Wikipedia:Featured article candidates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Wikipedia:Fac)
For the criteria to become a featured article, see Wikipedia:Featured article criteria.
For the similar process page for good articles, see Wikipedia:Good article nominations.
Page too long and unwieldy? Try adding nominations viewer to your scripts page.
This star, with one point broken, indicates that an article is a candidate on this page.
This star, with one point broken, indicates that an article is a candidate on this page.

Here, we determine which articles are to be featured articles (FAs). FAs exemplify Wikipedia's very best work and satisfy the FA criteria. All editors are welcome to review nominations; please see the review FAQ.

Before nominating an article, nominators may wish to receive feedback by listing it at Peer review and adding the review to the FAC peer review sidebar. Editors considering their first nomination, and any subsequent nomination before their first FA promotion, are strongly advised to seek the involvement of a mentor, to assist in the preparation and processing of the nomination. Nominators must be sufficiently familiar with the subject matter and sources to deal with objections during the featured article candidates (FAC) process. Nominators who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article before nominating it. Nominators are expected to respond positively to constructive criticism and to make efforts to address objections promptly. An article should not be on Featured article candidates and Peer review or Good article nominations at the same time.

The FAC coordinators—Ian Rose, Gog the Mild, David Fuchs and FrB.TG—determine the timing of the process for each nomination. For a nomination to be promoted to FA status, consensus must be reached that it meets the criteria. Consensus is built among reviewers and nominators; the coordinators determine whether there is consensus. A nomination will be removed from the list and archived if, in the judgment of the coordinators:

  • actionable objections have not been resolved;
  • consensus for promotion has not been reached;
  • insufficient information has been provided by reviewers to judge whether the criteria have been met; or
  • a nomination is unprepared.

It is assumed that all nominations have good qualities; this is why the main thrust of the process is to generate and resolve critical comments in relation to the criteria, and why such resolution is given considerably more weight than declarations of support.

Do not use graphics or complex templates on FAC nomination pages. Graphics such as  Done and  Not done slow down the page load time, and complex templates can lead to errors in the FAC archives. For technical reasons, templates that are acceptable are {{collapse top}} and {{collapse bottom}}, used to hide offtopic discussions, and templates such as {{green}} that apply colours to text and are used to highlight examples without altering fonts. Other templates such as {{done}}, {{not done}}, {{tq}}, {{tq2}}, and {{xt}}, may be removed.

An editor is allowed to be the sole nominator of only one article at a time, but two nominations are allowed if the editor is a co-nominator on at least one of them. If a nomination is archived, the nominator(s) should take adequate time to work on resolving issues before re-nominating. None of the nominators may nominate or co-nominate any article for two weeks unless given leave to do so by a coordinator; if such an article is nominated without asking for leave, a coordinator will decide whether to remove it. A coordinator may exempt from this restriction an archived nomination that attracted no (or minimal) feedback.

Nominations in urgent need of review are listed here. To contact the FAC coordinators, please leave a message on the FAC talk page, or use the {{@FAC}} notification template elsewhere.

A bot will update the article talk page after the article is promoted or the nomination archived; the delay in bot processing can range from minutes to several days, and the {{FAC}} template should remain on the talk page until the bot updates {{Article history}}.

Table of Contents – This page: Purge cache

Shortcut

Featured content:

Featured article candidates (FAC)

Featured article review (FAR)

Today's featured article (TFA):

Featured article tools:

Nominating[edit]

How to nominate an article

Nomination procedure

  1. Before nominating an article, ensure that it meets all of the FA criteria and that peer reviews are closed and archived. The featured article toolbox (at right) can help you check some of the criteria.
  2. Place {{subst:FAC}} at the top of the talk page of the nominated article and save the page.
  3. From the FAC template, click on the red "initiate the nomination" link or the blue "leave comments" link. You will see pre-loaded information; leave that text. If you are unsure how to complete a nomination, please post to the FAC talk page for assistance.
  4. Below the preloaded title, complete the nomination page, sign with ~~~~, and save the page.
  5. Copy this text: {{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/name of nominated article/archiveNumber}} (substituting Number), and edit this page (i.e., the page you are reading at the moment), pasting the template at the top of the list of candidates. Replace "name of ..." with the name of your nomination. This will transclude the nomination into this page. In the event that the title of the nomination page differs from this format, use the page's title instead.

Commenting, etc[edit]

Commenting, supporting and opposing

Supporting and opposing

Shortcut
  • To respond to a nomination, click the "Edit" link to the right of the article nomination (not the "Edit this page" link for the whole FAC page). All editors are welcome to review nominations; see the review FAQ for an overview of the review process.
  • To support a nomination, write *'''Support''', followed by your reason(s), which should be based on a full reading of the text. If you have been a significant contributor to the article before its nomination, please indicate this. A reviewer who specializes in certain areas of the FA criteria should indicate whether the support is applicable to all of the criteria.
  • To oppose a nomination, write *'''Object''' or *'''Oppose''', followed by your reason(s). Each objection must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed. If nothing can be done in principle to address the objection, a coordinator may disregard it. References on style and grammar do not always agree; if a contributor cites support for a certain style in a standard reference work or other authoritative source, reviewers should consider accepting it. Reviewers who object are strongly encouraged to return after a few days to check whether their objection has been addressed. To withdraw the objection, strike it out (with <s> ... </s>) rather than removing it. Alternatively, reviewers may transfer lengthy, resolved commentary to the FAC archive talk page, leaving a link in a note on the FAC archive.
  • To provide constructive input on a nomination without specifically supporting or objecting, write *'''Comment''' followed by your advice.
  • For ease of editing, a reviewer who enters lengthy commentary may create a neutral fourth-level subsection, named either ==== Review by EditorX ==== or ==== Comments by EditorX ==== (do not use third-level or higher section headers). Please do not create subsections for short statements of support or opposition—for these a simple *'''Support''',*'''Oppose''', or *'''Comment''' followed by your statement of opinion, is sufficient. Please do not use a semicolon to bold a subheading; this creates accessibility problems.
  • If a nominator feels that an Oppose has been addressed, they should say so, either after the reviewer's signature, or by interspersing their responses in the list provided by the reviewer. Per talk page guidelines, nominators should not cap, alter, strike, or add graphics to comments from other editors. If a nominator finds that an opposing reviewer is not returning to the nomination page to revisit improvements, this should be noted on the nomination page, with a diff to the reviewer's talk page showing the request to reconsider.


Shortcut


Nominations[edit]

Michele Scarponi[edit]

Nominator(s): Craig(talk) 22:55, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Today (22 April) marked the seventh anniversary of the death of Italian cyclist, Michele Scarponi. His greatest success, at the 2011 Giro d'Italia, came as a result of another rider's results being expunged eight months after the conclusion of the race. His career was not without its problems, with two separate doping suspensions. The article has been a GA since 2022 and went through GOCE last year; WP:CYCLING currently has only two biographical FAs – Tom Simpson and Bernard Hinault – so if this article was to be promoted to the highest level, it would be in rarified company. Admittedly, I am a first-time nominator at FAC, so looking forward to going through the process. Craig(talk) 22:55, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dracunculiasis[edit]

Nominator(s): Ajpolino (talk) 20:22, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My first trip to FAC (2020) was for Buruli ulcer, an infection characterized by a skin wound that is intriguingly painless. This one is much the same. Another wound disease. Though this time it burns like hell, and a meter-long worm crawls out of it. Many thanks to Colin, SandyGeorgia, and Draken Bowser for their feedback, which dramatically improved the article. Apologies for taking two years to get to it. Ajpolino (talk) 20:22, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draken Bowser[edit]

Reserving a spot. Draken Bowser (talk) 20:26, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by TompaDompa[edit]

Really burying the lede in your nomination statement about what could very well be the second human disease ever eradicated (or perhaps the third, after polio), I would say—that alone makes this a positively fascinating medical topic. I'll see if I find the time to do a full review, but for starters I really think Eradication of dracunculiasis should be linked in the WP:LEAD, and "disease of extreme poverty" should link to Diseases of poverty (both in the lead and the body). TompaDompa (talk) 20:36, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done and done. Indeed, hopefully we'll soon be adding the WikiProject History tag to its talk page ;-) Ajpolino (talk) 20:57, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

HF[edit]

This is on my list to review later this week. Hog Farm Talk 00:50, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Don't think the graph in the navbox is helpful - it's not legible at that size. If it stays it needs a more specific source. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:40, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UC[edit]

What a delightful topic -- saving a space. UndercoverClassicist T·C 06:34, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eternal Blue (album)[edit]

Nominator(s): mftp dan oops 22:04, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings FAC,

This article is about the debut studio album by Spiritbox, a work of musical art I consider to be a magnum opus of heavy metal. Spiritbox are groundbreakers in mixing metalcore with post-metal, and with this record they have become by far my favorite metalcore group from North America. I wrote this from spare parts on the band's page, and achieved good article status for it back in August. I was left some helpful feedback by a reviewer who treated it in the style of a featured article, which I have since taken. I tried to take this to peer review just over a month ago, but I got no feedback and grew impatient. I am confident enough in my work that I can meet the demand of a featured article on the fly with this one. I'm really excited for this one, because I actually created this article and hope to reach the Four Award with it. mftp dan oops 22:04, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Suggest adding alt text
  • File:Spiritbox_EternalBlue.jpg needs a specific source
  • File:Spiritbox_EternalBlue_Alt.jpg: FUR needs expansion
Hey Nikki, I hear you. Thank you for your comments!
  • I normally add alt text but this one seems tough. I'll let you know when I think of something to put there.
  • By "specific source", do you mean the actual URL instead of just genius.com, or something else?
  • Rationales are not my strength but I will reach out and see if someone else can advise me on that. I imagine it shouldn't be too hard, I just don't know what to model after.
  • I am working on a sample to add in during the course of the FAC.
mftp dan oops 17:34, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draken Bowser[edit]

Looking good, I have only one substantial concern. The process leading up to the record is extensively and appropriately described, but I would like a bit more commentary on the result. Themes are comprehensively analyzed, but there is room for more neutral commentary on the result in terms of music/composition and lyrics, with respect to the individual songs.

  • Lead: Prefer: "Music critics reviewed the album positively, who generally praised its production, songwriting, and musicianship."
  • Critical reception: for creative works receiving overwhelmingly positive critique I've always found it elegant to include a dissenting opinion to round off the section. This is of course provided that such a dissent has been published and can be considered due, I'm not asking you to invent a dissenting voice (that would likely be a breach of YESPOV)

Regards. Draken Bowser (talk) 10:28, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Three things:
  • Resolved the prose comment. You are correct, that text was redundant.
  • I found it considerably difficult to find anyone (either professional or amateur) who viewed this album as anything less than good when writing this. The closest I could get were a few who recognized it had some shortcomings, but even those critics lauded EB. My GA reviewer suggested I reorganize the reception to some sort of theme to fit guidelines, and I tried to separate these viewpoints into another paragraph from those who took it as gold.
  • Ok, sounds good. /DB
  • I am not certain what you mean by "more neutral commentary on the result in terms of music/composition and lyrics", can you be more specific? Are there questions it leaves you asking, maybe?
mftp dan oops 17:29, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. By composition/music I mean (including but not limited to): key, chord progressions, time signature(s), melodies/licks/riffs, instrumentation, solos, drop-d-tuning, production/mixing/post-production. The "composition"-section only comments on the album as a whole. There is some commentary on a few of these aspects with respect to the individual songs, but I think we need more. Draken Bowser (talk) 19:19, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds like a reasonable request. Let me try looking through the sources I have in the article already tomorrow night (Mondays are busy). If I don't find anything, I'll give a look elsewhere, but I feel like I would have included that kind of stuff if I'd seen it (though perhaps in fact I didn't). mftp dan oops 20:40, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

George Floyd (American football)[edit]

Nominator(s): Therapyisgood (talk) 15:18, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proudly nominating this article for FAC. Instead of PR, I'm hoping an England or UK-based editor can take over where TRM left off before the last FAC was archived. Therapyisgood (talk) 15:18, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You Belong with Me[edit]

Nominator(s): Ippantekina (talk) 10:00, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a song by Taylor Swift, an American musical artist. Those who have heard this song might remember it via the infamous mic grab in 2009. That incident aside, this song is a pretty good pop hit that was everywhere in 2009 but was denounced by feminists. I believe this article is well-written and comprehensive for the bronze star. I appreciate any and all comments, Ippantekina (talk) 10:00, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Placeholder[edit]

  • I'll do a full review soon (I owe it to my son, who literally just the other day told me that after three months with his Swift-obsessed girlfriend he has a favourite Swift song for the first time in his life and this is it :-)) but one thing caught my eye on a quick readthrough: In "TMZ", Yankovic sings about the ways paparazzi and the bossip website TMZ.... What is "bossip"? Is it a neologism/slang term of which I am not aware (in which case, is there an appropriate wikilink?) or is it just a typo? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:21, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Chris, I noticed there were a few typos after the GOCE request, so I did a read through and eliminated all remaining typos. Ippantekina (talk) 09:00, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No worries, I wasn't sure if I was not just down with all the latest terminology :-) I'll do a full review shortly...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:23, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Draken Bowser[edit]

It's always nice to see all the aspects that can be comprehensively covered for a famous song, where there's plenty of sources. I especially like the paragraph on music theory including chord progressions. It's a decent song as well, although I tend to agree with Alexis Petridis.

  • Lead: Prefer "..widely covered controversy."
  • Background: "was recorded by the audio engineer" and I know -ing is generally frowned upon, but isn't "She recalled him becoming defensive" better? For the final sentence, is there anything more to it? As it is written it's not evident why it would be due?
  • Music and lyrics: "The lyrical motifs evoke a typical American high-school setting; the narrator sees herself as a typical girl and an underdog, and the girlfriend is a popular, attractive cheerleader." - Change one or the other. - "as an underdog contributes to her reliability." - Was this supposed to be about being "relatable"? I was only able to read one of the sources so I'm unsure, but as it is written it doesn't make complete sense to me.
  • Accolades and retrospective reviews: "Sheffield ranked it 128th out of Swift's 243 songs" - add year here as well
  • Live performances: "You Belong with Me" was the opening number on the set list of Swift's first headlining concert tour the Fearless Tour in 2009 and 2010." - Optional commas around "the Fearless Tour".

That's all for now. Regards. Draken Bowser (talk) 15:25, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Draken Bowser:, thanks for the comments. I've addressed all of them accordingly :) Ippantekina (talk) 16:26, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Supporting. Draken Bowser (talk) 08:24, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I forgot, the somewhat vague "final sentence" refers to: Rose suggested Swift write "something about bleachers" and they conceived another lyric: "She's cheer captain and I’m on the bleachers". I've warmed up slightly to it, but I'm still unsure why it would be important to single out this passage, after it has already been established that they co-wrote the lyrics. Draken Bowser (talk) 08:47, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

  • "both the antagonist—an unsympathetic, popular brunette cheerleader, and the protagonist—a sympathetic" => "both the antagonist—an unsympathetic, popular brunette cheerleader— and the protagonist—a sympathetic"
  • "with prominent, high-school and fairy-tale lyrical imagery" => "with prominent high-school and fairy-tale lyrical imagery"
  • "a close male friend, whom she understood but was in a relationship" => "a close male friend, whom she understood but who was in a relationship"
  • "and said, contrary to Swift's status as an attractive and popular figure, her" => "and said that, contrary to Swift's status as an attractive and popular figure, her"
  • "Critics commented Swift's vocals are the most prominent change" => "Critics commented that Swift's vocals are the most prominent change"
  • "Emily St. James commented on this recording, Swift's voice" => "Emily St. James commented that, on this recording, Swift's voice"
  • That's all I got! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:45, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aoba47[edit]

Unfortunately, I will be unable to do a full review for this FAC, which is a shame as this is my favorite Taylor Swift song. I am not sure about using the karaoke version as the audio sample. I would imagine that readers would benefit from hear the main version of the song and hearing how the elements of the instrumental discussed in the caption are represented in the actual song. I just do not think that this is the most helpful choice. Apologies again for not being able to do a review, but I still wanted to point this out. Aoba47 (talk) 21:57, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maria Trubnikova[edit]

Nominator(s): —Ganesha811 (talk) 18:42, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Maria Trubnikova, an early Russian feminist and activist. She was part of a group of three friends and allies known as the "triumvirate", alongside Nadezhda Stasova and Anna Filosofova. Trubnikova mentored them and was well-known internationally, but suffered from illness towards the end of her life and died in an asylum.

Note: if this nomination is successful, I hope to subsequently nominate Stasova's and Filosofova's articles for FA as well, in that order. The three articles have very similar sourcing, so any reviewers interested in this one may be interested in those as well. —Ganesha811 (talk) 18:42, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

serial[edit]

An absolute Markievicz, a Luxemburg, in her breadth of thinking and involvement. The triptych sounds fine also. Some minor thoughts.

  • Tweaked to add link.
  • "consequently been sent": Might be able to loose that second "been".
  • Done
  • "Ivasheva grew up alongside three siblings." seems redundant when we have been told she was "the second of four children".
  • Removed
  • For clarity, perhaps tweak "Both her parents... childbirth"; something like "Both her parents passed away when she was very young: her father in 1839, her mother, in childbirth, the following year".
  • Tweaked as suggested.
  • Her princess aunt, can you identify her relationship with the royal family, if any?
  • Comment: I've been unable to, no.
  • Link Richard Stites.
  • Why "historian Richard Stites" but "the historian Rochelle Rothschild"?
  • Tweaked
  • Stites is not "another historian"—you've just mentioned him!
  • Commment, whoops, that probably got mixed up as sentences were moved around.
  • I take it Olga is potentially WP:N, then...?
  • Comment: Potentially, assuming the Russian article is well-sourced it could be used as a guide.
  • It might be worth quoting Ruthchild, re. MT's "salon within a salon, perhaps tied to the following quote of RR's re. empowerment.
  • Question could you expand on this comment a little more? Not sure what you're suggesting precisely.
  • First names on first use; then second. So e.g. just Ruthchild now. And like you do do with Novikova!
  • Done
  • Do we know why she was abroad in 1861? Vacation, research, speaking tour...?!
  • Comment As best as I can recall none of the sources specify, but in general it was common for wealthy Russians to spend summers or other long periods abroad.
  • "...the Tsar (then Alexander II)": Just "Tsar Alexander II" will do.
  • Done
  • The "however" is unnecessary, as it's not contrasting anything.
  • Removed
  • "leading figure of the Russian women's movement." > MOS:LQ.
  • Comment: I believe this is in compliance, as the period appears in Novikova.
  • Excellent use of an adversative conjunction opening a sentence; cf. Lies My Teacher Told Me.
  • Suggest the mention of MT's inheritance as coming from her aunt is moved to where it's first mentioned (so "Trubnikov, using Trubnikova's inheritance from her aunt for funding" in Early Life).
  • Done
  • Worth glossing Perovskaya. She wasn't just a revolutionary; she was executed for assassinating Alexander II—whom you've already mentioned, of course—and so hiding her was a far worse offence than her just being a revolutionary might imply.
  • Added
  • Clarify why her daughters were arrested, briefly.
  • Comment I'm not sure - Rappaport is the only source to mention this, as best I can recall, and does not give a reason for the arrest. We can probably guess it had to do with the general crackdown following the assassination of the Tsar, but no specific evidence for this.
Additional note: Ruthchild writes that When her daughter Olga joined the revolutionary groups Black Repartition in 1879 and then People's Will in 1881, she [Trubnikova] held meetings and stored illegal literature at her house.
Fantastic topic. Cheers, ——Serial Number 54129 19:40, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Serial Number 54129: FYI, I've added a paragraph of content at the end of 'Early life', if you want to take another look since your support. —Ganesha811 (talk) 13:20, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maestro, Ganesha811, an excellent addition. Is there any chance of a 'for example' after Trub's despotism gets mentioned? ——Serial Number 54129 13:25, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Engel writes: She could not defy Trubnikov, a perfect despot at home, who was unrelenting about such things. "It was impossible to change Father's mind, and he demanded his wishes be met," wrote their daughter, Olga. Trying to live with her husband amicably eventually drove Maria to a nervous breakdown...". Meanwhile Ruthchild writes: The man who enchanted her by his erudition and ideals proved to be threatened by, and then openly hostile to, her feminist ideals and erudition. Trubnikov undermined not only his wife's intellectual but also her material and physical well-being. He completely mismanaged Mariia's inheritance money through bad investments and diverting resources to his second family." . Incidentally, this is the only reference to a second family for Trubnikov I have seen, so not sure what's going on there. I'm not sure if any part of this makes a good example, but I might go back and strengthen the language a little to illustrate the depths of his opposition to her work and his general mistreatment. —Ganesha811 (talk) 18:37, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

Paintings are not necessarily "published" in the meaning of copyright law (but you can't necessarily assume they are unpublished either). You will need US tags for the mother & father images. Honestly, it is not clear to me the encyclopedic relevance of what her mother & father looked like; I would just remove these images. (t · c) buidhe 19:49, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Removed - I added them simply because the article felt under-illustrated with just the lead image, but don't mind removing them as I agree they are not strictly necessary. —Ganesha811 (talk) 20:40, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild[edit]

Recusing to review.

  • Citations: Kaufman needs a publisher location.
  • Added
  • Infobox: suggest running the first two paragraphs together.
  • Comment I assume you mean in the lead? I'm not sure that would be an improvement - the first sentence provides the most general overview before we get into a condensed summary of her life in the next two paragraphs.
Apologies, yes. I strongly urge you to merge them. It would improve the look and prose quality of the article
Done!
  • "and consequently sent to". Perhaps 'and was consequently sent to'?
  • Adjusted as suggested.
  • "Both her parents passed away". MOS:EUPHEMISM has "Euphemisms should generally be avoided in favor of more neutral and precise terms. Died and had sex are neutral and accurate; passed away and made love are euphemisms."
  • Modifed
  • "later became a stock trader and founded a newspaper". Later than what?
  • Comment: The sources state that he was a property owner and government official, though they are non-specific on both counts. It's a couple sentences back in the paragraph.
You state that he "later became a stock trader and founded a newspaper. If you are going to use "later" then you need to state or indicate what it was later than. This is nor currently clear, at least to me.
Fixed, I hope - I removed the word "later" and I think the sentence is now clearer in context.


  • "Trubnikova's woman-only salon".I thought that 'women-only' was the normal usage.
  • Modified
  • "Trubnikova mentored other women interested in feminism ... Trubnikova, however, actively sought to educate fellow women on feminist issues". This seems to repeat much the same thing three sentences later.
  • Fixed, I hope. That paragraph was a bit of a Frankenstein - I've simplified and reorganized it slightly to address this comment.
  • "Trubnikova, Nadezhda Stasova and Anna Filosofova became close friends and allies". Is it known how they met?
  • Modified - they met via Trubnikova's salon. I've added a parenthetical.
  • "as it was then-called". I don't think you need the hyphen.
  • Fixed
  • "In contrast to the Russian nihilist movement". Suggest 'In contrast to the contemporaneous Russian nihilist movement' or similar.
  • Modified accordingly
  • "The reduced group's charter was approved in February 1861". By whom? What if anything were the implications of this approval?
  • Modified - my understanding from the sources is that it was approved by some body of the Tsarist government, making it a legal society as opposed to an illegal one.
  • "While abroad in France" → 'While in France'.
  • Done
  • "the cooperative focused on writing and translation". Did members of the cooperative do the writing?
  • Comment: Yes, although they primarily focused on translation, I recall the sources also stating that it published original works.
  • "it published a wide variety of books, including textbooks, scientific works and children's stories." Any examples?
  • Comment: Novikova gives the examples of Darwin's On the Origin of Species and Hans Christian Anderson's Fairy Tales, but that might be overdetail for this article.
Your call, but that was just the level of detail I was fishing for and which I think would both enhance the article and assist a reader.
Added!
  • "The cooperative lasted until 1879." What happened in 1879?
  • Comment: I'm not aware of any specific incident, but Novikova says that with both Trubnikova and Stasova abroad, "the activities of the cooperative came to an end."
Note: Novikova says that this was in the 'early 1870s', which fits with both Stasova and Trubnikova abroad. Ruthchild however gives more detail. She writes: The artel's charter was never approved by the government; no reason is listed even in the official records, and innumerable appeals to high officials by Filosofova failed to reverse this decision. But there were additional problems. Two of the group's most active members, Trubnikova and Stasova, withdrew. Trubnikova had begun to show the signs of mental illness.... leaving Filosofova to manage the artel on her own. Finally the bankruptcy of the bookselling firm that had carried much of the artel's inventory contributed mightily to the [organization]'s financial woes.
It may be worth adding a short summary of this. Your call again, but I would.
Added good suggestion.
  • "Trubnikova also worked at the paper founded by her husband, Birzhevyie Vedomosti, as a translator." Which languages?
  • Comment: I don't recall any source mentioning a specific language, but French and German would be reasonable guesses.
  • "The campaign began with a meeting at Trubnikova's apartments". Should "apartments" be singular?
  • Comment - good question. Stites uses the word 'apartments', and I think this makes more sense to convey that this is not what we would think of as a modern apartment, which is usually smaller than a house - these would have been grand rooms at the top end of the Russian scale. However, happy to modify if the current wording is unclear.
Ho hum. I take your point. How would you feel about actually describing the situation at first mention? Eg something like 'large and spacious apartment'.
Hmm, a bit tricky, since none of the sources actually describe them with terms like that, it's just assumed. I've instead gone the other way and simply said "Trubnikova's home" since it is, in the end, not really key to the reader to know what kind of home it was. —Ganesha811 (talk) 13:46, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "inconsistent due to the competing impulses of rival ministers". "impulses" seems an odd word. 'interests'?
  • Comment: State policy was highly personalized and somewhat arbitrary under the Tsar, so impulses isn't inaccurate, but I think 'interests' is clearer to the reader and also accurate. Modified accordingly.
  • "Tolstoy countered by allowing the lectures at his own apartments". "allowing" or compelling?
  • Modified to make this clearer.
  • "and she struggled with money." 'for money'?
  • Fixed
  • "Sophia Perovskaya (who planned the assassination of Alexander II)." "Planned" or 'coordinated'? I thought Andrei Zhelyabov did (most of) the planning?
  • Modified accordingly.
  • Comment: I suspect a lunatic asylum, though the earlier sojourn abroad probably involved sanatoriums - Novikova writes that she had a "nervous breakdown" in 1881 but remained active as a translator, but that the flu of 1893-4 led to "recurrent psychosis".
Not a huge issue, but "asylum" seems to beg a question. If we are reasonably sure as to which of the alternatives it was, it would be helpful to both specify and link.
Added a wikilink. —Ganesha811 (talk) 13:46, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cracking article. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:27, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Gog the Mild: FYI, I've added a paragraph of content at the end of 'Early life', as you take another look at the article. Thank you for your comments and suggestions! —Ganesha811 (talk) 13:20, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Some come backs above. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:24, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe everything has been addressed - thanks for your additional suggestions! —Ganesha811 (talk) 13:46, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Averageuntitleduser[edit]

First FAC review, this seems like a fun one:

  • "Trubnikova was orphaned at an early age, and subsequently raised by a wealthy relative." — remove comma.
  • Done
  • "At 19, she married; she and her husband, Konstantin, had seven children." — I sense too many pauses, an easy fix would be: "She married at 19" or "She married at the age of 19".
  • Done
  • Fixed
  • "Trubnikova was influenced by the writings of French writers such as Jules Michelet and Henri de Saint-Simon." — this feels a tad out of place; in what way was she inspired? If they influenced her management of the salon, perhaps it would work better before (or somehow combined) with the sentence about her recruitment of other women.
  • Comment: Good question, this relates to how *she* became a feminist but it's not very well-placed. Let me revisit the sources and I will adjust it shortly.
  • Second comment: I've added a paragraph of content, including this sentence, to the end of 'Early life', which I hope addresses the issue and provides more context. Let me know what you think! —Ganesha811 (talk) 13:20, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I quite like the addition, it definitely puts the inspirations into a clearer perspective. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 17:00, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done
  • Done
  • "although she continue to perform" — "although she continued to perform"
  • Fixed

Second round of comments:

  • "Triumvirate" could be a useful link, especially as its in quotation marks, somewhat referring to the word itself.
  • Added!
  • "Trubnikova and Stasova began pushing, in 1867, for Russian universities to create courses for women." — this is sad to say, but these could be construed as women-targeted courses or women-only courses, perhaps: "courses accepting women".
  • Continuing from above, this paragraph feels a little vague on what the courses entailed. Did the women promote any specific subject ares? What were the petition's requests? Rappaport highlights her support of setting up public lectures to prepare women for university, which I imagine could help. Of course, it's alright if the sources inhibit this comment; I actually think it's quite minor.
  • Fixed, I hope: Good point - Stites writes (p.75) that their initial petition "requested that special coeducational be established at the University of St. Petersburg." Johanson goes into similar detail and states that the triumvirate definitely wanted these to be "serious", in-depth courses, and that the public lectures that Tolstoy allowed at first were a step down. I've added some detail to the two paragraphs on the push for higher education - let me know what you think. —Ganesha811 (talk) 16:40, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Despite the limited sources available, this is a lovely, precise read. Not sure I'm comfortable enough with the criteria to support just yet, but later on, I'll have another look through to make up my mind. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 23:31, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments thus far! —Ganesha811 (talk) 12:01, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A confident support, very engaging and accessible. Well done, Ganesha! Averageuntitleduser (talk) 21:55, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ajpolino[edit]

Thank you for an interesting read on a topic I knew nothing about. Comments below (pulled away from the computer halfway through, but will return by end of day):

  • "a wealthier aunt, the Princess E.N. Khovanskaia." awkward to read "the Princess" with no context. I see above we're not sure what makes Khovanskaia a princess. Clicking ignorantly through the Google Translated Russian Wikipedia articles, this one (on her paternal grandfather) claims Trubnikova's father had a sister Ekaterina (1811-1855) who married a "Prince Yuri Khovansky, the son of Prince Sergei Nikolayevich Khovansky. If it's possible to confirm and add something, that would be nice.
  • Comment - yep, that looks like the right connection. I'll see if I can find a good reliable source, maybe from the Russian page. I suppose the thing worth noting is that Prince/Princess didn't imply direct relation to the royal family in the Russian Empire - it was a generic "noble" title. I think linking to our fairly high-quality article on it (Knyaz) will help, so I'll add that to start. —Ganesha811 (talk) 18:00, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very helpful context. Appreciate the footnote. Ajpolino (talk) 13:51, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Engel describes Trubnikov as 'a perfect despot' in domestic affairs." - I wasn't sure what this was intended to mean, so I took a peek at the source on archive.org. Engel's take on Trubnikov here is a bit darker than what this sentence gets across. Suggest either adding a few more words to clarify, or cutting it (Engel's negative sense of Trubnikov returns more clearly in the Later life section anyway).
  • Comment: Yeah, I modified the phrasing some to clarify - hopefully it's improved! —Ganesha811 (talk) 20:23, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Much clearer. Thank you.

Other than that, everything looks good. Thanks again, looking forward to seeing the next two installments in the series. Ajpolino (talk) 13:51, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support Well-written and informative. Ajpolino (talk) 02:15, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mujinga[edit]

  • Nice article! Most of the ground has already been covered, just some nitpicks below. Some things are already fixed since I read through the article the other day, eg I agree on the knyaz footnote being a decent touch, since also got caught by reading knyaz in the text
  • "was consequently sent to a Siberian exile" - reads weirdly to me, is it perhaps a US/Br Eng thing? i would prob say "was consequently sent into Siberian exile"
  • Fixed, I hope: this was also mentioned above - I've changed it to "exiled to Siberia", which is simpler and hopefully clear on both sides of the Atlantic.
  • "Trubnikova, however, actively sought to educate fellow women on feminist issues, seeing her new salon as a "venue for empowering" them" - is Ruthchild saying this about Trubnikova or is it a direct quote from Trubnikova?
  • Fixed - the former - I've modified the sentence to make this clearer.
  • "She died at Saint Petersburg's asylum "in the arms of her youngest daughter" on 28 April 1897.[4] Trubnikova was interred at the Novodevichy Cemetery in Saint Petersburg, and remembered by her colleagues as "the heart and soul" of feminist activism in Russia.[4]" who is saying the things in apostrophes here?
  • Comment - those are quotes from the source, Novikova. I added a subordinate clause to help make this clearer.
  • On references, you have a mixture of title case and sentence case eg Encyclopedia of women social reformers vs The Women's Liberation Movement in Russia: Feminism, Nihilsm, and Bolshevism, 1860–1930
  • Fixed - went with title case.
  • There's eight refs with publisher location and two without, or would you argue Princeton University Press and University of Pittsburgh Press don't need a location?
  • Comment: - yep, I'd say those two are clear from the publisher, as Princeton is a town too and not just a university.
  • And finally (with an apology for this level of nitpickiness) I do see some variation in book titles as regards the formatting of subheadings Mujinga (talk) 15:13, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Would this be the missing colon in the Pashova cite? Or something else? Hopefully fixed! Thanks for your comments. :) —Ganesha811 (talk) 16:58, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes and I made this change, feel free to revert. Mujinga (talk) 19:39, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This all looks pretty good now, just one last query, what is "General references"? I glided over that before thinking it was "Selected works" Mujinga (talk) 19:41, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's a reference which isn't used to support any specific piece of information but generally supports the article. I haven't used as a specific cite both because of its age and because I can't read Russian, so would have to rely on Google Translate. —Ganesha811 (talk) 20:26, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edmund Ætheling[edit]

Nominator(s): Dudley Miles (talk) 14:35, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Very little is known about Edmund Ætheling, who is probably the only son of a king to have died in exile in Hungary. It was a GA when a Japanese editor asked for help getting it to a GA on Japanese Wikipedia. I saw that the article was mainly based on an unreliable source and I advised the Japanese editor not to proceed and got it delisted as a GA. After that I thought I ought to bring the article up to scratch and I think that it now covers everything said about Edmund in RSs. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:35, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Serial[edit]

I remember the GA delisting. Interesting times! Can you clarify the first sentence of the Background? It says that England experienced (suffered?) Viking attacks from 793 (for example), but they stopped for 25 years from 950. That's a very long stretch of time. Suggest linking calendar of saints' feast days as pretty specialist to all but practising Catholics. The good thing about using {{lang}} is not so much cosmetic byt that screen readers use it to identify a foreign title, so it is in accordance with MOS:ACCESS. Interesting article, nice and tight, Dudley Miles, and thanks for it. Will you be translating it to Japanese for Yon Feller?  :) ——Serial Number 54129 16:10, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Serial. I am not clear about your first point. The first recorded Viking raid was in 789 but there is evidence that there were earlier unrecorded ones. I have linked calendar of saints and added the lang template. I am afraid my Japanese is non-existent so I will leave the translation to you! Dudley Miles (talk) 16:37, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think Banzai! is about all I've got Dudley  :) happy to support this article's promotion. ——Serial Number 54129 10:49, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review—pass[edit]

Never thought I'd get to review Ealdgyth's spouse !

Anyway the images are just fine :) (t · c) buidhe 17:32, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Buidhe. Actually, it is Ealdgyth's son. Does that make it even better or a disappointment? Dudley Miles (talk) 17:54, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Support from Gog the Mild[edit]

Recuse to review.

  • "(born 1016-17)" Perhaps '(born 1016 or 1017)'? As it is written I have an image of his mother going into labour late on New Year's Eve.
  • "briefly ruled as King of England". Lower-case k as it is being used here as a job title.
  • "fought the invasion of the Danish Vikings". "the invasion"?
  • This is a difficult one. "an" invasion would be wrong as it was a series of incursions over several years aiming to conquer England. "invasions" seems wrong as it was all part of one process. I think "the invasion" sounds right. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:20, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But that makes it sound like the one and only time Danish vikings invaded England. Why not give full information, as you did to me? 'Edmund Ironside fought a series of attacks [or 'incursions'] by the Danish Vikings'?
  • How about "Æthelred had spent most of his reign unsuccessfully resisting incursions by Danish vikings, and as king Edmund Ironside put up a strong fight until his death in November 1016, when the Viking leader Cnut became the undisputed king of all England." Dudley Miles (talk) 17:53, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Works for me.
  • Several page ranges use hyphens rather than en dashes.
  • I have never understood hyphens, en dashes and em-dashes, and scripts seem erratic, changing some but not others. Is there a script which deals with this reliably?
I have a "Fix dashes" in my side bar, although I can't remember where it came from, and it stopped working for me about a year ago.
LOL.
  • "the king of Sweden". Upper-case K, as it refers to a specific person.
  • "Yaroslav I, prince of Kiev". Upper-case P. :-)
  • "as early sources which says that they first went to Russia." Should that be 'say'?
  • "A claimant to the Hungarian throne, Andrew, fled to Russia after being expelled from his home country, and in 1046 he returned and seized the Hungarian throne." A minor point, but "... the Hungarian throne ... the Hungarian throne."
  • Foreign language words, other than proper nouns, should be in lang templates. Eg "Clitus is the Latin for ætheling."
  • "and certainly by 1057, when Edward died a few days after his return." Why does this follow?
  • This is never spelled out by historians, but it is assumed that if he had been alive when his brother died then he would have been mentioned as a claimant to the English throne. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:20, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So there isn't a source which spells it out for you to refer to. Bleh! Most unsatisfactory, but I suppose it can't be helped.

Gog the Mild (talk) 20:50, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of comments, and one ongoing issue, above. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:36, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from 750h[edit]

The only issue I have is with a paragraph consisting of just one sentence. But I understand its why it's there, so I support this article's promotion.  750h+ | Talk  05:47, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ajpolino[edit]

An interesting quick read on a topic I knew nothing about. A few small comments, below:

  • "a few days before his death in 957" - is this supposed to be 1057, or am I confused?4
  • "He is commonly known as 'Edward the Exile'." seems unnecessary after we were already introduced to him in the lead, but I won't demand its removal.
  • The repetition is necessary because the lead should be a summary of the full details in the main text. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:04, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A late eleventh-century entry in manuscript D of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle says that Cnut sent Edward to Hungary 'to betray'." Do we have any context for what "to betray" would mean here?
  • The implication is that they were sent to Hungary to be murdered, but I cannot find any historian specifically discussing the wording in the Chronicle. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:04, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there any easy way to reword "Sweden until 1028, when they went to Kiev with King Olaf of Norway, who fled to Sweden and then Kiev"? I had to read it a few times to understand. I think "Sweden... Kiev... Sweden... Kiev" in one sentence made my head spin.
  • How about "De Vajay suggests that the brothers stayed in Sweden until 1028. In that year King Olaf of Norway fled to Sweden and then Kiev after being defeated by Cnut and losing his kingdom, and de Vajay thinks that Edmund and Edward accompanied him." Dudley Miles (talk) 23:04, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Works for me. Ajpolino (talk) 23:07, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "daughter of the king of Hungary, and Aelred is a credible" a bit of a run-on sentence. Can we split it here or rearrange a bit? Reads as if "According to Aelred... Aelred is a credible source"
Great, with that I'm happy to support. Thanks again for the read Dudley Miles. Ajpolino (talk) 23:08, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from UC[edit]

Short but well-crafted: a few comments below.

  • Is this the same person sometimes (perhaps in older sources?) referred to as "Edmund the Ætheling"? If so, perhaps an "also known as..." or a footnote to explain the difference would help.
  • I have not come across this usage. Can you give examples? Dudley Miles (talk) 09:20, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looking around, it seems to be minority, but see e.g. here (1939), here (1998) and (not such an authoritative source) here (2014). Whether it's a mistake or a variation, I think it might be worth a footnote. UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:32, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • None of these examples refer to the subject of this article. The first is Edmund Ironside before he became king, the second a brother of Æthelred who died young, the third uncertain but probably also the brother who died young. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:43, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah! In that case, suggest a hatnote to disambiguate: "not to be confused with Edmund Ironside, known as "Edmund the Atheling" before he became king". Is the other Edmund the Atheling notable enough to include there as well? UndercoverClassicist T·C 13:57, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is too complicated for a hatnote so I have added a footnote. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:52, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • they ceased for twenty-five years from the mid-950s: we've got a curious balance here of quite a precise date (twenty-five years) with quite a vague one (mid-950s). Can we be more exact about when the last one was?
  • The exact date is not certain. Changed to "some twenty-five years". Dudley Miles (talk) 09:20, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Advise "around twenty-five years": I don't think "some" means "roughly" outside BrE, and only weakly in that. UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:32, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Æthelred's favourite, Eadric Streona, the ealdorman of Mercia, murdered two leading thegns of the northern Danelaw, Morcar and his brother Sigeferth: lots of technical terms here. There's always a balance to be struck between flow and clarity: here I would at least try to explain what the Danelaw is, perhaps in a sentence before this one that could go into when and how it came about.
  • How about a footnote explaining thegn and Danelaw to avoid breaking up the flow? Dudley Miles (talk) 09:20, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • marrying Ealdgyth in defiance of his father's will: suggest clarifying whether will here means "wishes" or "testament".
  • "Wishes" is too weak. Changed to "in defiance of his father".
  • Edmund and his brother Edward were the sons of Edmund Ironside, almost certainly by Ealdgyth: as written, it sounds as though this is the same Ealdgyth who had previously married Sigeferth.
  • Ah! In that case, I'm a little confused. In the lead, we had Edmund Ironside and his wife, probably called Ealdgyth, which says that we're unsure of whether it was Ealdgyth, but that we're certain it was Ironside's wife -- the only confusion is what her name was. Now we've got Edmund Ironside, almost certainly by Ealdgyth, where it's almost certain that it was this exact woman. The sources cited in the footnote seem to be supporting whether the wife's name was Ealdgyth, but I don't see anything written there as to whether she was actually the same woman, as opposed to someone of the same name. As you note there, it wasn't an unusual one. UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:32, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think I have been over-cautious as most historians state without qualification that Ealdgyth was Edmund's mother, so I have removed "probably" from the lead, Does this work for you? Dudley Miles (talk) 12:43, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I suppose my only remaining confusion is Most historians give the name of Edmund Ironside's wife as Ealdgyth: do some historians thinks that Ironside married someone else? UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:31, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed to "Edmund Ironside's wife is almost always named by historians as Ealdgyth." It is accepted that Edmund married Sigeferth's widow and that she was the mother of his children. The possible doubt is her name. It is first recorded in the 1140s, and Williams suggests that it might be wrong, as I explain in the footnote. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:59, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    OK: I'd suggest making that absolutely explicit, then: something like "Ironside's wife, Sigeferth's widow, is almost always named...". As written, it's still not totally unambiguous that they're the same person, but it sounds as though that fact is not in dispute. UndercoverClassicist T·C 17:15, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have added a footnote at the first mention of their marriage. Does this work for you? Dudley Miles (talk) 15:59, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It works, but wouldn't it be better on "who was almost certainly called Ealdgyth" slightly further up, as it explains the slightly unusual hedge? UndercoverClassicist T·C 06:36, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I put it there because at first mention I have not yet said that she married Ironside, so it is not clear why her name is relevant. I am happy to go with your advice if you think this does not matter and I should move it up. Dudley Miles (talk) 08:48, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As I read the article in its current form, what the footnote is currently clarifying is that we're slightly uncertain about Ealdgyth's name, but not the rest of her identity. That would be best placed after "who was almost certainly called Ealdgyth": as the footnote is written, I think it would fit well (and perhaps even better) there with no change, but you could rejig it a little if you feel that a different set of context would be helpful there. UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:23, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Either the boys were twins or one of them was born posthumously: I assume there's some reason for this intriguing either-or: do we know what it is?
  • Changed to "As the marriage lasted no more then fifteen months, either the boys were twins or one of them was born after his father's death." Dudley Miles (talk) 09:20, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not think so. If one of them had been born as a result of an affair when Ealdgyth was married to another man, he would not have been regarded as an ætheling. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:43, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough: do we have a source that explicitly shuts down that possibility (e.g. by saying that there are only two possible explanations), and if so, is it already cited? UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:30, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I cite a source which says that they were twins or one was posthumous. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:59, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • They were æthelings, an Old English word meaning "king's son" or "prince",: it sounds as though someone/some source gave them that epithet: do we know who?
  • Fine, but why then do we need the or of an Old English word meaning "king's son" or "prince"? It suggests that there's some ambiguity as to which sense of it is meant here. Suggest As a king's sons, they were known as æthelings. UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:32, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • They were not just called æthelings. In Old English they were æthelings. The addition of "or prince" in the source is probably because there is some argument as to whether kings' grandsons qualified. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:43, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think getting into that particular set of linguistic weeds here is more confusing than helpful, if I'm honest. UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:29, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have not gone into it in the article, but I have to add "or prince" in the definition as otherwise I would misrepresent the source. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:59, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure: if we say that someone was made captain of a football team, we don't need to add a note that the same word can mean somebody in charge of a boat, or be a general term for someone pre-eminent in their field. Similarly, if the word aetheling here unambiguously means "king's son", I don't think we need to confuse readers by saying that it could also have a wider meaning. UndercoverClassicist T·C 17:14, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ætheling unambiguously means the male descendant of a king in the male line who is eligible for the throne. In early Wessex, the designation was passed down through several generations and son rarely followed father to the throne. From the mid-ninth century, only kings' sons were æthelings and all kings were sons of kings. This system finally broke down in 1066 when for the first time in over two centuries there was no living king's son when the king died. Edward the Exile's son is described in some sources as Edgar Ætheling even though he was only the grandson of a king. Historians disagree whether this was because grandsons could be æthelings or because there was no living ætheling in the strict sense of the term. All this is too complicated to go into, so I just quoted the definition in the most authorative source. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:06, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Another one, I think, where I'll agree to differ -- I would do this differently, but it's only to be expected that two editors will sometimes have different approaches to a problem, and there's no issue here for FAC. UndercoverClassicist T·C 06:39, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to the twelfth-century chronicler, John of Worcester, : lose the commas, unless John of Worcester is the only chronicler who existed in the twelfth century (MOS:COMMA).
  • would in now wise comply with his entreaties: in no wise, surely? Similarly, with the passage to time: of time?
  • The historian and genealogist Szabolcs de Vajay argues that writers such as John of Worcester ... are late and wrong.: I'd give this another look: the single verb argues is tricky here because there's no argument about John's date, so he doesn't argue that he's late, but it is very much a matter of argument whether he was also wrong.
  • Removed argument by saying "later writers such as John". Dudley Miles (talk) 09:20, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • He cites the Leges Edwardi Confessoris, which states: as leges is plural, I'd use a plural verb, but this may be a matter of taste. However, I'd definitely put that Latin title into a Latin language tag.
  • As it is the title of a work, I think singular is correct. I have added the Latin tag.
  • However, the Leges dates to the 1140s, contemporary with John of Worcester's Chronicle: I'm not sure I quite understand the significance of the however here.
  • Clarified as "However, the Leges is not an early source; it dates to the 1140s, contemporary with John of Worcester's Chronicle". Dudley Miles (talk) 09:20, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lestoire des Engleis: likewise, language tag here (do we have an Old French one?)
  • There does not appear to be an Old French tag so I have used the standard one. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:20, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keynes concludes "by the admittedly dangerous process of conflation", : comma needed after concludes, and I'd suggest something like "in his words" to be absolutely crystal as to whose quote this is.
  • and Aelred is a credible source as he spent several years at the court of King David I of Scotland, who was a grandson of Edward the Exile: "Aelred is a credible source as he was there" is quite unsophisticated source analysis. Plenty of eyewitnesses write things that are misinformed, forgetful or outright fraudulent. Suggest simply cutting the "and", starting a new sentence, and then cutting everything between "Aelred" and "spent".
  • This is a comment by Keynes and cited to him. It is not saying that Aelred is correct, only that he is credible. I have already made it two sentences in response to a comment by another reviewer. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:20, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Credible" is a value judgement: at minimum, I'd say "Keynes judges Aelred to be credible on the grounds that...". Describing sources in a binary way as credible/non-credible is simplistic, but at the very least shouldn't be presented as a statement of fact in Wikivoice. UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:32, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed to "Keynes comments that Aelred is a credible source". Dudley Miles (talk) 12:43, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry to keep picking this nit, but per MOS:SAID, we shouldn't use "comments that" (which should introduce a statement of objective fact) for a judgement/opinion. Advise "writes that", "judges that", "considers that" or similar. UndercoverClassicist T·C 13:59, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I read MOS as saying the opposite: "Said, stated, described, wrote, commented, and according to are almost always neutral and accurate." Dudley Miles (talk) 14:52, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough; I wouldn't personally include "commented" in a list like that, but the MoS does and we should defer to that. UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:28, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is a difference about judgement rather than grammar. Keynes's comment seems to me a fair deduction, whereas you see it as simplistic. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:59, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not wild about calling any source "credible" in such black-and-white terms, but that may be a reflection of coming from an ancient-history background, where we take as read that all of our sources are more or less always lying to us somehow. UndercoverClassicist T·C 17:16, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe the difference is the significance attached to "credible". I take Keynes to mean that Aelred should be taken seriously as he was in a position to know, not that he is definitely correct. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:52, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bodleian MS Douce 296 provides further information.: I know what MS stands for, but most readers won't, so I'd introduce this as something like "the manuscript known to scholarship as..."
  • Bodleian MS Douce 296 provides further information. It is a psalter which dates to the middle of the eleventh century. It includes a calendar of saints' feast days, and later in the century four obits were added to the calendar. Two are of unidentified people and the other two are of Edmund and Edward.: this seems like a very long-winded way of saying "late in the eleventh-century, obits of Edmund and Edward were added to a psalter known as Bodleian MS Douce 296, giving Edmund's death as 10 January."
  • I think it is worth giving full details of such a crucial source. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:20, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, but I'm not totally convinced that (for instance) the fact that two unidentified people are listed alongside the two we care about is WP:DUE in a biography of Edmund (as opposed to an article on the psalter). UndercoverClassicist T·C 14:05, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • We might wish to translate the whole obit (including the word obiit), though I would hope that most readers will be able to figure that bit out.
  • Clarified above with "obits (death dates)"
  • and certainly by 1057, when Edward died a few days after his return: how do we know? Incidentally, Edward's return, or Edmund's? It's clear from the article but not, grammatically, in this sentence.
  • This was raised by another reviewer. Edmund would have been a candidate for the throne if he had still been alive when Edward died, but this is not spelled out by historians so there is no source I could cite for explaining the date. It seems clear to me gramatically. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:20, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wouldn't give the full bibliography of Ronay's book in a footnote: instead, you could give the title, add it to the bibliography, and provide a SFN to direct readers there. At the moment, we break the reader's flow for information that very few will honestly care about (the ISBN, publisher and place).
  • This is difficult point. I originally gave details of Ronay's book in the bibliography and changed it as a result of an argument when reviewing another article. I suggested listing a book which was criticised but not cited, and the nominator argued that only books cited should be in the bibliography. I think he has a point, but full details should be given of any book discussed, so the best solution seemed to put them in a footnote. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:20, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not a major problem: I'd do it differently, but I didn't write the article, and the solution here is entirely reasonable. UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:32, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I hope these are useful. UndercoverClassicist T·C 21:44, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Tim riley[edit]

I'm sure it was difficult gathering the information for the present revision of the article – not even an ODNB article on the subject! – but one would not guess it from the prose, which flows splendidly. I was surprised to see a book from Boydell and Brewer in the line of fire, but no doubt those sniping at it know of what they speak. I can well believe the article is as comprehensive as we're likely to get, and knowing Dudley's previous work I take it for granted that the exiguous illustration is all that's to be had. I've corrected a couple of typos, but please check my changes are OK.

