Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/May 2022

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 31 May 2022 [1].

Like I'm Gonna Lose You[edit]

Nominator(s): NØ 00:00, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Meghan Trainor's song "Like I'm Gonna Lose You", which features guest vocals from John Legend. She almost didn't include it on her debut major-label studio album until being convinced otherwise by her uncle. When it was ultimately released as its fourth single, it revitalized the album's commercial momentum and became Trainor's third top-10 single from it, also reaching number one in Australia, New Zealand, and Poland. Since its first GA review in 2016, it has been a rocky road for this article. I rewrote it recently and think it fares well with regard to the FA criteria. Thanks a lot to everyone who will take the time to give their feedback here.--NØ 00:00, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Aoba47[edit]

  • The following part, soul love ballad, is a WP:SEAOFBLUE to me. I would unlink love song to avoid this, and I do not think this link is particularly beneficial since it is a very well-known concept that would be understood by a majority of the article's readers. I would do this for each instance of these links throughout the article.
  • I tried some alternate wording here.
  • I still do not think the love song link is entirely necessary, and I think saying "a soul ballad" is better than saying "a ballad in the soul genre". Aoba47 (talk) 17:03, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • For this part, singing the song in a candlelit room, I would just say singing in a candlelit room to avoid the repetition of singing/song.
  • Done.
  • Removed size.
  • For the Legend image, I would clarify in the caption what year it was taken.
  • Clarified.
  • Done.
  • That makes sense.
  • The classic link seems unnecessary to me.
  • Removed.
  • I'd vary the sentence structure of the third paragraph of the "Composition and lyrical interpretation" section as there are three sentences with starting with "Trainor/She..." and the prose could be re-worked to be more engaging.
  • I reworked the prose a bit. It is necessary to distinguish where we are talking about Trainor's verse vs. Legends so this type of sentence structure is unfortunately inevitable.
  • That's a fair point. Thank you for addressing this for me. Aoba47 (talk) 17:03, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would avoid this sentence construction, with the latter commenting, as I have seen repeated notes in the FAC space to avoid using "with X verb-ing".
  • Rephrased.
  • I would re-examine the "Critical reception" section's structure. I know I've suggested WP:Reception to you a few times so apologies for sounding like a broken record, but I do find it to be an incredibly helpful resource. I'd more clearly organize this section by topic and while I see bits and pieces of this, this section does not strongly back up the critical consensus brought up in the lead. I'd think further revision would be beneficial for this.
  • Apologies, I too observe this as something I struggle with. I tried to organize it into thematic elements with para 1 being general positive commentary on the song, and para 2 about Trainor's vocals and about if it suits her.
  • No need to apologize. These sections are notoriously hard to write well. It looks better to me, but I will do a more thorough read-through later this week. I am uncertain about the "eulogized" word choice as I always associate that with deaths and funerals (i.e. delivering a eulogy) so I am not sure if that is the best choice for this part. Aoba47 (talk) 17:03, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the first paragraph of the "Critical reception" section, you use "deemed", and I would avoid that as it does make the prose somewhat repetitious.
  • Changed to "found".
  • When I first read this part, She dueted with Matt Prince during the show in New York City, my immediate question was who is Matt Prince? I am guessing he is a singer of some sort, but further clarification would be helpful since he does not have a link to support him unlike the other artists mention in the same sentence.
  • So true. Introduced as "American singer" now.
  • I am uncertain about this part, she was steady while singing its towering notes and did not struggle. It is currently being presented in Wikipedia's voice, and I would instead more clearly attribute in the prose who is describing the performance in this manner.
  • Attributed more clearly now.

I hope this review is helpful. I will do a more thorough read-through of the article later in the week. Have a great rest of your weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 02:36, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, this is tremendously helpful as you always are. I do remember you telling me that this is your favorite Trainor song so I hope it will be an enjoyable read for you :) --NØ 06:29, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your responses. It is flattering that you remember that this is my favorite Trainor song. It may be simple, but I am a sap for these kinds of love ballads. I do enjoy this song and others like "Like You'll Never See Me Again" which explore similar themes. I will look through the article again later in the week, but I do not imagine that I will have much to add beyond this. Aoba47 (talk) 17:03, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • For this part, They wanted Trainor to record, I would clarify the "They" as it is not immediately clear to me. Is it referring to Epic Records as a whole or the specific people mentioned earlier (i.e. L.A. Reid, etc.). I think further clarification would be beneficial.
  • Specified it is Epic now.
  • Christina Milian did a cover of this song for Resort to Love, but I could not find any third-party coverage. Could you find anything about this? If it was not covered by a third-party source, I would not include it as it is not notable enough then. I just wanted to raise it to your attention.
  • It seems the cover did not make any record charts or draw coverage in reliable secondary sources. We could point a reference to soundtrack credits but I have doubts we can demonstrate notability and thus WP:WEIGHT for its mention.
  • Agreed. Thank you for checking into this. It seems like this largely flew under the radar, probably because the film did not seem to get a lot of attention in the first place. Aoba47 (talk) 18:18, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is likely a matter of personal preference, but I'd put Credits and personnel adapted from Title album liner notes. at the top of the section. I've seen it like this more often in other articles, and I think it would be beneficial to establish at the start of the section where this information is being supported.
  • Agreed and fixed. Honestly I have no idea what made me not do this in the first place, lol.
  • It happens. I have seen some articles use this structure, but I've seen more articles put it first. Aoba47 (talk) 18:18, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Billboard Hot 100 is linked twice in the "Charts" section. Once in the weekly table and a second time in the year-end table. It seems odd since the other items in the year-end table are not linked a second time so it is not entirely consistent. I'd imagine it would only need to be linked in the weekly table.
  • Good catch.
  • I decided to remove this altogether.
  • Has there been any retrospective reviews of this song? I could not find any when I did a brief search, but I was curious if you had any luck with that or if this kind of articles are just not written for this song.
  • Personally I could not find anything. Sad since it is one of her most lasting hits.
  • Thank you for checking into this. It is interesting that Trainor does not receive the same retrospective reviews or lists as other artists. There are of course retrospective articles written about specific songs (such as "All About That Bass" and "Dear Future Husband"), but others seemed to have fallen out of popular discussion (at least in terms of published articles). Aoba47 (talk) 18:18, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This should be the end of my review. Once everything has been addressed, I will be more than happy to support this FAC for promotion. My review is based primarily on the prose, but I could not see anything obviously wrong with the images, media, or citations. Best of luck with this nomination and thank you for putting up with my nitpicks lol. Aoba47 (talk) 17:44, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All should be addressed now. Thank you so much, Aoba47. Personally I found all of your suggestions reasonable. Hope you have a great week ahead!--NØ 18:05, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the kind words. I support this FAC based on the prose. Best of luck with this FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 18:18, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Media review from SNUGGUMS (Pass)[edit]

I meant to assess this sooner but got sidetracked. Sorry for that. Anyway, here are some comments:

  • For File:Meghan Trainor - Like I'm Gonna Lose You (Official Single Cover).png, try to avoid using Discogs even for file sources when that site is full of user-generated content. Can the artwork be found anywhere outside of that or the YouTube link? If neither Meghan or John shared it on their social media, then your best bet is a music retailer or streaming service.
  • The original uploader pointed a link to a blog where it is no longer found. I have eliminated the Discogs link and cited the record label.
  • To be blunt, I always get suspicious of potential fabrication whenever seeing cover art without any accompanying URL to help prove authenticity, so getting one from Epic would help. Someone might otherwise think you're trying to cover up how a piece isn't actually the official artwork used. In this case I know you didn't just pull this out of nowhere or create it on your own, but no links at all is never a good solution. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 17:11, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems Epic published it on the Italian radio site so I added that too. Its use in the official audio is a pretty solid proof of its authenticity though, in my opinion.

More to follow later. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 12:25, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot, SNUGGUMS! :) --NØ 12:47, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from SNUGGUMS[edit]

  • "debut major-label" → "major-label debut"
  • I do see how your suggested wording makes sense too but I prefer to use the former since "debut major-label", "second major-label", "third major-label", etc. can be a consistent wording format on articles for her future albums, while the other sounds weird with other numbers.
  • Something about the tense from "attaining" within "attaining 5× Platinum certifications in Australia and Canada" doesn't feel right. Maybe go with "and attained" when the sentence begins with "It peaked at number one".
  • Done.
  • Commonly recognized terms like "single" and "music video" don't need to be linked per WP:OVERLINK
  • "it was not in keeping with its doo-wop sound" reads awkwardly; you'd be better off with something like "it did not keep with the album's doo-wop sound"
  • Changed.
  • I'm not convinced the exact album release date is particularly relevant here
  • Gonna have to disagree since that is the date the song first became available to stream or buy. Essential information in my opinion.
  • "an unlikely pairing to perform a love duet" doesn't really convey how much Jeff Benjamin enjoyed this track
  • Fixed. :)
  • Amended.
  • "reached number 99 in the United Kingdom, earning a Gold certification" should have an "and", plus I'd change "earning" to "earned"
  • Agreed.

Thankfully there aren't any glaring issues that I could find. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 01:27, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reviewing as well, SNUGGUMS. Do let me know if there's anything else!--NØ 04:07, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My pleasure, and I support after making one minor change here to follow the numerical sequence you allude to for future albums. Your mileage may vary on this but I personally think it reads less awkwardly than "debut major-label". SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 04:14, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Speatle[edit]

  • Lead looks fine.
  • Her uncle, Burton Toney, forced her manager to hear it: "You need to hear this song, she didn't show you this song, you need to hear it." Is the quoted stuff really necessary?
  • Removed.
  • Ref 13 doesn’t need to be cited three sentences in a row, just cut it to the last one.
  • Done.
  • Trainor wrote it after having one of "those nightmares that your brother or sister or boyfriend just dies", following which one is relieved to find them still breathing… per MOS:CLICHE this should be changed to “still alive”.
  • Agreed and done.
  • Music critics including Gittins and Newsday's Glenn Gamboa thought "Like I'm Gonna Lose You" sounds like a "classic"; the latter commented that it will serve Trainor throughout her career which will surely last long. Last five words probably aren’t needed.
  • Removed.
  • Elysa Gardener of USA Today deemed it proof that she is most appealing when she is not cunning and agitational. Trainor hasn’t been referred to in a while, so replace the first “she” with her last name. Also, tense problem. “is” should be changed to “was”.
  • Both done.
  • Some critics like Gittins and Sims praised Trainor's vocal prowess on "Like I'm Gonna Lose You", while others thought its subdued style did not suit her. The latter felt that the song was the "most refreshing" on the album, and found its focus on her voice a welcome change from the production-heavy nature of other tracks. This could mean either Sims or the song’s critics. Make it clearer.
  • Done.
  • Wow. That was both shorter and longer than I expected. My I-90 review had 10+ bullets while this one only has 8.
Thanks a lot for the comments, Speatle. It is much appreciated!--NØ 12:14, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Dugan Murphy[edit]

Though I just authored my first music article (Oshima Brothers), I am still largely inexperienced in this end of Wikipedia. Having said that, I'll read through the article and type out some comments in a bit. Dugan Murphy (talk) 16:15, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • It doesn't seem necessary to me to repeat in John Legend's photo caption what is said in that section about his guest vocals. I recommend changing the caption to simply "John Legend in 2008" or something like that.
  • WP:CAPTION recommends that a caption be succint but still "establish the picture's relevance to the article"
  • I'd say something similar about the music clip caption repeating information about the song's genre and Trainor's musical style. If you decide to keep that info in there, definitely change ", where" to "in which".
  • Likewise with this caption, we need to give readers context of what they're supposed to be hearing. I will take your wording suggestion.
  • Is it worth redlinking Big Yellow Dog Music? When I search for the phrase, I see it coming up in lots of other articles.
  • Personally I haven't done this on my other FAs and don't see how it would be particularly useful.
  • I am likewise remiss to redlink things, but I thought I would raise the question anyway, especially because this article is well outside my knowledge area. Dugan Murphy (talk) 17:50, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe it's because I don't read many articles about music, but "sonically in the same vein" sounds awkward to me, and perhaps unnecessarily verbose. I recommend changing "served as the follow-up singles, which were sonically in the same vein and" to "served as similar follow-up singles" or something simpler like that. Just an idea.
  • Changed to "sonically similar". I think it is helpful to specify if the similarity is sonic or lyrical.
  • The use of "serviced" sounds odd to me. Is that industry jargon? Sounds to me like it should be "sent".
  • Changed to "promoted" since "sent" would cause repetition in the following sentence.
  • I had to read "following which one is relieved" a couple times to figure out what was being said. I think that should be reworded for clarity.
  • Does "after which one is relieved" work better according to you?
  • Not really. My mind first reads "which one is" instead of "following which" or "after which". What do you think about adding a comma after "which"? I've read it so many times that I'm not longer a good test subject, but I think adding that pause ought to clarify. Dugan Murphy (talk) 17:50, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done.
  • Same sentence: I think it may be worth changing "Trainor wrote" to "Trainor said she wrote" or something like that to make it clear who is being quoted, per Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Attribution.
  • Done.
  • The sentences that begin "Trainor sings about how" and "In his verse" include quotes, but it's not clear who is being quoted. That information should be in the text of the article, per Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Attribution.
  • Actually it is quoting the lyrics, which is already expressly implied. It is standard practice that these objective things not be erroneously credited to just one critic. I would suggest checking out composition sections on some other song FAs to get a hang of it.
  • Re-reading it now, I see how the text makes a clear reference to the lyrics. After the previous paragraph's discussion of critical interpretation, I guess I was stuck in that mindset in the second paragraph. Dugan Murphy (talk) 17:50, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe I'm being silly here, but shouldn't "Legend talks" be "Legend sings"?
  • Changed. This works too.

I'll read through the rest and leave more comments later. Dugan Murphy (talk) 17:03, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Trainor performed 'Like I'm Gonna Lose You' at the American Music Awards on November 22, 2015, in a medley with 'Marvin Gaye' (2015), her collaboration with Charlie Puth." After reading this sentence a couple of times, I was still unsure what Puth's role was. Did Puth sing Legend's role in the duet? I recommend rewording to make that more clear.
  • Clarified.
  • Credits and personnel: using a standalone sentence fragment to introduce two lists with bold headings seems like it is against the MOS, but I can't point to what the rule would be. I think I would probably make it a full sentence. But then, all that sentence does is express what is already said in the citation, so then I would be tempted to remove the sentence fragment and move the citation to the headers for the two lists since you probably don't want to repeat it after every single list item and you certainly don't want to put in the section header. What is your thinking here?
  • I converted it to a similar sentence as FAs "Shake It Off" and "Blank Space" which I frequently refer. Should be OK now.
  • There is at least one sentence (last sentence of the lede) with an Oxford comma, but also one (last sentence of the first paragraph of Live performances) without. I believe if you add the comma where it is missing that the article will be consistent.
  • Thanks for pointing this out. Fixed.

I really appreciate the global coverage of the commercial performance section. I don't know how common that is for music articles. Not having much experience with music articles, this one certainly seems comprehensive to me without being overly detailed. And the lede section does a good job of comprehensively summarizing the body without too much detail. I didn't spend too much time looking at the sources, but at a glance, they look reliable. I certainly appreciate that everything in the article is cited. Dugan Murphy (talk) 17:21, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for the comments and compliments, Dugan! Everything should be addressed now.--NØ 17:38, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sure thing. I'm happy to support this nomination based on every criteria but the media, which I didn't check on. Ping me if I'm needed for anything else on this nomination. Dugan Murphy (talk) 18:04, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from 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
  • Removed.
  • Linked both now.
Prose
  • Amended.
  • Changed first and I welcome any ideas you may have for the other two.
  • There's not much scope for change considering we have to keep an active voice throughout, honestly. Like above, I welcome any specific ideas.
  • Removed.


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) 12:42, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Lee Vilenski.
Couple more points - one ref goes to a Dropbox page - how do we know this is official? Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:39, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Dropbox is an official link produced at ARIA's site here if you scroll down to click "Latest accreditations".
  • That page does not verify the certification actually. So it cannot be linked for verification here. The current link is automatically generated by the template and what other FAs use. I believe it is the most appropriate.
There is a lot of see also links - seems quite odd why they are in that place - do these fit WP:SEE ALSO. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:39, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi LV, sorry for bothering but I just wanted to know if those were all your comments or the review is still pending.--NØ 18:31, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Jaguar[edit]

Evidently I've arrived late to the party. I have read through the article and cannot find any faults with it, prose-wise or with the sources. It is well-written, comprehensive and meets the FA criteria in my opinion. Support from me. ♦ jaguar 19:29, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Query for the coordinators[edit]

@FAC coordinators: If there is no issue, I would like to proceed with the next nomination sometime early in June. Thanks as always.--NØ 10:24, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You can nominate another article once there's a passed source review. (t · c) buidhe 13:36, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Mike Christie, do you have some time to do this source review?--NØ 18:41, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, no -- I'm travelling until mid-June and am likely to be busy after that; I might be able to do a content review or two but not a source review which requires more organization of tabs and data than I can manage on an iPad. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:53, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hey Hog Farm, I was wondering if you may consider passing this today. It would be cool if it became my second successful nomination within this month.--NØ 07:15, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • buidhe I meant promoting this nomination, actually.--NØ 20:14, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review (Pass)[edit]

  • All the citations appear reliable to me. I have a few comments about the formatting, but other than that, it is solid and I have done spot-checking and I could not find any issues with that.
  • Thank you so much. This is really a big help!
  • While this is not required for the FAC, I would encourage you to archive web citations, such as Citation 8, to avoid any future headache with link rot and death.
  • Done.
  • It should be made clear in Citation 91 that this is an archived version of the citation.
  • Done.
  • For foreign language citations, like Citation 56, would it be possible to include an English translation?
  • Unfortunately I wasn't able to find this on any of the other FAs I reference and I am not entirely sure this is possible.
Unless you just meant a trans-title, which I have gone ahead and added now.
  • Thank you for recognizing what I meant. Sorry about that confusion. Aoba47 (talk) 15:22, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some Billboard citations are marked as requiring a subscription while others are not. I would imagine that it should be consistent throughout.
  • This is intentional as only Billboard chart refs seem to be behind a paywall. I believe another distinction is that subscription ones have "pro" in the url link!
  • That makes sense to me. Thank you for explaining this to me. Aoba47 (talk) 15:23, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I hope that this source review is helpful. Have a great rest of your week. Once my comments are addressed, I will look through the citations one more time, but I believe at that point, it will pass my review. Aoba47 (talk) 01:55, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Very, very helpful. I believe I have addressed everything, Aoba47.--NØ 07:53, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for addressing everything! This passes my source review. Aoba47 (talk) 15:25, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 31 May 2022 [2].

Saint Vincent Beer[edit]

Nominator(s): Guerillero Parlez Moi 22:06, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a pre-prohibition brewery run by monastery that generated quite a bit of controversy. I went through a GA review by Kusma and then a peer review by Ceoil and SandyGeorgia. After doing another read over, I think it is ready for you all. Thank you to my reviewers for getting it to this point. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 22:06, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review for the lead image, if all you did is cropped a public domain image and added some lines and text, these modifications are certainly below the threshold of originality in US law to enable a copyright claim; compare the examples at c:COM:TOO US (t · c) buidhe 22:29, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever c:COM:TOO US means, that you don't put into graspable, actionable, English, nor does the policy page. But public domain? Ceoil (talk) 22:50, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Buidhe: I think it is just subject to copyright protection because it "possess[es] some creative spark". I made creative decisions by choosing what to label, what not to label, the wording of the labels, and the placement of the labels based on my decade of experience as a professional cartographer. I would agree with you if just labeled the ruins. -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 12:54, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ceoil[edit]

I do like beer and monastery history so great to see this. Am re-reading, and while inclining towards promotion have things to say. Ceoil (talk) 23:33, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Maybe the "Beer Fuss" and "golden age of Saint Vincent Beer" don't actually exist outside of the imaginations of the brewery's promotors
  • A lot of the sentences are staccato, eg "Wimmer agreed to close the tavern but sought to retain the brewery.[1] O'Connor refused to make the community that Wimmer founded a priory.[3] Wimmer appealed to Pope Pius IX during a trip to Rome, but was denied.[3] "
  • There are many instances of jarring alliteration, eg " pointing to the permission" etc
  • started pressuring the monastery to stop" - began to pressure
  • Watch capitalisation - Saint Vincent Archabbey, Seminary, and College
  • Zurcher skewered the archabbey for brewing Saint Vincent Beer instead of joining the temperance movement, - the placement of "skewered " here is baffling and hints at a calculation that is not explained. Also for brewing Saint Vincent Bthe beer
  • I think this is almost good to go, after you meet my demands. Ceoil (talk) 10:41, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ceoil:
    • Lamendola, Oetgen, and Klein all speak of the "beer fuss" as a thing. Klein is the most attached to the idea of a golden age. Lamendola refers to it as the "so called golden age." Oetgen makes no mention of it. I do get your point. The archabbey would be considered to be nanobrewery today due to how little beer was actually produced.
    • I fixed that section.
    • Alliterations are awesome! I went looking for weird wordings
    • Fixed
    • Fixed
    • There isn't a deeper meaning. Switched to the more common "criticized"
    -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 18:30, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing:

  • Lead The beer was initially produced at the archabbey in 1856 and had peaked to a demand of around 1,110 barrels by 1891. - say why early on why it became popular (luck, taste, well placed backers, etc)
  • Lead external sale by 1900 - to where and what proportion was this consuming total output
  • There is is lot more context in the articles's body than the lead of the article re the closure, maybe expand the lead, eg who is Aurelius Stehle
  • but Michael O'Connor, the Bishop of Pittsburgh, objected to monk ownership - on what legal and presumably moral grounds
  • I relocated The drink was a young dark, hoppy Bavarian-style beer.[5] Its grain was harvested ... as best as could, but is still a stray factoid as currently placed; can you better place in narrative
  • The actualities, reasons and wider drivers of the unlinked "Beer Fuss" are not made clear. Ceoil (talk) 01:15, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Ceoil
  • None of the modern sources nor the newspapers from the 1800s make a claim as to why it was popular
  • This is not mentioned in the sources
  • expanded
  • added that he was a temperance movement person
  • expanded
  • expanded
-- Guerillero Parlez Moi 14:01, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Happy with overall FAC feedback work and expansions. Support with non-deal breaking suggestions:
    • Is "Monks and Their Decline in 1898" a book or a pamphlet - the lead indicates that it was solely published to stop the beer, but it had a 88 pages, which indicates a diatribe
    • the monks continued to produce the drink for internal consumption - for their own consumption
    • where beer was brewed in abbeys - begs questions; was it from an earlier or contemporary recipe, how many abbeys, were they producing for "external" (maybe "selling" is better, as on 1st read of lead I thought international vs. domestic sale) production or just drinking it all themselves. Appreciate sources may be thin, if so ..."using a recipe used by a number of abbeys". Ceoil (talk) 21:53, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

PMC[edit]

Claiming myself a spot, comments sometime this week. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:34, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Technically I'm still within my week. Here we go.

Lead
  • It feels unnecessary to call it an alcoholic drink, then call out the style of beer in sentence two. To me beer is a common enough concept that you don't have to explain it in an article about a type of beer. Unfortunately there aren't any comparable FAs to compare to, so it's possible I'm nuts and the granularity is necessary.
  • The beer was initially produced at the archabbey in 1856 feels redundant. The first sentence in para 1 already mentions the start date, and this restates that in more words without adding any additional information.
  • Francesco Satolli, the Apostolic Delegate to the United States. He wrote to Archabbot Leander Schnerr asking for the brewing to be stopped. Something wonky has happened here. Also, when?
  • When did Zurcher write his book?
  • What's The New York Voice, and when did it decide it hated monks and beer? What was it accusing the abbey of anyway?
  • the monks continued to produce the drink for domestic consumption - Assuming you mean the monks kept making the beer to drink for themselves, the phrasing "domestic consumption" doesn't really work, as it most often refers to the consumption of goods in the country they were produced in.
Background
  • I feel like the background section gets ahead of itself by describing Wimmer as the founder of the first Benedictine monastery in the United States but not mentioning that the St Vincent was that monastery. It oddly implies that there was another one first.
  • The dates in the background section don't match the lead. The lead says brewing started in 1856 and that Pius IX allowed for commercial sale in 1858. The background section says that they were brewing by 1849 and got permission for production and sale in 1852.
  • Not sure the second paragraph belongs in the Background section, as it's a description of the beer and some critical response to it. Actually, I wonder if background/early years aren't better off merged into one section.
    • I have never found a good place to put this information. Back to its own section, I guess --Guerillero Parlez Moi 21:42, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Early years
  • This section says the brewery was built in 1856, but the previous section seems to say there already was a brewery. Please clarify, unless I've misread something.
    • The 1849 brewery was in Indiana, PA and did not produce St Vincent Beer. Sources skip over what happened to that brewery. I retooled the sentence --Guerillero Parlez Moi 21:42, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • was publicly condemned form - I assume that's supposed to be "from the movement", but "by the movement" would be more correct, I think
  • Link to Temperance movement in the United States?
  • "more mild" - milder
  • "who sell alcohol" - I think it should be "who sold alcohol", or maybe "who were selling"
Beer Fuss and Decline
  • When did The Voice release their article, and do we know what it claimed?
  • The monks, however, continued I'm not sure "however" is necessary, although it's also not a hill I'll die on if you like it as a matter of style.
  • The following year the Eighteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution was ratified making it illegal to produce alcoholic drinks and starting Prohibition. This sentence is a bit awkwardly worded. Prohibition in itself is the ban on producing alcohol, so it feels redundant to say it again. Perhaps "and beginning the Prohibition era"?
  • This is nitpicky, but this sentence "Officially, the brewery building was used for storage for the farm," should probably have a clarifying word like "Thereafter" or "Subsequently" to make it obvious that that was only after Prohibition came in
  • fixed --Guerillero Parlez Moi 21:42, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Decline" says the ruins were demolished during the restoration of the gristmill; the lead says during the "removal of the gristmill".
  • Fixed leade --Guerillero Parlez Moi 21:42, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you disagree with any suggestions, no problem, I'm open to discussion. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:52, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All fixes look good, I am happy to support this nomination on prose. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 11:08, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review from Vami[edit]

Verdict: Pass. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 20:00, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Spot-checks:

  • Citation [20] would more accurately draw from pages 129 and 130.
  • Citation [3] checks out but is needlessly repeated at This upset O'Connor who refused to grant the community that Wimmer founded status as a priory.[3] Wimmer appealed O'Connor's refusal to Pope Pius IX during a trip to Rome, but was denied.[3]
  • Citation [13] checks out.

X –♠Vami_IV†♠ 20:00, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed! -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 20:08, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Supports by Lee Vilenski[edit]

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

Lede
Prose
Additional comments

Additionally, if you liked this review, or are looking for items to review, I have some at my nominations list. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:48, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from ChrisTheDude[edit]

  • "It's popularity" => "Its popularity"
  • "As part of a media campaing" => "As part of a media campaign"
  • "In 1856, the first Saint Vincent Beer was first manufactured" - repetition of "first" doesn't sound great
  • "established a brewery in small log building" => "established a brewery in a small log building"
  • "next to the archabbey's gristmill" - no need to relink the archabbey here
  • "The brewery buildings sat in what is now the parking lot for the gristmill" - this caption is a complete sentence so needs a full stop
  • "The Archabbey" - earlier when not using the full name you wrote "the archabbey". Be consistent in your capitalisation
  • "At the time, the Catholic Church working" => "At the time, the Catholic Church was working"
  • "in place for just four and a half year" => "in place for just four and a half years"
  • "asking him end the archabbey" => "asking him to end the archabbey"
  • "When sold, it was sold it limited quantities" => "When sold, it was sold in limited quantities"
  • "Neither contemporary nor cotemporaneous sources mention what became of this earlier brewery" - this also needs a full stop
  • That's what I got! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:52, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @ChrisTheDude & Lee Vilenski: I responded to your comments -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 12:06, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:12, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 30 May 2022 [3].

Torture[edit]

Nominator(s): (t · c) buidhe 13:02, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article went through a GAN, GOCE copyedit, and a peer review. I really appreciate all the comments I got, which helped improve the article. (t · c) buidhe 13:02, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A drive-by comment: I glanced through and didn't see anything about criminal torture -- I'm thinking of e.g. the Shankill Butchers; for Murphy in particular it seems the sectarian conflict was opportunity rather than motivation. Shouldn't there be something about the topic in this article, either under perpetrators or purpose? Or is there a separate article covering that topic? I see the definition in the lead of "state-sponsored" would exclude this, but then where would criminal torture be covered? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:13, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mike Christie, thanks for your comment. RS on this subject follow the definition in international law and focus on state-sponsored torture. Other uses are covered on torture (disambiguation), and perhaps that dab page could do a better job listing related articles. In most legal systems, non-state actions that would be classified as torture if carried out by the state would be legally classified as a different kind of crime. For example, it seems the Shankill Butchers were convicted of murder. There is no such thing as non-criminal torture (at least since the second half of the twentieth century) as it's a state crime. (t · c) buidhe 13:35, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, yes, I didn't mean to imply that state-sponsored torture wasn't a crime! I think following the RS definitions is reasonable, and I guess that means it's not an issue for this article. I do think some other article is needed, though -- the topic of psychopathic behaviour such as Murphy's isn't going to be covered under murder. But that's not your problem. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:43, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Drive-by comment, although I may review later: As much as RS focus on torture as committed by governments and organizations they sponsor, I think a general definition needs to be briefly mentioned in the lead to avoid confusion. Most people (incl. me) probably immediately think of a relatively general definition. How about something like "Other definitions may include non-state-sponsored organizations or individuals" as the second sentence? Ovinus (talk) 15:07, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I would see that as unnecessary verbiage since the article clearly demarcates its scope and directs readers to the dab page for other uses. Definitions of torture also doesn't really contain much information about other uses of "torture", so I'm not sure how it would help readers. (t · c) buidhe 16:21, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, didn't see that. Hm. For what it's worth, the OED takes a cautious approach: "The infliction of severe bodily pain, as punishment or a means of persuasion; spec. [specifically] judicial torture, inflicted by a judicial or quasi- judicial authority, for the purpose of forcing an accused or suspected person to confess, or an unwilling witness to give evidence or information; a form of this (often in plural)." This is quite tricky, and I'm not sure if the dab page is the best way to do it. I think my suggestion, combined with a brief blurb about the generic use of the word in Definitions of torture (which definitely belongs there, since it's a "definitions" page) would work. The "definitions of torture" link could be incorporated into the lead into a different way. And maybe it should be anyway, since it seems to be a major point of contention based on the couple articles I've read. Ovinus (talk) 18:00, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Or how about changing the article title to "State-sponsored torture"? The article's definition section starts with the dictionary definition and points out that the UN Convention against Torture uses a restriction of this. I do think there is a disconnect between the article's topic and the likely expectations of a reader, based on the title. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:03, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with a rename, since this article covers the topic of virtually every RS about "torture" that you can find on google books and google scholar. Also, the article is not exclusively about state-sponsored torture, since it touches on non-state groups.
I've added a sentence to the lead to cover definitions, hopefully that's an improvement! (t · c) buidhe 23:19, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think the tension here is that "torture" is both a common English noun and a formal crime in various jurisdictions, and the definition of the latter differs somewhat from the former. The UNCAT only considers state actors, and US federal law defines torture as "an act committed by a person acting under the color of law". On the other hand, in California and probably in other US states the crime of torture does not require the perpetrator to be a state actor.
A better formulation of the second sentence might be "The definition of torture under international law only covers agents of the state as possible perpetrators, though other definitions include non-state organizations or individuals." Ruбlov (talk • contribs) 12:26, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, that's a bit of an oversimplification, as there are cases where international law can encompass some non-state perpetrators (depending on which instrument you are talking about)...
There are many legal systems in the world so the article is focused on the definitions used by RS about torture (not dictionary definitions which is more a matter for Wikitonary, imo). (t · c) buidhe 19:17, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, pages 4 to 5 of Understanding Torture quote four definitions of torture, of which two (the Red Cross's and the World Medical Association's) do not require the perpetrator to be a state actor, nor does the definition of torture by the Inter-American Convention Against Torture, quoted on page 259 of Psychological Torture. So I don't think the flat statement that "Torture is carried out by the state" is correct, and moreover it is neither cited itself nor a plausible summary of the cited sentences in the "Definitions" section. Ruбlov (talk • contribs) 20:19, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, I didn't mean to imply that all torture is carried out by the state regardless of how you are considering it. I will try to think of a better wording. (t · c) buidhe 21:45, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think the new version is good. Ruбlov (talk • contribs) 12:58, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is it worth mentioning any of the organizations here? I only glanced to see if they are discussed, so I might have missed it if any of them are. Aza24 (talk) 03:31, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

image review

  • Suggest scaling up the map, and see MOS:COLOUR
  • Suggest adding alt text
  • File:Aceh_caning_2014,_VOA.jpg: source attributes image to "dok" - does that still fall under the VOA license? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:26, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure so I replaced with File:Lauritz Sand recovering after his release, May 1945.jpg (t · c) buidhe 13:52, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Buidhe / Nikkimaria: I switched the light green in the map to yellow, but I am not 100% a fan. What color do you think would work better? -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 19:19, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

JBchrch[edit]

Drive-by comments.

  • I don't see any reference to the Torture Memos, and—a separate but related topic—to the domestic laws applicable to the practice of torture and the admissibility of the related evidence in the context of the criminal process, which seems to be an important topic.
    • A lot of sources focus on the US, but I'm worried about giving undue prominence to one country when torture occurs in many. For example, the article also does not cover the legal justifications for medieval torture, torture in Israel, torture in Nazi Germany or torture in other countries. For the exclusion of evidence, the article already states, "Even when it is illegal under national law, judges in many countries continue to admit evidence obtained under torture or ill treatment." There are a lot of legal jurisdictions in the world and I'm not sure it's possible to summarize them.
  • "Torture is prohibited under international law for all states under all circumstances, under both international customary law and various treaties". Jus cogens is somewhat separate from customary law and treaty law, so saying that it is prohibited in all circumstances under customary law and treaty law is not perfect. Rather, it should be that the prohibition of torture is a peremptory norm of international, and also part of customary and some treaty law. Should probably be double-checked, though.
    • Interesting, I have seen sources that describe jus cogens as a subset of customary international law, but now that I double check this it seems there is some dispute. Rephrased.
  • "Torture was the primary issue that stimulated the creation of the human rights movement." Not sure about the accuracy of this. I would double-check with one or several sources on the history of human rights.
    • I think you're right, after checking it seems Hajjar may have overstated this somewhat.
  • I was expecting some coverage of what the World Organization Against Torture has been doing. Not very high-profile but known on the international scene.
    • I'm not convinced this particular organization is WP:DUE to mention, it does not come up on any of my general searches relating to human rights and torture or opposition to torture. I think it would be great to have a separate article on anti-torture movement where activism against torture can be covered in detail.

JBchrch talk 16:01, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't done a full review so I can't formally support, but I'm certainly not opposing. JBchrch talk 22:25, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Wretchskull[edit]

@Buidhe: A few comments.

  • The word torture is repeated too often throughout the article, even within single sentences. "Torture is commonly mentioned in historical sources on Assyria and Achaemenid Persia. Societies used torture both as part of the judicial process and as punishment" - why not replace "Societies used torture" with "Societies used it"? If the context allows it, replace "torture" with "it". In fact tell me if you approve of such changes and I'll do it myself.
  • Why isn't genocide mentioned? If used with requisite intent, torture can be genocide. Perhaps also mention that it is a frequent act prior to executions during genocide. Both covered in reliable sources.

That's all I have. The GA passed with flying colors apart from small contextual and grammatical issues. I've also conducted a source review and no significant faults were found. Therefore, I support this FAC. Wretchskull (talk) 08:49, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Societies used it"— the way I was taught English grammar, "it" would refer to the last singular noun, in this case "Achaemenid Persia". So I tend to err on the side of avoiding "it".
  • As for torture and genocide, I don't believe this is an aspect emphasized in RS. Torture defined more strictly has played only a very peripheral role in the genocides I'm familiar with. I guess one could consider something like death marches during the Armenian genocide, or enduring a Nazi concentration camp to be torture , but RS don't seem to discuss it this way. It's also questionable if the purposive element of torture is satisfied by genocidal acts directed indiscriminately against members of an ethnic group (genocide is not committed to extract information, punish victims, or intimidate a third party).
Thanks so much for your support. (t · c) buidhe 09:14, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Drive by comment[edit]

I'm glad to see such an important article getting attention and being so well-written. I would suggest, as another editor mentioned, being careful not to give undue attention to torture as it pertains to the US, as this is such a widespread, global issue. Specifically, a good chunk of the images depicting modern torture since 1900 (including the one in the main heading) have to do with the US. I would suggest changing out one or two to better depict the global scale of this topic. --Maryam.Rosie (talk) 23:14, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree entirely about avoiding undue focus on the US. Unfortunately, it's hard to find quality images on this topic that have geographical diversity. Personally, I think it serves our readers better to have photographs of people being tortured than possible alternative images that might be used, some of which are artistic depictions of unknown accuracy or less relevant. (t · c) buidhe 23:20, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Coordinator comment - I'm sorry, but at over three weeks in and with only one general support, this one will have to be archived in a few days if a significant progress towards a consensus to promote does not form. Hog Farm Talk 17:21, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reidgreg, Ovinus, thanks for your comments at the peer review, do you have any more input on this article? (t · c) buidhe 10:46, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry buidhe, I don't really have the energy to properly review a difficult article like this one, at the moment. The US-centrism in images isn't a deal breaker, but I think it needs adjustment to make it more appropriate for a general audience. I'm obviously unfamiliar with the scholarship and history here, but it currently feels like a rather scholarly and specialized article in places, specifically the "Prevalence" and "Perpetrators" sections. In those sections I see a disconnect between the average reader and the tone of the article. Someone well-exposed to analysis of (historical and present) human rights abuses would not be confused by sentences like "Torture cultures value self-control, discipline, and professionalism as positive values, helping torturers to maintain a positive self-image", but more context is needed for the layman (like me). (The first part of that sentence sounds like a great place to live!) Ideally, we'd give relevant examples for some of the points made in those sections, so as to make them concrete and clear, but then we get into nasty POV issues. I think the rest of the article is more or less up to standard. Ovinus (talk) 18:37, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Ovinus, thanks again for your feedback! I've copyedited the relevant sections with an eye to increasing comprehensibility. (t · c) buidhe 07:37, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley[edit]

  • I have the impression - which may be wrong - that in the Middle Ages burning to death as a punishment for heresy was quite common. Is it generally considered a form of torture?
    • Capital punishment, especially historically, has been seen as separate from torture. Nowadays this is less true, but I don't see sources commonly including such medieval executions under torture.
  • Reasons for abolition. I have read of a case where torture was abolished because it was proved to a judge that it is easy to get a false confession under torture. Was this a factor in its abolition more widely?
    • This criticism of torture had been around for thousands of years, and the cited sources don't mention it as a reason for abolition.
  • "The use of torture declined after its abolition and it was increasingly seen as unacceptable." This reads to me as a bit odd. It would be worthy of note if torture did not decline after abolition, not that it did decline. Also, did not unacceptability in most cases cause aboliton rather than following it?
    • Removed this sentence. The origin of the anti-torture norm is covered in the "Prohibition" section.
  • "During the first half of the twentieth century, torture became more prevalent in Europe". Presumbly only in some states?
    • I imagine that this does not apply to a few European countries such as the UK or Sweden, but the sources just say Europe so that would be original research.
  • "Torture of political prisoners and torture during armed conflicts have received a disproportionate amount of attention." "disproportionate" is POV.
    • "Disproportionate compared to what it should be" is an opinion, but I've clarified that the meaning is disproportionate relative to its occurrence.
  • Perpetrators. You do not mention people who torture because they enjoy hurting people.
    • The main reason for this is that in most cases, hurting people for enjoyment would legally be classified as a different type of crime and therefore is not covered in the sources.
  • "Many authoritarian regimes choose indiscriminate repression as they are otherwise ineffective at identifying potential opponents." I am not sure what "otherwise" means here.
    • Rephrased
  • More to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:58, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks so much for your comments! (t · c) buidhe 07:36, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This tactic was used in show trials in the Eastern Bloc and in Iran." This needs clarification. When and by which regimes? "was" implies that it is not used now, which seems unlikely.
    • Hajjar isn't that specific so I just deleted the sentence. Eastern Bloc doesn't exist anymore and the source doesn't say whether Iran still does this.
  • "non-international armed conflict" This is a clumsy expression. As you link to civil war, why not use that expression?
    • Done (NIAC is the legally correct term, but probably not necessary in this article)
  • "The prohibition of torture has motivated a shift to methods that do not leave marks in order to make torture more palatable for the torturer or the public," So if the public knows torture is going on but not leaving marks they think it is OK?
    • Edited to clarify that non-scarring methods are more deniable, harder to prove, and less likely to be perceived as torture by others.
  • Palestinian hanging. I think this term is better avoided, particularly as the article on Strappado says it is not used by the Israelis or the Palestinians.
    • Done
  • "Current circumstances, such as housing insecurity". I would delete "Current" as it does not mean anything here.
    • Done
  • "Uncontrolled studies on torture survivors". Presumably uncontrolled means without a control group but it needs explaining.
    • Removed this: basically it means that populations of torture survivors were sampled without comparing to a similar group that had not undergone torture.
  • "Torture carries a higher risk of traumatic sequelae than any other known human experience." How can a human experience be unknown? Also the claim must be very difficult to prove unless reliable studies have been done on every type of traumatic experience.
    • Perez-Sales states, "The percentage of survivors with long-term sequelae is greater than that of any other traumatic experience. On average, and across studies, around 40 per cent of survivors develop lasting PTSD and one out of five manifest long-lasting impacts on their identity, belief system and worldview."
      • "An average of 40 percent meet the diagnostic criteria for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), a higher rate of long-term sequelae than any other human experience."This seems to me over-technical and vague. How about "An average of 40 percent suffer long-term post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), a higher rate than for any other traumatic experience." Dudley Miles (talk) 08:59, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Done (t · c) buidhe 09:17, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which was widely condemned despite these regimes' secrecy and denial" Maybe "widely exposed"? Presumably the point is that the cover ups were unsuccessful.
    • The point isn't about the cover-ups, it's how the violation of the "torture taboo" and the reaction to it actually strengthened the taboo as "something those bad guys do". Rephrased.
  • "actual procedure correlates much better with the incidence of torture than legal rights" "actual procedure" does not mean anything here, although I recognise that it is difficult to spell out what you are trying to say. Effective procedural rules to prevent abuse?
    • Clarified that this means what is done in practice, rather than legal rules
  • "A 2009 study found that 42 percent of parties to the CAT" Maybe "states which are parties".
    • Used "states parties"
  • A first rate article - just a few statements which are a bit vague. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:38, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Ovinus[edit]

Alright, I'll take a stab at this one now. The article is looking even better than it was at peer review, so hopefully the points I was concerned about at PR will have been ameliorated. Ovinus (talk) 22:56, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to talk. Ovinus (talk) 00:51, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@FAC coordinators: 3 supports, image & source review (by Wretchskull), can I nominate another article? (t · c) buidhe 05:57, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sure Buidhe. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:46, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 30 May 2022 [4].

