstating it ("most modern blues musicians" would have been better); and 2) it may be "seemingly at random" to her, but it also could be as Headlam suggests "a more personal, idiosyncratic vision".
  • Headlam 1997: add the chapter title (Blues transformations in the music of Cream) and page range (59–92) in the Bibliography entry
    Added.
  • 44a Headlam 1997: I didn't see the support for "The song's structure differs from a well-defined twelve-bar blues. The verses are not consistent and range from fourteen to fifteen bars in length" but this may well be because the author's text went over my head.
    You're right, it was the wrong page number, now corrected.
  • 44b Headlam 1997: Similarly for "Additionally, the harmonic progression is often implied rather than stated (full IV and V chords are not used)", but I'm even more prepared to find out that this is down to my lack of knowledge of the teminology used.
    As above. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:34, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • 44c, 47, 75, 76, 78 Headlam 1997: no issues
  • 66, 67,68, Boyd 2010: No issues
  • 70 Boyd 2010: article has "Clapton developed an arrangement using lyrics from both songs" but source has "He came up with an arrangement that combined the lyrics of ‘Crossroads’ with a guitar lick from ‘Riverside’"
    Unfortunately, Boyd is the only source for details about the Powerhouse version and he doesn't get it quite right. Their lyrics are pretty much the same as Cream's later version, which uses lyrics from both "Crossroads" and "Riverside" (see Headlam ref in the Cream section). Boyd is the only one who says that the riff was developed from "Riverside", which seems to be a stretch (Clapton says "Cross Road Blues" has "a very definite riff", but apparently in the context of Cream's version). I rewrote the sentence as "For the recording, Clapton developed an arrangement that drew on both songs"[74], which is consistent with the ref. Otherwise, without it, the paragraph would end on "Their attention turned to Robert Johnson songs and Boyd proposed "Crossroads",[d] while Clapton favored "Traveling Riverside Blues".[72][e]", which doesn't explain what the significance of "Riverside" is. —Ojorojo (talk) 18:34, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • 56 Milward 2012: no issues
  • 65 Roberty 1993: 65a -group name isn't mentioned on p24, you could add p.21. No other issues.
    Added better source.
  • 86 Hoffmann 1983: no issues
  • 109 Larkin 1998: source has "most famous track for USA in 1962. An updated version of Robert Johnson’s 'Crossroads', its pounding rhythms and heavily amplified bottle-neck made it a landmark in city blues." Article quotes this as "most famous track ... It's pounding rhythms and heavily amplified bottle-neck made it a landmark in city blues" so slight tidying up needed (e.g. lose the apostrophe). Shouldn't the chapter be the artist's name rather than ""Artist entry"?
    Removed typo, added section title.
  • 111 Herzhaft 1992: no issues
  • 116 - no issues with integrity or paraphrasing, but an independent source would be better.
    Replaced.

General

  • All of the sources I saw are of appropriate quality. Looks a good breadth of sources has been consulted, but I'm not an expert in the subject.
  • There's some inconsistency in whether publisher location is included. (The ref check script tells me that 21 refs include it but 5 don't.) Should be consistent.
    This came up before. Locations are added only if the source includes them (no OR). The alternative is no locations at all, if that is better. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:37, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia:Guidance_on_source_reviewing_at_FAC tells me that "Books should be defined in terms of author, title, year and/or edition, and publisher. Publisher location and, where possible, ISBN are usually added, but they are not required by WP:CITE. Consistency requires that these optional fields are either added in all instances or omitted in all instances (except where a book does not have an ISBN)." BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:13, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the explanation/link. The locations have been removed and I made some refs more consistent. Looks like I have a lot of articles to fix.
  • I'm still having issues with AllMusic sources, so that's pending from me.
    I responded where it is first discussed. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:05, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Detailed checks round 3 (version)

  • 101 Erlewine: no issues
  • 118 Jurek: no issues
  • 121 Millward 2013: no issues