A couple of minor drafting points, which don't affect my support:

  • "...the English wanted them as rulers, so Emma urged Cnut..." – I shall maintain even in articulo mortis that "so" is not a conjunction (or not in formal English anyway) but the current edition of Fowler reckons that it is widely accepted as such these days. I must leave it to you to decide.
  • I have no strong feelings either way. What do you suggest? Dudley Miles (talk) 12:46, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I should write "and so" or even just "and", but I most certainly don't press the point, and if you want a naked "so" I shall not complain. Tim riley talk 13:06, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm a little uneasy about "Gaimar claims that Emma urged Cnut..." – "claims" may be thought to suggest that the assertion is questionable, and is not, I think, a neutral word, but I don't press the point. "She claimed", two sentences later, seems to me a more appropriate use of the verb.
  • I think "claims" is the right word as it is made clear below that Gaimar is not regarded as a reliable source. It is because a biography relying on Gaimar was published by B&B that historians criticise it. If it had come from a less prestigious publisher they would not have bothered, Dudley Miles (talk) 12:46, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to support promotion to FA. Tim riley talk 11:35, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks Tim. One query above. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:46, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Neville (died 1460)[edit]

Nominator(s): ——Serial Number 54129 19:58, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

According to Sharon Penman, on 30 December 1460, '...Thomas Neville, devoured a heaping plateful of cold roast capon and pompron buried in butter [and] signalled to a page for a third refill of his ale tankard'. As they say, an army marches on its stomach. But dies on its feet. Almost to a man. In snow. Outnumbered three to one. The cry would have been Á sarum! Á Sarum! Á York!.

Lots of Nevilles in this one—a Hutton of Nevilles, is that?—both individually and collectively, hence Thomas. Any thoughts on this article's improvement will be gratefully received.

Let your cry be Á FAC! Á FAC! ——Serial Number 54129 19:58, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Of course. Thanks Nikkimaria, done. ——Serial Number 54129 12:34, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Too minor for words

  • I don't know if it is just me but the caption and alt-text which currently read The site of the Battle of Stamford Bridge in 2006 are causing me inappropriate hilarity which is unworthy of the dignity of the Nevilles. Can I respectfully request that you consider rewording it in order to stop me giggling like a helpless infant? The site of the Battle of Stamford Bridge pictured in 2006 would do it, as would The site of the Battle of Stamford Bridge, 2006 photo or The site of the Battle of Stamford Bridge (2006 photo) or like whatevs. Indeed one could go for the big one and just say The site of the Battle of Stamford Bridge because no sane person, or even an editor here, can or should care when that photo was taken, unless it was from 1454 which would certainly be interesting. I certainly don't care – I can see plenty of places on Wikipedia where the date of a photo matters a lot (here is the current petrol station when it was still a turkey farm) but I honestly do not think this is one of those places. It simply does not matter: it adds nothing that we need. Having said my bit I will now stfu as I understand the young people charmingly put it. I will almost certainly not resort to fisticuffs nor a three-year edit war over this matter. Best to all, DBaK (talk) 17:56, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
DBAK Thanks! I think. Yes, I see what you mean... I've kept it simple in the caption but added your suggested , 2006 photo for the alt for the benefit of the screen reader. Apologies for triggering both the OCD and the funny bone in the space of a few hours!
Thinking about it, wasn't the Battle of Stamford Bridge in 2006 after all... when Chelsea entertained West Ham at home. Thanks for looking in, though; it's easy to get sloppy about Alt text, etc., which is a disservice to outer readers who need it. ——Serial Number 54129 18:17, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely brilliant, thank you very much. I feel a warm glow of post-OCD happiness now. Cheers DBaK (talk) 19:44, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Tim riley[edit]

From a first canter-through looking for typos:

  • "combatative and landless" – combative?
I knew that if anyone was going to pick up on it...! But yes. It's verbatim and faithful to the source. Honest guv. A direct quote. I left it like that deliberately, for opinion (and in case it was an EngVar thing, although I believe Friedrichs is as English as Queen Victoria). Thoughts? Use {{sic}}?
  • saw Thomas"in the thick of the fighting" – space
  • Bourgchier or the more usual Bourchier? – we have both
  • ransonms
  • Released into te temporary
  • "shortlived" – the OED hyphenates the word
  • "Thomas' marriage" – and all possessives for names ending in s. This is what the current edition of Fowler has to say on the point:
Names ending in -s. Use 's for the possessive case in names and surnames whenever possible; in other words, whenever you would tend to pronounce the possessive form of the name with an extra iz sound, e.g. Charles's brother, St James's Square, Thomas's niece, Zacharias's car.

More later after a proper read-through. Tim riley talk 12:03, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done, although I thought s's was an AmEng and now I'm more confused than ever (says Baldrick).
Second and concluding batch
  • Lead
  • "became a significant player" – what did he signify? You mean "leading" or "important", I think.
Good one!
  • "alongside his father and uncle, his head was impaled" – presumably just their heads too, although this seems to say father and uncle were impaled in their entirety.
True.
  • Early career, knighthood and marriage
  • "earned himself the moniker "Kingmaker"" – Chambers marks "moniker" as slang. Nickname or sobriquet might be preferable.
Sobriety is a much more elegant word.
  • "of genuinely comital proportions" – a word new to me: an explanatory note or link to Wiktionary would be a kindness.
Explanatory note regarding the actual amount itself and wikt. link for the dicdef.
  • "They they both inscribed as marginalia" – too many "they".
Done.
  • Feud with the Percy family
  • "who were also responsible for its escalation" – not sure why "also".
removed.
  • "the Nevilles would have had a substantial retune with them" – a splendid image, but I imagine you mean retinue.
As opposed to an Old Blind Piano Retainer  :)
  • "the estates of Percy loyalist Sir William Plumpton" – clunky false title
Tweaked sentence.
  • "The crown tried to settle the feud" – but you capitalise Crown elsewhere (rightly, I think).
Done.
  • Final years
  • "whom Hicks speculates may have been involved in piracy" – who, not whom wanted here.
Of course, changed.
  • "Calais—which the latter was now captain of" – not wrong but a bit inelegant. Perhaps "Calais – of which the latter was now captain"?
Absolutely fair enough.
  • "gathered for an upcoming parliament" – "upcoming" makes me want to upthrow and outwalk. What's wrong with the normal English "forthcoming"?
Clever  :) itdone.
  • "probably the largest and bloodiest battle on English soil" – is that the largest etc to that date or at any time throughout English history?
Pretty much the GOAT as the yoot of today says. I've added a footnote with some quotes to show it's a generally accepted position.
  • "The remains of Thomas Neville and the other dead of Wakefield removed from the Micklegate Bar" – were removed, unless they toddled off of their own volition.
Done.
  • "the recent death and burial there of his mother Alice in December the previous year" – I'm not sure we need both "recent" and "in December.
Lost recent.
  • "In a chariot drawn by six horses" – "chariot" comes as a surprise. I associate the term with Ancient Egypt and Rome, but am quite prepared to be told I'm wrong.
Well, I wanted to keep the wording of the original source just to avoid confusion with the modern sense of a hearse. But what I've done is a add a (perhaps slightly massive?) quotebox showing how the procedure became codified in later royal household ordinances—chariots included—that OK?
  • "Sir Robert Welles support" – Welles's?
Done, per your comment above.
  • Notes
  • "Not completely the same office as today" – that gives the reader all help short of actual assistance – either explain the difference or omit the note would be my advice
Apologies. Yes, it is a bit bizarre. I remember I was looking for a source on the history of the Mews, which would have been perfect, but couldn't find one. Which was annoying. Of course, I then forgot about this fag-end of a half-arsed footnote and left it hanging. Still, now gone for good.
  • "And replaced, entre-nous, by Lancastrian heads" – entre nous? This is an encyclopaedia article, not a confidential chat.
Done!
  • "The heraldist Anthony Wagner" – might be better to link to Heraldry rather than to Herald (although Sir AW was a herald, I know).
A personal friend of yours, perhaps also I hope?  :) So I've linked to heraldry but called him a heraldist.

I hope these comments are of use. Tim riley talk 13:18, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • All fantastic stuff, Tim riley, as always, completely embarrassed about the schoolboy typos—believe it or not, I can generally spell, but perhaps, distance and concentration lapse first. I've replied more fully to a couple of your points, mostly in explanation or where I've changed stuff. Apologies for the delay in finishing up here—I would've been done a while ago, but someone got in the way. If you've got any further advice or suggestions, please do so. Thank you very much, again. ——Serial Number 54129 19:13, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wolverton Viaduct[edit]

Nominator(s): HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:56, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wolverton Viaduct is (and this will shock you!) a viaduct. Near (wait for it!) Wolverton. In Buckinghamshire, south-central England. It was built in the 1830s and still carries trains today. Its designer was the famous Robert Stephenson and it is the largest viaduct on his pioneering railway from London to Birmingham (and probably the only one with FA potential). Stephenson was a conservative engineer and Wolverton is not much compared to some that followed, whether by Stephenson or other engineers. These days it would be made with machines and pre-cast concrete but a six-arch, 50ft-high bridge over a major river in what was then open countryside would have been a sight to behold in an era when everything still had to be done by manual labour.

If successful, this will be my fortieth FA, my fourth on a bridge, second on a railway bridge (after Bennerley Viaduct) and first on an operational one! As you'll see from the bibliography, I've scoured every source I can find and I think the article now says just about everything it's possible to say about this viaduct. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:56, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • SC

A marker for now. - SchroCat (talk) 04:36, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • in the IB you have a mix of ft and feet - either are fine, but it should be one of them only
  • "part of the Milton Keynes": the MK?
  • "army of navvies" fails WP:IDIOM
  • "Soil mechanics were not well understood in the 1830s" – would this sentence not be better with the History, where the effect and duration of the slips are better described?
  • A suggestion only, but wouldn't the history section be better a little higher up the article – at least above the Appreciation?

That's my lot, and I hope they help. Nice article. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 08:44, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Schro, I think I've got all those. Looking back at Bennerley, I put the history above the appreciation and I think you're right that it works better that way. Thanks very much for taking a look! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:21, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - happy to support this, which meets the FA criteria, in my view. - SchroCat (talk) 13:36, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:01, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UC[edit]

  • . Modern engineers and railway historians observed that Wolverton Viaduct is not as innovative or impressive: per MOS:SAID, I'm uncomfortable with the objective "observed" being used for subjective qualities like "innovative" and "impressive". Suggest "judged", "believed" or indeed "said". On a matter of style/taste, as these are modern (and so the last word in the conversation we've set up, I'd use the perfect tense: have judged etc.
    • Done.
  • Is "blue brick" the same as Staffordshire blue brick?
    • Not necessarily. Staffordshire blue brick is more common in the West Midlands than Buckinghamshire and didn't become popular elsewhere until the railways were more established. If I had to guess, I would say these bricks probably came from London or possibly even up the Ouse. I've heard of viaducts being built from bricks made on-site but none of the sources suggest that happened here.
  • As compound modifiers, hyphenate blue-brick extension and red-brick original.
    • How embarrassing! That's the sort of thing I normally point out in FACs.
  • Masts for overhead electrification were added in the 1950s but otherwise the bridge is little changed since it was built.: amend extended for built? Otherwise, I"m not sure that being wider and with an un-bonded extension in a different colour really counts as "little changed".
    • I think the point is the from the west you wouldn't notice the extension and the only obvious difference is the electrification masts.
  • I don't see a date in the "Background" section: I would at least clarify when the L&BR started construction, planning etc. We might also clarify the hedge of "from the capital" by explaining the very slightly earlier existence of the Liverpool and Manchester railway.
    • I've added the year that construction contracts were let. I 'really don't want to get into the woods with which railway was first with what caveats because that's just inviting endless drive-by edits and it's not really relevant to this one bridge.
  • The link to cutwater is specifically about boats; it advises that the architectural term should link to Starling (structure).
    • Fixed.
  • Suggest amending the abutments link to point to abutment, rather than the redirect abutments.
    • Done.
  • Lots of multi-cites at the end of sentences/paragraphs: any reason not to bundle them for readability?
    Cite bundling is a PITA if you want to use the same ref elsewhere. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:44, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not only that but it's more difficult to maintain and edit. I prefer to keep things simple. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:21, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • whose proprietors were unwilling to cooperate with their new competition: we could possibly explain a little about exactly who was competing with them, and exactly how. It wasn't Stephenson, at least not directly.
    • But it was the piece of infrastructure Stephenson was building. It's fairly obvious how a more modern piece of transport infrastructure would be seen as competition by the owners of the old infrastructure and I think going into detail on the GUC-L&BR rivalry is getting away from the subject of this one bridge.
      • That may be true. I suppose it rests on how much prior knowledge we're expecting of the reader: I've got a general contextual picture that in this period there's a lot of coal to be moved from places like Newcastle to places like London, that that was generally done by canals and ships, once upon a time, and that these were later generally out-competed by the railways, which helps me understand all of this -- but not all of our readers will. I don't think there's anything unclear here, though, and erring on a different side of the dilemma is perfectly fine. UndercoverClassicist T·C 06:18, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • to prevent the canal company from demolishing a temporary bridge: who had built that bridge?
    • Surely that can be inferred from the fact that it was the railway company who went to court to preserve it? But I've added something anyway.
  • The cost of the works on the viaduct was £28,000: can we inflate that to give readers a sense of scale?
    • I'm not at all convinced that the figures produced by the inflation template are any more meaningful but added anyway (though the 2021 figure seems remarkably low to me).
  • the overrun compares favourably to several of the other major engineering works on the line, especially Kilsby Tunnel: by how much did that one overrun?
    • Added.
  • trains ran as far as Denbigh Hall and passengers were forwarded to Rugby by stagecoach to complete their journey: I love that rail replacement buses have been a Thing as long as the rails have.
    • Ha! I nearly spat my drank out when I read this.
  • but did not open as part of the through route until: could cut as part of the through route? Not really seeing what it adds to what is already not the shortest sentence.
    • I can't absolutely refute that trains crossed it before Kilsby Tunnel was finished but I take your point so removed.
  • trains ran as far as Denbigh Hall : can we say how far that was, or how much of a detour, for those who don't have a mental map of the 1830s rail network?
    • Added. I had to look it up, not having such a mental map myself!
  • the viaduct was widened on its western side between 1879 and 1882 in keeping with the original design: there seems to be a buried lead here: did Stephenson originally design it wider, but have to build a narrow version at first? I'm not seeing the "original design" anywhere else.
    Unlikely; Stephenson will have designed it for two tracks. Whilst there have been historical instances of bridges and other structures being designed for two tracks where only one track was initially laid (the line between Oxford and Banbury for instance, see MacDermot 1927, p. 300), I know of none where four tracks were foreseen from the outset yet only two were initially laid. There are other instances of a bridge being widened for four tracks, using the same design as the original - Maidenhead Railway Bridge for instance. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:58, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah: so does "in keeping with the original design" here mean "in a manner fitting the design of the existing bridge" rather than "as it was originally designed to be"? If so, would clarify. UndercoverClassicist T·C 06:42, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've re-worded it slightly. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:21, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The route became part of the West Coast Main Line upon nationalisation in the 20th century: this seems pretty vague on the date. Nationalisation happened from 1948; our own article on the WCML is pretty vague on when the name came about, but either c. 1870 or 1923 seem to be the best candidates offered there. Any way to narrow it down from the current "somewhere between 1901 and 1999"?
    • I think this is veering too far off-topic from this bridge. I assumed the term originated with British Rail but I suppose it could date back to the LMS to distinguish it from the Midland line.
  • the appearance of the viaduct has changed little since Bourne's depiction: perhaps due to recent rearrangements, we haven't actually introduced this guy or this drawing yet. However, the photo -- which pretty clearly shows that it's now twice as wide -- would seem to contradict this statement (see above).
    • Moved the blurb on Bourne. The width is obviously different but aside from that the scene is largely the same which is what the article (and the sources it's based on) are getting at.
  • Technically speaking, the cite for the listed building status doesn't support Listed building status provides legal protection from unauthorised demolition or unsympathetic modification and is applied to structures of historical and architectural importance, though it should be trivial to find another citation that does.
    • You're correct. HE have changed their layout. It's almost obvious enough that it can be inferred but I've added a source just to be safe.
  • Nitpick: in the bibliography, second ed. and print ed. are decapitalised but Revised ed. is capitalised. Advise consistency.
    • Consistent-ified.
  • It's unusual under MOS:LAYOUT to place the footnotes after the bibliography, isn't it?
    • Unusual, perhaps, but not prohibited. It's how I've done it in most of my FAs.
  • Suggest adding alt text for the lead image.
    • Good catch. Added.

A nice piece of work and, I'm sure, a considerable feat of research to pull together. UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:38, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@UndercoverClassicist: Appreciate the review! There are a few places where I feel your questions would lead away from the subject at hand but other than that I think I've addressed everything. Happy to talk about anything that's still bothering you. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:21, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support: happy with all this and that the article is in good nick. A really excellent piece of work. UndercoverClassicist T·C 06:18, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

HF[edit]

  • Width of 53 feet seems to be found only in the infobox
  • Are you sure that blue-brick and red-brick in the lead should be hyphenated?
  • " but did not open until the September" - is something off here or is this phrasing OK in British English
  • The lead indicates that the widening occurred in the 1880s but the body is not clear on when this happened
  • The infobox mentions Network Rail but nothing else in the article does?
  • This article is in two categories for things built in 1837 but the rest of the article would lead me to believe this is an 1838 structure?

This looks to be in good shape to me; although I'm not familiar with the relevant corpus of sourcing for this topic. Hog Farm Talk 01:19, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Heptamegacanthus[edit]

Nominator(s): Mattximus (talk) 19:22, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is my fifth featured article nomination for parasitic worms (3 pass, 1 fail), which were chosen as they are the first animals listed alphabetically using the taxonomy system (Animalia, Acanthocephala...). This article has went through an excellent and thorough GA review by User:Esculenta. I believe I've captured all relevant literature (there is not much), but am ready to make any and all suggestions here. Thanks in advance! Mattximus (talk) 19:22, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Citation formatting[edit]

Hello again. I didn't say anything at the GA candidacy about citation formatting because it's not part of that criteria, but I can nitpick about it here:

  • need to pick a consistent style for author names; currently, there's a mix of full name, abbreviated first name with period, and abbreviated first name without period.
  • Done - I believe everything is now consistent with author names
  • It's unusual to give et al. after the first author; why not list them all (there's only 3) - Done
  • need to pick either sentence case or title case for article titles. I usually go with sentence case for articles and book chapter titles, and title case for book titles, but the particular style doesn't really matter as long as it's consistent. - Done (sentence case applied)
  • One journal name is given in full; another is abbreviated (unnecessarily, imo). - Done

Esculenta (talk) 23:17, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Esculenta[edit]

  • have you thought about redrawing any of the Heptamegacanthus images from the original paper? They all seem to be paper + ink, and could be readily recreated. Figure 1 and Figure 2 (male & female worms) could be combined into a single image for the taxobox, and an image of the proboscis (figure 3) would really benefit the article, as it's difficult to imagine what this looks like from text alone. WP:Graphics Lab might be able to help if you're not confident redrawing them yourself.
  • Thinking about this some more, this might not have been a good suggestion, as there could be copyright issues (redrawing an image essentially creates a derivative work). This may be a better suggestion: how about contacting the author and asking her to release the images under a Wikipedia-compatible license? Who knows, she might be delighted to have one of her obscure species being discussed and potentially featured.
  • Interesting proposition but I would feel bad contacting her unless I could say exactly what needs to be done to give licensing, of which I'm completely oblivious. Mattximus (talk) 23:45, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I notice the article doesn't use Kennedy's 2006 work Ecology of the Acanthocephala as a source, which seems to be the major recent-ish general text about the topic of spiny-headed worms. Has this book been consulted to see if it discusses this species? Esculenta (talk) 23:30, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I read the life cycle section and found it quite similar to what I wrote, except worded far better than I did. Unfortunately nothing new, or if new just a general statement about acanthocephalan life cycle in general. Could not find any reference to Heptamegacanthus. Mattximus (talk) 23:42, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just a passing comment, but most of the paragraphs are long and densely filled with information, but only sourced to one source with a wide range of pages, which makes it difficult to check that the information is adequately cited. Looking at the first paragraph of the Hosts section, could you point to the pages where the worm measures between 38–60 μm in length and 19–26 μm in width? Can you also give the page ref to support "in a process called molting"? Thanks – SchroCat (talk) 15:50, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, p 136 for all measurements (as the article is only 7 pages long I didn't think I need separate references for each point, should I do this?). And the molting I fixed by putting the ref directly beside that molting statement. I also added more refs to that large paragraph you mentioned. Refs should be more clear now, what do you think? Mattximus (talk) 23:58, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Completed first round of edits, if not marked with done I've posted a comment/question. Thank you! Mattximus (talk) 14:03, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm God[edit]

Nominator(s): Skyshiftertalk 19:27, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In 2007, Clams Casino was a random guy, producing random instrumentals for people to rap over it. He didn't get much attention until he got in touch with Lil B in 2009 and produced his album 6 Kiss. One track that immediately got attention was "I'm God", with its ethereal production sampling Imogen Heap. Unexpectedly, Clams Casino and Lil B would be cited as the pioneers of the cloud rap subgenre, with "I'm God" being cited as "cloud rap's seminal track" and "the birth of cloud rap" in the following years. However, it took over a decade for it to be released officially, due to its sample usage. Over these years where Clams Casino tried to get the sample cleared, the song received a large cult following on the Internet. After eleven years, "I'm God" was officially released in 2020 with Imogen Heap properly credited. The article is pretty short, but I believe it meets all FA criteria. Thank you! Skyshiftertalk 19:27, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

  • ""I'm God" is an instrumental track by American producer Clams Casino and British singer Imogen Heap" - if it's got vocals then it isn't an instrumental
    • Will respond below
  • "incorporates clips from Perdues dans New York"=> "incorporates clips from the French film Perdues dans New York"
    • Done
  • "Volpe said he didn't find "I'm God" unusual" => "Volpe said that he did not find "I'm God" unusual"
    • Done
  • "He sent the instrumental to different artists" - you just said it sampled Heap's vocals, therefore it wasn't an instrumental
    • Will respond below
  • ""I'm God" is an instrumental cloud rap song" - I know I keep mentioning this, but it can't be "an instrumental song". By definition a song has vocals and an instrumental doesn't
    • Will respond below
  • "when it still wasn't available" => "when it still was not available"
    • Done
  • "with Internet users stating the song's impact while they had depression" - this doesn't really work grammatically. Maybe replace "stating" with "describing"
    • Done
  • That's what I got -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:15, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • @ChrisTheDude: Thank you for the comments! Yes, it samples vocals, but most are indistinguishable; here, the vocals are used as an instrument. Instrumental tracks can use vocals, as said in Instrumental#Borderline cases. Multiple sources refer to the track as an instrumental, and it has been released on Clams Casino's albums Instrumentals 2 and Instrumental Relics as the instrumental version of Lil B's "I'm God". Skyshiftertalk 11:50, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • I see what you are saying, but is there at least a way to avoid using the description "an instrumental song", as that really doesn't make sense......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:19, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • According to Instrumental, an instrumental can be called an "instrumental song"; Song says "Through semantic widening, a broader sense of the word 'song' may refer to instrumentals". I think it is valid to call it an "instrumental cloud rap song". Skyshiftertalk 13:24, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

  • Can you explain why Red Bull and Vice are high-quality reliable sources for this article?
  • Spin reference should have via=Google Books
    • Done
  • The composition section and first paragraph of the reception and legacy section use quotations for almost every sentence; cut this down to meet MOS:QUOTE
    • Reduced some
  • Clams Casino Productions is listed in the infobox but not in the article text
    • Done
  • 4:37 is listed in the infobox but not in the article text
    • Done
  • I didn't do spotchecks

Examples of sources that seem useful but aren't cited:

Because of the overquotation and that there could easily be over a 20% increase in the article's sources, I am going to oppose for now per WP:FACR 1c as I don't think the article is currently "a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature". Best, Heartfox (talk) 02:34, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    • Thank you for your comments! They are in progress. I did a quick skim through the sources and many of them wouldn't add substantial content to the article; many of them seem to mention "I'm God" in passing. However, I'll look at them more closely later and see which of them will add substantial content to the article. Skyshiftertalk 09:44, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have analyzed the sources presented and all of them refer to Lil B's version. This is not a problem per se; I've included this source, for example, which lists "I'm God" as a Lil B song, but because it is a list of the "Best Rap Beats", it focus on the production of the song, so it is suitable for inclusion. The sources you provided also say something about the production, though not anything substantial, honestly. The MusicRadar source says the production is "sultry, downtempo", and the Guardian said that it is "dreamy, diaphanous", only. Either way, I'll see how I can add them to the article, while at the same time fixing the quote issues. I'll also add a sentence or two to Reception talking about the influence of Lil B's version. Skyshiftertalk 19:39, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Heartfox: Some of the sources have been added and I tried to paraphrase what I could; there were some sentences that I think would divert too much of their original meaning if paraphrased. Let me know if you have any more suggestions! Skyshiftertalk 20:11, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draken Bowser[edit]

Huh, both are mostly unknown to me. Ok, ok, I've heard Hide and Seek and Derulo's Whatcha Say, but who hasn't? Comments below:

  • Lead: "real name Michael Volpe" - is this necessary considering it's immediately restated in the body? "being unofficially uploaded by fans" - This is a bit unclear compared to the the body, since the lead is quite short I think there's room for a slight expansion.
    • Stating that Clams Casino's name is Michael Volpe is needed in some way, because I refer to him as Volpe throughout the lead; changed to "reuploaded", unsure how to clarify it better.
  • Background and release: "He considers its vocal sample the main aspect he likes from the song." - This is close enough to the source that I'd prefer just quoting him. Preference: "but had encountered issues as many people were involved, since 'Just for Now' washad been released through a major label."
    • Rephrased; changed.

That's it! I'm trying to make sense of one of my c/e notes, if I manage to find out what I intended I'll get back to you. Regards. Draken Bowser (talk) 16:58, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Draken Bowser: done! Skyshiftertalk 18:51, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aston Martin DB9[edit]

Nominator(s):  750h+ | Talk  13:44, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about one of the most gorgeous coupes currently, one of the most contemporary car designs of the 21st century currently, and one of the best designs from Ian Callum. Big thanks to SchroCat for his excellent peer review, and Superflat Monogram, who brought this to Good Article status ten years ago. This is my first featured article nomination.  750h+ | Talk  13:44, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source and image review (passed)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Welcome to FAC! I'll start with an image review.

  • Captions need editing for grammar. Is the country in which an image was taken significant, eg due to differences in the model? If so, that should be clarified for all images; if no, suggest omitting country across the board
Removed the countries, yes there's no point of them being there.
  • File:Hexis_DBRS9.JPG: I'm confused by the sourcing here - does "provided by copyright owner" mean the uploader is not that? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:38, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No clue. I've replaced it by one taken by a confirmed author.  750h+ | Talk  14:47, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: does this constitute a pass?  750h+ | Talk  15:17, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Still some CAPFRAG issues on captions but licensing is fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:23, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed.  750h+ | Talk  15:40, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: is this a pass?  750h+ | Talk  09:25, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:53, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes! Appreciate this detailed review, Nikkimaria.  750h+ | Talk  07:58, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

Reviewing this version:

  • 1 OK
  • 12 Can I have a version of this page? eta: Some of the information is supported.
  • 13 Can I have a version of this page?
  • 33 Can I have a version of this page?
  • 34 Some information is backed, I wonder if this is an op-ed or something else.
  • 35 Not sure that we can drop the "Aston claims" in the source.
  • 57 OK
  • 65 Supports some of the information.
  • 66 I presume you are interpreting the lack of major changes as "subtle"?
  • 70 Where does it say "running strips"? Not sure it says that the interior is the most changed.
  • 77 OK, but I will never cease to wonder why horsepower is a criterium for car use. Acceleration, braking, fuel consumption, endurance, that I can see, but power?
  • 78 I think this says Frankfurt, not Detroit
  • 82 OK
  • 89 OK
  • 90 OK
  • 91 OK
  • 92 Not seeing Twitter here, and I'd use the Twitter page anyway.
  • 103 OK
  • 111 Need someone else to spotcheck this thing.
  • 112 Need someone else to spotcheck this thing.

Looks like we are dealing with lots of magazine and newspaper sources; only the Oxford Mail raises reliability questions but keep in mind that I don't know car magazines very well. Is the link to Adam Phillips (psychologist) correct? Don't know most of the book publishers very well but it seems like the source formatting is fairly consistent. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:52, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here is source 12, Here is source 13, and Here is source 33. Re source 34, there's three sources to support the whole thing. Re source 35, I've replaced that with a newspaper source from The Province, if that's all right (better reliability and more certain), Jo-Jo. Re source 65, there's 3 references in that sentence, so that should be handled. Re 66, I removed that for WP:NPOV reasons. Re source 70, I've moved that reference to the end of the sentence to be next to ref 71, as both sources support what is being said. Ref 78, oh no, haha, that was the coupe's introduction. This one is talking about the Volante. Thanks for the notice though!! Re source 92, I've added the Tweet alongside the Top Gear source. For 111 and 112, these sources were here before I began editing the article, so not even I have access to these. Should I remove them?  750h+ | Talk  18:32, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, strike that last comment, I've found some videos. But they're only watchable in the UK (I can look for more however): S4 E1 and S6 E3.  750h+ | Talk  18:41, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can confirm that the Top Gear references are fine. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:21, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for this confirmation, AirshipJungleman29.  750h+ | Talk  19:24, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the Oxford Mail reference. Do you see anymore problems, @Jo-Jo Eumerus:?  750h+ | Talk  19:10, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but #13 and #112 doesn't show for me. Google Books has display limits, evidently. #35 and the Adam Phillips link seem unchanged on my end? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:57, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's annoying. For reference 13, could I possibly screenshot this (or possibly replace it)? I'll replace reference 13 with one of a newspaper from the Sunday Telegraph. As for source 35 in this version (the Car and Driver source), I've removed that source as the newspaper, the Province, says that already. AirshipJungleman29 stated that he had already confirmed that the Top Gear references (111 and 112) were fine.  750h+ | Talk  07:40, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Phillips was actually in #32. OK on #13 providing that "coupe and convertible known as Volante" is in the other source. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:46, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Replaced the Phillips source in 32 with newspaper from "Torquay Herald Express" too (if that's all right). Is there anything else?  750h+ | Talk  08:57, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: is this a pass?  750h+ | Talk  09:40, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing else from me. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:00, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for this excellent source review, Jo-Jo.  750h+ | Talk  07:58, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Model years[edit]

It contains many sentences like "In October 2012, in preparation for the 2013 model year". Does this mean that a change was made in Oct 2012, and then more changes were made in calendar year 2013. Or maybe changes were made in Oct 2012 and more changes were made later in 2012 (with late 2012 being the US style 2013 model year) ? Or does it mean that in Oct 2012 changes were made and these count as the US style 2013 model year? For clarity, the US style 2013 model year is the production run that includes 1 Jan 2013 and usually goes form late 2012 to late 2013 calendar years.

Similarly, "Furthermore, the 2009 model" is not clear whether it means the changes introduced in 2009 calendar year (ie mid-2009 to mid-2010) or introduced in 2009 model year (mid-2008 to mid-2009 calendar year).

Be aware that American sources tend to use model years and they just assume that all their readers also think in model years. This is, of course, not true for international readers and can be very confusing to the majority of non-Americans who tend to think in calendar years.  Stepho  talk  23:33, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the model years, Stepho. Is this better?  750h+ | Talk  02:20, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you much better.  Stepho  talk  08:52, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for this output Stepho!!  750h+ | Talk  08:57, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Epicgenius[edit]

I will look at this shortly. I should note that 750h+ has approached me about this nomination on my talk page, but it will not affect my review of this article. – Epicgenius (talk) 15:54, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this EpicGenius. Apologies for the approach, hope it didn't bug you.  750h+ | Talk  16:15, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lead/infobox:
  • Para 1: "produced from 2004 until it was discontinued in 2016" - I'd say "produced from 2004 to 2016", since readers are probably going to assume that the car was discontinued when production ceased.
done
  • Para 2: "Aston Martin produced from 1994 until it was discontinued in 2004" - Similarly, I suggest "from 1994 to 2004".
done
  • Para 2: "made its public debut" - Was there a private debut? If not, I'd change both instances of "made its public debut" to "debuted".
done
  • Para 3: "But the most noteworthy update" - I would eliminate "but" or change this to "however", as this is both awkward and somewhat redundant.
done; changed to however
  • The lead doesn't seem to mention why it was discontinued, or how many vehicles were built (the latter is in the infobox though).
There’s not particularly a lot on the discontinuation, which is why only the first paragraph and infobox say that.
More in a bit. – Epicgenius (talk) 18:09, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comments Epicgenius.  750h+ | Talk  03:20, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

serial[edit]

I came here to review, having spotted a nice and neutral notice on another page, so I will do so (that was prior to any others I may also have spotted). Everything has been dealt with, however, so—with the exception of, as off this version, a page range error at fn. 109 (requires pp=, not p=)—I'm happy to support. ——Serial Number 54129 10:43, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks SN54129. Addressed the concern.  750h+ | Talk  10:58, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Parsecboy[edit]

  • "The DB9's range includes the coupe..." - when I hear "range", I think of a distance (i.e., how far something can go on a full tank of gas under normal conditions). This might be a US/Europe thing, but it may be simpler to state something like "The DB9 was available as a coupe or the Volante convertible" (which also has the benefit of removing the ambiguity of "includes", which implies the list may not be exhaustive).
done
  • What's the significance of specifying the engine types of the Vantage (especially in the lead section)? (on an unrelated note, gotta love that a DB7 Vantage and the 2005 Vantage are unrelated cars!)
done
  • Might be worth pointing out in the Background section that Ford is the parent company of Aston Martin, and at the time, Jaguar - it'd make the material in the Development section make more sense as well
done
Still need to make clear that Jaguar was also owned by Ford at the time. Parsecboy (talk) 10:25, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done  750h+ | Talk  15:05, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...the model plan was the one established in the late 1990s." - what does this mean? There's no previous discussion of model plans.
I've just removed that. I had another reviewer ask me about that and he didn't know what it meant either. I rephrased that sentence to something more simple.
I don't think that's the right direction - we need more context, not less. Bez obviously had a plan to modernize Aston Martin in the 90s, but instead of explaining that, we jump simply to "..."the V12 Vanquish to be the first of the technologically advanced Aston Martins..." This relates to my point below, about the lack of context for non-expert readers. You have to remember that 99.99% of the people who will read this article know nothing about Aston Martin, its history, etc. Take a look at Brandenburg-class battleship, particularly the background and design sections - this article doesn't have to be as long as that one, but when I wrote those sections, I kept in mind the fact that readers aren't going to come to the article knowing the geopolitical situation in Europe in the 1880s, the state of naval technology and doctrine, and so forth, so I had to explain all of that. If we're going to provide a section that covers the development of this particular car, we really ought to talk about things like major development plans senior management of the company had, and how this car fit into them. Parsecboy (talk) 10:25, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Parsecboy Okay, so I've changed this whole part to "In the latter part of the 1990s, Aston Martin established a model plan where the cars would introduce various new technologies. In July 2000, Ford appointed Dr. Ulrich Bez as chief executive officer (CEO) and chairman of Aston Martin. The V12 Vanquish was to be the first of the technologically advanced Aston Martins, and was on the verge of its introduction in 2001." Thoughts?  750h+ | Talk  11:16, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We're nearly there, but I'm still not happy with the two sections. I think part of it is jumping back and forth in time between the Background and Design sections - it might be simplest to move the "In the latter part of the 1990s..." sentence to the second paragraph of the background section, where the V12 Vanquish is introduced (and you could probably eliminate the sentence "The V12 Vanquish was to be the first of the technologically advanced Aston Martins..." as more or less redundant to the introduction you gave it in the previous section).
One other thing I noticed: I assume the DB9 was the AM305 project (based on Callum's quote), but no explanation is given for how the original 2-seater became a 2+2 (and seemingly superseded the AM802 project). Parsecboy (talk) 23:31, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Parsecboy: So I've put your first suggestions into place. With your final query, where you said One other thing I noticed: I assume the DB9 was the AM305 project (based on Callum's quote), but no explanation is given for how the original 2-seater became a 2+2 (and seemingly superseded the AM802 project), The DB9 was the AM802 project; the 2005 Vantage was the AM305. As stated here "The entry-level DB7 was due to be replaced by a car with the project codename "AM802", slated to be a 2+2 grand touring car." This was referring to the DB9, which replaced the DB7. "During this time, a third project was in development, codenamed the "AM305". It was to be a smaller, two-seater car intended to compete with the Porsche 911 and the Ferrari 360." Talks about the Vantage. But I'll specify that.  750h+ | Talk  03:16, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The quote from Callum makes a big deal about the debate between front- and mid-engine designs, but the article doesn't clearly state what the DB9 uses; lower down, it states that the engine "largely sits behind the front-axle line". You've raised a question with the quote box that requires the reader to already know what differentiates front- and mid-engine designs (this is representative of the general sense I have from reading the article - clearly its been written by someone with extensive knowledge of the topic, but there's a lot of context missing)
In the "Powertrain" section, I've changed that to "Its front-mid-engine engine design improves weight distribution." Is that good?
That's fine for that point, but there are still context issues. It's difficult to sort out the exact relationship between Aston Martin/Jaguar/Ford, TWR, and Lawson/Callum. The article states that Aston Martin commissioned TWR for the design, but then that it was prepared by Callum after Lawson's death; their articles state they worked for Jaguar at the time, not TWR, so which entity is responsible for the design? The TWR article only mentions the DB7 as having been designed by them. If TWR didn't design the car, why are we mentioning them? Parsecboy (talk) 10:25, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Parsecboy So I've moved some things around. The TWR part has been removed because that was for the DB7 (my bad). Callum and Fisker designed the car  750h+ | Talk  11:23, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's a fair bit of links missing, some of which would be useful for the inherent ENGVAR issues (like bonnet -> Hood (car) or boot -> Trunk (car)). Remember that we're writing for an international audience, and not everyone will be aware of other varieties' of English terms for things or technical terms in general. Others that could be linked include torque, axle, Garmin, etc.
    • Semi-relatedly, there are a fair few duplicate links in the article - if you don't have it already, User:Evad37/duplinks-alt is a very useful tool
done, I'll check the duplicate links out soon.
  • A minor niggle, but the line "Despite its chassis modifications aimed at enhancing rigidity, the Volante weighs 1,882 kg (4,150 lb), slightly heavier..." - I'd expect the stronger convertible chassis to be heavier than the coupe, so the "despite" bit reads wrong to me.
done
  • It seems odd to order the DB9 GT before the LM - when readers see that the GT was the last variant of the DB9, but then see that there's another variant after that, it might be confusing, which we should avoid.
done
  • "...directed by Aston Martin's longstanding design chief, Marek Reichman." - we've already been introduced to Reichman, so that should be trimmed to "...directed by Reichman."
done
  • "On 22 July 2016, Aston Martin, on Twitter, posted a picture of the final nine DB9s..." -> "On 22 July 2016, Aston Martin posted a picture on Twitter of the final nine DB9s" - cleaner and avoids the multiple commas.
done

That's all from my first reading. Parsecboy (talk) 12:54, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for these Parsecboy, I've addressed these ones.  750h+ | Talk  12:59, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from HAL[edit]

Incoming. ~ HAL333 18:25, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • "usually known as facelifts" -- "usually" is not needed. I might also suggest the alternative "termed facelifts".
    done
  • The Oxford comma is inconsistently used throughout.
    fixed
  • "the owner of Aston Martin for a significant part of its history" - could you specify the years?
    done
  • "Aston Martin held the belief" --> the more concise "Aston Martin believed". Or considering the context, "Aston Martin worried that..."
    done
  • "Aston Martin, whom" -- Is Astin Martin a 'whom'
    That was dumb of me. fixed
  • "It was the best-selling Aston Martin of its time" --> "at its time" or even be more specific and say something like "until 201X when it was surpassed by the DBX."
    done. I’ve opted for the former because the latter wasn’t in the source
  • "Dr Ulrich Bez" I assumer "Dr" isn't followed by a period in BrEng?
    done
  • "codenamed" could be a single word.
    done
  • I would wikilink Arctic Circle if you do so w/ Death Valley.
    done
  • "Torque" is linked more than once.
    done
  • "Initially intended for a production run of 124 units, each allocated to a different dealer, some dealers opted out of their allocations, leading to 69 cars produced." is a strangely structured sentence.
    done, rephrased.
  • "well-defined Italian automaker Ferrari" - What does "well-defined" mean in this context?
    fixed this, I’ve changed that to “well-known”, more people know what it is
  • None of the notes are complete sentences, but all but one have periods. Either way, it should be consistent.
    done

That's all I got. Solid work. ~ HAL333 18:57, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments, HAL333 :). I’ve addressed these.  750h+ | Talk  02:46, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

  • "The car was produced from 2004 until 2016. The DB9 was available" => "The car was produced from 2004 until 2016 and was available" (sounds a bit less "choppy")
    done
  • "It became so popular that it had started" => "It became so popular that it started"
    done
  • "So, again, Aston Martin commissioned" - so when did they do this before?
    done; removed that, I myself don't even know, it said that in the source
  • "while Fisker focus on Aston Martin" => "while Fisker focused on Aston Martin"
    done
  • "In the case of a rollover incidents" => "a incidents".....?
    fixed; whoops lol.
  • "But the presenters called the DB9 "too cool" for the wall and earned " => "The presenters called the DB9 "too cool" for the wall, however, and it earned "
    done
  • Note a isn't a complete sentence so it doesn't need a full stop
    done
  • That's what I got! :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:10, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks ChrisTheDude, I've addressed these concerns :)  750h+ | Talk  10:20, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:37, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes! Thanks ChrisTheDude.  750h+ | Talk  17:44, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Query from Wolverine[edit]

Pseud 14[edit]

Placeholder. Going to take a look soon. Pseud 14 (talk) 17:55, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for looking into it Pseud 14 :).  750h+ | Talk  00:17, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an expert on cars, but will be taking a look at prose from the lens of an unfamiliar reader. Seems like most of the reviews before this have polished the article, so I have somewhat little to add.

  • Don't know much about cars, but perhaps worth linking chassis on the lead and the first instance in the body.
done
  • For this part except for a row of five round controls positioned approximately level with the steering wheel. -- is this positioned at the same level as the steering wheel?
yes
  • Unlink in contrast to its predecessor per MOS:DUPLINK. Maybe add DB7 if you want to specify what the predecessor is.
done
  • Adjusted by Reichman, updates involved a refreshed front bumper -- the updates involved..
done
  • That's all I have. Fantastic work on this. Pseud 14 (talk) 14:14, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Pseud 14: thanks Pseud 14, I’ve addressed your concerns :). Feel free to highlight any of my responses if I did something wrong.  750h+ | Talk  14:38, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PCN02WPS[edit]

Saving a spot, but I'll wait until after Pseud 14 goes so I don't duplicate anything. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 20:28, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for committing to review PCN02WPS :).  750h+ | Talk  00:17, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let me know when PCN02WPS finishes their review and I'll try to take a look. Hog Farm Talk 00:49, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, thanks Hog Farm :).  750h+ | Talk  00:54, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nonmetal[edit]

Nominator(s): Sandbh (talk) 01:52, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

​​​​​​ From at least the 16th century of the modern era, when a distinction was made between metallic and nonmetallic substances, it's been hard going getting a handle on the chemical elements that are not metals. Add "metalloids" into the mix and the result can be somewhat murky.