Zufar ibn al-Harith al-Kilabi[edit]

Nominator(s): Al Ameer (talk) 07:46, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Zufar ibn al-Harith al-Kilabi, a 7th-century Bedouin chief. He backed the Umayyad Caliphate's main challenger, Ibn al-Zubayr, when the Umayyads were on the brink of collapse. His Qaysi warriors were annihilated by their tribal enemies, the Kalb, who supported the Umayyads. Zufar led the Qaysi survivors in rebellion, and on a years-long vendetta against the Kalb and their Yaman confederates. He surrendered, mainly on his terms, securing for himself and the Qays a major stake in the Umayyad state. The vendetta, meanwhile, played out for decades as a bloody competition for power, which eventually tore apart the Umayyad state from within. Started article in 2016, it passed GA last year, and I have improved it since. Believe it meets FA criteria now. Al Ameer (talk) 07:46, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review—pass (t · c) buidhe 08:29, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Constantine[edit]

Will review during the following days. Constantine ✍ 16:53, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • As usual, I made some copyedits. Feel free to revert/discuss.
Early career
  • Presumably Zufar was born in Basra? Could this be made clear?
    • No information on where he was born; it's more probable (though I have no source to back this) that he was already a child or young adult when he moved to Basra, which was established in the late 630s, as he is named as an elder (in Arab tribal terms, this meant forty years or older) at the Battle of the Camel in 656. The sources also do not mention when he and his father settled in the city, though one can assume this happened around the time Basra was established as his father is already mentioned as a commander in the 630s-Iraqi-Jaziran conquest. Al Ameer (talk) 21:22, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • I suspected as much. Your solution works for me.
  • Could we add that many of the Kilab/Amr settled in Basra as a garrison town? Otherwise the link with pre-Islamic Arabia is unclear.
    • Revised, though I wish I had a source that offered more details. Al Ameer (talk) 21:22, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Looks good as it is.
  • Can 'nose rein' be linked to Nose ring (animal) or is it something else?
Rebellion against the Umayyads
  • the district they dominated IIRC, this domination was because they were the most numerous Arab tribe there, right? I would make this clear.
    • Tweaked to "predominated". Does this work grammatically? Al Ameer (talk) 21:22, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • 'in the district they numerically predominated' perhaps?
  • Not sure whether the Qays-Yaman rivalry can be described as 'benign', even before it became bloody. Perhaps 'non-violent'? Or even strike the 'previously benign' comment entirely, since by opening a 'bloody phase', it is established that previously that was not the case.
    • Removed "benign". No room in this article, but the rivalry may not have even existed before Marj Rahit, or if it did, it was a Kalb–Qays rivalry. There are credible historians who point out rightly that the Kalb (the preeminent 'Yamani' tribe) and its wider Quda'a group had not considered themselves Yamani before this battle. The 'true' Yamani tribes, who were concentrated in Homs, actually fought with the Qays against Kalb at Marj Rahit, as did the Judham, who also became a major component of the 'Yaman'. At some point between that battle and the end of the second civil war, these hitherto unrelated tribes joined forces as the Yaman alliance, and these alignments (Yaman and Qays/Mudar) soon after spread among the tribal groups in Iraq and Khurasan as well. Before the battle, it is probable that foundations for the Yamani alliance were already established in Syria between the Kalb, Tanukh, Kinda, Tayy, and Ghassan, all of which came together to secure Umayyad rule and fought together at Marj Rahit. Al Ameer (talk) 21:22, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for the explanation.
  • The Qaysi vanguard is not mentioned before.
    • Revised. By 'no longer head of the Qaysi vanguard', what I meant is that Zufar, now mostly preoccupied defending his fortress from Umayyad assaults, was no longer leading the Qaysi tribesmen in their raids and on the field. This 'command', so-to-speak, was taken up by Umayr. Let me know if the revised wording better conveys this. Al Ameer (talk) 21:22, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Before entering Iraq, Abd al-Malik resolved to suppress Zufar and the Qays in the Jazira either here, or when Zufar's capture of Qarqisiya is mentioned, it might be a good idea to stress the strategic importance of the city as controlling the passage from Syria into Mesopotamia and vice versa, a role it already had during the Roman-Persian Wars.
    • Agree. Could not find this exact language but added alternative information, i.e. that it was strategically situated and between Iraq and Syria. If you have a source which supports the proposed language, please add or point it out to me. Al Ameer (talk) 21:22, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • My proposal was by way of comment, not necessary to include it as it is. Had a look at my sources, but couldn't find anything much different to what you already included.
Reconciliation with the Umayyads
  • Abd al-Malik accepted their counsel, but could not dislodge Zufar does this mean that attacks were launched against Qarqisiya? Then this should be made explicit. Right now it is only implied.
  • By the end of the summer can we add the year? It is unclear whether we are still in 691.
  • effectively broke the Yamani monopoly on the Syrian army At the risk of violating WP:SS, can you briefly mention the implications of this?
    • Working on this. Al Ameer (talk) 21:22, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Cplakidas: Elaborated a little, let me know if it makes sense to elaborate further on the subsequent nature of the Qays–Yaman rivalry (i.e. years of competition for power and influence in the provinces and resumption of bloodshed in Syria during the Third Muslim Civil War). Also, I found in P. Crone (1994) that Maslama's favoritism of the Qaysi troops in the army during the push to conquer Constantinople in 716–718 helped seal the still developing Qays–Yaman enmity. Don’t know if that should be mentioned here and/or in Maslama's article. Your thoughts are welcome. Al Ameer (talk) 19:41, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Al Ameer son: No, I think it is besides the scope here. However, I would add a comment to From then on, the Umayyad caliphs attempted to balance Qaysi–Yamani interests in the army to the effect that these tensions were not well balanced, and ultimately contributed to the downfall of the Umayyad caliphate. Otherwise the changes look good.
Sources
  • All sources are high-quality, scholarly sources, including several standard reference works.
  • OCLC for Caskel 1966

That's it. A nice, well-written, well-referenced article, as usual. Constantine ✍ 15:39, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Cplakidas: Thanks for taking the time to review. Most of the points have been addressed, though a couple may require your review. Still working on the last point under 'Reconciliation with the Umayyads'. Al Ameer (talk) 21:22, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Al Ameer son: Apart from the one comment above, which is a suggestion, I am quite satisfied with the changes. At this pint, I support making this well-written article into FA. Constantine ✍ 12:53, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie[edit]

  • Not a source review but why is footnote 44, Ibn Hazm, formatted differently from all the others?
    • I don’t have access to it but I removed it, as the information it supports is not very important. Al Ameer (talk) 20:00, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cobb and Donner lack a publisher location.
  • "The Qays of Qinnasrin resented being under the authority of a Kalbi in the district they predominated": for clarity I think this would have to be "in which they predominated", but even then it's not instantly clear who "they" refers to. Suggest "The Qays of Qinnasrin, who were the predominate tribe in Syria, resented being under the authority of a Kalbi, and, under Zufar's leadership, expelled Sa'id".
  • Is it "Kalb" or "Kalbi"? The article seems to use both.
    • Kalb is the noun and Kalbi is the adjective. Same with Qays and Qaysi, Taghlib and Taghlibi, Yaman and Yamani. I hope I have fixed all instances where the adjective form should have been used. Al Ameer (talk) 20:00, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Battle of Marj Rahit opened a bloody phase in the Qays–Yaman rivalry": we have not mentioned the Yamani to this point or explained who they are or what this rivalry is. Similarly there is a later mention of the "Umayyad-Yamani cause" that is unexplained.
    • Added an explanation. Let me know if this suffices or if I should expand on it further. Al Ameer (talk) 20:00, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • In about 686 Zufar is "replaced as the battlefield commander of the Qays by Umayr", and yet he is later described as the "head of the Qays" -- these two facts seem to be in conflict; who could remove him if he's the head?
    • Constantine raised the same issue above. I hope it’s clearer now. Zufar remained the preeminent head of the Qays in the Syria–Jazira region, but being busy fending off the Umayyads at Qarqisiya, his role as leader of the Qaysi raiding parties against the Kalb was filled by Umayr. Al Ameer (talk) 20:00, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Umayr had commanded a brigade in Ibn Ziyad's army, but defected during or after the battle." After looking at the dates I realized that this happened before any of the events mention in the ayyam tribal feuds section. When you introduce Umayr in that section you don't mention his history with ibn Ziyad. I think it would be less confusing for uninformed readers like me to give a brief mention of his defection in the earlier section, and remove it from the later section. Alternatively, since Marwan's accession is implicitly covered in the first part of the section, where you mention the deaths of Yazid and Mu'awiya II, you could cover the first assault against Qarqisya at that point, keeping things more chronological. Do we know the date of Aban ibn al-Walid's battle against Zufar? From his article it seems to have been c. 688/689.
    • I took your alternative suggestion and revised accordingly. As for the date of Aban's offensive, it was in the source used and I just added it to the article. Al Ameer (talk) 20:00, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the Yamani monopoly on the Syrian army": I don't know what this refers to.
    • Revised wording to "domination". The Kalb/Yaman were the most powerful element or core of the Umayyad army in the years between Marj Rahit and the reconciliation with Zufar. Al Ameer (talk) 20:00, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Overall the article is in good shape and readable. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:39, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Al Ameer son ? Gog the Mild (talk) 19:59, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Gentlemen, please excuse the delay. I have most of these done on another device (long story) but they are unsaved. Will have them all completed and saved by this Monday/Tuesday. Al Ameer (talk) 17:40, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Mike Christie: Thank you for taking the time to review the article and for your recommendations. Please let me know how we are looking now and if any more needs to be done. Al Ameer (talk) 20:00, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support. The above fixes all look good. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:16, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Funk[edit]

  • Seems this is missing a review, so I'll have a look soonish. FunkMonk (talk) 16:43, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any photos of relevant buildings or drawings of battles or such that could be shown?
    • I will look into some images. Wish we had some of Circesium (Qarqisiya), and it’s a negative on battle drawings because of the lack of available details about troop movements, etc. It may be helpful to create a map showing various sites (if they’re identifiable) where the Qays and Kalb tribes fought their battles in Syro-Mesopotamia. Otherwise, I will look into adding a map of the major battles of the Second Fitna, which includes the multiple Umayyad sieges of Zufar in Qarqisiya. Al Ameer (talk) 03:33, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Added the Second Fitna map for now. The map of the ayyam battles is going to be a more complicated project, but will add it when it is done. Al Ameer (talk) 14:57, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure what the standards are, but any reason for all the diacritics in the name field of the infobox?
    • Removed (I believe they are generally discouraged). Al Ameer (talk) 14:57, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we know where he was born or where his family was originally from?
    • We know the Banu Kilab/Banu Amir were traditionally based in the southwestern Najd, which I have now added to the article, and that the Amr division was based in a more specific area of this region (between protected pasture grounds known as the Hima Dariyya and a place called Damkh), but the latter is too specific and not pertinent. As for his family, in particular, or where he was born, all we know from the sources is that his father took part in the conquest of Iraq and that Zufar was based in Basra before migrating to the Jazira (western Upper Mesopotamia) and Qinnasrin (northern Syria). Al Ameer (talk) 14:57, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link Qays in the article body.
  • Link Aid.
  • "Zufar expressed his grief in verse" Anything to quote?
    • Frustratingly, no. At least I have not been able to find it. Had I made my mother proud by being literate in Arabic, I may have been able to find it in the available Arabic primary sources. Al Ameer (talk) 14:33, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Feel you with the literacy, hehe... FunkMonk (talk) 13:08, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Al Ameer son, FunkMonk, I know no Arabic at all, but the Arabic Wikipedia article on him appears (per Google Translate) to have a section of his poetry. I don't know if that's sourceable. I would link to it but it appears not to work when I try; however you can click on the language link in the left sidebar of the English article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:27, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Mike Christie: Great find, and right in front of me the whole time. These are definitely the verses that our WP English version alludes to (Banu Jusham is a branch of the Taghlib tribe, which killed Umayr ibn al-Hubab). Unfortunately, the poetry section of WP Arabic article appears to be the only information that is not sourced. I have reached out to the user who added it in 2014 and hope he responds with the source. Otherwise, all I have is that Dixon (1970) writes, in regards to Umayr's death, "Zufar was moved to sorrow and expressed this in sad verses" and cites Baladhuri's Ansab, Vol V, p. 325. @Iylaq: Would you be able to help verify that the verses of Zufar mentioned in his Arabic Wikipedia article are to be found in the Ansab? Al Ameer (talk) 20:57, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Their will be no peace" Really their, or there?
  • "Zufar died in c. 694–695" Any cause known?
    • Presumably, old age or sickness, since it would have been mentioned if he was killed. Unfortunately, these details are not available. It took me until very recently to find the year of his death. Al Ameer (talk) 14:33, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The estate was near the residence of Abd al-Malik's son Maslama" He seems to be already linked earlier.
    • Yes, but in this second case, I linked to a subsection of Maslama ibn Abd al-Malik that I felt was relevant. If you believe this is unnecessary, I’m not opposed to deleting the link. Al Ameer (talk) 14:33, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link Mesopotamia?
Changes look good, only this last one unaddressed? FunkMonk (talk) 13:08, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, missed that one. Al Ameer (talk) 20:57, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - looks good to me, if those poems can be found it will of course be a bonus. FunkMonk (talk) 08:51, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Al Ameer son: https://al-maktaba.org/book/9773/2562 this is his poem in ansab al baladhuri. I think zufar's poetry in this ansab is not as much as in the Arabic Wikipedia version Iylaq (talk) 11:12, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Iylaq: Thank you for the link and quick response, Are you able to translate the verse from Ansab? Google translate offers this, which I tweaked with my elementary skills:

Except, O eye of Judy [?], with a spill... and crying for Asim and Ibn al-Habbab [I assume Zufar is saying in this line that he sheds tears for Umayr ibn al-Habbab and another Qaysite chief named Asim]

If you win, you will kill Umayr... and a group of those who are rich in spears

Banu Jusham ibn Bakr [a branch of Taglib] was annihilated... and their tigers were knights of dogs

We killed two hundred of them with patience... but this did not do justice to Umayr ibn al-Habbab

So our dead are considered honorable... and their dead are counted with the dogs

  • during the battle against Aban ibn al-Walid, one of Zufar's sons was killed. does the source mention the name of the son of Zufar? Iylaq (talk) 11:12, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • In Ibn Asakir's Tarikh Madina Dimashq, Waki ​​ibn Zufar witnessed the Battle of Marj Rahit with Dahhak ibn Qays and was killed in the same battle. can the source be added (the source is in Arabic) and do modern historians mention Waki ​​ibn Zufar? Iylaq (talk) 11:12, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have not seen him mentioned anywhere in modern, English-language sources. This reliable German source (Rotter), however, clearly mentions Waki as being the son of Zufar ibn al-Harith in the index of the book, pointing to page 209: [5]. And yes, it is notable enough for inclusion in the article, especially since he died in the same battle that drove Zufar and his partisans into their long war of revenge. @Cplakidas:@AhmadLX: Sirs, do either of you have access to this source, Die Umayyaden ... and could provide what Rotter says of Zufar's son Waki, from page 209? I could not find it in the 'snippet' version linked here. @Iylaq: Otherwise, to include this bit (or the poem above from Ansab for that matter), please provide the editor (if any), the year, publisher and page numbers of these editions of the Ansab and Tarikhat Madinat Dimashq. Al Ameer (talk) 15:51, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I only have parts of that book which, unfortunately, do include this page. However, in the snippet view it can be seen that "...a son of Zufar, named Waki, allegedly died in that attack". Hope that helps. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 19:01, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks to all for the great team effort! @AhmadLX: That snippet is all I need for this one—will add now. Al Ameer (talk) 00:49, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Al Ameer son: I got the source from google, only in Arabic, and accompanied by the title of the book, location, year, publisher and author. from google books. maybe zufar's poetry in this google books source is more complete. [6] Iylaq (talk) 01:26, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

Just two issues:

  • Hawting is the editor of The History of al-Ṭabarī, but you cite him rather than a chapter; is he the author of a chapter in this work that could or should be identified, as you do with Pellat? Same question for Humphreys and Powers.
    • In the case of The History of al-Tabari, this is mainly a primary source, the work of history by the 10th-century historian al-Tabari. The work was translated (or re-translated) into English in 39 volumes, each of which was edited and annotated by different authors. All of volume 20 was edited/annotated by Hawting, same for Powers and Humphreys with respect to volumes 24 and 25, respectively. Pellat, on the other hand, is the author of an entry in the Encyclopedia of Islam (2nd ed.) Al Ameer (talk) 14:25, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • You use Wellhausen quite a bit; is there nothing more recent that covers the same material?
    • Wellhausen is an old source, and yet this work in particular, is still one of the crucial authorities on the subject, especially regarding the tribal feuds of the 680s/690s. Nonetheless, I tried to reduce references to him by using Dixon, whose work cited here repeats as well as counters Wellhausen's, since it is more recent (1970 v early 20th c.). If you allow me a week, I could trim reliance on Wellhausen further. Al Ameer (talk) 14:25, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:28, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy with the answers; this is a pass. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:09, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note -- Hi Al Ameer, can you cite the table of descendants? Several names are mentioned/referenced in the article text but by no means all... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:01, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ian Rose: I have added footnotes with citations for those figures who are notable enough, and close or relevant enough in kinship, for the chart, but not mentioned in the article body. Let me know if sufficient. Al Ameer (talk) 21:00, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That helps but I still don't see mentions/refs in the text for Nufayl and Khuwaylid, or have I missed something...? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:13, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Ian Rose: The note (b) mentions the genealogy of Amr (father of Yazid and Zur'a): Amr ibn Khuwaylid 'al-Sa'iq' ibn Nufayl ibn Amr ibn Kilab, with citation. Should I add the citations to Khuwaylid and Nufayl, specifically, or does this note suffice? Al Ameer (talk) 19:35, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well again, the current note doesn't tell me that we have a source for the genealogy from Amr ibn Kilab to Amr, it just tells me that Amr fathered Yazid and Zur'a. How did you arrive at this overall family tree? I'd have hoped the whole thing was gleaned from one source that could be cited. If not then I'd like to know which individual reliable sources were used to determine who sired whom... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 19:03, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this tree had to be constructed from different sources, all cited in the article; it's a doozy:
  • Zufar's sons as shown in the chart (except for Waki) and grandsons are sourced to Crone 1980, p. 108
  • Waki is sourced to Rotter 1982, p. 109
  • Rabab and her marriage to the Umayyad prince Maslama ibn Abd al-Malik to Dixon 1971, pp. 94–95
  • Zufar's brother Aws to Dixon 1971, p. 102
  • Zufar's father al-Harith ibn Yazid to Crone 1980, p. 108—this 'Yazid' is Yazid ibn al-Sa'iq, according to Sezgin 1975, p. 219 (While Yazid is commonly known as 'Yazid ibn al-Sa'iq', al-Sa'iq actually refers to the nickname of his grandfather Khuwaylid, who was so-called because he was supposedly killed by a strike of lightning or sa'iq in Arabic, see Lyall 1918, p. 325. Yazid's father's name was actually Amr, see Lyall 1918, p. 325, where he is spelled 'Yazid b. Amr b. Khuwailid', and Caskel 1966, p. 176 where he is spelled 'Amr b. Huwailid—it was not uncommon among the Arabs then to be more popularly known as the sons of their grandfathers especially if the latter were especially notable.
  • Among Amr's many other sons, besides Yazid, was Zur'a (see Caskel 1966, p. 458 where it is spelled 'Zur'a b. (Amr b.) as-Sa'iq', and Crone 1980, p. 138), who is only listed in this chart because his son Aslam ibn Zur'a al-Kilabi is mentioned in the article as one of Zufar's clansmen to have settled in Basra, where he acted as a tribal leader of the Qays and served office. Aslam's son Sa'id ibn Aslam al-Kilabi and grandson Muslim ibn Sa'id al-Kilabi were also one-time officeholders, and thus notable enough for inclusion in the chart, or so I determined. Aslam ibn Zur'a, his son and grandson are all sourced to Crone 1980, p. 138.
  • Khuwaylid ibn Nufayl, a chief of the Amr branch of the Kilab (see Caskel 1966, p. 350, where it is spelled 'Huwailid b. Nufail'), is, as mentioned above, the grandfather of Yazid and Zur'a. This 'Nufayl' is named as the father of Khuwaylid but he is also the progenitor of one of the Amr branch's two main divisions, the Nufayl, the other being Abu Awf, see Krenkow, p. 1005 (just added to article).
  • Note: While listing Zufar's ancestors up to Nufayl may seem excessive, it helps illustrate his place and that of his progeny in the aristocracy of his tribe. I have now added footnotes with citations to Khuwaylid and Nufayl in the chart. Al Ameer (talk) 21:03, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, that should do it...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:18, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 29 May 2022 [7].

Black Christian Siriano gown of Billy Porter[edit]

Nominator(s): ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:33, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Actor Billy Porter's star had been rising since his 2018 breakout role in Pose. He spent the 2018/2019 awards season tearing up the red carpet, culminating in the two fashion moments that stamped his name on fashion history for good: the silver suit with fuchsia-lined cape worn at the 2019 Golden Globes, followed up by the black velvet tuxedo ball gown he wore to the 2019 Oscars. The tuxedo gown is widely regarded as a groundbreaking moment in Oscars history – he is the first man to have worn a gown on the red carpet – and it remains one of Porter's most memorable looks. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:33, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Two tiny things

  • Purcell 2013 needs an access date
  • Grady 2021 has a date inconsistency

For the coords, I did the GA review to my FAC standards. Part of that, I did one of my source reviews. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 21:48, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 18:10, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Vami[edit]

Comments starting... Wednesday. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 21:53, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ok tomorrow, after cinco de mayo festivities –♠Vami_IV†♠ 04:42, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
back, with stuffed llama –♠Vami_IV†♠ 22:02, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find much to comment about - good job!

  • Speaking to Vogue in 2019, he said "This look was interesting because it's not drag. I'm not a drag queen, I'm a man in a dress." [...] saying "I don't understand why my putting on a dress causes this much strife in your life." [...] stating "If you don't like it, don't watch it" [...] saying "I don't think any man has ever worn a gown on the Oscars red carpet before." Should be a comma between "said"/"stated" and the quotation.
    • Done
  • Since 2019, Porter has become a household name as a fashion icon I'm not so sure about the present-tense here; it's not very durable in the encyclopedic sense, and the rest of the paragraph uses past-tense. I'd have written this as "Following his appearance at the 91st Academy Awards, Porter became [...]".
    • Done, your wording is much better.

X –♠Vami_IV†♠ 22:02, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for the review Vami! ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:57, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Sdkb[edit]

Starting with the lead...

  • for his breakout role in FX drama Pose Should there be a "the" before FX? {{u|Sdkb}} talk 22:06, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • It feels awkward putting a "the", but it's not a hill I'll die on if you or other reviewers feel strongly about it.
  • 2018/2019 awards season Per MOS:SPECIFICLINK, I'd suggest changing to 2018–19 film awards season. I note that 2018/2019 appears allowed per MOS:SLASH. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 22:06, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fixed both links
  • Link to Fashion journalism over fashion press, perhaps? {{u|Sdkb}} talk 22:06, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Changed to "fashion journalists" and linked
  • It cemented Porter's status as a household name This is a strong statement for which I'll be looking for strong sourcing in the body. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 22:06, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I didn't want to overcite it, so there's 3 citations in the first sentence under "Legacy," but that's cherry-picked - lots more that I didn't cite in that sentence (but are elsewhere in the article) have similar phrasing.
      • As a side note, as of Vami's review, I have reworded it to "Porter's status as a celebrity and as a fashion icon." But I still think the overall sourcing substantiates it easily. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:57, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Porter has described the outfit as a piece of political art intended to drive a conversation about men's fashion and masculinity, for which it has received both praise and criticism from fashion writers, academics, and the general public. My thoughts on this might evolve once I read the body more deeply, but at first glance, this reads as both bothsidesish. Perhaps clarify that it was mostly conservatives doing the criticizing and add a little more overall on the reception to the lead. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 22:06, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Amusingly (to me anyway) I was trying to avoid pounding on the cliche of "evil conservatives hate gays." But some cliches are unavoidable, I suppose. I reworded on this basis, but not sure how much more about the reception I can add to the lead without repeating myself and/or getting to the point of no longer being a summary.
    • As always Sdkb thank you for your comments, I appreciate them. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:41, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Apologies for the delay here. I'm still planning to continue with my comments, but have just had a very busy week, so leaving this as a placeholder. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 08:00, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Not to be a pest but - are you planning to return? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:03, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Apologies again. I might, but with everything going on currently, I can't guarantee I'll have space anytime soon. The coordinators certainly shouldn't read any reluctance into my absence—if others are at support, then go ahead and promote, and don't let me hold anything up. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 21:20, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aoba47[edit]

I am leaving this up as a placeholder. If I do not post a review by this time next week, please ping me. I am very happy to see this article in the FAC space. I keep meaning to work on fashion-related articles so I will use this as a reason to do that. I look forward to reading this article in the near future. Aoba47 (talk) 00:01, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • While not entirely necessary, for File:Billy Porter Oscars gown on Sesame Street set.jpg, I would include an archived version of the source link in the WP:FUR box just to avoid any potential annoyance in the future.
    • Good thinking - done.
  • Have you considered using an infobox similar to meat dress of Lady Gaga? I actually prefer the way that the article currently exists (i.e. with just the photo), but I still wanted to bring this to your attention if you were unaware of it.
    • I am aware and have decided not to do so. For all that I like infoboxes in general, I don't feel that they add much to articles like this that don't really have a lot of "standardized" information.
      • That makes sense to me. Again, I do not like the infobox as I agree with your rationale, but I still wanted to make sure it was discussed. Aoba47 (talk) 16:49, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have a question about this part, criticism from more conservative commentators. Is the "more" necessary? It implies to me that those were praised him were more liberal (and while that may be true), I wouldn't be surprised if some people who identified as more conservative enjoyed or were indifferent about this outfit or if some people who identified as more liberal were critical of this outfit. I just may be too nitpick-y.
    • For those who commented publicly (both public figures and random social media users), reaction to the dress was pretty polarized along liberal/conservative lines. I can take out the "more", which just leaves "as well as criticism from conservative commentators". Should I go with "conservative-leaning"?
      • It is probably fine as it currently stands. I understand your point, and I think it should be fine. Aoba47 (talk) 16:49, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • For this part, Pose, which has been called his breakout role, I would say something along the lines of "which critics have called his breakout role" to specify who has called his role this way.
    • Done
  • For instances like this, said that the outfit "changed everything for me.", I believe the period should be on the outside of the quotation marks as from my understanding, punctuation is only put inside quotation marks if it is a full quote. I've noticed a few other instances of this in the article.
    • Per MOS:LQ, WP uses "logical quotation," where the punctuation is included within the quotation marks if it was included in the original. In this case,
      • Interesting. Thank you for the link, and I will leave this for other reviewers to discuss if they wish to do so. Aoba47 (talk) 16:49, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • Whoops, I saved that without finishing my thought. In the case you highlighted the period was in the original, so I've left it. I did go through and double check the rest of the quotes for punctuation placement and I found some that were not MOS:LQ compliant, so those should now all be fixed now thanks to you.
  • For File:Christian Siriano (12927).jpg, it may be beneficial to include where the photo was taken in the caption (i.e. OZY Fest).
    • Done
  • This is probably personal preference, but for this part, Porter and his stylist Sam Ratelle approached the designer, I think it would better to say "him" instead of "the designer". I agree with Wikipedia:The problem with elegant variation, but it is an essay so it is open to interpretation.
    • I actually wound up rewriting the entire first two paragraphs of Design & development because I noticed structural problems; this particular issue is fixed, and the section is much better overall for you getting me to take another look at it
      • Very nice. I will re-read it sometime tomorrow morning before I go into work. Aoba47 (talk) 03:22, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry for being nitpick-y, but I have a comment for this part, week, with Siriano and Ratelle working up. I'd avoid the sentence construction that is "with X verb-ing". It is a note that I have received in the FAC space and I have seen in the FAC space. I do not have a strong personal opinion about it.
    • Tweaked, and no need to apologize :)
  • For this sentence, On social media, the dress was compared to a similar 1980s look by ball culture icon Hector Xtravaganza., I'd clarify who is making these comparisons. Was it just random social media users or was it fashion journalists, etc. who used social media to report on or discuss this?
    • Paper magazine says "the Internet quickly latched on to the idea that Porter...was paying tribute to ball legend Hector Xtravaganza." Looks like the House of Xtravaganza Instagram posted about it, although I haven't found any sources that say whether they posted it first and other people hopped on, or if other people were talking about it and their Insta picked up on it and posted.
      • Thank you for the explanation and the revision to this part looks good to me. Aoba47 (talk) 03:22, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have a question about attribution in the article. There are instances where the author and work are attributed (i.e. Erica Gonzales of Harper's Bazaar wrote) and other instances where it is just the work (i.e. Vanity Fair placed him on its). I would be consistent with one way or the other.
    • I honestly just do it to break up the monotony of "Vogue said this. Vanity Fair said that. Vox said this other thing." No particular criteria.
      • Understandable. This should not be an issue with me. Aoba47 (talk) 03:22, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Were there any instances of black men criticizing this outfit? I'm just curious because there's a discussion on how this is "assault on masculinity" and a part of "the emasculation of black men" so I wondered if any black male journalists talked about it.
    • (It is a little rich to see conservative white women coming to the defense of black masculinity, isn't it?) The complaining from high-profile public figures like Lahren and Senator Rapert was reported on and therefore preserved, but most of the criticism was randos posting on social media and was therefore more ephemeral. I didn't find any RSes that reported any criticism specifically from black male journalists.
      • It is interesting to say the least. Thank you for the explanation and for looking into this point. Aoba47 (talk) 03:22, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry for the random question, but have any fashion critics (or critics in general) compared this outfit to how women used tuxedos as a way to initiate discussions on gender? People like Marlene Dietrich come to my mind.
    • Not a random question at all! The long and short of it is, not specifically, at least that I found. I did turn up a museum exhibit on nonbinary fashion that featured a photo of this dress and one of Dietrich's tuxes, so I put that in the article.
      • I appreciate it. I could not find any specific either when I did a very brief search. The addition looks good because it is interesting to read about how this outfit was displayed with others and I think that gives it more context if that makes sense. Aoba47 (talk) 03:22, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is outside the scope of this FAC, but I am curious if there is a way to rename List of dresses so it is more immediately clear that it is a list of individual dresses? It could already be clear though and I think this list is very helpful.
    • I've boldly moved it.
      • Understandable. It is a good list, but I can understand why you'd remove it. Aoba47 (talk) 03:22, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I hope this review is helpful. Apologies for some of the more nitpick-y points. Once all of my comments are addressed, I will read through the article one more time just to make sure that I've done a thorough job with everything. Just as clarification, my review is primarily focused on the prose. Aoba47 (talk) 02:19, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • I will re-read the article tomorrow before I go into work. I do agree with Sdkb that I think it should be, the FX drama Pose, as I have always seen "the" used before the network in this context. It is a little strange because it is not the only or the definitive drama on the network, but that is from my personal experience. I would also specify the series that the season that the Bimini Bon-Boulash wedding dress appeared. Something like "a wedding dress worn by Bimini Bon-Boulash on RuPaul's Drag Race UK's second series" would seem more specific and helpful to me. Apologies for the delay. I do not imagine I will find anything else in my second reading. Aoba47 (talk) 03:22, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Added the second season thing as well as the "the" for FX. And there's no need to apologize lol, you've been super on top of responding to me. Don't sweat it yo. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:09, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for addressing everything. I support this FAC for promotion based on the prose. Aoba47 (talk) 15:58, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

  • "He wore jewellery by Oscar Heyman" - I suppose it's probably obvious that the "he" is Porter, but it's been a while since he was mentioned, and multiple other men have been mentioned since, so maybe change "he" to "Porter"
  • Done
  • "Ratelle confirmed that the resemblance was unintentional, but stated they felt" - does Ratelle use they pronouns? If not, who does the "they" refer to, exactly? Also it should probably be "stated that" not just "stated"
  • The full quote is in the plural ("we felt honored") referring to him and Porter so I unthinkingly went with the plural pronoun when paraphrasing. Tweaked.
  • "Porter described the jacket as a political statement" - surely it was the dress that did this? Or the entire ensemble? Not just the jacket?
  • I literally have no idea why I put jacket instead of anything else, lol. Fixed.
  • " Vanity Fair placed him" =? " Vanity Fair placed Porter"
  • Fixed
  • "Fashion critics have described the tuxedo gown as an iconic Oscars dress." - the last two words link to red carpet fashion, but literally the exact words "red carpet fashion" appear quite a bit earlier in the article, so surely the link would be better placed there?
  • Fixed
  • "CNN Style writer Marianna Cerini remembered his outfit" => either "CNN Style writer Marianna Cerini remembered Porter's outfit" or just "CNN Style writer Marianna Cerini remembered the outfit"
  • Fixed
  • "rhetorically asking if it could "change whole systems?" => "rhetorically asking if it could "change whole systems"."
  • Done
  • "A photograph of the gown was featured at "Gender Bending Fashion,"" => "A photograph of the gown was featured at "Gender Bending Fashion","
  • Done

Source review (pass)[edit]

I will leave a few comments in a bit. It seems like there's been quite a few prose comments (but not a source review) so I'll check the sources.

  • Guerillero actually did an FA-level source review when he did the GA for the article, but there's been quite a bit of revision and addition since.

Some formatting comments in general (from this revision):

  • Be consistent whether you include ISSNs in newspaper sources. For example, the ISSNs of The Times and NYT are displayed in the article, whereas the ISSNs of Guardian and Los Angeles Times are not displayed even though these papers have ISSNs. There may be other sources where this issue exists as well.
  • I've added ISSN to every source that had one.
  • Also be consistent whether you include publication place in book sources. Ref 44 (How to Read a Dress: A Guide to Changing Fashion from the 16th to the 21st Century) has a publication place here, but it is the only book with a publication place.
  • I've added it to the reference for Gender(s), but the template documentation for the location parameter says to "omit when the publication name includes place," so I have not added it for Fashion on the Red Carpet, whose publisher is named for its location.
  • Check to see whether you are consistently wikilinking the names of newspapers/magazines/websites in citations. You generally should either choose to link them on the first mention only, on all mentions, or not at all. In this article, the use of wikilinks are inconsistent - for example, Paper (magazine) is linked in 2 of 2 citations, while Vogue (magazine) is linked in 1 of 3 citations.
  • The double-linked Paper magazine thing was actually an unintentional duplicate ref - not sure how it happened. The rest should be consistent with only the first instance being linked.
  • What makes the following sources reliable?
    • 25. Rosseinsky, Katie (February 25, 2019). "Billy Porter wins the Oscars red carpet with velvet tuxedo gown". Evening Standard.
      • See my response below which I think applies to this as well. I'm willing to lose this one if it's really a problem, since it's supported by other citations.
    • 35. Rekstis, Emily (September 21, 2021). "Wings! Feathers! Fringe! Look back at Billy Porter's most show-stopping red carpet moments". Us Weekly.
      • Gonna copy-paste my reply to Guillero from the GA - "Arguably an opinion piece, which tend to be given more leeway in my experience. Given that their primary line of business is to write about celebrity fashion, I think it's reasonable/within due weight to cite that it's their opinion that this is one of Porter's best looks."
    • 48. Petrarca, Marisa; Holender, Samantha (November 5, 2021). "Billy Porter Apologizes to Harry Styles for Slamming His 'Vogue' Dress Cover". Us Weekly.
      • Removed as unnecessary

I will leave a few more comments later. – Epicgenius (talk) 20:44, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for your comments, Epic, hopefully the responses are suitable. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:35, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Premeditated Chaos, thanks for the responses. I'm glad that Guerillero did a source check during the GA - it doesn't hurt to have a second pair of eyes, though. I'm now convinced that refs 25 and 35 are fine and all the other issues are resolved. Spot checks of 8 sources did not reveal anything out of the ordinary, so I'll pass this source review. – Epicgenius (talk) 13:13, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

Image licences, rationales, ALT text and uses seem OK to me. I would probably recommend looking for a non-Daily Mail source, though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk • contribs)

Thanks Jo-Jo Eumerus, I've added the original Sesame Street Instagram as a source, but since Insta doesn't seem to cooperate with the Wayback Machine very well, I've kept the Daily Mail archive link with a comment as to why. (I also swapped the image for the Sesame Street Instagram one as it doesn't have a watermark). ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:03, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@FAC coordinators: , just wondering if you guys are looking for anything else here? I have several prose supports, two source reviews, and an image review. Sdkb has indicated they may not be able to provide more comments in the near future and it's been a few days since any other comments have been left. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:29, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi PMC, I don't think there's anything more you need to do before a coord checks this over in detail, shouldn't be too long... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:29, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 29 May 2022 [8].

Roberta Williams[edit]

Nominator(s): Shooterwalker (talk) 18:57, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a notable game developer, who earned their reputation mainly with the King's Quest series from the 1980s and 1990s. She arguably developed the first graphic adventure game, which catapulted her career and her company, Sierra Entertainment. She retired in the late 1990s after Sierra went through a series of acquisitions (including some unfortunate financial drama). But she leaves a great legacy of titles she personally developed, plus the successful business that she ran with her husband, Ken. She has won lifetime achievement awards for her overall career. I think the article is already in pretty strong shape after the GA, and should be very thorough, and pretty well-written. The prose can always use another pass and I will work at this to bring it up to featured quality. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:57, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from AviationFreak[edit]

Just conducting a prose review here. At least to my reading, this article contains a lot of extraneous commas. I personally tend to be fairly particular about this and I don't want to assert that my opinion is necessarily the only "right" way of doing things, so maybe hold off on this until another editor gives a second opinion. Moved from the FAC page on 11:39, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

  • Add birthplace to infobox (if known to city-level accuracy)
  • Link California or Southern California
  • Maybe clarify that it was her first job after high school, not university or other education.
  • became pregnant just a few months after - suggest "a few months later"
  • Link computer operator
  • Link Interactive fiction as "text adventure games" (or Text-based game if you feel that would be more appropriate)
  • fulfill their dream of living in the woods is used word-for-word twice in adjacent sections. Suggest adding some variation.
  • A release year (1980) is given for Wizard and the Princess, but not Mystery House, Time Zone, or other games in the article.
  • "disk" and "disc" are both used in the article. Should be standardized, probably in favor of the American "disk".
    • Usually it's disk for "hard disk" and disc for "optical disc"; can just clarify in-line if that's the case here czar 06:57, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link Oakhurst, California
  • That year - Does this reference 1982? The previous sentence just says "around this time", which I assume to mean "anywhere from 1981ish to 1983ish".
  • Link to Simi Valley should be expanded to "Simi Valley, California" so that California is not duplinked after above changes
  • "Sierra" is italicized in the second sentence of the next paragraph.
  • Link Jim Henson
  • Suggest piping "game adaptation" link to include the preceding "a", thus indicating that the link is not just to an article on game adaptations.
  • Did the company or the game (The Dark Crystal) attract the media attention?
  • The concept of a pseudo-3D game that allows a character to walk in front of or behind objects is explained twice in the same paragraph
  • Suggest "16 color" -> "16-color"
  • Did King's Quest III double the previous games' size in terms of disk space, game length, or some other metric?
  • Not a prose consideration, but I see that FN19 does not include a page number or numbers.
  • Suggest adding "of all time" or "in the series" to one of the most influential games as it is currently unclear. Also, is this talking about video games specifically or games in general?
  • to the detriment of the game's traditional adventure elements - According to who?
  • she discussed with Ken about selling their stock - Suggest change to "she talked to Ken about selling their stock"
  • Suggest piping a link to Financial crime somewhere, either in the phrase "allegations of financial fraud" or "convicted of financial fraud". Accounting scandals could also be linked, as it's the more specific article for overrepresenting revenue.
  • Suggest using {{Inflation}} as you see fit within the article, not required though by any means
  • In hindsight, it became apparent that this was her retirement - Is this her hindsight? I actually can't find it in the cited source (only finding "18 games in 20 years"), but maybe I'm just missing something.
  • ...was in the past, and she was focused on... - Suggest "...was in the past, and that she was focused on..."
  • her husband Ken - I know it's nitpicky, but this feels like a reintroduction of Ken who is already well-established as her husband. Suggest just "her husband" or "Ken".
  • Per MOS:OL, countries' names should not be linked
  • Suggest noting that Odd Manor is a game developed by Facebook
  • Link Leisure Suit Larry
  • The name of the scholarship is not italicized in the source
  • Link Next Generation (magazine)
  • ...their 75 list of power players... - Suggest "...their list of 75 power players..."
  • ...highlighting their role in co-founding Sierra Entertainment... - This is the first time the company is referred to as Sierra Entertainment, as opposed to "Sierra On-Line" or just "Sierra". Suggest just shortening to "Sierra".
  • Italicize Computer Gaming World at start of next paragraph
  • TGA and the 2014 installment thereof are linked separately, while the GDCA is only linked as the 20th installment
  • ...as well as her work role in creating the King's Quest series and co-founding Sierra On-Line. - What is a work role? Also, if you end up shortening to "Sierra" above it might not hurt to do it here.
  • Italicize Ars Technica
  • Mixed-Up Mother Goose is duplinked

This is what I've got. Certainly a pioneering figure deserving of a FA, glad that effort is being made! AviationFreak💬 00:51, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

AviationFreak, hey, could you move the review to project's talk? It would help a lot to alleviate the length of an FAC, as this would double in length once the nominator answers these! You can keep the general comments and support here. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 08:05, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sure thing! AviationFreak💬 11:39, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@AviationFreak: Thanks for the review. I think I've addressed all your comments. Mostly focused on prose, but also dug into the research where it helped to clarify and be more specific. Let me know if there is anything else. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:25, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Looks much better now, just a few tweaks:
  • Change the "r=" parameter in {{Inflation}} to better suit the understood level of uncertainty in large dollar amounts (i.e. $500 million)
  • 20th Game Developers Choice Awards is piped from "Pioneer Award". Suggest making the piped text "earned the Pioneer Award".
That's all that I'm seeing at this point. Excellent work! AviationFreak💬 21:43, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I blanked on this until I realized the issue was in the lead. Should be fixed now. Thanks again for the review. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:50, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Panini![edit]

Placeholder; I'll review after I get some other projects done. Panini! • 🥪 12:04, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: note that The Secret got announced a couple weeks ago as a 3D and VR remake of Colossal Cave Adventure ([9]). --PresN 14:55, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Coordinator comment - at three weeks without a general support, this one is liable to be archived in a few days if there is not progress towards a consensus to promote. Hog Farm Talk 14:17, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just a note to the nominator that I'll be happy to support if/when my final comment is taken care of. Might also be worth a courtesy ping to Panini! as it's been a couple weeks since the placeholder. AviationFreak💬 15:52, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Ack! I forgot. Double ack! I've left a placeholder for Chibi-Robo! Zip Lash. Triple ack! I don't have a reason but felt a third one was justified. I'll get to this as soon as I can. Panini! • 🥪 16:05, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments coming now. Panini! • 🥪 11:36, 2 May

2022 (UTC)

Lead
  • Thanks for the new image!
  • The lead reads well, albeit it feels short. A couple of thoughts here can be expanded upon with a few more word to make things less generalized:
  • "Roberta took a brief sabbatical" - How come?
  • "and focused her retirement on travelling and writing historical fiction" - Did she do (or write) anything notable during this period?
  • "Several publications have named her as one of the best or most influential creators in the game industry" - For what reasons?
Game design career
  • This may merely be a personal choice, but I think the article would benefit from timestamps in the headers (like these ones)
Early graphic adventure games
  • Specifying "her husband Ken Williams" isn't necessary. It could simply be Ken from here on out.
  • "drawing influence Agatha Christie's story" - Duplicate comment below, missing a "from"
  • "The game soon sold 10,000 copies, with Roberta personally packing the disks and supporting materials in Ziploc bags, and answering her home phone to provide hints for the game's puzzles." - Simply stating I like this slice of content. It gives good insight into early game design.
  • "He quit his consulting job so that the couple could pursue their dream of leaving the city." - This contradicts an earlier statement, which reads "The couple wanted to leave Los Angeles to fulfill their dream of living in the woods." Is there a reason for the change?
  • "and led them to hire additional employees for distribution and programming" - Going off my previous insight on the statement above, certainly, there's more info than what's stated here, right? Considering how small the game industry was they might have had a close connection with these "additional employees" to call them out by name. I haven't looked at the source, but is such info in existence?
  • What's an "epic game"? Is this a video game genre? Promotional jargon? Fortnite?
King's Quest breakthrough
  • "While Ken Williams was amenable to the deal, Roberta strongly opposed it, and the merger did not proceed" - Why was she opposed?
  • "The game was considered revolutionary for introducing pseudo-3D elements in an explorable world" - Is this the first of its kind? If so, that would be a good detail to mention. It's kind of implied, but a "the first game to" would be helpful to explicitly state so.
  • I'd link pseudo-3d to 2.5D. I'm not a fan of how two different concepts are mushed together into one article, but it's better than nothing.
  • Mixed-Up Mother Goose is an educational title, right? Considering how this is far different than her other ventures, some details could be expanded upon to answer reader questions, and explicitly state this is an educational game in the first place.
  • Could you clarify what you mean by "interactive mystery"? Aren't all of these games interactive?
  • "remembering" implies that Computer Gaming World called the game the greatest of all time at a later date. What year was this greatest games of all time list made?

Everything beyond here looks good to me. Good Job! Panini! • 🥪 13:30, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Did my best to address these. It's always a thin line between overstating something and being extra clear. Hopefully the tweaks in language were able to clarify some of the facts. I'm glad you liked it overall, and hopefully this is good enough for support! Shooterwalker (talk) 23:45, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I would leave some other "you did a great job" comments but I gotta run. Toodles! Panini! • 🥪 23:59, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review and run into you again soon. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:57, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Edwininlondon[edit]

Thank you for bringing this bio here. Good to see another woman's bio at FAC. I have no domain expertise so can just add a few comments:

  • became a modest commercial success, and became --> repetition of became
  • Several publications have named her as one of the best or most influential creators in the game industry, with several --> repetition several
  • sometimes lie in bed and imagine fantastical situations, which she sometimes --> repetition sometimes
  • The couple briefly moved to Illinois, where Roberta was employed as a computer operator.[5] The couple --> 3 "couple"s in successive sentences. I'd change the middle one to They
  • drawing influence Agatha Christie's --> missing from?
  • Versawriter--> it seems to me this device is notable enough to have its own article, so redlink?
  • In actuality, both her and Ken had signed --> she?
  • she expressed that her greatest achievement was creating Phantasmagoria, --> this was already mentioned in the previous section
  • The company was later acquired by Activision Blizzard --> I have no knowledge of the game industry but the Activision Blizzard page says it came about as a merger with Vivendi, so it may well be it was not acquired but simply inherited.
  • Activision would attempt--> why not "attempted"?
  • remake of Colossal Cave Adventure --> perhaps add a little extra about this being a pioneering game from the 1970s
  • listed Roberta Williams among their list --> double use of list not very elegant
  • also included her as tenth --> this means she was tenth in the first list, is that what you meant?
  • most well known --> best-known?
  • the last paragraph has "also" twice close together. Not sure you need either
  • one of the sources mentions her new company as Cygnus Entertainment. Should this not be mentioned?