Thanks for the responses, Ojorojo. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:13, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@BennyOnTheLoose: Please let me know if any of your concerns have not been addressed. The coordinator wants to move this along. Thanks. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:08, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ojorojo. All of my concerns so far have been addressed, thanks. I'll try and have a look at those which have GBooks previews; as long as they are more than snippets I can probably tick a few more off. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 16:48, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've reviewed as many sources as I could find. The exceptions are: "Crossroads" / "Passing the Time" (Single notes), Charters 1973, Conforth & Wardlow 2019, Dahl 2002, DeCurtis 1988, DeCurtis 1994, Forte 2010, Hal Leonard 2013, Komara 2007, LaVere 1990, Marcus 2015, McCarthy 1968, McDermott 1995, Morris & Haig 1992, Odom & Dorman 2002. Pearson & McCulloch 2008, Perone 2019, The Sky Is Crying (Album notes), Topping 1993, Welch 2000, Wheels of Fire (Album notes), Whitburn 2008, BBC Sessions (Album notes), Kimsey 2005. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:13, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If you're interested, most of the books are available in googlebook previews and many of the liner notes may be viewed at discogs.com. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:28, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Detailed checks round 4 (version)

  • 2, 3, 6, 12, 23, 31, 59, 74 LaVere 1990 - pages don't match up with the edition I'm looking at (C2K 64916), but no issues.
    I used C2K 46222 (US Columbia); C2K 64916 appears to be a European CBS edition. I double checked and the page numbers are correct.
  • 16, 56 Conforth and Wardlow - what's the source text relied on? No concerns, it's just that previews with my search text don't give enough context.
    For 16, C&W page 47 includes "Penton, Lake Cormorant, Clack, Commerce, and Robinsonville—Mississippi locations that later served as major landmarks in Robert's life."; page 52 includes "The area above that [the previously mentioned Clarksdale], Coahoma County towards Memphis [where the listed areas are located] was termed the north Delta by those who lived there." For 56, p186 "Although neither song ['Cross Road Blues' and 'Ramblin' on My Mind'] became a hit then, they were still widely heard in the Delta."; p221 "Greenwood and Clarksdale where cafes had jukeboxes that could hold ten records of the latest race issues, including his own".
  • 25, 29, 55, 116 Conforth and Wardlow - no issues. (Pages not numbered in preview, so I AGF on numbering)
    I doubled checked and the page numbers are correct.
  • 114 Dahl 2002 - I think the reference should include page 1, as that's where the session date appears. No other issues. (Maybe "recorded a rendition in 1963" and "The July 23, 1963, recording session" could be combined?)
    Good catch, added p1. Also, combined to lessen repetition. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:24, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi BennyOnTheLoose and thanks for picking this up. You seem to me to have done sufficient to be able to confirm whether you are happy with the source and citation formatting; the quality, up to dateness and comprehensiveness of the sources; the source to text integrity; and possible over-close paraphrasing. It seems that you are indeed happy, and as and when you confirm this I will look through the review and the article myself with a view to closing the nomination. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:55, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, Gog the Mild. I'm familiar with some of the authors of works I didn't see, such as Komara, DeCurtis, Marcus, Whitburn and Perone, and am certainly happy that those would be appropriate sources. @Ojorojo:; in terms of the sources, where possible, could you add page numbers for the chapters for Forte (2010), Guitar World's 100 Greatest Guitar Solos of All Time, Herzhaft (1992), Kimsey (2005), Larkin (1998), and Marcus (2015)? McCarthy (1968) pre-dates ISBN's, so may need the year of the edition that you used added, and an orig-year parameter too. (I didn't see any others that were obviously wanting an orig-year parameter, but if you know of any then please add those too.) Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 13:08, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@BennyOnTheLoose: I added for Forte, Herzhaft, and Kimsey. Marcus is spread out over two chapters. For McCarthy, it appears that all are 1968 editions and include isbns in the abstracts (Googlebook, WorldCat, Amazon). I found one university catalogue entry with an OCLC number 00412768. Would that be better that an isbn? —Ojorojo (talk) 16:44, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't find a later edition of McCarthy; as the ISBN works to locate it in WorldCat and with a major online retailer, seems OK to retain it. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 16:52, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Pass for source review. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 16:52, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Tkbrett

[edit]

Forthcoming. Tkbrett (✉) 19:03, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tkbrett, nudge :) . Gog the Mild (talk) 17:44, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reminder, Gog the Mild. I promise I did not forget this promise, I was just away for work. I will be reviewing in the next day or two. Cheers. Tkbrett (✉) 09:59, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lyrics and interpretation

  • The song has been used to perpetuate …": if possible, fix this passive voicing. Who has used the song in this way? Record executives? Locals? Authors?
    I added a quote that attributes it to "many blues fans and even some scholars".

Eric Clapton/Cream Interpretation

  • "spring of 1966": Avoid using seasons for time periods (MOS:SEASON)
    The source uses spring, but changed it as per MOS.