Since the article was last at FAC in October 2023, it's undergone considerable refinement including with respect to prose, the definition, history, tables and images. Much of this work was discussed at the nonmetal talk page, onwards from the section Outstanding items from FAC7 nomination. I have pinged FAC7 reviewers. Sandbh (talk) 01:52, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UC[edit]

Driving by, at least for now:

  • The lead image is a big <citation needed> for me. On whose authority are the judgements based about whether an element is always/generally/maybe considered a nonmetal, or whether its status is or isn't confirmed? Come to think of it, what's the cutoff between "usually" and "sometimes"?
  • With images in general, the MOS (MOS:COLOR) discourages situations where colour is the only means of discerning information -- many of our users cannot see or make use of it. This is a problem throughout the article.
  • Why have we got a dubious AI image to illustrate Aristotle when countless well-known human-made depictions of him exist? File:Aristotle Altemps Inv8575.jpg is the most famous, but File:Aristoteles Louvre.jpg is another good option -- both are descended from near-contemporary portraits that could conceivably have been taken from life. The other 'obvious' candidate would be Raphael's depiction in The School of Athens
  • Per WP:NOTPAPER, the names of elements should be spelled out, even in footnotes.

UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:46, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks. Done. I've added citations to the lead image. I've relied on the 16th edition of Hawley's Condensed Chemical Dictionary; the 5th edition of Steudel's monograph on nonmetals, incorporating the literature up to 2019; and a 2013 survey of 194 lists of metalloids. The "usually" and "sometimes" differentiation arises from the fact that some authors count metalloids as nonmetals. Sandbh (talk) 12:06, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Colour in images: Done I've either changed the colour schemes in appliable tables to b/w or adjusted relavant headings/text.
  • AI image: Done, replaced with File:Aristoteles Louvre.jpg
  • Names of elements: Done (unless I missed some)

--- Sandbh (talk) 12:06, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

YBG[edit]

I will add notes here gradually as time allows. YBG (talk) 16:19, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(1) @Sandbh is a self-taught WP:EXPERT with peer-reviewed articles in this subject who rightly refuses to claim any extra authority based on this. Collaborating with him for many years I have come to greatly appreciate his efforts to improve coverage of WP:ELEM. I have no reason to believe that any of the fifteen or so WP:SELFCITEs fail to comply with WP policies, but it would be good for an editor less involved than I am to evaluate this. YBG (talk) 16:22, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(2)[resolved] Normally, one expects FAC to improve articles, but so far the article has gotten worse. Please restore the color. Changing to B&W does NOT make it satisfy MOS:COLOR. As written above, it merely discourages situations where colour is the only means of discerning information. The solution is not to remove color, but to ensure that color is not the only means of discerning information. This could mean ensuring that the colors are colorblind safe. It could mean adding additional non-color cues. It could mean adding descriptive text to assist blind readers. It does not require changing color schemes to B&W. YBG (talk) 04:50, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Having inadvertently inspired this change, I'll register my general agreement here. UndercoverClassicist T·C 06:18, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@YBG: I've reverted the lede image to its colored form. Would you prefer that the density (D) and electronegativity (EN) be likewise reverted? --- Sandbh (talk) 04:32, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, please. YBG (talk) 04:44, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is better than the previous iteration, but still leaves the original problem, particularly with the lead image. Good alt text, setting out which element is in which list, would help. UndercoverClassicist T·C 05:58, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@UndercoverClassicist and YBG: Done. Lead image adjusted; D/E table colours reinstated; all images now have alt text. --- Sandbh (talk) 07:10, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I have expanded the alt text of the lead pic so that it can be grasped even by blind readers. I may work to improve the other alt texts also. YBG (talk) 09:58, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(3)[resolved] The 1st pic column headers read 1, 2, 3-12, 12, 13, ..., 18. The 3rd column should be labeled "3-11". YBG (talk) 04:52, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Done. Sandbh (talk) 06:19, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Resolved. YBG (talk) 06:38, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(4)[withdrawn] The 1st pic could be narrower by combining columns 2 and 3. The header would be 2-12 and the entries (blank), Be/Beryllium, Mg/Magnesium, Ca-Cu, Sr-Ag, Ba-Au, Ra-Rg. If you opt for this, I will make the corresponding change to the alt description. YBG (talk) 04:52, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@YBG: I feel it's somewhat more important to retain a semblance of the overall structure of the periodic table. Thus, s-block on the left (2 columns), p-block on the right (6), with d-block in the middle (9+1). --- Sandbh (talk) 06:27, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Withdrawn. YBG (talk) 06:37, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(5)[resolved] I suggest adding this as note to the "sometimes" legend entry:
These six elements, boron, silicon, germanium, arsenic, antimony, and tellurium, as the elements commonly recognized as metalloids, are sometimes considered to be a subcategory of nonmetals and sometimes considered to be a category separate from both metals and nonmetals.
If there are no objections, I’ll add it myself. YBG (talk) 02:57, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@YBG: Pls proceed. --- Sandbh (talk) 07:05, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sandbh: Ok, I inserted it. Not sure if after the ref is correct or if it should be before. Please advise. YBG (talk) 13:42, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@YBG: It looks good now. After the ref is good, too. --- Sandbh (talk) 01:20, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(6) There are instances of this or similar text:
<hr style="color:white;background-color:white">
This is only visible to the reader as extra leading, which seems to be the reason why it is used. But the markup is cryptic markup and confuses other editors. To provide extra separation, better to use the self-explaining padding or margin style the CSS box model provides. This is cleaner and easier to read and makes intent obvious. Plus, the amount of leading can be finely adjusted. YBG (talk) 05:21, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@YBG: Indeed YBG, I've used a horizontal rule on five occasions for extra leading. I suspect we are venturing into non-FAC criteria here. The choice of a rule for extra leading v CSS padding or margin style, is surely a personal stylistic difference. For the five occasions I never saw a reason or requirement to use something else. --- Sandbh (talk) 07:20, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sandbh: Would you object to me trying to change it? In addition to improving the clarity of the wiki text, I’d like to fine tune the amount of leading. YBG (talk) 16:45, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@YBG: Please feel free to do so. --- Sandbh (talk) 01:16, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(7)[resolved] "Colour" is used quoting Elliot 1929 in the Proceedings of the Royal Society A (obviously a British source), so almost certainly correct. "Colorless" is used quoting Wibaut P 1951 which is published in New York, and so is suspect. YBG (talk) 18:30, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@YBG: "Colourless" is indeed used in the text despite being published by Elvesier, New York. --- Sandbh (talk) 01:27, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sandbh: Interesting. Thanks for checking. I wonder if the author is from outside the US. YBG (talk) 02:13, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(8)[resolved] I added a wikilink to Proceedings of the Royal Society A; other bibliography entries should be linked also. Even link multiple occurrences; entries are not read consecutively, so this is not over linking. YBG (talk) 18:30, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@YBG: Done. --- Sandbh (talk) 02:43, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed some red links - mostly getting brackets and single quotes ordered properly - but also two errors that would it have been caught otherwise. Thanks! YBG (talk) 04:04, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(9) Note [p]: Should polarized atom be linked to polarizability? Or should it be mentioned at all, since the topic of this note is homopolyatomic ions? YBG (talk) 14:26, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@YBG: Chemical polarity is better and I've wlnked that accordingly. Sandbh (talk) 04:08, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That seems ok, although from a quick scan, that article seems to be about polarized molecules, not polarized atoms. YBG (talk) 05:34, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I’m still wondering about mentioning the capacity to form polarized atoms in the note, since this (1) does not distinguish metals from nonmetals, (2) is not mentioned in the text, (3) is not mentioned elsewhere in the note, and (4) is not obviously related to homopolyatomic ions, the topic of the note. YBG (talk) 05:34, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@YBG: You seem to be missing the context for the note, which is, "Examples of metal-like properties occurring in nonmetallic elements include...just over half of nonmetallic elements can form homopolyatomic cations.[p]" As the note says in part, "This is unusual behavior for nonmetals which are better known for their capacity to form negatively charged anions or polarized atoms, whereas metals are better known for their capacity to form positively charged cations or polarized atoms." The main body of the nonmetal article distinguishes metals from nonmetals in this passage, "In metals, the impact of the nuclear charge is generally weaker compared to nonmetallic elements. As a result, in chemical bonding, metals tend to lose electrons, leading to the formation of positively charged ions or polarized atoms, while nonmetals tend to gain these electrons due to their stronger nuclear charge, resulting in negatively charged ions or polarized atoms." The article about polarized molecules is relevant since metals and nonmetals can form what are called polar covalent bonds, when the electronegativiy differences between the atoms being bonded is not large enough to sustain an ionic bond. I have further added links to "ions" and "polarized atoms" to make the distinction clearer. --- Sandbh (talk) 04:21, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(10) The pic of buckminsterfullerene is difficult to comprehend. Perhaps it could be cropped? Or replaced with a better better macro picture? Or replaced with another allotrope? Or just deleted? Or use File:Diamond and graphite2.jpg instead? YBG (talk) 14:58, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@YBG: I've expanded the caption to make it clearer as to what the image of C60 is showing (same for diamond, and graphite). C60 is sufficiently astonishing to warrent inclusion. --- Sandbh (talk) 04:23, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. I had no idea this was a micrograph. What is the magnification? It is still far from ideal; due to the dark background it really doesn’t fit with the other two images. Maybe file:C60 SEM.jpg??
i agree that C60 is astonishing and worth mentioning, but nothing in the picture or caption really makes it seem astonishing. It is really the spherical structure which makes it astonishing. Maybe you could get include three photos and three models together like the graphite-and-diamond pic referenced above. YBG (talk) 05:47, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@YBG: No information is provided as to the magnification. The three images together are remarkable since they show C as 1. an insulator; 2. a semiconductor; and 3. a semimetal. That is a nice gradient. The astonishing thing about C60 is that, of all things, is has a brown appearance (partly influenced by the C60 spheres). Who would have thought? The caption to the image explains well enough what is being shown, including that the image of C60 is a micrograph. --- Sandbh (talk) 04:37, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by Comments Ajpolino[edit]

Just a few things in passing. Can't promise the time to really go through this article, though I applaud your substantial work.

  • "Sometimes counted as a nonmetal" (lead image caption) references sources from 1844 and 1897. Is there anything more recent that could support that claim? I'm concerned about conflating "this sometimes happens" with "this used to happen". For example I could write "Syphilis is sometimes treated with mercury salts" with an 1896 source, but the world changed and my sentence would be untrue.
@Ajpolino: Many thanks. The "sometimes counted" box has 1844, 1897, 1976, 1993, and 2006 cites. My intent was to show the "sometimes" status has a recurring history. --- Sandbh (talk) 01:07, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The next line "status as nonmetal or metal unconfirmed" cites six sources. Three are called out as verifying the claim about Cn, Fl, and Og. Are the other three all for At? If so, perhaps two can be cut?
I've adjusted the footnote to make it clear that the first three refer to At. The 2013 cite was the pivotal one, predicting that At would be an fcc metal on relativistic grounds. The two other cites, which can be hard to find in the literature, are there to show that it was earlier expected that At would be a metal. Sandbh (talk) 01:07, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have a similar question as my first regarding "There is no widely-accepted precise definition" referenced to works from 2020, 1957, and 1892. What do the earlier works do for us here?
Those three were included to show that since Mendeleev published his 1st periodic table in 1869, the lack of a widely-accepted precise definition has been an ongoing phenomenon. Sandbh (talk) 01:07, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • References 2 and 10 appear to be the same and can be merged.
Done. --- Sandbh (talk) 01:07, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Nonmetals closer to the left or bottom ...this occurs in... phosphorus[32]" Are the four sources necessary to support this statement for phosphorus? Also is there a system for when you include quotes in the reference? You do so for just a few scattered throughout.
P is often thought of as being white P whereas the most stable form is black P. The thought of P having some metallic character seems most peculiar, but there it is. The four sources all bring something different to this perspective. I include quotes with references when I feel this would add value to the citation. --- Sandbh (talk) 01:07, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Correction: trimmed one redundant cite. --- Sandbh (talk) 03:35, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ditto iodine in the same list (ref 37). At a glance the quote suggests Steudel 2020 would suffice?
Iodine is another oddity. Who would think that iodine, a halogen, would have some metallic character, yet it does. --- Sandbh (talk) 01:07, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Redmer, Hensel & Holst, preface" (ref 41) and "Criswell p. 1140" (ref 222) consider adding the year for consistency with your other refs.
Done --- Sandbh (talk) 01:07, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Typo in ref "Smith DW 1990, Inorganic Substances: APprelude to the Study"
Fixed. --- Sandbh (talk) 01:07, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The number of compounds formed by nonmetals is vast." cited to two different textbooks. Are both necessary to support this relatively simple statement?
Done. Trimmed the older cite. --- Sandbh (talk) 01:07, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Typo in ref 204 "Baja, Cascella & Borger 2022..." should be Bajaj.
Done. --- Sandbh (talk) 01:07, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "They have significant roles in biology" referenced to "Crawford 1968, p. 540; Benner, Ricardo & Carrigan 2018, pp. 167–168:[quote]" assuming the quote comes from Benner, that seems to plenty cover the cited text. Is Crawford needed?
Crawford is important in that they refer to the other nonmetals (H, C, N, O, P, S) as biogens, which is impressive for the time. --- Sandbh (talk) 01:07, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bertomeu-Sánchez et al. 2002 - you usually spell out three-author refs, but this one gets an "et al." Any particular reason?
Yes, all three authors have double-barreled surnames. I felt that the resulting cite would be clumsily long. --- Sandbh (talk) 01:07, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Bertomeu-Sánchez et al. 2002, p. 249" is twice, currently as ref 280 and 281.
Fixed. --- Sandbh (talk) 01:07, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is "Bodner GM & Pardue HL 1993" used anywhere?
Done. I checked for redundant refs just before FAC submission, and evidently missed this one. Thank you, --- Sandbh (talk) 01:07, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Reinhardt at al. 2015" typo for et al. (I assume)
Done. --- Sandbh (talk) 01:07, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the notably reactive halogen nonmetals—fluorine, chlorine, bromine, iodine" is backed up by 9 references. Are these all necessary to support this claim?
There was some controversy among WP:ELEM members as to whether "halogen nonmetals" was a legitimate term rather than "halogens". This was partly fuelled by uncertainty as to whether At was a nonmetal or a metal. The first three references show contempary use of the term. The rest of the cites show alternative terms for the set F, Cl, Br, I. --- Sandbh (talk) 01:07, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Csele 2016 - page numbers would be nice. Unless it has examples of each nonmetal sprinkled throughout (I didn't look)?
Done. --- Sandbh (talk) 01:07, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are the two Glinka textbooks the same? Is there an edition number to separate them?
Fixed. One textbook was redundant. --- Sandbh (talk) 01:07, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Graves 2022 - I haven't read his book, but a geneticist's memoir seems an odd source to back up statements on boron and silicon reactivity. Not demanding it be changed, but if you have something from a more established source in the chemistry world, that would be nice.
Graves was referring to the absence of silicon-based life-forms on our planet. The mention of boron was missing its separate cite; now addressed. Thanks for that. --- Sandbh (talk) 01:07, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Gregerson 2023" (ref 206) is this supposed to point to Gregersen 2008 "Radon"? I didn't check to see which spelling and year are correct.
Yes, 2008. Fixed. --- Sandbh (talk) 01:07, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the notably reactive halogen nonmetals—fluorine, chlorine, bromine, iodine;" similar to above, this is supported by three sources, then two alternative names with three sources each. Is this necessary?
I addressed this point earlier. --- Sandbh (talk) 01:07, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just checking that Jones 2010, a book called "Pluto: Sentinel of the Outer Solar System" is indeed what's intended here. Didn't read the book. Just surprised the author has a due opinion on distinguishing nonmetals.
Jones was discussing classification science principles, in general. --- Sandbh (talk) 01:07, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Lémery 1699, p. 118;" points to a 1714 paper. Not sure which is correct.
Fixed --- Sandbh (talk) 01:07, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "in his classic[289] and influential[290] textbook" I think classic and influential mean the same thing in this context. I'd just pick one.
I feel that Lavoiser's textbook had so monumental an impact on chemistry that two epithets are deserved. --- Sandbh (talk) 01:07, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • In table "List of properties suggested for distinguishing metals from nonmetals" Was Martin JW's 1969 book a serious attempt to distinguish metals and nonmetals? A contemporaneous book review suggests the book was targeted at "sixth formers and undergraduates" rather than a work in conversation with the field. Putting my concern another way, is Martin's entry in that table due coverage?
The title of Martin's book is Elementary Science of Metals. It was a part of the Wykeham Science Series of books. The aim was, "To broaden the outlook of the senior grammar school pupil and to introduce the undergraduate to the present state of science as a university study..." For its time it was quite topical. --- Sandbh (talk) 01:07, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Arsenic is stable in... semi-noble metal." I think the footnote within a footnote is stretching the bounds of due material. If it can't even be squeezed into a first-level footnote, perhaps it should be trimmed from the article?
The first footnote has one reference to each of the six metalloids. Arsenic merits some closer attention given its susceptibility to react with air. I felt that this would be easier and clearer if it was mentioned in a second-level footnote rather than trying to squeeze it in to the first footnote. --- Sandbh (talk) 01:07, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is Oderberg's opinion (which I'm sympathetic to) due here? Is he considered an important player in this debate?
There is no ongoing debate as such, there is only a lack of agreement in the literature. Since attempts to distingush between metals and nonmetals deal with classifications science, Oderberg's view is a worthy as any other attempt to shed light onto the question. --- Sandbh (talk) 01:07, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Oxford English University 1989" Is there a reason for the ref to say this instead of "Oxford University Press" or "Oxford English Dictionary"?
Fixed.
  • "Radon shows some cationic behavior" do we need both Pitzer and Stein to support this relatively simple claim?
I felt that the notion of radon, a noble gas, showing some cationic behaviour is so mind boggling that it warrented two cites. --- Sandbh (talk) 01:07, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Rosenberg 2018, p. 847" I assume refers to the citation "Rosenberg E 2013..." but I'm not sure which year is the typo.
Fixed. --- Sandbh (talk) 01:07, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could be my ignorance talking, but footnote [af]: "Exceptionally, a study... tiny amounts of uranium." seems like an undue factoid. Do others comment on the exceptional nature of the finding?
Yes, I felt that the thought of F, the most reactive element in the periodic table, being found in native form is so extraordinary that it warranted a mention. --- Sandbh (talk) 01:07, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mirokado[edit]

Full review later (I hope), for now just any points as I notice them.

  • Chemical properties by element type, current note be: Arsenic trioxide reacts with sulfur trioxide, forming arsenic "sulfate" As2(SO4)3. Any reason for the scare quotes around "sulfate"? They do not appear in the reference provided. -- Mirokado (talk) 22:27, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Mirokado. Fixed. Arsenic "sufate" is a covalent compound rather than a "true" ionic sulfate comprising a crystal lattice of arsenic cations and sulfate anions. The footnote's been adjusted accordingly. --- Sandbh (talk) 07:03, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Secretum (British Museum)[edit]

Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 11:16, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Secretum was one of those patriarchal and patronising pieces of Victorian nonsense, where they thought the sight of classical nudity would somehow stir up the base instincts of the lower classes and cause moral damage to women and children. While the museum set up the Private Case for naughty literature, the artwork, artefacts and statuary was stashed in backrooms of the museum and much of it locked away in cupboards so even the staff didn't see it. All comments welcome. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:16, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Tim riley[edit]

SchroCat is clearly on a continuing mission to corrupt our morals, a bit late in the day as far as I'm concerned. I reviewed this article at PR in February and my comments were all dealt with thoroughly. Rereading for FAC I spotted nothing else to quibble about except:

  • "timeframe", which is two separate words in the OED.
  • "photostats" – which I am old enough to remember using but could do with a link for anyone under seventy.
  • "This acquisition continued from the nineteenth to the twentieth century" – the meaning is clear, but the phrasing could be more exact. From the 19th to the 20th century was a nanosecond on 31 December 1900. A swift change of prepositions will probably do the job.

Nothing there to prevent my support for this deplorable article, which seems to me to meet all the FA criteria. It is a cracking read, well and widely referenced, appears balanced, and as to the extensive illustrations words fail me. Tim riley talk 15:12, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Many thanks Tim, your comments at PR and again here are much appreciated. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 15:28, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:The_British_Museum's_Secretum.jpg: was any attribution provided for this image at the source given?
  • File:Sàtir_i_nimfa,_intent_de_violació,_exposició_la_Bellesa_del_Cos.JPG needs a tag for the original work
  • File:Cup_decorated_on_the_interior_with_an_erotic_scene_-_3.jpg: where's that licensing coming from? It doesn't match the source site. Ditto File:Kylix_-_1b.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:12, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nikkimaria.

A thought: if we crop them enough so as to only show the image in the tondo (which is pretty much flat), can we then claim PD-ART? After all, such an image would allow no artistic input by the photographer in choosing an angle, shadows etc, which I gather is the guiding principle behind that licensing claim. UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:38, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It certainly works for me. Nikkimaria, does that sound ok? The Kylix image is already like that, and a similar crop would work on the other? - SchroCat (talk) 05:37, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If it's possible to get a 2D work out of them, that should work. However the satyr needs a US tag in addition to the one added. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:54, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
File:Erotic design in ancient Grecian cup.png
File:Red-figured kylix design in ancient Grecian cup.png
I've also added a US one on File:Sàtir_i_nimfa,_intent_de_violació,_exposició_la_Bellesa_del_Cos.JPG too
Are you happy with the licensing on these? - Cheers SchroCat (talk) 04:59, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from PMC[edit]

Hello! Comments within the week. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:45, 13 April 2024 (UTC) I'm calling this still within the week![reply]

  • "The segregation was probably..." I know it's the lead, but I'm not sure we should be using an unattributed "probably" to give an opinion in wikivoice. Maybe "Modern scholars believe the segregation was..." or something similar?
  • Bless George Witt and his collection of 434 penis-based artefacts
    Not something I thought I’d ever read at FAC! SchroCat (talk) 05:56, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I like to try to treat the audience to at least one unhinged comment at FAC whenever possible
  • "The Secretum collection began to be gradually broken up in 1912, with the transfer of items into the departments where they sat with other pieces from their own time frame and culture." The latter half of this sentence feels a bit tied up in itself. Maybe "with the transfer of items into departments appropriate for their time frame and culture"?
  • Hm. Grove says that some of the museum's sexual artefacts were never placed in the Secretum. Does anyone get into the reasoning behind this? Or perhaps what the segregation criteria were?
    No, unfortunately not. If the BM ever actually had any specific criteria, it was never written down (or at least, it's not in the archives, as far as the sources cover it). - SchroCat (talk) 07:12, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The classicist Jen Grove..." speaking of Grove, this bit feels slightly out of place where it is. It's more like analysis than history-of, so I think it might be better placed under the rationale section. She also gets into a bit more about how the museum intentionally acquired these objects (rather than sort of...incidentally receiving them in donations of other stuff), which I don't see touched on in the article
    Let me think on this a bit, as the core part (for me) is the historical approach of still acquiring such items at the point the Secretum was supposed to be hiding them away. - SchroCat (talk) 07:12, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why refer to the Naples Secret Cabinet in Italian the second time?
    It's not - it's on the first mention of the Cabinet (as opposed to the overall museum) - SchroCat (talk) 07:12, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In the Background section you have "in the National Archaeological Museum, Naples...whose Secret Cabinet (Italian: Gabinetto Segreto)" (Secret Cabinet being linked here), and then under Break-up you've got "Unlike the Gabinetto Segreto". I'm not terribly bothered by it, mostly wondering if it was for a specific reason.
    Ah, that one: It made more sense having it that way before the PR, but changes there swapped over the first reference to it. I've tweaked the second one now. - SchroCat (talk) 08:11, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Peter Webb considers that" but "Victoria Donnellan considers the collection" - is there a reason for the inconsistent use of "that"?
  • Just a bit of variety in approach. If you think it's distracting, I can tweak if you like? - SchroCat (talk) 07:12, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nah, I was just wondering if there was a reason.

That's really all I have, it's generally well-written and interesting as always :) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:52, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks PMC - Done except where commented on - feel free to push back on any of them. There's one I'm still mulling over at the moment as to whether to move, keep or split. - SchroCat (talk) 07:12, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, it won't be a dealbreaker if you leave it where it is. I'm a support, I don't see anything to be hung up on. Cheers! ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:27, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks, as always, PMC; your thoughts are always welcome. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:11, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Harry[edit]

Ooh I say! It's (not quite) enough to get one all hot and bothered!

  • The first thing that strikes me is the past tense in the opening paragraph but no dates.
    That's sort of deliberate, given it wasn't clear cut (with the separation starting before it officially started and beginning to end before it ended, so to speak!). It's covered within the (now shortened) lead, so it's all explained at the top of the page. - SchroCat (talk) 08:27, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead is quite long for a ~2k-word article.
    I've trimmed this down a bit: how does it look now? - SchroCat (talk) 08:27, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The journalist Laura Thomas observes the present tense is a little jarring there and a date might be useful
    Dated and tweaked - SchroCat (talk) 08:27, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And that's all I've got. Excellent work! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:42, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers Harry, I've explained one and acted on two. Happy to talk through the first point further. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:27, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do think some sort of date would be helpful earlier in the lead just for context to establish that this was an historical practice, but I'll leave it up to you. Otherwise, support. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:37, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comments and your thoughts Harry. In terms of the dates, how does this look? Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 15:41, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I like that. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:52, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent. It covers the whole time period, while being vague on the specifics, so it covers both our concerns. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 16:10, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from HAL[edit]

I feel rather guilty about going disappearing on the previous OHMSS FAC. I was completely consumed by a certain professional exam, and did not have all the time in the world. Regardless, here's what I noticed:

  • Of all the possible translations of secretum, why "hidden away"? Why not the marginally more concise "secret"? Is one more dominant in the sources?
    On the advice, at PR, of someone who know better than I! - SchroCat (talk) 09:43, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    To explain myself a little: this is partly a matter of (classical) Latin accuracy, but also of the meaning in practice: the collection wasn't secret in the sense that nobody was allowed to know it existed; it was hidden away in the sense that they didn't talk about it and controlled access to it. UndercoverClassicist T·C 06:44, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's a SOB with "antiquarian Sir Robert Cotton", but not sure whether it can be fixed.
    I'm not sure there is either. My preference is to be flexible with the MOS on such stylistic points if the two separate links are likely to point to separate articles, as they do here. - SchroCat (talk) 09:43, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Oxford comma is used inconsistently: e.g. lacking with "a statue of Pan having sex with a goat and an erotic frieze from an Indian tantra temple" but present with "photostats, and the arrangements made".
    I've omitted it everywhere, but the one after photostats is in a quotation, I could remove, if you'd prefer, but I'm lean towards a conservative approach to editing quotes and normally leave them be unless it's an outright error. - SchroCat (talk) 09:43, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "formation was possibly as a result of the new legislation" --> "formation was possibly a result of the new legislation" but disregard if it's the perennial AmEng/BrEng issue.
    I think that may be a BrEng thing (or, at least, a formal style thing) - SchroCat (talk) 09:43, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Everything else looks great. ~ HAL333 22:35, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Hal. Don't worry about the OHMSS - RL events meant I had to close off the FAC and the PR for this for a short while. Thanks very much for your comments: all addressed. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:43, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to support. ~ HAL333 13:41, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks HAL333, your thoughts are much appreciated. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:16, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UC[edit]

A marker for now. I reviewed and enjoyed this one at PR< where SC was very patient with my nit-picking: further tests of patience to follow. UndercoverClassicist T·C 06:44, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved
  • the Greco-Roman god of fertility and male genitalia: this is another classicist nit-pick, but "X was the god of Y" doesn't really work well for Greek and Roman religion: there are lots of gods connected to or responsible for fertility. The easy workaround is to call him a god of fertility, rather than the one.
    But wasn't he the one for both fertility and male genitalia? Agree on the fertility point, he was only a minor deity on that score. Happy to be overruled if you think "a" is still the better option. - SchroCat (talk) 08:11, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Dionysus/Bacchus would be the obvious alternative: he's closely associated with male fertility and there are stories of him afflicting men's genitalia when they refuse to worship him. Particularly in Greek culture, the phallus is often his symbol. UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:07, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Indefinite article: see Doris, A Goddess of Wind. Authoritative. Tim riley talk 13:14, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
IA it is! - SchroCat (talk) 14:56, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The segregation was probably on moral grounds, motivated by a paternalistic stance from the museum to keep what they considered morally dangerous material away from all except scholars.: Suggest cutting as indicated, as I think the second group of clauses covers everything in the cut bit. A slightly different point: didn't they also allow clergy to access it, as well as scholars?
  • I'm not sure about the word "phallocentric": most of the definitions I can find say that this means not just "to do with penises" but as having some kind of ideological statement about the phallus/male dominance being a dominant or desirable part of society. Is that accurate here?
    Yes, I think so (as far as they go down that route); one of the sources describes the collection as being "phallocentric", so I think we're probably OK with it. - SchroCat (talk) 08:11, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Very well -- following HQRS is usually the best way to go about things. UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:14, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • A small nitpick, but the Rosetta Stone was neither donated nor sold to the BM: it had been seized by British troops and was placed in the BM on the orders of Lord Hobart.
    Quite right - struck. - SchroCat (talk) 08:11, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The library holdings of the British Museum—which was separated: holdings is plural, so were separated.
  • Although there is no accurate date when this began: suggest getting the word known or agreed in here: there is an accurate date, we just don't know it.
  • the National Archaeological Museum, Naples—the museum which contained Roman artefacts from the nearby Pompeii, Stabiae and Herculaneum sites—whose Secret Museum, Naples : I would remove the second Naples, especially as it's not really a separate museum: it's a room within the NAM. To that end, might consider using the more literal translation "Secret Cabinet".
  • —the museum which contained Roman artefacts from the nearby Pompeii, Stabiae and Herculaneum sites: contains or containing, is better, as it still does. It includes a lot of other things as well: is there an elegant way to rephrase so that we don't give the impression that it only exists to showcase Vesuvius artefacts?
  • From its early days the British Museum's acquisitions included articles that displayed erotic or sexually graphic images; among Sloane's donations: long sentence: suggest splitting after images.
  • Keeper of the Department of Antiquities: pace the BM themselves, his title is universally given as "Keeper of Antiquities" in contemporary and later sources: I would probably follow suit with them, but not insist on doing so.
    Many thanks. All done, except where explained above. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:11, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest giving the lead image a caption with its date and what exactly it was (is it Cabinet 54/55?), if known.
    It's not given, unfortunately. The caption in the original reads "Under lock and key: the BM's Secretum cupboard in the Department of Medieval and Later Antiquities." - SchroCat (talk) 19:13, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Surely that dates it at least to post the 1960s, and means that this is indeed either Cabinet 54 or 55? To be specific, the Department of Medieval and Later Antiquities was established in 1969 (cite here, p. 130). Per our article: During the 1960s the curatorship of the Secretum was moved to the newly formed Department of Medieval and Later Antiquities, where they were housed in cupboards 55 and 54 of the museum. As the photo is in a 2000 article, would it be ridiculous to say c. 2000? Either way, there's more we can say here about which phase of the Secretum is depicted. UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:21, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've added a caption, but I'm not convinced abut it. Partly because we don't know enough about the state of the collection whenever that was taken (was this all that remained, or was this just part of it); we're unsure of the date (between 1969 and 2000 is a wide range to have) and we're not sure of the location (was it cupboard 54 or 55 - or even somewhere else). I've gone for vagueness to fudge over these gaps in the knowledge. - SchroCat (talk) 09:57, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps "after its transfer to the Department of Medieval and Later Antiquities"? Agreed that all of these things are tricky considerations. I'd probably be bullish enough to assume that the photograph was taken for the HT article (especially looking at its colour and quality: it looks pretty early-2000s to me), but appreciate that you and others might be more sensible. UndercoverClassicist T·C 22:03, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In terms of dating, isn't that a little more obscure than 'late C20th'? "after its transfer ..." presupposes people know when the transfer was, or even what that means. - SchroCat (talk) 06:39, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "After its 1969 transfer", then? I'm not suggesting binning the date we already have: instead something like The Secretum in the latter part of the 20th century, after its transfer to the Department of Medieval and Later Antiquities. The second part is about where the collection was as well as when, though you're right that readers will have to read the article to fully understand that. If that's totally unacceptable, a footnote could be used. UndercoverClassicist T·C 08:52, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, that works for me. - SchroCat (talk) 09:06, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • the collection of the Robert Harley: surely not famous enough to be the Robert Harley?
  • These items were separated from the rest of the donations and stored apart from the museum's public displays: I'm not sure I see the significance of separated from the rest of the donations, given stored apart from the museum's public displays. What does the first add to the second?
    Because the separation was both from the rest of the donations in storage (ie. in the non-public areas) and in the public displays. - SchroCat (talk) 19:13, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course: very sensibly framed, then. UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:22, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • the profane material it possessed: profane is potentially ambiguous (do we mean "rude" or "non-sacred"?) and, more seriously, I think possibly non-NPOV: an ancient Roman would have seen nothing obscene about an amulet with a phallus, nor would a Hindu worshipper consider a frieze from a temple to be disreputable or morally tainted. Suggest something like "material considered obscene".
  • In 1865 the collector of antiquities George Witt: a false title, which sounds like it could be analogous with "the Keeper of Antiquities" (which it isn't): suggest George Witt, a collector of antiquities...
    No false title there, but the point on the BM's position of the same name is taken. - SchroCat (talk) 19:13, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • shared a common religious heritage in their worship of fertility gods and goddesses: does this really need to be a quote? I can't see that the particular formulation here is important or interesting, beyond the bare facts it conveys, so WP:NONFREE would encourage us to take those facts and put them into our own prose. There's also a tone and readability benefit to not switching the narrative voice when we can help it.
  • Witt's belief was that: the second consecutive sentence to start with Witt's abstract noun: simply Witt believed that...?
  • profane medieval items: see above on profane, except that it's particularly ambiguous here. Given that we've said his whole collection was phallocentric, I think the idea can be taken as read: removing profane here would also avoid the implication that the Greek, Roman etc objects were not-profane.
  • He also donated works of shunga—Japanese erotic art—which was the first of its type held by the museum: plurals are awry here.
  • the journalist Laura Thomas observed that Witt "did not care to place them: them doesn't have a grammatical antecedent: could add [his objects] afterwards, or rework the sentence before the quotation to provide one.
  • did not advertise or promote: a neat hendiadys, but how could they promote it without advertising it?
  • was from an outside scholar: does outside in this context mean "not employed by the BM"? If so, could cut: I'm sure those employed by the BM didn't have to apply to walk down the corridor to see the collection.
    Done down to here, bar one. - SchroCat (talk) 19:13, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • actively and systematically sought out sexual antiquities, either to add to the Secretum or into their main holdings.: there's a buried lead here, if the phrasing is correct, that some sexual antiquities were not placed into the Secretum. What's the story there? Grove seems to mention it: I get a 503 when I follow the link to her thesis, but maybe there's a bit more detail or bibliography there?
    That's exactly what happened. The museum acquired more pieces, most of which didn't go into the Secretum. The link works OK for me - I've added a link to an archive copy, so you should be able to see it now. - SchroCat (talk) 20:06, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's getting a bit late here, but I want to have a look at that source so that I can (in a break from my usual habits) have some idea what I'm talking about before I chip in again. UndercoverClassicist T·C 22:01, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • This acquisition continued from the nineteenth into the twentieth century: they still do acquire sexual antiquities (or at least have no prohibition on doing so), so we need some kind of adjective like "enthusiastic acquisition" to make clear what stopped (the enthusiasm, not the acquisition)
  • the period when the Secretum collection was being broken up: suggest "the period between ..." to remind the reader: I had to scroll back up to remember exactly when this was.
  • although there were still some prints and cartoons locked in cupboard 205 of the Department of Prints and Drawings in 2009: it's not totally clear, at least as written, what the relationship of these prints/cartoons to the Secretum holdings was.
    Done to here - SchroCat (talk) 20:06, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unlike the Gabinetto Segreto, whose exhibits are displayed in a separate room, with warning signs on entry, the former exhibits of the Secretum were integrated into the main displays from the 1970s onwards: is this really a fair comparison? After all, the point is that the Napoli museum essentially still has a Secretum. To me, this paragraph is really saying that, from the 1970s onwards, the BM chose to display sexually-explicit objects integrated into its main displays, in contrast with the NAM, which segregates them into a single room. Happy to suggest an alternate phrasing if you like: I'm chewing on it at the moment, but I'm sure you'll be able to do it more elegantly than I would.
    "from the 1970s onwards, the BM chose to display sexually-explicit objects integrated into its main displays, in contrast with the NAM, which segregates them into a single room": I think that's what the sources say too. The difference is that their "sectretum" isn't either secret nor hidden away! - SchroCat (talk) 20:49, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the confusion/awkwardness I'm seeing here is a relic of what we had earlier: the "Secret Cabinet" isn't really a separate museum from the NAM, but our framing only really works if it is. You could go for something like from the 1970s onwards, the BM chose to display sexually-explicit objects integrated into its main displays, in contrast with the National Archaeological Museum, Naples, which segregates them into a single room with warning signs on entry: including that detail was a nice touch. UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:19, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, reworked. - SchroCat (talk)
  • Some classicists and curators—including Gaimster and the archaeologist and museum curator Catherine Johns: this framing implies that others, beyond G. and J., have: do any of the sources cited support that?
    Yes, at least one other, and I think others too. - SchroCat (talk) 20:38, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Could at least one of those be cited for this sentence, then? Or do Gaimster or Johns say "other people have also said that..."? UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:18, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Added another. - SchroCat (talk) 09:40, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • on grounds of obscenity is "academically indefensible" because "'obscenity' is not a scholarly classification".: per MOS:QUOTEPOV, I'd lose at least the quote marks on the last part, and make it something like Johns considers that classifying artefacts on grounds of obscenity is "academically indefensible" and that there is no scholarly basis to label any object as obscene.
  • The art curator Marina Wallace also considers the paternalistic approach was behind the decision: doesn't quite read right to me: that a paternalistic approach was...?
  • he sees the collection as "a product of its time, place and culture. It is a historical artefact in its own right, but also serves as a warning to future generations of historians against imposing their own contemporary prejudices on the material culture of the past.": the second sentence of the quote has lost the grammar, because it no longer follows from "he sees the collection as...". Suggest breaking the quote after "culture" and saying something like He writes that the Secretum "is a historical artefact ..."
  • , Edward Hawkins, the Keeper of Antiquities at the British Museum, was disgusted by the book and wrote: following the principle of show, not tell, I'd cut was disgusted by the book: almost any reader will pick up that disgust from the quotation, so we don't need to pre-push them towards what they should think.
    All done, except where commented on. Thanks for these new comments: all very useful. Cheers. - SchroCat (talk) 05:54, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from JennyOz[edit]

I ordered in some smelling salts before attempting to read this. They've arrived so I'll see if there's anything left to nitpick. JennyOz (talk) 06:37, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Worlds (Porter Robinson album)[edit]

Nominator(s): Skyshiftertalk and TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 00:02, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

After becoming popular as an electronic dance music artist, Porter Robinson eventually grew weary of the style, writing his debut album Worlds in an attempt to break the conventions of the culture. The album used a novel blend of influences to evoke a sense of grandeur and nostalgia over the pounding bass music of Robinson's discography prior. The article was significantly expanded by my co-nominator Skyshifter (who did most of the work, honestly), and after an excellent GAN review from Averageuntitleduser, we feel confident that this article is ready for an FAC review. We look forward to your comments! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 00:02, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment by Davest3r08[edit]

What makes Fuse.tv reliable? There's no mention of it on WP:RSP or WP:A/S. (AGF comment) Davest3r08 >:3 (talk) 16:47, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd note that the Fuse videos are interviews with Robinson and I am exclusively using his words; even if it's unreliable, WP:ABOUTSELF would apply. Skyshiftertalk 16:49, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draken Bowser[edit]

..Daft Punk's Discovery (2001), an album Robinson considers the best of all-time.. - Man's got good taste.

No kidding! —TS
lead
  • Prefer "He was inspired by fictional themes, including elements"
    Done for now. Skyshifter, we've discussed the phrasing of this point before as well. Let me know if you want to workshop it in the lead or in § Composition any further! —TS
  • "including sounds from 1990s video games." - According to the body this is mostly about the video game music, could be made clearer since sound effects from video games have been a source of inspiration, and sampled by various artists.
    I could use some clarification on what changes you're envisioning here. This sentence in the lead is referring to Robinson's use of general MIDI sounds, which were used in many 90s-era video games. —TS
    Then we're good. /DrB
Background and development
  • "which became one of his first principles for Worlds." - The former or the latter?
    Rephrased; it's both. —TS
Composition
  • Prefer "and emotional feeling."
    Rephrased as "atmosphere" instead. —TS
Critical reception
  • "Some critics thought Worlds demonstrated that Robinson could have a promising career." - I know that there's nothing wrong here, but the tone of "demonstrate" feels at odds with a sentence about the future, could we rephrase?
    Rephrased. —TS
Legacy
  • "Robinson's struggles with depression, writer's block and mental health" - Recommend using either the specific or the general, or rephrase into something like "struggles with mental health including bouts of depression".
    Rephrased to be more in line with WP:SUFFER. —TS

I was becoming a bit concerned over the lack of any commentary at all on music and lyrics, until I realized I had set the printer to duplex printing. Cheers. Draken Bowser (talk) 09:24, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for the review, Draken Bowser! All comments in progress. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 15:31, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All comments addressed, some need clarification. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 21:48, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

comments from sawyer-mcdonell[edit]

can't promise i'll give a long review, but i'll look this over. ping me if it's been more than a week! ... sawyer * he/they * talk 21:15, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Elli[edit]

Missed the OneShot FAC and you've somehow made it to FAC with another piece of media I've enjoyed. Will review shortly. Elli (talk | contribs) 04:26, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Can you add timestamps to the YouTube interview cites?
  • Might be worth mentioning that "Hear the Bells" is a remix of "Bells Of Cologne" in particular (if a RS can be found for that).
  • "The eighth track is "Lionhearted"" think you mean ninth.
  • "Shepherdess" isn't mentioned elsewhere in prose. Probably a good idea to mention it in the fourth paragraph?
  • The source about the "Flicker" mentions that the scenery is Japanese a few times; seems relevant.
  • Could more be written about the remix album?

That's about all I can find. Pretty nice work! Elli (talk | contribs) 05:03, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pan Am Flight 214[edit]

Nominator(s): RecycledPixels (talk) 20:12, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pan Am Flight 214 was a Pan Am flight that crashed in December 1963 while flying between Baltimore, Maryland and Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. It was the first time that a jet aircraft operated by Pan Am had crashed in the five years that they had been flying, and the crash highlighted the previously unknown risks of lightning strikes on aircraft in flight, leading to new safety parameters in aircraft design. The article has been a Good Article since 2019 and I believe that it has improved to the level of Featured Article since then. Do you? RecycledPixels (talk) 20:12, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: If anybody performing a source review does not have access to the New York Times Archive articles, I can send them a link to a Google Drive directory of images of all the news clippings I used in the article. RecycledPixels (talk) 14:44, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PCN02WPS[edit]

Saving a spot. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 21:53, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lead and infobox

  • "leading to new regulations that led to safety improvements" → a touch repetitive
    Changed to resulted in safety impovements. RecycledPixels (talk) 22:46, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Background

  • "crew members, and arrived in Baltimore at 7:10 pm" → remove comma
    Split into two sentences. RecycledPixels (talk) 22:46, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Accident

  • "made radio contact with air traffic control near Philadelphia" → since it's mentioned earlier in this sentence that they were approaching Philadelphia, I don't think you need to specify Philly ATC here
    Removed duplicate. RecycledPixels (talk) 22:46, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you think a link to Mayday would be appropriate, just for those who aren't familiar with the term or the convention?
    I have no objection to the wikilink, and have added it. RecycledPixels (talk) 22:46, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "holding 1,000 feet (300 m) higher in the same holding pattern" → a little repetitive, recommend removal of the second use of "holding"
    Done. RecycledPixels (talk) 22:46, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aftermath

  • "east of Elkton near the state line" → don't think this is needed since you give the location of the crash site in the previous section
    Agree, and done. Also removed duplicate "crash site" from next sentence. RecycledPixels (talk) 22:46, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "was extinguish the fires and to begin collecting" → verbs read like they don't match; either "to extinguish" and "to begin" or "extinguish" and "begin"
    Agree, and done. RecycledPixels (talk) 22:46, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Investigation

  • "an impact 100 times as strong as the force of gravity (g)" → Recommend a link to g-force somewhere in here
    Done. RecycledPixels (talk) 22:46, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "its tape appeared to be hopelessly damaged" → might want to attribute this since it sorta sounds like WP's voice (and since it ended up being wrong)
    Wording was from the McClement source, but since the sentences afterward elaborated on the damage, I changed it to simply "had been badly damaged.", citing NY Times 12/11. RecycledPixels (talk) 22:46, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the aircraft apparently had caught fire close to its cruising altitude of 5,000 feet" → this caught me off-guard until I remembered that the flight was only from BWI to Philly - do you think a short little bit added on to the end of this sentence just noting the reason behind the low cruising altitude would be warranted/helpful? (Genuinely asking your opinion, I think it's good either way)
    I don't really have any more information than this, other than it actually flew at 4,000 feet as far as the New Castle VOR (which I assume was somewhere around Wilmington/New Castle, Delaware), then increased altitude to 5000 feet for the hold, west of the VOR. So not a very long flight, and none of the official reports or news reports made any comments about this being unusually low. RecycledPixels (talk) 22:46, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "disputed early theories that lightning" (plural), "explode, calling it improbable" (singular)
    As far as I can tell, there was only one lightning strike theory, so changed the first instance to singular. RecycledPixels (talk) 22:46, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "as a result of static electricity igniting fuel vapor" → link to static electricity could be helpful
    Done. RecycledPixels (talk) 22:46, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "left wing tip, and a large area of damage" → remove comma
    Done. RecycledPixels (talk) 22:46, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "turbine engines and was also present in Flight 214's fuel tanks" → if you're saying that Jet A was also there, I would change "and was also present" to "which was also present" or something similar
    Done. RecycledPixels (talk) 22:46, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Legacy

  • "including experts from the FAA, CAB, other government agencies and lightning experts" → reads like "including experts from...lightning experts", so recommend rewording "lightning experts" to before the list or adding something after "government agencies" so it doesn't sound like you're doubling up on the word "experts"
    Reworded.
  • "aircraft fuel systems, and potential measures" → remove comma
  • "lightning strikes, and published guidance" → remove comma
  • "and any items that are installed on the surface" → sounds a little weird going from past tense ("mandated") to present tense ("that are installed") though changing the latter to past tense doesn't sound right either; maybe just remove "that are" altogether?
    Agreed, and done. RecycledPixels (talk) 22:46, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "turbine fuels in civil aircraft operations."" → since the quote isn't a full sentence, the full stop should be outside the quotation marks per MOS:LQ
    This was raised earlier. The cited source reads: IN FEBRUARY 1964, the Federal Aviation Agency requested the Coordinating Research Council, Inc. (CRC) to carry out a "thorough and expert technical review. . .in regard to the safety hazards of turbine fuels in civil aircraft operations." CRC proceeded with the request by forming an Ad Hoc Group on Aviation Fuel Safety. The Group was composed of top engineers from the airframe, airline, and petroleum industries, selected because of their individual technical experience and ability. ... The period appears within the quotes in the source, and appears to be quoting exact text from the CRC request, which I don't have access to, which logically appears to be the end of the sentence. That's where I applied the "Include terminal punctuation within the quotation marks only if it was present in the original material" instruction from MOS:LQ, finding the punctuation within the cited source, and assuming that the punctuation existed where it did in the original source that the cited source was using. Any further opinions of that? RecycledPixels (talk) 22:46, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "aviation fuels, and to determine" → remove comma
  • "likelihood of accidents and/or loss of life."" → ditto with full stop as above
    This was also brought up earlier. Since I am quoting a portion of a sentence, and not an entire sentence from the cited source (which wasn't identified as a direct quote in that source), I've moved the terminal period back outside the quotation marks. RecycledPixels (talk) 22:46, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your patience, sorry that this took so long for me to get to. Prose comments on first read-through are above! PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 20:25, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@PCN02WPS: Thanks for the look. Let me know what you think, especially about the MOS:LQ issues. RecycledPixels (talk) 22:46, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The LQ bits look good to me; the explanation seems reasonable enough so I have no issue with it. All changes look good as well so I'm happy to support. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 16:24, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

  • /File:Boeing_707_"Stratoliner",_3rd_707-121_production_airplane,_N709PA,_later_delivered_to_Pan_Am.jpg: when and where was this first published?
  • File:Pan_Am_Flight_214_recorder_examination.jpg: source link is dead, when and where was this first published?
  • File:PanAm214.jpg is tagged as lacking author info. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:38, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am unable to verify the first image's claim as a public domain image. Searching online, I find this image all over the place, but I can't find anything that reliably backs up the public domain claim. So, I've replaced the image with a photo of a different Pan Am 707-121. It's not the same aircraft, but it serves the same purpose to identify the appearance of the aircraft involved. The FAA website at [3] has a free image of the actual aircraft in a hangar, but it's fairly low quality and resolution, and does not show the entire aircraft.
I wasn't able to verify the second image, either. It was likely published by the Civil Aeronautics Bureau as a press release, but I can't find evidence of that in any reasonable amount of time. Since it was a photo in the "nice to have" category, but not essential, I have removed it altogether.
I have updated the author information on the third photo. It appears in the CAB accident report, and also appears on the FAA website at [4] without a copyright notice.
Thanks for the catches. I checked the licenses on Commons but didn't try to take the extra step of trying to prove the information claimed there. RecycledPixels (talk) 07:04, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

750h[edit]

Great article. My [minor] concerns are marked here:

  • Suggest splitting the first paragraph of the "Accident" section into one titled "Background".  750h+ | Talk  08:41, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Done.
  • In the infobox, unlink "United States, per MOS:GEOLINK.  750h+ | Talk  08:41, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Done.
  • "The pilot in command was George F. Knuth, 45, of Long Island." is this talking about age? than rephrase this to something like "The pilot in command was George F. Knuth of Long Island, aged 45.", as some may not understand.  750h+ | Talk  08:41, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Did a variation of that suggestion to eliminate the ", 45, " confusion.
  • "The first officer was John R. Dale, 48, also of Long Island." Do the same thing  750h+ | Talk  08:41, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Done.
    Thank you for looking over the article. RecycledPixels (talk) 15:13, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Support.  750h+ | Talk  04:07, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Harry[edit]

  • Terminating punctuation goes outside quote marks (MOS:LQ)
  • The detached engine fell into a field on a farm southwest of Paris, where the flight had originated, with no injuries "it fell into a field with no injuries" doesn't really make sense.
  • The detail on the 1949 Cessna incident seems a little excessive—I found myslef reading through lots of information about places and aircraft that weren't involved in the incident that is the subject of the article.
  • occurred on June 26, 1959, when TWA Flight 891, a Lockheed L-1649 Starliner, crashed near Milan, Italy I don't think the plane involved in that incident is essential to understanding this one; also, we don't generally link country names
  • Investigators found multiple lightning strike marks on the left wing tip Of Flight 214? The previous sentence is about 891.