That's it from me. Edwininlondon (talk) 10:44, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback. I took these into account and hopefully we're closer to FA now. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:47, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
All fine except for you have Cygnus as Cygnus Games but the source says Cygnus Entertainment. Edwininlondon (talk) 05:57, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Edwininlondon: Ah, the two sources are different on that. But went ahead and changed it to be more consistent to the source in citation. Hopefully that does it now. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:57, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I Support on prose. Nice work! Edwininlondon (talk) 06:44, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again! Shooterwalker (talk) 22:10, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note from nominator[edit]

I count three supports on prose. There's been some modifications since the GA, and I might appreciate some input from someone with expertise in the subject matters. (Pinging @Indrian: if they have the time.) I'm guessing we probably need an accessibility and a source review too? Someone flagged the Ken Williams book as questionable, but I think it's used sparingly and appropriately, in accordance with WP:SPS. I think this article is very close to featured quality now. Shooterwalker (talk) 22:10, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Don't duplicate captions in alt text
  • Just noting for coords that File:Roberta_Williams,_GDC_2022.jpg is pending VRT verification. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:09, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I fixed the alt text in the various images. I can always tweak them further if they need to be more descriptive. Shooterwalker (talk) 02:13, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Z1720[edit]

Non-expert prose review. I am really happy that a female game designer has been brought to FAC, as this will help combat the systematic bias that is present on Wikipedia.

  • "She is also known for her role in creating and maintaining the King's Quest series," What was her role? From reading King's Quest's article, I think she is the creator and maintained the game, so I think "her role in" can be deleted.
  • "create a 3D remake of the classic adventure game, Colossal Cave Adventure." I don't think the commma is necessary here.
  • "or most influential creators in the game industry," in the video game industry?
  • "as well as her role as co-founder of Sierra" -> "and her role as co-founder" to tighten up the language
  • "was as a clerk at the County of Los Angeles Welfare Department, " I think "as" can be deleted
  • "Roberta married Ken Williams just a few days after his eighteenth birthday," Delete just
  • "She became pregnant just a few months later, and gave birth to their first son in November 1973." We don't need to know that she was pregnant a few months later, as giving birth to their son in November 1973 implies that she was pregnant and most competent readers know that a pregnancy is 9 months. I suggest, "Roberta married Ken Williams a few days after his eighteenth birthday and gave birth to their first son in November 1973."
  • "By 1979, the couple had two children." Since the first child was already talked about, perhaps a rewording to, "The couple had their second child by 1979"
  • "Around 1979, Roberta Williams was an avid player of text adventure games on a teletype machine," The last sentence of the previous section mentions the text adventure games, too, so this seems redundant. I think the text adventures should be mentioned here and the previous mention be deleted.
  • "as well as the board game Clue." -> and the board game Clue, to tighten up the language. Readers have low attention spans, so in my opinion it is usually better to use fewer words to express an idea to maintain reader interest.
  • "The game went on to sell 60,000" -> "The game sold 60,000"
  • "Designed as mature title for adults," -> Designed as a mature title for adults?
  • "selling more than 1 million copies upon its release in 1995." -> "one million" per MOS:NUMERAL
  • "and that she could even be sued by their shareholders if she failed to maximize their value." Delete even
  • "In 2019, Vancouver Film School announced The Roberta Williams Women in Game Design Scholarship, in partnership with game studios The Coalition and Blackbird Interactive." Should this be in the Legacy and accolades section?

Those are my thoughts. Z1720 (talk) 20:37, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • I tried my best to address most of these. Let me know if you see any lingering issues, and thanks for the review. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:16, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Concerns are addressed. I support. Z1720 (talk) 00:33, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

Footnote numbers refer to this version.

  • What's the logic behind your use of the website/work and publisher parameters? For example, [16] has a website/work but no publisher; [68] has both; [22] has only the publisher but you have a domain name there instead of a publisher; [52] has only the publisher; and [51] has neither. It doesn't matter how you do this so long as there's some logic and consistency. For example, a common approach is to have the website/work parameter be the name of the website, and to only use the publisher parameter if it's not obvious from the website/work -- e.g. if the website is "The New York Times" there's no need to put "The New York Times" as the publisher.
  • What is [32] referring to?
  • What is [62] referring to?
  • [44] needs an upper case "The"

I'll look at the formatting again once these points are addressed. I'll look at links and reliability next. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:37, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What makes the following reliable sources?

  • Ken Williams' Not All Fairy Tales Have Happy Endings. It's published by Lulu.com, which is a self-publishing company.
  • thedoteaters.com
  • adventureclassicgaming which says "anyone can contribute"
  • womengamers.com which says something similar
  • gamersdepot.com
  • choicestgames.com, which is a blog
  • gamezebo.com -- I can see it's reliable now, since the 2016 sale to iWin, but can we show it was a reliable source in 2011? It seems to have been largely a one-man operation at that time.
  • destructoid.com -- similarly, it seems to have been acquired since the content you cite was created, but it was apparently a blog at that time.
  • citypaper.com -- this seems to redirect to the Baltimore Sun but since there's no archive link I can't be sure that's what's intended.

I'll delay checking links until these are resolved. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:02, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • For the parameters, those are probably artifacts of copying and pasting sources from other articles, and I haven't been checking the actual markup, focusing instead on how it actually reads. Is there a best practice when it comes to which parameters to use for different types of sources?
    There's no standard; the requirement at FAC is consistency, so there are lots of ways to do it. A common way, and what I would probably recommend since it's easy to remember, is to use the website= parameter (or work=, which is just an alias for the same thing) for the name of the website, and either don't put the publisher in at all, or have a rule about when to put the publisher in, such as "only put the publisher in if it can't be deduced from the website name". That approach would be fairly quick for you to apply to the cites in the article at the moment.
  • Otherwise, I fixed a lot of sources, and even removed a few. The remaining sources you mentioned (adventureclassicgaming, womengamers, the Ken Williams book) are interviews with Ken and Roberta Williams. I believe they meet the standards of reliability based on WP:ABOUTSELF, and if anything seems contentious, we could add clarification such as "Roberta has recalled that..." or "according to Roberta". Shooterwalker (talk) 18:21, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I've struck the ones you've removed. The issue with a possibly unreliable source is not so that it's opinion, but that reliable sources with a reputation for fact-checking will cross-check quotes in interviews with the interview subject to make sure they have them right. I was once interviewed by a national magazine and a fact-checker called me to confirm all the quotes. I haven't looked yet to see exactly what is supported by these sources in each case, but if for example you can show that Williams comments positively about the interview that would confirm she is OK with the quotes in it.
    This is a good place to look for evidence of reliability; it doesn't mention adventureclassicgaming or gamersdepot, and says womengamers has to be used with care since it's a blog. The talk page of that page is pretty active and you might ask there if there's a way to show the reliability of these sources for what you're using them for. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:15, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the feedback. I'm going to quickly tag Indrian because they advised me to use the Ken Williams source when they oversaw the good article nomination. They might be able to speak to the accuracy of the web-based interviews too. Hopefully that can at least shorten the list of sources that we need to continue investigating. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:38, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've taken a look at the context of the sources used, and on the whole I think they comport to Wikipedia policy.
  • First to address the book: it is self-published, but it is a memoir. Ken Williams is an expert on the life of Ken Williams because he lived it. Ken Williams is also an expert on the shared experience of himself and Roberta because he lived that too. He also directly quoted her on a couple of points in the book. Seeing as they are still married and actively doing a new game project together, I find it highly unlikely he published material she was not okay with behind her back. Wikipedia:ABOUTSELF permits the use of self-published sources when the author is discussing themselves or events they were direct participants in so long as it is not unduly self serving. This book is cited to a few times, but it is almost all for basic biographical or corporate information. While Ken is the author, the birth of Roberta's child is also the birth of his child; Roberta's marriage is his marriage; a game being greenlit by Roberta's company is a game being greenlit by his company, etc. So long as the book is used to document this shared experience, it comports with policy. The only uses that may be dodgy are when the book discusses her inspirations for doing certain games like Wizard and the Princess or Phantasmagoria. While I personally have no doubt these are "true" statements based on Ken's understanding as both her husband and the head of the publisher of her games, that may stray too far from being material about the author of the book. I would, of course, defer to the source reviewer for that.
  • As for the interview sources; I really don't see the problem. These are, in effect, self-published sources about the subject because it is the subject's own words being cited to. This is not a situation where a news site is asking for and incorporating into an article a quote from the subject that might be taken out of context: it is the transcript of a conversation between two people. Even if edited or cleaned up, the material is entirely in the context of the questions that were asked and the answers are the subject's own words. The only concern I could see would be if the interviews were suspected to be complete fabrications, but I feel that would be moving out of the realm of source critique and into conspiracy theory. Adventure Classic Gaming, for instance, has published interviews with dozens of the biggest names in adventure games from all the major companies, and some of these interviews were conducted and published when these people were still employed by said companies. Are we really supposed to believe that dozens of interviews were fabricated and none of these individuals or their employers sued or had the material removed? Also, in the specific case of that site, both Ken and Roberta were interviewed twice, seven years apart. I don't find it credible they were generally unhappy with their treatment if they came back for round two.
  • Focusing in specifically on Gamersdepot.com, I believe this site passes the notability threshold regardless of the above. It's not on the VGProject sources list because it went defunct in 2006 before anyone was really assessing reliability much on Wikipedia. Looking at the old "About" page, it did have an editorial board that included at least one veteran journalist, but more importantly, it was part of the Cnet Gamecenter Alliance which was, according to our Wikipedia article, "a network to bring [Cnet's] Gamecenter and four partner websites [...] under one banner." Cnet is considered reliable on Wikipedia for tech news, and the Gamecenter Alliance websites were all Cnet affiliates.
Anyway, that's just my two cents since I was asked her to opine. Obviously, the source reviewer has the final say on all of this, and I defer to their judgement. Indrian (talk) 00:58, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot to Indrian. @Mike Christie: let me know if that addresses all or even some of your concerns. I'll be honest that in all the FA nominations I've participated in, I've never had someone ask me to contact the interview subject to see if they can confirm their interview comments are accurate. But we can figure out which sources still need that, with the understanding that contacting Williams may be difficult or even slow. Shooterwalker (talk) 04:16, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Indrian, thanks for the detailed notes. It's not an editing area I'm famiilar with and this is very useful. Shooterwalker, I didn't mean to imply that we should contact Ken or Roberta Williams; sometimes in a small field people go on record about what they think about other sources.

  • For the Ken Williams memoir, I think you're right that it's generally OK for what it's used for. However, I think you could and hence should find another source for the date Sierra went public -- you have 1987, but our article on the company says 1989. So I haven't struck that line out above just yet. The other points cited to that memoir are OK; it's the same reliability as a blog by a person only used to cite uncontroversial information about that person.
  • I've struck gamersdepot; the about page you found is just what I was looking for and establishes they were reliable at that time.

For the interview sites I'll go through what each one was used for in more detail and come back and post here again soon. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:45, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've now struck womengamers.com; I found an about page, which for some reason I didn't find before, indicating editorial control. It looks like they did allow user contributions, and one of the conductors of the interview is not listed as a staff contributor, but the other is the site's founder, so I think that's fine. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:51, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For Gamezebo I was able to find this on the Internet Archive -- my main concern there was that the evidence used to establish reliability now is no help in establishing whether it was reliable in 2011. This page lists editorial control as of 2011. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:57, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For Adventure Classic Gaming, it's the same issue -- yes, it's unlikely someone would mangle an interviewee's words, but we still don't use interviews from websites thought to be unreliable. We would not use an interview from the Daily Mail under most circumstances, for example. In this case I found this page showing that Jong is the founder and editor-in-chief of the site. He doesn't distinguish between editors and contributors, and says nothing about editorial policy, so there's no way for me to tell how much editorial control is exerted over contributions from the public. However, he's the one who conducted both interviews, so I'm fine with using them -- I looked at what they cite and there's nothing controversial there. I would be less happy about a interview conducted by someone other than Jong unless there's a way to tell that they're actually a staff member, or some other evidence that there's overall editorial control on all contributions. Anyway, I've struck this above.

That just leaves the IPO date for Sierra, and the citypaper.com link. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:08, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for problem solving with me, and sorry for the misunderstanding. I figure the interviews aren't making too many controversial claims, and some are listed as situational sources on WP:VG/RS. Let me see if I can address the remaining references.
  • I did fix the citypaper.com archive link, and the archive says "Copyright © 2015, Baltimore City Paper, a Baltimore Sun Media Group publication".
  • The "going public" date is confusing. The source really just says that they were a public company by the early 1990s. The Ken Williams book says they started working on their IPO in 1987, and then for some confusing reason, the first shares were available at the end of 1988. I'm reverting to an older version of the article where the status of the company is mentioned more broadly, in the context of the subject's career. I don't think the exact date is too crucial.
  • I also took some time to clean up some of the reference templates for consistency. Let me know how we're doing. Shooterwalker (talk) 02:13, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Funnily enough, neither article was right. Sierra went public in October 1988. IPOs take a long time to pull together, so it’s not surprising they were working on the IPO in 1987. Indrian (talk) 02:40, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Those two fixes look good now. I've struck those and will take a look at the formatting again now. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:57, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cite fomatting Footnote numbers refer to to this version.

  • What's the reason for choosing cite journal vs. cite magazine? The output they produce is slightly differently laid out, which is OK if you have a clear way of choosing which to use -- academic publications might get cite journal, for example, and popular magazines might get cite magazine. And in both cases you have some with a publisher and some without.
  • For cite news and cite web (which work almost identically), things look a lot more consistent now. There are still publishers on [66], [43], [57], [11], [17], & [10]; is there a reason for those particular ones to have publishers? If not I would suggest just removing them.

Links

  • [10] is dead and so is the archive link.
  • [35] is dead and there is no archive link.
  • [61] is dead and there's no archive link.
  • [66] is dead and there's no archive link.

That's everything. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:33, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think I got everything. Thanks for being thorough. Take a look and let me know what you think. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:27, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The links are all good now. The remaining cites with publishers (other than books) are:

  • {{cite magazine|date=June 1997|title=An Interview with Roberta Williams and Mark Seibert|url=https://archive.org/stream/NextGeneration30Jun1997/Next_Generation_30_Jun_1997#page/n78|magazine=[[Next Generation (magazine)|Next Generation]]|publisher=[[Imagine Media]]|issue=30|pages=77–81}}
  • {{cite magazine|date=June 1997|title=NG Alphas: King's Quest: Mask of Eternity|url=https://archive.org/stream/NextGeneration30Jun1997/Next_Generation_30_Jun_1997#page/n73|magazine=[[Next Generation (magazine)|Next Generation]]|publisher=[[Imagine Media]]|issue=30|pages=72–75}}
  • {{cite magazine|date=November 1995|title=75 Power Players|magazine=[[Next Generation (magazine)|Next Generation]]|publisher=[[Imagine Media]]|issue=11|pages=53–54}}
  • {{cite web |date=August 5, 2011 |title=Computer Gaming World – Hall of Fame |url=http://www.1up.com/do/feature?pager.offset=9&cId=3139081#86 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110805051232/http://www.1up.com/do/feature?pager.offset=9&cId=3139081 |archive-date=August 5, 2011 |access-date=July 6, 2013 |work=Computer Gaming World |publisher=1up}}

If you're getting to consistency by eliminating all the publishers, getting rid of these will be the end of it; if these are left in for some reason let me know what it is. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:59, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • I removed all of them except the 1UP Network, and it's a unique one if you follow the link. Computer Gaming World is conventionally a magazine, but I'm referencing it to the 1up Network, which owns / re-published it. It's the only source that does this so I think it makes sense to make it clear who the two different entities are, so it doesn't look like a mistake. I hope that makes sense. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:34, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pass. All good now. Thanks for being patient with a fairly nit-picky review! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:46, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comments[edit]

  • @FAC coordinators: I copyedited this article so am recused from it, but it looks like it may be ready for promotion. The image is still pending VRT so maybe it should be removed until its status is confirmed. (t · c) buidhe 21:39, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it's all the same, I don't mind waiting until the image is established to meet fair use. I worry that if it's removed, the verification process might die with it. (But I've always struggled with the image processes here, and you can correct me if I'm wrong.) Shooterwalker (talk) 01:01, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    VRT process is unrelated to whether the image is used in any articles. Commons hosts many images that will never be used in WP articles. (t · c) buidhe 08:19, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Sounds good. Hoping the image works out as it raises the overall quality of the article. Shooterwalker (talk) 13:53, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Shooterwalker, as Buidhe notes, there would seem to be a consensus to promote this article. Before a coordinator considers it with a view to closing they would expect the VRT issue to have been resolved. You could remove the image, on the understanding that it would not be reinstated until and unless VRT give it a clean bill of health. Or you could leave it open, anticipating that the coordinators will have a reasonable but not infinite degree of patience with the nomination. Your call. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:12, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I honestly don't understand the VRT process at all, and don't know how long it will take. I'm waiting in the dark, so to speak. But I would like to see the image included when this article is promoted. If you think it makes sense, I'd like to wait. (And obviously let me know if your patience starts to run out.) Shooterwalker (talk) 20:49, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Will do. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:43, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Shooterwalker, it's been a week since the last exchange. Gog is now on a short break so stepping in I think it's time to finalise the licensing or else simply remove the image in question and promote without. The image can always be added back when/if VRT is sorted. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:06, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Before we do that, do you have any idea how to move the VRT process along? I'm mostly sitting here waiting, and I have no idea if it will be days or months. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:03, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm afraid that's a black box to me, image reviewers might know. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 20:55, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh well. If we're out of time, go ahead and remove the image. If the prose is all the same, that's what's most important. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:39, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just FTR, I see it's been removed from Commons -- and hence the article -- by another editor. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 20:31, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Buidhe via FACBot (talk) 26 May 2022 [10].

Siege of Guînes (1352)[edit]

Nominator(s): Gog the Mild (talk) 14:11, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just when you thought it was safe to visit FAC after I had declared that there would be no more of my Edwardian Hundred Years' War articles, I find one down the back of the sofa. A fairly typical event from this conflict, of which enough has survived into the modern sources to reconstruct reasonably well. The article passed GAN in September 2021 and ACR the following month. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:11, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Image review—pass (t · c) buidhe 20:53, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Tim riley[edit]

What a pleasure to have an encore! A few quibbles and cavils from me, as usual:

  • Background
  • "set at an exorbitant 80,000 écus" – I'm not sure about "exorbitant", which is a matter of opinion, perhaps? I'd be happier with some less judgemental indication of size, such as huge, enormous or (if it was) exceptionally high.
If you prefer I could quote the source: '- according to the modern historian Jonathan Sumption a "prodigious" amount' -. But this seems a long-winded way of saying the same thing and what I have seems to me to be a reasonable paraphrase.
I don't press the point, but "prodigious" need not imply "exorbitant", or vice versa. A fiver is not a prodigious sum, but being charged it for an ice-cream in a tourist trap is exorbitant. As you have a source for "prodigious" you could simply replace the one ten-letter word with the other. Tim riley talk 12:21, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Would that not raise plagiarism issues? Prodigious is not that common a word. "Whopping"? "Stonking"? Gone with "extremely high".
One word is not either plagiarism or close paraphrasing; in fact, putting single words or short phrases in quotes is discouraged in MOS as scare quoting. (t · c) buidhe 17:20, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • English attack
  • "dereliction of duty at the behest of Charny" – I think I'd put a comma after duty, to make it more immediately clear that the execution rather than the dereliction was at Charny's behest
You want more commas! My gast is flabbered. Added.
  • French attack
  • "French forces in the north east" – Ssilvers caught me out on this in the recent FAC of Arnold Bennett. Like you, I had it (or to be strictly accurate "south east") as two words, but the OED prescribes a hyphen.
I care little. "South east" is an entirely acceptable usage.
  • "Shortly after Charny abandoned the siege, leaving a garrison to hold the convent." – I had to go back to the start here; the full stop came as a surprise: I was expecting to learn what happened shortly after Charny abandoned the siege, leaving the garrison. For clarity, I think I'd make this "Shortly afterwards Charny abandoned…" If you were feeling kind to your American readers you could even put a comma after "afterwards".
Fair point; "wards" added. I rarely feel kind towards my American readers where commas are concerned. [11]
  • "English tower at Fretun" – Oh, come on! One of the joys of Eurostar is seeing the station signs at Calais-Fréthun and knowing you're headed to Paris in time for lunch. "Fretun", forsooth! I know you've blue-linked to Fréthun, but I mean, really!
The source - Sumption, not an author I would care to cross citations with - is quite clear that it is spelt Fretun. As is the Israeli Medieval-warfare specialist Harari. As is The National Archives. I am afraid that you seem to be outvoted Tim.
Hmm. But let it pass. Tim riley talk 22:06, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "fortifications on all of the access routes" – not sure why "of", here.
Me neither. Expunged.
  • Aftermath
  • persuaded that another round of warfare may leave him" – seems to me, as a past event, to need "might" rather than "may".
Changed.

That's all from me. A vivid and enjoyable article, as one expects from the respected Gog FA Factory. I'll look in again when you've had a moment to consider the above, not very earth-shattering, points. – Tim riley talk 19:26, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tim riley: Just a pot boiling frippery, but I did enjoy putting it together. I am pleased that you enjoyed it too, and I appreciate the review. All points addressed above. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:09, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to support and let my minor quibbles pass. I take Ceoil's point about the judgment of the Milhist experts, but I can only comment as a layman, and I find the article balanced, widely sourced, splendidly illustrated, and a cracking read. To my inexpert eye it meets the FA criteria good and proper. Tim riley talk 22:06, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ceoil[edit]

Not finding much baffling or to complain about, and agree with comments above that it is vividly written (eg "after six years of an uneasy and ill-kept truce")

  • Lead: say what the Pale of Calais was
I may be being slow here, but doesn't the sentence "the English expanded their enclave around Calais ... forming what became the Pale of Calais" do this. I am not sure that adding "- the Engish-controlled enclave around Calais" would help.
Fine. I was thinking in terms of poignance of the word pale in the context of The_Pale#History. Ceoil (talk) 21:29, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would like to see Siege of Guines (1558) created at least before if/when this goes to mainpage
I am inclined to agree. If I ever forget and nominate this for TFA before that has happened, please feel free to remind me.
  • and personally led his household knights and the Calais garrison - personally is implied
Hmm. Ok.
  • promptly' had Raoul executed for treason - promptly doesn't add much, we know the timeline, and the sentence would be more impactful without it
Removed.
  • Why the second comma - By coincidence, the English Parliament was scheduled to meet, with its opening session on 17 January.
Cus the last seven words are a subordinate clause. If I had omitted "with its opening session" it wouldn't need a comma. As it is it does, because of grammar. And this from an editor with a deep dislike of unnecessary commas, per Lynn Truss.
  • These are very trivial; like Tim, will revist in a few days with ay (prob) or nay (unlikely). Reason for holding off is that at 1700 words, waiting for milhist people to cover off on comprehensiveness. Ceoil (talk) 21:54, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I umm'ed and ah'ed over whether to bring this to FAC, as it is slight. But as far as I can see it is both notable and contains all of the information extant on the siege. I sought Hog Farm's advice here in advance.
Thanks for the copy edits, although I have tweaked a couple.
By the bye, what does "tw" mean in your edit summaries?
  • Hi Ceoil, nice to see you opining on one of mine again. All of your points addressed above. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:02, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Slight isn't an issue afaic as trusting on cromprhensivness. "tw" = tweak, no issues with the reverts. I had only intended to scan the lead but got sucked in by the story (we didn't learn about the 100 yr wars in 1980s IRL). Any roads, points addressed, Support. Ceoil (talk) 21:23, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Ceoil. And "I had only intended to scan the lead but got sucked in by the story" has left me well chuffed. (The history of the 100YW can make things like A Game of Thrones seem unimaginative.) Gog the Mild (talk) 21:52, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Harrias[edit]

  • The lead and the infobox seem inconsistent regarding the time span: "May to July 1352" in the lead, "January–July 1352" in the infobox. I understand the discrepancy, as the castle was captured by the English in January, but that wasn't part of the siege, so having both as May to July feels best here.
You are, as usual, quite right. Changed.
  • "The siege was part of the Hundred Years' War and marked the resumption of full-scale hostilities after six years of an uneasy and ill-kept truce." Similarly, this could do with rephrasing slightly to emphasise that it was the English taking of the castle in January which prompted the resumption of full-scale hostilities, not the subsequent siege to attempt to retake it.
No; the English capture may have been the spark, but the French move was what marked "the resumption of full-scale hostilities". The English attack was a run of the mill small-scale breach.
Hmm, okay. "The resumption of hostilities caused fighting to flare up in Brittany and the Saintonge area of south-west France, but the main French effort was against Guînes." had suggested to me that it had already started before the French move, but I guess there is a difference between a "resumption of hostilities" and a "resumption of full-scale hostilities". Nevertheless, it feels like the lead is either telling a slightly different story, or at least, spelling the story out plainer, than the main body. To support the "full-scale" comment in the lead, could you make it clearer in the aftermath section that the actions describe count as "full-scale hostilities"? Harrias (he/him) • talk 10:35, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strain as I might I am unable to see the discrepancy you perceive between the lead and the main body. No doubt this is my being too close to the article, but is there any chance you could help me out by unpacking how you are reading it a little more. When you suggest amending the aftermath, do you mean the first or second paragraph? (Or both?)
Simply put, I just can't see where in the main body of the article it is demonstrated that this siege marked the resumption of full-scale hostilities. Harrias (he/him) • talk 13:13, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I now see your point. Apologies for my earlier obtuseness. Strain as I might I can't find the source that explicitly states this. :-( Possibly I am developing false memory syndrome? Any hoo, I have backed away slightly from the claim with this edit. How's that look?
  • The infobox also uses the number of 115 for the strength of the English forces, but doesn't mention that additional forces harassed the French from Calais.
Tweaked.
  • "..but was extended repeatedly over the years until it was formally set aside in 1355." This feels odd in the background section, given that it happened after this siege. I wonder if it would be enough just to state "..but was repeatedly extended."
Hmm. I see your point. Done.
  • "..been set at an extremely high 80,000 écus, more than Raoul could afford." I'm not sure about "extremely high" here. It feels a bit 'pop history'. It was more than Raoul could afford, isn't that enough? If it being more than he could afford was the point, then "..at the intentionally high.." might be better.
I had a disagreement with Tim over this. What I am trying to do is convey two, to my mind separate, points made by the sources. Firstly that 80,000 ecu was an unusually large sum for the time and place for a ransom. Sumption describes it as "prodigious". Secondly, that Raoul couldn't afford it. If I simply state that it was a large sum it, perhaps, leaves the reader thinking "Well, Raoul was a leading noble, perhaps John was right and he was a pro-English traitor. Similarly, if I go with just "unaffordable" a reader doesn't know if it was actually a reasonable, or even small, sum, but Raoul had gambling debts or whatever. Happy to discuss nuances of wording, but my preference would be to inform a reader of these nuances.
Just read into the sources to get more background on this. In Sumption (1990), he quotes that Edward bought Raoul from Sir Thomas Holland for 80,000 florins, while in Sumption (1999), he says that Edward set the ransom "reputed to be 80,000 ecus". Two questions: firstly, are florins and ecus equivalent? Secondly, do you have anything else to back this up, because at the moment the source says "reputed", whereas the article makes it sound like a known fact. Unless there are more source to back this up, I think we need to soften the tone. As an interesting aside, and conjecture that we can't use in the article, was it normal for the King to buy up prisoners, or do we think he specifically did it with the plan to get Guines out of Raoul? Harrias (he/him) • talk 10:35, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, an ecu was approximately two English shillings or one florin. See eg Sumption 1999 page 592, who as usual includes some of the nuances. Note that Sumption page 72 specifies "gold écus", which I take to mean 'old' écus. Sentence tweaked and a "rumoured to have been" added.
Yes, sale of prisoners was not unusual. Edward frequently brought out his lords' ransom rights and often made a loss, which it is assumed he made up with political advantage. As in this misfiring example. This has more if you're in the mood.
  • "..and it seems that.." Editorial voice shouldn't be used on Wikipedia. If this is someone's opinion, then attribute that inline. If it is the commonly held view, then just state it as fact.
Done.

Otherwise the prose looks good to me.

  • A big one this: in the "Kaeuper, Richard W. & Kennedy, Elspeth (1996)" reference, you're missing a space after the comma in the location: "Philadelphia,Pennsylvania".
Insufficient blank space in my articles is a common complaint.
  • In "Livingstone, Marilyn & Witzel, Morgen (2004)" no need for the "(published 19 November 2004)", you already have the year of publication, that's enough.
Sorry, not sure how that snuck in.

That's it from me. Nice work, as always. Harrias (he/him) • talk 13:36, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Harrias. How delightful to be the beneficiary of one of your all too rare contributions. Thank you. All addressed. Does this also count as a source review? Gog the Mild (talk) 17:26, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: A couple of replies above. I wouldn't feel happy calling what I've currently done a source review, but it wouldn't take much more for me to expand it into one. Harrias (he/him) • talk 10:35, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again Harrias and apologies for taking so long to get back to you. A couple of tweaks implemented and explained above. What do you think? Gog the Mild (talk) 19:48, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, all my issues are resolved. (Well, the issues I have with this article. *My* issues are another matter entirely.) Enjoy your hiking. Harrias (he/him) • talk 21:00, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Guerillero, much appreciated. Any chance that you could add a "Source review - pass" in bold to your comment to aid the coordinators? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:48, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Source review - pass -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 21:23, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Buidhe via FACBot (talk) 23 May 2022 [12].

Barkhale Camp[edit]

Nominator(s): Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:04, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about another causewayed enclosure in Sussex. There are about half-a-dozen of these sites in Sussex, and I'd like to get all of them featured; this is the fourth. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:04, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Image review—pass (t · c) buidhe 23:12, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild[edit]

Recusing to review.

  • "The enclosure was first identified in 1929". This one, or causewayed enclosures in general?
  • "At the time of the survey that identified the ditches". It may be helpful to add 'in 1929'.
  • Link National Trust?
  • I think "access ways" should be 'accessways'.
  • "bucket urn and a collared urn." Perhaps a footnote explanation for the non-specialists?
  • scraper, core and flake could all be helpfully linked.
  • "Trench V found 44 fire-cracked flints". I doubt that. Perhaps "In trench V were found 44 fire-cracked flints" or similar?
  • Link Samian ware.
  • Sources: should Curwen E. Cecil not go before Curwen Eliot?

Gog the Mild (talk) 21:21, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All done except the urns, which I'll have to think about in the morning, and the Curwens. Cecil's first name was Eliot (he was the son of Eliot Curwen) and because I know that I put him after his father, as one would if the name were spelled out. He never used "Eliot Cecil Curwen". Do you think the order should be swapped? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:35, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Footnote done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:27, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that as given E. should come before Eliot. If it was in full, then Eliot would go before Eliot Cecil, but it's not. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:10, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's logical. Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:32, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

NØ[edit]

I will have a crack at it but make a note of my lack of knowledge of this topic.

  • I think a more straightforward way of writing the lead's second para's last line may be "Peter Leach conducted another excavation before the clearance was completed and after the southern part of the site was cleared of trees in 1978, examining several mounds within the enclosure, and attempting to determine the line of the ditch and bank along the southern boundary."
    Rereading the source I realized I was making it sound more complicated than it was -- the NT planned a clearance, and Leach excavated the site before they started. I've used a variation on your suggested phrasing. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:00, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The site is owned by the National Trust, and is a scheduled monument." - isn't active voice preferred?
    Yes, done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:00, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • As someone unfamiliar with the topic, is Military terminology an appropriate link to be added for "military terms" here?
    I don't think so. What I'm trying to say here is that it's had to find a way to explain the causeways as a defensive military position -- "military terms" here just means "thinking about this from a military point of view". Is there a clearer way to phrase this? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:00, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "substantial labour would have been required, for clearing the land" - is the comma here necessary?
    Removed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:00, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Trackway redirects to "Historic roads and trails" - would it be the right link to add here?
    I don't think so -- this trackway is a footpath for walkers, rather than having any historic importance. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:00, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "found three distinct groupings of sizes, and Barkhale Camp lies in the middle group" - "groupings" and "group" are similar so maybe the second one could be done away with to make less repetitive.
    If I make it "lies in the middle one" or "lies in the middle" it feels vague to me. Would it be better to change the "grouping" to "group" to make the back-reference explicit? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:00, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that would be a good idea. I will leave this up to your good judgement.--NØ 11:15, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:29, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Couldn't the small sentence at the end of the Site section be incorporated into the para's first one? - "The scheduled monument is on the South Downs, four miles to the northwest of Arundel, in West Sussex;"
    I did this slightly differently. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:00, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are none of the three links at Earthworks appropriate to link for the word here? What about linking "fortified settlements" to Fortification? I apologize if the answer is obvious.
    Good idea; I think the Earthworks (archaeology) link is the best for this purpose. For fortified settlements I'm hesitant -- this might be overlinking since this article doesn't really talk about fortifications specifically, it's just a passing mention. I'd like to see if other reviewers feel this would be a helpful link. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:00, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "this may be where Ryle's trench was placed." - if this is unconfirmed shouldn't it be attributed which writer speculated this?
    This is complicated. I was hoping to avoid having to directly attribute this (and it is cited, after all, so the reader can see it's in Leach's review article) in the hope that it was obvious and didn't need attributing -- after all, we know Ryle dug a trench, and this is the discovery of an earlier trench, so it's not an expert's insight. The reason it's complicated is that it's not really clear who first pointed this out. Leach says it in his 1983 paper, but that paper included a summary of Clipson's MA thesis, which in turn assembled material from Seton-Williams' excavation. So the suggestion could have been made by Leach, Clipson, or Seton-Williams. I really don't want to mention all that in the body of the article in order to explain what I hope is clear anyway. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:00, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "By 1978 the site was owned by the National Trust, which decided to clear the trees from the southern part of the site" - maybe change the second "site" to a synonym, or "of the site" could be removed. Since this is a new section you may also choose to change the first "site" to "Barkhale Camp" instead
    Good point; I did this a little differently. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:00, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the sake of transparency, I will note that I haven't looked at the sources.
A great article that could maybe just use a few more wikilinks for rookies like me.--NØ 05:11, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review! Everything now addressed, I hope, with one question above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:00, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am satisfied by the changes and can now extend my support. In case you want to return the favour, I am a fan of your work in source reviews and could use one at my current FAC. Best of luck!--NØ 11:15, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! As it happens I was thinking about doing that source review. If I don't get to it today it should be tomorrow. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:29, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from mujinga[edit]

  • Hmm! I didn't know about this site Mujinga (talk) 15:46, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "height of 0.6 m, and a width of 6.0 m, though the ploughing is likely to have spread out the bank material. Leach concludes that the height was unlikely to have ever exceeded 1.5 m." above you have "0.5 metres (1 ft 8 in) high" so I suppose here shoiudl be metres not m, and also converted
    Done; I think I got all of them. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:21, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Few of the flints were found in clearly stratified contexts, but overall the flint finds support the Neolithic date assigned to the enclosure" - don't think you need the second "flint", just "finds" reads ok
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:21, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the picture, "grey lines are banks" is confusing me. Do you mean the dotted grey line?
    I think I may need to change the colours here. Page 13 in this paper is the source; you can see he outlines the ditches and just draws lines for the banks. Any ideas for a better way to represent this? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:21, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry I'm more confused now! Mujinga (talk) 18:36, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry! I've updated the picture and the caption (you may need to refresh cache to see the new picture, or click through to see it on commons). The picture now shows shapes with a grey dotted outline for the location of the ditches, and brown dotted lines for the earth banks. Does that make more sense? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:46, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes thanks that's much clearer! I would suggest labelling the track as well, just for clarity. Mujinga (talk) 21:39, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:07, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • " through the enclosure ditch, was examined for land snails; very few were found, making it impossible to draw definite conclusions, but it was notable that all the species found were shade-loving" - were the snails if found going to help with dating the site?
    Snails in the fill can tell you about the environment at the time they were deposited there; if they're all shade-loving species it implies the sites was cleared from woodland; if they're open grassland species it implies the ditches were dug some time after the woods were cleared. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:21, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah ok thanks for the explanation. Some of that is prob worth saying then, since at the moment I'd still be wondering what the "definite conclusions" are about. Mujinga (talk) 18:12, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, good idea; done; I was able to use the explanation Thomas gives in his report to source something -- how does that look? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:46, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    looks good, I corrected a typo Mujinga (talk) 21:35, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "K.D. Thomas" - "K. D. Thomas"? if that's the case, there's a few other ones in sources
    Fixed, I think. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library)
  • In the infobox, I'd suggest saying near Arundel rather than "near Bignor" since Arundel is more well-known
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:21, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's all from me, thanks for an informative read! Mujinga (talk) 15:55, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the review; replies above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:21, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Two more replies above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:46, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Nice one, made replies and switching to support. Will be interested to read about the next causewayed enclosure when it pops up Mujinga (talk) 21:40, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks! Next is probably Offham Hill, which I'm still working on. The only other definite causewayed enclosure in Sussex is Court Hill, which doesn't have an article yet. There are two probable but unconfirmed candidate, Butts Brow and Halnaker Hill, but I don't know if there are enough sources for a full article on those yet. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:07, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley[edit]

  • I will review this, but as a driveby comment I see there are no photos. Would any of the photos of Bignor Hill on Geograph at [13] be any good? Dudley Miles (talk) 12:59, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I hadn't thought of looking under Bignor Hill instead of the site name; thanks. Found one and added it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:05, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you have linked to the wrong John Ryle. He was a physician and his ODNB article at [14] says nothing about archaeology.
    I can't put my hands on the relevant ref immediately, but I spent some time when I wrote the article making sure I had the right John Ryle, and I think the link is correct. He was a physician who lived very close to the site, and was not an archaeologist. I'll have another look tomorrow and see if I can dig out the references that convinced me. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:38, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The enclosures in southern Britain began to appear shortly before 3700 BC, and continued to be built for at least 200 years; in a few cases, they continued to be used as late as 3300 to 3200 BC." Were these dates established by Gathering Time analysis of radiocarbon dates? If so you should say so somewhere.
    I've cited this to the introduction to Gathering Time and also to the earlier Creation of Monuments, which doesn't give those numbers in the text, rather in graphical form. The introduction to GT is more specific, but it doesn't really change the numbers from the earlier source, so I'm not sure it's right to make it appear as if those numbers were derived only from the 2011 source, when it's not a change to the earlier understanding, only a firmer basis for it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:38, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking again at this, I am unclear about the source of the dating. You say above that the dating is based on Creation of Monuments, but this is not spelled out in the text and not mentioned in the final section. Were the Creation figures based on new 2001 radiocarbon dates or were they a summary of the 1995 RCMHE figures? If GT could not get dates due to the acid soil then they were presumably just giving the dates found earlier. Were the Creation dates based on material which could be carbondated or was there a different basis, such as pottery, to the dating? Dudley Miles (talk) 10:22, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The Creation introduction has a chart with the X-axis labelled "calibrated years BC", showing, for a dozen different Neolithic cultural phenomena (e.g flint mines and cursus monuments), a line that shows when it begins to appear and when it disappears. The lines are solid in the middle and dotted at the ends to indicate the uncertainly. There are no gridlines on the chart but it's fairly easy to read off the numbers; the line for causewayed enclosures starts as a dotted line not long before 3700 BC and is solid from about 3700 BC to about 3300 BC, and dotted again to shortly after 3200 BC. The book was published in 2001. Then in Gathering Time (2011) we have "This book...using chronological estimates produced by Bayesian statistical analysis of hundreds of radiocarbon dates...establishes that these ceremonial areas...began in southern Britain in the late 38th century cal BC, and flourished principally in the 37th and 36th centuries cal BC.... Some causewayed enclosures went on to have a long history, the initial use of a few continuing into the 34th or 33rd centuries cal BC..." So GT doesn't significantly change the conclusions from the earlier book. I wanted to cite both because they reinforce each other, and the radiocarbon dating project certainly establishes the dates more definitely, but since this is an article about an individual enclosure, not the parent article about causewayed enclosures generally, I thought more detail wasn't necessary. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:42, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes I confused myself not distinguishing between general statements about causewayed enclosures and this specific site. Sorry about that. You say that GT could not get dating on the site, but maybe spell out specifically that no one has. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:08, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I hadn't realized that I hadn't actually said that; good point. I've added a sentence in the section on Leach, since I can cite that to a direct statement by him. His estimated dates are less precise than the later sources, but since this is a historical section about the conclusions of the individual investigations I think that's OK. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:20, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Clipson's thesis was itself never published". I would delete "was itself never published" as it would be very unusual for a thesis to be published, but it should survive and be available for study. Is it known whether that is true in this case?
    I deleted the phrase. I contacted UCL in March to ask about this, and was told it's available on microfiche only; I don't think I can say anything about that in the article since my source is just the email from the UCL Institute of Archaeology librarian. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:38, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "1.5 metres (4 ft 11 in)" 4 ft 11 in is too exact as a conversion of 1.5 metre. It should be 5 ft.
    Fixed. I had to do it by hand; I couldn't figure out how to make the convert template do it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:38, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • " belonging to the "Park Brow – Caesar's Camp" group". What does "Park Brow – Caesar's Camp" mean?
    This is a categorization of pottery used by Barry Cunliffe in his Iron Age Communities in Britain. He describes the type, and I could reproduce that description, but there are several types included under that name, and since the Barkhale excavation source gives no more details I think I should perhaps just cut it. Or I could say something like "one of the Iron Age pottery types identified by Barry Cunliffe in 1974"? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:38, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I would delete it. It will mean nothing to readers and there does not appear to be an article you can link to in order to clarify. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:22, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I've deleted it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:42, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another first rate article. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:08, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:38, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Dudley, just checking if there's anything outstanding. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:39, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You were going to check John Ryle. I think you need a source to confirm he is the correct one. Also, I would add that the site is undated to the lead. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:02, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    So I was. I've added an abbreviated version of Leach's conclusion about dating to the lead. Re Ryle, I've found the data that convinced me, and it may not convince you. According to our article on Gilbert Ryle, his brother John Alfred Ryle lived in Barkhale; that led me to this snippet which says Ryle was a professor who lived in Barkhale. This source, which I cite in the article, says the one who dug the trench was a professor, with initials JA. That source actually cites Curwen's Archaeology of Sussex, which I have, but I didn't feel it necessary to go back to the earlier source for that. So we have a Professor J.A. Ryle of Barkhale and we have a Professor J.A. Ryle who discovered a site in Barkhale. I can't find any other famous Ryle families (with any other initials, even), so I think it's reasonable to assume these two are the same person. What do you think? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:21, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I can't see your snippet but I have found [15], which I assume is not a reliable source but quotes the probate calendar. That seems conclusive although I am not sure there is a source you can cite. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:03, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review – pass[edit]

  • Ref #1: I don't agree with using "13 March 2022" as the publication date for the NHLE source. As it is a database pull, the page is regenerated on each use, so the access-date covers that suitably. I'd recommend removing it entirely (especially since the archive link, which is the primary one here, uses the archive-date of 10 April 2022 for its generated date.)
    Agreed, done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:47, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref #12: Same point for the National Trust source.
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:47, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref #39: Wikipedia uses title case for references, and does not emulate the formatting of the original if it uses all caps etc. As such, reformat the author names in this title. Also, is there a specific reason why this is placed in the References section, while another Antiquity source, "Curwen, E. Cecil (1930)" is in the Sources section?
    Title case implemented. I have absolutely no idea why I put this in the references, but it's now been moved to the sources section, and (I hope) made consistent. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:47, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • A few little discrepancies in your short footnotes:
    • Refs #8, 20, 25: include the first names, while all others don't. I guess this is to aim to distinguish the two Curwen's, but I think that is sufficiently done with the variation in the References section, and doesn't need duplicating in the Sources section. I'm not too bothered either way on this one mind.
    • Ref #16: "Oswald, Dyer, & Barber (2001), pp. 99–105." – remove the comma before the ampersand.
    • Refs #17, 18, 29: "Oswald & Dyer(1995)" – add a space between Dyer and the bracket.
    • Ref #24: "Leach (1983), p.12." – add a space between p. and 12.
      All the above should now be fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:47, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • All sources appear to be to high-quality, reliable sources.
  • Searches in all the usual places only revealed this book which might be of interest that has not been used.
    I did look at this before the nomination, and the material in it is really more relevant to the overview article, causewayed enclosure, which I may get to eventually. There was nothing I thought had to be mentioned in this article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:47, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Spotchecks reveal no evidence of copyvio or close para-phrasing, and on each check the source was accurately reflected in the article text.

Other than a few formatting errors, this looks pretty solid. The book source linked may or may not be of much use; it seems to expand slightly on some of the content of the article, but I'll leave that to you. I certainly wouldn't oppose based on its omission. Harrias (he/him) • talk 14:18, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the sharp-eyed review. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:47, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nice work, all good from me on the sourcing. Harrias (he/him) • talk 17:18, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Buidhe via FACBot (talk) 23 May 2022 [16].