Other versions and appearances

  • "Author Colon Larkin describes it as James' …": I believe James should be Homesick, per MOS:SAMESURNAME.
    Fixed.
  • "… and for the Crossroads guitar Festivals to benefit it": the "it" here is referring to the drug rehab facility, right? The way the sentence is structured, "it" could instead be referring to the song.
    Clarified.

General

Ojorojo: My apologies on the delay. I made changes as I went through which did not seem worth bringing up here. Please look them over and make sure you have no objections.

I do not have much to critique; this article is excellent. The prose is tight and explains things well to a non-expert. I am not especially versed in Johnson, but this article accords with what I know. Despite being a first-time nomination, this is a much better article than what typically ends up at FAC from the music wiki projects. Once the above is addressed, this will be an easy pass. Tkbrett (✉) 14:17, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. The housekeeping changes are fine and I've made the fixes you suggested. Thanks for your encouragement. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:13, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
With the above fixes having been made, I am happy to support this article for promotion. Tkbrett (✉) 10:42, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note

[edit]

This has been open for more than three weeks and has only the single support. Unless it attracts considerable movement towards a consensus to promote over the next three or four days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:06, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild - I haven't found any real problems during the source review above, only a few issues of the type that often get picked up during a FAC review. Is what I've covered an adequate sample, or does it need to be more comprehensive? As noted, I don't have access to some of the sources, but I could probably get hold of a couple more of them. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 23:19, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Moisejp

[edit]

Ojorojo has pinged me, and I'm happy to look at this. I can't promise I'll be able to finish a full review in the three to four days Gog the Mild specified above, but I'll do my best and let's see how far we get. Moisejp (talk) 02:05, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinators never like to time out nominations. This one now looks a little busier, and it will probably be a week or so before we consider another hard look at progress. If you were, say, most of the way through a review by then and nothing fundamental was coming up, then the nomination should gain another four or five days grace. And so on; for a while, although not infinitely. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:39, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Finished my first read-through and it generally looks quite good. I'm anticipating supporting. Now working on my second read-through and will write comments as I spot them.

Thanks, that works for me.
  • Recording: "The song incorporates the style of country blues performers Charley Patton and Son House, who influenced Johnson in his youth." Is it clear what song is being referred to here? Moisejp (talk) 05:51, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The Recording section was intended to provide some background about Johnson's San Antonio recordings. The second paragraph explained a difference between the material recorded for his first session that for the second and third ones. Ceoil made some changes to the second and third paragraphs, including changing "material" (the source is describing several songs, as the preceding sentence indicates) to "song" and removing a second description of the material.[69] Perhaps they can explain. Ceoil's changes have been rolled back.
  • "Two similar takes of the song were recorded." I'll leave it to your discretion but just wondering whether "somewhat similar" would be better as later in the article several differences are listed. Moisejp (talk) 06:02, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    "Somewhat similar" does seem to be a better description, so changed.
  • "It contrasts with Johnson's finger-picking "piano style", which uses a boogie-style accompaniment on the bass strings while playing melody and harmonies on the higher strings." Doesn't quite seem to work grammatically as the subject of "uses" is "piano style" while the implied subject of "playing melody" seems to be Johnson. Moisejp (talk) 06:14, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Changed, "incorporating" is a better fit. —Ojorojo (talk) 13:53, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Outriggr has made some changes to the "It contrasts with Johnson's finger-picking ..." sentence, including replacing "incorporating" with "adding". Does "adding" present the same problem as "playing"? —Ojorojo (talk) 18:11, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think maybe it's OK?? I seems better than "playing," probably. But if you happen to feel "incorporating" is the best overall, I'm happy to support you on that too. Moisejp (talk) 23:31, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Changed back to "incorporating". If Outriggr feels strongly about this, it can be reevaluated.