That's all I've got. Nice article on an interesting incident from the (fairly) early days of commercial aviation. Haven't checked references. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:20, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • @HJ Mitchell: Thanks for taking a look. The terminal punctuation was present in the original Harris source, so I've moved them inside the quotes per MOS:LQ. I removed the part about no injuries caused by the falling engine as it wasn't important. I've tried to tighten up the 1949 Cessna incident, leaving the redlink to the accident article that doesn't yet exist, trimming out the aircraft type and the location as not being terribly important in this context. I mentioned the aircraft type in the Italy case to make the distinction that that incident wasn't also a Boeing 707, but a different type of aircraft altogether (piston-engined). Italy isn't wikilinked, the link goes to Milan. I've clarified that the lightning strike marks were found on the Flight 214 incident. See what you think. RecycledPixels (talk) 23:03, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    LGTM. Support. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:54, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RoySmith[edit]

I may come back with more later, but for now, just a few comments.

  • For the NY Times refs, I think you'd do better to link to the archive page (i.e. https://www.nytimes.com/1963/12/09/archives/81-on-jet-killed-in-flaming-crash-near-elkton-md-airliner-plummets.html?searchResultPosition=1) instead of the raw page image (https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1963/12/09/issue.html). People can then click through to the timesmachine image with the article highlighted.
    It's still subscription required, so it doesn't make it any more accessible. In any event, the reference is the newspaper itself, published on dead trees. The links are provided for convenience, if you have access to a NYT subscription, it's a bonus, and it's how I accessed the archives, so it was simple enough for me to include the URL. It's not perfect, as each of the links only go to page 1 of that day's newspaper, but the citation includes the page number. But there are other ways to access the same material, either by printed copies, Internet archives, microfilm, or web transcriptions. The citations would be just as valid without any links at all.
  • "It operated three times a week as the counterpart to Flight 213, which flew from Philadelphia to San Juan via Baltimore earlier the same day." I would drop that entire sentence; it doesn't add anything to the reader's understanding of this accident.
    I have removed it.
  • For airports which have changed names, i.e. Isla Verde -> Luis Muñoz Marín International Airport, Friendship -> BWI, I would mention their current names to give the reader better context, as those are the names the reader is likely to know.
    The reader can use the provided wikilinks to the airports to find out the naming history of each of the airports, either by hovering over them with the mouse (my preferred method) or by clicking on them.
  • "It wasn’t a large fire ... from the force of the impact" I think long quotes like this are better presented with {{blockquote}} vs running in-line. Also, the source identifies him as "Lt. Don Hash (Retired)" so we should do the same.
    Changed per MOS:BLOCKQUOTE. The identification of the speaker as "a Maryland state trooper" is sufficient as Lt. Don Hash is not mentioned anywhere else in the article and did not serve a significant role other than having been the first to arrive at the crash scene.
  • "The Civil Aeronautics Board (CAB) was notified of the accident and was dispatched from Washington, D.C". The whole board wasn't dispatched, just "a team of investigators" (from the NYT source)
    Clarified.
  • "Witnesses of the crash described hearing the explosion and seeing the plane in flames as it descended" I know this is what the source says, but I'm vaguely uncomfortable in how this is presented. Witnesses to air crashes are notoriously unreliable; it's not uncommon for witnesses to describe events (in-flight breakup, fire, etc) which are inconsistent with the physical evidence. Notice how on page 4 of the CAB report, they hedge with "aircraft or flaming object in the sky", and are careful to point out how many people reported seeing which things. Compare this with the narrative on page 11, where the CAB goes out of their way to describe some of the witnesses as "particularly well qualified" observers. I'm not sure how this should be presented, but your current version I think needs to better emphasize that "witnesses say they saw X" does necessarily mean "X happened".
    I'm not sure I understand this objection, as according to the CAB report, 99 of 140 witnesses described seeing a flaming object in the sky and one of the flight crew of a nearby flight radioed in "Clipper 214 is going down in flames". I'm not sure how "Witnesses of the crash described hearing the explosion and seeing the plane in flames as it descended" is inconsistent with that, and I don't think it would help the article by trying to break that collective statement into the statements of each individual witness, or irrelevant facts like 48 of the witnesses describing the actual parts of the aircraft that they saw to be in flames as the plane went down.
  • "An investigation by the Civil Aeronautics Board concluded that the cause of the crash was a lightning strike that had ignited fuel vapors in one of the aircraft's fuel tanks, causing an explosion that destroyed one of the wings." I should have put this first, because it's the most important: the CAB said no such thing. What they said was "the probable cause of this accident was lightning -induced ignition of the fuel/air mixture ..." The use of the "probable cause" terminology is critical.
    Added "probable" to the lead section. RecycledPixels (talk) 21:38, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Related to the previous item, "fuel/air mixture" is not the same as "fuel vapors". A "vapor" is a gas. A fuel/air mixture could be atomized (but still liquid) fuel, i.e. an Aerosol. It may sound like a minor point, but it's actually quite important, as fuel cannot ignite until it undergoes the liquid->gas phase change.
    "...fuel cannot ignite until it undergoes the liquid->gas phase change." The explosion of the aircraft demonstrates that some degree of phase change had occurred. I will concede that it was likely only the vapors that ignited and not the fuel/air vapors that had not yet gone through the phase change. However, the CAB report discusses at length the potential risk to aircraft by the potential ignition of fuel vapors within the fuel tanks and fuel system. See, for example, page 7, "lightning discharges can be hazardous to aircraft fuel systems by possibly igniting the fuel vapor within the tanks.", on page 8, "In addition, flame can propagate through the vent system, from fuel vapors ignited at the vent outlet by direct strokes ...", page 9, "Expert testimony at the hearing indicated that the fuel vapors in the air spaces of the tanks were well within the flammable range at the time of the accident" and so on. For the purposes of a reader understanding this article, the causes and results of investigations, "fuel vapors" gives a sufficient amount of technical precision and is enough of a synonym of "fuel/air micture" in this instance to be used interchangeably. RecycledPixels (talk) 21:38, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The plane entered a sudden spin during a demonstration of the aircraft's minimum control speed". I know the NY Times source says "spin", but I'm dubious that a swept-wing jet like a 707 is capable of recovering from a spin. I suspect, regardless of what the NY Times (UPI, actually) wrote, the plane never actually entered a fully developed Spin (aerodynamics). Also, you say, "aerodynamic forces caused the engine to break away". Nowhere in the source does it say that. The source says, "A Pan American World Airlines spokesman said the right outboard engine had torn loose". "Torn loose" does not imply "aerodynamic forces". Not to mention that you've taken a statement from an unnamed Pan Am spokesman and restated it in wiki-voice. Actually, I'm going to keep going on this one. You said it was an "incident". The source doesn't say that. In aviation, the terms "incident" and "accident" have very specific meanings, see Aviation accidents and incidents. You can't just use the terms without understanding what they mean.
    There's a lot here. I'm dubious that a swept-wing jet like a 707 is capable of recovering from a spin. I suspect, regardless of what the NY Times (UPI, actually) wrote, the plane never actually entered a fully developed Spin (aerodynamics). You may be right. However, the cited article states, "a Pan American World Airways spokesman said the right outboard engine had been torn loose when the craft went into a sudden spin during a deliberate demonstration of minimum control speed." I feel that, in the absence of any other sources to the contrary, the spokesman of the airline that owned the aircraft at the time when speaking specifically about the incident, is a sufficiently reliable source of what happened. It is also likely that the source was using the term "spin" in a conventional sense to refer to uncommanded yaw rather than the precise aeronautical definition you've linked to.
    "Torn loose" does not imply "aerodynamic forces".. I have removed the reference to aerodynamic forces because I don't have a source for it in my clippings and I don't recall where I got that terminology. The phrases "torn loose" and "break away" are sufficiently close that the break away phrasing is sufficient without being over-repetitive of the "torn" phrasing that appears in the previous sentence.
    Not to mention that you've taken a statement from an unnamed Pan Am spokesman and restated it in wiki-voice. An official company spokesman, speaking specifically on the incident in question, appearing in a reliable source, reprinted via an international wire service, and never contradicted since then, said it happened.
    You said it was an "incident". The source doesn't say that. In aviation, the terms "incident" and "accident" have very specific meanings, see Aviation accidents and incidents. You can't just use the terms without understanding what they mean. I have a sufficient understanding of the terms to know what they mean, and in this case, the use of "incident" is appropriate, both in the common use of the word used here as well as the more precise definition in an aviation context that you are referring to.
  • Also about the previous item, there's nothing in the source which says that was the same airplane as this crash.
    Citation added.
  • I'm curious about the statement you made above, in response to a comment from PCN02WPS" I don't really have any more information than this, other than it actually flew at 4,000 feet as far as the New Castle VOR. What source says it was at the New Castle VOR? Oh never mind, it's in the CAB report. RoySmith (talk) 19:10, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • " Investigators ... also said that the plane would have had to dive a considerable distance before aerodynamic forces would have been severe enough to cause it to break up and explode". You are misquoting the source. The source says, "It is believed that a plane would probably have to dive a considerable distance before it would break up in a violent maneuver and catch fire". There's nothing there about "aerodynamic forces" or exploding.
    I've removed the phrase aerodynamic force. I've left in the part about exploding because the whole cited article talked about the explosion of the aircraft.
  • "The recovery of the wreckage took place over a period of 12 days, and 16 truckloads of the debris were taken ..." => "The recovery of the wreckage took 12 days; 16 truckloads of debris were taken ..." (or maybe "... with 16 truckloads of debris taken ...")
    Made the first suggested edit, not the second. The reconfiguration of the sentence with a semicolon is not an improvement.
  • "Testimony from eyewitnesses confirmed", per my comments above about the reliability of eye-witness reports, replace "confirmed" with "corroborated", "supported" or something similar.
    Changed to "Eyewitnesses had seen that the plane had been burning on its way down to the crash site."
  • "an airplane is typically struck by lightning once or twice a year without causing any problems." This should be clarified. Does it mean that there are typically 1 or 2 strikes per year in total across the fleet, or that on average, any particular airplane can be expected to get 1 or 2 strikes? Also the FAA Lessons Learned citation needs a more specific location, i.e. what section heading.
    "An airplane" refers to a specific airplane. "Airplanes" would have referred to the entire fleet. The "Accident Overview" section of the site is identified in the citation.
  • "Scientists and airline industry representatives disputed the early theory that lightning could have caused the aircraft to explode, calling it improbable". The source is a human-interest story written 50 years after the crash by a writer who appears to have no expertese writing about aviation. It quotes unnamed "scientists". It's not even clear if it's one scientist or several. And there's no mention of "airline industry representatives". I would drop this entirely.
    Added additional citation to the FAA Lessons Learned website to that sentence. Changed "scientists" to "experts".
  • Hudson, Edward (February 26, 1964). "F.A.A. Will Study Jet Fuel Safety". The New York Times. p. 21. Retrieved May 8, 2019. the URL points to the wrong edition of the paper (it should be the 27th; https://www.nytimes.com/1964/02/27/archives/pan-am-to-test-fuel-safeguard-aim-is-to-prevent-explosion-believed.html?searchResultPosition=1)
    The "Pan Am to Test Fuel Safeguard" article appeared the next day. It isn't the same as the "F.A.A. Will Study Jet Fuel Safety" article from February 26 article by the same author, but the article you are referring to is separately used as the "nytimes0227" named source in the article.
  • "Seconds later, the first officer of National Airlines Flight 16, holding 1,000 feet (300 m) higher in the same pattern, radioed, "Clipper 214 is going down in flames" The source does not say that National 16 was holding. Nor does it give any timing information which supports "Seconds later".
    Added additional citation to page 2 of the CAB report which identifies the timing of the statement as well as what National Airlines Flight 16 was doing at the time.
  • "Built to withstand an impact 100 times as strong as the force of gravity (g), it had been subjected to a force of 200 g". The source says, "built to withstand 100 Gs ... had apparently been slapped with double that amount of force". You have turned the source's "apparently" into an unequivocal statement of fact in wiki voice. Also, g is a unit of acceleration, not force. It's wrong in the source, but we don't have to repeat their error.
    Removed McClement reference, added New York Times citation that simply stated that it had suffered from forces greater than it had been designed to withstand and rephrased.
  • "The FAA also said that it would conduct research to determine the relative safety of the two types of jet fuel used in the United States ... Jet B ... Jet A". The source talks about kerosine and JP-4. In fact, kerosine is Jet-A and JP-4 is Jet-B, but a reader looking up the source would probably not know that. You need to add something which gives these name equivalents (with a RS, of course)
    I have not referred to the fuel as JP-4 anywhere in the article. The FAA appears to be the only party that changed the terminology from Jet B to JP-4. I don't know if it was correct at the time, but when I look it up now, I learn that JP-4 is a military fuel that is Jet B with additional anti-icing and corrosion inhibitors. The CAB report, page 2, states that tanks 1 and 4 main and reserve tanks had 69 percent Jet B, tanks 2 and 3 had 5 percent Jet B, and the center tank had 100 percent Jet B. In a letter to the FAA on December 17, 1963, attached to the CAB report as Attachment II, Leon Tanguay, Director the Bureau of Safety of the CAB stated, in the second paragraph, that the aircraft was loaded with a 68/32 Jet A/Jet B mixture, and, as item 5, that the FAA consider the flammability differences between Jet A and Jet B. In the George Moore's (Director of Flight Standards Service at the FAA) reply dated March 12, 1964, attached to the CAB report as Attachment III, states "the questions which have been raised concerning the relative safety of JP-4, kerosene, and mixes of the two are being studied". I believe the February 26, 1964, article in New York Times article was simply referencing FAA sources that perhaps incorrectly substituted "JP-4" for "Jet B". The study that resulted from the FAA's request, cited as Harris 1965, referred to it as "Jet B (JP-4)" the first couple of times in the article, but then referred to it exclusively as "Jet B" after that. A reader interested in the differences between JP-4 and Jet B can glean that information from the Jet B article, I don't think a discussion in this accident article is necessary.
  • The links for Jet A and Jet B in the article both point to redirect pages for Jet fuel. They should point directly to the appropriate sections within Jet fuel.
    I have gone ahead and modified each of those redirect articles to point to the appropriate sections of the Jet fuel article.
  • "hoping reduce the risk of ignition" ->"hoping TO reduce"
    Fixed.
  • As an aside, Arthur O. Austin did some early research on the effects of lighting on aircraft; there may be something there that's worth mentioning here. Not to mention, that's currently in the queue for WP:PR if you've got time :-)
    I have addressed the concerns that you have expressed, feel free to take another look. RecycledPixels (talk) 21:38, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2023 World Snooker Championship[edit]

Nominator(s): Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:00, 8 April 2024 (UTC), HurricaneHiggins[reply]

This article is about last year's World Championship. The last FAC failed for inactivity, rather than quality. Let me know what you think! Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:00, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from BennyOnTheLoose[edit]

(Note: my alleged contribution to the article results from having run IABot on it, and a co-ordinator confirmed at the previous nomination that I'm OK to express an opinion. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:55, 8 April 2024 (UTC))[reply]

  • Most of my comments from the first nomination have been addressed in edits by HurricaneHiggins, but the sources cited for Main draw still don't verify the dates of matches, or the details of the final (referee, frame scores, breaks).

I did some spot checks on the Third qualification round section and found the following issues. This suggests to me that some background knowledge, rather that just the cited sources, has been used:

  • "The 2006 champion Graeme Dott reached the final round with a 10–6 victory over Andy Hicks. From 7–9 behind against John Astley, world number 21 Anthony McGill made breaks of 136 and 98 to force a deciding frame, which he won." seems to be uncited. Ref 53 only covers the Thepchaiya Un-Nooh/Mark Joyce match. Maybe refs 54 and 55 need to be move or re-used.
  • "former world seniors champion David Lilley2 - "former world seniors champion" not verified by cited source
  • "Two-time semi-finalist Stephen Maguire2 - "Two-time semi-finalist" not verified by cited source
  • "Northern Irish player Jordan Brown" - "Northern Irish" not verified by cited source
  • "2023 German Masters runner-up Tom Ford" - "2023 German Masters runner-up" not verified by cited source
  • "Stevens defeated fellow Welsh player Jamie Clarke" - nationalities are not verified by cited source
  • "2022 Crucible debutant Ashley Hugill." - "2022 Crucible debutant" not verified by cited source
  • "Pang Junxu, runner-up at the previous month's 2023 WST Classic" - "runner-up at the previous month's 2023 WST Classic" not verified by cited source
    • I can see that having these colour bits could be seen as not supported by the sources, I'm happy to take them out. I think there are some pieces where it's worth stating something about the person, why the match matters, etc. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 17:54, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've gone through this section and removed some fluff. See if you think that is better. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:23, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Suggest adding alt text
  • File:Cazoo_World_Snooker_Championship_logo.png: source link is dead. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:34, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Harper J. Cole[edit]

Hi there, here's a few comments...

  • The tournament featured five female players, the most in 31 years "31 years" could be linked to 1992 World Snooker Championship.
  • Ukrainian player Iulian Boiko, who in 2020 at age 14 had become the youngest player ever to compete in the event While this is worth mentioning in both the 2020 article and Boiko's own article, it seems a bit off topic here.
  • Sean O'Sullivan was on course for a maximum break when he potted two red balls in one shot Do we know how close he was (were they the last two reds)?
  • Poomjaeng posed for a selfie with Stevens after the first session, while trailing 3–6. I don't think you need a comma here.
  • Afterwards, Vafaei made disparaging remarks about his second-round opponent O'Sullivan that stoked a widely publicised rivalry between the players. Just personally, I'd describe it as a feud more than a rivalry. In sports, "rivalry" is typically used to describe players of roughly equal ability who frequently play each other, e.g. Higgins and Davis in the 80s. Vafaei and ROS have only played each other a few times, with their differences being mostly personal.
  • Wilson, who had dropped his cue between sessions while signing autographs, dislodging a weight in the butt, said that the cue was not the reason for his defeat Did this happen between sessions of the match with Higgins, or earlier?
    • I believe it was during this match! Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:18, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Maybe change to "after the first session" or "between the first and second sessions" to make it clear? Harper J. Cole (talk) 22:21, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • Neither of the sources used actually state the time (one says he did it while signing autographs, the other whilst practicing), so we can't make that claim. It's very possible he did it prior to the first session. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:07, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The final was played as a best-of-35-frames match, held over four sessions on 30 April and 1 May, between Brecel and Selby. No need for the second comma.

Harper J. Cole (talk) 20:42, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi
, thanks for your review! Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:18, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No worries - just one more to follow up on above. Harper J. Cole (talk) 22:23, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm satisfied: Support --Harper J. Cole (talk) 10:59, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Castle in the Sky[edit]

Nominator(s): TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 04:27, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hayao Miyazaki's long and decorated career at Studio Ghibli has become the stuff of legend within animation circles, but Castle in the Sky (1986) – the studio's first work – was where it all started. Initially met with a lukewarm reception, the film has grown in popularity and earnings, becoming a cult classic with a still-devoted following nearly 40 years after its release. After a peer review from Z1720, an excellent GAN review from Rhain, and some pre-FAC copyediting from Vanamonde, I think it's time to complete my year of work on this article. I look forward to hearing your comments! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 04:27, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I am a first-time nominator, so feel free to leave particularly detailed comments; the source review will require spot-checks; all that jazz. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 05:01, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

  • Suggest adding alt text
    Done. —TS
  • File:Laputa_Castle_in_the_Sky_robot_at_Ghibli_Museum.jpg needs a tag for the original work
    Could you elaborate on what you mean by this comment? —TS
    This is a photograph of a 3D work in a region that does not have freedom of panorama. We thus need to account for the copyright of both the photograph and the original work, and the current tagging appears to cover only the photograph. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:46, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nikkimaria: Thanks for the explanation. I see no evidence that the original work is freely licensed, so I've removed the image and nominated it for deletion on Commons. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 06:09, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Isao_Takahata_(cropped).jpg: the uploader has had a large number of works deleted for copyright concerns - are we certain this is own work as claimed? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:45, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Checking. —TS
    I'm checking on File:Isao Takahata.jpg, the file this was extracted from. It's been so long since this image has been uploaded that the results are a little muddy, but a reverse image search shows no uses of the file before 2014. Also worth noting is that the file was never mentioned during the many deletion discussions involving Boungawa's other files. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 05:09, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: Thanks for the review! I'm working on one and need clarification on another. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 05:01, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: Just a reminder that I've addressed your comments. Do you have any further suggestions for improvement? —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 04:10, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:23, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draken Bowser[edit]

I liked the article a lot, but I have some concerns. I don't see anything detailing the script-writing process specifically, or any discussion on casting/actors for the original Japanese dub. There's also a lot of content on the design of environments and contraptions, but not so much on characters. Still, my overall impression is good. Will drop prose comments shortly. Draken Bowser (talk) 16:41, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looking forward to the review! I'll also note that I'm also not super satisfied with § Production, as it lacks the detail one might expect from other film articles. However, this is due to the aspect not being extensively covered in sources, not because this information is simply missing from the article. This was also discussed during the GAN review. At your suggestion, I'll take another look through Miyazaki 2009 to see if I can dig anything out of the interviews, but I don't expect to find much. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 18:06, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I suppose information on casting/actors might generally be more sparse for animated features as well. /DrB
Lead
  • "It was well-received by audiences, being voted as one of the greatest animated films of all time in later years. The film also received several notable accolades." - Both sentences have been shortened at the expense of information. The first one is sorta fine, at least I don't immediately know how to "fix" it. The second one could use an ", including.."
    I've made a couple of additions, would you like to take another look? —TS
    That's better. /DrB
Plot summary
  • suggest "..in a nearby mining town.."
    Nearby to what? I wouldn't consider the town to be near the airship, as the film depicts Sheeta falling a seemingly great distance. —TS
    Ok, can we add something else? I've managed to convince myself that the sentence could use an adjective before "mining town", in order to flow nicely. /DrB
    @Draken Bowser: How about "19th-century"? It's discussed later in the article, and gives a sense of the time period that wasn't present before. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 05:54, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm, could we go with "..an industrial era.." since it's a fictional universe? /DrB
    This sounds fine to me, but I need to ask where you propose to remove text — your change would bring the plot summary a couple words above the 700-word limit. —TS
  • "However, Dola's gang and Muska's.." - Might need to add "shortly" after the removal.
    Done. —TS
  • "..the same insignia on Sheeta's crystal.." - Prefer "as on" or "as".
    Done. —TS
  • "Pazu joins them to attempt.." - Prefer "in an".
    Done. —TS
  • "..but is in turn destroyed by the military airship Goliath."
    Done. —TS
  • "Sheeta and Pazu pass through the turbulent lightning storm." - Has been foreshadowed by "violent winds", but the introduction is still a bit abrupt as it is written.
    Changed "massive cloud" to "massive storm" earlier in the paragraph, which should help. —TS
  • "However, [T]he army arrives.."
    Done. —TS
  • "..communicating with Earth.." - A bit unusal, maybe "their headquarters/base camp" (I don¨t remember the plot).
    Changed the whole clause to just "destroying their communications systems". —TS
Themes
  • "..relationship with nature and the role of technology." - Prefer "dependence on technology" if the source allows it.
    Not done. Odell & Le Blanc (and other sources, for that matter) discuss these themes more as a relationship than a dependence. I've adjusted the page range of the citation to include some additional context within the source. —TS
    Sounds good. /DrB
  • Prefer "..young children as the protagonists."
    Done. —TS
  • "..with a younger protagonists generates
    Done. —TS
  • "He considers this a focal point in his endeavors. The theme of innocence is explored more focally in Miyazaki's succeeding film My Neighbor Totoro (1988)." - Replace one or the other.
    Done. more focally → further —TS
Release
  • "..which critics have noted to be somewhat lower than the performance.." - Which would warrant the removal of "also" in the next sentence.
    Done. —TS

That's about it. Regards. Draken Bowser (talk) 18:12, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review, Draken Bowser! I have a couple of questions which I've left above. It might take me a couple of days to browse through the source I mentioned for § Production, but I'll keep you updated if I make any additions. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 19:54, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
With the addition of Hahnchen's comments to my extant concerns I'm gonna Oppose on comprehensiveness. Should these problems be addressed at some point in the future I'd be happy to continue the review. Draken Bowser (talk) 13:05, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I still consider the absence of information on character designs a weakness, especially since it is such an influential animated feature. I don't think casting actually matters, but there should be sources allowing for some info on the actors' contribution to the film.
For comparison, Atlantis: The Lost Empire has info on all three, and Frozen II has info on character design and casting (not so much on the actors approach/performance). For what it's worth, this is a great article and the hard work shines through, I'm only being difficult because what FA-1b seems to demand from an article like this. I guess I could change my stance even without additional info on the actors, but I think there needs to be more on character design, not just on environments and contraptions. Draken Bowser (talk) 17:20, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your concerns perfectly, and I also wish there was more to go off of on these aspects, but it's almost certain the sources do not exist — and I've looked very hard for them. Atlantis and Frozen have the distinct advantages of being more modern and being produced by Disney, which essentially guarantees comprehensive coverage of every aspect of the film in secondary sources. However, even looking through the archive volume I discovered recently (which isn't even indexed in some book databases), I was not able to find anything significant relating to the production stage. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 17:36, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the closest I got was a source commenting on how Sheeta's transformation is not reflected in her character design. Draken Bowser (talk) 18:27, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Draken Bowser: As we've discussed, I've done what I can to address the comprehensiveness concerns you and other reviewers brought up, and while I was successful in most areas, it seems that sources simply do not cover the production aspect in any more detail than is suggested by that section. You seem to imply that observation in your message as well. With that in mind, could I ask if there's anything I can do to change your mind about your opposition to this candidate? —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 01:48, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose that a "cursory reading of the litterature" shows that character design is mostly discussed with respect to Miyazaki himself or his general impact on Studio Ghibli's character designs, and only from Mononoke onwards(?) in terms of the individual films. Given that, it seems reasonable to strike the oppose. Draken Bowser (talk) 15:21, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate it. Let me know if you have any further comments or suggestions for improvement. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 15:40, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by TompaDompa[edit]

I'll try to find the time to review this. TompaDompa (talk) 18:18, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. At a glance, the article seems to rather gloss over the connection to Jonathan Swift's Gulliver's Travels. Laputa is not linked anywhere in the article, for instance, which seems like an oversight. A quick look at Google Scholar seems to indicate that there is at least a decent amount of literature covering this aspect. The film's entry at The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction says that "curiously, references to Gulliver and his travels were [...] removed in the English dub", which makes me think that there is a fair bit more that should be covered here (the article is not overly long at roughly 4,700 words as of my writing this). I see that other reviewers have raised comprehensiveness concerns, and this seems to be another instance thereof. Not enough for me to oppose the nomination outright (at least not without looking into it further), but it does give me some pause. TompaDompa (talk) 18:15, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@TompaDompa: Thanks for your comments. Like you mentioned, taken together with Hahnchen's oppose below, I am thinking seriously about the comprehensiveness side of things with this article. Looking through the sources you've linked, only a couple are reliable enough to include — the others are student work or not published in a peer-reviewed journal. I should be able to incorporate the paper in the next few days. As for the detail of the film drawing from Gulliver, most sources I've looked through mention the connection, but don't go any further, as the floating island in the film bears only a passing resemblance to its namesake. The references to the novel that were removed in the English version are, to my knowledge, only a single single in the original Japanese. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 02:48, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@TompaDompa: § Themes now calls out the connection to Gulliver more explicitly, and I've incorporated a couple of new sources as well. Along with my response to Hahnchen below, I hope that now satisfies everyone's comprehensibility concerns. With that in mind, I invite you to continue (or start!) your review, if you're willing. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 23:39, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Time permitting, I will. Hopefully next week. I would suggest clarifying in-text that Gulliver's Travels is a novel by Jonathan Swift. TompaDompa (talk) 11:37, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hahnchen[edit]

  • Oppose - The reception section is just a list of American regional newspapers. For it to be comprehensive, you need contemporaneous Japanese responses. It doesn't even include specialist press. - hahnchen 12:49, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Hahnchen: Thanks for your comments. I've done my best to include as many reviews as possible, but — not being a competent Japanese speaker — I've not been able to reliably search for or assess Japanese-language sources. It doesn't help that article, as long as it is, does not seem to have a reception section. Finding news sources from the time adds the additional caveat of looking through newspaper archives, many of which are paywalled. I'd ask for your help in finding a place to start with these kinds of sources, as once I get started, I should have a much easier time alleviating your sourcing concerns. Also, what English-language sources would you consider "specialist press" for this topic area? —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 21:59, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Against all odds, a lovely friend from the Ghibli community connected me with an archive volume that contains some newspaper articles that ran around the time of the film's release. I will be incorporating them over the next few days. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 06:12, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Hahnchen and Draken Bowser: § Critical response now includes five Japanese sources from the time. With that in mind, would you both be willing to reconsider your !votes and resume your reviews of this candidate? —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 07:13, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jacques Offenbach[edit]

Nominator(s): Tim riley talk 19:22, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Together with marvellous colleagues I've got numerous French composers to FA and I hope the time has come to get Offenbach to join them. He's known to the world at large for the can-can, but is notable for much, much more. As always at FAC, comments, quibbles and recommendations for improvements will be welcomed. Tim riley talk 19:22, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt[edit]

Just a placeholder as yet.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:27, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Offenbach quietly shifted the emphasis of his work from being a cellist who also composed to being a composer who played the cello.[43]" I would suggest adding an "also" after the second "who" to increase the parallelism.
  • "The Champs-Élysées in 1855 were not yet the grand avenue laid out by Baron Haussmann in the 1860s, but an unpaved allée" Are we sure on the paving? this, though perhaps not the highest quality source, seems to contradict.
  • Faris is unequivocal: "The site was on the Champs-Elysées (Baron Haussmann had not yet redeveloped Paris, and the present avenue des Champs-Elysées was an allée, planted but unpaved)". Even today you can get your shoes very mucky walking down that part of the Champs-Elysées when going to lunch at e.g. Ledoyen. Tim riley talk 15:44, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • " the Tuileries palace" Even with the decapitalisation craze, this one has survived, at least according to the article title. Perhaps the storming has not yet recurred.
  • "(ostensibly to Roman mythology but in reality to Napoleon and his government, generally seen as the targets of its satire)" This is a rather long parenthetical and perhaps should be put in plain prose. Also, did Janin mistake the target of the work, and was annoyed at how Roman gods were portrayed, or was he outraged because of the irreverence toward the Emperor?
  • Redrawn. It is clear that Janin was genuinely shocked at the treatment of the gods of classical literature. I don't know that he was all that keen on the emperor: his paper had liberal leanings. Tim riley talk 15:44, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
More soon.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:01, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Look forward to it. Thanks for the above so far. Tim riley talk 15:44, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • " but has not subsequently been revived as often as Offenbach's best-known operettas.[111]" Perhaps simplify to "but has been revived less often than Offenbach's best-known operettas".
  • Should the lyrics for the quintet for the kings be in italics? Also other lyrics.
  • I'm seeking expert advice on this. I think probably not, but shall await further input. Tim riley talk 12:35, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Offenbach often composed amidst noise and distractions." It's unclear what this means as the rest of the paragraph doesn't touch on it. Are these the normal noises and distractions one would expect from family life in a large city? If that's all, is it worth mentioning?
  • Probably not. I suppose the idea was to emphasise that Offenbach was anything but an ivory tower composer, but you're right: it doesn't add much, and I've zapped it. Tim riley talk 12:35, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Wagner, ignoring Berlioz, retaliated by writing some unflattering verses about Offenbach" Are we talking about correspondence or something more public?
  • The latter I'm pretty sure – Wagner wasn't one to keep his thoughts private – but the source doesn't actually say. Tim riley talk 12:35, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Largo al factotum" consider a link.
  • Done. (Never crossed my mind that a single number from The Barber might have its own article.) Tim riley talk 12:35, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's it.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:47, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Most grateful, Wehwalt. Warmest thanks for your input. Tim riley talk 12:35, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Enjoyable read.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:14, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

  • File:Offenbach-mentors.jpg needs a US tag, as do all of its source files
    • Serves me right for relying on Commons! I should know better by now. All PD old. Replaced image with new one duly tagged (I hope) Tim riley talk 09:25, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Young_Offenbach.jpg: source link is dead, needs a US tag
  • Doesn't look like any changes have been made on this one? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:12, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some genius has moved the image from Wikipedia to Commons since yesterday, omitting the tag you ask for. It had the wp:old tag when in the former. I do not know how to add a US tag to a Commons file.
  • File:Bouffes-Parisiens.jpg needs a US tag. Ditto File:Hortense-Schneider-cropped.jpg, File:Offenbach_and_son_Auguste.jpg, File:Offenbach-by-André-Gill.jpg, File:Punch_-_Offenbach_elegy.png
    • Replaced the Bouffes-Parisiens and Schneider image and blitzed the Punch image (as discussed on the article talk page); the others now tagged. Tim riley talk 09:25, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Halevy-Meilhac-Strauss-Sullivan.jpg: second source link is dead. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:22, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Replaced. Thank you, as ever, Nikkimaria, for your sharp eye. I hope all is now tickety-boo. Tim riley talk 09:25, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Afterthought: Nikkimaria, I have replaced the Punch image with an 1860s photo of Offenbach. Would you mind checking that out as well? Tim riley talk 10:05, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Contes-d'Hoffmann-1881.jpg is tagged as missing author info.
  • File:Offenbach_and_Strauss.jpg needs a US tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:12, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Removed. Talk page discussion favours removal in any case. Tim riley talk 07:16, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild[edit]

Recusing to review.

  • "As he was by then the permanent cantor of the local synagogue, Isaac could". Optional: 'As Isaac was by then the permanent cantor of the local synagogue, he could'.
  • The very last sentence of Early years needs a citation.
  • It has two – in the footnote. Seems OTT to duplicate them in the main text. Tim riley talk 08:04, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The usual convention is to cite the text rather than have a reader chase citations in a footnote in the hope that one of them also gives the main article source. (It never occurred to me that that might be the case here.) If this causes a perceived redundancy, so be it. On a similar note "a play on words loosely translated as "I am certainly the Father, but each of them is my Son and Wholly Spirited" " ends with a footnote but neither it nor the main text are cited.
OK. Belt and braces it shall be. As to the explanation of the French pun, it is mine, I think. If you decree that it must be blitzed if uncited I shall comply, but it might leave the non-Francophone reader puzzled. Tim riley talk 12:44, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. The MoS says "Quotations from foreign-language sources should appear with a translation into English, preferably a modern one." It does allow the possibility of "When editors themselves translate foreign text into English" but makes no suggestions as to how to cite this. Lacking a translation in a source(?) I am personally happy to not cite it on a 'sky is blue' basis.
  • "he and the principal cellist played alternate notes of the printed score". Sheer brilliance! :-)
  • Between 1835 and 1844 the narrative is date free. Any chance of inserting one or two? Especially towards the start of the paragraph beginning "Among the salons".
  • Is there a link for "programmed", or could you add a brief explanation. I have no idea what it means, other than that it probably isn't the obvious Programming (music). Program music?
  • This comment surprised me. The first definition of the verb in Chambers is "to include something in a programme; to schedule". I think WP:OVERLINK would prevent our linking such an everyday term to Wiktionary. I've changed to "played", which I'm not wild about, but is the verb used in the source (infelicitously in my view as conductors don't play anything themselves). Tim riley talk 08:04, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the comtesse de Vaux's 200 guests". Should that be an upper-case C?
  • Not in French usage. French capitalisation is expressly designed to confuse the innocent Anglo-Saxon. Tim riley talk 08:04, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It succeeds. I am unconvinced of the relevance of French usage in an English-language article, but let it pass.
I suppose we could call her the Countess de Vaux, if you want it in English, but she's comtesse in all the English sources as well as the French ones. Tim riley talk 12:53, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am happy to be Nelsonian about this case.
  • "which had opened the previous year". The year previous to when?

Gog the Mild (talk) 21:31, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • "shortly after the first performance of the Mozart piece". I am not sure that the last four words are necessary.
  • "gained much popularity where the duet of the two gendarmes became a favourite number in England and France". This doesn't quite work for me grammatically. (I think it is your use of "where" that is throwing me off.) Gog the Mild (talk) 12:26, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think I perpetrated this, though I should have spotted it. Now tweaked. Tim riley talk 12:44, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Prussia's crushing victory at Sedan (1870)". Perhaps 'at Sedan in September' or 'at Sedan that September'? Gog the Mild (talk) 23:11, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "from the decade have remained among his best known". Minor suggestion "the" → 'this'?
  • "working on lines agreed with him." Lines as in the words in the script (learning ones lines) or as working under Offenbach's direction (working along the same lines)?
  • Any particular reason for using ; rather than the more usual section headers?
  • Not sure about that. I don't know if it will help more readers than it irritates. They may reasonably expect to be taken to an article on Offenbach's Ave Maria rather than the non-musical RC prayer. Tim riley talk 15:50, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the text read 'The Ave Maria', with Ave Maria either in italics or quote marks, I would take your point. Having no idea what an Ave Maria is, or was(?), I typed it into another window out of interest. It would be nice to spare other readers the bother.
Done. Tim riley talk 16:17, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Magisterial. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:58, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Gog. We had an offline exchange about the "lang" templates, and I'd be glad if you could spare the time to check that they are OK here. Tim riley talk 16:06, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have added some. It started to get a bit robotic, so I shall return when I am feeling fresher. You will want to check that I haven't broken or mutilated anything. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:38, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I mention this with trepidation, but shouldn't La Vie parisienne have a lower-case v? And its Wikipedia article be retitled? Gog the Mild (talk) 16:26, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would prefer to lower case the Vie, but, as I say above, French capitalisation is expressly designed to have Englishmen sticking straws in their hair: if you can spare five minutes, have a gander at this. Tim riley talk 16:36, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From the International Music Score Library Project, whom one might assume know about such things. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:50, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do née and né need to be in italics? Are they not ordinary English words? Gog the Mild (talk) 16:50, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not in my opinion, but remove the italics and wait to see how long it is before someone rushes in to put them back. Fowler (current edition) italicises the word; Chambers doesn't and the OED is all over the place about it. Tim riley talk 17:00, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
:-) It was an open question. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:03, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The MoS (at MOS:NEE) says not. - SchroCat (talk) 18:50, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Draken Bowser[edit]

What a lovely read. I'll attempt a source review this weekend, unless someone beats me to it.

In the meantime:

  • Optional: "Offenbach's (or) the his earnings from his orchestral work enabled him" to avoid his .. his .. him
  • "the government lifted the licensing restrictions on the number of performers"
  • Looks a bit odd to me without the definite article. Tim riley talk 11:33, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:41, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the scores usually performed and recorded were not composed by Offenbach, but were arranged by Carl Binder and Eduard Haensch" - Seems to conflate composing and arranging, could it be made more clear?

Regards. Draken Bowser (talk) 09:59, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to start a conflict between reviewers (the process is arduous enough as it is), but I unfortunately can't stomach the rewrite of He thought it politic to revert temporarily to the name Jacob. So I guess I'm gonna have to. :) Draken Bowser (talk) 07:41, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think is wrong with the revised version? It conforms with the source. Tim riley talk 08:25, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, the new one is ok, I just really liked the phrasing of the old version. Draken Bowser (talk) 13:16, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Phew! That's a relief. I agree with you, but I think the revised text will do. Thank you for keeping an eye on the continuing review. Tim riley talk 13:39, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Source review[edit]
Spot check

Fotnoote numbers taken from [5] (as of writing equal to current version), source-to-prose comparisons to current version.