Georges Feydeau[edit]

Nominator(s): Tim riley talk 21:47, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are grander, posher French playwrights than Georges Feydeau, but he is by several kilometres my favourite. The last and greatest practitioner of French farce, he was, alas, yet another of those geniuses who made the world laugh but were quite tragic in their own lives. I have enjoyed returning to FAC recently after some years' absence, and I look forward to seeing what colleagues make of my latest offering. – Tim riley talk 21:47, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Afterthought: given that there are a few ultra-dedicated campaigners for a compulsory info-box in every article, may I ask contributors below to say if they disapprove of the absence of an i-b? Tim riley talk 23:43, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

  • Works like File:Mme-Ernest-Feydeau-nadar-and-Ernest-Feydeau.jpg (and also File:Tailleur-pour-dames-1887.jpg, File:His-Little-Dodge-1896.png, File:La-dame-de-chez-Maxim-1899.png) that are at least 120 years old with unknown author can be uploaded to commons using PD-old-unknown, assuming that they are PD in the US. However, for the Feydeau US license tag, how do you know it was published before 1927? Also, this looks like two separate images that you stitched together. I would upload both separately and display them jointly with {{Multiple images}} if necessary; for one, that would provide better quality.
  • File:Occupe-toi-d'Amélie-1908.jpg is also ok for commons since a quick google revealed that Yves Marevéry [fr] died in 1914
  • File:Je-ne-trompe-pas-mon-mari.png if the author died in 1935 it should be OK for commons (1935+70=2005) (t · c) buidhe 22:51, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Frustrating experience at FAC over the years has taught me to have as little to do with Commons as possible. I was forever using a Commons picture and being told at FAC it was not acceptable. So I steer clear as much as I can. If anyone wants to copy any files to Commons that's up to him or her, but I'd prefer a copy to be left in English WP for safety's sake, as I have seen too many local images uploaded to Commons and later deleted from the latter on some pretext or other. The publication date for the Feydeau images from the BNF are as given on the linked BNF site. The one of Ernest is "1854-1870", and of Mme Feydeau "1870-1890". The quality looks fine to me as it is, but if you wish to do as you suggest I have no objection. Tim riley talk 23:17, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, you have to check the licensing of Commons images before using them because quite a few of them are sketchy or outright copyvio. It's quite hard to get an image deleted on commons and it usually only happens for licensing reasons, meaning that the image should never have been uploaded in the first place. These aren't good reasons to avoid uploading to commons however, because as it is if someone tried to translate this article into another language they wouldn't be able to use the images as they're enwiki only. (t · c) buidhe 23:56, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    As long as the images are appropriately documented for use in this article I am happy to leave the possibility of their eligibility for and upload to Commons to anyone who is interested and knows the Commons rules and requirements. Tim riley talk 09:17, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from User:Smerus[edit]

Excellent, I support this for FA and as usual have a few feeble quibbles which may or may not be worth addressing:

  • Early years. You translate Meilhac's comment as "your play is stupid, but it is theatrical". I have the sense that "scénique" doesn't quite mean "theatrical" here, but something more like 'evokes just the right spirit', or 'hits the spot' . Not that either of these are much better.
    • My French is not up to much (or indeed anything) but I think this is probably OK. The Dictionnaire de l'Académie française says of "scénique": "Qui se rapporte à l'art dramatique et, en particulier, à la mise en scène, au jeu des acteurs; relatif à la scène d'un théâtre, d'un opéra, d'une salle de spectacles", so I think "theatrical" is all right. Open to correction by Francophones, natch. Tim riley talk 16:15, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1880s
    • "but, "what gaiety...." ". I suggest that "but, it enthused, "what gaiety...." " or something like that, would be more grammatically orthodox.
    • "from the Renaissance" I had to think twice here - how about "from The Renaissance" (or "from the Renaissance [Theatre]")?
      • I've fudged it and changed "the Renaissance" to "the theatre", which is not a verbatim translation of Le Figaro's prose, but is a fair representation of it, I think. Tim riley talk 16:15, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • "vaudeville-opérette" - I don't think these terms are mentioned before, so maybe better "vaudeville-operette?

Best, Smerus (talk) 12:08, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Smerus, thank you so much for the support and excellent suggestions for polishing the prose. I am, not for the first time, in your debt. Tim riley talk 16:15, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild[edit]

Recusing to review.

  • "Feydeau took a break from writing and instead made a study of the works of the leading comic playwrights". Suggest removing "instead".
  • "Feydeau was appointed to the Legion". Are you referring to the Ordre national de la Légion d'honneur? (Or the Légion étrangère?)
  • As we specify the Legion of Honour in the preceding sentence I think it's clear. Tim riley talk 22:04, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "During the first two decades of the 21st century, the Comédie-Française presented seven new Feydeau productions". I am not sure that "new" is helpful here.
  • Nor am I, now you point it out. I suppose I was trying to emphasise that none of them were old productions resurrected, but I don't think that needs spelling out. Tim riley talk 22:04, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Trivial points. Excellent stuff. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:04, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for these points, Gog. Will there be more to come? Tim riley talk 22:04, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The only outstanding point is the Legion of Honour paragraph. It is not an area which I feel I would wish to object on the basis of, so I am supporting the nomination. But as the rest of the article is to your usual high standards this paragraph really jumps out as jarring; a little strangely, more so the more I consider it. The second sentence seems to be trying to convey too much information. And it only works if one realises that "a certain amount of angling on his own account" relates back to the first sentence. This no doubt seems obvious, but even after your comment above it took me three readings before it went "click". And it is taken for granted that a reader is aware of what an appointment to the Legion of Honour is. I would urge you to consider rewriting this paragraph from scratch, possibly with out the, IMO, confusing reference to La Ruban. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:15, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Coincidentally KJP1 brought up this para in his comments, below. (How little one is able to QA one's own prose!) I have recast, dropping the "angling". Tim riley talk 18:37, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley[edit]

  • "as a child he wrote his first plays" Pedants' corner: he could hardly have written his later plays as a child. I would delete "his first".
  • "In 1919 his mental condition deteriorated sharply". Maybe mention due to syphilis.
  • A bit too detailed for the lead, I think, but I am biddable on the point. – Tim riley talk 13:28, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "His father, Ernest-Aimé Feydeau". It would be helpful to give his dates. You give them for his mother.
  • I think there is – or used to be – a convention that if someone had his or her own article, as Ernest does, we didn't give his dates in other articles, but as this convention (if I haven't simply imagined it) has always seemed to me silly I am happy to add Ernest's as you suggest. – Tim riley talk 13:28, 18 May 2022 (UTC) And now done. Tim riley talk 13:41, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and Feydeau later said that people could think Morny his father if they wanted to" It would be better to refer to him as Georges as you have just been talking about his father.
  • You refer to Gidel as "the biographer" and Pronko as "Feydeau's biographer". The first does not sound quite right to me. Maybe "In his biography of Feydeau, Gidel"
  • "French naturalist theatre". Is there an article you can link to?
  • Yes and no. We have one on naturalism (theatre), but it's mainly about Ibsen, Strindberg and Chekhov, and French plays don't get a look in. I'm not sure it would be a service to our readers to link to it. – Tim riley talk 13:28, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Feydeau was appointed to the Legion". Appointed to which grade?
  • Initially he was a chevalier, and was promoted to officier in 1912 (Gidel pp. 238–239). It hadn't crossed my mind to mention this, but I will do so if you wish it. – Tim riley talk 13:28, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "is a comedy about a man's strenuous efforts to be appointed to the Legion of Honour". You say this twice.
  • Yes, the repetition jarred on me as I was writing it, but I thought and still think it needs the second mention. Perhaps I'll change the second one to "a state honour" or some such. – Tim riley talk 13:28, 18 May 2022 (UTC) And now done. Tim riley talk 13:41, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "For some, his late, misogynistic one-act plays were his finest achievements" Misogynism his greatest achievment? What do female critics say about this?
  • Pronko is unequivocal: "During Feydeau's lifetime the four short plays showing the inferno of married life were judged by many to be his finest achievements". Pronko doesn't use the word "misogynistic" but several other writers do, including J. Paul Marcoux in the introduction to Five By Feydeau (1994), and Pronko describes the wife in one of these late plays as a "sour-tempered unforgiving harridan" and another as "Feydeau's most monstrous feminine creation, thoughtless and selfish". – Tim riley talk 13:28, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you should clarify that the people who think it was his greatest achievement are not the people who described them as misogynistic - if that is the case. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:45, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Comédie-Française admitted a Feydeau work to its repertoire for the first time in 1941". Why not in his lifetime?
  • In his lifetime the Comédie-Française was not Feydeau's milieu, nor were his plays the sort to commend themselves to the management of the Comédie-Française in the late 19th or early 20th centuries. I suppose a comparison of sorts would be to imagine the Royal Shakespeare Company staging No Sex Please, We're British in the 1970s. The grand theatrical companies only take up farces when they are safely old enough to qualify for classic status. – Tim riley talk 13:28, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "They took the production to Broadway in 1952, and the West End in 1956". Were productions which moved to NY and London in French? Were the actors bilingual?
  • The production was given in French in both cities. The practice seems to have faded away now, but when I was young, Peter Daubeny's World Theatre seasons were full of foreign-language productions, and did good business. Tim riley talk 13:41, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Era. This seems a bit vague as a source. Maybe link to The Era (newspaper) if that is correct.
  • "in mid-1919 his family, alarmed at signs of a severe deterioration in his mental condition". Who were his family at this point? His children?
  • His sons, Jacques and Michel, were the people chiefly responsible for arranging for Georges to go into the sanatorium. (Gidel, pp. 264–266). I'm not sure naming them here is helpful to the reader, but I'm not dead agin it. – Tim riley talk 13:28, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relevant in my view, but of course as in the similar case above it is your call. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:45, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you, Dudley. I'll away and make the changes agreed above and will look in here after that to see what you think of my replies on the other points. – Tim riley talk 13:28, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Warmest thanks, Dudley. I've acted on outstanding points, and am grateful for your thorough review and your support. Tim riley talk 16:57, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from KJP1[edit]

Tim, another well-written, and comprehensively researched article. I won't find much to quibble over.

Lead
  • "unsuccessful gambling" - is it possible to clarify what sort of gambling he indulged in? The 1880s Section ends with a reference to stock exchange losses, while the 1900-1909 Section says he "gambled and lost large sums". Are we talking about stock market speculation, or betting at cards or roulette, or both?
  • Not sure what to do about this. Of my two main biographical sources, Pronko says "lost money gambling and on the stock market" and Gidel talks of "les pertes au jeu, les spéculations boursières", neither of which tells us whether the gambling was at cards, on the horses, in the casino or what. I don't think I can in conscience add to what's now in the text. Tim riley talk 17:23, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • On a point of consistency, there appears to be some variation of capitalisation of the English translations of the play titles. As examples, the lead has Ladies Tailor, The Lady from Maxim’s, A Flea in Her Ear, while the body of the article, and the list of works, has Ladies tailor, A flea in her ear etc. Not a clue as to what, if anything, MoS prescribes, but I think they should probably be consistent throughout?
  • I think you're right about consistency. I can't see anything in the MoS to guide me on capitalising literal translations, and have now gone for sentence case throughout.
Early years
  • "Ernest-Aimé Feydeau (1821–1873), was a businessman" - again for clarity, do the sources indicate what kind of business he practiced? His own article describes him as a financier?
  • "the author dedicated the new edition to the archbishop" - would just "Ernest" be clearer?
  • It would. Not sure why I wrote "the author". Done. Tim riley talk 17:23, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • “he wrote The Rebellious Young Lady (La Petite révoltée)” - Any reason why we have the English title preceding the French title here?
  • "was taken up by the publisher Ollendorff" - I'm assuming this was Paul Ollendorff, for whom we don't have an article although we do have Ollendorff père. Would the addition of Paul help, if not the link?
  • I always find this sort of thing tricky. If there were a link to the company, that would be fine, but I'm not keen on linking to Ollendorf père. Tim riley talk 17:23, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
1880s
  • "Amour et piano was given at the Théâtre de l'Athénée" - you use "given" a few times in this context, and I appreciate an actor can "give" a performance, but I wonder if "presented", "performed" or "staged" would be clearer for the non-technical reader - like me!
  • I was surprised at this comment, but have changed the "givens" to "presenteds" etc. Tim riley talk 17:23, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It depicts the confusion when a young lady receives a young gentleman who she thinks is her new piano teacher; he has come to the wrong house and thinks he is calling on a glamorous cocotte" - three things here. First, would "depicts the confusion arising when..." work? Second, to avoid the double "thinks", could the second be changed to "believes"? Lastly, link cocotte, I'm quite sure the term will be a mystery to most of our readers!
  • On the first point, yes. On the second, glamorous cocottes are such an everyday phenomenon in the Riley household that it didn't occur to me to link the term, but I daresay you're right. Done. Tim riley talk 17:23, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the third para., starting with La Lycéenne, and running into the first para. of the 1890s Section, we have six titles in quick succession without corresponding English translations. For consistency, should they be included?
  • I've herded the first three into a single footnote to help prevent acute clogging of the prose. I'm really not persuaded readers need the second three translated: they're practically in English already, I feel. Tim riley talk 17:23, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
1890s
  • "He submitted them to the management" - would "both", as in "He submitted them both to the management..", be superfluous?
  • "about a man desperately angling for appointment to the Legion of Honour" - Two things. I appreciate "angling" works for a British (American?) readership, but not sure its meaning will be clear for others. "intriguing"? Second, although we're on Wiki (en), and the link is indeed to the Legion of Honour, given there's so much French already, and the Légion d'honneur is so well known, I wonder if it wouldn't be better in French, with the link? You may well disagree but in my support, I would cite note 8, where you use "officier" rather than "officer".
  • First point: not sure "intriguing" is justified, but I'd be happy with manoeuvring. What think you? Second point: done. Tim riley talk 17:23, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
1900-1909
  • "Of his first four plays of the 1900s, only La Main passe![n 11] (1904)" - A query on note 11. It says, "in card games, where play moves from player to player,..." - is it actually "play" that is moving, or "the bank", or "the position/role of banker"? Just ignore me, if I'm talking nonsense - Snap is about my limit. [Not even Strip Jack Naked? Tim riley talk 17:33, 19 May 2022 (UTC)][reply]
  • I think this is OK. In e.g. Bridge, play passes to the left (i.e. clockwise), so that if the player sitting at the north side of the table plays first, the player sitting east plays next, and so on. Tim riley talk 17:23, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Un puce à l'oreille (A Flea in Her Ear) (1907)" - moving from one area of ignorance to another, is the French title actually "La puce à l'oreille"? That's what the bluelink, and the Tobin article give, as well as the Table of Works and Legacy section here, and it's what I come across via an online search.
  • Thank you very much indeed! I'm so glad you spotted this. The definite article is correct. Amended. Phew! A howler over the title of his most popular play! Tim riley talk 17:23, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Last years
  • “the diagnosis was dementia caused by tertiary syphilis” - I wonder whether linking dementia to General paresis of the insane might be more directly relevant than the dementia link you have? That said, the Dementia article is higher quality, so perhaps not.
Happy to be guided by you on this. Pray decide yea or nay. Tim riley talk 17:23, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Batch 1 - I'll be back for Works and Legacy. KJP1 (talk) 09:47, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Works
  • First, a question. Do the sources say anything about how Feydeau worked with his collaborators? Did they have defined roles? Did they do half each - unlikely!? Did they receive equal credit/billing? It may be that the sources don't discuss it, in which case so be it, but if there was a little that could be added on how F and his collaborators wrote together, it would be interesting, given how important such collaborations obviously were.
  • A bit of a blank here in the sources. Collaborators certainly received equal billing, but the modus operandi of Feydeau and his co-authors is not discussed, as far as I can see, though the possibility cannot be ruled out that someone whose French is as rotten as mine has missed it in Gidel's 276 pages. Pronko's text (in English) certainly doesn't discuss the point. Tim riley talk 17:23, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "twenty full-length plays and nineteen one-act ones." - "one-act ones" reads a little oddly, for me. Perhaps, "twenty full-length and nineteen one-act plays."
Farcical style
  • "mechanical stage accessories such as the revolving bed in La Puce à l'oreille" - Can I beg for a footnote that gives readers an explanation as to what the "revolving bed" does, and how its presence/function is explained? Is it some kind of brothel device, akin to Edward VII's famous Siege d'amour? I went to the Flea article for illumination, where reading of the comings and goings at the hotel gave me a headache, but mention of the roundabout bed was absent.
  • I don't think I can spare the space in this article, but it's like this: in the dodgy hotel there is a bed attached to a wall. If a couple making use of it are about to be intruded upon (by e.g. an outraged husband) the press of a button has the entire wall, and the bed and occupants with it, revolving horizontally 180 degrees into the adjoining room, and the hopefully empty identical bed from next door takes its place. It is a matter of historical fact that in the fifty-odd years since I saw the National Theatre's production, I have never laughed so much at anything, ever, than when the bed revolved, repeatedly and inopportunely. You can see the bed in the original production at the back of the right-hand room in the picture at the beginning of the Works section. Tim riley talk 17:23, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added a footnote as requested, and only hope I haven't killed the humour by literal description. Tim riley talk 21:36, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Full-length works, One-act pieces & Monologues
  • Purely a style choice, and ignore it at will, but I like the table you use for the Full-length works, and would myself use a similar format for the One-act pieces and the Monologues.
  • I'll experiment and see how it looks. I don't think tables are always ideal for shortish lists, but let's see. Tim riley talk 17:23, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Legacy
  • First image - Given that this section covers his, posthumous, legacy, I'm not quite getting why we have an image of the 1906 production of Free Exchange Hotel. Would something like this work, [[File:Hotel Paradiso FilmPoster.jpeg]]?
  • It would work brilliantly, but I don't think there is a ghost of a chance of justifying a non-free image here for merely decorative purposes. Tim riley talk 17:23, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sources
  • Again, merely a stylistic preference, but I might use (|author-mask = 1). That would avoid, for example, seventeen of M. Stoullig's appearances.
  • You have the advantage of me. I have never run across this device. Would you be very kind and apply it for me here, on the understanding that I can revert it if I take agin it? Tim riley talk 17:23, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you for doing the deed. I'm not sure I'll be making regular use of the code for my further contributions, but it looks absolutely fine - clear and concise, and I'll certainly not be reverting it. You are very kind. Tim riley talk 18:43, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's it from me. As so often, you've taken an artist of whom, beyond mere name recognition, I knew almost nothing, and brought them to life. That, the prose, and the comprehensive referencing, made it a pleasure to read and to review, as well as a most useful lesson. As usual, the above are mainly suggestions, and you can ignore them at will. I'll be back to Support when you've had a chance to review. KJP1 (talk) 11:20, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

KJ − thanks for these really excellent suggestions. I've adopted most of them and as to the others, please see above. Tim riley talk 17:23, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Tim - Quite content with the responses, and appreciate that some are matters of judgement/taste. I’ve put the author-masks in and you can see what you think. I think it’s an excellent addition to the FA canon and am delighted to Support. KJP1 (talk) 20:56, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

Footnote numbers refer to this version.

  • Can we get page numbers for the chapter sources Hacht & Hayes; Meyer; and Slonimisky et al.?
    • Not sure I follow you. My normal practice is to give the page number in the refs and the bibliographical details in the sources, and have done so here. – Tim riley talk 14:42, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Sorry, this was both a mistake on my part and an oversight. The oversight is that I should have made it clear that this was just a suggestion, not something I would object to as part of a source review. It's a convenience to the reader to see that e.g. the chapter by Slonimsky et al. in Kuhn's dictionary is pp. 1803-1809. There's no requirement to do this; I was just suggesting that it might be done. The mistake is that I misread both the Hacht and Hayes and the Meyer citation; neither one is a chapter in an edited work, so it wasn't even a sensible suggestion in those cases. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:06, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are missing a location for Hacht & Hayes.
  • You have one instance of "Pronko (1973)" in the footnotes, which I assume should be 1975.
  • You cite Noël and Stoullig in the sources as "Noël, Edouard; Edmond Stoullig"; why the change in name order for the second author? Similarly for Hacht and Hayes, and Mander and Mitchenson. If this is deliberate, then presumably we need to change Slonimsky et al. to conform.
    • Quite so, and now adjusted accordingly. (I don't normally list surnames of 2nd and subsequent authors before their given names, as the question of alphabetical sorting doesn't arise, and the natural order seems easier on the eye.) – Tim riley talk 14:42, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes, consistency is all that's needed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:06, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The 1888 and 1894 editions of Noël and Stoullig do not appear to be cited in the footnotes. Nor do the 1904, 1905, or 1911 editions of Stoullig.
    • The 1888 and 1894 listings are now gone. The 1904 Stoullig is mentioned in note 111, 1905 at note 61 and 1911 at note 54. – Tim riley talk 14:42, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Oops. Glad I was at least partly right. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:06, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure what the canonical way to cite [17] would be, but I think at a minimum the author should be given.
    • Done. I'd gladly add more, but the Internet Archive is uncharacteristically coy about the bibliographical details. – Tim riley talk 14:42, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dates are not consistently formatted; you have e.g. "4 August 2020" and "2022-05-17".
    • Alas, the clodhopping 2022-05-17 style is the work of the archiving bot. I don't know how to make it do dates in normal form. Archiving is a marvellous thing, preventing so many dead links in years to come, but it comes at the price of clunky date formats in the citations. – Tim riley talk 14:42, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I will see if I can figure out how to resolve this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:06, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      It looks as if simply changing the date format inside the template will work. Take a look here; I copied one of your citations and changed the date parameter. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:29, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      All manually corrected. That was as soul-destroying a half hour as I have spent for some time. What would you have said if I had simply blitzed all the archiving dates? As there is an unbreakable link to each, why do we need the archival date in our references? Wikipedia is not making life easy for its contributors. Tim riley talk 19:56, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      If you had, I'd have struck the comment, since source reviewing doesn't require archiving. You know, a script to change all dates in an article from one format to another would be useful, and might already exist somewhere in one of the automated tools such as AWB. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:15, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • What's the intention behind italicizing or not italicizing some elements of the web citations? I think you're italicizing titles of publications and not italicizing websites and publishers. If so, [51] should have "Dictionnaire de l'Académie française" italicized.
    • Your deduction is spot-on, but I'd be glad of your thoughts on the point: some people italicise websites, I've noticed. Do you have a view? – Tim riley talk 14:42, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I suspect it comes from the way the commonly used citation templates work. {{cite web}} has a title parameter, a work parameter (for which "website" is an alias) and a publisher parameter. The title typically gets used for the title of the web page, and gets put in quotes; the work (or website) for the name of the site, e.g. Internet Broadway Database, and is in italics; the publisher is not in italics. So you get, from a recent FAC, a cite like this: "Burnley match record: 1959". 11v11. AFS Enterprises. Archived from the original on 21 January 2021. Retrieved 31 March 2021." The website is "11v11"; the publisher is AFS Enterprises. There's a lot of confusion about the use of the publisher vs. website parameters, and I confess it's only recently that I think I've begun to get it clear myself, having started to do more source reviews. So you get people putting the website name into the publisher field, which doesn't italicise it. The rule, as I understand it, is that anything that is reasonably rational, and consistent, is fine at FAC. That's why I asked about the dictionary title -- it seems to me to be the title of a publication, like The New Oxford Companion to Literature in French, which you italicize even though you're accessing a web version, rather than the title of a website which is not the title of a publication, such as the Internet Broadway Database. For consistency wouldn't you expect to italicize it? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:06, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      We see eye-to-eye on this, I think. I agree in principle that all book titles should be italicised (I seem to have a pathological reluctance to italicise the titles of dictionaries but I struggle hard to overcome this quirk) and for now will leave websites unitalicised. I've done the necessary for the Académie française's dictionary. Tim riley talk 17:48, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any reason why you give both the website title and the publisher for [86]? As far as I can see you don't do this elsewhere.
    • Serves me right for copying and pasting from another article. Now pruned. – Tim riley talk 14:42, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • A nitpick: you have "fourteenth ed." with lower-case "f" for Gaye, and "second ed." for Mander and Mitchenson, but "Second ed." for Hall, and "8th ed." for Slonimsky et al.
    • I'll make them uniform, but before I do, have you any thoughts on which of the three options is preferable? – Tim riley talk 14:42, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Personally I think lower case and spelled out in full, e.g. "fourteenth", looks well on the page, but anything consistent is fine. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:06, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Good. That accords with my tastes; done. Tim riley talk 17:48, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • What makes historichotelsthenandnow.com a reliable source? The about page makes it seem it's written by a single individual.
  • What makes Libre Théâtre a reliable source? From their about page it's a labour of love by fans of the theatre.
    • It seems to have the nod from the French Ministry of Culture ("Référencement sur le site Histoire des Arts du Ministère de la Culture, 22/10/2015", though I'm not sure of the exact import of that) and the Bibliothèque nationale de France provides a link to the Libre théâtre site, which seems a good recommendation. – Tim riley talk 14:42, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      The Bibliothèque nationale de France link is a helpful recommendation. Am I right in thinking you're referring in [30] to the review cited? That is, I see [30] supports "a series of poor or mediocre runs" of four titles, and I see that one of the two links to Libre Théâtre contains an embedded review from The Illustrated Thief; is that review part of what you're citing? If so I think it would be helpful to cite that directly, reducing the reliance on the website. I don't see anything embedded for the other Libre Théâtre citation in [30], for Chat en poche; can I just check that the other sources do support "poor or mediocre" for that title? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:06, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      For the sake of clean simplicity I've replaced all the citations to Libre théâtre with printed ones (Gidel and Noël & Stoullig). Tim riley talk 17:48, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's everything I can see before having to run off to work this morning; I'll check back in this evening. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:25, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your review. I've actioned as mentioned, and look forward to your thoughts on the few points I've raised. No rush! As a retired person I felt rather guilty when I read your comment about fitting the review in before running off to work. – Tim riley talk 14:42, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No problem! I've recently semi-retired (i.e. I now work only two days a week) so you can feel correspondingly less guilty, or in fact not guilty at all, since I do enjoy doing reviews for their own sake. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:06, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Afterthought: thank you for adding the "ref=none" to the sources. I don't think I've run across it before, and wonder what it's for: grateful for enlightenment on the point. Ought I to be adding it to the sources sections of any article I work on? Tim riley talk 22:58, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The keepers of the citation templates made a change a year or three ago where the citation template is now expected to have a ref parameter. I don't recall how this expectation is implemented, but certain user scripts now produce error messages if the ref parameter is not filled in. The ref parameter is used for {{sfn}} style referencing, which I don't use myself, so I had never used the parameter in my own citations. Hence my own articles became peppered with error messages because of the change, and I discovered that "ref=none" silences the errors. Not something I would raise in a source review because it causes no problems for a reader without the relevant scripts.
I think that's it for the evening for me; my workweek is now over so I should be able to give this some more attention tomorrow. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:06, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just the date issue left, for which there seems to be a solution -- see above. I still have to check links, and will do that next, but I don't expect to find problems since I've already clicked on most of them while doing the review. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:29, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Footnote numbers now refer to this version.

  • The archive links for Le Figaro ([23], [28], [66]) and Var-matin ([31]) don't work. Not everything is archivable; if these can't be fixed I would suggest just deleting the archive links.
  • Both the link and archive link for [134] just take you to the IBDB front page, not to the relevant page.

That's everything. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:45, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fixes all look good; this is a pass. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:15, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Heartfelt thanks for such a thorough and helpful review. Just what was needed! Tim riley talk 21:47, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Wehwalt[edit]

Support. Very little to comment on. Anything worth catching has already been caught, it seems. Still, I'll try.

  • "From 1908 Feydeau focused chiefly on a series of one-act plays, which he envisaged as a set to be called From Marriage to Divorce" He intended it to have an English title? (since we are not title-capping translations, it looks a bit odd).
  • "Le Ruban (The Ribbon, 1894, in collaboration with Maurice Desvallières), is a comedy about a man's strenuous efforts to gain a state honour.[85] and Le Bourgeon (The Bud) " As title-capping of translations is not being done, these are not consistent with earlier (when you translate the former as "The ribbon". Of course, if The Bud is about a certain beer, I will withdraw that portion of my point.
  • Fn7: "Respectively the titles translate into English as 'The high school girl The betrothed of Loches and The Edouard affair" There is a stray apostrophe before "The" in the first titles, and consideration might be given to the use of commas in separating the titles and, perhaps, a full stop at the end.
That's it. Enjoyed reading it.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:42, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's a clear hat-trick. You have me bang to rights on all three points − now attended to. Thank you, Wehwalt, for your suggestions and support. Tim riley talk 09:56, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Buidhe via FACBot (talk) 23 May 2022 [17].

Apollo 6[edit]

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 14:18, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about... the final uncrewed Apollo mission. It didn't go quite as planned, but it went well enough. Wehwalt (talk) 14:18, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Image review—pass (t · c) buidhe 21:47, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Constantine[edit]

I had a couple of read-throughs, and honestly couldn't find much to fault apart from a few nitpicks.

  • The CM used was CM-020 to 'The command module used was CM-020'
  • Introduce George Mueller's role
  • I am not sure how many readers will identify what unit g stands for. Link it?
  • the planned 11,989-nautical-mile (22,204 km) apogee everywhere else in the text, the SI units come first

Nice, comprehensive, and well-written article. Constantine ✍ 14:16, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. I've adopted your comments.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:38, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Hawkeye7[edit]

Only have nitpick too.

  • "metres" should be "meters" in American English? (Yeah, I know, an oxymoron if ever was one)
Fixed (the usages, not the language).--Wehwalt (talk) 16:40, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Got that.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:46, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Apollo 6, the second test flight of the Saturn V rocket" Suggest "launch vehicle" instead of rocket to match the lead
Fine.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:51, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should " Lunar Module Test Article" be capitalised?
I suppose it should be Lunar Test Article.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:53, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a velocity of 36,500 feet per second (11,100 m/s)" For consistency, put the metric first for consistency
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:50, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • " with the S-IVB third stage and Instrument Unit computer also arriving on March 17." Recommend dropping "also" to avoid confusion
Changed "also" to "both".--Wehwalt (talk) 13:50, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • You use the abbreviation KSC without defining it
Fixed.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:57, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:57, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • " The thrust variations caused the Saturn V to experience ±0.6 g, though it had only been designed for a maximum of ±0.25 g" Use the {{convert}} template to convert to m/s2.
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:29, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Gen. Samuel C. Phillips" -> "Major General Samuel C. Phillips" GEN is the abbreviation for "General" and he wasn't promoted to that rank until 1973. (Major General is abbreviated as MG in the USAF. But don't.)
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:57, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:45, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article may be a bit too upbeat on the pogo problem being solved. It did occur on subsequent missions, although it was notr as serious. See [18] Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:43, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've clarified to make it clearer that NASA felt it could be dealt with.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:34, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

  • All sources are high quality.
  • I have removed a series of CS1 warnings generated by url-status cards without archive-url cards
  • And the format cards, as this leads to inconsistent capitalisation of "PDF"
  • Would prefer page numbers for sources 11, 13, 16, 18 and 25
    I did it for Brooks. I seem to remember you have an online source of page images for Moonport?
    You can download it from archive.org Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:47, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • fn 31 is only one page; use p. instead of pp.
  • Spot checks:
    • Confused by fn 30; think it should be the same page as fn 31
    • fn 18: the URL points to the wrong chapter, 20-4 instead of 20-3.
    • fn 9: Does not have the CM number; Suggest using fn 10 for the first sentence instead
    • fn 10, 11, 28, 31 okay

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:37, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

With the exception of the note above, I've done as you suggested.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:02, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Tim riley[edit]

Only one minor drafting point, and I know not what you can do about it: there remains a stray European "metres" in the Objectives section because, it seems, of the use of a template.

This article is an excellent addition to the continuing series about NASA flights. It is a splendid read (the necessary technical details are clearly expounded and not overdone), has every appearance of being comprehensive, appears to be authoritatively sourced, and is surprisingly well illustrated. Meets the FA criteria in my view. – Tim riley talk 20:04, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review and support. I've taken care of that spelling.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:05, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Ovinus[edit]

Article looking great, so I'll probably only have a few comments.

  • Consistent hyphenation of trans-lunar/translunar would be nice
  • "would not encounter that body" To be clear, you mean the Moon, right? I'd just say "the Moon" instead of "that body" per WP:ELEVAR

More to follow. Ovinus (talk) 06:48, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done so far.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:00, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "CSM-020 had only 23" Who enumerated these problems? Kleinknecht and his team?
Probably North American, the main contractor for the CSM, or the NASA inspectors at their plant in California.
  • "It consisted of a flight-type descent stage" It consisted of, or it was?
  • "included"
  • "contained no flight systems, but was made of ballasted aluminum" What is the relationship between these two ideas? I'd put "ballasted aluminum" earlier in this paragraph
I moved it further up in rewriting that sentence, but as it only refers to the ascent stage, I can't move it by much.
  • "dumbbell-shaped spacer" what is a spacer
  • "This had the same height" What is "this" referring to
Above two clarified. I think I've made it clear that as the S-II was not ready, NASA used the mock S-II previously used during Apollo 4 testing and which is discussed in that article, to allow testing of the Apollo 6 Saturn V to begin.
  • "many occasioned by work on Apollo 4" Is this clarification important? The previous sentence contained nearly the same info
I think it's useful to stress that the work on Apollo 6 continued to suffer delays because of Apollo 4 until Apollo 4 was launched in November 1967.
  • "the launch had to be slipped one more time" What does "slip" mean (never heard it in this context)
It is the proper term for a launch postponement. But it may be two jargonny. Changed to "postponed".
  • "The S-IVB also experienced a slight performance loss" Performance... in what specific sense? Efficiency?
Yes, not as much thrust as expected.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:32, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Malformed link in Orbit
Fixed.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:50, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "However, NASA thought that the Saturn V had been "detuned" " To be clear, NASA had tried to combat the pogo problem, but it hadn't worked?
Yes, there were repeated pogo problems in tests of the Gemini launch vehicle, in 1963, and to a slight degree on Apollo 4. This was something that was an ongoing thing, occurring as late as Apollo 13. Apollo 6 was really the only one where it caused problems with the mission.
  • "Soon after the Apollo 6 flight, NASA and its contractors sought to eliminate the problems for future flights, and about 1,000 government and industry engineers were employed." Unless these 1,000 individuals worked solely on the pogo problem, this sentence belongs in the previous paragraph
They were employed on pogo. The quote is "At one time during the pogo studies, Lee B. James (who had replaced Rudolph as the Huntsville Saturn V manager) said, 1,000 engineers from government and industry were working on the problem." I've tweaked the woding in the article.
  • "and during such testing, liquid air was sprayed over the exteriors of the engines, damping out any vibrations" What do the vibrations have to do with the frost mentioned earlier in the sentence?
The engines would vibrate in vacuum, but would not with liquid air flowing on them, or any vibration would be lost amid the turbulence the flow of liquid air would cause.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:32, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "satisfy the Senate Committee on Aeronautical and Space Sciences" Satisfied them... to continue with the crewed missions? If so, state that explicitly
The source says "NASA's efforts to resolve the Apollo 6 problems satisfied the Senate Committee on Aeronautical and Space Sciences, which in late April reported that NASA had analyzed the abnormalities of the flight, identified them with dispatch, and undertaken corrective action." I don't think the committee's approval was required to proceed with a crewed flight. This committee and its House analogue did conduct oversight of Apollo, and the money came through them. But there's not the explicit connection you mention.
  • Some of the material in Cameras is taken verbatim from [19] (and probably some publication yet where that one's copied from), which is PD, but should it be attributed with the "this article incorporated public domain material from ..." ? I'm not familiar with the relevant guidelines there
Basically, what's going on there is that I did not feel comfortable paraphrasing those phrases, some of which are technical in the area of 1960s photography and I was afraid of losing nuance. For the information of the coordinator, the text in question is " Coverage included parts of the United States, the Atlantic Ocean, Africa, and the western Pacific Ocean. The camera had haze-penetrating film and filter combination, with better color balance and higher resolution than photographs taken on previous American crewed missions.[3] These proved excellent for cartographic, topographic, and geographic studies.[25] Source #3 says " These were later found to be excellent for cartographic, topographic, and geographic studies of continental areas, coastal regions, and shallow waters. The camera photographed sections of the United States, the Atlantic Ocean, Africa, and the western Pacific Ocean, and had a haze-penetrating film and filter combination that provided better color balance and higher resolution than any photographs obtained during the Mercury and Gemini flights."

Really nice work! I'll probably go through the article once more after your replies. Ovinus (talk) 01:11, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again. I think I've covered everything.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:50, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Some more comments/questions after a reread:

  • Maybe put a Mach number on the reentry velocities?
Mach is defined in terms of the local speed of sound, which would vary (and might not exist in sufficiently thin atmosphere).
Ah, good point, thanks
  • To be clear, the dimensions of the parking orbit are given as distance from the ground? Given the Earth's oblateness how is that even defined?
Apparently from mean sea level. There'd also be an issue with local topology (going, say, over the Himalayas) if they went with altitude above ground.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:52, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I'm quite happy with the article. Ovinus (talk) 17:46, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 20 May 2022 [20].

Tessa Sanderson[edit]

Nominator(s): BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 19:49, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the British javelin thrower, who had a distinguished sporting career. Sanderson made six appearances at the Olympic games, and won gold in 1984. Despite the excellent contibutions and suggestions in the GA review by Sillyfolkboy, the copyedit by Miniapolis, and the Peer Review by Sportsfan77777, no doubt much improvement is still possible. Thanks in advance for your comments, however scathing. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 19:49, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

  • Don't use fixed px size

Would also suggest going through refs before a full source review is done - there are a couple of error messages. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:39, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Nikkimaria. I've taken out the fixed px size, and amended references. I can't see any other obvious reference errors; if there are some, would you mind telling me the footnote numbers please? Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 09:33, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
53. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:52, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
D'oh! Thank you. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:17, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Nikkimaria, do you have any outstanding issues with the images (or anything else in the article)? Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 11:23, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:54, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by mujinga[edit]

  • Wow, appearing at six Olympics, that's impressive! Comments to follow. Mujinga (talk) 16:03, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shame there aren't more pix of her.
  • "During her career, Sanderson had an acrimonious rivalry with fellow Briton Fatima Whitbread, who took the bronze at the 1984 Olympics" - I got stuck on this sentence in the lead, I'm not sure if "acrimonious" is justifiable and I think I'd prefer something like "fellow British athlete Fatima Whitbread, who took the bronze in the javelin at the 1984 Olympics"
  • Further, Whitbread is mentioned quite a few times before the "Rivalry with Fatima Whitbread" so I'd suggest bringing that up to her first mention in the text, so it's better contextualised why you are mentioning her. As a side issue to that, were there any other british rivals to sanderson or was it always just whitbread in javelin?
  • "Sanderson was appointed a Member of the Order of the British Empire (MBE) in 1985, and became a CBE on the 2004 New Years Honours" - should the OBE be mentioned here also?
  • This was taken out following the GA review comment that "here is a bit too much detail on the honours for the lead" - I'll see what other reviewers think. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 14:54, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • " (which aims to encourage young people and people with disabilities to take up sport) in 2009." - suggest cut "in 2009"
  • I already thought "Media work" mentioned too many shows and when I got to the "Media appearances" list it seemed like overkill, I'd suggest spinning the list off into a separate article and having that linked under "Media work", then the shows can be trimmed down
  • "Rated as the third-best woman javelin thrower of all time, Sanderson went" - rated by whom/what? and also it seems a bit out of place to say that here when her career is ongoing
  • "Sanderson later threatened to boycott athletics events, for which she was being paid £1,000 each by British Athletics; Whitbread was receiving £10,000 per event. Sanderson agreed to a new deal at the beginning of June." - this reads a bit jerky and perhaps needs an extra sentence to explain the conflict with Whitbread
  • "By this time, former pop star Adam Faith was Sanderson's agent." - this sentence doesn't seem to add much
  • "British Amateur Athletic Board (whose promotions officer was a family friend of Whitbread) and the support that Whitbread and Whitbread's mother (who coached Whitbread) gave to Sue Howland" - too many "whitebreads" here, can it be rephrased?
  • "the Securicor Games in July" - what are the Securicor Games? a world championship for over-40s?
  • According to this article from 1996, it was "One of the final Grand Prix events before Atlanta comes to London offering members of Britain's Olympic squad the chance to improve recent form and test healing injuries". BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 11:34, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "She also competed in the pentathlon and heptathlon,[1] setting UK and Commonwealth records for the heptathlon twice in 1981.[43]" - should be moved up to an earlier position since here the paragrpah begins by talking about her retirement in 1997
  • "Celebrity Special (1991), Celebrity Wife Swap (2009),[51][52]" - sentence needs to end properly
  • "A Wednesfield housing estate near where she began learning the javelin throw, Sanderson Park, is named after her.[71]" - i got stuck here first time round because I thought a park in the housing estate was named after her, so I'd suggest something like "A housing estate in Wednesfield near where she began learning the javelin throw was named Sanderson Park after her.[71]
  • "Sanderson said that her affair with Evans (also known as Mr Motivator) began after his marriage had broken up.[5]" - I'd quite like a link her for Evans but of course he was mentioned already above, so I'd suggest either linking again or mentioned above that she had a romantic attachment with him
  • "She had three unsuccessful in vitro fertilisation treatments by age 50" - "She had three unsuccessful in vitro fertilisation treatments by the age of 50"?
  • The tables may need work on accessibility, I'm afraid I'm far from being the expert here but at FLC a while back I was asked to use scope="col", MOS:DTAB is the relevant guide but I'll leave it to someone knowledgeable about it to say more
  • Added col scopes but will do more as per any additional advice from reviewers. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 11:37, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm reassured that I'm not the only person to have spent time investigating her pantomime appearances. Added in. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 21:01, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the note I think it's program not programme
  • That's what I found on a first sweep! Mujinga (talk) 16:46, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the replies, before supporting I'll wait to see what others think about the media section and how the rivalry with Whitbread is handled Mujinga (talk) 08:14, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie[edit]

I'm copyediting as I read through; please revert anything you disagree with.

  • "A six-time Olympian from 1976 to 1996, she won the gold medal in 1984 for Great Britain. In 1996, she became the second track and field athlete (after discus thrower Lia Manoliu) to compete at six Olympics." A little repetitive. How about "She appeared in every Olympics from 1976 to 1996, winning the gold medal in 1984, and becoming the second track and field athlete to compete at six Olympics." We don't need to say she won for Great Britain -- the previous sentence says she's British. And I don't see any reason to mention Manoliu in the lead.
  • I agree with Mujinga that the rivalry with Whitbread should be mentioned once her name comes up in the body. Perhaps "When Sanderson returned, she finished fourth at the 1983 World Championships; another British competitor, Fatima Whitbread, with whom Sanderson had a rivalry that lasted for the next N years, won silver."
  • "In 2006, she founded an academy in Newham which helped to find and train athletes to represent Britain in the 2012 Summer Olympics. The Tessa Sanderson Foundation and Academy was established in September 2009 to encourage young people and people with disabilities to take up sport with mentoring and support." Do we know if either of these academies is still active?
  • Looking at Charity Commission information here, perhaps it is not. The organisation's website is still live, but it looks seems like neither that or their facebook page has been updated recently. I'll investigate a bit further. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 21:01, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    If you can't find out, that's fine; it would be worth mentioning if the information is available. I'll strike since either way is OK. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:30, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't find anything conclusive after checking Google News and Newsbank. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 23:47, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The media work seems too detailed to me. I would suggest combining "Sports administration" with "Media work" as a section titled something like "After competition", and reducing the media mentions to a sentence or two just listing the names of the most prominent programs -- perhaps her stint with Sky News, and EastEnders, and one or two others. I would also cut the tables of media appearances and pantomime appearances. To be honest, I'm not sure if this material is even notable enough for a subarticle, but that would be better than leaving it here.
  • Moved lists to Draft:Tessa Sanderson on screen and stage. I've combined the sections as suggested; "After competition" doesn't quite seem right as many media appearances were whilst she was still competing. I've put "Outside competition" for now as I couldn't think of a better alternative. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 21:01, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Hall of Fame candidates, selected by a panel of experts, are included by a public vote": suggest "Candidates for the Hall of Fame are selected by a panel of experts and then voted on by the public."
  • "Sanderson said that her affair with Evans (also known as Mr Motivator) began after his marriage had broken up." This is written as though we already know who Evans is. The only mention was in the media section, and even if you don't cut that as I suggest above I think this needs to be rewritten to name him; and in this context it might be worth mentioning the fitness videos if the sources mention them when discussing her affair with him.
  • The season rankings graph needs some gridlines to guide the eye. I can't tell from this if she was ever ranked #1, for example.
  • I've added gridlines. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 23:47, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    One more finicky point: you have the graph running from 0-26 -- can we not display those numbers? The top line should be "1", not "0", and I think the horizontal axis should be "25", not "26". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:15, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've set yAxisMax to 2, which at least covers all values necessary. Setting it to 1 causes the y Axis max to be 0. Not sure if it's a scaling or other issue. I think I'd prefer not to create a graphic outside the inbuilt tools, as at least the way it currently is is, the x-axis scales for the Season bests (javelin throw) and Season rankings align. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 15:29, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest a note below the competitions table explaning what "(q)" means. I see you have a footnote, but I think it would be better to attach the explanation to the table itself.

Overall this seems in good shape. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:21, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support. It's disappointing that the graph won't do what it ought to do, but I think it's OK to let that go. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:24, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

Footnote numbers refer to this version.

  • Check your usage of the publisher, website, and work parameters in {{cite web}}. The website and work parameters are identical; one is just an alias for the other. Typically this would get used for the name of the website -- e.g. "United Kingdom Athletics" in [1]. You have uka.org.uk instead; you can put the domain name in if there's no website name, but that's rare. The publisher is only needed if it's not obvious from the website name -- so here you don't need "publisher=United Kingdom Athletics" because that's going to go in the website name. Looking through your citations you seem to be using "work=" correctly but when you use "website=" you're using the domain name.
  • [4] suggest adding "|url-access=registration".
  • [6] needs a date.
  • Mark [33], [34] as paywalled.
  • [36], [42], [77] - the archive link doesn't work.
  • Looks like NewsBank urls can't be archived. I couldn't get the GBooks [77] link to archive. Archive urls removed. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:45, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • [20] and [73] are the same source.
  • You're inconsistent about including publisher locations for books; [17] has a location but [6], [71], [76], and [77] do not. You don't have to include locations but it should be consistent.