I'll try my best to finish this review this weekend, thanks. Moisejp (talk) 16:13, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • In the Cream section, not 100% sure this is a worthwhile detail, but if you feel strongly it is, I won't object to it being kept: "It was the first double album to be certified as "Platinum" in the US." Moisejp (talk) 23:02, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not important, so removed.
  • It may just be speculation, but it feels like Clapton's statement about the song that "I really don't like it, actually. I think there's something wrong with it. I wouldn't be at all surprised if we weren't lost at that point in the song" may be related to "he has expressed reservations about his performance: "I'm convinced that I get on the wrong beat in the middle of the song ... where I’m supposed to be on the 'one', where I'm really on the 'two'." " Of course it would be OR to say directly without a source that he's talking about the same thing both times, but I wonder how many readers like me may wonder about that. Whether or not they are talking about the exact same thing, they do seem related, and it could be good to find a way to put them together. One solution could be to make a mini-section or paragraph about Clapton's feelings about the performance, and pull both bits into it. Or, as nice as both bits are, another solution could be to remove one of the bits. These are just thoughts. Moisejp (talk) 23:16, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I found a better source and added a section on Clapton's views with a fuller explanation and trimmed his comment on editing. Good suggestion.
    It's interesting that issues with the beat have been expressed about the versions by Johnson, Cream, and Texas Alexander. I was hoping to be able to tie them together somehow, but haven't found any RS. Maybe something to do with old Beelzebub. —Ojorojo (talk) 18:40, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe change the title "Editing on the album version" to something like "Possible editing on the album version" because the section is not conclusive that there was indeed editing. Moisejp (talk) 23:19, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree, changed.

Those are all my comments, cheers. Moisejp (talk) 23:33, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your edits and suggestions, Moisejp. —Ojorojo (talk) 18:04, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Great, I'm very happy to support now. The article is really well written, with engaging prose, and lots of detail throughout. Nice work on this subject! Moisejp (talk) 19:27, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ceoil

[edit]

Placeholder. Reading through. A week or so latitude seems good. Ceoil (talk) 04:46, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Would mention that the Faustian pact centered on his uncanny ability to play slide guitar, and at such a young age. Ceoil (talk) 05:10, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Added Conforth & Wardlow ref. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:30, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The lead seems long, maybe get quicker to the nub of why Johnson is haunting, and reduce mentions of Cream. Still reading though. Ceoil (talk) 04:23, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Striking now...didn't realize the article had substantial section on the Cream release...sorry!! Ceoil (talk) 12:26, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cream version: should "best and most assured" be in quotes
    It's not a direct quote and since the author is identified, it doesn't seem warranted.
  • "Besides being a blues standard, "Crossroads" is also popular among blues rock artists." - repetition?
    The two are not the same. Many blues standards are not popular with blues rockers, while other blues songs are popular with them that aren't blues standards.

Ceoil is making edits that alter the meaning of article text. They are introducing errors and ideas not in the references used, deleting reliably sourced material without explanation, including a source that is used in other citations (restored by Anomie bot).[70] They were asked to explain a change that lead another reviewer to question,[71] but have not done so. They are also redacting their review comments. They removed their comment indicating an early "oppose",[72] while they later admit that they hadn't even read enough of the article to realize that Cream's version is extensively discussed.

I find it concerning that Ceoil seems to have major problems with an article that has gone through a GA review, a pre-nom mentor review, and three reviews that resulted in supports without any mention of significant deficiencies. I am willing to work with good faith efforts to improve the article. When problems are identified, it is better to raise them as questions, especially when they change the meaning of reliably sourced material. This is process other reviewers have used and is better than creating more problems.

—Ojorojo (talk) 14:13, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I apologies, and yes my leaning oppose was based on prose issues from an initial scan, and was hasty. I have rolled back all (I hope) edits.[73]. I would like to say that am delighted that you have developed and brought the article this far, and hope no hard feelings. Ceoil (talk) 14:34, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
ps, if you still want me to list the (minor) issues had resolved here than would be happy to do so. Otherwise, I'll bow out. Ceoil (talk) 16:00, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I re-added a couple of items, but all is good. There is room for improvement in the prose and some of your text is worthwhile. I have some ideas on how to improve the article in this regard and will address your comments on my talk page. —Ojorojo (talk) 18:11, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like a plan. Ceoil (talk) 18:36, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Ojorojo and Ceoil: guys this has been open quite a while and has had pretty extensive review; I'm happy to leave a bit longer if some polishing is going on but let me know where we're at. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 19:36, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ian, I'm ok with it being promoted per the consensus above; don't want to hold it up. Ceoil (talk) 21:50, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I went through the article again looking for words to watch and made a change. At this point, I think any substantial issues have been addressed and the final review may proceed. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:52, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Hurricanehink

[edit]

I was wondering when this would end up on FAC. I reviewed the article before Ororojo nommed it, wanting a peer review. I was impressed by the level of detail for what was a fairly significant song. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 23:59, 23 August 2023 (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/September_2023&oldid=1177814914"