  • 8 The move to Cologne is mentioned on p. 13
  • Re-reading my comment I feel like I was trying to be as vague as humanly possible: we need p. 13 to verify the year they moved. Draken Bowser (talk) 11:50, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done.
  • 66 Check
  • 79 Check
  • 82 Check
  • 98 I think we need p. 39 for Despite problems with the libretto.. For hotchpotch of romantic and mythological themes I'm not sure which page to use. Draken Bowser (talk) 11:50, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nor I. It isn't my addition and I'll blitz it if you think fit. Tim riley talk 16:02, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think we need to axe the second one, which is a shame, it's so nicely put. Let's add p. 39 and keep the part about the libretto. Draken Bowser (talk) 16:48, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added citations for both statements (Gammond) Tim riley talk 08:31, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 117 Check
  • 133 I couldn't find his name in the archived version. Draken Bowser (talk) 11:50, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not the world's most intuitive website, but he's there if you poke about. I could just quote one of the books, but I think this is more helpful to the reader who wants to follow it up. Tim riley talk 16:02, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Brain catching up with eyes! I've added a book reference to the online one. Tim riley talk 09:49, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 155 Check - Since footnote 155 cites all three pages, we could remove the second iteration of the note, leaving only the one at the end of the sentence.
  • 157 Check
  • 185 Alter range to 75–77 (includes 1864 and popularity)
  • Done
  • 191 Check
  • 202
    Almeida: the sentence starts with one word on xi, is it customary to include this or not? Debussy is mentioned on page xvii.
  • Faris: I might be confused, but the source does not seem to substantiate the specific claim.
  • Unfortunately Almeida doesn't verify "Bizet", is he mentioned as a fan of Offenbach's in one of the other sources? Draken Bowser (talk) 11:50, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 203 Check
  • 206 "..same kind."
  • Not sure of your meaning. The quote is accurate. Tim riley talk 19:00, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, I see - it's incomplete. Now completed. Glad you spotted that: thank you. Tim riley talk 20:00, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My French liaison is unavailable for the next few days, I might re-roll those. Also, is there a way to read The Times through the Wikipedia library – NewspaperARCHIVE.com omits the last century? Draken Bowser (talk) 11:25, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately not. The Times archives are available online to most users in Britain via their local libraries, but one can't put in a url because each local authority library has its own url access address. Tim riley talk 18:58, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there is: you can access through Gale (https://www-galepages-com.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/wikipedia, if you have access), - SchroCat (talk) 19:02, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's worth knowing for future reference, thank you SchroCat. Tim riley talk 19:05, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Great resource, thanks! Added some inquiries regarding 8, 98, 133 and 202. Draken Bowser (talk) 11:50, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Overall

The selection of book sources seems appropriate and include works from reputable publisher. The shortened footnotes are used consistently and all refer to works listed as sources. Newspaper and magazine sources are used sparingly to add spice. The spot-check revealed only minor issues, mostly about citing this or that page. There was no hint of close paraphrasing. I'm gonna call this a pass. Regards. Draken Bowser (talk) 16:48, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your hard work on the source review and for your support. Tim riley talk 17:45, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Schrocat[edit]

Support. A lovely read that passes all the FA criteria, and then some. Just one rather minor comment from me: you have three montages: in the first you have "Early influences: Luigi Cherubini (l) and Fromental Halévy (top);" in the other two you have "clockwise from top left". Of the two 'clockwise' ones, one is in brackets, the other is not. Is there a rationale behind the three different formats? – SchroCat (talk) 08:51, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, SchoCat. That's very kind. I agree consistency is wanted, but am not sure which of the three formats to choose. What think you? Tim riley talk 10:03, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My personal preference would be for the bracketed "clockwise from top left", but that's just a personal view. I don't think the MOS proscribes any particular version in this case. - SchroCat (talk) 10:07, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fine with me, and done. Thank you. Tim riley talk 16:19, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from UC[edit]

Resolved
  • Can we give a date for the lead image, even if approximate?
  • The Bibliothèque nationale de France, from where the image comes, gives the publication date (well after Offenbach's death) but not the date it was taken. It was uploaded as from the 1860s, but an IP on the article talk page questioned this, and I concurred. I know which decade I think it's from (the 1870s), but I have no proof. Tim riley talk 15:39, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • in Cologne, Kingdom of Prussia,: something about "Kingdom of Prussia" here reads oddly to me: I think it's that it's the formal/political name rather than the geographic one. Compare "Dublin, Irish Republic": I think we'd more naturally say "Dublin, [then] in the Irish Republic".
  • I think this is all right. We often say things like "Madras, British India". Geographically Cologne is nowhere near Prussia though as a fall-out from the Congress of Vienna (Round 2) Prussia bagged it. Tim riley talk 15:39, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think "Cologne, Prussia" would be as wrong as "Mauritius, France". Happy with this. UndercoverClassicist T·C 16:53, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • From 1835 to 1855 he earned his living as a cellist, achieving international fame, and as a conductor: do I take the correct implication that he was not famous as a conductor?
  • he produced at least 18 full-length operettas, as well as more one-act pieces: MOS:NUM would probably like "eighteen" in words for consistency (plus, most style guides advise writing numbers under twenty-one in words anyway).
  • I'm all for this and will gladly alter forthwith, but my impression is that most guides go for words up to ten and then digits thereafter. Tim riley talk 15:39, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why do we give the title of The Tales of Hoffmann in English but most of the others (e.g. Orphée aux enfers) in French?
  • I should gladly give them all in French, but our WP article uses the English title. So, I admit, does our article on Orphée aux enfers, but usage is more finely balanced for that title, whereas in fifty-odd years of opera-going I have never heard any English speaker speak of "Les contes d'Hoffmann". Tim riley talk 15:39, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • His works from this period included: I would use the present tense here, as his works from this period still include these things -- the past tense to me implies that the situation changed.
  • Struck off on the 2 December 1834: presumably, this was written in French, which uses the definite article here: English generally doesn't.
  • Not sure that's entirely true, but we can certainly omit the article if wanted. Tim riley talk 15:39, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some of Offenbach's early compositions were played by the fashionable conductor Louis Antoine Jullien.: what does played mean in this context -- I'm not sure that conductors generally play music (rather than, well, conducting it), unless he was doing so in his free time?
  • Ha! How funny you add this. Please see my comments on this very point in answer to Gog the Mild above. Tim riley talk 15:39, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to defer to a WP:HQRS here, then. UndercoverClassicist T·C 21:21, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Offenbach as a young cello virtuoso, drawing by Alexandre Laemlein from 1850: I would use a colon rather than a comma here, as he isn't drawing in the picture.
  • the work was exceptionally well received: to me, exceptionally sets up a high bar, given that it's taken as read that this is going to be a work from the top tier of its genre: I'm not totally convinced that the body text really indicates that its reception was exceptionally positive (that is, remarkable even by the standards of beloved operas).
  • It would be properly described as a smash-hit, but that's a bit informal for the dignified prose of our encyclopaedia. Tim riley talk 15:39, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't disagree, but I'm still not sure the body text is quite as effusive as the lead. I'd be happier if we had some way of comparing it against other very-well-received shows. UndercoverClassicist T·C 06:34, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The first production ran for 228 performances, at a time when a run of 100 nights was considered a success. Albert Lasalle, in his history of the Bouffes-Parisiens (1860), wrote that the piece closed in June 1859 – although it was still performing strongly at the box-office – "because the actors, who could not tire the public, were themselves exhausted". Tim riley talk 08:49, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Brilliant: that first fact in particular would be an excellent addition to the article body. UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:37, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's in the article on the opera (I put it there). My feeling is that it's a bit too detailed for the Life-and-Works article, but I am biddable. Tim riley talk 10:57, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Up to you: my concern here is simply MOS:LEAD, that the phrasing of exceptionally well-received in the lead is not a reflection of what's currently in the body. UndercoverClassicist T·C 12:44, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Very well! Done Tim riley talk 13:55, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per MOS:NEE, the word should be linked on at least first use: using the template would help here.
  • Strangely I have had, above, a precisely opposite view, contending, rightly I think, that né and née are now good English words. Tim riley talk 15:39, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They might be, but we often explain or link terms that might be unknown to some readers, even if familiar to most. The MoS is pretty clear here: for name changes due to marriage, they may also use née (feminine) and né (masculine) followed by the surname, provided the term is linked at first occurrence. (emphasis mine). I'm not sure I can wear an IAR argument here that's simply "we don't like what the MoS says": as far as I can see, there's no consideration at work here that wouldn't apply to all articles using the term. UndercoverClassicist T·C 16:51, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Done. Tim riley talk 08:49, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Isaac ... needed all his eloquence to persuade Cherubini even to give Jacob an audition: this is nicely written, but feels a bit flowery for me in an encyclopaedia.
  • I'd gladly consider an alternative phrasing if you suggest one. Tim riley talk 15:39, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I'd go for something really boring like "Isaac persuaded Cherubini to give Jacob an audition", and then explain, as we have here, why he took persuading. UndercoverClassicist T·C 21:27, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Done. Tim riley talk 08:49, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The boy's age and nationality were both obstacles to admission: I'm not sure I quite understand the significance of the nationality here, given the footnote that immediately follows, and the fact that Cherubini was quite clearly not French.
  • I don't know if Cherubini himself had French nationality, but the question was whether aspirants who were foreign and under age could be admitted. Tim riley talk 15:39, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Right, but we immediately follow with a footnote saying Yon notes that ... foreign nationality ... was not such an obstacle to enrolment as a student. Either the body text or the footnote seems to be overstating the degree to which nationality was or wasn't a problem. UndercoverClassicist T·C 21:21, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • the comtesse de Vaux: should she have a link (perhaps an ILL), and even a name?
I was hoping you or your sources would know who she was (beyond the title), but perhaps not. French Wikipedia (whose article on Offenbach seems to be simply a translation of this one) doesn't seem to know or have much for us to work with. UndercoverClassicist T·C 21:24, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How very flattering if the French WP article is just ours translated! Faris and Harding both mention the comtesse's salons and her support of Offenbach (Harding hints, without substantiating, that her interest in her protégé may have been thought by some to be more than musical) but that's all they say about her. Yon says that she was the sister of one of France's leading notaries, Edme Ernest Foucher, but that's all I can find. Tim riley talk 08:49, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah: that would make her this lady (Sophie née Foucher), who was indeed comtesse de Vaux. If you can read German, there's a bit on her on p45 here. I think at least getting her actual name in would be useful, as many people have held that title and none of them are particularly famous by it (as opposed to, say, Lord Byron -- in most normal cases we'd name e.g. the Prince of Wales in addition to the title). UndercoverClassicist T·C
Read German? Up to a point, Lord Copper. Frightful language, did it up to O-level and vowed never to tangle with it again. But you're right and I'll add her given name to the text. Done, and Schwarz added to sources. Tim riley talk 13:33, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:52, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

  • Hérminie d'Alcain (1827–1887): per MOS:BIRTHDATE, we shouldn't use people's dates like this in body text: if her age is important, give it and explain. On which -- we haven't been specific on the date of their meeting: it sounds like she might have been twelve, which makes "they fell in love" a little suspect/sanitising to me: a relationship between a twelve-year-old child and a twenty-year-old cannot be simply written up as mutual romance.
  • Another MoS diktat I was unaware of. I'll remove the dates. We don't know when they met, but no source suggests she was as young as you suppose. Tim riley talk 15:39, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think we've implied at least the possibility, through having this sentence immediately follow Among the salons at which Offenbach most frequently appeared, from 1839,, and precede one about the "early 1840s": it sounds as if he met her circa 1839, when she was circa 12. UndercoverClassicist T·C 21:26, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
After a further trawl through the sources I find that Yon says she was fifteen when they first met. Added. Tim riley talk 08:49, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should Mendelssohn get a first name?
  • I'd say no, any more than Mozart does. Some top creative artists need no full-naming (cf Michelangelo di Lodovico Buonarroti Simoni and Dante Alighieri et al.) Tim riley talk 15:39, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hm: I see the case here, where the person is overwhelmingly known only by the single name (Michelangelo being an excellent example), and a longer name would be less recognisable. I'm less happy when they're simply so famous that most people can recognise them by surname (Einstein, Kennedy, Churchill...) To me, "Felix Mendelssohn" is just as recognisable, if not more so, than "Mendelssohn" (in a way that Michelangelo's full name isn't, or a longer title for Muhammad, Augustus, Madonna etc), and using just the surname on first mention feels as though we're reminding the reader of a mutual friend: in other words, assuming that they have a certain degree/set of prior knowledge, which goes against the general principle of writing for the enthusiastic layperson. UndercoverClassicist T·C 06:34, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • That would put this article at odds with the already featured articles on other French composers – Hector Berlioz, Pierre Boulez, Gabriel Fauré, Jules Massenet, André Messager, Francis Poulenc, Maurice Ravel, Camille Saint-Saëns – in which when referring to well-known composers' music the surname alone is generally used. (When the composer as a person is mentioned we usually give the forename, as in the second para of the lead chez Gabriel Fauré.) It is perhaps worth noting that the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography and Encyclopaedia Britannica, written presumably for enthusiastic laypersons, do much the same as we do in the above articles. Tim riley talk 08:49, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hm: I am not entirely happy here, but willing to defer to established practice. UndercoverClassicist T·C 08:58, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rereading the article I have spotted a few places where it's the chap and not his music we're talking about, and I have added their forenames. Tim riley talk 10:23, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I realise that the approach to linking here is generally to err on the side of sparseness, but I would certainly link at least Victoria and Albert, and consider linking the titles of the Tsar and the King to the articles on those respective people.
  • Done. We used to have a rule forbidding links from within quotations and the habit has stayed with me. Tim riley talk 08:49, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The use of "Herr" rather than "Monsieur", : suggest cutting rather than Monsieur, as we don't actually know that this was the (only) other option considered: the paper could just as well have written "Mr.". Perhaps clarify "the German Herr for readers who don't know it as such.
  • Removed Monsieur. As to "Herr" I don't think anyone will need that explaining. Tim riley talk 08:49, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I know I've quoted it a lot, but a much-cited essay advises us to assume almost nothing about readers' prior knowledge. Certainly, I find it hard to believe that there will be nobody (thinking here of children, or people from non-European parts of the world) reading this article who doesn't know that Herr is German: the cost of catering to them seems extremely small. UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:00, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The essay flies in the face of the MoS. I have pointed out above how it urges us to link what the MoS forbids us to link. I hope other editors who happen to see this will comment. As always I'll willingly go with the consensus. Tim riley talk 09:26, 15 April 2024 (UTC) Later: on reflection I think we can accommodate you without mucking up the prose. Done. Tim riley talk 10:20, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The ambiguity of his nationality sometimes caused him difficulty in later life.: I'd like some brief explanation here of the sort of difficulty we mean, or perhaps for this to be delayed until it does cause him some problems.
  • despite some extramarital dalliances on Offenbach's part: Dalliances reads as slightly exculpatory to me.
  • Well, he was a French composer. As far as I can see Bizet was about the only one faithful to his wife. But redrawn. Tim riley talk 08:49, 15 April 2024 (UTC) Later: Oh, and Massenet I think, despite gossip. Tim riley talk 10:20, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note 43 (De Joncières): why is quoted in italics?
  • This seems to be a convention, and I've always followed it, but I don't mind either way and would be happy with romic if you prefer. Tim riley talk 08:49, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No problem if deliberate and consistent. UndercoverClassicist T·C 13:02, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Paris was convulsed by the 1848 revolution: the prose throughout is sparkly; there have been a few points where I've considered ringing the MOS:IDIOM bell, and this one to me is just on the wrong side of the line (to a second-language reader not familiar with the term, there's a real chance of confusion here). Suggest "the 1848 revolution broke out in Paris".
  • We can. Done. I didn't add the date because by 1858 Offenbach was better known as a composer than as a cellist (the drawing accompanied a potted and somewhat facetious biography of him, and evidently relates to him in the 1840s rather than at the time of publication.) Tim riley talk 08:49, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. UndercoverClassicist T·C 13:15, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The composer Debussy: similar to Mendelssohn above: we've acknowledged that not everyone will know his profession, so we should take that to its logical conclusion and assume that not everyone will know him at all, and therefore give his first name.
  • As above. As we are talking of his corporeal self rather than his music I think it is all right to give him his forename. Done Tim riley talk 08:49, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • A question. I'm working my way through the text converting numbers from digits to words as you suggest for those up to twenty-one, but I'm not sure what to do with this sentence: "the bride was 17 years old, and the bridegroom was 25". What think you? Tim riley talk 10:40, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    MOS:NUM says to use the same for both, whatever we choose: I'd be happy with either. UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:43, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's helpful. Thank you. Words, I think. Tim riley talk 11:18, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could wikilink "satiric" to satire, as the idea is important in the next paragraph?
It's reasonably everyday, but not all of our readers have an "everyday" standard of education or English. UndercoverClassicist T·C 16:52, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's a pretty muddle-headed article, and completely contradicts our MoS policy at MOS:OL. Linking Paris and France, forsooth! Tim riley talk 09:19, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps other editors would like to comment on this: I'll gladly go with the consensus. Tim riley talk 08:49, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at MOS:LE (part of MOS:OL), the defining considerations there seem to be twofold:
1) is the term likely to be known by most/all readers in context? The MoS says that the answer is no for "microeconomics" and "general equilibrium theory" in an economics article, and I can't see that readers of a music article are more likely to know about satire than readers of an economics article are to know about macroeconomics.
2) Is it important that readers understand the term in context: see Consider linking "price" and "goods" only if these common words have technical dimensions that are specifically relevant to the topic. Again, here, I think the answer is fairly resolutely "yes": satire does have specific dimensions that are relevant to this topic.
Likewise happy to defer to any consensus that evolves here. UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:40, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I added a linked [[satire]] here and then ran the OVERLINK script here: it removed the link. It may not be the perfect way to decide the issue, but it may help in breaking the deadlock... Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 12:47, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Gosh! I'd no idea about such a resource. Thank you, SchroCat. I shall make a note of that script for future reference. Tim riley talk 13:01, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The script is something of a blunt instrument: from what I can gather, it delinks satire and its forms in all articles, which is explicitly not the point of WP:OL -- the latter is clear that whether a term should be linked depends on the context and article that it's in. I think I've said my piece on this one: it's very far from an opposing matter, and like all things at FAC fundamentally a suggestion. You have often been kind enough with my articles to end on "I'd do it differently, but I'm me and you're you", and I'm more than happy to do the same here. UndercoverClassicist T·C 18:43, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say it is very clearly MOS:OVERLINKing. I agree that "The Pope is Catholic" essay is very wrongheaded. All English speakers know generally what France and Paris are. Satire is a common English word, especially for anyone reading a biography in the arts. You don't have to be an expert on the intricacies of satire to have a general sense of the word, and linking to it does not shed any light at all on how Offenbach's pieces used satire, as opposed to, say Mark Twain or George Orwell did. That is really the main question for a blue-link: does it shed useful light on the topic, or is it actually a distraction from it. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:55, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know that the 1848 uprisings all over Europe were the reason for his reverting to his original given name. It may have been simply a matter of fitting in. The sources don't say. Tim riley talk 08:49, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't necessarily mean that we should be so specific: only that it's relevant that the Cologne to which he escaped revolutionary Paris was itself a place undergoing upheaval at the time. UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:42, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's right enough. This is from Gammond: "Finding Cologne very little less inflamed by revolutionary passions than Paris, though not so violently manifested, Offenbach changed his christian name back to Jakob and tried to behave like a good Colognial German. He composed some patriotic German songs, of very little artistic value, for use at various political occasions and he played the cello ... at a concert given in celebration of Cologne Cathedral's six-hundredth anniversary." But I'm not sure it is within the scope of this article to mention the political conditions in Cologne as there is no proof that they were why he changed his name. Tim riley talk 10:54, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, but Gammond at least has made an explicit link between the conditions in Cologne (not just Paris) and the name change; we've only linked it to what happened in Paris, so I think we should follow suit for WP:TSI. I also think the turn towards patriotic German music is very relevant in the context of an ongoing nationalist revolution, and both of those parts should be briefly mentioned. UndercoverClassicist T·C 13:15, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Perhaps you'd suggest some wording that would satisfy you. Tim riley talk 14:16, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is quite a lot for me to suggest, and please do take your scalpel to it: your prose is far more elegant than mine. But perhaps something like Cologne was also experiencing its own nationalistic revolutionary upheaval; Offenbach changed his name back to the German "Jakob" [I would use the German spelling here, rather than "Jacob", as Gammond does]. He also composed German patriotic songs, which were sung at political events. Whether you include Gammond's negative judgement on those songs is a matter of taste, I think. UndercoverClassicist T·C 17:59, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've given it a go. Tricky to get the flavour right. See what you think. Tim riley talk 19:18, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ludovic was a respectable civil servant: the word respectable makes me think WP:PUFFERY and worry about editorialising: on what are we basing it?
  • As the retired Librarian of the Crown Estate I contend that all civil servants are respectable. But seriously, I think the point is made by the noted fact that Halévy discreetly used pseudonyms from time to time. Tim riley talk 19:56, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's partly my point: what I think we're saying is that civil servants, by nature, were not generally to be seen writing light opera. Using the adjective, however, implies that Ludovic was a respectable civil servant in contrast to the disreputable ones, and that this distinction was the important thing. Does the source say something to the effect of "as a civil servant, Ludovic did not want to be identified?" UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:03, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redrawn. Tim riley talk 09:17, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Halévy wrote the libretto for one of the pieces in the opening programme: do we know its name?
  • I could find out, but I don't think it notable. Tim riley talk 19:56, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aged 22, when she auditioned for him, she was engaged on the spot: perhaps consider hired or similar: I briefly thought that someone proposed to her!
  • Oh dear! A generational difference. I hate "hired" but will replace the - to me - natural "engaged" if you insist. Tim riley talk 19:56, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a big problem, but is there an alternative that's both accurate and palatable? UndercoverClassicist T·C 19:59, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"...given the part on the spot"? I don't think "engaged" is confusing here, though, and to my ear "hired" seems a little more appropriate for a salesperson than an artiste.... -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:07, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That suggestion sounds good to me. UndercoverClassicist T·C 05:59, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redrawn. Tim riley talk 09:17, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's been a long while since we mentioned Flotow; I'd give his first name again, and perhaps reintroduce his connection with Offenbach.
  • Do you mean in the Orphée section? I don't think so. Tim riley talk 19:56, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • he was granted French citizenship by the personal command of Napoleon: the Napoleon is so famous mononymously that I'd give the numeral here.
  • Now given his III throughout. Tim riley talk 10:28, 16 April 2024 (UTC) Tangentially, as a collector of tongue twisters I am grateful for "mononymously", which gives "sphygmomanometer" a run for its money. Tim riley talk 10:32, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • a chevalier of the Légion d'Honneur: I know it's the "proper" title, but as this is the English Wikipedia, any reason not to use the standard translation of "knight"?
  • I don't think chevalier and knight are exact synonyms. In English, knight sounds rather posh but in French it is the lowest order of the Légion d'honneur.
I personally know a chevalier of the Légion d'Honneur, and he most certainly would not want us to translate it in his article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:11, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • this appointment scandalised those haughty and exclusive members of the musical establishment who resented such an honour for a composer of popular light opera: is haughty quite NPOV? Presumably these people had what felt to them legitimate reasons for their resentment. We can always say "those whom Faris has called..." if we want to report the opinion without throwing the authority of Wikivoice behind it.
  • Caught red handed! I hoped to get away with this, which is a quotation of Pooh-Bah in The Mikado. Trying my luck, truth to tell. I'll redraw. Tim riley talk 19:56, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • It needed no inadvertent boost from Janin: I would cut this: I feel the authorial voice is becoming a little too personal/essayistic rather than encyclopaedic here. On the other hand, if Janin pointedly refused to review it, that's interesting and another matter.
  • I don't agree. It seems to me reasonable to mention that after two Janin pannings a third wasn't needed for success. Tim riley talk 19:56, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are we seriously suggesting that the first two both needed a Janin panning to be successful? I can wear it for Orpheus, but we've presented it as the icing on the cake with Helene rather than the critical ingredient. UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:00, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We have said so in the preceding paragraph. Tim riley talk 09:17, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • included the King of Prussia: as with our French countess earlier, I'd give his name, and perhaps introduce him as "the future German emperor Wilhelm I", given that he's quite famous under that title. Mousing over the link was something of an "Easter Egg" for me.
  • his home in Étretat: I'd clarify that this was in Normandy (and therefore reasonably far from the likely lines of German advance).
OK.
  • The idiom "did good/better business" seems to be coming up a lot: perhaps look to vary it a little?
Done. Tim riley talk 09:17, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • and, exceptionally, Keck records, an ophicleide : I think the hierarchy here is clearer if we put dashes after and and records instead of commas. What does Keck mean by "exceptionally": for Offenbach, or for everyone else?
The former, I think. Happy for you to repunctuate if you wish. Tim riley talk 09:17, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Tim riley talk 17:34, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Interesting that the only comment on compositional method comes from a set of CD notes: has anyone else talked about this? More generally, it's a very short section: I wonder if it could be combined with "Texts and word setting", perhaps under the "Compositional methods" heading.
The CD notes are by Keck, who is generally seen as the greatest present-day authority on Offenbach. I'm happy with the paragraphing. I hate cramming two different topics into one for the sake of bulk. Tim riley talk 09:17, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • a "Litanie",: I don't think we generally use italics within quote marks, though these are scare quotes, on which the MoS is frustratingly silent (except to discourage them under MOS:"). Could simply translate -- I don't think too much is gained by using the French here?
  • I disagree. The French was being used in the hope of bamboozling the local authorities. The inverted commas are not there to scare anyone, merely to indicate that the term was bogus. Tim riley talk 09:17, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK, that's fair enough. UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:27, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done but with reservations. People may click on it expecting a link to a vocal piece by Offenbach rather than to the RC prayer the Hail Mary. Tim riley talk 09:17, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note 25 seems quite interesting and relevant to Offenbach's biography -- the immediate reaction of his family to his death and the fate of his works are both germane here. I'd be inclined to promote it, especially as the paragraph it ends is currently pretty skinny.
  • Done.
  • as a homage: an homage, surely, as it's pronounced without the h (like an hour)?
  • I didn't write this bit, and like you I'd have used "an", but I've checked with the OED and the English pronunciation gets the thumbs-up and so "a" is OK. Tim riley talk 09:29, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Very well! UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:03, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • We seem to be a bit inconsistent in the footnotes as to whether the titles of web pages (and possibly other types of source) are captialised.
I think web pages should be italicised. If you spot any that aren't I'll do the necessary. Tim riley talk 09:17, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry - misread your comment. On the whole we should follow the ulc of the page, I think. Tim riley talk 09:40, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
MOS:CONFORMTITLE advises the opposite: that we pick a consistent style for e.g. website articles, books, periodicals and so forth, and then render all such sources in that style. UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:31, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. If you spot any inconsistencies in the ulc of websites in the references, pray mention them. Tim riley talk 11:40, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Might want to introduce Nietzsche and Zola, as they're notable but not as authorities on opera.
  • Done. Tim riley talk 09:17, 16 April 2024 (UTC)talk:UndercoverClassicist|T]]·C 10:35, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • So is Orpheus in the Underworld and Belle Hélène.: did he reflect in English? If not, suggest using the French title for Orpheus, as we've done so throughout.
  • Impossible to answer, I fear. In Conversations with Klemperer by Peter Heyworth some of the interviews were in English and some in German, translated into English by Heyworth for the book. We are not told the language in which Alan Blyth interviewed Klemperer. I think we must treat the English version as the ipsissima verba. Tim riley talk 09:17, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the content of note 29 (the critical reception of The Tales of Hoffmann) is important and deserves to be in the body text of a Reception section.
OK. Tim riley talk 09:17, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's quite a lot of the F-P war section riding on a Guardian article. I don't necessarily have a problem with it, but is there no more academic source we can use here, perhaps in addition?
I'm happy with the source. So is the source reviewer. Tim riley talk 09:17, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • of the Gaiety Theatre: perhaps clarify that this was in the West End, as Offenbach has been there previously?
West End added. Tim riley talk 09:17, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • At the Royalty Theatre: similarly, it might be worth clarifying that this was in Soho, and so wasn't in the West End (and so was it perhaps less fashionable/more seedy?)
It would not be true. The West End was just as seedy for the most part. It is arguably pushing it to mention the West End at all. The term wasn't generally used for London's theatre district in Offenbach's day. Tim riley talk 09:17, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough (no objection to pushing it that far, personally). UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:23, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • In Vienna, too, Offenbach works: Offenbach's?
Looks all right to me. One talks of Beethoven Symphonies, Verdi operas etc. Tim riley talk 09:17, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think we should italicise The Beautiful Galatea, as the title of an opera.
So do I. It may be the lang template buggering it up. Tim riley talk 09:17, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see now what you meant. I don't think we usually ulc or italicise translations of titles. Not sure why not, but the format here is pretty standard as far as I know. Tim riley talk 10:00, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • both Gilbert and Sullivan follow the lead of Les brigands (1869) in their treatment of the police, plodding along ineffectually in heavy march-time: I think we mean the police here, but as written it sounds like Gilbert and Sullivan did the plodding. Suggest "who plod..."
Done. Tim riley talk 09:48, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • However much the young Sullivan...: one-sentence paragraphs aren't ideal: I think this one could be merged into the paragraph before. Its first clause could be trimmed a little to avoid making an unduly long paragraph in the process, if you like.
  • It isn't a one-sentence paragraph, and as I say above I dislike lumping together sentences that don't belong together for the sake of avoiding short paragraphs. Tim riley talk 09:17, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Entirely reasonable. UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:31, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • more human romantic interest: what does more human mean in this context? Perhaps relatedly, I'm not clear whether there was more [human romantic interest], or whether the romantic interest that there was became more human.
Both. It's contrasting with the gods and mythical personages of the earlier works. Tim riley talk 09:17, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • just before the outbreak of the Franco-Prussian War in 1870: I'd specify that the war broke out in July. Do we know how "just" before his return was?
Not offhand. I might be able to dig it out if I was persuaded it was important. Tim riley talk 09:17, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • as the guest of the Prince of Wales.: you can probably guess my comment here - I'd name him.
A bit unidiomatic. He was, like our present monarch, always known just as the P o W. Tim riley talk 09:17, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, yes, but many people are known as e.g. the Pope, the Vicar, the Headmaster, the Chef, etc etc, in contexts where it's perfectly obvious to everyone around which one of those is meant. However, it's not obvious here that the PoW is Edward except to readers who happen to know the dates of British monarchs, which isn't all of them. As with all of these things, a matter of taste, but I think a guest of Edward, Prince of Wales is completely idiomatic. UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:25, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From a quick check I think I am right in saying that he's just "the Prince of Wales" (or the "prince de Galles") in all the main sources. Tim riley talk 12:02, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • His spectacular revival: what about it, exactly, was spectacular? There's an ambiguity here between "really lavish" and "really good": I suspect the former is the main intention even if the latter may not be untrue.
  • For the 1874 production Offenbach substantially expanded the piece, doubling the length of the score and turning the intimate opéra bouffon of 1858 into a four-act opéra féerie extravaganza, with substantial ballet sequences. This version opened at the Théâtre de la Gaîté on 7 February 1874, ran for 290 performances, and broke box-office records for that theatre. During the first run of the revised version Offenbach expanded it even further, adding ballets illustrating the kingdom of Neptune in Act 3 and bringing the total number of scenes in the four acts to twenty-two. I don't understand your mention of "really lavish" and "really good" as neither of those terms is used in the text. Tim riley talk 09:17, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was querying the specific meaning of spectacular here: does it mean "that opera was very expensive!" or "that opera was very good!". As we're clearly going for both, I'm not sure there's a problem here: whatever the reader concludes, they're right. UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:27, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The local authorities were not deceived, and the concert did not take place: do we know if they explicitly stopped it, or if Offenbach simply thought better of his plans?
Not really. The source says "But the Philadelphians were very strict about Sunday observance and severely censored his intentions. Although handbills had been printed the Sacred Concert never took place—much to Offenbach’s regret" Tim riley talk 09:17, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Later: found one! The authorities stopped it. Now added. Tim riley talk 09:11, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • He returned to France in July 1876, with profits that were handsome but not spectacular: any idea of roughly how much money we're talking about here?
  • (l. to r.) : in all the other captions, we've spelt out: if brevity is felt to be essential here, you could use the abbreviation template, even though it is fairly obvious in context.
Could you be a little more explicit about what you're talking about? Tim riley talk 09:17, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, the penny's dropped. No, I think it's all right as it is. Consistency is admirable but not when it gets in the way of clarity or economy of words. Tim riley talk 11:17, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Votre habit a craqué dans le dos" ["Your coat has split down the back"]. Did Lubbock give that translation? It's a little surprising that this is one of very few offered either in the quote or the article.
  • divides the one-act pieces into five categories: "(i) country idylls; (ii) urban operettas; (iii) military operettas; (iv) farces; and (v) burlesques or parodies.": MOS:SOMETHINGOROTHER advises that when a quote gets really torturous, we should stop trying to make it work as one: here we can just drop the quote marks, I think, and therefore also drop the bracketed numbers.
Not sure what you mean. I've looked up "torturous", a word new to me, in the OED: "Full of, involving, or causing torture; tormenting, excruciating ... given to inflicting torture". Seems a bit OTT to say that of my prose here. But if you want to repunctuate it, please feel free. Tim riley talk 09:17, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was suggesting divides the one-act pieces into five categories: country idylls, urban operettas, military operettas, farces, and burlesques or parodies. UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:29, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done. I don't suppose I shall be accused of plagiarism for omitting the quotation marks. Tim riley talk 17:16, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Hence 'Donnez-vous la peine de vous asseoir' (chanson du pal) : quote marks are awry here. Is chanson du pal (lc?) the title of an opera? Some more context to this work would be helpful. Is it the song/aria we're talking about here or the lyric?
  • Quotes tweaked. I'm not going to speculate on what Poulenc had in mind. Tim riley talk 09:17, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Similarly, although we did translate it a little while ago, I'd re-translate Votre habit a craqué dans le dos.
A bit excessive in my view, but done. Tim riley talk 09:17, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah! Que j'aime les militaires: If I've got this right, the joke here (if it's indeed a parody) is that the grandeur of a Beethoven symphony is incongruous with a lady singing about how attractive soldiers are: I think a quick explanation of the subject matter of the aria would help clarify this and reassure readers that they have indeed got the right end of the stick (an unfortunate idiom here...).
I think the prose stands on its own feet, and I don't feel justified in imposing my own interpretation. Tim riley talk 09:17, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In passing, I knew this opera for fifty years or so without spotting the parallel with Beethoven's Seventh in the Grand Duchess's rollicking number until I started swotting up for this FAC and if Offenbach was indulging in parody it passed me by completely. Tim riley talk 17:46, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • a simpler, more romantic style: does "romantic" here mean "like Wordsworth and Wagner" or "with lots of kissing"?
The former would have a capital letter, surely? Tim riley talk 09:17, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Usually but not always, I think. Happy given that it's falling that way. UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:33, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • often employing a codified system: what does this mean?
I don't know. I didn't put it there and would gladly zap it if asked. Tim riley talk 09:17, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've taken a bow at a venture and changed it to "employing a form of shorthand", which I think is what it means. Happy to zap altogether if you think I should. Tim riley talk 16:45, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming that's a reasonable inference from at least one source (I think you're almost certainly right, by the by), I'm happy here. UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:03, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • It then lapsed into what Gammond calls "Victorian sanctimoniousness" by taking it for granted that the opera "will uphold Offenbach's fame long after his lighter compositions have passed out of memory.: I think we need to lose the it in "taking it for granted" (it was taking the following fact for granted). I think it would also be worth spelling out more clearly exactly what Gammond finds sanctimonious here (the disdain for lighter opera?)
  • Looks very odd to me without the "it". And I'm not up for telling readers what I think a quoted author means. Tim riley talk 09:17, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The critic Sacheverell Sitwell compared Offenbach's lyrical and comic gifts to those of Mozart and Rossini: roughly when? We've jumped quite suddenly out of contemporary reception, but haven't actually warned the reader that we've done so.
  • I've rejigged to maintain chronological sequence. Tim riley talk 09:17, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Grand opera" seems to be the only operatic sub-genre we've named in English: as its French equivalent is so similar, I think there's a good case for consistency here.
  • Ah, now this gets technical. Grand Opéra is grand opera, but not all grand opera is Grand Opéra. In English usage the term generally applies, as here, to any serious opera without spoken dialogue, whereas the French term is generally reserved for pieces in four or more usually five acts with plots set in medieval or modern times (rather than taken from classical history and mythology) often with major characters from the lower or otherwise disadvantaged classes, portraying them in a heroic light (hitherto a treatment reserved for gods, kings and aristocrats); and typically presenting controversial themes – religious intolerance or rebellion against oppression, for instance. Offenbach's fairy tale opera was not one such.
  • Poulenc traces the influence through Chabrier and André Messager to his own Les mamelles de Tirésias, in which Wilfrid Mellers finds music modelled on Offenbach's: a little confused about what Mellers is doing here: haven't we just said that Poulenc acknowledged the debt, so there was nothing hidden for Mellers to find?
Rejigged. Tim riley talk 09:17, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • his French colleague: this bit of elegant variation jarred a little, given that we've said a great deal about how complicated Offenbach's nationality was. We've also got an awkward repetition of established with two slightly different meanings here: the sentence could probably be reworked to solve both problems at once.
Done. Tim riley talk 09:17, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we have any idea why the French government restricted the number of performers in an opera?
I have always assumed that is is akin to the patent theatres thing in London -- the established opera houses didn't want the competition, so their friends in the government restricted the competition in ways intended to extend the old boys' monopoly. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:07, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Halévy, with his experience as a senior civil servant, saw more clearly than most the looming threat from Prussia: a little uncomfortable here with more clearly than most: I'm not sure that a musical biographer is really a WP:HQRS when it comes to judging the broad French evaluation of the likelihood of war with Prussia, though he can certainly speak with authority on Halévy's own views and perhaps his views of his countrymen. Suggest something like "expected war to break out with Prussia", or a better-worded equivalent.
Redrawn. Tim riley talk 09:17, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • In his early pieces for the Bouffes-Parisiens, the size of the orchestra pit had restricted Offenbach to an orchestra of 16 players. He composed for flute, oboe, clarinet, bassoon, two horns, piston, trombone, timpani and percussion and a small string section of seven players.: as before with MOS:NUM and consistency (here, advise figures).
Sixteen it is. Well spotted! Tim riley talk 09:17, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
By the bye, is the arithmetic clear to the casual reader? The timpanist would play all the percussion instruments such as the triangle and cymbals – I well remember such an arrangement from the D'Oyly Carte touring orchestras of my youth – and the figure of 16 is correct, but is it clear? I could make it "timpani/percussion" or even leave out the timpani, which is usually given its own mention in lists of orchestration, but is after all a percussion instrument. Thoughts welcome. Tim riley talk 11:25, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, I wouldn't have twigged that the timpani and percussion were the same player. As you say, it's a percussion instrument, so I think it would be arguably more accurate to include it under "percussion". On the other hand, if it's usually mentioned separately, we could just EFN that the timpanist and the percussionist were the same person? Equally, I'm not sure that many people will notice the illusory discrepancy, if I'm being honest. I certainly didn't until you pointed it out. UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:31, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for that. I've tweaked a bit. I'm pleased with the phrase "illusory discrepancy", which I've noted down for use if I'm ever in a tight corner. Tim riley talk 12:13, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

More to follow. Enjoying it so far: the prose is particularly attractive throughout. UndercoverClassicist T·C 14:45, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What a nice thing to read – thank you. Looking forward to round two. Tim riley talk 15:39, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The bracketed dates with the "modest successes" are a bit unclear to me: it's not really clear that those are supposed to have a higher place in the hierarchy than those with e.g. "revised edition". Suggest putting the dates into prose: "in 1867, he released ...., and in 1868, ..." or something like that.
I don't understand what you mean here. Tim riley talk 09:17, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm suggesting it might be clearer to go with modest successes. In 1867, he produced Robinson Crusoé and a revised version of Geneviève de Brabant; in 1868, Le château à Toto, a revised version of Le pont des soupirs and L'île de Tulipatan. UndercoverClassicist T·C 06:37, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Tim riley talk 07:29, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • the Doll Song: per MOS:MINORWORKS, should this have quote marks? Where's it from?
Ah I see why you're confused. I've rejigged the sentence. Tim riley talk 09:17, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "opéra bouffon",: here I would simply lose the quote marks.
  • un vil séducteur' to a waltz tempo that is itself unsuitably seductive ... the potty-sounding phrase 'L'homme à la pomme' becomes the absurd nucleus of a big cod-ensemble.: I think we need some explanations here: a translation of the first (OK pretty much everyone will see that there's a connection between séducteur and seductive, but we should be clear on exactly what and who it is), and some better explanation of the second (I must admit I'm struggling to see it, and I like to think I'm pretty good on French vulgarity).
I think it's more dotty than vulgar, but I don't think I can or should try to explain someone else's prose. Tim riley talk 09:17, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I'd misunderstood "potty" as "potty-mouthed" rather than "silly" -- now makes sense. Would still translate the "vile seducer", though. UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:31, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Tim riley talk 07:29, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Der Kuhhandel (cattle trading): similarly, except here I think we should translate the title as a title: Cattle Trading. Looking into it, it seems to have a different English title ("Arms and the Cow"), so one option would be something like literally Cattle Trading, known in English as Arms and the Cow) I'm a fan of giving translations, but would suggest doing it throughout the article: the inconsistency of starting to do so here isn't ideal.
Known in English would be something of an overstatement. It bombed at the Savoy in the 1930s and was not seen again for decades. Opera North (I think) gave it a rare outing in about 2000 with a different English title. I think it would unduly complicate this section to go into such detail. Tim riley talk 09:17, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On the general point about translations, it's difficult, perhaps impossible, to get the mix right. On the one hand one doesn't want the prose to be submerged by an avalanche of translations, nor to patronise the reader by offering unnecessary translations, but on the other one doesn't want to leave people in the dark about less obvious foreign phrases or titles. Here I have added English translations where I thought they'd be helpful and not where they wouldn't, but I may have got it wrong in places, and will gladly entertain suggestions about adding or removing any. Tim riley talk 10:40, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No disagreement there. Shouldn't we capitalise "Cow Trading", though, as it's a title? UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:03, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done. 07:29, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Note 194 is doubled: we could cut the first use, though I don't think the MoS strictly requires us to do so.
  • Not sure what you mean. Note 194 isn't doubled as far as I can see. Could you give the first few words of the note you have in mind?
Ah, it's now 195: citing ...that Strauss did so and ...quickly rebuked by the press.. UndercoverClassicist T·C 06:37, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure it's better now, but done. Tim riley talk 07:29, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Großer Griechenmarkt" should be in lang tags (with |italic=no) so that screen readers pronounce it correctly. The same is true for other non-English words and titles (e.g. "der Offenbacher"), though I haven't done a full check for them all.
  • I have kind experts on the case with the lang tags. Tim riley talk 15:39, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just leaving this up for now to remind me to check back in when the whole lot are done. UndercoverClassicist T·C 06:37, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is all we have left: very happy to support at this stage. I've been doing a bit of a shift on the language tags, and will keep doing so -- having dipped my toe into French topics before, I sympathise with the sheer density of them! Very nice work overall and enviably well-written. UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:52, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your support, and bless you for joining the language-tag chain gang! I keep finding titles and phrases I've missed. Tim riley talk 11:49, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ssilvers[edit]

The article is very good already, so here are some very picky points in the Early Years section.

  • The "alt" descriptions of the photos don't usually say what the sitter is wearing. All of them would be called "well dressed" today, but can you specify "morning coat", "dinner jacket", etc. (at least for the solo sitters), to give some idea to blind readers?
  • "His birthplace in the Großer Griechenmarkt was a short distance from the square that is now named after him, the Offenbachplatz." Would this be better in the Legacy section as: "A square in Cologne, the Offenbachplatz, named after him, is near his birthplace in the Großer Griechenmarkt."? I am not sure it would be better, I just wondered if you might think so, Tim, as that is how we have present such facts in some other articles.
  • I wondered about this: there are any number of thoroughfares named after him in France, but I concluded that they were not really notable or suitable for a "legacy" section. So the mention in the Life section (which is where Grove puts it) seems best to me. Tim riley talk 16:33, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "lessons in ... flute, and guitar" -- Are you using the Oxford comma in this article?
  • Not as a rule but I think it's as well to signify that he didn't have a class in flute and guitar (though in fairness, it would be damn' difficult to play both at once). Tim riley talk 16:33, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Together with his brother Julius (violin) and sister Isabella (piano), Jacob played in a trio at local dance halls, inns and cafés, performing popular dance music and operatic arrangements." A shorter sentence could be: "Offenbach formed a trio with his brother Julius (violin) and sister Isabella (piano), playing popular dance music and operatic arrangements at local dance halls, inns and cafés."
  • "the two most musically talented of his children" -- shorter: "his two most musically talented children"
  • " had to persuade Cherubini even to give Jacob an audition" -- Do we need "even"? The subsequent sentences, I think, make clear that it was not an easy task.
  • Well, but he might reasonably have expected that his letter of introduction would guarantee an audition. Tim riley talk 16:33, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tim, is this level of pickiness helpful, or a waste of time? -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:40, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't for me to say. If you think your suggestions make a material improvement to the quality of the prose by all means make them. When I'm reviewing I try to distinguish between bad prose and prose that merely differs from how I would write it. – Tim riley talk 16:15, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments:

  • "recently born daughter" -- "infant daughter"?
  • Not sure that either is quite right. She was two years old, and I've altered to that. Tim riley talk 08:08, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Early 1860s
  • "his only stand-alone ballet". I think I know what you mean, but for anyone who does not know anything about ballet or that it can be found within an opera or other piece, perhaps you can clarify. The *compositions* sub-article says "full length", but that doesn't convey what you meant. How about "his only ballet presented as a separate work outside of an operetta"?
Redrawn. Tim riley talk 18:10, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The text says: "He continued to write most of his works for the company, with the exception of occasional pieces for the summer season at Bad Ems." From the note, however, it appears that he *did* write those pieces with the intention to play them in the Paris company's season, but merely premiered them at the summer venue. Perhaps: "He continued to write [[]] his works for the company, although he premiered several of them at summer seasons at Bad Ems during the 1860s."  ?
Redrawn. Tim riley talk 18:10, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Last years

There is a note: "Guiraud added recitatives in place of spoken dialogue for the Vienna premiere. According to Keck, the rehearsal on 1 February lasted four and a half hours, and Carvalho decided to cut the Venice act, redistributing some of its music." Except for the first sentence, which is repeated soon afterwards in the text, the note seems to be about the French premiere, not Vienna, so it is confusing. User:Tim riley, would you please compare the note to the rest of the paragraph and clarify?

Entirely concur. The sources differ about when Guiraud changed the dialogue into recitative, and I've pruned accordingly. Tim riley talk 17:01, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Works

In the opening section here, one song title is translated [in brackets], while the others are not. Should they all/none be translated, or is there a reason to translate some but not others? -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:30, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I have said above to UndercoverClassicist, on the general point about translations, it's difficult, perhaps impossible, to get the mix right. On the one hand one doesn't want the prose to be submerged by an avalanche of translations, nor to patronise the reader by offering unnecessary translations, but on the other one doesn't want to leave people in the dark about less obvious foreign phrases or titles. Here I have added English translations where I thought they'd be helpful and not where they wouldn't, but I may have got it wrong in places, and will gladly entertain suggestions about adding or removing any. Tim riley talk 17:42, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Arrangements (overtures)

"...the scores usually performed and recorded are not by Offenbach, but were arranged..." Were they arranged from music in the respective operas, or do they contain any original sections unrelated to the opera? -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:56, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The former. Surely you have heard them? Tim riley talk 19:15, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I've made the clarification. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:24, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Influence

We say "Les brigands was presented in London in 1871, 1873 and 1875; for the first of these, Gilbert made an English translation...". However, our article about Les brigands says that, while Gilbert translated the piece in 1871, his version was not performed until 1889 (when it premiered in first the US and then the UK). H. S. Leigh's English translation was performed in London in 1871 and 1875 at least, according to that article (citing Adams). Since this paragraph is about the influence on G&S, perhaps we could say, "A revival ofLes brigands in 1889 used an English translation by Gilbert...." -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:35, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Headings

To reduce the number of subheadings under Works, perhaps combine "Compositional method and musical structure" as one subheading? -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:22, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

"His best-known works were continually revived during the 20th century, and many of his operettas continue to be staged in the 21st." We provide little evidence of this in the text. Can you add a similar sentence to the Legacy section somewhere?

  • Support. I think the article satisfies the requirements for promotion to FA. It is comprehensive and well-written, and as with everything that Tim riley does, the excellence of the research shines through. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:22, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

4meter4[edit]

Here are some suggestions for additional content just from looking at Andrew Lamb's entry in Grove.

  • I think the article could place a stronger emphasis on Offenbach spreading the popularity of operetta on the global stage. In his opening, Lamb writes "It was through the success of Offenbach’s works abroad that operetta became an established international genre, producing outstanding national exponents in Strauss, Sullivan and Lehár and evolving into the 20th-century musical." Musical theatre historians have also written a through line to the musical, with Naden going as far as crediting Offenbach for "popularizing the musical form".
  • I think this aspect is pretty thoroughly covered already in the Legacy and reputation section. Tim riley talk 07:51, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • There should probably be a mention of Offenbach's score for Pascal et Chambord (1839) which was his first significant commission for the theatre.
  • There should also be a mention of his first public concerts as a cellist (as a soloist, not an ensemble player) which occurred with his brother in January 1839 according to Lamb.
  • According to Lamb, his first operetta L’alcôve was rejected by the Opera Comique and he had to mount his own concerts to get it performed.
  • The article currently doesn't give the specific year he was appointed conductor at the Comédie-Française. It's 1850.
  • There probably should be a mention of Offenbach's other uncompleted work, the operetta Belle Lurette, which was completed after his death by Delibes.

Outside of Grove, I suggest looking at Offenbach's presence on Broadway and the American stage in general. The popularity of Offenbach's work on the American stage in the 19th century was significant for its impact on shaping the development of American musical theatre which deserves coverage in the article. Lamb's book 150 years of popular musical theatre makes this claim in addition to various works written by Gerald Bordman. This source on page 5 highlights an 1858 production of Les deux aveugles in New York which began a period of high popularity for Offenbach on the New York stage which lasted for the remainder of the century. Preston credits a slightly later production of Helene for igniting an American craze for French opera bouffe. IBDB's incomplete list gives a good idea of how popular his works were on the New York Stage. Obviously there will be better reference material than this. Page 24 of The Cambridge Companion to Operetta has some coverage of wide spread pirated versions of Offenbach's works on the American stage during the latter half of the nineteenth century. Bordman covers many of the original Broadway stagings of Offenbach's operettas, and also chronicles a number of original burlesque spoofs of those operetta productions that also appeared on Broadway. Bordman also chronicles Offenbach's appearances as a conductor on Broadway as well. Bordman's earlier book American Operetta: From H.M.S. Pinafore to Sweeney Todd essentially credits Offenbach as one of several major operetta composers whose works were the precursor to the American musical. Basically the American musical evolved from the operettas of Gilbert and Sullivan, Offenbach, etc. Other possible sources to explore down this path include: [6], [7], [8], [9] Additionally, there are a few Broadway productions made around Offenbach's music after his death which probably should get a mention in the legacy section. These include the 1944 Broadway play Helen Goes to Troy and the 1961 Broadway musical The Happiest Girl in the World. His music was also used in Maurice Béjart's Ballet of the 20th Century which toured to Broadway in 1979, and in the Broadway musical revue Those Were the Days (1999-1991).