Sources all look reliable. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:53, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fixes all look good, but have a look at what is now [76]; I'm seeing a CS1 error -- you have a parameter "URL"; there's no such parameter. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:20, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorted that one out now. Thank you. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 07:52, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:33, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pass. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:33, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Edwininlondon[edit]

Good to see this here. The more women's bios the better. With the caveat that I am neither an expert in the field nor a native speaker, here are my comments. I also made some minor edits already, please feel free to revert any you think I should not have.

  • and became a CBE --> which means?
  • Tonya Khristova --> which nationality?
  • took the silver;[8] she was the bronze medalist --> I'm not so sure about that semicolon as the 2 parts of the sentence are conceptually not very related
  • Ruth Fuchs --> I think that in international events, the nationality of the athlete should be given
  • Antoaneta Todorova and her world-record throw --> which was what?
  • for twenty-two months --> given that earlier you use 14 and 12th, per MOS:NUM this should be 22
  • British competitor --> earlier it is a UK national record. Should this be a UK competitor? I know at the Olympics athletes represent Great Britain, not the UK, but also at the 1983 World Championships?
  • I've made some amendments. I've retained "UK" for championships specifically called that, but changed other instances to British or national, as references to national records seem to be largely to "British record" rather than "UK record" (our article List of British records in athletics says: British records in athletics are the best performances in athletics events by athletes representing the United Kingdom which are ratified by UK Athletics (UKA)). I checked some news reports on the 1983 World Championships in Athletics – Women's javelin throw. The Daily Telegraph (UK) and The Sydney Morning Herald (Australia) both have "Britain's Fatima Whitbread"; the Philadelphia Enquirer (USA) has "Fatima Whitbread of Britain". Happy to look into this further if necessary. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 08:54, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • She also won gold at the 1986 Commonwealth Games --> what happened in 1985?
  • She finished twelfth .. eleventh --> 12th .. 11th
  • before "the competition got to Whitbread's head", and they fell out --> I'm not so sure about that comma here
  • I respect her and I hope she respects me." --> are there any recent direct quotes from Whitbread? Would be good to add
  • I had a look in Newsbank going back to 2002, and tried search engines, and, surprisingly, didn't find anything usable. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 16:13, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Season rankings --> I miss an indication how these are determined
  • International competitions (javelin throw) -> should there not be a Ref column, like in the Personal bests table?
  • 10 Times AAA National Champion --> that capital T strikes me as odd
  • See also list of links is rather long. Any chance of cutting a few?
  • in the Infobox it says "Great Britain (1973–1996)" Should that not be 1997?

That's it. Thank you for brining this bio here. Nice work! Edwininlondon (talk) 20:33, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

One more comment:

  • I stumbled upon something she said about missing out on glory because of opponents' doping (see [21]). Perhaps worth considering incorporating? Edwininlondon (talk) 16:53, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I agree and will add something in. I'm aware there are a couple of points above pending, as well. Thanks, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:06, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added a little from this source, and moved the para about doping from Personal life to at the end of the Athletic career section. Thanks for the review, Edwininlondon. Let me know about anything else required. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:37, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Sportsfan77777[edit]

I'll leave a review. Noting I already left a lot of comments as part of the peer review. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 18:29, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

  • winning the gold medal in 1984 <<<=== either "winning a gold medal" OR "winning the gold medal in the javelin", and link 1984 to the competition here instead of later on with Whitbread
  • Sanderson also won gold medals in the javelin throw at three Commonwealth Games <<<=== don't need "also"
  • AAA National Champion ten times <<<=== specify "AAA National Champion in amateur athletics ten times". Also, I might suggest putting the UK national champion part before the AAA National Champion part as it seems more important.
  • There is a typo issue with the last sentence of the lead.
  • I don't think you need the years next to Great Britain in the infobox
  • Amended as per the suggestions above, not 100% sure I caught the typo in the last sentence of the lead. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:59, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Early life

  • she was cared for by her grandmother <<<=== start a new sentence (lacks parallelism otherwise)
  • encouraged her ===>>> encouraged her to succeed (avoid ending wth "her")
  • helper her ===>>> just "helped"

Early career

  • second-longest distance by a woman (add "at the time")
  • She was the bronze medalist at the 1977 IAAF World Cup ===>>> Later that year, Sanderson was the bronze medalist at the 1977 IAAF World Cup. (unclear "she" with both Fuchs and Sanderson in the previous sentence)
  • a rival to her ===>>> her rival
  • Do you know anything about her setting her personal best? Regardless, that seems like it might fit here better than at the end of the career section.
  • Personal best question pending, other three points addressed. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:59, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added a little about personal best, and moved it to earlier in the article. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:48, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Later career

  • with Whitbread taking the silver ===>>> while Whitbread took the silver (avoid these types of "with" transitions)
  • Sanderson announced that she would change her focus from the javelin throw to the heptathlon. <<<=== This seems incomplete (there is no follow-up on heptathlon events). Did she actually end up doing it or was it just her intention?
  • Heptathlon question pending, other point addressed. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:59, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • She competed in heptathlon only one after that announcement, in July 1987. Seems like it was a minor competition; the only press coverage I could find was a passing mention in The Times. Her score was 3,521, compared to 3,880 that she scored in 1974. Added a mention (without all these details) in the article. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:48, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rivalry

  • I think this section needs better organization. I would suggest splitting it into at least two paragraphs.
  • There might be one too many quotes, as there is some overlap between them.
  • The ordering of the sentences doesn't always makes sense. I would start the setup for the rivalry, which seems like it could maybe include the last quote in the section as well. I might separate the summary of the results comparison into its own paragraph.

Return

  • the boycott ===>>> a wider boycott led by the Soviet Union
  • I don't know if the paragraph on PEDs really fits here, but I'm not so sure what to do with it. I'll think about it more.

Outside competition

  • Okay.

Honours

  • Okay.

Personal life

  • with Evans ===>>> with Evans, a fitness instructor.

Career statistics

  • 8.5s <<<=== missing a space
  • I don't think you need to specify "(javelin throw)" in the titles. All of them are javelin throw. Only two of them are javelin throw plus other events.
  • "Tessa Sanderson's javelin throw record, representing Great Britain and England in international competitions" ===>>> "Tessa Sanderson's javelin throw record" and put "representing Great Britain and England in international competitions" in a sentence in prose right above the table.
  • In national titles, put ":" after each competition name and remove the parentheses for the last two. Same for Midland Counties.
  • Write one sentence stating what the Midland Counties Championships are. It's not mentioned anywhere else.

References

  • I would capitalize "My life in athletics" the same way it is done in the prose.
  • Ref 19 has SANDERSON in all caps for no reason.
  • Use the modern template for Ref 46 (which is archived). Otherwise, it doesn't match the rest.

The rivalry section is the only part that needs a decent amount of improvement. The rest seems good! I'll look at it again after these comments are addressed. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 19:35, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks Sportsfan77777. As you can see, I had previously made a lot of changes based on your peer review comments. Let me know about what else is needed. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:48, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Second read-through

  • In the lead: and established the Tessa Sanderson Foundation ===>>> and later established the Tessa Sanderson Foundation
  • The rivalry section is a lot better! Sportsfan77777 (talk) 10:52, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the career statistics section, I was suggesting to get rid of "(javelin throw)" in all of the subsection headers.
  • In the later career statistics section, I meant add colons (":"), not periods ("."). I assume that was not intentional?

Just those things left. Support, good work! Sportsfan77777 (talk) 10:52, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Made those amendments too. Many thanks for the very helpful reviews. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 11:21, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 20 May 2022 [22].

Kaze to Ki no Uta[edit]

Nominator(s): Morgan695 (talk) and KuroMina (talk)17:27, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Like its forerunner The Heart of Thomas (brought to FAC last year), Kaze to Ki no Uta ("The Poem of Wind and Trees") is one of the most influential manga works of the 1970s, contributing significantly to the development of Japanese girls comics. I recently expanded the article and brought it to GA status, and to peer review in advance of this FAC. I believe the article now meets requirements for FA status, and welcome any feedback that can further improve it. (Sidebar: I've listed KuroMina as a co-nominator, as they sourced and translated multiple Japanese-language articles that helped to significantly expand the Development section of the article. The co-nomination is not an expectation or obligation to participate in this FAC, though they are certainly welcome to do so.) Morgan695 (talk) 17:27, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@FAC coordinators: Nomination is now at 5 supports, with image and source reviews completed. Morgan695 (talk) 18:05, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Aoba47[edit]

  • According to MOS:INOROUT, periods should be on the outside of quotation marks unless you are quoting a full sentence, so this would apply to instances like "with sad and painful human relationships and emotions." and "solid enough, if rather melodramatic.". There are points where the period is put on the outside, like "from now on, comics will probably be called 'Kaze to Ki no Uta and thereafter'"., so it is more so a matter of going back and making it consistent throughout.

This is my only comment. All of my comments have already been addressed in the peer review. Once this has addressed, I will be more than happy to support this FAC for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 13:49, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47 OK, I believe I've corrected the relevant quotations.
Thank you for addressing this point. I support the FAC based on the prose. Aoba47 (talk) 01:06, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from AK[edit]

  • I'll try to review this soon. AryKun (talk) 02:46, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disclaimer: I haven't checked references and will be claiming credit for this at the WikiCup.
Resolved issues
  • "1970, upon which" → "1970, following which"?
    • Done.
  • "improve her low level" → "increase the low level"
    • Done.
  • "depictions of sadomachosicm" → "depictions of sadomasochism"
    • Done.
  • 'rendered him as "a creature' → 'rendered him "a creature'
    • Done.
  • "(see Context above)" → This note isn't really necessary and is a bit intrusive.
    • I think it's useful to link the sections here, since "Context" references the specific works that inspired the series, as well as the narrative tropes in Hesse's works that influenced the artists.
  • "sold as of 2019" → Any more recent info?
    • Those are the most recent figures.
  • 'Cover page to "Demian"' in the alt text should be 'Cover page of "Demian"'
    • Done.

Support from Z1720[edit]

  • "and which were aimed at an audience of teenage readers." Delete which were, or just which?
    • Done.
  • "Nagaike, Kazumi (2003)" is in the bibliography, but does not seem to be used as an inline reference.
    • Double checked my notes and Nagaike's article includes a pithy summary of Matsui's abjection argument, which I've cited in the article.
  • I checked the infobox and lede, and the information there is also included and cited in the article body.

Those are my comments. Z1720 (talk) 18:05, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

Footnote numbers refer to this version. Spotchecks not done.

  • 8, 68, & 69 show harv errors -- they don't point to anything in the bibliography.
    • Fixed.
  • Can we get page numbers for the chapter in 93 and in Shamoon in the bibliography?
    • Added. I can't confirm the page number for 93, but it's made redundant by the online source already confirming the information, so I've removed it.
  • You're inconsistent about the use of publisher locations; in the references, 95 has no location but the other books cited have a location; in the bibliography several more have no location. The location is optional but you should be consistent about either including it or not including it.
    • Should be consistent now.
  • Check the ISBN on 2; Worldcat can't find it.
    • Looks like a Worldcat error? Amazon has it listed as such.
  • What's the logic behind the organization of chapters in the bibliography? For chapters in McLelland and Takemiya I see you have the chapters listed in a sublist under those heads, but e.g. Matsui and Suzuki are not done that way.
    • Chapters should be consistent now.
  • Some chapters have "In" to indicate that the citation is to a chapter in an edited work (e.g. Matsui) and some don't (e.g. Thorn).
    • Corrected the Thorn reference; it was an irregular case where the chapter is an introduction written in a book with a different primary author. For Shamoon 2012, the book is written by Shamoon herself, so it seems redundant to state her name twice.

What makes the following reliable sources?

  • tra-pro.com
    • Series creator Keiko Takemiya's official website.
  • mediaarts-db.bunka.go.jp
  • mangapedia.com
    • Online manga database operated by the Japanese publishing companies Heibonsha (major encyclopedia publisher) and Shogakukan (major manga publisher).
  • listadomanga.es
    • Removed, reliability seemed dubious and info is supported by an alterate and exiting citation in the article.
  • mangaforever.net
    • Removed, reliability seemed dubious and info is supported by an alterate and exiting citation in the article.
  • konomanga.jp
    • Kono Manga ga Sugoi! is an annual ranked critic's list of manga, sourced from surveys of manga critics and published by the Japanese publishing house Takarajimasha. Its website also publishes industry news.
  • fukkan.com
    • Fukkan.com [ja] is a Japanese book publisher; citations support bibliographic information for books they have published referenced in the article.
      Is this cite correctly positioned, then? It ([93] in the current version) supports "During their research, they encounter Matthieu (マシュウ, Mashū), a descendant of the Cocteau family related to Gilbert", which doesn't look like bibliographic information. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:17, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • My mistake, you're correct that the Fukkan.com cite is describing plot info. Rationale for reliability is the same, as they are the publisher of the work that is being described.
  • cbr.com
    • Comic Book Resources is an American comic book industry news site. It is listed as a reliable source by the Comics and Webcomics Wikiprojects.
      Judging from those pages, it's established contributors and industry professionals that produce columns that are reliable sources; they don't say everything on the site is reliable. I tried finding a contributor page for Gramuglia but he's not listed here, for example. Per this he's published 1418 articles on the site, which is impressive but doesn't make him a reliable source. Does he have external credentials as an industry professional? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:17, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've replaced it with the direct citation from the Berserk Official Guidebook, which is what the CBR article was referencing.
  • theanime.org
    • THEM Anime Reviews is a longstanding anime review website. It is listed as a reliable source by the Anime and Manga Wikiproject.
      See this page; Malerman appears to be only a minor contributor. If all pieces on the site go through editorial control I guess that's OK, since this is only being used to source what a review on that site says, but do we have evidence of editorial policy at the site? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:17, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Per the Anime and Manga Wikiproject, THEM has specific guidelines for accepting submissions with editorial oversight and published credentials/info on its writers and staff. My sense is similarly that the site does have editorial controls and isn't just a pure enthusiast outlet are accurate.
  • du9.org -- I see this one has a description that includes "a collective of readers who write reviews"
    • du9 [fr] is a French alternative comics magazine; I think the use of "collective" here is in the sense of "artist's collective".

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:08, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for taking this up. Starting the review now, and will ping you when I've completed it. Morgan695 (talk) 15:18, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Some strikes and replies above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:17, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Mike Christie: Hi, full response above. Sorry, I glossed over your replies to a few source concerns. Apologies for pinging you early, addressing them now. Morgan695 (talk) 22:55, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All points struck; this is a pass. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:42, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

ALT text is OK. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:42, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Link20XX[edit]

I gave the article a quick skim and it is very fascinating. The only thing I would suggest is to unlink Tokyo in the line "shared a rented house in Ōizumigakuenchō, Nerima, Tokyo, from 1971 to 1973." as per WP:OVERLINK, which states that major locations generally should not be linked and since the other two parts of the city are linked, linking this too seems to be a bit excessive. Link20XX (talk) 02:14, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Link20XX: Unlinked. Morgan695 (talk) 02:33, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to Support; nice work and a fascinating article. Link20XX (talk) 03:14, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Mike Christie[edit]

  • I found it interesting that the two lead characters were both voiced by women. I don't know that it's worth mentioning in the article, but I'm curious if this is standard practice for adolescent boys in anime. It might be worth mentioning if women are often used for bishōnen in anime because of their androgynous appearance.
    • It is an interesting factoid, but it's not especially notable for male characters (especially boys) to be voiced by women in anime (see Shinji Ikari, Goku, Monkey D. Luffy, etc) so I don't think think it merits specific acknowledgement in the article.
  • "In September 1973 in Shūkan Shōjo Comic, Takemiya referenced her desire to write Kaze to Ki no Uta in a "one-page theater", a page in which an author discusses various miscellaneous thoughts and impressions with essay-like illustrations": it took me a moment to parse this. Not knowing what "one-page theater" is, I initially read this to mean that she wanted to write the story in a one-page theater. Plus I'm not crazy about "referenced", which is a little stilted. How about "Takemiya contributed a "one-page theater" (a page in which an author discusses various miscellaneous thoughts and impressions with essay-like illustrations) to Shūkan Shōjo Comic in September 1973, in which she described her desire to write Kaze to Ki no Uta"?
    • Done.
  • "staying in different countries for a period of one month": suggest "staying in different countries for a month each time".
    • Done.
  • "In an effort to increase the low level of editorial freedom and autonomy that was preventing her from publishing Kaze to Ki no Uta, Takemiya sought to build her profile as an artist by creating a manga series that would have mass appeal." I think "increase" is the wrong word; building her profile wouldn't increase editorial autonomy, it would increase an editor's ability to accept her work. How about "overcome" instead?
    • Done.
  • Do we know anything about how Rakuyō no Ki was accepted for inclusion in Pharaoh no Haka? That is, if it broke the same taboos that Kaze to Ki no Uta did, how was the editor persuaded to accept it? And if it didn't, was that because the editor required it to be sanitized?
    • Done.
  • "sounds as a base note": "bass note", surely? If this error is in the original, I think this needs a "[sic]".
    • Double checked source and "base note" is the quote. I think the usage is correct though, e.g. the base note of a perfume, but the use of "sounds" confuses it so I just removed the quote entirely and rephrased.
  • "The French setting of Kaze to Ki no Uta is reflective of Takemiya's own interest in European culture,[31] as reflective of a generalized fascination with Europe in Japanese girls' culture of the 1970s." If the repetition of "reflective" is a deliberate rhetorical device, I would call more attention to it with something "which is in turn reflective"; if not I would rephrase.
    • Done.
  • "Manga scholar Rebecca Suter notes how": "notes" implies in Wikipedia's voice that the statement is true; I think "asserts" or something similar would be better. You also have "Midori Matsui notes..." in the "Critical response" section, and several others. I don't know that all of them need to be changed -- "James Welker notes in his field work..." is reporting a finding, not an opinion, for example -- but I think some should.
    • Changed this instance and several others.
  • "(see Context above)": I don't think this is necessary. We don't have to write a section as if the reader is only reading that section, and the references to Hesse are laid out earlier in the article.
    • Removed.
  • "in the early 1980s by an all-female troupe modeled off of the Takarazuka Revue": "off of" would be wrong in British English -- I would write this as "modeled on" instead (or "modelled on"). To my partly Americanized ear it sounds wrong too, but perhaps it's OK in American English.
    • Done.
  • The second and third paragraphs of "Critical response" are structured as lists of opinions without any organization. This is the "A said B" issue described in WP:RECEPTION, and I think some restructuring is needed, though since the third paragraph is only about the film, and there are only two opinions, there may not be much you can do about that paragraph.
    • Did my best to reorganize the section; let me know if this is an improvement.

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:19, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Christie: Hi, response above. Morgan695 (talk) 16:18, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Fixes all look good; the critical response paragraph is much more readable now -- those little narrativization tweaks really help. Re "base note", of course you're right it would have been fine to leave it as it was -- I knew the perfumery meaning but for some reason it didn't surface while I was reading that sentence. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:26, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Black-breasted buttonquail[edit]

Nominator(s): Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:25, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about one of the rarest birds I've been lucky enough to see. Scoured sources. Got a thorough GA review. I think it is within striking distance of FA-hood. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:25, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from WA8MTWAYC[edit]

  • "The smaller male measures up to 18 cm (7.1 in)" ==> what's the length of the females?
    Gah, leftover bit from fiddling with lead - fixed now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:01, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Under Synonyms in the infobox, maybe you can put the publishing year (of the scientific name) behind the authors' names (if that's available)?
    done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Its underparts are dark grey" ==> this sentence is very short and can better be merged with another.
    done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:01, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "thickets.[9] and mature" ==> thickets,[9] and mature
    oops! good catch Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:01, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "reports of young" ==> reports of Young
    is chicks/changed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:01, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quail, Queensland, Fraser Island, Inskip Point can/should be wiki-linked earlier in the article.
    done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:01, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's all I have. Nice work. WA8MTWAYC (talk) 11:14, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

AK

  • Disclaimer: I haven't checked references and will be claiming credit at the Wikicup.
  • You could add some info about the bird's feeding and breeding habits in the lead.
    added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:41, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Under Synonyms in the infobox, maybe you can put the publishing year (of the scientific name) behind the authors' names (if that's available)?
    added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:29, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mention that the lead image shows a male bird.
    added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:29, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Found this on Flickr, might be useful in the description section.
    tricky as birds are facing left and on wide screen this would collide with taxobox if in description section, so moved down page. Male generally has a little more black than Gould depicted but it is variable Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:13, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The female measures up to 19 cm (7.5 in) in length, while the smaller male reaches 18 cm (7.1 in)" The specific sex-wise lengths aren't given in the body, just a generic "length varies from 17–19 cm". In fact, Madge and McGowan (which cites that part) doesn't seem to give sex-wise length at all.
    dammit - can't find the source for that bit but have aligned text. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:29, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Helm would be a better ref for the etymology and also gives it for the genus name.
    switched - leaving genus to genus page unless you feel strongly about it Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:24, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any cladogram for the species?
    I've note found an infrageneric one for Turnix sadly Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:26, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • IOC should be IOU?
    oops yes, switched Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:24, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "mur'rindum" should be italicized.
    tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:29, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "of predominantly marbled black...brown" is clunky and an awkward read, perhaps "predominantly marbled black...brown in color" or similar would be better.
    added "plumage" Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:43, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "grey gill" What's a gill (in birds)?
    a typo. fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:41, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "770–1200 mm (30–48 in)" → Put in a convert template instead of manual conversions.
    done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:46, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • −2°C needs a convert template.
    done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:46, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • No vocalisations section? McGowan and Madge mentions a fair bit about them.
    oops! that was an oversight! done now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:06, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Images need alt text.
    ok added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:13, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's what I got. AryKun (talk) 12:57, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    ok @AryKun: (finally) answered every query (had a busy few days IRL) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:13, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on the basis of prose from me. AryKun (talk) 12:38, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild[edit]

Recusing to review.

  • "the female is larger and more distinctively coloured than the male, with a distinctive black head". Optional: can anything be done about the "distinctively ... distinctive" repetition?
    changed first mention to "boldly" Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:01, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The male and female descriptions are in the same paragraph, but the juvenile description is split off into a single-sentence paragraph. Is there a reason?
    no. merged Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:07, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "there were fears that they had suffered predation". I am unsure what this is saying. Is it known if the fears were justified? Does the past tense suggest that this is no longer feared?
    I just removed the sentence as repeated in next one anyway Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:07, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "its habitat is fragmented." Link to Habitat fragmentation.
    linked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:29, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "dry rainforest". Any chance of an explanation for the lay reader of this oxymoronic term?
    was gonna try and link somewhere...but need to figure (or create) a target page. I have a (rather rudimentary) link now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:28, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It is the only buttonquail found in rainforest and dune scrub systems." The dune scrub habitat seems a bit of a throw away. Could this not be (explicitly) mentioned earlier.
    reorganised Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:12, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "indicate this is restricted from October to March". Should this be 'indicate this is restricted to from October to March'? (Or 'to between October and March (inclusive)'.)
    tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:20, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "at any time of year, suggesting opportune breeding can take place at any time." "at any time ... at any time."
    tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:20, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "hence this may be related to". I am a little unsure what "this" is.
    it refers to the breeding season - thought it was unambiguous, not sure how to make it not sound repetititive...need to think about it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:24, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Rereading and knowing in advance what is meant, it still (really) isn't clear (to me) that "this" is breeding. It is possible that you are trying to cram too much into the one sentence?
  • Yeah I can see where you're coming from. I've been ruminating about this. Got a bit of a block. Okay I tried this, what you think? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:52, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Crystal clear IMO.
  • "establishes a territory while the males often form small territories within." Either "while" → 'which' or add 'it' to the end.
    tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:21, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link Pellet (ornithology).
    was linked at first instance Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:28, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "though it might have been an artefact"> Perhaps "it" → 'this'?
    tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:28, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • References: There seems to be inconsistency as to whether publisher locations are included.
    dammit, must have missed them. removed now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:20, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the Commonwealth". I suspect that many readers will not know which commonwealth is intended, or assume one other than that which is.
    Fair point, seems natural to me but I am Australian so changed to this Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:02, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think "Queensland" and "New South Wales" need to be in italic.
    I'd been pondering this one - the two look funny unitalicised if the rest is..but then again the official names of the respective acts do not include the states..which renders them as simple adjectives not in title. Fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:59, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "reducing threats to the bird and improving their habitat to ensure survival". Singular at first mention and plural at second. ("the ... their")
    aligned. Back to it - unexpectedly social few days... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:57, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wonderful stuff. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:50, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just the one minor issue left, above. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:48, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review by Mike Christie[edit]

Footnote numbers refer to this version.

  • You're inconsistent about including publisher locations in book sources. [4] and [5] have locations; none of the others do: [6], [9], [12], [13], [15], [17], [24], [26].
    dammit, must have missed them. removed now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:20, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • For [20], the archive link takes me to a page without the relevant information; if I can reach the right page by searching using the form on that page, I'd suggest adding a "loc=" parameter so the reader knows how to find the source.
    updated the page now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:42, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sources are reliable; there are old sources but they're used appropriately. No other formatting errors. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:28, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pass. Looks good. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:57, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by Hog Farm via FACBot (talk) 18 May 2022 [24].

1991–92 Gillingham F.C. season[edit]

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:57, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here's my 12th nomination of an article on an individual season in the history of English football (soccer) club Gillingham. In comparison to some of my prior nominations, this was a comparatively uneventful season, with one writer commenting at the end of the season on how the team were essentially utterly average, but hopefully I have managed to turn it into a reasonably engaging read. Feedback as ever most gratefully received! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:57, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from WA8MTWAYC[edit]

  • "The team began the season with a 4–0 victory" ==> against?
  • "Gillingham's final match of 1991" and "Gillingham ended the year" ==> feels a bit repetitive
  • Ref 31: Brown 2003, p. tbc. ==> what does this mean?
  • "until October 1992" ==> if the run was 30 away league matches, shouldn't the date be October 1993?
  • In the results box in the Associate Members' Cup section, the (H) is missing behind Maidstone United
  • "until they were promoted in 1996" ==> maybe: until they gained promotion to the Second Division in 1996?
  • That's it. Great work as usual, Chris. WA8MTWAYC (talk) 12:13, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:37, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Cas Liber[edit]

Taking a look now....

  • Looks good on comprehensiveness and prose. Some sentences are a little on the short side but no deal-breakers are in the text. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:46, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from AryKun[edit]

AK

  • Disclaimer: I haven't checked references and will be claiming credit at the Wikicup.
  • Made some very minor edits.
  • "first defender to score two goals on his debut in the club's history" This really feels like extreme trivia, what with the four qualifiers to make this a relevant statistic in any way.
  • Would it be worth color-coding the results in the table?
  • That's all I could find, nice work! AryKun (talk) 12:40, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • @AryKun: I removed the trivia fact about Richard Green. I don't see any particular value in colour coding the results and it would also make this article inconsistent with other football season FAs such as yesterday's TFA -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:53, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Okay, nothing else I can quibble about so a support from me on the basis of prose. AryKun (talk) 12:56, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Drive-by comments from Kavyansh

Check p./pp. for the following:

  • Ref#14: Rollin 1992, p. 234 –235.
  • Ref#47: Rollin 1992, p. 624, 626.
  • Ref#50: Rollin 1992, p. 643, 644
  • Ref#52: Rollin 1992, p. 641, 643, 644.

– Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 13:14, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Kavyansh.Singh: - fixed -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:17, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Edwininlondon[edit]

Another season: I admire your great stamina to keep working on these articles! I Support on prose. A spot check:

  • all fine are: 17, 23, 27, 29, 36, 42, 43, 59, 61, 63
  • 18 confirms their new position in the table, but we need something to back up the 1 point from 5 games
  • 19 confirms the Barnet draw but we need something else for the 4 defeats

That's it from me. Edwininlondon (talk) 17:12, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Edwininlondon: - sorted! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:34, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK, then it's a Pass for source review: good quality sourcing and formatting is sound as well. Edwininlondon (talk) 20:18, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Co-ordinator query[edit]

@FAC coordinators: - with four supports on prose and completed image and source reviews, am I OK to open a new FAC? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:40, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@FAC coordinators: - anyone? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:32, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, feel free. Sorry I missed this one the other day. Hog Farm Talk 14:07, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No worries - thanks for the all-clear, and I hope you have a great weekend! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:27, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Hog Farm via FACBot (talk) 18 May 2022 [25].

Corry Tendeloo[edit]

Nominator(s): Edwininlondon (talk) 14:08, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I promised my daughter to get more bios of women on WP, so here's an article about a Dutch politician from the 1940s & 50s, who was active in the women's rights movement. A bit on the short side (the article, not her I think), but there were surprisingly few sources available. I'm grateful for a GA review by Vacant0, peer review by Mujinga and copy-edit by Buidhe, who have all improved my poor start significantly. Feel free to make simple edits directly in the article. I look forward to your comments. Edwininlondon (talk) 14:08, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Some images are missing alt text
  • Sorry, once again I forgot. I promise before my next FAC to check.
  • File:CorryTendeloo.jpg: the tags given here are contradictory - if the author is unknown, given the date of the image we cannot know they died over 70 years ago. Also the source link is dead and this needs a tag for US status.
  • I have removed the image from the article.
  • Same problems (other than source link) with File:Tendeloo.jpg
  • I have removed the image from the article.
  • File:CorryTendelooMerkelbach.jpg needs a US tag and author date of death. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:43, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merkelbach died in 1942. See [26]. Date and US tag added. Image now lead image.
  • Photo taken in 1926 by portrait photographer Merkelbach according to [27]. I can't find anything about it being published. The site hosting it says it is in the public domain. The site's owner is an institute that is a descendant of the International Archives for the Women's Movement. Since starting in 1935, they received many personal archives. It is likely that this photo was never published until public domain. The site hosts other Tendeloo images, but lists those as in Copyright, so they seem to follow the rules. None of the digitized 1940s, 1950s newspaper articles that mention Tendeloo feature this photo (they wouldn't of course, it's from before she became well-known). Edwininlondon (talk) 07:01, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay. The image currently has a tag indicating PD in US because of pre-1927 publication, which if it was unpublished would not apply - that tagging needs to be changed. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:40, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I tried to figure out what the right tag is. According to the colourful table on WP:COPYEXP it should be an S tag, but I can't find what that tag should look like. Just S in curly brackets doesn't work. What should it be? Edwininlondon (talk) 06:14, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is { { PD-US-unpublished } } correct? Edwininlondon (talk) 16:57, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but I'd also suggest adding some of the detail provided above to the image description. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:07, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done

Thank you, Nikkimaria, for checking this. Edwininlondon (talk) 15:57, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild[edit]

Recusing to review.

  • "she was instrumental in ending couverture" ... "died ... before any of the women's rights issues she fought for became law" ?
Drive by comment, I picked up on this too and edited it to say she was instrumental in introducing legislation that would end it. SusunW (talk) 22:16, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I like what you did to solve this timing problem. Thank you, SusunW. Edwininlondon (talk) 08:42, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "English-teaching diploma". I don't think that needs a hyphen.
  • Done
  • "Dutch Women Club". Should that be 'Dutch Women's Club'?
  • Yes
  • Maybe mention why Bakker-Nort's seat was vacant?
  • Done.
  • "The Dutch government accepted equal pay in principle but opposed ratification and execution on the grounds that the pay gap of 30% should be closed over time and not, as the government believed the convention required, at once." So the government believed that the convention required immediate implementation, but was actively working to prevent this? This would seem to strain the meaning of "believed". If I have this right, maybe a tad more detail?
  • Government and parliament agreed equal pay should be introduced gradually. Tendeloo mentioned 8 years. No one wanted immediate. Government speakers interpreted a phrase in article 2 of the Equal Remuneration Convention, which mentioned "the use of all available means", quite differently from the Tendeloo and others. Simply put, the government had the ability to make equal pay law, so they said that once signed they had to make it law asap. Tendeloo and others argued that the key bit was in the modifier that followed "fitting the methods in use in the country to set wages". That is the context. "Believe" seems indeed quite a stretch here. What seems to be going on is a government giving one reason after another, but never really saying what they really think: "we don't believe in equality and didn't think we so soon had to act after being part of this convention." But I can only go with what the sources give us, so I replaced "believed" with "as per the government's stated interpretation of what the convention required"
Optional: delete "and not, as per the government's stated interpretation of what the convention required, at once."
  • Done
  • "Tendeloo argued that the convention did not require an immediate closure of the pay gap." On the face of it, this is a curiously anti-feminist stance. What am I missing? ("What do we want?" "Equal pay!" "When do we want it?" "Oh, er, never mind.")
  • It is indeed quite head scratching at times, reading this stuff 70 years later, but overall it seems the approach taken was one of aiming for very small steps. I added Tendeloo's suggestion of 8 years.
  • "allround". Are you sure that is a word?
  • Not at all sure. Simplified.
  • "Speaker of the House of Representatives Rad Kortenhorst" - upper case initials for the title; "prime minister Drees" - lower case. MOS:JOBTITLE would suggest that the latter should be upper case. See also elsewhere in the article.
  • Done
  • Personally I would mention her knighthood in chronological order, at the end of the House of Representatives section.
  • Done

Wonderful article. I enjoyed reading it. In between smacking my head against the wall. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:19, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you. And thanks for taking the time to comment, much appreciated. Edwininlondon (talk) 08:42, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Supporting, although note further suggestion above. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:44, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from SusunW[edit]

Putting a placeholder here. I'll be looking at her over the next day or so. Thank your daughter and thank you for working on Tendeloo. SusunW (talk) 21:28, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you very much for all these suggestions and comments. Some require a bit of research, so they may take a while. Edwininlondon (talk) 07:28, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whenever you want Edwininlondon. Let me know when you are done or if you need help. I'm really, really busy, but I'll try to keep an eye on it. SusunW (talk) 13:37, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "in 1903" Het Parool quotes Tendeloo as saying they came in 1902, which is a discrepancy with Linders p 117 which says 1903?
  • The Huygens source says she was 5 when they moved, so it could be either 1902 or 1903. I have removed the year and followed Huygens
  • Multiple sources say she attended both the Hogere Burgerschool and gymnasium. I asked why? Apparently HBS was not considered as college prep and gymnasium was and according to this Leiden didn't allow girls to even attend the HBS until 1881. The Middelbare meisjesschool [nl] in Leiden (a women's prep school for university studies) didn't open until 1889[28], so did she actually attend gymnasium? I can’t figure out when/if one existed for women in Leiden, but the sources say she did, so we must accept that. Perhaps it is worth adding a footnote for context that women were barred from university in Leiden until 1878, had no access to secondary education until 1881, and no woman graduated in law in Leiden until 1899.
  • I'm not so sure. I'd say yes if these dates were closer to her attending, but these years are all from before she was born.
  • Your call, except that I note being born in 1897, she would have been one of the first or second generation (20-30 years typically) of girl/women attendees. SusunW (talk) 13:22, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps link "local school" to Meer Uitgebreid Lager Onderwijs, as Biografisch Woordenboek says it was that kind of middle school and Vrouwenlexicon confirms it was a secondary school.
  • Done
  • After "other aspects of life" you have the same source listed twice with different page numbers? I cannot access so cannot confirm.
  • Mistake fixed
  • "Joined a law firm", perhaps per Biografisch Woordenboek, "she joined the firm of Pieren & Folkers"?
  • Done
  • Done
  • She resigned in 1946. Do we know why? (It doesn't seem related to her seat in Parliament as she simultaneously served from 1945.)
  • I assume that she tried combining the 2 jobs in 2 different cities, but eventually gave up. I tried to find a source, but so far have not been able to.
  • Logical, and I kind of thought you would have found an explanation if there was one. SusunW (talk) 13:22, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "On the ranked list"… "she was ranked" can we make this less redundant?
  • Done
  • I think it is important to note that per Vrouwenlexicon and Parlement.com, she wrote a regular column "Parlementaria" from 1946-1956 for the women’s journal Vrouwenbelangen (Women’s Interests) to educate its readers on current political events.
  • Done
  • Probably should ill-link Wim de Kort, he seems rather prominent.
  • Done
  • "under a pseudonym" or "using a pseudonym"?
  • Done
  • What the heck is a tax academy? (Sounds like tax law, ugh. Why would anyone want to join such a thing?)
  • It wasn't high on my list of academic choices either.
  • LOL. Went back to the sources to see if any explained more. It is indeed a school to learn tax policy and according to wp.nl graduates could earn a law degree by attending. Perhaps we link it to the Dutch article "Rijksbelastingacademie"? SusunW (talk) 13:22, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done
  • Women were indeed incapacitated in the Netherlands, but not from 1838, actually legally from the passage of the first civil code in 1809. Not sure if it's worth mentioning, but I note it because it's a full 30 years.
  • It is worth mentioning I think. I added it as a footnote.
  • Thank you. It is weird to me that countries like to "pretty up" their history. History is both ugly and beautiful. We can't measure progress or failure without a clear picture, IMO. SusunW (talk) 13:22, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm thinking that just mentioning the Netherlands and the US is misleading with regard to coverture. It was a worldwide phenomenon because of colonization and literally started with the Norman conquest. See p 347. For example, I have been working on a series about women’s nationality (written over 100 countries so far) and have yet to find one that did not require a wife to forego her own nationality in favor of her husband’s until the middle of the 20th century.
  • I agree it is misleading to mention the US only, deleted. I do think it is important to convey it is worldwide and not just the Netherlands, and not something new. I also think it is important to not distract users. So I just added "often for centuries", entirely relying on the link to Coverture for interested readers. Or would you prefer a footnote? What would it say?
  • Me? (You probably shouldn't ask (grin), I would prefer that women's history was taught from grammar school so that folks understood the problem and that coverture wasn't some 16th century notion that died out long ago, but it isn't and won't be in my lifetime or even my grand daughter's). I would likely put a Note (see 4), (though I am pretty sure most people don't read them anyway), because I do think it is extremely important, but like you don't want to distract readers from the main article. Totally your call and I will defer to your judgment, but if you did decide to do such a note, you could include the tidbits below on when changes actually occurred. SusunW (talk) 13:32, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I added a short footnote.
  • I don’t think it is true to say that the "Lex van Oven" ended coverture. It ended women’s legal incapacity in some instances (and possibly most true to say with regard to employment). For example, women still couldn't obtain a nationality separate from their spouse until 1964 or pass on their nationality to their children until 1985,p 139 and the husband still controlled where the family lived and decisions regarding children until 1984.p 8 (Typically worldwide, women couldn't rent, open a bank account, have credit, etc. in their own name until after the 1960s women's movements started.)
  • This piece in English and published by the government of the Netherlands says "Corry Tenderloo (1897-1956) was a fierce protestor against this section of the civil code. As an unmarried member of parliament she submitted a motion in 1955 to reverse the special decree, which was passed with the smallest possible majority. In 1956 the Cabinet also changed the Civic Code, so that also married women were seen as capable of working." You might look at the Dolle Mina movement to get an idea of continuing issues. SusunW (talk) 14:12, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree LvO was only the beginning of the end. Text amended.
  • "Couverture ended on 1 January 1957" ditto to above, ended women's legal incapacity?
  • My litmus test (unscientific, but usually predictive) on whether coverture has ended is usually when marital rape became a crime. Using the argument that if spouses were "one flesh" rape could not occur within marriage was one of the clearest indicators of coverture. That type of violence has typically been one of the last impediments to married women's autonomy. I note that in the Netherlands marital rape wasn't criminalized until 1991. (Looking at these dates is depressing. But reiterates the ugly/beautiful progress/failure comment I made before. *sigh*) SusunW (talk) 13:22, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quite depressing indeed. I changed it to Lex van Oven coming into effect on that date
  • Note B "forced women to be dismissed" from employment?
  • Done
  • "According to Posthumus…" we have a mixed bag of verb tenses stated… have listened… agreed… to follow. Perhaps stated, had listened, agreed, “and then followed”?
  • Done
  • "Drees to so already" do we mean "to do"?
  • Done
  • "in 2019, that Tendeloo has done"… "it is time" — surely should be past tense as she was long dead.
  • Done

Re Sources:

  • Overall, please ensure that citations throughout the text are in numerical order. For example after "absent from parliament for almost a year" you have [25][2][26].
  • Done
  • Trans-title and any other English source title should be given in "title case". This is helpful.
  • Done
  • ISBNs should be consistent. Some are properly laid with dashes and others not (the sections actually do have meaning). Some are 10-digit and others 13. This is helpful (note sometimes requires you to run it twice to get 13 digits in the right format).
  • Done
  • Biografisch Woordenboek author missing, i.e. Alice Mul, as is date 2001
  • Done
  • Bosch, Mineke (2005) is missing a link
  • Done
  • C.J.H. Jansen (2006) is missing a [link
  • Done

Sources appear to be reliable and comprehensive. Spot check reveals no significant omissions or copyvios. Overall, really enjoyed learning about her and reading the article. Thank you for your work on it. SusunW (talk) 18:04, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • I believe I have addressed all your points. Sorry it took so long, but some of the points required quite a bit of research. Let me knoe if there is more to do. If not, thank you very, very much for all your insights, sources, comments and improvements. Edwininlondon (talk) 21:17, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for all of your work on the article. Sorry to be slow to answer, spent the entire day yesterday in "urgencias" with my sister. (She's fine now). I appreciate your work in telling Tendeloo's story. I honestly believe that if more women's history were incorporated into our collective story, we would have a better grasp of our humanity. I am happy to support. SusunW (talk) 12:09, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for taking the time, despite the "urgencias" visit, good to hear sister is fine. I am exploring the next women's rights issue I could write an article about. Thank you for your encouragement. Edwininlondon (talk) 12:43, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from mujinga[edit]

  • Having given comments at peer review, I'll be happy to read this article again after SusunW has refined it! Just a quick note to say something is garbled with the nom because at Talk:Corry_Tendeloo it says "Please feel free to initiate the nomination" but this archive already exists. Mujinga (talk) 07:29, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I see that too. How weird. I can't see what I have done wrong. Hopefully noone clicks the red text and erases the existing archive... Edwininlondon (talk) 08:46, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Mujinga you make me laugh. I had the same experience with the link, but Gog got me here. SusunW (talk) 18:18, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the refs, you have "Ms Tendeloo Passed Away" and "Ms. Tendeloo Passed Away." in what are currently references 4 and 39
  • Done
  • Done
  • de Telegraaf should be De Telegraaf in ref 27 I suppose, if you have for example Het Vrije Volk. Also de Volkskrant but Het Parool
  • In publications, "N. S. C. Tendeloo (1946—1956): Parlementaria column in Vrouwenbelangen (monthly magazine VVGS)[2]" needs a full stop and debatably an "(in Dutch)"
  • Done
  • " She said that once society's view of women changed, the outdated laws that discriminate against women would be rewritten" - bit stuck on this sentence, there's two "that"s and I also wonder where she said this.
  • Done. This comes from the end of the Oprechte Haerlemsche Courant article
  • "a women's place is at home" - "a women's place was at home"?
  • Done
  • "..for the new charter for the Dutch colonies. In 1952, she was diagnosed with breast cancer. She gave up her legal work and was absent from parliament for almost a year.[1][24][25] " This is a rather abrupt jump from colonies to cancer. Could it be ..for the new charter for the Dutch colonies. In 1952, she gave up her legal work and was absent from parliament for almost a year after she was diagnosed with breast cancer"?
  • Done. Thank you for the suggested wording
  • "fewer than 2% of married women worked" - suggest "fewer than 2 per cent of married women worked" since you used per cent earlier
  • Done
  • "Tendeloo died on 18 October 1956" - was the cause cancer?
  • Yes, added
  • Just some nitpicks really it's a great article now and superinteresting! Mujinga (talk) 15:34, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your kind words. I believe I have addressed all your points. Edwininlondon (talk) 11:23, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nice work, changing to support, I'll just note that as a non-native Dutch speaker I don't know what's best on de Volkskrant / De Volkskrant because our own article is all over the place and Template:Dutch newspapers uses De Volkskrant. But the article itself is indeed titled de Volkskrant and the pic of a frontpage clearly shows "de" (but then De Telegraaf is "De" ... strange!) Mujinga (talk) 19:17, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks! It is quite strange indeed. The odd one out is de Volkskrant. I can't find out why but already here in 1939 did the masthead say "de Volkskrant" [29] Edwininlondon (talk) 20:35, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Tim riley[edit]

A few minor points on the prose.

  • General
  • –ise -v- –ize endings – the spellings seem a bit random: we have specializing, emphasizing, criticized, prioritize and organization but organise, criticised, jeopardise and organisation. I think you ought to be consistent one way or the other. In modern BrE –ise is usual, but if you choose that option I daresay an exception should be made for the International Labour Organization, which adopts the spelling more common in America.
  • Lead
  • "more well known" – "more well" seems a rather odd way of saying "better"
  • Done
  • Early life and activism
  • "earned an English teaching diploma" – Though I am very conscious of the dictum in Plain Words that if you take hyphens seriously you will surely go mad, I think, pace Gog, you should put the hyphen back: without it this is a teaching diploma that is English rather than a diploma in teaching English.
  • Done
  • she began to practice – if, as it seems, the article is in BrE, the verb is "practise".
  • Done
  • Equal pay debates
  • pay gap of 30% – I think the MoS steers us towards "per cent" rather than the "%" symbol in prose passages (though not in tables etc), but I may be mistaken.
  • You are correct. Done
  • Death and legacy
  • "Frappez, frappez toujours!", which translates as 'Repeat, repeat making your point!'" – my French is pretty awful, but even so I venture to boggle at this translation. I can't make "frapper" mean "repeat making your point". My Oxford French Dictionary says "frapper" means hit, strike, knock, bang. "Always keep banging on" might be more the mark. But the views of someone whose French is better and more idomatic than mine would be useful.
  • I shall try and get some insights from native speakers. I'm just translating into English what Dutch writers think the French meant.
  • Having raised this point I'm happy to leave it to you to change or leave alone as you think best. Tim riley talk 08:05, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "adding that it is time to put Tendeloo in the history textbooks – "was" rather than "is" time?
  • Done

Those are my meagre gleanings. This is an interesting and worthwhile article, and I don't think its brevity is in any way an obstacle to its promotion. – Tim riley talk 15:22, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to support. The article is highly readable, balanced, appears comprehensive, and is evidently sourced as widely as possible. It seems to me to meet all the FA criteria. Tim riley talk 08:05, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Ruud Buitelaar[edit]

Excellent initiative. Very interesting article. I support the nomination. A few comments:

  • the name Corrie is not a given name, it is a nickname, derived from Cornelie. Exactly like Robert "Bobby" Kennedy, where Robert is the given name and Bobby the nickname. The footnote about given names in dutch is not to the point.
  • I found guidance on MOS:NICK and have changed it to "Corry" and removed the footnote.
  • I have not been able to find a reliable source for that. I can see it being mentioned on a user generated site, and I can see a reliable source mentioning a Mr Tendeloo being assistent-resident at Langkat, but then we still need one to say that it is indeed her father.
  • Vereniging Ons Huis was not a social club but an association to promote social housing, see also Helena Mercier
  • Added
  • the dutch expression "Beter ten halve gekeerd..." is translated as "better to turn halfway...". I would prefer an english close equivalent, such as "A fault confessed is a fault redressed".
  • Done
  • the french expression "frappez, frappez toujours" can be translated as "Knock and keep knocking".Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 23:46, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apropos of my comments, above, that last point seems to me a splendid suggestion by Ruud Buitelaar. Tim riley talk 20:53, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have changed it. Hopefully we get some confirmation from native French speakers. Edwininlondon (talk) 06:03, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

Footnote numbers refer to this version.

  • Linders (1997) is missing a publisher location, and so are three of the books listed under "Publications".
  • Done. One of them turned out to be a journal article, not a book chapter.
  • I'm not sure how you're sorting Holland (1809), but it seems it should be before Jansen.
  • Done
  • Your cite news citations have a publisher only once, for [26]; any reason to have it there? Similarly only one cite web has a publisher, [68], and the cite podcast has a domain instead of a website name, and has a publisher. I think the easiest way to be consistent would be to eliminate these publishers.
  • Done
  • The archive link for [4] does not work.
  • Removed
  • [25] is subscription protected; that's fine for the main link, but I think it makes the archive link useless.
  • Tag added and archive link removed
  • None of the delpher.nl archive links are working for me.
  • All depher archive links removed

I can't be confident about the Dutch sources, but as far as I can see the sources are all reliable. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:14, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for taking the time to do this. Much appreciated. Edwininlondon (talk) 08:44, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The fixes all look good, but I just noticed one more small thing: there's no ISBN on Sikkema (2011). Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:40, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pass. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:53, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from BennyOnTheLoose[edit]

I'm satisifed that this meets the criteria, so have nothing to add except my support (and won't be claiming WikiCup points). I ran a script to amend a couple of dashes, which I hope should be fine. The references "[8][25][26][65][66]" could be bundled (WP:CITEBUNDLE), and it would be nice to know if there's any upate on the online petition mentioned right at the end, but I have no reason to withhold support. Great work. Thanks to the nominator and reviewers. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 11:28, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for fixing the dashes. I'll try to get this multiref template to work. I just checked again but unfortunately no news on the petition. Edwininlondon (talk) 13:38, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 17 May 2022 [30].

NERVA[edit]

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:40, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about NERVA, the NASA nuclear rocket project. Unlike its forerunner, Project Rover, it developed entire engines and not just reactors for them. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:40, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Image review—pass no licensing issues found (t · c) buidhe 03:46, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vanamonde93 do you feel that your opposition at the last FAC still applies, or have the redundancy issues been resolved? (t · c) buidhe 04:41, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Buidhe: I don't have the time to do an exhaustive analysis, but at first glance, I don't believe they have. These are the combined diffs since the previous FAC at NERVA and Project Rover, and one can see that no restructuring has occurred, nor has substantial unique content been added. Very large portions of the two articles are thus functionally identical. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:50, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    As a very rough indicator of redundancy, take a look at this result from Earwig's tool [31]. To be clear, I am not saying there's copyvio here, I'm just trying to estimate shared content. Also, this is a serious underestimate, because Earwig only flags text matches, not content matches. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:40, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Your point is accepted. This is an artefact of the way that an encyclopaedia organizes articles around subjects. The separation of Rover from NERVA was there before expansion began, and there was no support for merging. They diverge after the material on Project Rover. While DYK has rules about shared content, there are none at FAC, and my contention is that the NERVA article is complete. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:14, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, comprehensive and accurate. There's not much else that I can say. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 03:18, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support An amazing article. I have added some explanatory text on rocket basics so readers don't have to click out to understand the basic concepts. I also mentioned ARPA, because I think it's useful to understand how the existing programs were split up. Other than that, I found it fascinating and complete. I was especially surprised by the budgets and manpower applied, as I had always thought of it as a relatively small program, but with 1,100 people at a single contractor we are certainly in the area of big science! I'm not sure about the use of "reckoned" as that might not translate properly, but that's no reason to hold up an FA. Good to go here. Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:25, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt[edit]

  • "which may be more efficient than chemical engines" maybe "could" or "might" for "may", since we're dealing with the past?
    Reworded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:40, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • " They reluctantly concluded that nuclear rockets were essential for deep space exploration, but not yet technically feasible.[5][6]" Since their reluctant conclusion is quite late in the sentence, I'd put a "while" after "that".
    Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:40, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • " This combination of features allows a nuclear engine to outperform a chemical one, they generally aim to have at least twice the specific impulse of a chemical engine.[18]" perhaps the comma should be a semicolon as both parts of the sentence would pass as sentences on their own.
    Replaced comma with semicolon. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:40, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • You shorten Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory both as LASL and as Los Alamos. I might pick one or the other and use it consistently.
    Settled on LASL. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:40, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lewis is double-linked.
    Removed duplicate links. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:40, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Then, on 12 April, the Soviet Union launched Yuri Gagarin into orbit on Vostok 1, once again demonstrating their technological superiority." Possibly "their" should be "its" in AmEng.
    Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:40, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • " Test Cell C was supposed to be complete in 1960, but NASA and AEC did not request funds for additional construction in 1960, although Senator Anderson provided them anyway." Two things. "But" and "although" in succession makes a sentence feel like a tennis match, and can we lose one use of "in 1960"?
    Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:42, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
More soon.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:45, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The subsequent full-power Kiwi B4A test on 30 November 1962, along with a series of cold flow tests revealed that the problem was vibrations induced as the hydrogen was heated when the reactor was brought to full power that shook the reactor apart (rather than when it was running at full power).[73] " This sentence could benefit from commas or reorganization.
    Added a comma, and tweaked the wording. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:14, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Components that would not affect system performance were allowed to be selected from what was available at Jackass Flats" I might cut "allowed to be".
    Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:14, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • " Congress cut the NASA's budget to $3.8 billion." Extraneous "the".
    Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:14, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "NASA program funding was somewhat reduced by Congress for the 1969 budget, shutting down the Saturn V production line and cancelling Apollo missions after Apollo 17," My understanding was that Apollo 20 was canceled around New Year's 1970 and the two other canceled missions in September 1970.
    Apollo 20 was canceled in May 1969 to allow for Skylab; Apollo 15 and 19 were cancelled in September 1970. Added this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:14, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Our article says that Apollo 20's cancellation was announced 4 January 1970.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:55, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm. That seems to be when it was announced. Changed the text accordingly. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:38, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • " mostly in California, a state that Nixon needed to carry in the 1972 election.[107]" He didn't as it proved. Perhaps "felt he needed to carry"?
    Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:14, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Pewee" You mention this for the first time at the end of the article and relate it to Project Rover.
    Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:14, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's it.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:42, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review – Pass[edit]

Will do soon. Aza24 (talk) 20:44, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting
  • Publisher for Chovit, A. R.; Plebuch, R. K?
  • Dewar, James doesn't have the state like the other refs
  • Robbins and Finger has "NASA Lewis Research Center, NASA"—is it needed both times?
  • You don't give the state for Burlington in Dewar like the others
  • retrieval dates missing for 16, 17 and 18
  • ref 6 should be either The Telegraph or The Daily Telegraph
  • Date missing for ref 104
    All of these have been added/corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:24, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Reliability
  • What makes ref 122 a high quality and reliable source?
    Space Media Network is a commercial news service. It has its own staff writers and also takes feed from wire services. The article in question was written by the NASA Narshall Space Flight Center.
    Seems valid to me. Aza24 (talk) 07:40, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Verifiability
  • Spotchecked a few pdf pages and found no issues Aza24 (talk) 06:58, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. Much appreciated. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:24, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Happy to help. Pass for source review. Aza24 (talk) 07:40, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild[edit]

Recusing to review.

  • "classified as Restricted Data". Why the upper case initial letters?
    It is capitalised in our article, Department of Energy documents, and the US Atomic Energy Act. So that is the legal form in the United States. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:13, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "For the fuel, plutonium-239, uranium-235 and uranium-233 have been considered." Should that not be '... were considered'?
    Yes. Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:13, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and in any case it was not readily available". Does this mean that uranium-235 was selected? If so, perhaps mention that?
    Good idea. Mentioned. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:13, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Later thirty trailers were brought to Jackass Flats to create a village". For many readers the link between trailers and living accommodation will be opaque. Is there not a link? Or perhaps a bracketed translation?
    That's what they called them in Texas. Our article is called mobile home so switched to that. (In Texas there was a superstition that they attracted hurricanes.) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:13, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "to work liaise with LASL". Is "to work liaise" a typo?
    Deleted "work". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:13, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "so that the decision to proceed". Was that the reality, or should it read 'so that the decision whether to proceed'?
    Sure. Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:13, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "NASA estimated its cost at $800 million". The cost of what? The total anticipated cost of NERVA, the spend to date or the cost of cancellation? (Or something else?)
    Added "ultimately" to make this clearer. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:13, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:06, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • "which could be performed by Saturn V". Is this meant to imply that RIFT and/or RIFT/NERVA couldn't?
    It most certainly could have. Reworded to make this clearer. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:46, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The RIFT vehicle would consist of". Should 'test' be inserted after RIFT?
    Sure. Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:46, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link dirigible.
    Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:46, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In August 1961, the Soviet Union ended the nuclear test moratorium that had been in place since November 1958, so Kennedy resumed US testing in September." → '... so Kennedy resumed US testing of nuclear weapons in September' would make this clearer.
    Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:46, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which could leak through microscopic holes that would contain other fluids." This reads as if it were the holes that would contain other fluids.
    Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:46, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The sensors recorded that they had reached 1,095 K (822 °C), which was their own maximum." Do you mean 'The sensors recorded that they had reached at least 1,095 K (822 °C), which was their own maximum'? (Or 'The sensors recorded 1,095 K (822 °C), which was their own maximum'?)
    The sensors. Reworded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:46, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which would allow the upgraded Saturn to launch much larger payloads". Much larger than what?
    Reworded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:46, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I have. Another classic. I note obiter dicta that I am content that NERVA is a free-standing article. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:29, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For people who don't think you need the toolset or technical knowledge to work on content, for this article I had to edit {{Infobox rocket engine}} and {{Infobox nuclear reactor}} so the former could embed the latter. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:13, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 17 May 2022 [32].

SS Edward L. Ryerson[edit]

Nominator(s): GreatLakesShips (talk) 07:41, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the Great Lakes freighter SS Edward L. Ryerson. I brought the article to GA status in March 2021. It has since been copy edited by Twofingered Typist, and has undergone a peer review. GreatLakesShips (talk) 07:41, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review
  • File:Edward L. Ryerson launch.jpg, File:Edward L. Ryerson in the Manitowoc River.jpg skeptical about the non-free usage rationale. How is NFCC#8 met? Does "its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding."? If so, the rationale does not explain. I would suggest removing both images. (t · c) buidhe 07:54, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Buidhe: Could the picture of the launch be kept? GreatLakesShips (talk) 22:18, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You would need to make it clear why "its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." as required by NFCC. (t · c) buidhe 23:41, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Buidhe: Removing it seems to be the only option. GreatLakesShips (talk) 00:03, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Buidhe: Are the other images alright? GreatLakesShips (talk) 12:09, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from North8000[edit]

A sentence that is both in the lead and body says: "She is one of only two American-owned straight deck lake freighters..." relying on the internal link to say what "straight deck" means here. But as described at the linked article, "straight deck" has two very different meanings. The intended use in this article is not only merely one of the two (leaving the intended meaning in this article unclear), but the intended meaning is not what the linked article describes as the primary meaning. Could this be clarified? North8000 (talk) 13:29, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I tweaked the straight deck article to help in this area. North8000 (talk) 19:41, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@North8000: I've added a footnote to clarify the matter. GreatLakesShips (talk) 20:07, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Cool! North8000 (talk) 21:23, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@North8000: I've added "Comments from North8000" to this section. Hope you don't mind. GreatLakesShips (talk) 22:18, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. North8000 (talk) 22:27, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article mentioned that they spent an immense amount extra to equip it carry passengers in style. The few glimpses I had of sources seemed to make a point of discussing it carrying VIP's as guests. Do think this should be mentioned in the article? North8000 (talk) 21:11, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why not.
@North8000: Which source said that? I think I missed that detail. GreatLakesShips (talk) 14:08, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't make a note of it but I see if I can find it again. It was one of the sources in the article, and the link went to a site (google books?) which had a paragraph or two from about 10 different pages. That's why I called it "glimpses". North8000 (talk) 17:42, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It was the google books glimpse of "Twilight of the Great Lakes Steamer" page 77. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:57, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@North8000: Thank you. Done. GreatLakesShips (talk) 21:07, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support I was going slow figuring that others would be taking more time interviewing details. But then I saw the recent notice. North8000 (talk) 13:27, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Version reviewed[edit]

  • Some of the details in the infobox don't appear to be sourced anywhere - eg yard number
  • "Since 2009, she has been in long-term layup at the Fraser Shipyard" - text indicates that while she started there she was later moved
Changed to "Since 2009, she has been in long-term layup in Superior, Wisconsin."
  • "became well known for her elegant lines" - source?
Changed to "Enthusiasts consider Edward L. Ryerson to be one of the most aesthetically pleasing lake freighters ever built."
  • How are you ordering Sources?
Originally alphabetically based on the author/publisher, although they were changed during the peer review.
  • What makes Great Lakes Vessel History a high-quality reliable source? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:42, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't find anything official that would qualify it as a usable source. It has been removed.
@Nikkimaria: The points have been addressed.
@Nikkimaria: Are the rest of the sources alright? GreatLakesShips 🤘 (talk - contribs) 06:05, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Still seeing details in the infobox that don't appear to be cited anywhere, eg the capacity of 27,500 tons. Also not clear on Sources ordering - it appears that items without a named author are mostly alphabetical by title, but not entirely. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:37, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: I've sorted all i could find. As for the sources, they are ordered alphabetically, regardless of whether or not an author is listed. GreatLakesShips 🤘 (talk - contribs) 16:17, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Still more, eg displacement. Also we've now got several work titles in Sources using |publisher=. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:18, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: I can't see anything else that isn't cited in the infobox or the body of the article. GreatLakesShips 🤘 (talk - contribs) 21:35, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still seeing work titles using |publisher=. Otherwise yes. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:43, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: It's done. GreatLakesShips 🤘 (talk - contribs) 14:35, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie[edit]

  • She was launched on January 21, 1960, and Frankcliffe Hall was launched before that, on December 7, 1959, so I don't understand the "Queen of the Lakes" title -- if it doesn't count till the ship is launched, then she was never the longest; if it counts from construction, then the Frankcliffe Hall would have taken over the title before December 7. What am I missing?
My mistake. I accidentally wrote 1959 instead of 1962.
I don't think so.
  • Why is it worth mentioning a cargo of mill scale? Is there something unusual about that?
It is for a ship that worked in the iron ore trade.
  • Have you looked through the newspapers.com articles that mention the ship? I had a quick look; there are hundreds of mentions. No doubt most are trivial, but I see you don't have any references to newspapers in the article so I thought I'd check.
    I don't have a newspapers account.
    It's free. If you go to WP:LIBRARY and click on "Get free access to research!" near the bottom it'll take you to a page where you can sign up. If you have problems you can ask questions or ask for help at WT:LIBRARY. It's a great resource. Since you don't have an account yet I'll do some searches today and see if I can find anything of interest, and post the results here, but I really recommend you sign up -- for the articles you write I think it would be very useful. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:06, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Mike Christie: Two months ago I got a notification which said I was eligible for an account at the Wikipedia Library. Is that significant? GreatLakesShips (talk) 17:03, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
They sent that note to everyone who was eligible, so yes, it means you would be given an account if you asked for one. There are requirements (minimum number of edits, etc.) and that notification just meant that you meet the requirements. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:36, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's everything I can see; the article is in good shape. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:58, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Christie: All done. GreatLakesShips (talk) 21:07, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Some clippings. I've noted below if they are out of copyright, meaning that you can use the photos, if you want to.

  • [33] -- mentions details of the accommodations, and mentions that the hatches admit two loading chutes and improve visibility and access during unloading. This is out of copyright.
  • [34] -- more details of accommodations, info about the crew, a mishap on the first trip, and this source says the $8M was for the whole ship, not just the accommodations, which to be honest is a lot more plausible. Out of copyright.
  • [35] -- 2016 look back. In copyright. Mentions the Manitowoc County Historical Society which apparently has photos of the ship, which may be available for use.
  • [36] -- a similar article, from 2020. In copyright. This one has a picture from the Wisconsin Maritime Museum, which might be worth contacting.
  • [37] -- mentions that the launch damaged the city dock, and that there's an elevator on board -- the first on a lake ship. Out of copyright -- the Green Bay Press-Gazette did start renewing copyright, but much later than necessary for the 1960 issues.
  • [38] -- gives a couple of engineering details, e.g. about the controls for the boiler, and explains why the vertical-sided holds were important. Out of copyright.

Per this page copyright has to be renewed for publications before 1964, and this page is where you can search for those renewals.

I think that's everything useful. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:03, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Christie: All done. GreatLakesShips (talk) 22:59, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
GreatLakesShips regarding the two new photos, how did you confirm there was no copyright renewal? (t · c) buidhe 00:28, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if GreatLakesShips repeated the search, but I searched, using the link above to cocatalog.loc.gov. I searched for renewals 27-28 years after the publication dates using the newspaper titles as the search string. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:32, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK, sounds reasonable. Image review is a pass. (t · c) buidhe 00:41, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support. The additions look good. Buidhe, since you did the image review, there are two new images you may want to look at. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:06, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment[edit]

ore than three weeks in and just the single general support. Unless this nomination attracts further interest over the next three or four days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:13, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was sitting back figuring that that the first step was a longer process of getting details reviewed. Seeing your note I added my support. North8000 (talk) 14:03, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley[edit]

  • "Ispat International N.V." Of which country?
Sorted.
  • "She was sold to the Indiana Harbor Steamship Company;" When? Ditto in the main text.
Done.
  • "in December of that same year," What year? Ditto in the main text.
Done.
  • "Edward L. Ryerson set cargo haulage records twice during the early 1960s." This is unclear. From the text below the record appears to be before the weight of cargo, but this shoudl be clarified. Also record for what? For any ship on the Great Lakes? For a ship of her class?
Not really sure what you mean by this.
  • "In August 1989, she loaded a cargo of mill scale in Detroit, Michigan." Why is this worth saying? It seems too trivial for the article.
Removed.
  • "On November 13, 1997, she was placed in the dry dock at Bay Shipbuilding Company in Sturgeon Bay for her five-year inspection." Also trivial. You could say she was inspected every five years, but why mention this specific inspection?
Removed.
  • "The ship was moved to Sturgeon Bay's east dock on December 7, 2000, and back to Bay Shipbuilding on August 17, 2004.[" Presumably laid up, but you should clarify.
Clarified.
  • You say in 'History' "Edward L. Ryerson is the third of the thirteen so-called 730-class of lake freighters built; five were American, of which she is the first." and in 'Career' "Edward L. Ryerson is one of only two American-owned straight deck lake freighters, the other one being the 1958-built freighter John Sherwin." I think it would be better to have these comments together and explain how they are related - or not.
I don't think this would add anything to the article.
  • The referencing is confusing. You have two different Boatnerd refs, divided apparently randomly depending on whether you have put Boatnerd in italics. It will also be very difficult for a reader who does not understand sfn to find the correct reference. It would be better to consistently have the first word(s) as the sfn ref e.g. "Great Lakes" rather than Boatnerd. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:22, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have converted the refs to italics, however, I don't think it is necessary to change its name.
Hi GreatLakesShips, I note that you have been off Wiki for a week, but this is a reminder that when you are back Dudley's comments above are awaiting a response. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:07, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: I'll start working on them tomorrow. GreatLakesShips 🤘 (talk - contribs) 21:53, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Dudley Miles: Sorry it took so long, but your comments have now been addressed. GreatLakesShips 🤘 (talk - contribs) 11:55, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have to oppose this nomination as I have made two criticisms which appear to me valid and important and have not been addressed.
One is that the ship is described as record breaking without explaining which record. It is like describing someone as a record breaking weightlifter without explaining which weight and whether the record is for USA, world or a local club.
The other criticism is the confusing referencing. The references appear to refer to random words in the source, which makes it unnecessarily difficult for readers to find the correct source. I cited the example of Boatnerd. The reader has to search through each source to find the one which mentions Boatnerd. Even worse is Telescope. There are three Telescope sources, one of which appears to be unused. The reader not only has to search all the sources for Telescope ones, they then have to make sure that they have the one with the correct date. The reference should be the first word(s) in the source to make it easy for reader to find the correct one. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:03, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Commenting here as I am one of the supporters above. I interpreted "record-breaking" in the lead as referring to the length, which is discussed in the body in the comments about the "Queen of the Lakes" title. For the sources, I agree that there appears to be an unused Telescope source that needs to be fixed -- the one that starts "Great Lake & Seaway News". The other three seem OK to me -- two are referenced as "Burdick (1997)" and "Burdick (1999)", and the third one as "Telescope (1995)", presumably because there's no named author. For Boatnerd, I can't see the issue -- I did a search for "Boatnerd" in the article and the edit window and I'm not seeing anything out of sync. What problem are you seeing? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:47, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I take it that you did Ctrl-F on Boatnerd to find the correct source, which is what I did. My point is that some readers who are less computer expert will not know or think to do that. I do not remember seeing another article which requires you to search to find the correct source and I think that an FA article should make it easier. If the Boatnerd reference was shown as the first words in the source, "Great Lakes Fleet Page" the reader could immediately see the correct one without needing to search. My comment on record breaking was about the haulage record, not the length, as discussed below. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:25, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I did Ctrl-F when trying to figure out what the problem was, but normally I would just click on the link in the citations and it would take me to the right source, which is what happened. Still, I can see that it would be helpful to readers who don't realize the links work that way if the string used in the sfn were the same as the string used to sort the citations alphabetically. If the sfn were changed to "Great Lakes Fleet Page Vessel Feature" would that resolve the issue for Boatnerd? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:38, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is exactly what I said and suggested in my original comment - for all references. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:46, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, I finally caught up with you. I agree it would be helpful to do that. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:52, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    GreatLakesShips, I see you've edited once or twice in the last couple of days; did you see this oppose? Per the conversation here and below I think the issues are addressable, but I recommend you post a note saying you're planning to do so so that the coordinators are aware. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:42, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Mike Christie: I think I can have it done by today. GreatLakesShips 🤘 (talk - contribs) 09:39, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Mike Christie: I have replaced "Boatnerd" with the name of the article's author. GreatLakesShips 🤘 (talk - contribs) 23:03, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging Dudley, who is the one who has opposed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:24, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That is fine but the same needs to be done for other sources which are difficult for readers to find, Small Business Administration, Telescope etc. Once they are dealt with I will be happy to support. Dudley Miles (talk) 08:24, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Dudley Miles: I have replaced "Telescope" with "Great Lakes Maritime Institute". There isn't much I can do about Small Business Administration, but it is written under the title in google books. GreatLakesShips 🤘 (talk - contribs) 22:36, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I looked and saw "record breaking" in two contexts:
  • Breaking specific cargo hauling records, and the article was specific and detailed on what those were
  • as an adjective in "record breaking length" as a reason for the "queen of the lakes" title and the article covers the specifics there
Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:57, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article is specific about the higher weight which broke the record, not on other aspects. Was it a record compared with all vessels or a specific type of vessel? Was it a record for the Great Lakes or some other larger or smaller area? Dudley Miles (talk) 15:25, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The source had a bit more which I put in; that they were tonnage records for hauling iron ore cargo. There was no ship type qualifier (i.e. only for a certain type of ship) for the record noted in the source. Regarding location qualifiers on the record, the noted route did go through three of the great lakes so it wouldn't be for just one lake. But there were no geographic descriptors for the record criteria in the source.North8000 (talk) 16:32, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • So the implication is that it was for any ship in the Great Lakes. Would you be happy to say that? Dudley Miles (talk) 16:41, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think we're safe there if you are OK with it. North8000 (talk) 18:28, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: I have been busy, but I think they can be addressed by tomorrow. GreatLakesShips 🤘 (talk - contribs) 20:44, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi again GreatLakes. If you have finished your responses to Dudley's comments, could you ping them; if you haven't, could you? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:36, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: I already have. GreatLakesShips 🤘 (talk - contribs) 19:18, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Several refs are still unnecessarily difficult for the reader to trace and the problem can be easily solved with "|ref={{sfnref|", which the nominator does use. I have withdrawn my oppose and I will leave it to other reviewers to decide whether to support. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:34, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Morgan695[edit]

  • Built between April 1959, and January 1960 for the Inland Steel Company, Is the first comma necessary?
Removed.
  • Since 2009, she has been in long-term layup in Superior, Wisconsin "Layup" is a technical term that myself and I imagine most general readers are unfamiliar with, so is there a way to either rephrase this or gloss the meaning of the term?
I think the linked article is satisfactory.
Removed.
  • In note A, I would delink straight deck and put the term in quotes per MOS:WORDSASWORDS
Done.
  • In the second paragraph of "Design and construction", it seems like you're switching between active and passive voice, e.g. Edward L. Ryerson is the third of the thirteen and Edward L. Ryerson's four unique vertical-sided cargo holds were loaded. Is there a reason for this?
I have no explanation for the first one (other than possibly absent mindedness), which I have now changed. As for your second example, I assume I did this because the ship has not been in service for over a decade.
  • While underway, she broke a stud of her stuffing box Again, two technical terms that I think would benefit from further explanation.
Again, I thin the links suffice.
  • the Netherlands based I think you need a hyphen between "Netherlands" and "based"
Done.
  • Check to make sure refs are ordered sequentially in the body of the article when there are multiple references in sequence; I see one non-sequential in the last graf of "Design and construction" and the last graf of "Career".
Done.

These are my only comments. While not necessary, comments on my fellow straggler FAC would also be appreciated. Morgan695 (talk) 18:30, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Morgan695: I have addressed your comments. GreatLakesShips 🤘 (talk - contribs) 19:39, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
While I think the article would benefit from further explanation of a few instances of technical terms, it otherwise meets FAC requirements in my view, so I support based on prose. Morgan695 (talk) 20:10, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Buidhe via FACBot (talk) 14 May 2022 [39].

Eadred[edit]

Nominator(s): Dudley Miles (talk) 16:48, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is the latest in my nominations of later Anglo-Saxon kings. It has received very helpful peer reviews from Mike Christie, Ceoil and Tim riley. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:48, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Buidhe. See Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Map workshop/Archive/Sep 2013#Æthelstan - first king of England. The map was created at my request in 2013 based on a map in Sarah Foot's biography of Æthelstan as amended by me. It has been used in two FA articles without any query being raised in FAC at image review. Is there anything I need to do? Should I add based on Foot's map? Dudley Miles (talk) 09:03, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, if you could cite the Foot map (what book it's in and page #) that this is based on, it would help verifiability. (t · c) buidhe 15:53, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Tim riley[edit]

My few queries were fully dealt with at peer review, and I am happy to support the promotion of this article to FA. It appears comprehensive, is balanced and well proportioned, an excellent read and well illustrated and referenced. Meets all the FA criteria in my view. Tim riley talk 17:15, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, I think something somewhere isn't quite right with the present page. The article talk page still, as I type, has the red message inviting people to initiate the review, and my comments, above, don't appear on the summary of FAC comments here. I know not what's gone awry but something certainly seems to have done. Tim riley talk 20:05, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Mike Christie[edit]

Like Tim I had my say at the peer review. This is a fine article. I'm not seeing whatever problem Tim is referring to, above, so perhaps that was a caching issue? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:32, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Mike. I was seeing the issue yesterday but not today, so presumably it has been resolved. Dudley Miles (talk) 08:54, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review from Hawkeye7[edit]

A great article. Very well written and informative. No issues.

  • All sources are high quality.
  • Add an access date to the British Library link, in case they decide to do a reorganisation at some point.
  • Not fond of the inline links to Sawyer. Would prefer use of the cite web template to guard against link rot.
  • MOS:PAGERANGE: Like date ranges, number ranges and page ranges should state the full value of both the beginning and end of the range, separated by an en dash: pp. 1902–1911 or entries 342–349. Except in quotations, avoid abbreviated forms such as 1902–11 and 342–9, which are not understood universally, are sometimes ambiguous, and can cause inconsistent metadata to be created in citations.
  • Spot checks not done.

Support its promotion. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:47, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks Hawkeye7. Changes made. I have run [[User:GregU/dashes.js|script]] and it finds no errors. That should cover the en dashes? Dudley Miles (talk) 10:24, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I ran it too and it made the required edits. [40] All good. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:34, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Any idea why the script does not work when I run it? Dudley Miles (talk) 13:41, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is a bug in the script that causes it to not work every time. when it happens to me I run it again. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:56, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from ChrisTheDude[edit]

  • "Edmund was about eighteen years old when he succeeded to the throne in 939, which dates his birth to 920–921 and their father" - need a comma after 921 to close the subordinate clause
  • "Dunstan, the Abbot of Glastonbury and a future Archbishop of Canterbury, was one Eadred's most trusted friends" => "Dunstan, the Abbot of Glastonbury and a future Archbishop of Canterbury, was one of Eadred's most trusted friends"
  • "Ceremonial was important" - is "ceremonial" a noun? Also, it might be worth joining this to the sentence after with a semi-colon, rather than have a "sentence" of three words
  • Ceremonial is a noun according to OED. I prefer to keep the sentences separate as it will be just one example of many ceremonies we do not know about. Dudley Miles (talk) 08:57, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "for example, the charter which is displayed right" - there is no charter "displayed right", at least not with my screen settings (it's below this paragraph). Is it possible to reword this?
  • It was originally right and it was moved by an editor who thought the width of the image would cause problems and kindly tried to sort them out. I do not think the position below works so I have moved it back pending further queries/suggestions. On second thoughts, I have tried centering it and increasing the size. Does that look OK to you? Dudley Miles (talk) 08:57, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "HT1 style reverse inscribed 'INGELGAR M'." - doesn't need a full stop as it is not a complete sentence
  • "During Eadred's reign Æthelwold asked for permission to go to abroad" => "During Eadred's reign Æthelwold asked for permission to go abroad"
  • "Mortuary chest of Eadred in Winchester Cathedral." - doesn't need a full stop

CommentsSupport by Borsoka[edit]

  • Introduce the Northumbrian Danes (I am not sure that all our readers from all over the world realize that they are the Vikings mentioned in the previous sentences).
  • Described the Great Heathen Army as Danish Viking to clarify. Dudley Miles (talk) 08:25, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link "king of York" and add some background for we were informed in a previous sentence that Aethelstan had united England, and Edmund inherited a united England from him.
  • Link Ripon, Thetford, Tanshelf (to Pontefract). Borsoka (talk) 02:55, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Linked Ripon and Thetford. Tanshelf is already linked. Dudley Miles (talk) 08:25, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for the review. Dudley Miles (talk) 08:25, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All my concerns were addressed. After reading the whole text, I am supporting the article. Thank you for it. It is an exceptionally detailed, but also well written and interesting article. Borsoka (talk) 02:19, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Buidhe via FACBot (talk) 12 May 2022 [41].

Second War of Scottish Independence[edit]

Nominator(s): Gog the Mild (talk) 19:53, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

After six FACs (and three GANs) on episodes from Edward III's war against Scotland I now offer up the overview. This article attempts to summarise the 25 years of the Second War of Scottish Independence. Which probably caused the Hundred Years' War and even ground on for 11 years after Edward captured the Scottish king. What to include, what to leave out, what to summarise down? Oh me, oh my! Much, obviously, is based on those nine previous articles and Ealdgyth kindly provided this article with an especially rigorous GAN. I think it's as ready as it's going to get. See what you think. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:53, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review—pass, no licensing issues found. (t · c) buidhe 22:41, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt[edit]

  • " In response to Philip's urgent requests, David invaded England believing most of its previous defenders would be in France." Does "previous" really add anything?
IMO, yes. I took it out. Then put it back as its lack seemed to wilfully withhold information.
  • "Edward's chosen target was Berwick: a Scottish town on the Anglo-Scottish border, astride the main invasion and trade route in either direction.[22]" We know Berwick is Scottish then, as you've told us that twice already, and will again soon after.
Too much of a good thing? mention removed.
  • "The leading pro-Bruce nobles appealed to Philip for formal military assistance." Should this be "... nobles formally appealed to Philip for military assistance?"
It should. Done.
  • " the latter was a potential port of embarkation for any French expeditionary force" Should embarkation be disembarkation?
D'oh! Fixed.
More soon.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:32, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A small number of French knights marched alongside the Scots." Just to be picky, were they marching or riding?
They marched, in the Wiktionary sense of "To go to war". If I were to put "rode alongside", that would imply that all of the Scots were mounted, which they weren't.
  • "The Scots were surprised by the appearance of the English close to Durham.[87]" I might consider a comma after "English".
I suspect that we adhere to rather different schools of comma'isation.
That's it. Very interesting.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:45, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Wehwalt, and thanks for the review. You comments addressed above. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:55, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Wehwalt (talk) 15:15, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Tim riley[edit]

What a pleasure to be reviewing a Gog article on a 14th-century war once again. This one is well up to standard, and I confidently expect to be supporting it. But first, a few carps and quibbles about the prose.

  • Lead
  • "in May 1337 the French king, Philip VI, engineered a clear break" – I'm not clear what it was that was clearly (cleanly?) broken.
Clarified.
  • English invasion of Scotland, 1332
  • "He insisted Balliol not invade Scotland" – there seems to be a subjunctive missing – "should" or "must" for example.
Rewritten.
  • "15,000–40,000 men" – that's a helluva range – the authorities differ that widely, I take it?
Hey, for the period that's precise[!] And this is from just the single modern source. Happy to email you the page - you would perhaps enjoy it.
That would be good: please do. Tim riley talk 16:53, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Received and found most interesting – thank you. Tim riley talk 22:17, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • English invasion of Scotland, 1333
  • "a set-piece battle, which he anticipated winning" – a minor point of usage: it is no bad thing to observe the traditional usage of "anticipate" (note the ant– element) by keeping the verb to mean predicting and forestalling something by taking action in advance. (A. P. Herbert commented, in the days before the permissive society, that "John and Jane anticipated marriage" is not the same as "John and Jane expected to be married".) I think here, just "which he expected to win" is right.
Weeell, I chose the word carefully and suspect that Edward did anticipate winning, rather than expected to, but changed to "which he believed he would win".
  • "Berwick was well-defended, well-garrisoned, and well-stocked with provisions and materiel" – this is a resonant and particularly pleasing sentence, if I may say so: the repetitions of "well" have a fine cumulative effect.
Why, thank you. I strive for the memorable, which does sometimes come unstuck, and isn't to all reviewers' tastes. Hyphenectomy applied.
My comment that the hyphens might not be wanted seems to have vanished, but I'm not sure they should be used here. It's "a well-defended town" but "the town was well defended", I think. Tim riley talk 16:53, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I assume that I did something - it was there when I read your comments and has been acted upon.
  • "the camp followers made off" – I really do think you need to follow the OED in hyphenating "camp-followers" otherwise we're perilously close to Julian and Sandy territory.
At least one chronicler mentions that the Scottish tentage was a much washed shade of light red.
I shall refrain from seeking clarification of that, thank you. Tim riley talk 16:53, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "although it is unclear when this commenced" – at the risk of repeating myself like a cracked gramophone record, may I point out again that "commence" is on Fowler's list of "genteelisms" and that a plain "began" or "started" would be less prissy.
But I like prissy! Changed.
  • "he convinced Edward to spend the winter" – in BrE, unlike AmE, one doesn't "convince to": one convinces someone of or "that" something or other, but persuades him to. (I happen to think AmE usage is excellent in this case, but it ain't the Queen's English.)
Changed.
  • French involvement
  • "Gascony was important to Edward, the duty levied by the English Crown on wine from there was more than all other customs duties" – comma splice. Any one of a colon, a semicolon or a full stop would be fine here.
Oops. Fixed.
  • "could not agree a on position for the peace negotiations" – something awry here. As discussed elsewhere, you and I are ad idem that "agree to" and a plain "agree" can have different shades of meaning, but here, it seems to me, you want either "could not agree a position" or "could not agree on a position".
The latter. My typo. Thank you.
  • English invasion of Scotland, 1335–1336
  • " arbitration by the pope …. persuaded by Pope Benedict XII" – if the first-mentioned pontiff was Benedict XII it might be as well to name him the first, rather than the second time he crops up.
And oops again. Fixed.
  • France joins the fight
  • "immediately commenced a fresh round" – see comments, above on the refained "commence" – purely a stylistic point and I don't press it all that hard, though perhaps it's time to trot out the relevant Noël Coward quote again: "I just can't abide the word testicles. It's smug and refined like 'commence' and 'serviette' and 'haemorrhoids'. When in doubt always turn to the good old Anglo-Saxon words. If you have piles, say so!"
Given what I have put on my user page I can't argue. Changed.
  • Scottish resurgence, 1338–1346
  • "The French continued to supply the Scots and they had the better of the fighting" – "they" being the French or the Scots? (Yes, I know, but you should make it explicit.)
Is "The French continued to supply the Scots, who had the better of the fighting." acceptable?
Perfect, I'd say. Tim riley talk 16:55, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Captivity of David II
  • " ensured a lack of trust from David" – a little convoluted? Perhaps, "ensured that David did not trust him"?
Changed to "gave David reason to mistrust him".
That's better still, I think. Tim riley talk 16:53, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • English invasion of Scotland, 1356
  • "the important English-held border town of Berwick-on-Tweed" – I think you've already made it clear that Berwick was (i) a border town and (ii) important.
Indeed. Slimmed.
  • Treaty of Berwick, 1357
  • "With no prospect of further military nor financial assistance" – "or", not "nor", I think.
Not where I was taught English. Although that is, of course, little recommendation. Changed.
With due respect to your teachers, "neither" and "nor" go together, as do "either and or". Thus, "there was prospect of neither military nor financial assistance" but "there was no prospect of either military or financial assistance".
I am aware of the "rule", and was taught that there are other occasions on which "nor" could be employed. A couple of randomly selected dictionaries seem to support this, but let it pass.

Those are my few comments and suggestions. I have greatly enjoyed reading and reviewing this article. Over to you, and I'll look in again to add my support, I hope. – Tim riley talk 16:01, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks Tim. I am afraid that this is the last of my Scottish War articles. Perhaps one last 14th-century FAC to come. I am pleased that you enjoyed it. Less so that I seem to keep repeating my errors. Ah well. See what you make of my responses. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:43, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Supporting. A fine grand finale to the series. Seems comprehensive to this layman's eye, is beautifully written, seems balanced, is thoroughly and widely referenced and well illustrated. Meets all the FA criteria in my view. Tim riley talk 17:01, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

  • You might consider spelling out "NY" in full in the citation for DeVries; I've had UK editors tell me the US state abbreviations are not very mnemonic, though I admit "NY" is one few will complain about.
You are completely correct. No idea what I was thinking. Fixed.
  • I think of Alison Weir as a popular history writer, rather than a scholarly source. Is this a particular area of expertise for her?
The work seems entirely HQ, as well as RS, to me. To quote a notoriously unreliable source "She primarily writes about the history of English royal women and families". Her, extensive, list of non-fiction works supports this. Similarly, Random House appears a reliable and conscientious publisher. (At GAN the more reliable Ealdgyth commented " I really wish someone academic would publish something on Queen Isabella so we can stop having to use Weir .. heh. Not a complaint you can fix (even at FAC) ... just a general whine.")
  • One source, Oman (1924), is almost a century old; this is used to cite the date of a battle and the way the attack began. Has no newer source given these details? Or is Oman regarded as completely reliable so that there's no need to replace the cite?
With something like this one can find another source for almost anything, and I certainly don't wish to get into bun fight as to Oman's reputation for reliability. I'll look up another source.
I'm fine with accepting Oman if it's an academic source, since this is a matter of determining what can be reliably stated by reading the primary sources. It's when you get back to before 1900 it starts to get a little more unreliable in some disciplines. If you can't find this particular detail in a more recent source I think that's OK if Oman was an authority on the topic in his day. In Anglo-Saxon history, for example, I wouldn't trust almost anyone's analysis except Plummer from much before 1900; I just don't know what's reliable in this field so I thought I should ask. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:47, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Understood. Ealdgyth queried him too; when two editors like that query something a sensible nominator backs down, sharpish. I'll get back to you, although I am realising why I ended up with Oman in the first place. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:17, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oman is gone, replaced by Sadler and a slight expansion of Sumption. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:08, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I can find to complain about. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:19, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Ceoil[edit]

Placeholder. Looks good from a scan. Ceoil (talk) 21:41, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • In the lead, "attempted to claim the Scottish throne against that of Robert Bruce's eight-year-old son" - is against right..."competed against" or "take from", or whatever . Also, don't introduce him cold - give some indication of the basis for his claim, ie the crowned prince of X, or general recruited by (dont know enough to advise but it was a bit jarring).
Fair points. Rewritten.
  • More later. Have read about a 5th, no concerns, taking a break. Ceoil (talk) 22:08, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The word "devastated" is used 10 times. What does this mean exactly: burned, sacked, slaughtered? Ceoil (talk) 22:54, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. The first Wiktionary definition starts with "To ruin many or all things over a large area".
  • shattering defeat could be decisive defeat
It could. Any specific issues with "shattering"?
  • From an army of 14,000–16,000, approximately 6,000 were killed or captured - approximately 6,000 from an army of 14,000–16,000
Done.
  • the King of France was one of those taken prisoner - Including the King of France who was taken prisoner on the (closest date).
I prefer the existing wording, unless you have a particular reason for the change.