We mention American musicals: Irving Berlin and Rodgers and Hammerstein. I'll have a scout round and see if there's anything I can usefully incorporate about O's influence on the Broadway stage. I don't think we should single out individual one-off adaptations such as the 1944 and 1999 ones, any more than we mention the London adaptations of La belle Hélène by A. P. Herbert in 1932 and Michael Frayn in 1995. Tim riley talk 07:51, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've added 150 words on the influence of O's operettas on American musical theatre. Tim riley talk 10:49, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Tim riley This is an improvement, but I still don't think the article has covered the meat of the scholarship of this area. Broadway has been entirely ignored (it's not mentioned once by name), with no mention of how Offenbach specifically impacted New York theatre for decades. I'm not seeing mention of the seminal 19th century New York stagings of his works in the 1850s and the 1860s in the body. This is a mistake, because these productions had a tremendous longterm impact on American theatre. Relegating the content to a single paragraph in the legacy section doesn't really do justice to the scope of the material. I notice that you imbedded important European stagings into the body of the article. What the article really could use is a paragraph highlighting the early New York productions while Offenbach was alive and the way those specific productions changed and shaped American tastes through the rest of the 19th century. (see sources linked above; they cover this) It also needs to highlight his subsequent longterm popularity on the Broadway stage through the second half of the 19th century. One doesn't currently get a clear picture that Offenbach was tremendously popular in America as a whole and on Broadway specifically for decades. That's important because it makes the connection to his tremendous impact on the development of the "American musical" specifically understandable. As one writer put it in the sources I provided above, "Offenbach was the wellspring of the American musical".4meter4 (talk) 16:35, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh dear! I suspect you may be approaching the topic from an excessively Americocentric angle. I have already incorporated the "wellspring" quote. I wonder what other editors think. Any thoughts on this from Wehwalt, Ssilvers, SchroCat and all comers? Tim riley talk 17:49, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t think asking for a single paragraph on Offenbach’s tremendous impact on a seminal American art form is WP:UNDUE. I would say that without it the topic is too Euro-centric and lacks an appropriate global perspective on the topic which one would expect from an FA class Wikipedia article. 4meter4 (talk) 18:18, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, and have given the article just such a paragraph. It is at the end of the Influence subsection. Tim riley talk 18:24, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Before commenting, I'd like to see your suggested paragraph, User:4meter4, and to know where you think it ought to go. Given that this is already in contention, I would suggest that it be as concise as possible to hit the most WP:Noteworthy facts as presented by the "meat of the scholarship". I note that Tim did add a good deal about Offenbach's impact on the development of musical theatre. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:02, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given there already is a paragraph on the point, I wonder what more could or should be added without adding falling foul of UNDUE for giving too much US prominence on the subject. I feel the US angle is covered well in the new paragraph, but I'd be interested in hearing from 4meter4 what more they think appropriate. - SchroCat (talk) 20:53, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've just done a swift word count of the Influences section which weighs in at 85 words on French successors; 123 words on Gilbert and Sullivan (with a 74-word footnote); 201 words on the Viennese school; 86 words on other European composers and 178 words on Americans. I'd like to add more to the first subsection, e.g. including O's influence if any on Lecocq, but I just can't find authoritative material. But I think we now have enough in the last subsection. Tim riley talk 11:32, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise, the article seems to be pretty thorough. Nice work.4meter4 (talk) 01:15, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

4meter4, thank you very much for these thoughts. Tim riley talk 07:51, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Hunger (Alexander McQueen collection)[edit]

Nominator(s): ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:38, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One of Alexander McQueen's lesser collections, The Hunger is primarily interesting because it marked the last of McQueen as a scrappy little designer with no money and a "no press is bad press" policy. From this point onward, although still obsessed with sex and death, he began to rely less and less on controversial shock tactics and more on showmanship and artistry. Here, though, he sits on the cusp, with a worm-filled corset and clothing that smacked of the macabre sensuality of vampires. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:38, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dipping my toe back into the FAC water to review this (I couldn't resist).

  • Would Look 64 be a better lead image? It's visually much more striking and was the most notable piece in the collection
    • Yeah good plan
  • "film featuring vampires": "Featuring" is a potentially awkward word here, given the film is actually featuring the actors Deneuve, Bowie and Sarandon, who are portraying vampires. "film about vampires", maybe?
    • lol, yes, fair
  • "McQueen's first collection": you can use "his" here without any loss of understanding.
    • Done
  • "the Natural History Museum of London" looks like a formal (and v awkward) title. Maybe "the London's Natural History Museum"?
    • Done, and merged the sentence with the previous one for tidiness
  • "Sexuality was front and centre" A bit of an WP:IDIOM. Maybe "Sexuality was prominent in the collection"?
    • Hm, I had this comment at the GAN as well. OED doesn't actually mark "front and centre" as idiomatic, so I thought it might be okay in BrEng. I'll defer if you think it's better the other way though
  • "Eugene Souleiman and Val Garland returned for hair and makeup, respectively": I think this could be expanded slightly. Although obvious to you (and to me, who has read several of these), I think a first-time reader would struggle to understand what "hair and makeup" may mean in this context (and it should be "make-up" in BrEng).
    • Tweaked, how's that?
  • "Eugene Souleiman styled hair with 1980s throwback styles: mullets and Mohican haircuts.[c][38][55] Makeup by Val Garland": just "Souleiman" and "Garland" will suffice
    • I'm going to remove the names entirely since I now have them earlier, I think this was a leftover. Again I've condensed the sentences
  • "spot in a underwhelming": "an underwhelming"
    • oop, yes
  • "Andrew Wilson, in his biography Blood Beneath the Skin, wrote that the "press were far from kind" about the collection." Would this not be better at the beginning of the Reception section? It doesn't sit well with the retrospective comments (Wilson is talking about the press, not about commenting on the collection itself).
    • I moved this up and actually wound up reworking the whole reception section around it, so you may want to take another look. I never felt the order was right and now I'm more satisfied with it.
  • Just checking that "disgust...bears the imprint" is in line with the WP:ELLIPSIS requirements?
    • Yup, just double checked Evans and she's using the ellipsis in quoting someone

That's my lot. Another excellent and enjoyable article. – SchroCat (talk) 14:42, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks as always for your comments, Schro :) All responded to. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:15, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Good changes there and thanks for following my suggestions. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 05:36, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Generalissima's review[edit]

Oh yeah, I was gonna source check one of these, huh? Let's go.

2A and 2B: "Ensemble, The Hunger, spring/summer 1996". Metropolitan Museum of Art. Retrieved 5 November 2023.

It indeed calls the weird hip things "antlers", and the quote from McQueen is a direct quote from the page. Good.

3A and 3B: Watt 2012, p. 87.

I can see how you write all these with these books at your disposal. Yes, the skirt things are "wire handcuffs" now, and it does indeed describe the black and white cut thing as yonic. ("pudenda"? seriously?) Good.

5A, B, C, D: Howarth, Dan (7 August 2015). "Shaun Leane speaks about his work with Alexander McQueen". Dezeen.

They really name magazines anything these days. It being named a stag piece by Leane is there, used for both 5A and 5D. Animalistic leopard print, check. And he "...between all the girls" quote is there. Good.

7: Doig, Stephen (30 January 2023). "How Alexander McQueen changed the world of fashion – by the people who knew him best".

Yeah, this gives us some McQueen Lore with him being trained as a tailor at Savile Row. Good.

16: Blow, Detmar (14 February 2010). "Alex McQueen and Isabella Blow". The Daily Telegraph

Mostly checks out. The story of Blow buying his entire graduate collection is included, and her serving as a mentor/muse. But it doesn't actually name Jack the Ripper Stalks His Victims as the collection. Figured it'd be pretty easy to just slap an existing cite on this sentence to cover your bases.
  • Sure, threw in a cite to Bethune

26A, B, and C, and D. Watt 2012, p. 85.

Triple cite here! I think 26A is citing that it's funded ultimately by a company called Onward Kashiyama? It does indeed support 26B, C, and D by talking about how expensive these productions were, the collab with Björk, Goldie (plus their relationship status), and Jimmy Pursey of Sham 69. Good.

35A, B, C, and D Gleason 2012, p. 35.

I don't actually have this book, but searching "red, white, black" on Google Books helpfully gives the snippet where Gleason talks about the color scheme, strategically bared skin, and exposed nips of both sexes. Searching "30 percent" checks out cite D. Good.

36A, B, C, D, and E "The London season". Women's Wear Daily. 24 October 1995.

WWD has it all. "Wearable clothes." $1.1 million orders. The fact that London Fashion Week otherwise sucked was right there at the start, complete with the praises of his interestingness. Talks about him moving on from the weirdness of Highland Rape. Good.

39A & B, Loschek 2009, p. 55.

The link is formatted in a way that it opens into page 81 with a search result for Widows of Culloden - might wanna fix that. 55 is disappointingly not actually included in the preview, so AGF.
  • Formatting removed (I can send you the page if you want to check it)

41A, B, C. Veness, Alison (24 October 1995). "Fashion's fascist softens his line". The Evening Standard (West End Final ed.). p 3.

Quite the headline. And it checks out: Bumsters are there. Him getting slightly more normal is there. The "hinted at something nasty" in lieu of blood quote is also there. Good.

58A, B, C. Evans 2003, p. 145.

Like Loschek, this is formatted in a way where it takes you to a search results for the word "birds". I can't see the whole page, but it certainly checks out that he claims a lot of his friends are lesbians. I hope you use the "I'm not going to say my clothes are for lesbians" quote in one of these articles. For 58A, I was able to get the "We need strong, balsy girls" quote to show up. Good.
  • This is definitely one of those cases where I wish McQueen had articulated himself just a touch better so I could expand on his theory of "lesbian models = no misogyny". C'est la vie. I've fixed the formatting again here.

59A & B, Watt 2012, pp. 85–86

V signs and middle fingers abound. And Watt's critique of it well described in the source. Good.

68 A & B, Alexander, Hilary (29 October 1995). "Absolutely brutal". The Sunday Telegraph. p. 47.. 69. Alexander, Hilary (26 October 1995). "Capital gains". The Daily Telegraph. p. 16.

These are mainly used together so I'm reviewing them as one set. Yep, his mooning of the audience is there. Alexander's description of him specifically says he is a "pale, slightly chunky boy", so I'd include the full phrasing there. And Alexander's general apathy towards the whole deal is also there.
  • Oops, slightly-ised the chunkiness.

76, Watt 2012, p. 74.

Do we really need four cites here? I guess it's a kinda controversial claim. I also don't really see what this is supporting here. It talks about The Birds, but doesn't really mention sexualised styling or claims of misogyny at all. Bit confused by this one.
  • My fault, this should've been Watt p. 76 the whole time, which does talk about it. I borrowed it from another of my articles where I'd fucked it up; they've also been fixed.

78, Barajas, Joshua (4 September 2015). "How Alexander McQueen's grotesque creations wrecked the runway". PBS NewsHour

Didn't expect a PBS cite. And yes, here we have a bunch of quotes about misogyny and sexualized designs, which perfectly backs up the source across a range of collections. Good.

89 Mower, Sarah (31 August 2015). "When Fashion Renegades John Galliano and Alexander McQueen Landed at Dior and Givenchy, Paris Fashion Was Forever Changed". Vogue

This indeed mentions how Galliano and McQueen were compared during this time. Good.

97 Conti, Samantha (13 March 2015). "Celebrating the Opening of Alexander McQueen: Savage Beauty". Women's Wear Daily

66 items not in the original, all checks out. Good.

Generally, great use of sources: none of them look like they shouldn't be here. They are formatted correctly and regularly. Super pleasing bibliography with the chapters broken out like that, I might have to steal that! It seems like you have exhausted wide swathes of the high quality coverage of McQueen with the books you use. Looks like we just need to fix the couple little irregularities here and there I dug up. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 05:06, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi Generalissima, thanks for the thorough check. Everything that needed resolving should be sorted now. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:00, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Support Yep, looks good! Thank you very much for your good work on this topic. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 05:04, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drive by comment from Llewee[edit]

I'm not sure I know enough about this subject to be hugely helpful but I did notice two little things. In the second paragraph of "Financial backing", you use the term "broke" to refer to not having much money which should probably be changed to something more formal. Also, this phrase "tailored jacket whose shoulders and lapels", in the first paragraph of the "Worm closet" section, strikes me as grammatically odd. I'd consider "whose" to indicate belonging to a person rather than an object.--Llewee (talk) 15:06, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for the comments, Llewee. Subbed out broke. As for the other thing, apparently the inanimate whose is a long-standing bone of contention in English, but most modern style guides seem to accept it. Personally I can't stand "of which" when I can help it, it sounds stodgy, so I'll keep the "whose" for now unless my friendly neighborhood BrEng people tell me it's wrong. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:00, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, that's understandable.--Llewee (talk) 15:59, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

serial[edit]

In the spirit of the topic and celebration of the designer, I will review this covered only in glistening oils and carrying the platters that matter.

    • What an image.
  • Perhaps worth linking muse, as a semi-specialist term.
    • Done
  • Suggest linking 'Runway show' at its first usage out of the lead.
    • It's linked in the first section of background, but I could link it in another section as well if you think it's worth it
  • The small section re. collaborators / short payments etc is interesting; are you allowed to name anyone specifically? Perhaps too much detail for a background section, though.
    • I weighed this and ultimately decided it would be too much detail. I could easily footnote a few examples if you think it's interesting enough to include.
  • Sebastian can be just Pons on subsequent reference.
    • Trimmed
  • The other images are self-explanatory, but do you have any idea of the symbolism of the thorns? I'm guessing Calvary, barbed wire, perhaps, but it would be interesting to know.
    • Probably McQueen's usual quasi-gothy quasi-religious sado-masochistic thing, so very likely Calvary and barbed wire. Sadly nobody specifically gets into the thorns in the sourcing.
  • But not as interesting as knowing which august organs had their journos relegated to the cheap seats!
    • Very sadly, Thomas doesn't get into it, and nobody else seems to dwell on it, not even the usually-gossipy Callahan.
  • No images of the Tusk? In fact, images generally, as it's such a visual article? (I've got no idea how it work's I'm afraid—I guess I assumed that with all the photos getting taken, some would be available.)
    • Unfortunantely there just aren't that many images available of McQueen items, especially his really old stuff. I've scoured Flickr for CC images from the Savage Beauty exhibits but there's very little of The Hunger. I've done NFCC for the worm corset, as for many of the showpiece items in other articles, but I don't think I can justify another NF image. (Maybe WMF will give me a grant to buy a tusk earring - only £525, what a steal)
  • Evening Standard link on first usage.
    • Fixed, I think

That's me. Interesting article, thanks. ——Serial Number 54129 15:00, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for your comments Serial, all responded to. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:16, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have removed all traces of oil. Cool article. Clothes more aggressive than a suit of armour! Happy to support. ——Serial Number 54129 10:46, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ajpolino[edit]

Have missed your McQueen series so far. Better to be late to the party than to miss it entirely. Partway through reading I Googled to find one of the looks and was pleased to find you can watch the whole runway show on Youtube (for better or for worse, the camera is on McQueen's front for the farewell mooning). Highly enjoyable after reading the article. Anyway, some small comments, though this is outside my normal topical realm:

  • Just in case you get a reader as ignorant as me, could we add a line in the Background section about McQueen's rise to prominence with Highland Rape immediately before this (or whatever you think the appropriate framing is)? I was surprised to learn that from the Reception section. Conversely, I didn't need the sentence on his Givenchy run as background. It happened after this show anyway.
    • Good catch about Highland Rape, that's been added. I think Givenchy is relevant as the Legacy section mentions him working there, but I've integrated it into the Highland Rape bit so now it feels more connected
  • "prints.[32] aware that McQueen" I think Pons' name got accidentally chopped all the way out of this sentence.
    • Oops, yes
  • "a love triangle between two vampires and a human doctor, and Cat People" at first read I thought the cat people were the third point of the love triangle (I would watch that movie). You could make it slightly clearer by switching the order of the movies, but I'm not deeply bothered by it either way.
    • I think I'm going to keep it as-is, since Cat People is definitely the lesser inspiration compared to The Hunger; I think the capitals and italics should cover me
  • "30% compared to the precious" a typo for "previous" or am I misunderstanding the sentence more completely?
    • Typo, good catch
  • This could be a me problem, but the tense of "was now being" strikes my ear a bit odd as both past and present. I'd cut it to "was being" or just "was".
    • Reworded a bit as I didn't like the sentence anyway
  • "...for The Birds (Spring/Summer 1995)" you already told us the season of The Birds above. It could be cut here. Ditto "who had worked on Highland Rape (Autumn/Winter 1996)" (or maybe there's an intentional convention I'm not catching?)
    • Nope, I just didn't double check what I'd already mentioned :)
  • "white shift with a print" Consider wikilinking shift (clothing). I had to look it up. Again, it's very possible I'm an uncommonly ignorant reader.
    • No, this is a good link

Thanks for your comments, Ajpolino, really helpful. Cheers! ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:35, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Super, happy to Support. Looking forward to the next one. Ajpolino (talk) 20:55, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aoba47[edit]

  • I would recommend adding WP:ALT text to File:The Hunger bodysuit at Savage Beauty by Alexander McQueen.jpg.
    • Alt texted
  • There are a few duplicate links in the article. The ones that I found are the following: Jack the Ripper Stalks His Victims, Highland Rape, and Mohican haircuts. I would unlink one for the first two as there are instances of the items being linked in the same section.
    • The MOS for duplicate links allows for duplicated links where they're in separate sections and useful to the reader. I believe the ones I've left in meet that.
      • That makes sense. Thank you for the clarification. Aoba47 (talk) 17:25, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is an instance where four citations are used in the "Analysis" section. I would recommend doing something like citation bundling to avoid potential comments about citation overkill.
    • Bundled
  • I have a comment for this part, (with some reviewers finding it a highlight of a dull season, and others denigrating McQueen's perceived immaturity as a designer), from the lead. I would avoid the "with X verb-ing" sentence construction as I have noticed this brought up in several FACs. I do not have a strong opinion about it either way, but I do think it is best avoided.
    • No, you're right, and normally I'm quick to point out when others do it. I've revised
  • There are a few instances where the citations are not in numeric order. That is not a requirement for a FA, but I just wanted to raise this to your attention just in case.
    • Fixed
  • I think I asked you a similar question in a previous McQueen FAC so apologies in advance. This is more a clarification question than a request or recommendation. According to the article, McQueen's mother and his aunt were both present at the show and put in the front row. Was there anything on how that might be potentially awkward or uncomfortable given the show's focus on sexuality? There is likely not anything noteworthy to include, but I did think of the question after reading about the show's focus on sexuality and then reading that his mom and aunt were right there.
    • Nobody discusses it, unfortunately. Although from what I've read of her, McQueen's mum was a tough old London woman, so I'm not sure she would have been uncomfortable at all.
      • That makes sense. He would have known his mom and family best after all and she must have been cool with it. Aoba47 (talk) 17:25, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am uncertain about this part, (fashion philosopher Julia Kristeva). I read Kristeva when I was an English Literature major in graduate school, which feels like a lifetime ago, and I am not sure that "fashion philosopher" is what I would reference her or her work as. Granted, I do understand how it is difficult to come up with the descriptors for this kind of thing. Just seemed off.
    • Swapped for "cultural critic", how's that?
      • I think that is a better fit as it is more general and in my opinion more accurate to her work. Aoba47 (talk) 17:25, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is not required for a FAC, but I would recommend archiving your web sources to avoid any future headaches with potential link rot or death.
  • Apologies in advance for this more nitpick-y comment, but are you using title case for the citation titles? I notice that some use it, such as Citation 91, while others do not, such as Citation 42. I do not have strong feelings about it, but I remember getting a note about this in one of my more recent FACs so I am just more aware of it. It is likely about having consistency.
    • Oops, normally I do these as I go but there were a few late-added refs that I forgot. Should be okay now.
      • Thank you for correcting this. I was never good at doing this in the past. Aoba47 (talk) 17:25, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I hope these comments are helpful. I believe that should be everything, but I will read through the article again to make sure I have not missed anything. Great work as always! Aoba47 (talk) 20:47, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for your comments Aoba! Always delighted to see your name at my FACs :) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:34, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you for the kind words. This was a fun read. I support this FAC based on the prose. Best of luck with everything. Aoba47 (talk) 17:25, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DeLancey W. Gill[edit]

Nominator(s): Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 16:46, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DeLancey Walker Gill is an interesting fellow. He was notable for his ink drawings and watercolors of D.C. in the late 19th century, and the absolutely massive catalogue of photographs he took of Native American delegations to D.C. in his work for the Smithsonian and Bureau of American Ethnology. Last year, I attempted this as my first FAC, back before I had really learned the ins and outs of writing articles to FA standards. Recently, I went back to the drawing board, and made all the fixes I could to satisfy the issues raised at the peer review and FAC: I hope it is to everyone's liking! Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 16:46, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ajpolino[edit]

A lovely read on a person I knew nothing about. Small comments:

  • "Gill's art... have been described" feels like singular/plural disagreement, unless there's something special about the word "art".
    • Oops, fixed! - G
  • "highly detailed", "highly meticulous", "highly distinct" - "highly" feels like a meaningless filler word here. Those adjectives are already strong on their own.
    • Good point, I'll remove these. - G
  • "brought a considerable amount of acclaim"
    • Good fix. - G
  • Bureau of American Ethnology is wikilinked twice a couple sentences apart.
    • Fixed. - G
  • "reviewing hundreds of thousands of copies of printed illustrations per year." I don't have access to the source, just checking in to make sure this is accurate. There's only a few hundred thousand waking minutes in a year, so it's a surprising number.
    • It's almost verbatim what the source says; I think this means watching the printing presses as they run rather then like, hand-expecting each individual issue. I rephrased this a little to make it less weird. - G
  • It's a bit surprising to hear that he becomes USGS "chief of illustration", then is assigned BAE (part of USGS, I gather?) "supervisor of illustration". Does the source clarify at all the difference between these positions?
    • I have no idea what the difference is, and I'm unsure if those are the official titles. Rephrased this, good point. - G
  • "Following Andrew John's death... to Bureau custody." feels like we're losing the thread of Gill's biography a bit here.
    • Yeah, good point; I tried to add more context but it waters down the prose.
  • "In one 1903 sitting, In one 1903 sitting," typo.
    • Fixed! I'm disappointed I missed this. - G
  • "From 1903-1905... photograph them." is this important to Gill's biography?
    • I think it's important context that he delegated his workload to another photographer. Tightened up the prose a bit. -G
  • "He also collected antiques, described as an expert..." reword. Reads as if "described as an expert..." is expanding on the word "antiques".
    • Good point, fixed. -G
  • "fracturing his skull after falling down a staircase at his home" I am always eyeing the wood stairs in my home with this exact scenario in mind. I will redouble my eyeing.

I'll return for another readthrough with fresh eyes. Thanks for the read. Ajpolino (talk)

  • @Ajpolino: Ah, I realized I forgot to let people know when I had implemented the fixes. This stuff has been corrected! Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 00:17, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Ajpolino:, not to bug, but was just wondering if you had the chance to look over the fixes! Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 02:32, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Ah, my mistake! Will get back to this within the next day or two. Ajpolino (talk) 02:58, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Happy to support this article for FA. An interesting and enjoyable read. Ajpolino (talk) 12:25, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Homestead sketch is missing alt text
    • Fixed. -G
  • File:Mr._De_Lanay_Gill,_Bureau_Am._Etymology_LCCN2016821491_(cropped).jpg: when and where was this first published and what is the author's date of death?
    • No date of publication, but it's in public domain as part of the Library of Congress' National Photo Company Collection, which is in the licensing of the image's page on Commons. -G
  • File:DeLancey_Gill,_Mouth_of_James_Creek.tif: when and where was this first published? Ditto File:Pueblo_Bonito_Ruin,_Chaco_Canyon,_New_Mexico_SAAM-1955.9.4_1.jpg, File:Portrait_(Profile)_of_Samuel_Schanowa_in_Partial_Native_Dress_with_Ornaments_February_1905.jpg
    • I just slapped a PD-US-unpublished on these, since I don't have any specific evidence that any of them were published during Gill's lifetime. For the last one, I added PD-USGov-SI since it's part of the National Anthropological Archives. -G
  • File:DeLancey_W._Gill,_sketch_of_Washington_homestead.png needs a US tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:54, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Airship[edit]

As always, these are suggestions, not demands; feel free to demur with justification. Just a few comments to start with:

  • The sectioning is a little odd: "Early life" combined with "painting career", but separated from "Photography", which has its own "reception" subsection whereas "early life and painting career" does not. FWIW, I would be inclined towards an all-encompassing "biography" or "life" section, with subsections of "painting", "photography" and "personal life", but that is a suggestion.
    • Yeah, sectioning is weird, and I was kinda unsure about what to do. I actually like your idea a lot better here; since the painting wasn't exclusively part of his early life. - G
  • I am always slightly suspicious of lengthy paragraphs depending on a single citation: in this article there are two (beginning "United States Geological Survey (USGS) chief of illustration William Henry Holmes..." and "Gill has been criticized for..."), both cited to Glenn 1983.
    • The first is for some reason cited to the whole of Glenn's article, instead of the two starting pages it would appear to depend on? I find "In part due to this admiration, Gill rapidly was promoted through the USGS" slightly ungrammatical, as well as "In this duty". I also don't think that "Gill managed the publication of illustrations and photography, overseeing the production of hundreds of thousands of copies per year" is a full reflection of the source, or that Glenn explicitly says that Powell "assigned" Gill to supervise illustration for the BAE.
      • Ack, forgot to correct that sfn. Sadly, Glenn 1983 is just the only source which bothered to cover this period of Gill's life. You're right about those weird turns of phrases, corrected them. And fair enough on the second part, I took another crack at phrasing those. -G
    • The second paragraph is better, although it ends with the odd phrasing "In other cases, Gill photographed "show Indians". Glenn p. 18 describes two cases of Gill photographing "show Indians": the Henry Hunt family, and the four Dakota, who are described earlier in the paragraph without reference to their "show" status.
      • Good catch there. Elaborated on the Dakota part and brought it to the end of the paragraph. -G

Apologies for the delay.

  • the positioning of File:DeLancey W. Gill, sketch of Washington homestead.png is a little odd, not only the centering, but that it might very well be the earliest image in the article, and yet comes third. Perhaps place it alongside Mouth of James Creek ({{multiple image}}?)
    • Ooh, yeah, good point. I added multiple image for James Creek/Pueblo Bonito and put the sketch by itself.
  • I'm unsure (perhaps as a non-American) what precisely "native delegations to Washington" means.
    • Clarified this a bit more. - G
  • You might want to join the paragraphs in "Photography" that don't focus on portraiture together ("In 1889, Gill discovered...", "He also accompanied Holmes...", "In addition to portraits..."), as the section currently feels a bit disjointed/unfocused.
    • Good idea. - G
  • In general, the second and third paragraphs of the "Photography" section feel a bit confused.
    • The tracing of the history of the BAE photographer position feels a bit irrelevant, Dinwiddie especially.
      • I was able to reduce this down a bit. - G
    • Did the portraiture of Native Americans solely consist of photographs of the "delegates"?
      • Yeah, except when in the field. Clarified. - G
    • "began in the 1860s and 1870s" sounds like it should use the pluperfect.
      • Done. - G
    • I don't know why the sentence about Hayden is relevant.
      • I was trying to give context, but you're right its not needed. - G
    • Presumably "the early course of Gill's photographic career" doesn't include the part before his 1898 appointment, but a less vague timeframe than "the early course" would be better.
      • Good point. - G
    • With the added context of a multiple-year-long period, I don't think "peaking in [a non-year-specific-season]" is the best choice of wording.
      • Fixed this up. - G

More to come: ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:40, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@AirshipJungleman29: just checking in! Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 05:14, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from TechnoSquirrel69[edit]

Putting my name down for this later. I'll take the source review. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 19:09, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

Alright, let's do this thing. Citation numbers from this revision.

  • Citations 4 and 5 can be merged as below.
    • Thank you! I didn't think to merge sfns like that. I will do this a lot going forward. - G
  • "little if any artistic license" needs attribution to Goff. Also, citations 6 and 7 can be merged as {{sfn|Goff|2016|pp=203, 208}}.
    • Good point, fixed. - G
  • Why are Library of Congress citations are treated as web citations (access dates, archive links) while other newspaper citations aren't?
    • No clue, fixed this. -G
    For the record, I did an IABot run to standardize the linking style across the board. —TS
  • Citation 9c doesn't seem to verify any of the preceding information.
    • Good catch, that's not needed there. - G
  • In citation 31: |pp= → |p=
    • Fixed. -G
  • Does Miller 1992 need an |author-link= to any of the entries at Cheryl Miller (disambiguation)?
    • Oh right, it's Cheryl D. Miller. - G
      • Actually, it very well could be that Cheryl D. Miller, but I can't be sure. Whoever this Cheryl Miller was is Curator of the Washington D.C. Historical Society in the early 90s, but from Miller's bio on here, she would have been in NYC at the time (and seemed to be focused on design rather than design history after college.) We might hilariously have two Cheryl Millers from D.C. who have both published on art and design history of the district in a roughly similar timeframe. - G
  • In Eldredge 1986: add |author-link=[[Charles C. Eldredge]]
    • Thank you! -G
  • Only some of the book citations have locations, which make them look inconsistent. Unless we have locations for all of them, I'd recommend removing. At risk of becoming a broken record, I also think that locations have become rather unnecessary in the age of the Internet.
    • I like locations for that old style charm to them, so I added them into the other cites. - G

Now working from this revision.

  • Something's off with citation 23; my copy of the source doesn't exceed 22 pages.
    • Fixed! - G
  • Citation 26 needs an |access-date=, as it's an online source.
    • Fixed. - G
  • "the dignity of a court justice" → "the dignity of a chief justice"
    • Fixed. - G
  • Also, the "[...]" implies that the quote is an abridged version of a single statement, which the source doesn't support. Just using the quotes individually should be fine.
    • Good point, corrected. - G
General comments[edit]
  • Maybe my lack of familiarity with biographies is showing, but why are all the headers under a seemingly-redundant § Biography?
    • I previously had this broken up as three first-level headers of Early life and painting career, Photography, and Personal life. Airship pointed out these weren't really necessary, especially cause his painting career didn't chronologically fit into a discrete section. Promoting the second level headers would unnecessarily break up the text - and thus, Biography. This is a common trick: sometimes you see it as "Adult life" when there's an easily splitable Early Life section, or a Career when it's that plus a personal life, but Gill's early life section would be like two sentences, so I just threw it all in together. - G
  • "Washington D.C." should be "Washington, D.C.," in running prose; this occurs in multiple places.
    • Ah right! Corrected. - G
  • "whiskey" is an excessive link.
    • Also corrected. - G
  • There are several sentences like "have been characterized as inartistic" and "Gill has been criticized" that come off as weaselly, especially when the view is only supported by a single source. Searching for the word been highlighted a few of these; I'd recommend you scan through the prose and rephrase these where they occur, attributing where necessary.
    • Went through and stomped the weasels. -G

Let me know if you have any questions! Also, I'd love if you could drop some comments on my FAC, which is currently a bit light on reviews. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 06:26, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • @TechnoSquirrel69: alrighty! I think I got to everything here. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 06:52, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, and good work so far! Additional comments are above, and I think that should be the last of them. Aside from a couple hiccups, spot-checks are going pretty smooth. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 00:04, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @TechnoSquirrel69: Fixed the rest up. :3 Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 00:48, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Source review passed. Neutral on prose, which I only did a light skimming of in my review; I'll leave judgment of that aspect to the other reviewers. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 00:55, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

review from sawyer-mcdonell[edit]

saving myself a spot. i'll focus on prose, since that's what you asked for :] ... sawyer * he/they * talk 06:41, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, clocking in now.

  • in the leade - His portraiture has been praised for its pictoralist qualities it's "pictorialist", no?
    • I can't believe I didn't catch this! Yes, it is. - G
  • His father William Harrison Gill, a merchant, was killed in action in the Confederate Army I think this would be better as "killed in action serving in the Confederate Army"
    • Indeed. Fixed. - G
  • Washington D.C. is abbreviated variously as "D.C." and "Washington" - it would probably be better to pick a single abbreviation for the city.
    • I like that it gives the text a bit of extra diversity, but you're probably right. Settled on Washington, giving the full title when it could potentially be ambiguous. -G
  • In 1894, Powell resigned from the USGS to focus on administration of the BAE, Gill following four years later in order to continue work on Bureau publications. should be "with Gill following four years later" or "and Gill followed four years later"
    • Good point, fixed. -G
  • He married fellow Smithsonian illustrator Mary Irwin Wright on August 19, 1895 and with her had Minna P. Gill, a suffragist and librarian. They divorced in 1903, although continued business relations for some years afterwards. - this reads as a bit clunky to me. Perhaps "He married fellow Smithsonian illustrator Mary Irwin Wright on August 19, 1895 and they had Minna P. Gill, a future suffragist and librarian. Gill and Wright divorced in 1903, although they continued business relations for some years afterwards." ?
    • Good point, fixed! - G

... sawyer * he/they * talk 19:35, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Sawyer-mcdonell: Okie dokie artichokie. That should be good. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 19:57, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    looks good to me - i don't think i have anything else that hasn't already been pointed out by the other reviewers. at this point, happy to support :) ... sawyer * he/they * talk 20:47, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dylan620[edit]

I, too, am saving a spot for a prose review. I used this article as bedtime reading last night, and while I didn't finish (started a little too close to lights-out), I liked what I did see and I look forward to reading this more in-depth. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 22:03, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some comments:
  • I note that we learn the name of Gill's father, but not his mother. Is the latter known information, and is there a way it can be incorporated into the article?
    • Sadly, I could not find that in any of the sources. - G
  • "often depicting Black families in domestic life" – I'm not sure if the 'b' should be capitalized.
    • This is a hotly debated stylistic issue. TLDR: Both capitalizing and not capitalizing is valid per MOS. - G
      • In that case, I would recommend capitalizing 'white' later on in the article as well as any other racial adjectives for consistency's sake. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 04:55, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • Oh yeah, fixed. - G
  • "Contemporary art criticism was favorable to Gill's work" – this reads a little awkwardly. I would suggest rephrasing to "Gill's work was favorably received by contemporary art critics"
    • Oh yeah, much better phrasing. Thank you! - G
  • "Gill rapidly was promoted" → "Gill was rapidly promoted"
    • Good fix, added. -G
  • Where multiple citations appear together, the smaller numbers should appear first; there are a few places where this can be fixed, such as after "claiming it was exactly how he was taught to sign by a friend" and a couple places in each of §Painting and §Personal_life.
    • Oops, thought I had resolved this. Fixed! - G
  • "They divorced in 1903, although continued business relations for some years afterwards." – This sentence is a little clunky; is there a way to reword it?
    • Gave it a shot. - G
      • Hmmm, this is a little better, but I think replacing "although" with "but" would flow more smoothly. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 04:55, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • Good call, fixed. - G
All in all, this is a fascinating and professionally-written article, and I look forward to supporting once these minor points are addressed. BTW, if you have any time or interest, I would love some feedback in a very old FLC. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 18:50, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can't Let Go (Mariah Carey song)[edit]

Nominator(s): Heartfox (talk) 00:07, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the Mariah Carey single "Can't Let Go". After five consecutive number one hits on the Billboard Hot 100, the song memorably ended her streak by peaking at a lowly number two. There are longstanding rumours that Columbia Records intentionally withdrew the song from stores just as it was about to reach number one in an effort to boost sales of the Emotions album, as well as speculation that the label's president Tommy Mottola intentionally ruined her streak to "show her who's boss" or something, but I have not seen anything strong enough to back those claims up. On the other hand, the song was a subject of a copyright lawsuit that was settled out of court. This is perhaps why Carey did not perform "Can't Let Go" during any of her tours until 2006 even though it is a favourite of hers. Thanks for any comments about the article, Heartfox (talk) 00:07, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draken Bowser[edit]

Looks good, the article contains all the sections I'd expect and I have no major concerns about the content. I have but a few suggestions:

Lead

  • Shorter: "..are about post-breakup sadnesssadness after the end of a relationship."
    Shortened
  • " Carey was sued for copyright infringement in a four-year lawsuit that ended in a confidential settlement." Feels a bit incomplete, but I don't think that mentioning the `names of the claimants in the lead is necessarily due in this case. I've been struggling with how to improve the sentence with no success. Perhaps removing it from the lead is for the best?
    Yeah I struggled with this one too. Given the lawsuit was dropped and there was no trial I suppose it is not notable enough to be lead-worthy. There wasn't that much coverage anyways.
  • "residency" I assumed this meant LV, but it might not be implicit to many non-US readers.
    Added

Music

  • Is Evans claiming that Carey was influenced by the poem or is she the one making the connection?
    Evans is making the argument
    Oh, forgot about this. I think we need to rephrase, since Evans isn't claiming that Carey has read and was personally influenced by the poem, but rather that her song can be seen as an installment in an artistic tradition that can be traced back to Roman de la Rose. Draken Bowser (talk) 21:55, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Added "indirectly"
  • "..within a pattern of heartbreak songs where a relationship is defined by how a lover thinks they lack a future without the other who has moved on." Shorten a bit if possible.
    Shortened
  • "conjured a 'a sensation.." lose one a
    Thanks for catching that

I'm pleasantly surprised by the number of book sources, many decent songs are lacking in this regard. I don't think any of my outstanding concerns preclude my Support. Draken Bowser (talk) 14:39, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for the review, I really appreciate it. I have addressed your comments above. Heartfox (talk) 21:10, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Could we go with "eponymous album" or "eponymous debut album" after the rewrite to avoid repetition? Draken Bowser (talk) 09:14, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done Heartfox (talk) 09:48, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aoba47[edit]

  • This part, (Having already garnered unsolicited airplay from American urban contemporary radio stations, Columbia), is not grammatically correct as it is saying that Columbia was receiving this unsolicited airplay. I have a similar comment for this part, (A breakup song, the lyrics), as it is referring to the lyrics as a break-up song.
    Rephrased
  • I am not sure that File:Can't Let Go Mariah Carey.ogg needs to specifically say that it is the chorus in title. It is not necessarily wrong or bad so it does not need to be changed, but it is just not something that I normally see in a song FA so I thought it was worth pointing out to you.
    I think it is useful to tell readers what part of the song the sample is from
  • I have a comment for this sentence: (Christine Werthman of Billboard described the video as simple and KQED's Emmanuel Hapsis thought it was boring.) I would clarify that the Billboard comment is negative as Werthman says the following, "Basic though the visuals may be". It was not immediately clear to me that this comment was supposed to be negative as "simple" could be used in a positive context.
    Added "in contrast" at the beginning of the sentence to separate it from the positive reception by Nixon
  • In Citation 5, the album is linked in the liner notes citations, but the same is not done for Citation 13. I would be consistent with how things are linked in the citations.
    Unlinked

I believe that should be everything. Wonderful work as always and I look forward to seeing what article you bring to the FAC next. Have a wonderful rest of your week. Aoba47 (talk) 16:38, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your valuable feedback as always, and welcome back! Heartfox (talk) 01:24, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for addressing everything. I support this FAC for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 14:48, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild[edit]

Recusing to review.

  • Cite 3 should be 'pp.'
    Added
It's not.
I accidentally removed it in a subsequent edit whoops
  • Evans needs a page range.
    Thanks for spotting that
  • "and contrasted it with other songs." Any particular songs? Eg, were they ones by Carey?
    Clarified that this is about other artists
  • "... began work on her second album, Emotions (1991). After its release in June 1990 ..." There is potential confusion here as to what "its" refers to.
    Rearranged this
  • I find the first paragraph of "Background and release" confusing. Consider reordering into chronological order.
    Rearranged this
  • "Can't Let Go" appears as the third track on Emotions, which Columbia released on September 17, 1991." I took this to mean the release of the song, until I reread on and had to reread the paragraph. Maybe 'Columbia released Emotions on September 17, 1991, with "Can't Let Go" appearing as its third track' or similar?
    Rephrased to "Columbia issued Emotions on September 17, 1991, with "Can't Let Go" as the third track."
  • "ended the streak when it reached number two on January 25, 1992". You need to add something like 'and failed to go any higher'.
    Changed "reached" to "peaked at"

That's all. Lovely stuff. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:43, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the helpful comments, Heartfox (talk) 11:59, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source and image review[edit]

Does the sample File:Can't Let Go Mariah Carey.ogg have a particular significance? Like, is it a particularly emblematic part of the song? Might also want to add ALT text there. Source #24 why does it single out Christine Werthman? Seems like most sources are major newspapers and dedicated magazines. Regarding Mariah Carey: Original Keys for Singers. it seems a bit weird that it's an anonymous publication? Is Nanda Lwin commonly recognized as an expert in music history? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:11, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • The sample is of the chorus. As the chorus repeats twice it would be the most emblematic part of the song as a whole. Further details are provided in the fair use rationale and the caption. Alt text is not used as there is no image to provide alt text for.
  • Werthman is singled out as she is the one who wrote the section on "Can't Let Go". I don't think it makes sense to include all the other authors when only one part is cited, so I used et al. as a compromise as it doesn't mean the article as a whole wasn't written by others.
  • Removed anonymous author
  • Nanda Lwin has been cited by Billboard, American Review of Canadian Studies, etc.
Thanks for doing both the source and image review, Heartfox (talk) 10:55, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ippantekina[edit]

  • I would link synthesizers and drum programming in the lead.
  • "experienced high airplay" I somehow find this phrasing odd; may be "received significant airplay" would read better?
  • "was the second release from Emotions" why not simply "the second single"?

Generally a tight article. Ippantekina (talk) 10:09, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All should be addressed, thanks for the comments! Heartfox (talk) 10:58, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ed Bradley[edit]

Nominator(s): M4V3R1CK32 (talk) 04:17, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about American journalist Ed Bradley, a prominent Black journalist in the latter half of the 20th and early 21st Century. M4V3R1CK32 (talk) 04:17, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@WP:FAC coordinators: three supports, a source review and an image review. are we seeing promotion?  750h+ | Talk  05:46, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's only the bare minimum, and given that this has been open for only 16 days, we'd like to leave it open for longer to see if it attracts further commentary. FrB.TG (talk) 07:13, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Suggest adding alt text
  • File:60_Minutes_logo.png: source link is dead. Ditto File:Jimmy_Carter_and_Ed_Bradley_1978.gif. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:24, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @M4V3R1CK32: Congratulations on taking this from failed-GA status to near-FAC on your own! Best of luck with this nom. ——Serial Number 54129 08:28, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria I will look into the Jimmy Carter link, but the 60 Minutes logo is not used in this article. Can you explain why you want me to look at that link?
@Serial Number 54129 Thanks! Princessa Unicorn also deserves a ton of credit for doing a bunch of the research legwork for the initial GAN. M4V3R1CK32 (talk) 20:40, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is used in this article - it appears in one of the navboxes. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:12, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see. That image probably shouldn't be used in the navbox regardless, seems like there could be some issues regarding trademark and it isn't that great a representation of the logo. I've replaced it with the Wikipedia-hosted file, which should be usable there under Fair Use, and is still in current use as of March 31. M4V3R1CK32 (talk) 22:14, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, that won't work - per Wikipedia:Non-free_content#Unacceptable_use non-free images shouldn't appear in navigational elements. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:17, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Gotcha. Learned something new! Then it probably shouldn't have an image at all. I see a bot has already removed it. That should be good. M4V3R1CK32 (talk) 21:39, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have also updated the link to the National Archives photo in Commons. M4V3R1CK32 (talk) 21:44, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

  • "Bradley moved to Washington, D.C., following the wars" - don't think that second comma is needed
Done M4V3R1CK32 (talk) 20:45, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "While reporting for CBS News and 60 Minutes, he reported on" - any way to avoid using reporting/ed twice in such close proximity?
Changed to "while working for" M4V3R1CK32 (talk) 20:45, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Bradley's parents divorced when he was young" => "His parents divorced when he was young"
Done M4V3R1CK32 (talk) 20:45, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the school's football team" - link football to make it clear what sport it is. To me (in the UK) "football" means a very different sport to what (I presume) is meant here.
Done M4V3R1CK32 (talk) 20:45, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "he also worked at WDAS as disc jockey" => "he also worked at WDAS as a disc jockey"
Done M4V3R1CK32 (talk) 20:45, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "working for WCBS. While at WCBS" => "working for WCBS. While there"
Done M4V3R1CK32 (talk) 20:45, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "as well the Republican and Democratic national conventions" => "as well as the Republican and Democratic national conventions"
Done M4V3R1CK32 (talk) 20:45, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "His interview style has drawn comparisons to Columbo" => "His interview style has drawn comparisons to the TV detective Columbo" (doesn't hurt to add three words to clarify who Columbo is/was for people who may not know)
Done, though spelled out "television" M4V3R1CK32 (talk) 20:45, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He performed with Jimmy Buffett and the Neville Brothers" - do we know what instrument(s) he played? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:30, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not totally clear. There are a lot of references to him performing with those groups, but I haven't really seen anything specifying that he was an instrumentalist of any renown or that the groups relied on his playing. In an interview with PBS, he said "I’ve been on stage with some people who have allowed me to bang a tambourine or some other rhythm instrument". His NYT obituary says something similar, "which Mr. Buffett bestowed on him onstage the first time Mr. Bradley played tambourine at his side". It seems like the performances were more ad hoc than anything else. M4V3R1CK32 (talk) 20:45, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support by 750h[edit]

Excellent article, but here are my minor complaints:

  • "Bradley was born on June 22, 1941, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania." It's generally preferable to put his full name (Edward Rudolph Bradley Jr. was born on..)  750h+ | Talk  04:37, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done M4V3R1CK32 (talk) 02:37, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think renaming the "Recognition" section to "Awards and recognition" would be more appropriate. Since the article already details how he was recognized, this title would be more specific.  750h+ | Talk  04:37, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Changed as suggested. M4V3R1CK32 (talk) 02:37, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reference 37, 42, 43, 46 and 48 all use the <ref>{{citation|... format, which is not consistent. Use <ref>{{cite web..., <ref>{{cite magazine..., <ref>{{cite newspaper..., etc.  750h+ | Talk  04:37, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh that is weird! Never noticed that. Updated. Thanks for reviewing! M4V3R1CK32 (talk) 02:37, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Serial[edit]

  • "to further his career as a reporter": unnecessary and florid.
Done M4V3R1CK32 (talk) 23:12, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "While reporting in Cambodia"
Done, though I'd note that he was hit while actively working, noted in his Entertainment Weekly obit "One of Bradley’s most famous dispatches during his three years covering the war was when he was hit by mortar shrapnel in Cambodia. The camera captured him lying on a stretcher wincing, a tear streaming down his cheek." M4V3R1CK32 (talk) 23:12, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "After recovering": How long did this take?
It's not really clear. The NYT obit says he was assigned to Saigon in 1972, then "he stayed until 1974, when he moved to its Washington office. Mr. Bradley, who was wounded on assignment in Cambodia, had become a full-fledged correspondent while in Southeast Asia. In 1975, he volunteered to return to the region to cover the fall of Saigon." The AP obit (as published by The Hollywood Reporter) says "While he went to the Washington bureau after recovering, he volunteered in March 1975 to cover the fall of Saigon." His CBS obit says he was "hit by shrapnel in the arm and in his back in 1973". So recovery took some time between 1973 and March 1975, but the specifics aren't clear. I made some tweaks here that remove that phrasing but show the change in assignments that I think makes things more clear. Let me know what you think! M4V3R1CK32 (talk) 23:12, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 1976, Bradley was assigned to cover Jimmy Carter's 1976 presidential campaign": lose one of these dates as repetitive.
Done M4V3R1CK32 (talk) 23:12, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "covering the latter events": "covering them"
Done M4V3R1CK32 (talk) 23:12, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Might be worth swapping out "network" with CBS, as it's not wholly clear who he's working for at this point.
Done M4V3R1CK32 (talk) 23:12, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Bradley disliked the position at the White House and being tied to the movements of the president": suggest the tighter "Bradley disliked the position as it tied him to the movements of the president"
I do like that better. Done M4V3R1CK32 (talk) 23:12, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Repetition of "position": "holding the post until 1981"
Done M4V3R1CK32 (talk) 23:12, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "reporting for the program until 1981": "also leaving in 1981"
Done M4V3R1CK32 (talk) 23:12, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re. Abbott, I'd probably add "and author", as notoriety for the first led directly to notability for the second.
Good point! Done M4V3R1CK32 (talk) 23:12, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "such people as": such people as what? I might know what you mean—celebrities? historical/cultural icons?—but as it stands, they're two very different people.
Made a change here that hopefully makes things more clear. Let me know what you think! M4V3R1CK32 (talk) 23:12, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • with (his) boots on": "with [his] boots on"
Done M4V3R1CK32 (talk) 23:12, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I like it. Done M4V3R1CK32 (talk) 23:12, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Muwakkil/Seitzs, quote: WP:LQ
Done. Also caught a minor clarity issue in the Seitz quote that I have fixed. M4V3R1CK32 (talk) 23:12, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much for reviewing! M4V3R1CK32 (talk) 23:12, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You've made a few changes, all for the good, M4V3R1CK32, so I'm very pleased to support this article's promotion. ——Serial Number 54129 10:54, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much! M4V3R1CK32 (talk) 15:25, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review—pass[edit]

I'll do the source review. This shouldn't take too long. Reviewing this version. 750h+ | Talk  11:32, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • 1 OK, supported in each place it is used
  • 2 OK, explained on page 63
  • 3 OK, supported alongside reference 2
  • 9 OK, supported alongside 6 and 10
  • 15 OK
  • 18 OK
  • 19 OK
  • 20 OK
  • 21 OK, supported alongside 22
  • 25 OK, supported alongside 12
  • 32 OK
  • 33 OK
  • 34 OK
  • 40 OK
  • 43 OK
  • 44 OK
  • 49 OK
  • 50 OK
  • 60 OK
  • 65 OK
  • 69 OK
Additional sourcing comments

Consider archiving the sources. You can do this by going to "View history" and in the External tools bar, you can press "Fix dead links", and when you get there, tap "Add archives to all non-dead references (Optional)", press Analyze, and wait! With the books, change any instances of "Phoenix, Ariz." to "Phoenix, Arizona". With reference 28, link Chicago Tribune for consistency with the other sources. Reference 8 does not have the location, if we could add it that would be good. I would recommend putting books and magazines into a bibliography section, but that's not a requirement.  750h+ | Talk  12:11, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Archive links added, Arizona spelled out, Ref 8 location added. I think I will leave the bibliography section out for the time being unless there is strong consensus there should be one. Thanks for looking! M4V3R1CK32 (talk) 15:48, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes the bibliography section isn’t needed. Thanks for addressing the concerns M4V3R1CK32, this is a source pass.  750h+ | Talk  16:15, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much! M4V3R1CK32 (talk) 16:28, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Older nominations[edit]

Alan Wace[edit]

Nominator(s): UndercoverClassicist T·C 17:35, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a leading light of Mycenaean archaeology, and one whose full story has only relatively recently come to light. Wace has long been known for his excavations at Mycenae, particularly his work on the various fancifully-named tombs like "Atreus", "Aegisthus" and "Clytemnestra", and less widely for his spat with the formidable Arthur Evans. Though labelled as a "heretic" and drummed out of the British School at Athens, Wace's iconoclastic rejection of the idea that Mycenaean Greece was a dependent province of a Minoan thalassocracy was ultimately proven true and, depending on who you ask, may be the conclusive proof that Greek culture can trace an unbroken line back to the Bronze Age. Less well known until recently was his wartime espionage work: he worked in British intelligence during both World Wars and was a major link in the chain of monitoring and concealing secret agents in the Eastern Mediterranean. The article underwent a GA review by Ealdgyth earlier this year, for which I am much indebted: the inevitable mistakes and infelicities remain entirely my own. UndercoverClassicist T·C 17:35, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild[edit]

Recusing to review.