The above are non-deal breaking. Support Ceoil (talk) 23:11, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that Ceoil, much appreciated. Also thanks for the helpful copy edit; I have tweaked or even reverted a couple of your edits in this edit. Feel free to come back at me re anything you are unhappy with or baffled by. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:08, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Query for the coordinators[edit]

@FAC coordinators: Given the progress of this nomination, could I have permission to launch another? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:59, 5 May 2022 (UTC) Sure, go ahead. (t · c) buidhe 13:42, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie[edit]

  • "Within three months the Bruce partisans": the reader doesn't yet know what "Bruce" refers to.
    True. It got edited out in response to an edit above and I didn't chase down the consequences adequetely. Thanks. Fixed.
    You still have "the Bruce loyalists" in the second paragraph of the lead. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:57, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What. I could have sworn I changed that. What an idiot. Thanks again. Fixed.
  • "engineered a clear break France and England": missing a word?
Added.
  • "but forced to focus on the French theatre the English slowly lost ground in Scotland": I think you need parenthetical commas around "forced to focus on the French theatre", but as I know we differ on commas I didn't copyedit them in. The problem is that when the eye encounters "forced" it is initially parsed as "Edward forced", and it's several words later before the parentheticality, if that's a word, of the phrase becomes evident.
I see your point, but additional commas seem a clumsy remedy. I have separated the Scottish and French parts of the sentence - "Edward sent what troops he could spare to Scotland, in spite of which the English slowly lost ground in Scotland as they were forced to focus on the French theatre." Does that work?
  • "In 1346, Edward led a large English army through northern France: sacking Caen, heavily defeating the French at Crécy and besieging Calais". Colons introduce lists, and this is a list, but it's a list of verbs not nouns, and sounds wrong to my ear. I think you'd be better off with either a comma there, or "In 1346, Edward led a large English army through northern France: he sacked Caen, heavily defeated the French at Crécy and besieged Calais".
Replaced with a comma. (Which now looks a little odd to my eye, but my punctuation is well known to be dodgy.)
  • "Edward was forced into signing the treaty": how about "The 15-year-old Edward", to reinforce the point about his regents' influence?
By all means. Done.
  • "confined his mother": you haven't said Isabella is his mother.
Oops. Added at first mention.
  • "The French, unhappy about an English expansion into Scotland, covertly supported and financed the Bruce loyalists, although from when is unclear." This may not require a change to the article, but I'm curious about how this is known if, per note 3, there is no definite evidence. Should the article say "may have covertly" if this is speculation, even if informed academic speculation?
    Oh good grief! That was a typo - "1355" for '1335'. Does it make more sense now?
    Very much so! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:30, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "destroying the property of friend and foe alike": seems an unproductive strategy. Do we know if this was through ignorance, stupidity, or an inability to control the raiding parties?
Essentially, no we don't. ORing I suspect an inability to distinguish between the property of the two; an inability to identify which group individuals fell into; and control issues re troops who personally profited from the devastation. But nothing so specific for this particular episode. Although, while no doubt unproductive, it reads like a summary of most 100YW campaigns - and Anglo-Scottish ones were nastier; see Burnt candlemas.
  • Two consecutive sentences start with "Despite..." early in the "France joins the fight" section.
Second one removed and sentence rephrased.
  • "In 1341 David II reached the age of 18": our article on him says he was born in 1324?
A notoriously unreliable source. But good spot, and I seem to have conflated a page in Brown, so the aged 18 bit removed.
  • "In 1341 David II reached the age of 18 and returned to Scotland on 2 June with his wife Joan, Edward's sister. Fighting with the English had died down, but the Scottish nobility was riven with feuds. David wished to establish his own authority and surround himself with his own people. This had the effect of inflaming an already tense situation. Nevertheless, the English were steadily pushed back." Five consecutive shortish sentences, with a rather staccato effect on the flow. How about joining the third and fourth with "but"?
Thanks for that. I have gone for a more radical option, making it both shorter and (I hope) less choppy.
  • "this enraged Douglas to the extent that he imprisoned Ramsay": why did it enrage him? And I think you could just make it "this enraged Douglas, who imprisoned Ramsay".
    Second point done.
    I think that has to be a comma, not a semi-colon. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:57, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The reason for the enragement was in an old version, but sometime over the past six months I had trimmed it out in the interests of summary style. Reinstated. Semi colon also lost in the rephrasing, even at the cost of upping my comma count.
  • "David was himself attempting to control affairs from England": so the English allowed him sufficient communications with Scotland to do this?
    Apparently. I could expand on their reasons a little, although most sources tend to state the facts and not speculate too much as to what was going on in Edward's head. But I don't imagine that he was too upset about a Guardian with a claim to the throne being undermined by a man he held captive.
    No change needed, I think, unless you have something you feel is illuminated from one of your sources. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:57, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Stewart was disinclined to support any terms which removed him from the succession": the reader doesn't know that Stewart is David's nephew. Is Stewart the direct heir at this point?
    They do if they read the footnotes. Should I assume they don't? (No. 5.)
    Nobody else has complained, so I won't insist, but I think in your shoes I'd put that fact into the narrative directly. It's a significant fact about the relationship between David and Stewart and I would think some readers will skip the footnotes if they feel they are following the story without them. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:57, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Nobody else complaining doesn't mean that your suggestion wouldn't improve the article. I have removed the footnote from first mention of Stewart and inserted the same information in line at second mention - when he becomes guardian. It seems more relevant there, and working it into the account of the battle is going to mess up the flow.
  • The truce lasted four decades; perhaps a mention of what broke it forty years later?
Added.

Looks very good; just a few points above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:55, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

More strikes; just the question of why Douglas was enraged. And I really think that has to be a comma there.... Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:30, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks Mike, I don't know where I/this article would be without your beady eyes. I think that is everything addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:41, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support; looks good. I will try to resist the temptation to find more ways to add commas to your articles. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:05, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 10 May 2022 [42].

Total Recall (1990 film)[edit]

Nominator(s): Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:53, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the 1990 science fiction action film Total Recall starring Arnold Schwarzenegger that questions how real your mind is if it can't be picked apart and put back together on a whim. It took about 15 years and up to $80 million to bring this project to life and Schwarzenegger had to wait until he could get his friend to buy it before he could be considered for the lead. Noted as one of the most expensive films ever made at the time and among the last major blockbusters to not only use practical effects but use them extensively. Famous for, among other things, a three-breasted woman, and Schwarzenegger committing the world's first do-it-yourself divorce. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:53, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

  • Probably won't get through all of this in one go, but I will make a start....
  • "who is a synthetic replicate" - is "replicate" a real word?
  • That's literally all I got up to the end of the music section. Back for more later........ -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:33, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi ChrisTheDude, thanks for taking the time to look at this. Replicate is a word but reading it, not in the context or way I'm pronouncing it in my head. I've changed it to "replica" Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:10, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
More comments
  • "miniature sets produced by Stetson in Los Angeles, and supervised by Mark Stetson and Robert Spurlock" - is the "Stetson" in the first bit Mark Stetson? If so, his full name and wikilink should be on the first usage
  • "The film was often compared to Verhoeven's previous work on RoboCop, with some reviews remarking that Total Recall lacked the same "impudence and incandescence" or satirization of 1980s action films as the latter" - not sure "the latter" is correct here, as RoboCop wasn't the last film mentioned. Maybe change it to "the earlier film"......?
  • "over two-hundred in Die Hard 2" - never seen "two hundred" written with a hyphen.....?
  • "Verhoeven's worked with Stone again" => "Verhoeven worked with Stone again"
  • That's all I got in the rest of the article. That was a great read about a film which I probably haven't watched for over 20 years. Maybe if it's on any platform to which I have access I will watch it again tonight while my wife is out - she'd hate it :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:33, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I was gonna say Google says it's on Netflix, but then I clicked on it and it's the remake -_-. It is apparently on NowTV and Amazon Prime though. I'm glad you enjoyed the read and I've also addressed the issues in your comments ChrisTheDude. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 11:27, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support (and thanks for the tip!) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:38, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note[edit]

Three weeks in and just the single general support. Unless this nomination attracts further interest over the next three or four days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:11, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pamzeis[edit]

Will take a look soon. Pamzeis (talk) 03:08, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Pamzeis, another film you won't ever want to watch though XD Probably just a bit less gory than RoboCop. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 17:45, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not gonna screw this up, not gonna screw this up (hopefully ;))

  • "Lori who claims their marriage is a false memory implant, and the Agency assigned her to monitor Quaid" — wait, what? Did the Agency also assault him or did the Agency assign Lori to monitor Quaid? The commas are making it confusing...
  • "It depicts a meek clerk" — is "it" the story or the magazine?
  • "In his script, Quaid's true" — his script is... the final draft? Just kinda confused which draft "his script" is
  • "from dust inhalation on set, food poisoning and gastroenteritis from the local Mexican cuisine" — did the cuisine cause dust inhalation as well?
  • "serving as the visual effects supervisor, Alex Funke as the special effects photographer, Thomas L. Fisher as special effects supervisor, production designer William Sandell, and effects producer Mary Siceloff." — why does it switch from [name] as [job] to [job] [name]?
  • "14 ft tall and 46 ft in diameter" — the readers unfamiliar with whatever this measurement system is called might need a conversion
  • "in its second weekend and" — I thought for a second it was Total Recall's second; any way this can be clarified?
  • "the film's unique visuals" — WP:VOICE
  • "At the 1991 Academy Awards" — wouldn't it be easier to say 63rd, 'cuz this wording is a bit ambiguous?
  • "solidifying his status as the most popular international film celebrity" — who considered him to be that?
  • "It was also one of the top rentals" — for how long?
  • "the initial release for poor image quality" — WP:VOICE
  • "A special Total Recall: Mind-Bending Edition Blu-ray was" — is there- is there something wrong. My brain's bein' funny and I can't tell...
  • "[Schwarzenegger's] side trying to believe that it's all true, while [Dr. Edgemar] is" — but... Schwarz-whatever is an actor and Edgemar is a character...

Great article as usual. Pamzeis (talk) 14:21, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pamzeis, thank you for your review! I have addressed your issues I believe. I admit I read the mind-bending part a few times before I realized I think you're joking? XD Are you a teacher by any chance? Your comments always seem like you know what the correct thing to do is and are leading me to it but you want me to figure it out for myself. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 19:42, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Yep, I'm joking. And LOL, no chance I'm a teacher! I'm the furthest thing from that, actually ;) Pamzeis (talk) 11:48, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you as always Pamzeis! Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 12:16, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from theJoebro64[edit]

Review coming soon. JOEBRO64 16:53, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks TheJoebro64! Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 19:43, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Two minor comments so far:

  • ... changing Quail to Quaid to avoid referencing then-vice president Dan Quayle... I think it's a bit confusing to place this in the Early development subsection. While Quayle was vice president when Total Recall was produced and released, the Early development section recounts events from the 1970s—which was well before his vice presidency; in fact, his career in politics probably hadn't even started! It think it'd make much more sense to have it in the Writing subsection, as the name change was a writing decision.
  • The author had wanted to expand "We Can Remember It for You Wholesale" into a novella but had struggled to conceive a satisfactory ending of his own. I understand this is here to further illustrate how difficult it was to expand the short story into a larger narrative, but I don't think mentioning that Dick wanted to turn the story into a novella is entirely necessary. It's only tangentially, if at all, related to the development of the film adaptation, and the sentiment that expanding "We Can Remember It for You Wholesale" was difficult is already well expressed.

I've been making little copyedit changes here and there but I'm finding this article hard to nitpick. Very well-written, comprehensive, and well sourced. I'm going to keep attacking it and will finish soon. JOEBRO64 13:29, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TheJoebro64, thanks for your precise copyediting. I've made the changes requested above, I liked the second point as an anecdote but I couldn't figure out a natural way to work it in so I've removed it. The first point I have integrated into the writing section Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 16:08, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome. I should finish the review Saturday - I'm going to be pretty busy Thursday and Friday but will have tons of time on Saturday so I'll get it all done then. JOEBRO64 02:35, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is just stylistic preference, but should the Themes subsection identify David Hughes, Noah Berlatsky, et al as an author, SyFy Wire writer, and whatnot? This is pretty insignificant in the long run and won't affect my support, but I personally feel it's a little odd to introduce these individuals without indicating their significance—I think it just tells the reader why I should take their interpretations seriously. I noticed you seem to do it in the Analysis subsection too.
  • Is there any reason Ryan Britt is named in the Modern reception subsection when the AV Club/CBR/Vulture writers aren't? Same with Scott Tobias in Cultural influence.
  • Development eventually ceased as the studio was unable to secure a deal with Schwarzenegger, and a series of failed films had harmed them financially. I'm correct to assume "them" is Dimension, or does it refer to both Dimension and Schwarzenegger? It's a little unclear

Given that these are incredibly minor points, I'm just going to go ahead and give a Support. Very well-written, well-researched, and informative. (Guess I have to go watch the film now...) JOEBRO64 03:13, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TheJoebro64, thanks so much for the support. I've implemented your changes as well. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:14, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]


  • Drive-by comments. Check p./pp. for the following:
    • Ref#23: Hughes 2012, p. 64–65.
    • Ref#155: Grady 2003, p. 44–45.

– Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 13:24, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the catch Kavyansh Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:34, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

Footnote numbers refer to this version.

  • It looks like Schneider (2013) is a chapter in a book? If so, can we add page numbers to the citation?
  • You're inconsistent about the use of publisher locations; Vest (2009) doesn't have a location but the other two do. You don't have to include locations but you should be consistent.
  • You use the publisher field instead of website in just three of your {{cite web}} citations; if you're not going to use that field in a consistent way I would suggest removing it. The website field is used for the name of the website, and if the publisher is evident from the website you don't have to include it (though you can if you're consistent about it). And for example "Hugo Award" is not a publisher.

I don't see any other formatting issues. I'll look at reliability and links next; I may not get that finished this evening. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:04, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What makes the following reliable sources?

  • filmsite.org
  • screenrant.com
  • filmschoolrejects.com
  • filmtracks.com
  • fxguide.com

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:20, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • [83] and [85] are the same citation.
  • In [109], both sub-citations are the same.

Otherwise everything looks good. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:52, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • RE: Schneider: It's an e-book so I don't have any page numbers, the best I've been able to do is narrow it down by chapter.
  • RE: Locations: I've added a location to Vest, removed the link on one for consistency
  • RE: Website v Publisher, references are the worst part, I think I did these before a discussion on cite web regarding the use of the website parameter. I've removed the publisher parameters.
  • RE: Filmsite: Filmsite is a long standing speciality website managed by Film Historian Tim Dirks, relating to the film industry, and has been recognized by professionals such as Roger Ebert, Variety, and the Encyclopedia Britannica, and it's a one-man operation without any contributors or paid for articles as seen here
  • RE: Screenrant.com: Screen Rant is another speciality website in terms of relating specifically to the film industry and its history. It does have a clear editorial team, as well as a fact checking policy and according to Semrush has over 100 million visitors in the last month and is in the top 1,000 sites on the web.
  • RE: Film school rejects: It's similar to screen rant above in terms of speciality information and covering some info I just haven't been able to find elsewhere because it might be considered minituae about a character for instance, they have an editorial team and don't accept contributor postings, it's been recognized by major publicatiions such as Total Film, and it is registered as an LLC so it has some legal obligations.
  • RE: Filmtracks: This is similar to Filmsite in that it is a one-man operation with speciality knowledge that has been running for nearly 30 years and has been recognized by publications including Film Score Monthly and Entertainment Weekly, and the man running it all, Christian Clemmensen, is a member of the international film music critics society so he is a professional with expert knowledge
  • RE: FXGuide: Again its another speciality website with a focus on special effects by experts in the field. The site has provided speciality media for The Daily and Wired. It's about page is brief but mentions it is registered as an LLC with three clear editorial/owner staff, although one has sadly passed. The interviews they conduct, such as the one used in Total Recall, are also done with those involved with the film so it is coming from directly involved professionals.
  • RE: Ref 83 and 85, good catch, I've been thrown off by the different formatting/layout in each archive.
  • RE: Ref 109, the archive is two pages because the older version was broken up that way and it was the alternative I expected people would use because the live site is restricted by a paid membership.
  • I think I caught every question, thanks for taking the time to do this Mike. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 09:24, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I've struck most points above. For the three remaining sites, can you point me at anything that shows they are treated as reliable by industry sources, or anything else that would help establish reliability? The two one-man operations, in particular, are functionally equivalent to blogs so we need a bit more, I think. Has the film WikiProject got any background material that would help show they are reliable? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:50, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have used those 3 sites in recent FAs, but I'll do my best:
Filmsite was previously purchased from Dirks by AMC until Dirks bought it back in about 2020. Ebert quotes him here, and make a lot of references to it throughout his career, IMDb references his work here. He is an approved Rotten Tomatoes critic, he was a writer for Sundance (the film festival). I think this evidences he is a professional critic/film historian and is treated as such.
Per the above, Filmtracks is maintained by Clemmensen who is a member of the international film music critics society which is a recognized, professional body, so he is a professional with expert knowledge. The site is mentioned in Variety, EW, as well as publised books such as The Sound of Cinema, Contemporary Film Music: Investigating Cinema Narratives and Composition and the The Oxford Handbook of Cinematic Listening, as well as research documents. I believe his acceptance as a professional and his reliability is solid.
With FXGuide, the answers are coming from those directly involved in the production so the information being cited is not to do with third parties or the site staff and its irreplaceable speciality knowledge. It was founded by Jeff Heuser, Mike Seymour, and John Montgomery who are professionals in their field. Seymour's linkedin in particular marks him as a Ph.D,. Researcher, Lecturer, Writer Media-Tech Specialist Digital Humans: MOTUS Lab USYD & fxguide co-founder. They've done features for sites such as Wired here, here, and here.
Hopefully this of some use. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 13:09, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Those all look OK; thanks for the links. It doesn't really help to say they've been used in previous FAs, since I can't tell if the source reviewer looked at them or what they said, but feel free to point me at this FAC if I ask about any of these in the future.

Pass. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:36, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Mike, yeah I thought that might be a bit WP: OTHERSTUFF, unfortunately some of the most useful sites for these older films are not on the recognition level of something like IGN or the New York times. Thanks for taking time with this! Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 13:56, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Gog the Mild, sorry to bother you but you're the only name I know off the top of my head. Is there somewhere to request an image/media review like there is for sources? I think that's all that's missing. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 09:59, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, it goes in the same place, but specify the type of review you need. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:23, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review Image licenses, rationales for non-free files and samples and uses seem OK to me. Not all images have ALT text, though. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:32, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Jo-Jo Eumerus, I'll sort the ALTs shortly, just having tea. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 17:21, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 17:55, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Hog Farm via FACBot (talk) 10 May 2022 [43].

No (Meghan Trainor song)[edit]

Nominator(s): NØ 21:40, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Meghan Trainor's song "No", which she released as the lead single from her second major-label studio album. Hot off the heels of her winning the Grammy Award for Best New Artist, "No" became the most positively received single of Trainor's career and drew attention for its music video. I have worked on this article for several years now. I would like to thank Aoba47 for giving it an extensive and highly helpful peer review. Thanks a lot to everyone who will take the time to give their feedback here.--NØ 21:40, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aoba47[edit]

  • In the lead's opening sentence, I believe the semi-colon should be a comma. From my understanding, a semi-colon is used to link two independent clauses, which is not the case here.
  • Fixed.
  • The lead says the music video received criticism for its choreography, but I only see one source (i.e. the Out one) that is explicitly negative about this.
  • Reworded.
  • Added.
  • For this part, Lynch stated that she was more confident on "No", I'd clarify the "she" being discussed is Trainor.
  • Done.
  • I am not sure the "on the former song" part is necessary in this sentence: Writing for Spin, Brennan Carley thought Trainor gave up her "sock-hopping persona" in favor of straightforward truth-telling" on the former song.
  • Removed.
  • How are the first two paragraphs of the "Critical reception" section currently structured? The content itself is good, but the structure is not entirely clear to me as various trends in reviews, such as the song's more pop approach and its lyrics, are brought up in both paragraphs.
  • Rewritten. First paragraph - Positive reviews, Second paragraph - Mixed to negative reviews, Third paragraph - Year-end lists.
  • I have a comment about this part, Time and Carvell Wallace of MTV News accused Trainor of appropriating the African-American accent. The Time article reports that outlets include the MTV News one has discussed, but Time writer themselves does not make this critique. They are more so reporting about it. I would clarify this point in the article.
  • Amended.
  • I do not think the "just as awesome" quote is particularly informative or necessary.
  • Removed.
  • This part, Trainor could comfortably execute choreographed dance routines in, seems unnecessarily word. Wouldn't something like Trainor could comfortably dance in, be more concise?
  • Reworded.
  • I believe the first paragraph of the "Reception" subsection in the "Music video" section could benefit from further revision. The content itself is good, but the prose comes across more like a list of different critics and their opinions. I think the information could be presented in a more engaging way.
  • Revised. First paragraph - Comparisons, Second paragraph - Positive reviews, Third paragraph - Mixed to negative reviews.

Great work with the article. Once my above comments are addressed, I will read through the article again just to make sure I do as thorough a review as possible. I've been feeling under the weather for the past few days so apologies for not getting to this sooner. Aoba47 (talk) 23:16, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hey Aoba47, sorry for my slow response. I randomly ended up deciding to rewrite two sections completely. I have implemented all of your incredible suggestions and await your read through :) Greetings!--NØ 17:48, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for addressing everything. I will read through the article again tomorrow. Aoba47 (talk) 01:56, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the "Critical reception" section, the end of the first paragraph and the beginning of the second one use a similar sentence construction (i.e. "Writing for X") so it may be beneficial to change it up to keep the prose engaging.
  • Changed up.
  • I'd specify which season of Superstore that this song was featured on, and I would say television show instead of TV show as the latter seems a little too informal for Wikipedia.
  • Added and changed.
  • I'd make sure to archive all of your web citations to avoid any future headache with link rot and death. I am only recommending this as I have noticed Citation 23 is not archived.
  • Archive added.

I believe this should be the end of my review. Aside from my last point, my review is focused primarily on the prose. Once everything has been addressed, I will be more than happy to support this FAC for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 11:38, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: Thank you so much for the review. I believe I have addressed the outstanding concerns. Have a great week!--NØ 12:01, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for adding one additional comment. I have a question about this sentence: It concludes with all previous scenes meshed with shots of women holding torches. I have rewatched the video and it looks like they are holding flares and not torches so I checked the source being used to support this sentence, but I cannot find it supported there. Could you clarify this for me? Sorry again for this rather nitpick-y point. This should be the last point before I support this FAC. Aoba47 (talk) 00:07, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I must have made the mistake while paraphrasing, perceiving the words to be synonyms. Please check the new wording and feel free to change anything else.--NØ 02:58, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your patience. I support this FAC for promotion based on the prose. Best of luck with this FAC. Aoba47 (talk) 03:27, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Realmaxxver[edit]

Placeholder. Realmaxxver (talk) 18:49, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Looking forward to your review, Realmaxxver.--NØ 13:50, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The song's instrumentation also makes use of whistles; Isabella Biedenharn of Entertainment Weekly described it as "a catchy sundae of whistles and sassy quips".[23]" → "The song's instrumentation also makes use of whistles; described by Isabella Biedenharn of Entertainment Weekly as "a catchy sundae of whistles and sassy quips".[23]"
  • Done, but with a comma since a semicolon is inappropriate here.
  • "Billboard named "No" the 100th best song of 2016, writing that Trainor decimates the entitled male ego on it. The magazine noted that the song encapsulates the drivel a woman has to put up with before finding a husband.[38]" → "Billboard named "No" the 100th best song of 2016, writing that Trainor decimates the entitled male ego on it; noting that the song encapsulates the drivel a woman has to put up with before finding a husband.[38]"
  • "On April 9, 2016, it moved from number 12 to number six on the Billboard Hot 100 and became Trainor's fourth top 10 entry.[41] "No" peaked at number three in its fourth week on the chart.[42]" → "On April 9, 2016, it moved from number 12 to number six on the Billboard Hot 100 and became Trainor's fourth top 10 entry,[41] peaking at number three in its fourth week on the chart.[42]"
  • I am sorry but I don't see how making these sentences longer improves the reading experience.
  • "and Trainor's outfits to the ones the latter wore while promoting her album Erotica (1992).[75]" replace "the ones" with "those"
  • Replaced.
  • "Trainor sang it on The Voice UK's fifth season finale on April 10,[86] and The Ellen DeGeneres Show 10 days later. She accompanied both performances with one-armed choreography.[86][87]" → "Trainor sang it on The Voice UK's fifth season finale on April 10,[86] and The Ellen DeGeneres Show 10 days later; accompanying both performances with one-armed choreography.[86][87]"
  • Done with a tweak.
  • Thank you, Realmaxxver. I have replied to your comments.--NØ 18:20, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pseud 14[edit]

General prose review. I've dabbled in a few FAC reviews of songs prior, so hopefully this be helpful. I have not gone through the above comments, so apologies for the repetition, if you find one.

  • Suggest naming the section "Commercial performance" instead of "Chart performance" since it does touch on chart placements and sales too.
  • Done.
  • US Billboard Hot 100 issued for March 26 -- I think you should also include the year for context as this is the first sentence under Chart performance section.
  • Included now.
  • which was filmed on March 4. -- include year, same as above, for any reader who may want to jump straight into this section.
  • Ditto.
  • with a female dance troupe -- I would say female dancers or female backup dancers
  • Done.
  • MTV News' Sasha Geffen – be consistent with usage, since you've started using MTV News's
  • Fixed.
  • arms with the troupe – perhaps use of 'dancers' is simple and straightforward, same as above
  • Fixed.
  • during the promotional cycle for her album Erotica (1992). – while promoting her album Erotica.
  • Amended.
  • Real thought the video recalled – I would probably include the publication he writes for just to distinguish that this is a writer/person.
  • Real's full name and publication are mentioned in the sub-section right above so repeating it so soon might be overkill.
  • performed "No" live at the 3rd iHeartRadio Music Awards on April 3 -- same as above, I would add year, as the first instance in this paragraph.
  • Added.
  • in a sparkly skirt and military jacket on The Ellen DeGeneres Show -- I don’t think it’s necessary to include what she’s wearing, same as with her 2016 Billboard performance. I’ve referenced other "Live performances" sections for similar FAs, and this doesn’t seem to be the inclination IMO.
  • Removed this part.
  • That's all from me. Great extensive work on all Meghan Trainor-related articles. Pseud 14 (talk) 18:55, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Pseud 14: Thank you so much for the compliments and suggestions. All done.--NØ 19:20, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Happy to support this article for promotion. By the way, if you have the time or inclination, I'd appreciate your feedback on my current FAC, as I see you have experience with BLPs as well. Not to worry if things are busy on your front. Pseud 14 (talk) 19:29, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

AK[edit]

  • Disclaimer: I haven't checked references and will be claiming credit at the Wikicup.
  • Made some minor edits.
  • Looks great.
  • "Jacob Kasher Hindlin, which Epic Records released as the album's lead single" → "Jacob Kasher Hindlin; Epic Records released it as the album's lead single"
  • Semicolon added.
  • The RIAA acronym isn't used again in the lead and doesn't need to be mentioned.
  • Removed.
  • "said that 'let's" → The "that" isn't necessary.
  • Removed.
  • "A karaoke version of "No" appears as the 18th track on the Japanese edition of Thank You." → Is this really significant enough to mention?
  • Removed.
  • "keyboards, piano, produced" → "keyboards, piano, and produced"
  • Changed.
  • "song is way more suitable" → "song was way more suitable"?
  • Reworded.
  • RIAA and BPI aren't used in the body and so don't need to be mentioned.
  • Removed.
  • Amended.
  • "Spears's" → "Spears'"?
  • Changed.
  • Thanks for the review, AryKun. I have made all the changes. Regards.--NØ 15:24, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Media review from Elias (Pass)[edit]

  • I'll take a look at this. By the way, I have my own song FAC over here, and while of course you are not obligated to review, a QPQ would be appreciated.

‍ ‍ elias. 🧣 ‍ ‍ 💬reach out to me
📝see my work 13:00, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • ALT TEXTS are succinct. It manages to strike the perfect balance between short and descriptive. Nice!
  • Thank you.
  • File:Meghan Trainor - NØ (Official Single Cover).png - the non-free use rationale needs to indicate a source link. Otherwise, the other parameters are alright
  • Added.
  • File:Ricky Reed 2015 BMI Pop Awards.png - I like the caption, but you may wish to add the year in which the photo was taken
  • Since this isn't compulsory I would prefer not to, just out of personal preference.
  • Fair enough
  • File:Meghan Trainor - NØ.ogg - The sample's non-free content rationale could use a little work. I find that File:Taylor Swift - Shake_It_Off.ogg is an example of how to do this well. A lot of the times, samples are included in song or album articles to illustrate its production (instruments and such are hard to convey through text alone, after all) as well as the mood or tone that they give off. Reading the composition section, I could see a case for its inclusion in the article if it was used to audibly illustrate the "crisp guitar instrumentation and a beat that recalls The Neptunes" and the comparisons to the works of Britney Spears and Max Martin (a well-known record producer - I'll specify that in the article if I were you)
  • I would prefer to keep the sample caption in the article concise if that's okay. It is obviously demonstrating a bunch of things that are discussed in the section and I have updated the rationale to reflect that. This is acceptable practice from my experience at FAC.
  • I would agree that the sample caption should address only one or two aspects of the song to keep things concise! Though I'm not entirely sure if Trainor "repeating 'no' to emphasize the word's eternal nature and decisiveness" should be the main thing that the caption tackles. Primarily because I think that text alone will suffice in conveying that information (?) if that makes sense. I'm leaning towards including info about the instrumentals in the caption because, as has been mentioned earlier, such info is hard to convey through words alone. Something like "A 21-second sample of 'No', a dance-pop song in which Trainor, on top of a crisp guitar instrumentation, repeatedly says "no" to emphasize the word's eternal nature and decisiveness" will suffice, honestly, and I think the sample caption would still remain concise that way. However, I will leave the decision of what to include up to you
  • I like the wording you just suggested so I have kept it around those lines.
  • Neat :)
  • PS, hooray for subtitles!
  • File:NØ screenshot.png - while the source cited in the caption does compare Trainor's video with Spears's and Madonna's works, this is coming from a Billboard writer who drew the comparison themself, instead of describing how multiple other writers made the comparisons. I'd change that from "Critics observed..." to "Joe Lynch of Billboard observed..." and such, to uphold source-text integrity
  • Too much text in the caption box causes the section to be dominated by the picture. The comparisons were not made by just one critic by the way as you would be able to tell upon reading the whole music video section. I have highlighted Spears and made a general mention for the other artists. Hope this is satisfactory.
  • The additional citation in the caption helps address my concerns. Thank you!
  • Thank you as well for bringing this to my attention. :)
  • Furthermore, the caption says that the sexual nature of the video was a departure from Trainor's previous MVs, but the fair use rationale does not state this. You might want to add that detail in there to strengthen the justification used to include it in the article, as well as state the names of some writers who pointed out the sexual vibes just in case
  • I hope you like the updated rationale.
  • That's better ^^

That's all from me! Please make sure to ping me when you are done addressing the following concerns. Thanks ^^‍ ‍ elias. 🧣 ‍ ‍ 💬reach out to me
📝see my work 13:00, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Troubled.elias, do go through the changes and my explanations whenever you are able to. Regards.--NØ 13:59, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@MaranoFan, thank you for the prompt response! Most of my points have been addressed, although I still am somewhat unsure about the sample caption. Hopefully we can work out a solution to that issue I raised---once that's resolved, I'll be happy to give the media review a pass.
All the following comments above have been addressed accordingly. Hence, the media review gets a pass from me.
  • Additional comments: I hope you wouldn't some comments beyond the media review. Here are some things I noticed through a very quick skim of the article.
  • "Fatima Robinson directed the music video for 'No', which features Trainor performing choreography in a warehouse and entwining her arms with female dancers. Critics compared it to the visuals of various 1990s female artists and praised her evolution in it..." I'd change "female dancers" to "backup dancers" to avoid repetition in this part. And it would help to clarify what kind of "evolution" she showed in the music video, which was a stylistic one. I first got the impression that her choreography evolved because of the emphasis on dancers, so it will help if things were clearer
  • Unfortunately I don't think "backup dancers" evokes the same imagery in the reader's mind that "female dancers" does. Honestly the current wording doesn't seem like too big of an issue to me, what say?
  • I'd be fine if you kept the "female dancer" wording, honestly. It's not that much of a dealbreaker; sometimes, repetition can't be avoided. But if you ask me, I still believe the lead needs to specify what evolution she went through in her music video. It's not that obvious that the evolution was stylistic at first glance, especially to any readers who will be unfamiliar with Trainor's past work.
  • Someone once advised me that the lead is supposed to entice the reader and draw them into reading the rest of it. So if they are curious about her evolution, we are establishing this purpose!
  • I looked at the release history section and noticed something odd. There was a rough consensus per this discussion not to use BBC Radio 1 as a source for single releases in the UK. Since WP:FACRITERIA states that we have to use high-quality, reliable sources to support information in an article, I believe that that table row can go.
  • Removed from the release history section. The discussion you linked seems to have concluded that it should be kept out of that section but is fine to mention in prose? Either way we aren't using it for the single release date but just noting it was selected as "Track of the Day". Let me know what you think about this. "Shake It Off" seems to use it in the prose as well.
  • I'd hazard a guess and say that it will be fine to keep it, but I don't know. Perhaps a second opinion from other editors would be beneficial
  • It passed the source review so that's our second opinion right there.
  • Ditto with the relevant sentence in the Background and release section. I'd also change "serviced to radio stations" to synonyms such as "sent the song to radio stations" or "promoted the song to radio stations" to avoid confusing readers outside of the music sphere with industry jargon‍ ‍ elias. 🧣 ‍ ‍ 💬reach out to me
    📝see my work     11:57, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed to "promoted" and "solicited". Thanks for these, Elias.--NØ 12:33, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review by Mike Christie (Pass)[edit]

Footnote numbers refer to this version.

  • What's the logic behind your use of the publisher and work/newspaper/website parameters? I see some use publisher and some don't. For {{cite web}}, you have some with publisher and some with work/website -- there's a good deal of latitude but you have to have a consistent rule.
    Generally I've kept up with how the Wikipedia articles for the respective publications do it. Which seems to be websites, magazines and newspapers where only content is written are italicized, and TV channels (Fuse, MTV News, ABC News), radio shows (BBC Radio 1, Radio Airplay SRL), and download providers (Amazon, iTunes) are not italicized.
    That's an acceptable approach but then GfK Entertainment should not be italicized in [125]; and I see you call it just "GfK Entertainment in [125] but "GfK Entertainment Charts" in [57]. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:56, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Fixed.
  • You don't link Billboard in 90 but do elsewhere; this is the only inconsistency of this type I saw but please check.
    Should be linked now.

What makes the following reliable sources?

  • Stereogum
    The critic cited has contributed to several prestigious publications like Billboard and Rolling Stone (Full list). Stereogum itself has an editorial team and is cited on various FAs.
  • [48], which is a dropbox link to a PDF
    Although quite bizarre, ARIA's official website produces a link to Dropbox if you scroll down to find "Latest accreditations"
  • hitparada.ifpicr.cz
    These links are automatically produced by the singlechart template so we can only assume it is accepted on Wikipedia. It seems to be the only official site maintaining these.
    I think we need to know a bit more. Can you find a discussion about why they were assumed reliable by the builders of that template? I can't tell whether it is in fact official just from poking around on the site; can you find anything on the site that would support that? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:56, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I can only find this discussion where it is referred to as the official site, along with its usage on every song FA ever. Not sure if these pages are any help. A bit random but can you give a better justification for the reliability of this chart site, Ss112? It would be detrimental to a lot of song articles if it became unacceptable at FA.--NØ 12:20, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The pages you found are what I was looking for; this looks fine. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:34, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tophit
    Tophit, again, is the official chart provider for Russia and we can trust their official website. It is entered as an acceptable chart at Template:Single chart.
    OK -- I was able to find some more details on their website. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:56, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Will look at links next and will check formatting again once you've responded to the queries above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:18, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In [18], why are you using the "others" field? See this.

Changed the label to author which seems to be okay from another FA.

Out of time today; will return to this probably tomorrow. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:27, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

More:

  • The archive link for [37] goes to a page with only #10 on it that doesn't include #6.
    Assuming this was referring to the Time ref it should be fixed now.
  • The link for [50] doesn't find anything.
    Changed to this which has it as Gold-certified at #27.
  • [61] is giving me a 404 error.
    This seems to be a problem affecting all pre-2016 Slovak charts and this error can also be seen at FAs like "Blank Space" and "Shake It Off", attempts have been made to discuss it at Wikipedia talk:Record charts. In the meantime, would you suggest keeping them or removing them from here?
    If the page can't be reached and we have no archive of the page then I think it should go till it can be replaced. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:56, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Removed.
  • The archive link for [69] doesn't work.
    Removed.
  • I don't understand the page reached by [130]. How does that support the Danish gold certification in the article?

That's everything I can find. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:05, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gold seems to be written as "Guld" in Danish. If you read it again you will see. Thank you for the review.--NØ 06:38, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Using Google Translate the page says "Submitted by maf on Tue, 10/16/2018 - 10:11 Tue, 10/09/2018 - 12:00 TrackMeghan TrainorNoSony MusicGuld2018-SD373223206". I accept that Guld means Gold, but how does this support a gold certification? If anything it looks more like a submission of something by an external user. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:56, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Every discussion I can find ([44]) seems to discuss it as the official site rather than getting into why it is official. Similar links for Shake It Off and Blank Space by Taylor Swift and Diamonds by Rihanna are used on those FAs. I could, highly reluctantly, remove it if you insist. Their about page looks pretty official to me so I am unsure what other proof I can produce.--NØ 11:52, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I accept that the site is official, I just can't see how to interpret that page. E.g. if one were able to reach that page from another page on the site that said "List gold certifications for Meghan Trainor" that would be fine. As it stands it seems to be a submission, not a certification. FunkMonk, I recall from other FAs that you speak Danish; would you mind having a look at this site and see if you can confirm it supports the gold certification? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:40, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, but this[45] particular link seems to be broken or something, can't see any relevant text, perhaps there's an archived version I can look at? FunkMonk (talk) 14:31, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    No, that's the right link -- that's the question. It says something about Meghan Trainor, "No", and gold, but I can't figure out whether that page actually says "Yes this is certified gold". It looks like a submission rather than something the site has officially approved. MaranoFan, how did you find this page? Did you go through some menu or search that brought you to it as a results page? That might clarify what it means. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:02, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That's fine. I have removed it, for the time being. A larger discussion about the site will need to take place at the relevant noticeboards, outside of the scope of this FAC, given thousands of articles are using pages formatted the exact same way!
    Perhaps they don't know their older links are broken, maybe they could be notified. Nothing useful shows up with the wayback machine. There is nothing in that link that makes sense in either language. FunkMonk (talk) 16:55, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for taking a look. NØ, would you mind letting me know when/where the discussion about the link is, when it happens? Thanks. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:02, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure will. Do feel free to start it yourself if you wish to though.--NØ 17:05, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Where would be a good place? WT:ALBUMS? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:24, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Was that the last of your concerns prior to passing the source review, Mike Christie?--NØ 15:16, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pass. Yes, that was the last point. I'm quite willing to believe it's a valid link, but at the moment I can't see how one would demonstrate that. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:23, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you and I do see the point.--NØ 15:30, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request for the coordinators[edit]

Hello GTM! I was wondering if given the progress at [this] FAC, would it be okay for me to start another one very soon (maybe within the next 1-2 days)? Sorry for bothering but it's just that I want the next one I'm going to nominate to appear on the main page in June, so I really need to hurry.--NØ 10:11, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MaranoFan, go ahead. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:35, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Copied from my talk page. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:35, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • @FAC coordinators: If it isn't too much of a bother, I would also like a status update on whether everything is in order for this to be promoted. Thanks for your cooperation!--NØ 20:36, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I was just giving this nomination a few more days to see if it attracted further reviewer attention before looking through it myself. But if one of my fellow reviewers felt that a consensus to promote had already been demonstrated I would have no issue with that. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:41, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Hog Farm via FACBot (talk) 6 May 2022 [46].

Charles Richardson (Royal Navy officer)[edit]

Nominator(s): Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 22:22, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Charles Richardson was a Royal Navy officer who served in the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars, eventually reaching the rank of vice-admiral. While most of Richardson's fellow admirals gained the majority of their experience at sea, Richardson found his calling on land, managing to fight in several British Army campaigns. Richardson was also a successful naval commander when he found time to be so, commanding six warships. He continued in the navy after the end of the wars, ending his career in rather strange circumstances surrounding a diplomatic incident in China. Having created this article and then brought it through GAN and ACR, I am now putting it up for consideration here. This is my first attempt at ever doing so! Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 22:22, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review pass per ACR (t · c) buidhe 22:40, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Tim riley[edit]

This is an interesting and engaging article – well written and evidently (to this layman's eye) comprehensive and widely sourced. It may be a first FAC but it strikes me as a pretty good one. A few comments on the prose:

  • Lead
  • "he successfully combatted" – the OED, Fowler and Chambers all give the past tense of the verb as "combated". (There's a "combatting" later, too: the single "t" is correct for all inflected forms of the verb.)
  • Done.
  • "he personally secured the Dutch admiral" – I see from the main text that this means "captured", and it might be as well to use that word, which is clearer, I think.
  • Done.
  • "en flute" – I had to look that one up. The OED spells it as you spell it, but our Wikipedia article Frenchifies it –en flûte. I have no view on the matter and merely bring the discrepancy to your attention.
  • I'll keep it as it is unless any stronger opinions arise.
  • East Indies
  • "to convey politician Charles Allan Cathcart" – clunky false title; a "the" before "politician" is all that's needed to remedy it.
  • Done.
  • "This position never eventuated" – wonderfully circumlocutory: do you mean this didn't happen?
  • Indeed!
  • "Having stayed on on the East Indies Station" – the repeated "on" is grammatically all right but looks strange: "remained on the…" or similar might flow better.
  • Done.
  • "before he re-joined Phoenix" – superfluous hyphen: the verb is "rejoin" according to the OED and Chambers. (There's another re-join later in the text.)
  • Done.
  • English Channel and the North Sea
  • "Anglo-Russian invasion" – is "Anglo-Something" still appropriate for events after the creation of Great Britain in 1707? One still sees it used, but I wonder if it is right. I'm not sure, and won't object if you prefer to stick with it.
  • Egypt
  • "due to disease being rife –"due to" is accepted in American usage as a compound preposition on a par with "owing to", but in BrE it is not universally so regarded. "Owing to" or, better, "because of" is safer. Something like "because disease was rife … and poor weather hampered…" would be better, I think.
  • Done.
  • "where the brigade had eighty-five casualties" – you are a bit inconsistent in how you record numbers: "92 casualties from a crew of 866", "killing twenty-five of her crew", "The 519 Dutch soldiers", "thirty-six acres (fifteen hectares)", "600 yards from the town". I'm with you in expressing numbers in words rather than figures when reasonably practicable (though not everyone would agree with me) but there's scope for consistency.
  • My rule has always been that I write out numbers that are below three figures, unless they are in a sentence also using a larger number, as your first example does. I am not sure how I might go about fixing this but am open to any suggestions!
  • Your practice makes perfect sense now you explain it. I'd certainly leave things as they are. Tim riley talk 10:25, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Having come to the attention of Abercromby in both Holland and now Egypt, the general subsequently appointed Richardson" – the dangling modifier needs attention. Something on the lines of "After Richardson came to the attention of Abercromby …. the general appointed him …." would avoid the grammatical error.
  • Done.
  • Walcheren Campaign
  • "Then on 11 April they fought the Battle of the Basque Roads" – who are "they"? The only plural for it to refer back to is "three French frigates", which is plainly not what you mean.
  • Rejigged to hopefully make more sense.
  • "because of her draught" – this could do with explaining: because her draught was too what?
  • Large.
  • "commenced firing" – strangely prissy verb (what Fowler calls a "genteelism") for such a vigorous action. "Began" or "started" firing, or even "opened fire", would be stronger, I think.
  • Done.
  • Post-war service and retirement
  • "tensions deescalated on 20 February 1822" – do tensions escalate and deescalate? Perhaps "eased" might be preferable.
  • Done.
  • References
  • "It would be good to include OCLC numbers for books published before ISBNs came in. WorldCat will oblige.
  • Find that I am not the best with these. Have added what I could, but have failed with a couple.
  • "James, Wiliam (1837)" – Really Wiliam rather than William?
  • Oops!

Nothing to cause alarm and despondency, I feel. I'll look in again once you've had time to consider these few points. Tim riley talk 10:52, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Afterthought: I was enormously impressed when reading through by your stern refusal to insert superfluous AmE-style commas where they are not required in the Queen's English. I felt a bit humbled, as I have given way here and there over the years to these otiose commas in my own prose. I hope you will fend off any attempts to insert these excrescences, using incendiary rockets and 24-pounder cannon as required. Tim riley talk 20:14, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Tim riley: Hi, thank you for your comments! I have replied to all of them. The commas (or lack of them) are most likely down to my absorbing so much British writing when researching for articles such as this. I take little credit! Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 21:48, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
One last read-through and I'll be back to − I hope − support. Tim riley talk 10:25, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to support. This readable − not to say rollicking − article is well written, appears comprehensive, is widely sourced, well proportioned and admirably illustrated. Meets all the criteria for FA in my view. I hope we shall see further FACs from this source. − Tim riley talk 17:08, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild[edit]

Recusing to review.

  • "between 1791 and 1792." Perhaps 'in 1791 and 1792.'
  • Done.
  • "given command of the en flute HMS Alligator." Could we have an in line explanation of "en flute", if only in brackets?
  • An explanation in brackets is already given in the main text, I feel having it in the lede as well might clog it up a little much?
  • "where he took command of a naval brigade". Perhaps add 'operating ashore?
  • Done.
  • "in the parish of Shap, in Westmorland". Add 'England'.
  • Done.
  • Optional: a footnote explaining that passing the exam for promotion to lieutenant and actually being promoted were different things?
  • The house is being painted right now and my books are all over the place, but I'll attempt to add a suitable note and reference later on.
  • Perhaps mention that Abercromby died at the Battle of Alexandria? Perhaps mention its outcome?
  • Done.
  • "Caesar was little engaged in the latter battle because of her large draught." The "latter battle" is Les Sables-d'Olonne, which probably isn't what you mean.
  • Fixed.
  • Yes.
  • Perhaps mention when the Napoleonic War ends?
  • Done.

That's all I have. Nice work. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:49, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: Hi, thanks for the comments! I've acted on all of them bar the examination query (for now!). Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 21:14, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments and Source Review - Ykraps[edit]

  • Until the age of fifteen Richardson was educated at the village of Bampton - Is it 'at the village' or 'in the village'?
  • ...and buried at Fort St. George, where his grave would be visited by Richardson while he served on that station in later years. - The source doesn't say Richardson visited the grave, merely that he saw the site of it (Fort St George) from the ship.
  • True. The whole part seems like a bit of artistic license from the biographer, really! I've rewritten it.
Nicely done.--Ykraps (talk) 07:21, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cathcart was already ill when he began the mission... - This is discussed on page 3 of Armstrong, not page 5. Either add a p. 3 citation after mission, or extend the cite at the end of the paragraph to pp. 3-5
  • Have added a separate p. 3 citation, p. 4 not being at all relevant.
Best option, I think.--Ykraps (talk) 07:21, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cathcart agreed that upon reaching China Richardson would become his aide de camp... - Perhaps change 'on reaching China' to 'on arrival in China' to avoid close paraphrasing
  • Done.
  • The captain of Alexander, Captain Thomas West, wanted to replace Richardson with his own nephew, and made it known to the other officers that this was his goal. - In the book I have access to, this is covered by pp. 21-22 not p. 22. Do you have a different book?
  • Nope, a slip from me there. Thanks for the comments so far!
It has happened so thought I'd better ask before commenting on further anomalies.--Ykraps (talk) 07:21, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

More to come. --Ykraps (talk) 20:16, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm not entirely sure that casualties (article) is the same as hors-de-combat (source). I may be being overly picky. Thoughts?
  • Assuming that you are talking about the Royal George figures, I believe "casualties" is a standard enough way of grouping those killed and wounded in battle.
No, I was talking about the Battle of Mandora, The article says the brigade suffered 85 casualties but the source (Armstrong p. 113) describes them as hors-de-combat. These are combatants prevented from taking part for any reason including death, wounds, those who deserted or were taken prisoner, and those who couldn't function effectively because an essential piece of equipment had been put out of action. A gun crew whose cannon has exploded or a cavalryman whose horse has been killed for example. The reason I think I'm being over picky is because the modern (though not contemporary) definition of casualty includes deserters and POWs, and I can't think of any other reason that would have stopped members of Smith's brigade from carrying on.
  • I see now, thanks. Do you think "eighty-five men hors de combat" would be acceptable, or perhaps the same translated into English?
The best I could come up with was 'put out of action' or 'incapacitated' (as in made incapable). If you don't like either of those, then quoting the source verbatim would be okay.
  • Went with incapacitated.
  • Is it worth mentioning that (according to Armstrong (p. 117)) Richardson also had a combat role at Alexandria, "...headed the tars in their attacks on the enemy"?
  • Done.
  • He subsequently fought at the Battle of Suriname on 5 May 1804... ...was confirmed on 27 September of the same year. This is quite a long passage before a citation. Perhaps add a couple of interim ones?
  • Done.
  • He was not unemployed for long... ....Allemand safely entering Toulon. Ditto
  • Done.
  • On 24 August of the same year... ...congratulated Richardson on the action. Ditto
  • Done.
  • The sentence beginning "Richardson returned to England with Hood in March 1805..." is cited to Armstrong, Byrne and Winfield. My copy of Winfield has HMS Romney on page 116 which doesn't seem to be relevant to Richardson. Is this an error or a different version of the book?
  • I think it must be a different book version. Mine has Centaur on p. 116.
That's on p. 37 in mine but I don't doubt you. As I said, it's happened before.
  • "In February 1808 Strachan's squadron was sent to chase a different French force, this time of Rear-Admiral Zacharie Allemand, in the Mediterranean Sea". This is dealt with on p. 155 of Armstrong's book not p. 150 as the citation currently says
  • Changed. Had not realised I'd made such a mess with some of these citations. Can only thank you for your assistance!
  • Add a source that says Allemand safely entered Toulon; neither Armstrong nor Marshall verify this. If you need help with this let me know. Also, the date he arrived there would be good.
Sorry, I was looking at O'Byrne, not Marshall. Still, a date would be good, if you have one.
  • Yep, 6 February.
  • "While on half pay Richardson was rewarded for his services on 4 July 1815 with his appointment as a Companion of the Order of the Bath; the Napoleonic Wars ended that November". Can we have a source that says the Napoleonic wars ended in November 1815 and that Richardson was on half pay? Just for us pedants.
  • Trimmed sentence to more accurately represent the source, which included removing the half-pay comment entirely. While I think it is almost impossible that Richardson wasn't on half-pay at this point, the source does not explicitly say it. Added ref for the date.
I agree, he almost certainly was on half pay but without a reference, it could be construed as OR.
  • Re fn 80. Volume 35 of the Gentleman's Magazine comprises several issues so an issue number is required. If you don't know it, you might find it here. [[47]]
  • Done. Struggled with the citation formatting but hopefully what I've done works.
It's one of the reasons I shy away from templates. Does Syrett and DiNardo also say Richardson died at 83? The reason I'm fussing is that Armstrong says 81 ("...in his 82nd year").
  • Syrett and DiNardo don't provide that kind of information - they only very occasionally provide dates of death at all. The ref is there for his rank at death. I think mathematically it makes more sense for Richardson to have been 81, but am unsure whether "that's what it adds up to" is a good enough reason for saying that The Gentleman's Magazine is wrong and Armstrong right?
What about leaving the main text as is but adding a footnote about how sources differ?
  • Done.
  • "...but never married, living there instead with retainers including the coxswain who had served with him at Alexandria". Neither reference mentions marriage or living with retainers. Armstrong (p. 222) says his coxswain ...spent some months of the year with his old commander but this (in my opinion) is visiting rather than living with. Also, this time could have been spent away from the house.
  • Here we see a (hopefully rare!) example of me getting overly flowery in my writing as I get closer to finishing an article. Removed mention of the coxswain entirely, being trivia more than anything in my opinion.
  • I can't see how the two references given corroborate footnote 4. Lavery explains the role of non-line of battle ships in signal repeating and Clowes shows Circe to windward of the fleet but she is not the only vessel pictured there. Both O 'Byrne and Marshall, used to reference the main text, explicitly state that Circe was one of the repeaters.
  • Well this is a little awkward considering I've since written HMS Beaulieu, which was another repeater at the battle..! Was a very cack-handed attempt to explain the role of Circe and repeating frigates in the battle, which is hopefully rectified.

More to come. I like working in managable chunks like this but others prefer to have the whole lot in one go. Do you have a preference?--Ykraps (talk) 07:21, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to continue on like this, but not averse to larger chunks if you want to change your process! Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 08:53, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Still looking but should be finished over the weekend.--Ykraps (talk) 04:51, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • "...and joined instead the 74-gun ship of the line HMS Alexander on 28 December, serving in Admiral Lord Howe's Channel Fleet" Is that Lord Howe's or Lord Bridport's Channel Fleet. --Ykraps (talk) 08:30, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, I was thrown by the Marshall source that talks about the flagship of Alex Hood. Hood was one of Howe's admirals at the time. Never-the-less, neither source says Howe commanded the Channel Fleet. Can we drop one in? --Ykraps (talk) 09:04, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done.
  • Support - I am happy that the sourcing meets FA standards: reliable and of good quality, consistently formatted, and I have checked most for accuracy and close paraphrasing. A fraction of those, I have included as examples below. Those sources I don’t have access to, I will AGF.--Ykraps (talk) 16:27, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Accuracy and Paraphrasing Checks

Article: Soon after this Vestal was sent to China to convey the politician Charles Allan Cathcart so that he could open diplomatic channels with the Chinese

Sources: He shortly afterwards proceeded on an embassy to China... (O'Byrne) ...our officer [Strachan] obtained the command of the Vestal, of 28 guns, and was ordered to convey the brother of the present Lord Cathcart on an embassy to the Emperor of China. (Marshall 1823d)

Article: Cathcart was already ill when he began the mission and his health declined further while on board Vestal; Richardson was charged with reading to him and keeping him company, and Cathcart agreed that upon reaching China Richardson would become his aide de camp

Sources: ...the Hon Colonel Cathcart was appointed ambassador, although he was dangerously ill at the time. (Armstrong p. 3) Charles Richardson, who had profited by a good classical education, became a great favorite with the sick man to whom he read... (Armstrong p. 5) ...the colonel [Cathcart] promised to appoint him [Richardson] as his aide-de-camp, on reaching China (Armstrong p. 5)

Article: The captain of Alexander, Captain Thomas West, wanted to replace Richardson with his own nephew, and made it known to the other officers that this was his goal

Sources: He [West] took an immediate dislike to Richardson... ...and he made no scruple of telling the officers that he meant to get rid of him… …in order to make room for a nephew (Armstrong pp. 21-22)

Article: He took a boat to another ship of the line in the fleet, the 100-gun HMS Royal George.

Sources: Richardson hailed a boat... ...to put him on board the admiral's ship ... ...the Royal George, 100 (Armstrong p. 22)

Article: Royal George was the flagship of Vice-Admiral Sir Alexander Hood, and Hood took Richardson on as a master's mate in that vessel after Strachan provided a good report on him to the admiral.

Sources: [Richardson] referred to his former gallant commander [Strachan], who warmly espoused his cause (Armstrong p. 22) Sir Alexander Hood, after sifting the affair to the bottom , made the injured youth [Richardson] midshipman and master's mate (Armstrong p. 22)

Article: Richardson fought in Royal George at the action of 29 May 1794 and then at the subsequent Glorious First of June in both of which the ship was heavily engaged, having 92 casualties from a crew of 866

Sources: ...in the spring of 1794, to the Royal George... ...he served in the battles of May 29 and June 1, 1794 (Marshall 1825) During the partial action of May 29, 1794, and the decisive battle of June 1st in the same year... ...the Royal George was exposed to an incessant and fierce cannonade, by which her foremast, with the fore and main topmasts, were shot away, 20 of her men killed, and 72 wounded. (Marshall 1823 a) Royal George (ship) 2286 (burden in tons) 866 (men and boys) 15 (killed May 29) 23 (wounded May 29) 5 (killed June 1) 49 (wounded June 1) 20 (total killed) 72 (total wounded) (James (from table on p. 387))

Article: Until the mutiny was quashed Circe was one of only three vessels still serving in the North Sea Fleet, making signals to each other to pretend that they had more ships than they did

Sources: These three vessels [Adamant, Circe and Venerable] were in a state of mutiny but unable to gain possession of the ships... While in this perilous situation, by constantly making signals as if there were ships in the offing, he [Duncan] deceived the Dutch into the belief that his whole squadron was at hand (Armstrong p. 22)

Article: They served in a number of rivers in cooperation with Major-General Sir Robert Abercromby's army combating Tipu Sultan. Richardson was employed in this role for several months before he rejoined Phoenix

Sources: While on the East India station Mr. Richardson was for several months employed in the boats in co-operating, up different rivers, with the army under Sir Robt. Abercrombie in its operations against Tippoo Saib. (O'Byrne) …where he saw much active service during the war with Tippoo Saib, being employed for several months in boats sent up the different rivers to co-operate with the Malabar army under Sir Robert Abercrombie. (Marshall 1825)

Article: Richardson's action impressed Duncan, who in January 1798 took him to serve on his flagship, the 74-gun ship of the line HMS Venerable. Richardson then transferred with Duncan to the 74-gun ship of the line HMS Kent on 6 March, becoming his flag lieutenant there

Sources: Succeeding in his object he had the honour of presenting him in person to the British Commander-in-Chief; who in consequence received him on promotion in Jan. 1798 on board his flagship the Venerable 74, and made him, 6 March following, his Signal-Lieutenant in the Kent 74 (O'Byrne) Lord Duncan, as mark of his approbation, applied for him [Richardson] to be appointed one of his own lieutenants. In consequence, he removed on the 27th of January 1798, on promotion, into the Venerable; but, on the 6th of March following, the admiral, taking command of the Kent, 74, Mr Richardson became flag-lieutenant of that ship (Armstrong p. 85)

Article: Richardson served as second in command to Captain Sir Sidney Smith in the naval brigade landed to assist the army, and he then fought at the Battle of Mandora on 13 March, where the brigade had eighty-five men incapacitated.

Sources: On the 13th March 1801... ...sailors under Sir Sydney Smith and Lieutenant Richardson, emulated the troops with which they were associated. But the brigade was sadly reduced, as 85 were either killed or placed hors-de-combat in the fight... (Armstrong p. 113)

Article: For his services in Egypt Richardson was awarded the gold medal second class of the Order of the Crescent by the Ottoman Empire.

Sources: Order of the Crescent, Egypt 1801, Gold Medal second class, in gold frame glazed, awarded to Vice Admiral Charles Richardson, K.C.B (Glendining and Co)

...received from the sultan (in conjunction with other officers who had distinguished themselves in Egypt) the order of the Crescent... (Armstrong p. 121)

Article: Richardson's rank as a commander was made permanent on 9 October 1802 and he continued in command of Alligator, serving during the Peace of Amiens in the Firth of Forth

Sources: In April 1803, Commander Richardson returned from the Mediterranean and was stationed for a short period in the firth of Forth. The Alligator being a handsome frigate... (Armstrong p. 127) ...he was nominated Acting-Commander of the Aligator 28, armée en flûte. While in that ship, to which he was confirmed 9 Oct. 1802... (O'Byrne)

Article: Richardson returned to England with Hood in March 1805 and soon after left the ship, going on leave to Westmorland where he purchased a small cottage and thirty-six acres (fifteen hectares) of land and visited his relative, Sir Francis

Sources: On 6 July in that year he was in consequence invested by Sir Samuel Hood with the command of the Centaur 74, the ship bearing his broad pendant, an act which the Admiralty confirmed 27 Sept. ensuing. He returned to England in March, 1805... (O'Byrne) ...another and more sensible reason for visiting Westmorland... ...a prettily situated cottage overlooking Hawes Water... ...to purchase this little property... ...his plan of purchasing the estate of 36 acres... ...on obtaining early possession... ...At the approach of Winter, he left Westmorland and proceeded to pay a long-promised visit to his relative. Sir Francis Wood, residing at Hemsworth in Yorkshire (Armstrong pp. 139-142)

Article: Richardson served in Leander on the station [East Indies] and while there on 29 July 1821 he left Leander to command the 44-gun frigate HMS Topaze, whose captain had died on station

Sources: Captain Richardson’s next appointment was, July 29, 1819, to the Leander of 60 guns, fitting for the flag of Sir Henry Blackwood, commander-in-chief on the East India station. On the demise of Captain John R. Lumley, in July, 1821, he consented to take the command of the Topaze frigate (Marshall 1825) ...to the Leander 60, bearing the flag of Hon. Sir H. Blackwood, and Topaze 46, both on the East India station (O'Byrne)

Article: fn 3. While both British frigates attacked Résolue, she only fired at Phoenix.

Sources: The Phoenix and Perseverance... ....and both were concerned in the action with La Resolu, a 12-pounder frigate, though she only fired at Phoenix. (Marshall 1824)

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

The article was promoted by Hog Farm via FACBot (talk) 6 May 2022 [48].

1959–60 Burnley F.C. season[edit]

Nominator(s): WA8MTWAYC (talk) 08:03, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Burnley are probably getting relegated this season, but there was a time when they were crowned champions of England, albeit a few generations ago: 1959–60. Burnley had to win their last game to win the title, and they did just that ... just. The team consisted almost entirely of players who came through the club’s youth academy. Burnley bought only two players for a combined fee of 15k. This article passed the GA process a year ago, and since then I’ve trimmed it down a bit and made some smaller fixes. All comments will be appreciated. WA8MTWAYC (talk) 08:03, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments
  • "while the others were recruited from Burnley’s youth academy" - did the concept of a "youth academy" really exist in the 1950s?
    Not in the modern sense I would say (such as having many different teams, categorised by age). However, according to the book Bob Lord of Burnley (2019), there was already a "youth academy system" at Burnley while Alan Brown was the club's manager (mid-1950s).
  • "with goals from Brian Pilkington, John Connelly, and Ray Pointer, the club's forward" - they had only one forward??
    Fixed
  • "McIlroy, Burnley's playmaker, was still absent for the team" - think the last three words are redundant
    Removed
  • "Burnley then faced Lancashire rivals Blackpool at home; the team took the lead" - wording is not 100% clear as to which team "the team" is
    Fixed
  • "who objected his "confusing playing style"" => "who objected to his "confusing playing style""
    Done
  • "they beat Nottingham Forest, last season's FA Cup winners" => "they beat Nottingham Forest, the previous season's FA Cup winners"
    Done
  • "despite only having 10 men for most of the game" - why? A sending off? An injury?
    Injury, added
  • "Second Division side Swansea Town at Vetch Field" => "Second Division side Swansea Town at the Vetch Field"
    Done
  • "the Bradford City supporters [....] were denied entry by the local police" - all of them?
    Some, fixed
  • "On an icey Turf Moor pitch" - pretty sure it's spelt icy
    Fixed
  • "The defeat also meant Burnley were deprived of becoming the first English club in the 20th century to achieve the First Division and FA Cup double" - well, not really, because a) they hadn't won the league at this point and b) they might have lost the semi-final or final.
    I agree, removed it
  • "with four defenders, four midfielders and two forwards" - pedantic, maybe, but weren't the former two called full backs and half backs at this point in time?
    One of the books I've used, Never had it so good (2017), contains both terms, such as half-back and midfielder. I've gone with the latter as it's a bit more comfortable:)
  • That's all I got - a great read overall! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:08, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks very much for the review, Chris! I've addressed your comments (hopefully). WA8MTWAYC (talk) 22:13, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Cas Liber[edit]

Looking now...

  • . The team's top goalscorer was John Connelly with 24 competitive goals - is "competitive" necessary here?

Otherwise can't find aught to complain about.....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:04, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cas, thanks for taking a look at the article. I've removed "competitive". WA8MTWAYC (talk) 17:08, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, looks all fine on comprehensiveness and prose....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:15, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

What makes the following reliable sources?

  • fchd.info
  • thesefootballtimes.co
  • historicalkits.co.uk
  • rsssf.com

Other than that all sources look reliable and I can see no formatting issues. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:31, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    • Hi Mike, thanks for taking a look.
    • FCHD is regarded as a reliable source for historical data in English football and has been referenced in many featured articles (e.g. Luton Town F.C. and Cardiff City F.C.). The website contains an explanation and a source page. It's used in these local newspapers: here and here. The creator of the website (I believe he's also active on Wiki) has spoken about his site here: [49].
    • The info on These Football Times should indicate its reliability (often working directly with the clubs on production, regularly featuring on TheGuardian.com, the magazine's/site's writers receiving numerous nominations and awards).
    • Historical Football Kits is referenced in most featured articles such as York City F.C. and Manchester City F.C.. The site is maintained by Dave and Matt Moor, who cite their sources as can be seen for example on their Burnley page (at the bottom). It is e.g. referenced here, here, here and here.
    • RSSSF is the online database of football statistics that's used as a general guide by several mainstream sports media outlets, including ESPN. Its charter may provide some extra clarification. The site is referenced in most of the featured articles (e.g. Burnley F.C. and Manchester United F.C.). WA8MTWAYC (talk) 17:40, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've struck rsssf.com; that's clearly treated as reliable by major media sources. For FCHD, I don't think the use by local newspapers is enough -- do we have other sources (including written sources) that cite it or treat it as a reliable source? I've struck These Football Times -- I hadn't realized the site was still live (the link was dead and archived). I've struck historicalkits.co.uk; other than the BBC those aren't the biggest media sources, but the BBC plus the other info I think just about gets it over the line. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:43, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've found FCHD being referenced in some books, but I don't know the reliability of those, so I've replaced the source with the Simpson (2007) ref. WA8MTWAYC (talk) 19:37, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pass. Looks good now. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:42, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie[edit]

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

  • Per MOS:DASH, you can have spaced en dashes, or unspaced em dashes, but you can't have spaced em dashes, sadly.
    • Fixed
  • "Managed by Harry Potts, the team endured a tense season, in which...": how about "The team, and their manager Harry Potts, endured a tense season in which..."? Seems a little smoother to my ear.
    • Done
  • "as a result of his authoritative attitude": looking at the sources, I think this should be "authoritarian". Or perhaps even "autocratic", which is used by one of the sources, but I don't think a single word constitutes a copyvio.
    • Went for "authoritarian"
  • "Burnley's scouts — including Jack Hixon — were particularly based in North East England, Scotland and Northern Ireland." What does "particularly" mean here? Do you mean they placed more scouts in those areas? Or perhaps "focused particularly on"?
    • "Focused particularly on" is a good suggestion, I've added it. NE England, Scotland and NI were indeed interesting areas for Burnley to scout, and many players such as Adamson, Blacklaw and Pointer hailed from those areas.
  • "with goals from Brian Pilkington, John Connelly, and Ray Pointer, one of the club's forwards": seems odd to single out a forward, who would have been expected to be among the scorers, and not mention the midfielders. I think I'd just end the sentence after naming Pointer.
    • Done
  • Perhaps mention Finney's stature when saying Elder did well? E.g. "Elder played well against Preston's England international Tom Finney"?
    • Done
  • "despite only having 10 men for most of the game, after Pointer came off injured": I thought substitutes had started to be used in 1958? Had the team already used their substitute?
    • Only in 1965 the rule allowing subs was introduced [50]
  • "carrying knocks" is clear to me but I wonder how a non-sports fan would interpret it. I like using colloquial language when possible but this might be a bit too jargony for non-sports readers.
    • Tried to tweak the wording
  • "at the Vetch Field": I think I've always heard this as "at Vetch Field"; can you confirm the "the" is the normal usage?
    • After a quick Google search I see both instances are used, but I've removed "the".

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:12, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mike, thanks for the copyedit and the review. I've hopefully addressed your comments. WA8MTWAYC (talk) 08:52, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Changes all look good. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:09, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

ALT text seems fine. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:10, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jo-Jo, thank you for the review. The source used for the kit is this one, which is also used in the article (ref 20 - Historical Football Kits). WA8MTWAYC (talk) 13:25, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK, seems like this is a pass. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:39, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 6 May 2022 [51].

Judy Ann Santos[edit]

Nominator(s): Pseud 14 (talk) 18:49, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Having previously worked on Filipino related articles. I chose to work next on Judy Ann Santos, an actress with an extensive career in film and television starting at the age of eight. The article provides a concise coverage of her work, after nursing it up in the last couple of months. It has undergone a thorough copyedit to address MoS, flow, punctuation issues. I feel ready to bring this to FAC. Constructive criticism, in any form and from anyone, will be appreciated. Happy to address your comments and thanks to all who take the time to review. Pseud 14 (talk) 18:49, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review—pass no licensing issues found (t · c) buidhe 21:57, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by FrB.TG[edit]

  • "Born in Manila and raised in Antipolo, Rizal, Santos began her career as a child with supporting roles." Supporting roles where? Television? Film? Theater?
Added to clarify supporting roles on film
  • "She also wrote a cookbook called Judy Ann's Kitche" - mentioning the year of release might be helpful.
Added
  • "The family soon moved to Antipolo, Rizal, to be closer to their father." He isn't everyone's father; the family also includes the mother.
Made the change to clarify
  • "In 1986, her parents separated and the children lived with their mother[3] for three years before she left" - who is she referring to here?
Reworded to avoid confusion
  • "For portraying a socialite in the show, Santos struggled from being typecast for previously playing impoverished roles." This sentence is not very clear to me. Did she play a socialite to break away from her previous impoverished roles? If so, the current wording indicates that her portrayal of a socialite added to her struggle getting typecast.
I have reworded this as well. I realize it somehow added to the confusion. She was typecast with impoverished roles, so she struggled with her portrayal as a socialite on the new show. Hopefully the change reads better.
  • "Santos's final release that year ranks among the most acclaimed of her career." It might be helpful mentioning the the film's title directly after "final release" than in the next sentence.
Done
  • "To prepare for Ysabella (2007), Santos took a four-month culinary course at the Center for Asian Culinary Studies." What was her role in it? This will help the reader's understanding of why she took the course.
Added
  • "In 2006, before filming Ysabella, Santos took a four-month culinary course at the Center for Asian Culinary Studies and earned her certification with distinction." This is already mentioned in career section, as it was in preparation for her role in the film. It does not need to be repeated.
Removed

That's it from me. I made some edits here to improve the prose and make MoS adjustments. FrB.TG (talk) 09:55, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@FrB.TG: thank you for your thorough review and your edits to improve the article. I have actioned the above. Let me know if there are things that remain unaddressed or need changes. Pseud 14 (talk) 15:03, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I might make further changes to improve the prose but this meets the criteria in my opinion. FrB.TG (talk) 20:27, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@FrB.TG: thanks for your support and would be much grateful for inputs/edits that could further improve as you find fit. Pseud 14 (talk) 20:38, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Ergo Sum[edit]

  • Lede section seems a bit too long for an article of this length
Trimmed the lede
It's not an absolute rule, but I usually find MOS:LEADLENGTH pretty good. For an article of this length (approx. 24,000 characters), four paragraphs seems a bit much. I think it would probably do well to be trimmed a bit more. Ergo Sum 14:02, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Ergo Sum: Had a bit of a challenge, but I think I've trimmed it down to 3 paras. Hopefully that is succinct and acceptable for the lede? Pseud 14 (talk) 14:16, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Looks fine. Ergo Sum 14:42, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Early life

  • Should it read Manila, the Philippines?
It is only preceded by "the" if referring to the country alone. If writing as [city],[country] then we omit the definite article
  • What does it mean to be closer to her father? Is there some missing context here?
Clarified this. They moved to be closer to where he works.
  • "their needs" - should specify her children
Done
  • "lived with their nanny" - should first clarify that the children remained in the Philippines
Added
  • "Her career prospects improved" - not sure what this means. Does this mean it was her first breakthrough?
It was her first starring role as a child star. Not necessarily a breakthrough (which happened later when she was a teenager). After minor roles and a failed auditioned for a lead role in a soap opera, getting the part was an improvement in her career prospects

Career

  • "adapted into film" - should this say "adapted as a film"?
Done
  • "played his wife" - she played the wife of Pascual's character, not Pascual himself
Done
  • "boxing training" - sounds odd to my ear. Maybe something like "boxes classes" or "trained in boxing"
Done
  • "which she thought was" - maybe "which she found"
Done
  • "called it" - "called the film"
Done
  • "as his outspoken wife" - as his character, [name]'s, outspoken wife
I've reworded this bit, as I could not find a mention of the character name in the citation. Let me know if it reads ok
  • "as an abused wife" - "playing an abused wife"
Done

Reception

  • One of the most talented - is this globally or in the Philippines
Clarified this by including "Filipina". As this is local (Philippines)

Other ventures

  • Is her restauranteuring a development that occurred later in her career?
Yes, it was early 2000s when she became involved in the restaurant business.
It might be worth it to include this fact in the first sentence of that section. Ergo Sum 12:20, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Ergo Sum: It is also mentioned in the succeeding sentence that it began in the early 2000s following her acquisition of the businesses, but I have since updated it to clarify and include that her involvement began in the restaurant business because of that. Let me know if that reads ok. Pseud 14 (talk) 12:55, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's everything from me. Ergo Sum 01:31, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it looks alright. Ergo Sum 14:01, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your review Ergo Sum. I have actioned the above comments. Let me know if there are things that remain unaddressed. Pseud 14 (talk) 03:11, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose Ergo Sum 14:42, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your support and thorough review, Ergo Sum. Much appreciated. Pseud 14 (talk) 14:47, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Damien Linnane[edit]

  • "supporting roles on film" - should this be 'in film?'
Done
  • "proprietor of the defunct Victoria Supermart" - should this be "now defunct", or was it defunct when Judy was born?
Changed to the former. It was still operational when Santos was born.
  • Is there any coverage of how she began acting at eight? As in, did her mother enroll her with an agency or something?
None that I could find in any high-quality source. In interviews or news sources, it is only mentioned that it was her first acting gig. Her mother was already in Toronto by the time she was eight-ish. Her older brother, Jeffrey Santos, is an actor, so that might have paved the way, but none that has been written in any coverage of her work that has been published.
  • I'd wikilink the '₱' at it's first mention.
Linked
Done
  • "while Asilo stated that the movie" - 'film' is typically the preferred encyclopedic term, rather than 'movie'
I reworded, so that 'film' doesn't get repeated in the same sentence.
  • "Santos has been described by the media as one of the most talented ... " - 'by the media' is too vague; specify which media outlets described her in this way.
Reworded to exclude mention of media, so it doesn't appear promotional (which I just realized too), "Santos has been regarded as one of..." Instead of mentioning each media outlets that I've used. Let me know if this approach is acceptable.
  • Having a selected filmography apparently based on box-office results is not something I've ever seen before. I'm not saying you can't do it, just though I'd mention that as I don't know what the precedent is here.
I've actually referenced existing FAs for this section. (e.g. Kate Winslet, Reese Witherspoon, Julianne Moore, Anne Hathaway). Although I had to use inline citations for each film, as Box Office Mojo doesn't provide accurate reporting of Philippine box-office returns or never at all.
Looks very good overall. Damien Linnane (talk) 06:42, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Damien Linnane: thank you for taking the time to review, I understand you were traveling for work and busy these days. I have actioned the above. Let me know if there are things that remain unaddressed. Pseud 14 (talk) 15:10, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Changes looks good to me. Happy to support on prose. Damien Linnane (talk) 03:22, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Edwininlondon[edit]

I'm not familar with film from this part of the world, but for what it is worth here are some comments:

  • Lead still seems too long to me
Trimmed
Reworded, and linked mentions of film and television to Cinema of the Philippines and Television in the Philippines
  • 3 times "also" in the last few sentences of the lead
Fixed
  • Santos became more recognized when she and Gladys Reyes starred in the soap opera Mara Clara (1992), earning her first FAMAS Award --> is the 2nd part of the sentence really connected to the 1st? Something does not feel right to me, but can't put my finger on it
I've since removed the second part
  • She is a co-owner of AngryDobo, a Filipino restaurant in Taft Avenue, Manila --> too much detail for the lead: just "she co-owns a restaurant" suffices
I took this bit out while trimming the lede, since it’s already mentioned that she is a restaurateur. And her business ventures are covered in the body.
  • inconsitent date format: infobox has 11 May 1978 but elsewhere May 11, 1978
Fixed consistent with mdy format to the rest of the article
  • I'm not a fan of link labels that don't tell me where I land: Kaming Mga Ulila links much to my surprise to [[1987 in Philippine television where I can learn precisely nothing new about it. There are plenty more dubious ones, too much to list (Ula, Ang Batang Gubat, Impaktita, etc etc). Only link to a film article. If notable, redlink.
Unlinked
  • eponymous: link to eponym
Linked
  • Santos's first breakthrough --> can there be a 2nd one?
Removed "first"
  • gross over ₱100 million --> MOS:CURRENCY suggests to add a conversion to a more familiar currency
Added US$ conversion
  • in the independent film Ploning (2008) --> what was this film about? or at least what genre?
Clarified as independent drama

More soon. Edwininlondon (talk) 10:07, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edwininlondon, thanks for your initial review. I've responded to above and made the changes. Let me know if there's anything I may have missed. Pseud 14 (talk) 13:47, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
All good. A bit more:
  • Kaffe Carabana in Timog Avenue --> avoid street names
I've updated this to the district/city, but piped to Timog Avenue (as my citations refer to Timog Avenue). Similarly, I've changed Taft Avenue as well in the same section.
  • complicated dishes", and that "[i]t doesn’t simply present --> not sure this flows well: "and that"
Fixed. Slightly reworded to "and added that". Let me know if this flows well
  • the Agoncillo quote about the fight is not really wp material. Avoid trivia.
Removed this quote
  • the Discography section is a surprise. Is there a reason why her music is not mentioned earlier?
Santos isn't really known for being a singer. In fact, she has zero singing talent. Her releases are products of auto-tune. I don't know if it's a Philippine pop culture thing, but actors like her who have massive box-office draw or television presence, are signed by labels as money-making investments riding their popularity, it seems to work commercially. But most of these are critically panned. I felt it was best to list them under a Discography section, since there isn't much coverage on these releases that are available from news sources or online publications, e.g. album(s) review, single(s) review from music critics.

That's it from me. Nice work. Edwininlondon (talk) 07:22, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Edwininlondon. I have actioned the above and provided my responses. Let me know if there are things that remain unaddressed. Pseud 14 (talk) 15:06, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I believe this now meets the FA criteria and I Support its nomination. Edwininlondon (talk) 05:36, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

Footnote numbers refer to this version. Your {{cite news}} citations seem to be formatted inconsistently. You mostly just use the publisher parameter, which is OK so long as it makes clear what the source is. However, for [25], [100], and [127] you use both the work and the publisher, and for another 16 cites (I can give you the cite numbers if you want them) you use the work parameter but not the publisher parameter. It doesn't matter how you do the cites so long as they're consistent and convey what the reader needs. The work parameter is commonly used for the website (e.g. "Philippine Daily Inquirer") in which case the publisher isn't needed if it's obvious from the website name -- so for example if you have "work=New York Times" you don't need "publisher=New York Times". What's the rationale for the different ways you have set up these cites?

Thanks for starting the source review Mike Christie. Hopefully my explanation/rationale provide clarity, and feel free to let me know so I can fix the parameters with consistency and up to standard:
  • [25] and, [100], including [111] -- I was of the understanding that if I used magazine publications, I would have to include the publisher parameter (publication company). These are the only ones I believe I used. Preview magazine, Variety magazine, and Cosmopolitan magazine, but I think I should be referring to that as the website/work instead. So I have removed the publisher parameters.
  • [127] (and other usage of newspaper sources) -- I have made changes so it is consistent with other newspaper sources. I've used "newspaper=" instead of "work=" parameter (no publisher). These were used for sources from The Philippine Star, Philippine Daily Inquirer, The Manila Times, Manila Standard, and SunStar Davao. Hope I didn't miss any and let me know if this approach is ok.
  • I've used the publisher parameters (no work) for non-newspaper sources, which includes for the most part are ABS-CBN Entertainment, Philippine Entertainment Portal, Star Cinema.
  • For official video sources -- I used "work" for the program title and "publisher" for the network/entity that aired/published it. Let me know if this the way to do it or if either parameters should be removed. Pseud 14 (talk) 17:19, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that's fine. For the non-newspaper sources you can also use "website=" instead of publisher, if you like -- the parameter is just an alias for newspaper/work. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:35, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's the only formatting issue I can see. I'll check the links and source reliability next, probably later today. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:01, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pseud 14, I noticed a recent edit of yours and wanted to make sure you were aware of something: "work", "website", and "newspaper" are all exactly the same parameter (they are aliases for each other) and there's no reason to change one into another unless you're just looking for consistency (which is a perfectly good reason). Changing "work" to "newspaper" has no effect on the citation. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:17, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All looks good above; I will continue with the rest of the review below. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:35, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Footnote numbers now referring to this version.

  • [95] has no publisher or work parameter.
  • I've added publisher
  • [136] is a dead link.
  • I've replaced with a working link from the same newspaper, and archived.
  • The archive links for the Spotify citations at the end don't work -- [146], [147], [148].
  • I see the error there, just realized that. I think it's a log-in issue when archived. I've replaced it with an article to support the list of albums released.

That's everything I can see to complain about. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:41, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Mike Christie for doing the source review. I have actioned the above comments. Let me know if I may have missed anything. Pseud 14 (talk) 21:41, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good now. Pass. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:26, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Much appreciated and thank you for the clarifications on formatting Mike Christie. Pseud 14 (talk) 00:41, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from NØ[edit]

I am reviewing this article. I support since it looks like one of the best bios I have read and ready for promotion. Here are a few suggestions:

  • "At the age of eight, Santos began her professional acting career when she debuted in a minor role in the television series Kaming Mga Ulila (1986)" - Would it sound better with a verb? "when she made her debut by portraying a minor role"
Done
  • "'It's totally out of my comfort zone. Everything about Dianne in Gimik is not me,' she said." - There should be a source right next to a direct quote.
How could I miss this. Added now. Should be the same source as sentence that precedes and follows it.
  • Maybe you could mention that Boots Plata is a director. It's a bit unclear if it's a person or a company without clicking the link.
Done
  • "which she found a "welcome change" - from what?
Added to clarify.
  • Do we need to name Santos's children? WP:BLPNAME seems to somewhat discourage this since it isn't "relevant to a reader's complete understanding of the subject (Santos here)".--NØ 07:12, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have considered that as well, however, all her kids had a fair amount of media coverage. They also appear quite frequently with Santos on commercials and marketing campaigns for brands/products. So their names, I would say, are public knowledge and perhaps worth mentioning in the section. See examples ([52], [53], [54] [55])
That clarifies it.
  • Thank you for your kind words and much appreciate the support MaranoFan. I have addressed your above suggestions. Let me know if there's anything that stands out. Pseud 14 (talk) 15:33, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • All good now. Great work!--NØ 16:06, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@FAC coordinators: Apologies for the ping. I just wanted to get a status update for this nomination. Thank you for your time, and have a great rest of your week! Pseud 14 (talk) 17:53, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by Hog Farm via FACBot (talk) 4 May 2022 [56].

Battle of Trapani[edit]

Nominator(s): Constantine ✍ 17:53, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a naval battle between Venice and Genoa, which resulted in one of the most lopsided and humiliating defeats in naval history, as almost the entire Genoese fleet was captured. Part of an on-again, off-again effort of mine dedicated to medieval, and especially Venetian, naval history, this article was promoted to GA in 2018 and A-class in 2021. I am looking forward to the comments and suggestions on how to improve it further and make it worthy of FA status. Constantine ✍ 17:53, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Image review—pass no licensing issues found (t · c) buidhe 02:34, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

AK

  • Disclaimer: I haven't checked references and will be claiming credit for this at the WikiCup. Also, I'm not a military history buff and probably won't notice if something is missing here content-wise.
  • "Captain-General of the Sea" → Our article on that doesn't use the hyphen, any reason here?
  • That's the only nitpick I could find, so I have no hesitation supporting on the basis of prose. Really nice article. AryKun (talk) 12:37, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hello AryKun and thanks for your time and your kind words. Re the hyphen, no particular reason, it is just a variant spelling in some English sources. Removed now. --Constantine ✍ 09:43, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild[edit]

This looks familiar. Recusing to review.

  • Any reason why you don't give the date of the battle in the first sentence of the lead?
    • No reason, added now.
  • Infobox: "1,200 crewmen drowned ... many killed". Perhaps "many killed, including 1,200 crewmen drowned"?
    • Good point, changed.
  • OCLC for Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani? (1154456556)
    • Added the work's ISBN to the template.
  • "the Venetian navy had demonstrated its superiority over its Genoese counterpart." Delete "had".
    • Done.
  • "there were several reasons why". You give two. Perhaps replace "several" with 'two'?
    • Done.
  • "they joined the rest of the fleet at Bonifacio later in May". Do you mean 'in late May'? (You can't say "later in May" as this is the first mention of May.)
    • Removed the 'later' as it is indeed redundant and confusing.
  • "four from Crete, three from Zara". I assume that the numbers refer to ships; is it known of what type?
    • Yes, 'full' galleys. Made clear now.
  • Foreign words should use an appropriate lang template, not just be in italics.
    • Implemented.
  • "24 of the captured galleys were towed away". The MoS suggests not starting a sentence with a number.
    • Rephrased.
  • "Some 1,200 Genoese drowned, many were killed". How about 'Many Genoese were killed, including 1,200 drowned ...'?
    • Rephrased.

That's all I have. Lovely work. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:32, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Gog the Mild for your time and suggestions. Constantine ✍ 12:56, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Z1720[edit]

Non-expert prose review.

  • "During this conflict, the Venetians had held the upper hand in naval confrontations," Remove had, as unnecessary?
    • Removed.
  • "In the meantime, however, news had reached Venice of the large Genoese fleet," I don't think however is needed in this sentence, and can be removed.
    • Removed.
  • "Finally, in early June, Borbonino led his fleet out of Bonifacio to confront the Venetians." I don't think finally is necessary in this sentence, and can be removed.
    • Removed.
  • I checked the infobox and lede, and everything is included and cited in the article's body. Z1720 (talk) 16:11, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Those are my comments. Z1720 (talk) 16:11, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Z1720. As a non-expert, may I ask whether it was easy to follow the article? Do you see the need for clarifications anywhere? Constantine ✍ 19:38, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the article was easy to follow. If I thought there was unexplained jargon, I would have made a bullet point about it. Z1720 (talk) 19:55, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support. My concerns were addressed. Z1720 (talk) 19:55, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by Borsoka[edit]

  • Consequently, the Genoese avoided direct confrontations with the Venetian battle fleet and engaged in commerce raiding against the Venetian merchant convoys, a type of warfare exemplified by the Battle of Saseno in August 1264, when the annual Venetian trade convoy (muda) to the Levant was captured by the Genoese. Consider rewording. Perhaps: "Consequently, the Genoese avoided direct confrontations with the Venetian battle fleet. Instead, they engaged in commerce raiding against the muda, or annual Venetian merchant convoys to the Levant, a type of warfare exemplified by the Battle of Saseno in August 1264, when the Genoese captured the muda of the year."
    • Rephrased, but a bit differently, principally because the muda was not just the Levant convoy.
  • ...although it was not finally ratified until three years later... Is the adverb "finally" necessary?
    • Removed.
  • Introduce Giovanni Delfino and Simone Guerci, or delete the references to them (because they are not otherwise mentioned in the text).
    • Done.
  • Consider introducing Charles I of Anjou as "the ambitious French prince".
    • Done.
  • Consequency: compare "eighteen galleys", "15 galleys", "27 Genoese galleys", "24 of the captured galleys", and "25 ships".
  • Consider italicizing the title Annali Genovesi in sections "Opening moves" and "Aftermat", and in note "c".
    • Was meant to be in italics, I didn't check that the combination with the lang template cancelled them. Now fixed.
  • Dondulo was or had been appointed as the fleet's commander?
    • Not sure what exactly you refer to.
      • Neither me by now. :) Sorry for it.
  • The galleys were to be equipped in Venice or were equipped in Venice?
    • In Venice.
      • I modified the sentence as I thought. Please feel free to revert it.
        • Looks good.
  • Was Porto Venere a Genoese port? Borsoka (talk) 03:10, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Clarified.
  • ...sentenced to confiscation of their properties, banishment, and heavy fines... Confiscation and heavy fines together? The next sentence suggest that banishment could be redeemed through fines.
    • The phrasing was indeed unclear: their goods were confiscated (in disipatione et publicatione omnium bonorum), without further elaboration, and they were banished against the payment of a fine (et in banno positus, de quo exire non posset nisi solueret comuni Ianue libras .x. milia ianuinorum). I've rephrased this part.
  • Introduce Oberto D'Oria.
    • Done.
  • During this conflict, the Venetians held the upper hand... Perhaps "During the war, the Venetians had held the upper hand...". I assume the meaning of "conflict" is ambiguous in the context about a battle and a war.
    • Good point, done.
  • The lead states that the War of St Sabbas ended in 1270. The last sentence in section "Aftermath" mention the year 1269.
    • Good catch. King Louis applied pressure on them in 1269, effectively ending hostilities, but the treaty was concluded in 1270. Rephrased.

A nice, interesting small article about a naval battle about which I have never read. Thank you for completing it. I enjoyed reviewing the article. I only raised minor issues. Borsoka (talk) 07:49, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Borsoka, and thanks for taking the time. With one exception, I think I've addressed your points. Constantine ✍ 16:02, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, all but one of my concerns were addressed. I still do not understand what was the punishment: those whose property was confiscated cannot pay a fine, and the context suggests that the payment of a fine was an alternative for banishment. Perhaps the conjunction "and" should be changed to "or" in the quoted part of the sentence? Borsoka (talk) 02:35, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Borsoka, addressed the last outstanding remark, hopefully it is clear now. Anything else? Constantine ✍ 08:35, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Now, I think this is an excellent FA. Borsoka (talk) 09:15, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

Everything looks good for formatting and links. I see that Imperiale di Sant'Angelo is a primary source, but you're backing it up with other sources in each case, so that's fine. There are several older sources cited here -- can you comment on why you're using these instead of more recent scholarship? I'm referring to Manfroni (1902), Caro (1895), and Weil (1910). Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:17, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Christie: The primary sources for the historical narrative of the period haven't changed much since the 19th century. Caro is still a standard work in this regard, and continues to be cited by modern works as he did an excellent job of gathering the primary material together. It was even translated into Italian in the 1970s and is being cited by Italian historians in that edition. Similarly, Manfroni remains the standard, comprehensive treatment of medieval Italian naval history. E.g. Dotson 1999 cites both Manfroni and Caro. Wiel is probably the least 'necessary' source in the article, although it is still an adequate account, which also uses, inter alia, Caro and Manfroni. The main reason I use it is because it is one of the very few freely accessible English works on the topic, so it is easy to verify and for interested readers to get information on the topic. Constantine ✍ 19:21, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds good to me. I'm aware some older sources are still well respected in some fields, and just wanted to check. That makes this a pass. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:42, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie[edit]

  • The map is great -- I wish all maps in article were as useful as this one. However, I see there's a spelling mismatch between it and the article; we have Jacopo Dondulo in the article, but it's Dandolo on the map. The article says the map spelling is an error; can it be corrected?
    • Good catch. Corrected. And glad you liked the map :).
  • "The next day, a small merchant vessel from Savona was likewise captured, while on the way back to Messina, the Venetians encountered and defeated a pirate squadron of two galleys and a saetta from the Genoese port of Porto Venere, capturing one of the galleys with most of its crew." This is a run-on sentence; I'd put a period in, but I can't tell if it should be after "captured" or "Messina". If both events were on the way back to Messina I'd rephrase.
    • Fixed.
  • "Many Genoese were killed, of whom some 1,200 drowned, and 600 were taken captive": if I understand the intended meaning, I suggest "Many Genoese were killed, including 1,200 who drowned, and 600 were taken captive" or "Genoese deaths included 1,200 drowned; 600 were taken captive". As it stands the last clause is syntactically connected to the first, which is not what we want.
    • Rephrased.
  • "As Manfroni comments": suggest "Manfroni comments that", to avoid agreeing with him in Wikipedia's voice.
    • Good point, rephrased.

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:33, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mike Christie, thanks for taking the time. I have addressed your suggestions. Constantine ✍ 07:12, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support; the few issues I found have been addressed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:37, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Featured_log/May_2022&oldid=1090823620"