  • "in Thessaly, in Laconia and in Egypt." Do we need "in" three times? It flows better for me if the last two are removed.
  • "moving to the British School at Rome, where he participated in the BSA's excavations at Sparta and in the region of Laconia in southern Greece." Moving to Rome where he participated in digs in Laconia reads oddly.
  • " He worked for the British intelligence services during the war, and excavated with his long-term collaborator Carl Blegen at the prehistoric site of Korakou." He excavated during the war?
    • Yes (1915 and 1916). It wasn't (yet) wartime for Blegen's American employers. I've stuck "During the war" at the start of the sentence to be clear that it governs both clauses. UndercoverClassicist T·C 07:57, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "in 1909, he was considered as a possible successor to Ashby". Why was that? Did Ashby leave the position, or was it just contingency planning?
    • Added the key detail: Ashby's contract was due to expire in 1911. As it happened, they reappointed him until 1925. Ashby's own ODNB entry says that he was on the rocks in 1909, but the appointment of Eugénie Sellers Strong as his assistant helped him to hold on. UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:14, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "shortlisted for the position". I think it would be worth reminding readers what "the position" was.
  • "Wace was ultimately rejected in favour of Dawkins, who toured with Wace following his appointment through the Dodecanese in the summer of 1906 and in 1907, recording inscriptions, collecting embroidered artwork and pursuing Dawkins's interest in modern Greek dialects." A sentence so long you may have confused yourself - the second mention of Dawkins should be 'his'; which I don't think is what you want to say.
  • "throughout the early 1900s". I take that to mean c. 1900-1904; is that what you mean? From the MoS: "Avoid forms such as the 1700s that could refer to ten or a hundred years."
    • Yes, that's exactly what I mean. Not sure of a great fix here (I don't have the articles themselves to be overly precise), so have gone with "throughout the first decade of the 1900s". UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:07, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "then proceeded to conduct field survey in search of prehistoric mounds". Either 'a field survey' or 'field surveys'.
    • Not sure about this one (I was using it as a process rather than an event: like "continued to conduct research into...", "continued to practise archaeology..."), but the plural isn't wrong, so I've gone with that. UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:07, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the results of the work were published as Prehistoric Thessaly". Were "the results" not the artefacts?
    • Partly, but more precisely, the "results" are what they found and what they thought it meant. Particularly in a field survey, that's much more about the distribution of the (usually individually pretty uninteresting) artefacts and the potential sites that can be inferred from it. On a slightly separate note, I remember another FAC where we pushed back against "the artefact was published" as being archaeologist-ese. UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:07, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the results of which he published alongside Thompson in 1914". What does "alongside" mean? Co-authored? In the same journal?
  • "in the Corinthia". Link Corinthia. And why "the"?
    • It's standard for most of the traditional regions of Greece (as opposed to the administrative units by the same name), particularly when talking about their boundaries in classical times: in particular, the Peloponnese, the Argolid, the Corinthia, the Piraeus (see Google Books here. Linked. UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:07, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "troop carrier". Consider substituting 'troop ship'.
  • "which was later referred to as the "difficult times"." Is this relevant?
    • I quite like the British understatement, and it's also somewhat relevant that his colleagues recognised he'd had a rough beat, since a major reason why he was given a second term after the war is that they felt he hadn't really had a chance to have proper go at it the first time. I think it's worth the relatively small indulgence of nine words, personally. UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:07, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Wace installed the first electric lights in the director's house". Again, this seems to be trivia.
  • "In November 1919 ... he left the British legation." Earlier you said "During 1915–1916,[2] Wace was posted to the chancery of the British legation" which I took to mean he left the legation in 1916.
    • Still to do (flagging this for my own benefit): will check the sources to see if I can resolve this one. Not totally clear in the sources, but Gill has him working for the legation after 1916 as well, at least after his return from the troop ship. One assumes he worked for them in the interim as well, just not in the chancery, but given that the whole thing was almost certainly little more than a cover for his espionage work, I'd suggest the fine details are somewhat moot. Added what I can from the sources. UndercoverClassicist T·C 21:58, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He also assisted ..." Of the four people mentioned in the previous sentence, grammar would suggest that "He" is Gill. Whether Gill or - more likely - Wace, perhaps swap He for their name? (Then the next sentence can start with 'He'.)
  • "As a result of political rioting, which took place in Athens at the end of July 1920, Wace opened the hostel of the BSA to women". There were riots - of a political nature, whatever that is - over the BSA's policy towards women? And what does "opened the hostel of the BSA" mean? That they were allowed to stay overnight, as in a modern hostel? If so, perhaps add the link?
    • More or less: in this context, the hostel is more like a student dorm, except that the BSA's students generally stay only for a short period of time. It's not a youth hostel (as in a cheap hotel). The connection between the riots and the women is that previously the BSA had been a male-only place, but Wace successfully made the argument that Athens was a dangerous place to be a female scholar, and so that the BSA should accommodate them as a means of ensuring their safety. With that said, I've found another source that tells the story slightly differently, so this will change. Still to do again. UndercoverClassicist T·C 21:34, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Now done. The sources don't quite tell the same story: Hood says that Wace drove the decision and writes of having seen his letter to Thompson on the matter (complaining about the other committee members); Ashmole, as Gill quotes him, says that it was the British Minister, who gave the order in November while Wace was away (at Mycenae?). I don't think there's a contradiction here: to me, the most likely narrative is that the riots kicked off at the end of July, Wace began lobbying the committee to let the women in, but the matter was only finally forced by the minister's intervention in November. Both sources are clear that the rioting was the proximate cause of the change: Ashmole goes into a bit more detail and says that the Minister wanted all UK students in one place in case an evacuation became necessary. UndercoverClassicist T·C 21:47, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "who held the necessary permit, to permit them to excavate". Is it possible to avoid using "permit" twice in two words?
    • Certainly: now allow second time.
  • "He also donated £100 (equivalent to £4,273 in 2021) towards the project, to be used for the excavation of the monument known as the Tomb of Aegisthus." How is this relevant to an article on Wace?
    • This is the moment where Wace and Evans break: the excavation is what drives the wedge between them and turns Evans from Wace's supporter to his (really quite bitter) opponent. It's significant that Evans had quite a lot of skin in the game: he expected this excavation to be the slam-dunk that proved his "invasion" theory correct, and was willing to pay generously towards it on that basis, and he ended up badly burned when Wace and Lamb came home having used that money to prove him wrong. It was specifically the excavation of Aegisthus on which the whole issue turned. UndercoverClassicist T·C 18:10, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, but as you don't provide this detail to a reader it comes across as trivia. I think you need to either explain its relevance in the article or take it out. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:35, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've rephrased to "He also supported the excavation financially, donating £100 towards the excavation of the monument known as the Tomb of Aegisthus". I think that gets across the importance of the detail without going into excess: the following paragraph really sets out why Evans wanted to put his money towards the project. I did start writing "Evans believed that the Aegisthus tomb would prove later than Atreus", but I can't find that detail actually written down anywhere: it's inferable from his statements in his 1929 book that Atreus and Clytemnestra are the oldest, but he doesn't actually try to give a specific date for Aegisthus, probably because there was no good counter-argument to Wace's dating of it). UndercoverClassicist T·C 11:02, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "had maintained fundamentally autochthonous". I am not sure that is grammatical. Perhaps 'had been maintained fundamentally autochthonous'? Or 'had remained fundamentally autochthonous'?
  • "Shaft Graves period". Why the upper-case initials?
  • "when the School's committee ... influential members of the Committee". Perhaps standardise the case of the initial lettr of C/committee.
  • "managing committee ... management committee". Similar.
  • "when the School's committee". Is this the managing/ management committee? If so, it may be worth saying so at first mention in the section.
  • "the School's committee ... the BSA's London committee". Is there any way of succinctly indicating what level of authority, if any, either of these committee's had over the other?
    • I'm not sure it worked like that: at any rate, I haven't ever seen anyone set out the "paper" relationship between the two. However, archaeology is a small world and, particularly in those days, personal relationships and authority counted for a lot (as Evans attests throughout his own career), so getting too legalistic about it might be missing the point. One assumes that the London committee were somehow "above" the Athens one, but whether they actually had the power/inclination to overturn the latter's appointments, I don't know. UndercoverClassicist T·C 18:10, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "but needed to remain in Britain following the death of his brother-in-law". Why?
    • Presumably Wace was the executor of the estate (acting for his wife?), or else giving practical and/or emotional support to his relatives. Death creates a lot of admin, after all. UndercoverClassicist T·C 18:10, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If we don't know why it is relevant, I am not sure that it is. Personally I would take it out. But perhaps 'but wished to remain in Britain for personal reasons'> (I am gritting my teeth here. :-) )
I'm afraid I must dissent here: it's relevant because it narrows down the options as to why Wace didn't get the job. In particular, it shows us that Wace, not the museum, made the decision: I've amended slightly to but refused it to take care of family commitments in Britain, following the death of his brother-in-law (this does share "family commitments" with the source, but I don't think we can rephrase that without breaking WP:TSI). It would be nice if we knew more, but we don't, and shouldn't let perfect be the enemy of the good. Compare "he declined it due to poor health": even if we don't know exactly what the health condition was, it's still worth saying that there was one. UndercoverClassicist T·C 11:07, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "collection of these objects". Does this refer to "Greek embroideries" or textiles in general? I assume that the former is a subset of the latter.
    • The latter: I read "the Greek embroideries" as the logical antecedent here, but is there a clearer phrasing you can think of? UndercoverClassicist T·C 18:10, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wace's interest in and collection of embroidery, were these contemporary?
  • "the book was still considered a standard work". "was" or is?
    • Boldly gone for "is" (strictly speaking, that information is only up to date as of 2015, but that seems clunky to stick in body text on such a small point). UndercoverClassicist T·C 18:10, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a visiting appointment at the University of Toronto." Are the dates of this known?
  • "He also conducted undercover work based at the British Embassy." I don't see support for this in the source given. I think you may be misreading it.
    • I'm going with Alan Wace, a leading classical archaeologist who had for some years been excavating the Bronze Age palace at Mycenae, where he was refining Schliemann’s earlier work, asked for Martin’s presence in Cairo where he was attached to the British Embassy as an undercover agent. His arrival there followed soon after.... As I read it, the bolded he can only refer to Wace: otherwise, Wace was asking for Robertson to be present in Cairo while Robertson was already present in Cairo. Hm... actually, the tenses are difficult here, aren't they: could be "he [Robertson] was [after Wace's request] attached...". Gone with something a bit vaguer ("to assist with his espionage work"). UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:54, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that's what I was seeing. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:27, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Wace was a member of the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, New Jersey in 1948". Just in 1948, or from 1948?
    • Gill only has As a member of the Institute of Advanced Study in Princeton in 1948. Doing a bit of digging, it turns out that it was just 1948: added the specific dates. UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:54, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "His excavations in 1952 discovered the first Linear B tablets". Could we have a brief in line explanation of what Linear B is? And possibly of "tablets" in this case.
    • We now have one; I hope it makes "tablets" close enough to self-explanatory. UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:54, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps link to clay tablet? Gog the Mild (talk) 16:30, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "During this period". Which period?
  • "Wace experienced poor cardiovascular health over a period of several years." Is it known which ones they were?
    • Gill just has "a heart condition": I thought that Rachel Hood might have known, as she clearly leant on Wace's daughter Lisa when writing her bit of the book, but she doesn't mention anything about it. Nobody else seems to know anything about it, though all the obits know about the final heart attack. Going to have to draw a blank here, I think. UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:54, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "died of another on 9 November 1957, at his home in Athens". At last mention he had moved to Cyprus.
    • Yes, he had, hadn't he? His PBA obituary says that he "later" moved to a flat in Athens, so added that in, though it's pretty unhelpful. UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:54, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and was also the honorand of a special edition of the Annual of the British School at Athens to commemorate his fifty years in archaeology." Perhaps give the year of publication?

That's it from me. Classy stuff. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:30, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks as ever, Gog. Mostly sorted without a hitch, but one or two bits above. UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:54, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looking good. Two come backs of substance and a suggestion. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:38, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - I’m somewhat indisposed at the moment but will be able to get to them after this next week. UndercoverClassicist T·C 18:18, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Back to you now -- thanks as ever. UndercoverClassicist T·C 11:07, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:Prehistoric_Thessaly;_being_some_account_of_recent_excavations_and_explorations_in_north-eastern_Greece_from_Lake_Kopais_to_the_borders_of_Macedonia_(1912)_(14595001048).jpg: is a more specific tag available?
  • File:Mycenaean_figurine_of_female_deities_and_child_at_the_National_Archaeological_Museum_of_Athens_on_October_6,_2021.jpg needs a tag for the original work. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:56, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: Thanks as ever: done on the figurine. Pace Flickr, I'm not sure the Sesklo image is PD, looking again. It's a 1912 publication, so fine for the US, but the UK rule is 70 years PMA: I can't find Thompson's date of death, but Wace died in 1957, so by my reckoning that makes it technically copyrighted in the UK until 2027. I think that means we need to replace it? UndercoverClassicist T·C 07:54, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If it's fine in the US, at worst it could be uploaded locally? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:48, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea -- I've done that. I remember having a hard time finding good images to illustrate this section. UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:07, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Choliamb[edit]

  • Re the Sesklo image discussed above: the plan published by Wace and Thomas is just a simplied verion of the plan in Tsountas's Αι προϊστορικαί ακροπόλεις Διμηνίου και Σέσκλου, so if all you want is a plan of Sesklo, you could use Tsountas's original plan without any copyright worries. But I'm not sure why you want a plan of Sesklo in this article at all. Wace didn't work there, and the information about Sesklo in Prehistoric Thessaly is essentially just a summary of Tsountas's detailed excavation report. If you want an image from the book to illustrate Wace's work in Thessaly, a better choice might be one of the brightly colored plates of Neolithic pottery from sites like Tsangli and Rakhmani. I'm thinking in particular of this one: File:Prehistoric Thessaly; being some account of recent excavations and explorations in north-eastern Greece from Lake Kopais to the borders of Macedonia (1912) (14778615801).jpg. It has three advantages, I think: (1) more visual interest than the plan of Sesklo; (2) shows material from sites where Wace actually excavated; and (3) specifically illustrates a sentence already in the article: "The archaeologist Helen Waterhouse attributes Wace's later specialism in prehistory to the enthusiasm for Neolithic pottery he developed in Thessaly." This image gives readers a chance to understand the attraction. (Whatever image you choose, you will want to correct the book title in the image caption.)
  • You mentioned that you had trouble finding images for the early career section of the article. If you don't like my suggestion regarding the pottery plate above, or you want another image to supplement it, perhaps consider a photo of the Menelaion near Sparta (c:Category:Menelaion)? It's a picturesque site and Wace's many contributions to Laconian archaeology are often overlooked because of the shadow cast by his more famous later work at Mycenae. This was also one of the few times in his career when he was not focused on prehistoric stuff, so it provides a little balance.
    • Some good ones there: personally, I prefer the pottery -- there's something nice about it being as close as it can be to Wace's own hand, though bearing Stubbings' judgement of his artistic skills in mind, I suspect it wasn't actually him holding the paintbrush! I'm not sure there's a particularly good place to put an additional image without crowding things. UndercoverClassicist T·C 21:11, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article currently says that Wace "collaborated on studies of the church of Hagia Irene and of the base of the Obelisk of Theodosius, both in Istanbul." This is a little misleading, I think. Wace did not collaborate on the study of Ayia Irini itself: all of the work on the church proper was done by the architect W. S. George (who also, incidentally, provided drawings and watercolors for some of the illustrations in Prehistoric Thessaly). Wace's only contribution to the volume, co-authored by A. M. Woodward, was an appendix discussing the Early Byzantine statue base of of the charioteer Porphyrios, which at that time was standing in the atrium of the church. So I think this sentence would be more accurate if it said "collaborated on studies of the statue base of the charioteer Porphyrius and the base of the Obelisk of Theodosius, both in Istanbul." (The Porphyrios base has some iconographical similarities to the obelisk base, so it's no accident that Wace published on both of them.) George's book with the appendix by Wace and Woodward does not seem to be available on line, but you can get the bibliographical details from the most thorough publication of the Porphyrios base, that by the Byzantinist A. A. Vasiliev in DOP 4 (1948) 29–49 (see esp. p. 33 and n. 12), available via JSTOR and IA. Then the appendix by Wace and Woodward could be added to the co-authored section of the list of works.
    • As ever, I am indebted to your research skills and generosity in providing such a good paper trail -- added as suggested. I wonder if George was the one behind the Tsangli potsherds? The book only says the image is after a drawing by him. UndercoverClassicist T·C 21:11, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, Choliamb (talk) 15:21, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SC
  • A marker for now, but will be here shortly. - SchroCat (talk) 08:01, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "best known for": this is a phrase that has been questioned on the grounds of POV before (unpleasantly and vehemently in one case). It may be worth tweaking to avoid having to deal with that problem
  • Link (even if it's to Wiktionary) for "schema", given it's not a common word?
  • "He went up to Cambridge": 'went up to' is idiomatic and one that confuses the colonials, so normal, rather than Oxbridgian, language may be better here.

Done down to the Director of the BSA; more to come. – SchroCat (talk) 16:17, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Finishing off:

  • 'which was later referred to as the "difficult times"': I think it may be best to identify who referred to it as this.
    • Done (Hood isn't too specific, but it's a safe enough bet that the term was used among her husband's contemporaries). UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:12, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "when the School's managing committee ... preferring the School to focus": these are the only two uses of school with a capital S outside the full formal name. The MOS is largely incoherent on the use of capital letters, but I think consistency means either these or the others are wrong.
  • "Wace spent ten years between 1924 and 1934": Do we need to be told than 1924 to 1934 is ten years?
  • You mention Elizabeth (Lisa) Bayard French is his daughter in the Personal life section, but you don't refer to her accompanying him on excavations, or her doing separate excavations at Mycenae, which is the claim of the last sentence of the lead.

That's my lot. An enjoyable and informative read. - SchroCat (talk) 12:41, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from 750h[edit]

  • Great article, I am in support the nomination. I do have a small concern, though. In reference 107, instead of displaying the name of the website, "search.amphilsoc.org" (the website itself) is shown. It's probably just my personal preference, but I thought I'd mention it.  750h+ | Talk  16:24, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks -- I've filled out that citation to do as you describe. UndercoverClassicist T·C 16:41, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kusma[edit]

Will try to review. Just one remark for now: I did stumble a bit over "British School at Athens", which sounds like a brother of The British School in Tokyo; is it possible to gloss this and British School at Rome also in the lead? —Kusma (talk) 17:06, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is slightly explained in the body text, but I've now added an EFN to explain what both the BSR and BSA are. UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:22, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Early life and education: "obtained a First in part one of tripos"/"part two" wouldn't this usually be "Part I"/"Part II"? Also, "obtained a First in part one" is incomprehensible to people unaware of the British undergraduate system
I've expanded to obtained a First, the highest possible grade, in Part I of the tripos examinations: hopefully the right balance of clarity and precision? UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:22, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Early academic career: Link Vlach people
  • Director of the British School at Athens: "six slides they had never previously seen: Georg Karo, the director of the German Archaeological Institute at Athens, attended the meeting in costume as a fräulein" the colon makes me think that the slides contained photographs of Georg Karo in drag.
    • Is that really compatible with attended the meeting? I don't see any way to read that where Karo isn't in the room, and in costume at the time. UndercoverClassicist T·C 22:00, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • I find the whole anecdote a bit confusing. After reading the source ("scholarly reputations were torn to shreds, and Wace himself gave a brilliant performance") I don't know whether this was just light-hearted fun or whether Wace engineered an opportunity to show off. Back to the colon: I would prefer a full stop, but I can ignore this. —Kusma (talk) 06:46, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        From other sources, it seems to be purely fun, albeit in a very Oxbridge way -- I think "scholarly reputations were torn to shreds" should be taken with a note of British irony (that is, some eminent scholars flopped tremendously, much to their juniors' amusement, but nobody seriously thought that was a reflection on them as professionals). I'll take a look at this bit and see if I can make it clearer. UndercoverClassicist T·C 08:54, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've added "humorous" and broken the sentence with a full stop instead of the colon: is that any better? UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:22, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

More later. —Kusma (talk) 20:34, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Victoria and Albert Museum: "disagreements with influential members of the committee, who had disagreed" is there a way to phrase this without using "disagree" twice?
  • Only half of this section is about Wace's time at the V&A.
    • I've shunted the first paragraph (his dismissal from the BSA) into the previous section, and promoted that to L2 to break what was already a very long chunk. Everything in the V&A section is now either from his time at the museum or the immediate background to it. It's not the best section title, but I'm not sure I can think of a better one. UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:22, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Professorship at Alexandria and retirement: "prehistoric Linear B script" I didn't know that writing could be "prehistoric".
    • Indeed it can (and Linear B is not the oldest Aegean script): Linear B is used only for narrow accounting purposes, and only to write fairly short, simple texts -- while we have writing from the prehistoric Aegean, we don't have history or narrative. You can find the longest continuous narrative in Linear B in the Eritha article -- it's a two-clause sentence. UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:20, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Personal life, character and honours: just to confirm, was Elizabeth French the only child?

A nice article overall. If there's anything I'd like to know more about, it is how he became to work for MI6; was it normal for archeologists (or senior leaders of British institutions abroad) at the time to play such dual roles? It is fine if you don't know. —Kusma (talk) 06:46, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it was -- though the full story is only coming out in recent years. During both World Wars, almost all of the belligerent powers leant on their archaeologists in Greece for intelligence work -- these were people enmeshed in a neutral or occupied country, who had connections with the locals, spoke the language and were used to living rough in the countryside, and also generally knew their counterparts on the other side. Wace's good friend Blegen was pretty high up in the OSS during the Second World War, for example, while Karo did quite a lot of murky stuff for Germany during the First. See also people like Stanley Casson, Martin Robertson and Alison Frantz, all of whom were in Wace's orbit and ended up in intelligence. There's a book cited called Classical Spies, which mostly covers the American side, but is available on TWL -- basically every American archaeologist of the period makes their way into it somehow. UndercoverClassicist T·C 08:59, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kusma: I think that's all of these: a few where I'd be grateful for your input on the solution/kludge made so far. UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:22, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My points were minor and have been addressed. Happy to support. One more thing: I believe Helen Wace should be linked; she seems just about notable enough for a blue link from a glance at her bio, so she could have a red link for the moment. —Kusma (talk) 20:37, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done: she's certainly an interesting character. Hopefully someone (probably yours truly) will be able to pull together enough sources to push the article over the GNG line -- that Cambridge one is certainly a good start. UndercoverClassicist T·C 06:32, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

Spot-check upon request. Should't Traquair & Wace 1909, Droop 1926, Wace 1923, Wace 1924, Wace, Megaw & Skeat 1959 and Wace & Thompson 1912 have page numbers? Is there a rule for which articles get ISBN and which OCLC? Are "The Tomb of Agamemnon: Mycenae and the Search for a Hero", "The Salonica Campaign of the First World War from an Archaeologist's Perspective: Alan J. B. Wace's Greece Untrodden (1964)" and "First Athenian Memories" a reliable source? Looks like we are mostly working with journal articles, well-cited books or university books here. "Obituary: Frederick Charles Wace M. A." throws a 403 error. I know some people who are archaeologists who might have something to say here, I'll ask them for a few comments off-wiki. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:35, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi -- thanks for sounding out some archaeological expertise; looking forward to hearing it. Comments/replies below:

  • Those sources are only cited in their entirety (for instance, note 18, Traquair and Wace 1909, cites Wace also contributed to a survey of Athens's Byzantine churches, collaborated on studies of the statue base of the charioteer Porphyrius and of the base of the Obelisk of Theodosius, both in Istanbul.: Traquair and Wace is the study. Where a specific passage from them is cited, page numbers are given.
  • Articles for which I could find an ISBN have one; where I couldn't find one or none seems to exist, they have OCLC. Where I couldn't find that, they have OL. Journals have ISSN, where it exists.
  • The Tomb of Agamemnon: Mycenae and the Search for a Hero is certainly a reliable source: it's a fairly academic history of the site of Mycenae (despite the slightly pulpy title), and Cathy Gere is a university history professor with university-press books on archaeological history to her name.
  • "The Salonica Campaign of the First World War from an Archaeologist's Perspective: Alan J. B. Wace's Greece Untrodden (1964)" is an academic article published in a peer-reviewed journal. The author, David Wills, has edited for Cambridge University Press on modern Greece, and published fairly widely in academic literature on the topic. The article also isn't holding a whole lot of weight: mostly dates and places that could be worked out by routine inference but need to be cited for our purposes (e.g. the dates of Wace's final exams, or that Camden Place is in Cambridge), or filling out small details of facts established by other sources.
  • First Athenian Memories is only cited for the views of its author, which are subjective (that Wace was A delightful combination of great scholarship and humour, a worldly humour too and not in the least pedagogic ... a tall, slim man full of nervous energy, with a fresh complexion and an extraordinarily merry pair of light blue eyes). These views are of interest because Mackenzie knew Wace, and went on to be a notable person in his own right, and because they give a contemporary impression of his character written in quite an elegant way. Per WP:ABOUTSELF, an author can be taken as reliable as a source for their own opinions, as here.
  • I think I've fixed the URL on the Frederick Wace obit. It's Google Books, so archiving is useless, unfortunately.

UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:12, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The problem I see is that if these are multi-page sources, then it's inconsistent to have them sans page numbers when the rest of such sources has them. The reason I am wondering about Compton Mackenzie is because it's not clear why his opinion would be important to note. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:00, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The problem I see is that if these are multi-page sources, then it's inconsistent to have them sans page numbers when the rest of such sources has them: I'm not sure it is: all sources are indicated with the degree of precision required or possible. If it helps, I could lengthen the footnotes to something like "the study/article/book is Wace 1923"? After all, we're not citing anything in the book, and it would be mildly ridiculous to write something like "Wace 1923, pp. 1–500" when all that's being done is directing readers to the fact of the publication's existence and the means to find it if they wish.
On Mackenzie: it's useful and interesting in a biography to include something about the subject's character, as far as we can. There are very few contemporary accounts of what Wace was like as a man (outside obituaries, which are a little suspect: nil nisi bonum and all that -- Stubbings is interesting in that what we cite from him doesn't entirely follow that "rule".). More significantly, both Gill and Grundon also quote this as a comment on what Wace was like, so I've multi-cited them: we are therefore covered by WP:DUEWEIGHT in any case. UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:30, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like this is fine, then. Unfortunately, my relations don't have much to add to this topic. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:38, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1873 FA Cup final[edit]

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:00, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another article on an early final of the FA Cup, the oldest association football competition in the world. This is the only final in the tournament's 150-year history to kick-off in the morning, because one of the teams involved was Oxford University and the students didn't want to miss the annual Oxford v Cambridge university boat race, which was scheduled for the same day!! One interesting thing I found out while expanding this article - based on one contemporary newspaper report which I found it is possible (not confirmed, but possible) that the attendance figure listed for this match in basically every modern football reference book is wrong by an absolutely massive degree........ -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:00, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pseud 14[edit]

  • with effect from the following season the holders -- comma after season
    • Changed
  • The match was scheduled for the same day -- should it be on the same day?
    • No, it's correct as is (at least for UK English)
      • I was thinking that was the case, should be good then.
  • scheduled to start at 11.00 am -- would it be worth adding a time zone? or saying local time or something along those lines.
    • I dunno, is that really necessary? Given that we are explicitly talking about something that happened in London, I don't think anyone would read that sentence and think "I wonder if that was 11am Los Angeles time....?"
      • Ideally if we're using time (per MOS:TIMEZONE), it may be warranted for events, or an enclosure i.e. 11:00 a.m. (local time) is more acceptable I think. Although it is the obvious assumption since it happened in London. But then I noticed an event like the 2020 Tokyo Opening Ceremony use (JST) even though we know it happened in Tokyo. Either way, it's very minor and not a major cause of concern with or without it.
  • The Wanderers team included Capt. William Kenyon-Slaney -- I think Wanderers here should be in the possessive form
    • Changed
  • Kinnaird made another strong but Frederick Maddison was able to dispossess him -- I could be wrong, but is strong a sports term? Or is there a missing word here.
    • Changed
  • Oxford decided, with what the reporter for The Sportsman deemed "questionable judgment" to dispense with the use -- I think there should be a comma after the quote
    • Changed
  • That's all from me. Another excellent work from this sports series. Pseud 14 (talk) 19:04, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • There it is! Support. Pseud 14 (talk) 20:43, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Eem dik doun in toene[edit]

Support. Nice work. The only remark I have is about the caption under the photo in the infobox. Does the situation in 1878 ("is identical in design to the one awarded in 1878") also apply to 1873? Eem dik doun in toene (talk) 11:11, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Eem dik doun in toene: - many thanks for your review. I fixed the copy/paste error in the image caption -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:38, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

  • The picture of Arthur Kinnaird needs a full stop at the end, as it is a sentence. Can't find any other issues; other images are appropriately licensed.  750h+ | Talk  12:46, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • @750h+: - done. Can't believe I missed that, that's someone I am always nitpicking on other people's nominations so it came back to bite me LOL -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:13, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      It's fine. Passing image review.  750h+ | Talk  00:07, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild[edit]

Recusing to review.

  • It would be helpful if the Background section contained the word "England".
    • Done
  • Might it be worth mentioning where the Wanderers name came from?
    • Done
  • "Queen's, however, decided to withdraw from the competition". Is it known why?
    • Can't find any sources which say. I suspect they decided that in fact the cost of travel to southern England was too much but I can't confirm
  • Perhaps a paragraph break immediately before "The referee was ..."?
    • Done
  • "Both teams were missing key players". Is it known why?
    • Sources just say they were "unavailable". Presumably they had more pressing engagements at a time when football was still to some extent recreational for these toffs :-)
  • "Capt." In full please. And could it be linked.
    • Done
  • "The Wanderers lost the coin toss". Which meant what?
    • Done
  • It could, IMO, do with a bit of an "Aftermath". To mention the Wanderers third win etc and what happened to both clubs.
    • Done

Gog the Mild (talk) 18:55, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: - thanks for your review, all now addressed! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:11, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Citation needed right at the end. :-)
    • Right at the end of where, sorry? Might be me being dumb but I can't work out where you mean..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:42, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I dunno if it is worth mentioning that after their third win the Wanderers had the right to keep the trophy but declined. What do you think? Gog the Mild (talk) 12:10, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Personally I think that might be excessive detail for this article..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:42, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • It wasn't the very end, sorry; this version didn't have a cite after "... the only time the university team won the FA Cup." You have since added one. Supporting. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:17, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from HAL[edit]

  • "the final kicked-off in the morning, to avoid" -- Is that comma necessary? (As usual, disregard if BrEng/AmEng issue.)
  • "Hon. Arthur Kinnaird (caricature published in 1912)" -- why not just say "(1912 caricature)"? Was the caricature published in 1912 but drawn in a different year? Does it depict Kinnaird in a year other than 1912?
  • The link for Sportsman reference leads to a disambiguation page.

That's all I got. Nice work. ~ HAL333 03:30, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Happy to support. ~ HAL333 13:40, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

...working...

  • Perfectly formatted.
  • Newspapers are all national papers of record.
  • Headlines should use title case consistently (MOS:CT).
  • Bizarrely, I can't find anything on Upfront Publishing, but Philip Gibbons is respectable enough!
  • Capella... yeah.
  • CollinsWillow, yeah!
  • SOCCERDATA LIMITED seems OK?
Cheers, Chris. ——Serial Number 54129 11:33, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Serial Number 54129: - many thanks for the source review. Not 100% sure whether there are any actions on me at this point - all headlines use title case as far as I can see but please let me know if there are any that don't look right -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:37, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Serial Number 54129: - can you advise if you need me to do anything else or if the source review is passed? Thanks! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:33, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Galileo project[edit]

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:59, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a robotic space mission to Jupiter. This article is about the mission; there is a separate article about the spacecraft itself. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:59, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UC[edit]

Very much coming in as a non-expert here, but it looks like a cracking article and at least gives me the illusion that I can understand what is going on. UndercoverClassicist T·C 18:29, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved
  • October 18, 1989 by: comma after 1989.
    Comma added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:57, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • gravitational assist flybys: should this be gravitationally assisted flybys, as the first two words modify the third? I see no hits on Google Books for this precise phrasing.
    It seems that "gravity assist flyby" is the correct scientific term [10], so standardised on that. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:57, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • It launched the first probe into Jupiter: suggest The spacecraft launched to clarify that "it" isn't strictly the programme.
    Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:57, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does the moon Dactyl rate a (red)link?
    Sure. As it happen the link is blue. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:57, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jupiter's atmospheric composition and ammonia clouds were recorded. Io's volcanism and plasma interactions with Jupiter's atmosphere were also recorded: any way to avoid the slightly clunky repetition of were recorded?
    Sure. Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:57, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest linking "encounter", as it has a more specific meaning in this context than its everyday loose one.
    Added a link to the Wiktionary entry (which I just created): "The period of a space mission during which it carries out its data-gathering objectives".
  • There was also concern about the effects of radiation on spacecraft components, which would be better understood after Pioneer 10 and Pioneer 11 had conducted their flybys. These indicated that the effects were less severe than feared: the tenses are a bit confusing here. How much time has passed between the two sentences? I'd suggest something in the middle to the effect of "these took place on [date] and indicated..."
    Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:48, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • who had headed the Mariner and Voyager projects: I'm not clear on the logic as to when names like Mariner and Voyager are italicised, but it seems to be inconsistent in this paragraph.
    Consistently italicised. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:48, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Longer travel times meant that components would age: well, yes, but I suppose the problem was that they would wear out with age? Things simply becoming older isn't necessarily a problem.
    Added "and possibly fail" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:48, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • the onboard power supply and propellant would be depleted: is this quite true? For the first part, perhaps, but wasn't the point of the gravity assists that the overall mission would require less delta-v (and so less propellant) than a mission that didn't use them?
    The onboard propellant is only used for inflight maneuvers, so gravity assist maneuvers would require more of them. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:48, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some of the gravity assist options also meant flying closer to the Sun, which would induce thermal stresses. However, the IUS was constructed in a modular fashion, with two stages: I'm not sure I see the point of the however here -- what's being contrasted? It sounds like we've just discussed reasons why the IUS was a bad component for this mission, and are now about to discuss reasons why it was a good one: could that be made clearer and more explicit?
    Reworded the paragraph, and got rid of the "however". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:48, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • An important decision made at this time by Ames and the JPL was: a bit mealy-mouthed: better as Ames and the JPL decided...? Always better to show, not tell, that it was important, and we don't (in this paragraph at least) really set out why this made a difference.
    The paragraph does explain: This allowed it to take high resolution images, but the functionality came at the cost of increased weight. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:48, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In which case, as we've shown, WP:PUFFERY et al would encourage us not to use the word important, but rather to let the facts speak for themselves. UndercoverClassicist T·C 19:51, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:13, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The IUS was not powerful enough to launch a payload to Jupiter without resorting to using a series of gravity assist maneuvers around planets to garner additional speed: could we rework the double negative: something like "to launch a payload to Jupiter, the IUS needed to use a series of..."? I would also stick a full stop after additional speed and then do something like "Most engineers regarded the use of such maneuvers as..."
    Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:48, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The second, but not the first. I'm not sure what the "otherwise" at the start of the new sentence means: was there any scenario in which the IUS would be powerful enough to avoid using gravity assists? UndercoverClassicist T·C 21:07, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A three-stage might have worked; "otherwise" refers to the two-stage IUS. I thought this was clear enough, but emphasised. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:18, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Casani solicited suggestions for a more inspirational name for the project, and the most votes went to "Galileo" after Galileo Galilei: in both cases, I find myself asking: [suggestions/votes] from whom?
    Added a bit about this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:18, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The name "Galileo" was adopted in February 1978: similarly: any idea whose decision that was?
    Added a bit about this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:18, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • a launch on Space Shuttle Columbia on STS-23 : the Space Shuttle (like the battleship New Jersey) -- unless this is the HQRS norm? I'd also clarify something like "the STS-23 mission".
    Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:17, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • in such a way as to: could be briefer simply as as to or even to.
    Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:18, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lifting Galileo and the IUS would require: in this and similar sentences, if they actually did the thing suggested, it's better in the indicative: Lifting G. and the IUS required....
    As explained further on, they did not do it. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:12, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • By late 1980, the price tag for the IUS had risen to $506 million (equivalent to $1.714 billion in 2023). The USAF could absorb this cost overrun: I'm not totally clear on the relationship between NASA and the USAF in this project. Had NASA contracted the Air Force?
    As explained earlier, the USAF was in change of the two-stage IUS, NASA of the three-stage one.
  • What saved it from cancellation was the intervention of the USAF: less verbose as the USAF intervened to save it from cancellation.
    I fail to see the value, but changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:12, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • in reality, the antenna got stuck while in space and didn't open all the way: I know that brevity is important in a caption, but I don't think "got stuck" or a contraction are the right WP:TONE. Suggest "the antenna's motors stalled, preventing it from fully opening", or similar. UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:27, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem was not with the motors, but with the antenna being stuck, probably vacuum welded in place. Re-worded to address the issue. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:48, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure about the revised but in reality the antenna could not open all the way: to me, that reads as if it was impossible for the antenna to open fully. UndercoverClassicist T·C 21:07, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Simplified the caption to "the antenna could not extend" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:18, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I still think we have the same problem: it sounds as though the antenna wasn't extendable at all. How about "failed to extend", which makes clear that it should have done so? UndercoverClassicist T·C 06:20, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Another few:

  • pressurized atmospheric entry probe to a vented one: it would be useful to know what these things are: perhaps clearer if we explain it by what the probe would or wouldn't do?
  • But the three-stage IUS was itself overweight: It's not a rule, as such, but most style guides would avoid starting a sentence with but. More importantly, if we do use but here, we're setting up some followup in which this additional weight prevented something from taking place, and that never comes, so the paragraph would read better with something like "Furthermore", "Additionally", or indeed nothing at all.
    Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:18, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see a change here. UndercoverClassicist T·C 06:20, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm. Tried again. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:18, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    All good now. UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:53, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 109 percent of their rated power level: can we explain or link what a rated power level is?
    I will see if I can dig up a source. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:01, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    After digging through various technical documents, I have added a footnote: "The rated power level (RPL) is the power at which an engine can be normally operated. In the case of the Space Shuttle, the specification called for 27,000 seconds operation at 100 percent of the RPL, or 14,000 seconds at 109 percent of the RPL, which was designated full power level (FPL)." Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:17, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Great stuff. UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:53, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The second was that despite this, it was also more gentle than the IUS, as it had lower thrust, thereby minimizing the chance of damage to the payload.: grammatically, needs a comma before despite this, but then becomes quite a winding sentence. I would go with something like The second was that it had lower thrust, thereby minimizing the resultant forces on and therefore the chance of damage to the payload.
    Split sentence. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:01, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • David Stockman, the Director of the OMB: per the ever-confusing MOS:PEOPLETITLES, we should decap director here.
    De-capped. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:01, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • could damage the spacecraft's optics and possibly the spacecraft itself.: the optics are part of the spacecraft, aren't they? Suggest "and possibly other parts of the spacecraft", or even something like "other, more mission-critical parts of the spacecraft", "other parts of the spacecraft, particularly..."
    Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:01, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • reads from one memory location disturbed those in adjacent locations: not quite grammatical (what's the antecedent of those: grammatically, it should be reads, but you can't damage a read). The noun "reads" is also a little tricky to parse. Suggest "repeatedly reading data from a single data cell damaged the other data cells around it", or similar.
    Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:01, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shuttle-Centaur project: needs an endash, I think, as this is really "Shuttle plus Centaur" (compare Lee–Enfield or Mason–Dixon line) (MOS:DASH)
    MOS:ENBETWEEN: Generally, use a hyphen in compounded proper names of single entities. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:01, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not the case here, though, as there's nothing called a "Shuttle-Centaur" (that is, a Centaur that is also a shuttle, as distinct from maybe a "Saucer-Centaur"). This is instead the example given of Wilkes-Barre, a single city named after two people, but Minneapolis–Saint Paul, an area encompassing two cities UndercoverClassicist T·C 08:38, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

More to follow.

AG[edit]

Reserving a spot. Artem.G (talk) 19:01, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First comments:

  • Galileo Project managers table looks broken on mobile, I'd also suggest to move it from the lead.
    Pravda? Works okay on my iphone. Where do you suggest moving it to? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:36, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Nevermind, I think it's either android or chrome quirk. Artem.G (talk) 06:35, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Following the approval of the Voyager missions - link Voyager program
    linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:36, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • would cost $634 million (equivalent to $2147 million in 2023) - $2147 looks strange, IMO 2.147 billion reads better.
    Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:36, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • develop and cost up to $100 million (equivalent to $339 million in 2023.[32][31] - missing parenthesis
    Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:36, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • while the legal challenge was not frivolous - why frivolous is a red link?
    Not sure how it became red. Possible page move. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:36, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was noted that the name was also that of a spacecraft in the Star Trek television show. - maybe something like "The name also belongs to a spaceship in the Star Trek series."?
    The point is that this fact was acknowledged at the time. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:36, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, makes sense. Artem.G (talk) 06:35, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • a previously unknown radiation belt 31,000 miles (50,000 km) and at an elevation of 112 miles (180 km) below - you usually use km before miles
    Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:36, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Scientist Carl Sagan, a strong supporter of the Galileo mission, - maybe "The astronomer Carl Sagan ..."?
    His article calls him a "Planetary scientist", so went with that. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:36, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lunar observations sections lacks any text, did Galileo made any important observations, or maybe the Moon was a test target for its cameras?
    I believe so. I will have to dig up a source though. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:36, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If nothing better found, these can work [11], [12], [13], and [14]. Artem.G (talk) 06:35, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have added a paragraph. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:01, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know that Galileo (spacecraft) exists, but I think a small section about the spacecraft and its instruments can be helpful.
    Added a pagrapha about the apcecraft. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:01, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • On 26 March 1993, comet-seeking astronomers - you use both 26 March 1993 and March 26, 1993 date formats in the article
    Should use mdy, although that seems unnatural for a NASA article. Changed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:36, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Follow-on missions can be a little bit more verbose, at least for Juno.

More to follow later. Artem.G (talk) 19:34, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

More comments: Artem.G (talk) 18:05, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • and the Space Shuttle main engines (SSME) running at full power—109 percent of their rated power level.[20] Running at this power level necessitated the development of a more elaborate engine cooling system.[28] - two questions. First: full power should be 100%, so is it correct to say "at full power" here? Maybe smth like "above its full power"? I don't know the right terminology here, so maybe I'm wrong. And second: why more elaborate cooling system was needed? The engines were not designed to work at full power?
    100% refers to the rated power. See RS-25#Upgrades. FPL was 109 percent of rated. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:01, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    nice, makes sense. Artem.G (talk) 06:40, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • but NASA hoped to be able to recoup some of this through separate completive bidding on the two. - I'm not sure I understand what's "separate completive bidding"
    Typo, Should have been "competitive". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:01, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • and the two Voyager spacecraft each carried 80 percent of plutonium - 80% of Galileo's amount?
    Yes. Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:01, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe link Detecting Earth from distant star-based systems in Remote detection of life on Earth
    Added link. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:01, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • the experiment was considered a resounding success and the data acquired will likely be used in the future to design laser downlinks that will send large volumes of data very quickly from spacecraft to Earth. The scheme was studied in 2004 for a data link to a future Mars orbiting spacecraft.[90] - any updates on that? It's a bit strange to see future tense about data from 1992 experiment.
    At the time it was written there was not, but in December 2023, NASA's Deep Space Optical Communications experiment on the Psyche spacecraft used infrared lasers for two-way communication between Earth and the spacecraft. Added this to the article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:01, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Through the implementation of sophisticated technologies - what are these technologies? And does it mean that HGA was completely off, unable to transmit anything?
    Data compression software. Changed to this, with a link. HGA was rendered space junk. made this clearer. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:01, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • a total power of about 10 zeptowatts - a power of 10 should be more readable
    Very well. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:01, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • a 1980 suggestion that the results of Galileo could be distributed electronically instead of on paper was regarded as ridiculous by geologists - just curious - it means that previously all data received from spacecraft (ie. Voyager) was printed and not stored on a tape or a computer, right?
    Voyager data was stored on 8-track magnetic tape, 9-track magnetic tape and paper tape. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:01, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    thanks, never thought about that!
  • Its shape was not remarkable for an asteroid of its size.[110] - what is a 'remarkable shape' for an asteroid?
    Round. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:01, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • dubbed Dactyl after the legendary Dactyloi; craters on Dactyl were named after individual dactyloi. - gloss dactyloi
    What are you suggesting here? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:01, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    maybe something like "dubbed Dactyl after the legendary Dactyloi, the Ancient Greek mythical race"? Though I agree that it's also not ideal. Artem.G (talk) 06:40, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dactyl appeared to be an S-type asteroid, and spectrally different from 243 Ida - type of Ida is not mentioned
    An S-type. Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:01, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • and telemetry from the spacecraft, travelling at the speed of light, took 37 minutes to reach the JPL - it reads like the spacecraft itself is travelling at the speed of light. Suggest to change it to "transmitted at the speed of light"
    Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:01, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • and how they had escaped from Jupiter's strong gravitational - gravitational is a red link
    Corrected typo. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:01, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another opportunity to observe Io arose during the GEM, when Galileo flew past Io on orbits I24 and I25, and it would revisit Io during the GMM, on orbits I27, I31, I32 and I33.[155] - what're GEM and GMM? It's explain only in Mission extension, but should be explained at first mention.
    Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:01, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Occultations by Europa, Io and Jupiter provided data on the atmospheric profiles of Europa, Io and Jupiter - that's a bit repetitive
    Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:01, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clark Chapman argued - need to be introduced
    Called him an astronomer. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:01, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • With more data on hand, in 2003 a team led Kevin Zahle - "by" Kevin Zahle?
    Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:01, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Michael Carr, a planetologist from the US Geological Survey, argued that, on the contrary, the surface of Europa was subjected to less impacts than Callisto or Ganymede.[174] - what was his justification?
    Added a bit about this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:01, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • the Sun, which had only 4 percent of the intensity of Earth - it reads strange
    Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:01, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The scientific community did not want a repetition of the 1979 Morabito incident - did they really call it "the Morabito incident"?
    Yes. See, for example, [15] Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:01, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    oh wow, the Voyager program really needs a rewrite. Artem.G (talk) 06:40, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that File:Shuttle-Centaur with Galileo.jpg is better than File:Model_of_Centaur_G_with_Galileo_probe_(upright).jpg
  • I agree with Tercer, the patch looks strange, even though it is from NASA website (and was there since 1996)
    The image in the article is from a NASA site ([16]) and therefore regarded as authoritative.
  • In Ganymede and Callisto sections, instead of real photos there are "The internal structure" images. I think real photos would suite the article better, and I'm not sure that internal structures (as pictured) were known during the project.
    The article discusses composition, so the diagrams help the reader understand the text. But there is no reason we cannot have both. Added images. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:01, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Hawkeye7, thanks for the great article and for quick fixes! I support the nomination, and it's probably the best article about a spacecraft mission that I've read. Artem.G (talk) 06:40, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

T[edit]

I'm not going to do a review, I'd just like to repeat a comment from my Good Article review three years ago that went unaddressed: the mission patch in the infobox is hideous, and it's not the real one. It's easy to find photos of the real one online [17] [18] and since it's NASA work it should be public domain. Tercer (talk) 08:50, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • NASA's statement regarding all of its missions emblems is:

    Their reproduction in any form other than in news, information and education media is not authorized without approval.

    Our use falls under this Fair Use clause, but Commons disagrees.
    I am will to upload a non-free image if that is the consensus here. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:01, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WSC[edit]

Queries by WereSpielChequers. I'm enjoying reading this but not sure I know enough about the topic to do a useful review.

  • "Galileo performed close observations of another asteroid, 243 Ida, at 16:52:04 UTC on August 28, 1993, at a range of 2,410 km (1,500 mi). Measurements were taken from Galileo" Was 2,410 the closest approach or the point where they started taking observations? Maybe I'm wrong but my understanding of these flybys is that there is a brief period of time to take observations, and observations start and end at a greater distance than the instance of closest approach.
    I have elaborated on this. It was both the closest approach and the point where they started taking observations, due to an operational problem. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:25, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It orbits faster though, with a rotation period of 1.769 days. As a result, rotational and tidal forces are 220 times as great as those on Earth's moon." I thought that the greater mass and maybe proximity of Jupiter to Io as opposed to the Moon to Earth would explain the tidal forces. Though perhaps we are talking about tides on Jupiter as IO also faces Jupiter so the tidal forces would presumably be explained by a bulge.
    Clarified that we are talking about Io. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:25, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's it for now, maybe more later ϢereSpielChequers 12:25, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • "The orbiter was powered by 570-Watt (at launch) radioisotope thermoelectric generators (RTGs)" how many of these 570 watt generators?
    There were two of them; total output was 570 W. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:11, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Rogers Commission handed down its report on June 6, 1986.[47] It was critical of NASA's safety protocols and risk management" I'm assuming this was a report on the Challenger disaster, but perhaps we should say so.
    You assumed correctly. Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:11, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RoySmith[edit]

For now, just some random comments. I don't know if I'll have time for a full review.

Random comments are always most welcome. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:37, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's many citations to Meltzer 2007. Unfortunately, the PDF accessed by the URL only includes the front matter up to page xvii. Is there a better URL that gets the whole thing?
    I had that problem too, but I thought it might be a issue with my browser. Switched to the 12 January archive. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:37, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Background:[edit]
  • "They were followed by the more advanced Voyager 1 and Voyager 2 spacecraft, which were launched on 5 September and 20 August 1977 respectively" Is it worth a short explanation here of why Voyager 1 was launched after Voyager 2?
    Probably not, but I have added a footnote explaining that Voyager 1 reached Jupiter and Saturn first. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:37, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Initiation:[edit]
  • "NASA's Scientific Advisory Group (SAG)" the acronym SAG is never used after being defined here, so no reason to have it.
    Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:37, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems awkward to say "the JPL". Our own JPL article and https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/ call it just JPL; why not the same here?
    Seems more awkward to me, but changed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:37, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and the probe would be the first to enter its atmosphere" I would make it "and the first to enter its atmosphere"
    Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:37, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a Mariner spacecraft like that used for Voyager". I'm not 100% sure what this means. I think you mean "as was used for Voyager". The way it's written now, I could be taken to mean "of similar design".
    Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:37, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Attitude was determined with reference to the Sun and Canopus" somewhere around here, include a link to star tracker.
    Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:37, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This allowed it to take high resolution images". Clarify what "this" and "it" refer to. Either or both could be the accelerometer, which I don't think is what you intended. It's also unclear how better attitude control affected the camera resolution, which I assume was only a function of the camera sensor.
    It is easier to take longer exposures images if the camera is held still. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:37, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, but less camera motion is not the same as higher resolution. On the other hand, now that I've got the full Meltzer PDF (thanks!), I see that it does indeed say "could help maximize photographic resolution". I think that's a bizarre way to say it, but that is what the source says, so who am I to argue with NASA? RoySmith (talk) 02:22, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Independent Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee". Many of these subcommittees have a linkable article. Is there one for this?
    There is not. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:37, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Casani solicited suggestions for a more inspirational name for the project". I had to go hunting a few paragraphs back to figure out who Casani was, so maybe re-introduce him here as "project manager Casani"?
    Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:01, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "from people associated with it, and the most votes went to " this is a long sentence. Maybe instead of the comma, a full-stop or semicolon?
    Split sentence. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:01, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • " Casani officially announced that he had chosen the name", was the choice his alone, or was he just announcing the result of a group decision?
    He chose, but I presume the decision may have been ratified by senior management. Hawkeye7 (discuss)
Preparation[edit]
  • "a launch on Space Shuttle Columbia on the STS-23 mission" rephrase to avoid the repetition of "on". Maybe "Space Shuttle Columbia's STS-23 mission"?
    Re-phrased. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:01, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "sometime between 2 and 12 January 1982" is inconsistent with {{Use mdy dates}}
    Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:01, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the Galileo project's engineers decided" I think you can just say "project engineers decided" and trust the reader to understand that you're talking about the Galileo project.
    Changed as suggested
  • "To enhance reliability and reduce costs ... This improved reliability and reduced costs" eliminate the redundancy.
    Eliminated. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:01, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Another 165 kilograms (364 lb) was added in structural changes to improve reliability" aerospace engineers don't take on 165 kg without a good reason (famous quote: "I’d sell my grandmother for a one-pound reduction!"); is there something more we can say here about what this additional weight was used for?
    I've checked all three sources, and noine are specific on this point. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:01, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the three-stage IUS was itself overweight" overweight compared to what? It's maximum design capacity? Some assumed weight used in early mission calculations?
    Design specs. Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:01, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "NASA decided to split Galileo into two separate spacecraft, an atmospheric probe and a Jupiter orbiter". This is confusing. Perhaps this gets cleared up later on, but at this point I'm lost, trying to figure out if we're talking about one spacecraft or two. Here, you talk about two. But in the lead, you say "the Galileo spacecraft consisted of an orbiter and an entry probe. It was delivered into Earth orbit on October 18, 1989" so that's one spacecraft.
    Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:01, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a signal from Earth takes anything from 35 to 52 minutes to reach Jupiter". A few points here. First, "anything" is kind of informal language. But more importantly, I'd explain the nature of this variation; i.e. it's because the Earth-Jupiter distance varies depending on where they both are in their orbits; readers who are not familiar with how this stuff works might guess it has to do with other factors like varying amounts of power available on the spacecraft, or whatnot. Also, I think these sorts of things are typically cited as round-trip time because that's what really matters if you're trying to do remote control; downlink delay to send telemetry, plus the uplink delay to send a command based on the telemetry you received.
    Added an explanation. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:01, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • You need to define USAF the first time you use it.
    Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:01, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "autonomous spacecraft,[35] which was a necessity for deep space probes," There's something odd about the grammar here, but I'm not sure what. Maybe "were a necessity" (or, just "were necessary")?
    Deleted "which was" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:01, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • " posed little value when observed from a safe distance," I don't think "posed" is the right word here. Maybe "Provided"?
    "promised" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:01, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Most of the asteroids in the vicinity ... one of the largest of the asteroids" No need to repeat "asteroids"
    Deleted repetition. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:21, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a generic comment, you use "flyby" many times in the article, but never explain what it is. For the benefit of our readers who don't know anything about spaceflight, you should explain what a flyby is the first time it's used in the main body.
    Linked, with a definition. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:21, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even more generically, please read through the entire article looking for technical words and consider whether a naive reader would understand them. As an example, you talk about "the orbiter in February 1984 with the probe following". How does an orbiter differ from a probe? Other words that might need explaining include "autonomous", "attitude" (we don't want to be launching any spacecraft in a bad mood!) but those are just a few examples, I'm sure you'll find more.
    Added links, explanations. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:21, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still talking generically, it might be a good idea to give real-life examples of units that a reader might be unfamiliar with. For example, "a lithium–sulfur battery rated at 730 Watt-hours"; it would help the reader understand this better if you said that was about how much energy is in a typical car battery (but please double-check me on that and find a WP:RS)
    On average, a 12-Volt car battery can maintain about 5 Amperes for ten hours. That makes such a battery a 50 Ampere-Hour battery. That is equal to around 12 x 50 = 600 Watt-Hours. No idea if this is a reliable source. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:21, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:46, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Spacecraft[edit]

(my apologies for these comments comming in dribs and drabs)

  • "general-purpose heat source radioisotope thermoelectric generators (GPHS-RTGs)" WP:SEAOFBLUE. I suggest only linking to GPHS-RTG, and let people drill down from there if they want more details.
    Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:36, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "generated 570 Watts at launch ... rated at 730 Watt-hours." I'm not sure how to handle this better, but it's jarring to have two consecutive sentences talking about power sources using different units (power vs energy). I understand the difference, but I suspect a less technically savvy reader will just be confused and/or come away with the wrong impression that the battery is "bigger" than the RTG, when in fact those values can't be compared in any useful way. I see that you're just giving the data as it's presented in the NASA report, but it would still be nice if there was a better way to present this. Actually, a quick calculation says average of 520 watts x 8 year = 36 MW-Hrs. Upon reflection, this makes sense; the battery only runs the atmopheric probe for the short time it takes to descend and burn up. Hopefully you can find some RS that goes into this sort of analysis so you can present it in the article.
  • "Heavy Ion Counter." Why the upper case?
    A holdover from the original version, which used this form. After a change in the MOS (MOS:EXPABBR) in 2017, I and other editors went through the article and removed the uppercasing of abbreviated forms. De-capped. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:36, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reconsideration[edit]
  • "flight tore the spacecraft apart" seems like an unencyclopedic way to phrase that. Maybe something like "Resulted in loss of the vehicle and the deaths of ..."
    There was a debate about this in one Challenger disaster article. Some people wrote that the spacecraft exploded when it was actually torn apart by aerodynamic forces. This article follows the more precise wording chosen over there. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:36, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This was only partly due to the NASA management's increased aversion to risk in the wake of the Challenger disaster; NASA management also considered ..." This appears to be based on a p 217 quote from Marty Winkler of General Dynamics commenting on his interpretation of NASA management's decision. So I think this deserves attribution as Winkler's opinion.
    Is is the opinion of historians Virginia Dawson and Mark Bowles. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:36, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, so it needs some attribution, "According to Virginia Dawson and Mark Bowles ..." RoySmith (talk) 22:40, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "for a time it looked like its next trip would be to the Smithsonian Institution." That's a cute way to phrase it, but maybe it should be stated a bit more formally. Also, it's an unattributed quote from the source, so that's a problem.
    Altered to match the quote, and turned into a quotation. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:36, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "southerly declination of −23 degrees" -> "declination of 23 degrees south" Likewise for "northerly one of +18 degrees"
    Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:36, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Furthermore ... so the main tracking station would be the Canberra Deep Space Communication Complex in Australia". That makes it sound like using Canberra is a problem. Is it? Why?
    Redundancy. There was only one complex in the southern hemisphere but two in the northern. Expanded on this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:36, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nuclear concerns[edit]
  • "plutonium in the Galileo's radioisotope thermoelectric generators (RTGs) and General Purpose Heat Source (GPHS) modules" This makes it sound like these are two different things, each with their own plutonium supply. My reading of GPHS-RTG leads me to believe this is a single unit with a single plutonium supply which performs both functions, so this needs to be clarified.
    Correct. Changed to "Galileo's GPHS-RTG modules Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:36, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The overall tone of the first paragraph seems in violation of WP:NPOV. You minimize the risk ("what they perceived as an unacceptable risk") and then state in wiki-voice that "They had been used for years in planetary exploration without mishap", implying that there is indeed no risk.
    There is a whole paragraph about the risk. The issue is what degree of risk is "unacceptable". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:36, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • " If the Galileo/IUS combination fell free of the orbiter". Missing a word? of -> from, perhaps?
    Looks okay to me, but changed "of" to "from" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:36, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ugh. I must be becoming dyslexic. I read that as "free fell", as "the RTG was in free fall". My bad. RoySmith (talk) 00:15, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "an accident might have released up to 11,568 curies (428,000 GBq)." Another example of a unit which is almost certainly unfamiliar to most of our readers. Is that a lot? Are we talking a couple of dental X-ray's worth or another Chernobyl? Likewise with "NASA concluded that the chance of such a disaster was 1 in 2,500". I have no idea if that's a lot compared to all the other risks. NASA must have some standard risk analysis budget. How does this compare with other missions? Also, what does "such a disaster" refer to? In ther previous paragraph you give two different scenarios; which of those is this?
    Chernobyl released between 50 and 185 million curies; three mile island released about 2.5 million curies. I have no figures on the risk assessments of other missions. Part of my job involves carrying out risk assessments, and the low odds and moderate consequences would mean approval. Linked the unite. Deleted "such". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:36, 13 April 2024 (UTC)+[reply]
Launch[edit]
  • "There were fears that the spacecraft might be hijacked by anti-nuclear activists or terrorists". I'm guessing this is due to the plutonium, but please don't make the reader guess. As an aside, I also have to wonder about the risk was of sleep-deprived truck drivers in a high speed convoy over an unfamiliar route at night having a crash. :-)
    Apparently, there is a Nova (American TV program) episode about this, but I haven't seen it. Added that the plutonium was the concern. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:36, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Venus encounter[edit]
  • "three hours into the flyby, the tracking station at Goldstone had to be shut down due to high winds" If it was being tracked by Canberra and Madrid, why did it matter what was going on at Goldstone? I'm guessing the answer is that by the time three hours had passed, Goldstone had become the active station, but that should be explained for the benefit of our less technically savvy readers. It also seems odd that you give the time of the flyby down to the second ("05:58:48 UTC") implying it's a discrete moment in time, then later talk about being three hours into it. Maybe just note that 05:58:48 was the time of closest approach?
    Clarified. Note that 10 February in Canberra and Madrid was only 9 February at JPL. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:36, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe I'm just missing it but I don't see where you explained this. RoySmith (talk) 22:53, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "Galileo's closest approach to Venus came at 05:58:48 UTC on February 10, 1990, at a range of 16,106 km (10,008 mi)." Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:58, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • You might also want to explain that doppler provides a direct measurement of the relative velocity between two bodies (in this case, Galileo and the Earth). Again, this is something our more sophisticated readers will know, but will leave others struggling to understand.
    Doppler is linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:36, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, but I think it would still be better to provide some explanation here. I suspect most people are familiar with the "train whistle gets lower in pitch as the train passes" demonstration, but I don't think they would necessarily make the leap to "by measuring the change in carrier frequency of the spacecraft's transmission compared to the nominal frequency, you can compute the spacecraft's velocity relative to Earth", and Doppler effect isn't much help for the casual reader trying to figure that out. Likewise, they might have heard of "Doppler radar" in the context of some gizmo the cops use to give you a speeding ticket, but I think it's asking a lot to expect the casual reader to understand the application of that to space navigation. RoySmith (talk) 00:27, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Added an explanation, with a link. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:23, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "low gain antennae (LGA)" probably should be "LGAs" (plural)
    Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:36, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "DSN's 70 meters (230 ft)", meter (singular)
    Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:36, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Earth's strong magnetic field causes this to occur ... from its center," it's unclear what "this" and its" refer to. I think you're talking about the Earth's bow shock, and the Earth's center, but clarify.
    Clarified. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:36, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "causes the bow wave", I assume "bow wave" and "bow shock" are synonyms, but perhaps reduce confusion by just using the same term in both places.
    Used "bow shock" consistently.
Earth encounters[edit]
  • "Galileo made two small course corrections on 9 to 12 April and 11 to 12 May 1990". The source says, "TCM4 was the largest course correction that Galileo would have to perform", which seems at odds with your statement that they were "small".
    Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:13, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the first time that a deep space probe had returned to Earth from interplanetary space." this is almost word-for-word from the source and is thus a WP:CLOP violation. Either rephrase in your own words or make it a direct quote.
    WP:LIMITED applies here. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:13, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The opportunity was taken to conduct a series of experiments." This sentence only makes sense when read in the context of the section heading; it should stand on its own.
    Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:13, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "These included strong absorption of light ... caused by absorption" too many absorptions.
    Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:13, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "These included strong absorption ... of any known natural source" run-on sentence
    Looks okay to me. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:13, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the first ever controls" link to Scientific control
    Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:13, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "another groundbreaking experiment was performed" in who's opinion was it groundbreaking? And since this is "another groundbreaking experiment", what were the other(s)?
    Probably the sources, which are often written in American English. Deleted "groundbreaking". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:13, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "frequency doubled Nd:YAG laser" SEAOFBLUE, also, link more specifically to Nonlinear optics#Frequency doubling.
    Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:13, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "at a wavelength of 532 nm" I'll admit to not understanding most of Nonlinear optics, but I assume if the frequency doubled, the wavelength is halved, which leads me to wonder if 532 nm is the wavelength before or after the frequency doubling.
    After. Clarified. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:13, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Cassegrain telescope" link to Cassegrain reflector (I assume that's the right target). I've never heard of using a telescope to transmit an optical beam, but obviously the optics are symmetric, so I assume you put the laser into "eye" end, but it might be worth clarifying that.
    The source says: "coupled to a Cassegrain telescope through a coudé mount arrangement." Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:13, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Add link to Reflecting telescope#Coudé RoySmith (talk) 00:32, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "produced images of Earth clearly showing the laser pulses" did they just detect the pulses, or was data actually communicated over this carrier?
    Just detected. The article goes on to describe subsequent work on laser communications. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:13, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
High gain antenna problem[edit]
  • "Once Galileo headed beyond Earth, it was no longer risky to employ the HGA", HGA was defined several sections earlier; it might be useful to re-introduce where what the acronym means.
    Abbr template used, per MOS:ACRO1STUSE Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:13, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    TIL that {{abbr}} exists, thanks. RoySmith (talk) 00:38, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "or 330 seconds if one failed" -> "... if one actuator failed".
    Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:13, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "They would drive a worm gear." Not clear what "they" is; probably "the actuator motors", but this and the previous sentence could be combined and rephrased to make that more clear.
    Correct. Clarified. Combined. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:13, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I assume "graphite-epoxy" means Carbon-fiber reinforced polymer; if so, link.
    Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:13, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • ", and when the driver motor started " -> combine with previous sentence with a semicolon, dropping "and".
    Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:13, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the spacecraft's spin rate had decreased" I assume this was due to the increased moment of rotational inertia? If so, it would be good to explain that (assuming a RS says so).
    Correct. Added, with a source. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:13, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The first suggestion was to re-fold the antenna" who suggested this?
    Source doesn't say. Re-worded instead. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:13, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "so after five deploy and stow operations, the DDA torque was half its original value" This is confusing. Previously you said they didn't try to refold it, and now you're saying they tried five times. Something's amiss here.
    Nothing is amiss; they did not try to refold it. Deleted the (correct and sourced) sentence to remove any confusion. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:13, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "during the 4.5 years that Galileo spent in storage ... eroded and worn by vibration during the three cross-country journeys by truck" So, did the damage happen during storage or during truck rides?
    Clarified. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:13, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "since it transmitted a signal isotropically" this is confusing. Earlier you talk about swinging LGA-1 and LGA-2 to their hard stops, which implies some kind of aiming capability. But now you're talking about isotropic radiation, which to me says it's not aimed in any particular direction. This should be clarified.
    Looks like you have found an error in the source. Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:13, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't understand what "which transmitted over a one-sixth half-angle" means. One-sixth of a degree? One sixth of the beamwidth of the LGA? Also, in "its bandwidth was significantly less", I'd be specific and say "data bandwidth" or "digital bandwidth", or even better, "data rate" to avoid confusion with Bandwidth (signal processing). RoySmith (talk) 14:39, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, "The two LGAa were capable of ... but since it transmitted its signal" plural/singular inconsistency. RoySmith (talk) 14:40, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And, "but since it transmitted its signal over a cone with a 120-degree half-angle ... its bandwidth was significantly less than that of the HGA," implies that the beamwidth was the only cause of the reduced data rate. In reality other causes were reduced transmit power and (if I'm reading this right) the need to use a smaller aperture receiving antenna on S-band. RoySmith (talk) 14:45, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Typo. It should have been "a half-angle of one-sixth of a degree". Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:57, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You also should say some more about how they switched to a better compression algorithm. The JPL source says "By programming a software (11,1/2) convolutional code on a Galileo compute". I assume this meant they had the ability to upload new software to the spacecraft, which certainly deserves at least some explanation. RoySmith (talk) 14:50, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, they had the ability to send software updates. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:57, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Added a bit about the compression algorithms used. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:14, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Conservatism was not restricted to engineers ... putting a wooden ruler up to the screen." This sentence seems out of place for this section.
    Storage was expensive in the 1980s. The organization I worked for abandoned plans to put five years data online in favour of just 12 months because each month required a disk that cost $20,000 at the time, so that saved nearly a million dollars. A decade later, I bought the 48 disks for $200 each on my corporate Amex card. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:57, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Asteroid encounters[edit]
  • link asteroid belt
    Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:57, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • S-type asteroid 951 Gaspra SEAOFBLUE
    False titles are allowed in American English, but re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:57, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "passing ... to a distance" to -> at? Or maybe "within"?
    Changed to "at". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:57, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In all, 57 images of Gaspra were taken", drop "In all"
    Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:57, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Perhaps the most surprising feature was several relatively flat planar areas" Who is making the editorial judgement about how surprising this is? "According to Joe Scientist, the most surprising feature was..."
    Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:57, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Galileo suddenly abandoned the program and resumed its cruise configuration." Unclear what that means. What is "the program"? Does resuming it's cruise configuration mean it attempted to undo the course correction, or powered down the instruments it was going to use for observing, or something else maybe? Also, "suddenly" sounds like editorializing, so attribute: "Fred Flight Controller said the configuration change happened suddenly".
    It is not editorialising or opinion. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:57, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Measurements were taken from Galileo using SSI and NIMS" Drop "from Galileo". Of course they were taken from Galileo; there's no other possible place they could have been taken from.
    Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:57, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The requirement to use the LGA resulted in a transmission rate of 40 bits per second." You've said this already in a previous subsection, so no need to repeat. Or maybe something like: "At this time, the LGA was still only running at the 40 bps data rate available during the Gaspra flyby", which gives the reader some context about where they were in the ongoing efforts to increase the data rate.
    Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:57, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Voyage to Jupiter[edit]
  • "A tiny Doppler shift in the signal of the order of a few centimeters per second" This seems like a weird mixing of units. Doppler shift is a change in frequency. From that you can compute a velocity. So, "A velocity change of a few centimeters per second, as measured by Doppler shift".
    Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:57, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "it was fired for the first time" Perhaps I'm picking nits here, but was it ever test fired on Earth? If so, "fired for the first time in XX years", or "after completing its manufacturing tests", or whatever. It's certainly possible this was its first firing ever; some engines are never test fired before a mission, but some are.
    "The main engine could not be tested or fired prior to release of the atmospheric probe because the probe was mounted in front of the engine nozzle." Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:57, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "it would perform as a communications relay": maybe "perform" -> "act" ?
    Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:57, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • " The Galileo probe's project manager ... this role could be performed by LGA-1" This sentence is awkwardly placed. The previous sentence talks about firing the engine, and the next sentence talks about how that firing changed the velocity, but this sentence has nothing to do with the engine.
    The engine was fired to place the orbiter in a position to act as a relay for the probe. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:57, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "Isbel, Douglas; Wilson, James H. "Galileo Flying Through Intense Dust Storm" (Press release). NASA/Jet Propulsion Laboratory. 95-147. Retrieved November 16, 2020. URL can't be reached.
    Updated the link. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:57, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Jupiter[edit]
  • "when it was still 15 million kilometers (9.3 million miles) from Jupiter", drop "still"
    Dropped. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:32, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The bow shock was not stationary, but moved to and fro in responses to solar wind gusts" "not stationary" is redundant with "moved". Also, responses -> response
    Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:32, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "by which time it was 9 million kilometers" unclear what "it" refers to.
    Clarified. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:32, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • " Most robotic spacecraft respond to failures by entering safe mode ... not possible for Galileo.[136]" You've already discussed the need for autonomous operation in Preparation; no need to go over that again here.
    Trimmed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:32, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The descent probe awoke in response to an alarm" the word "alarm" sounds like there was some kind of failure that it was responding to. Maybe "timer" wou;d be a better word?
    "Alarm" is more technically correct. In computing, an alarm is for a clock time, whereas a timer is relative to the CPU cycles. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:32, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "encountered a previously undiscovered belt of radiation ... Before the atmospheric entry, the probe detected a previously unknown radiation belt". Is this two different belts? Needs to be clarified one way or the other.
    There is only one; the sources confused the article writer. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:32, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • You use "bars" as a unit. I'm pretty sure it's not supposed to be pluralized, i.e. "1.5 to 2 bar". I also don't see the point of {{convert}} here; that's useful for metric-english conversions, but bar -> kPa doesn't add anything of value.
    "bars" is correct. Surprised that it converted to kilopascals; removed the conversion as unecessary. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:32, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The probe slowed to subsonic speed" It's not clear what "subsonic" means in this context. I assume we're talking about below the speed of sound in the local Jovian atmosphere? If so, clarify that, and give a number for what Mach 1 is in those conditions.
    Checking the sources, I find that Mach 50 is 170,000 kph, which we already said. I find Mach confusing in this context myself, although it is sourced, so removed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:32, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which would then take days to arrive using the LGA" maybe "to be transmitted" instead of "to arrive"?
    Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:32, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a pressure of 22.7 standard atmospheres" earlier you used "bar"; why the switch to "standard atmosphere" here?
    The source. Added a conversion. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:32, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "completely destroying it" How does "completely destroying" differ from just plain "destroying"?
    Deleted completely. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:32, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "more winds than expected" -> "stronger winds than expected"
    Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:32, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The atmosphere was more turbulent and the winds a lot stronger than expected." largely duplicates the previous sentence.
    Yes. Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:32, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "it entered a 198-day parking orbit" link Parking orbit. Also, it's not clear what 198 days refers to. Is that how long it was in orbit, or how long a single orbit took?
    Orbital period - added explanation. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:32, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Most of its initial 7-month long orbit", we already know it's 198 days, no need to convert that to months.
    Deleted "7-month" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:32, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(note to self: next up, Io)

Io[edit]
  • "radius of 1,821.3 kilometers" -> mean radius
    Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:49, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link orbital resonance here, since it's the first use (and unlink under Europa)
    Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:49, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link "Tidally locked" to Tidal locking
    linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:49, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link "Earth's moon".
    Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:49, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "to melt rock and create volcanoes and lava flows." rephrase to avoid repeating "and"
    Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:49, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • " Only the fields and particles instruments were allowed to collect data, as these required the tape recorder to run at slow speeds, and it was believed that it could handle this, whereas the SSI camera required it to operate a high speed, with abrupt stops and starts." This is almost word-for-word from the source. See WP:CLOP.
    Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:49, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "When Galileo next approached Io on I25 at 20:40 Pacific Time" I get that the source you're citing uses Pacific Time, but you're using UTC everywhere else, so convert to UTC.
    Converted to UTC. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:49, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Galileo flew past Io on arrival day" explain what "arrival day" is, probably under the "Arrival" section above. There's a bunch of possible days that could be called that (arrival at the bow shock, closest point of approach to Jupiter, entering orbit, etc)
    Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:49, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "As a consequence, three quarters of the observations were taken over a period of just three hours." I don't understand why this is a consequence of there being an Earth-Sun conjunction.
    Galileo cannot be received when the line of sight is blocked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:49, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, but that only affects transmitting data to Earth. Observations can still happen and record the data on tape, so I still don't see how one is a consequence of the other. RoySmith (talk) 17:47, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link to Solar conjunction
    Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:49, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The I24, I25 and I27 encounters had been on equatorial orbits, which made it difficult to determine whether Io had its own magnetic field, or one induced by Jupiter" why does being in equitorial orbit make this difficult? And, are we talking about Jupiter's equator or Io's equator?
    Source says: "All of our previous magnetic measurements at Io have been on equatorial passes, and from those we can't tell whether the field at Io is induced by Jupiter's strong magnetic field or produced by Io itself". No idea why. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:49, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "but data transmission was hindered by a Solar occultation" link to Occultation
    Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:49, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • A likely source was brine below the ice crust" link brine
    Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:49, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(up to Ganymede)

Ganymede[edit]
  • "with a diameter of 5,270 kilometres" you describe the other moons by their radii. Pick one and use it consistently. Also, be consistent about kilometres vs kilometers.
    Changed to use the radius. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:13, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "strength of about 750 nanoteslas (0.0075 G)" Tesla and Gauss are both SI units; no need to show both. But it would be useful to compare this to the strength of Earth's magnetic field, since most readers will have no clue how big a Tesla is.
    Added a footnote. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:13, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link "inclination" to Orbital inclination.
    Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:13, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This discovery led naturally to questions about its origin." "This" and "its" both refer back to the previous paragraph. Maybe just combine the two paragraphs.
    Merged. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:13, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the scientist in charge of the magnetometer experiment" needs a comma after.
    Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:13, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure if "Arbela Sulcus" needs to be capitalized.
    NASA consistently capitalises it. eg. [19] Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:13, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Callisto[edit]
  • "allowed them to operate as a gigantic array" link to Aperture synthesis
    Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:13, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "enabling a higher bit rate despite the spacecraft's long distance from Earth", Drop the "despite ...." clause; the larger aperture allowed for a higher bit rate regardless of all other factors. The biggest problem here was that the HGA was inoperative; the transmission distance was exactly what was expected during mission planning.
    Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:13, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "40 percent ice." clarify what you mean by "ice" Do you mean specifically frozen H2O, or the more general sense i.e. Volatile (astrogeology)#Planetary science.
    Changed to "water ice" but another editor may come along and decide that is a tautology. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:13, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Amalthea[edit]
  • "long axis towards Jupiter at all times ... pointed in relative to Galileo at all times." rephrase to avoid the repetition of "at all times'.
    Re-phrased. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:13, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "weighed 2.08×1018 kilograms" -> "had a mass of ..."
    Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:13, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "debris ejected from Amalthea and form a tenuous, and perhaps temporary, ring.[220]" A ring around Jupiter or around Amalthea?
    Jupiter. Clarified. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:13, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Star scanner[edit]
  • "predominantly >2 MeV (0.32 pJ) electrons" Is there any reason to convert to J? I would think MeV would be the universally used unit of measurement here.
    They are, but... MOS:CONVERSIONS: "For units of measure that are ... not part of the SI or US customary systems... supply a parenthetical conversion into at least SI units." Electron volts are Non-SI units mentioned in the SI, hence a conversion is supplied. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:13, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "second magnitude star Delta Velorum" link to Magnitude (astronomy)
    Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:13, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Radiation-related anomalies[edit]
  • The Tomayko, James E. (March 1988) URL 404's
    Restored from archive. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:13, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
End of mission and deorbit[edit]
  • "Galileo impacted Jupiter in darkness just south of the equator" What does it mean to "impact" something made of gas?
    The sources consistent use the term, and we have a whole article on impact events on Jupiter that does not define it. But at some point it gets so dense that it is like hitting a solid surface.
  • "Galileo had not been sterilized prior to launch and could have carried bacteria from Earth." link sterilized and bacteria.
    Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:13, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, finally got to the end. So much for "just some random comments" :-) I'm going to give this a rest for a bit then come back and see how things look overall.

Second pass[edit]
  • The orbiter would be in orbit around Jupiter when the probe arrived, allowing it to perform its role as a relay." It's unclear what "it" refers to: the orbiter or the probe.
    I thought it was clear enough, but changed it to "the orbiter". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:25, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "required a second Space Shuttle mission and a second carrier to be built for the probe" What is the carrier? I'm guessing it's some mounting adapter that lets you install the probe into the shuttle cargo bay, but clarify.
    No, it is a spacecraft. The probe wasn't intended to fly to Jupiter by itself. Clarified this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:25, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "NASA hoped to be able to recoup some of this through competitive bidding." You put that in just for comic relief, right?
    The source says ""Delaying to 1984 is more cost efficient because we can go into more competitive bidding for the carrier." Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:25, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "President pro tempore of the Senate" I don't think I've ever seen this spelled out in full, it's always just "president pro tem", so that's probably what we should use here.
    Um, sure. Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:25, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
General comments[edit]

John Bullock Clark[edit]

Nominator(s): Hog Farm Talk 21:34, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Another biography of a Missouri State Guard officer. While the last one, William Y. Slack, was largely a local figure except for his military service, Clark was a prominent Missourian for much of his life. He was an officer in the state militia during the Missouri Mormon War, where he was the recipient of the infamous "Extermination Order". In 1840, he ran for state governor, where he was accused of being complicit in a plot to commit election fraud and almost fought a duel with Claiborne Fox Jackson. Elected to the US House of Representatives in the late 1850s, Clark was expelled from Congress in 1861 for, as a sitting US congressman, leading a body of armed troops into battle against the United States Army in the Battle of Carthage, Missouri. After a few months as a general in the State Guard, Clark became a Confederate senator although he was not nominated for a second term due to behavioral issues (alcoholism, disorderly conduct, womanizing, and mendacity). After the war he fled to Mexico and was arrested upon his return. Hog Farm Talk 21:34, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Ceoil[edit]

Reading through and enjoying learning about a perspective I need to read up on. Hope you don't mind some gripes:

  • accusations of his involvement in an alleged plot - seems like a there is triple doubt being layed on the underlaying claim ('accusations, "involvement", alleged)
    • I'm not sure how to rephrase this best, although I agree that this is an issue. I'm just not sure how to phrase this without making it sound like any of this stuff was ever proven
      • "Alleged plot" implies that it was made up to frame certain people; maybe take it from that angle..ie motivation. Ceoil (talk) 22:49, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • Is "Clark was accused of conspiring to commit electoral fraud in the election and as a result almot fought a duel with Claiborne Fox Jackson, later a Governor of Missouri." an improvement? Hog Farm Talk 01:30, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tense issues was appointed by Jackson to be a brigadier general - "as"
    • Done
  • The prose are excellent, but sometimes old fashioned (eg "upon his return to Texas") - after his return
    • Is this a problem? I personally kind of prefer the older-fashioned prose but I'm open to changing this if you think it's problematic
      • Not a problem if its your preference. Ceoil (talk) 22:51, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clark was educated in local schools.[2] so what
    • Not sure how best to address this without venturing into SYNTH issues as none of the sources on Clark go into why this is specific - essentially the public school system in the US, especially in rural areas. Most people on the future politics track would have attended a private academy. I can quote Willard Duncan Vandiver as stating that Clark "would have completely spoiled by higher education" if you think that helps make the point
      • Just say something like "in contrast to most other contemporary politicians who attended private academies, Clark was educated in local schools." Ceoil (talk) 22:49, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • What does he was "unshackled by the constraints of a formal education" mean
    • I'm not sure, which is why I didn't try to paraphrase this. Would it be better to drop this and give the Vandiver quote suggested above?
      • I think so Ceoil (talk) 22:49, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've done this - I'll need to try to find a source for the private academies/local schools item above which may be difficult. That'll have to wait until after my work trip in the early part of this coming week though. Hog Farm Talk 01:30, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The quote beginning "The Mormons must be treated as enemies" needs a direct cite
    • This is done
  • Looking forward to reading through rest of the article; his demise seems especially interesting. Ceoil (talk) 02:20, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Ceoil: - I've replied above - most of these are queries about how best to proceed for now. Hog Farm Talk 01:14, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hi Hog, the above were quibbles; have replied with suggestions as to how to resolve the o/s, in lieu I'm a Support. Ceoil (talk) 04:04, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kusma (support)[edit]

Non-expert review.

  • Lead: just a note to self to look again at the end.
  • Early life and militia service: do we know anything about his parents? I assume they were not poor, but helped him start his career and wealth?
    • Allardice does not say anything on this matter while Warner & Yearns doesn't even name his parents. Vandiver says that he studied law with an older brother and that his father had a "large farm" as well as making the bizarre claim that Clark was held captive by Native Americans as a treaty hostage one winter (Burchett expresses some suprise that "his biographer" apparently believed the claim). I'm hesistant to use Vandiver for anything other than clearing up details about things referred to in other sources but not elaborated on well as the Vandiver source states outright that it is highly dependent on stories told by a septuagenarian Clark to a teenage Vandiver 55 years before the article was written Hog Farm Talk 03:00, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • I see. I would expect (perhaps naively) some land ownership records from this time to exist, so it should be possible to find out a little more, but that might be too far on the wrong side of the boundary of original research. —Kusma (talk) 10:21, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't think I'd be able to get into anything further on this without veering into original research; it would take a trip into archival material (if it still exists, which I don't know) Hog Farm Talk 01:23, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • he married Eleanor Turner: do we know anything about her family? This might be a good spot to mention they had a son in 1831. Any other children?
    • The sources don't mention this, in fact Allardice doesn't provide her name and Warner & Yearns don't mention her at all. I've added a mention of John Jr.'s birth in 1831 to the proper place. None of the sources I've seen mention other children. This is perhaps not as bad as it could be; when I was working on Simpson Harris Morgan I found that none of the secondary sources actually provided the given name of his first wife. Hog Farm Talk 03:00, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "claims of atrocities" do we know which side was accused of these atrocities and what they were?
    • This is a (still controversial) mess; I've tried to explain this a bit better in a footnote as this is impossible to describe in a manner that would flow well in the main text. Hog Farm Talk 03:00, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The order instructed Clark to move with a force to troops to Richmond, Missouri" look ungrammatical to me
  • Political career: you have "Democrat candidates" and then "Democratic candidate".
    • Standardized to "Democratic"; that was probably a subconcious thing from spending most of my life hearing family member frequently use Democrat Party (epithet). Hog Farm Talk 03:00, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "thinly-pseudonymous" is that a word?
    • Not sure; I've split this into two words. Hog Farm Talk 03:00, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • " Jackson's letter claimed to be based on a document sent between Clark and James H. Birch, with the Democrats claiming that it had been found in a saddlebag and Clark claiming that it had been stolen from his hat after he left it unattended." so the letter was real? what was the content? Was there a false ballot scheme?
    • Well ... here's what I've got. Phillips attributes the original news to a partisan newspaper known as the Boon's Lick Democrat reprinting content from the Ozark Standard and couches the description of this as claims, not facts. You then had Jackson's letter to the editor two weeks later under the name "Anti-Fraud". The most relevant passages in Phillips are Two weeks later, on September 7, a letter to the editor appeared in the Fayette paper signed "Anti-Fraud", which claimed to have intercepted a letter written in July at the height of the campaign from Clark to James H. Birch [... extended content discussing Birch's general sleaziness, the contents of the letter, and Jackson's authorship of it ...] A Clique member, Owen Rawlins, claimed to have found the letter in a set of borrowed saddlebags he had used in the recent election (Clark charged that Rawlins stole the letter from Clark's hatband as it sat on the podium while he delivered a speech), and upon his return to Fayette showed it to Jackson at his office at the bank. Phillips never states outright or not if this was all real, so I think it's best to provide Clark's lame excuse and let the reader judge as they think. I do find it telling that Clark's response questioned how the letter had gotten into Rawlins' possession, not the existence of the letter. Hog Farm Talk 03:00, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • So Phillips does give some content of a letter that is undisputedly from Clark, just (according to Clark) obtained by illicit means? Perhaps mentioning some of the content could help make this more clear. —Kusma (talk) 10:21, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • Not quite - the only letter we have is the one from Jackson, which claimed to reproduce the contents of the alledged Clark letter, but of course there is no proof for that. I've tried to clarify this. Among other things, it apparently included "rascal" spelled as "raskal". Does what I've changed this to in the article help with this any? Kusma Hog Farm Talk 01:23, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          OK, that helps. It is still weird, but I think I am no longer confused about the facts. —Kusma (talk) 06:58, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "owned 160 slaves" do we know what they did? Did Clark have any non-law business or were these slaves who helped with lawyering?
    • Neither of the two primary sources for this article (Allardice and Warner & Yearns) have anything to say on this matter, nor does Vandiver or any other source I've been able to turn up on this. About the only thing I can think of for that area that would make sense was if Clark was dabbling in the large-scale hemp farming that occurred along the Missouri River around that time, but I know of nothing to confirm or deny that. Hog Farm Talk 03:00, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Confederate service: not something I can really ask for, but a map with all these locations would help a lot in understanding.
    • I've actually thrown together one using the location map template
  • "Clark later tried to order the cavalry portion of his division to support his infantry, but the cavalry became greatly disorganized and the few who entered the fighting at this time instead fought with McBride's men." do we know why this disorganisation happened?
    • I've added a bit on this and have also tweaked this a bit for accuracy per another reading of the source
  • "no longer wanted"... "was arrested". looks a bit contradictory.
    • I've adjusted "having learned" to "having heard", as what Clark heard was apparently wrong
  • I don't quite understand when Clark was allowed to practice law. Did he re-start as soon as possible or wait until he had not just the right to practice law, but also the right to hold political office?
    • From the relevant source - Clark returned to his home in Fayette, Missouri, where, after his disabilities had been removed, he practiced law until his death on October 29, 1865. The timing on this isn't exactly clear. Vandiver mentions a court case in 1869 where Clark supposedly opposed a former Union militia officer in court (Odon Guitar) but again the normal caveats about Vandiver apply. Hog Farm Talk 03:00, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we know anything about his whereabouts between 1866 and 1870?
    • Not that I've seen. The returning in 1870 comes from Eicher and Allardice, neither of which provide any detail on this Hog Farm Talk 03:00, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "Confederate service" section is quite long; would it be possible to subdivide it with subheadings or similar?
    • I've split this into two subsections
  • The "Confederate service" section does contain some content that could also be part of "political career"; the division seems more based on time than on what kind of jobs he did
    • I've renamed the "political career" section

From my very non-expert POV (I know little about the civil war, and have spent less than five days in Missouri) I think the article gives enough context to understand what is going on, but there are a few completeness/clarity issues, especially around his family and business. —Kusma (talk) 15:06, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kusma: - Thanks for the review comments! I've tried to address things above, but these gaps are for the most part present in the underlying sourcing itself so I'm afraid there's only limited answers I can provide for some of this stuff. Hog Farm Talk 03:00, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It always amazes me how little is known about fairly recent American history. I still need to review the lead, will do that soon. —Kusma (talk) 10:21, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't actually have anything to complain about the lead section at this point. —Kusma (talk) 13:02, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just one more thing (I hope): why is the succession box titled "Party political offices"? These seem to be political offices that are not tied to a specific party; I would prefer "Political offices". —Kusma (talk) 07:04, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This has been done by switching from {{s-ppo}} to {{s-off}} Hog Farm Talk 16:13, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I think that's all from me, support. —Kusma (talk) 18:51, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ajpolino[edit]

Thanks for the interesting read. Minor comments below. Will have another readthrough with fresh eyes in the next day or two, then I expect to support. Missouri and I have recently parted ways, but I'm still glad to see another (soon-to-be-)FA in the Hog Farm topical sphere. Ajpolino (talk) 21:25, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Clark's acquaintance... spoiled by higher education'" - I'm not sure I glean any meaning from this, is there something in particular you're trying to get across?
    • @Ajpolino: - This is one thing I'm having trouble with. Several of the sources all make oblique references to the quality of education Clark received. There's this; Burchett has "Unshackled by the constraints of a formal education". Warner and Yearns refer to "such schools as the county afforded". I'm under the impression that the statement of "Before the Civil War, Missouri followed the southern pattern that downplayed public schooling, as well-to-do families patronized local private academies." from History of education in Missouri is probably accurate, but I can't find a straightforward reference for it (McCandless dances around the claim but doesn't make a broad one) and I'm not familiar with the Kentucky stuff at all. I'm pretty much stuck on this issue. Hog Farm Talk 21:05, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Unshackled by the constraints of a formal education" makes me smile. My suggestion would be to remove "Clark's acquaintance... higher education' " since I don't think it makes sense without more context. But it's not much of a bother either way; your call, of course. Ajpolino (talk) 21:02, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've just removed that quote from Vandiver entirely then. Hog Farm Talk 00:23, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The historian Bruce S. Allardice refers to him as 'a born politician'." - is it possible to give the slightest context here? Is Allardice referring to his innate skills that match the occupation? His family ties that would have given him access to halls of power? Something else?
    • Unfortunately, there isn't really any context here from Allardice - we have from the source Clark studied law in Fayette, Howard County, and became a successful lawyer. A born politician, Clark served as county treasurer (1823 to 1825), clerk of the county courts (1824 to 1834), and state representative (1850 to 1851).
  • Assuming Allardice is referring to Clark's skills/looks/demeanor, it might flow better to move "He was taller... a storyteller." up a sentence to directly follow Allardice's appraisal.
    • I've moved this, and the colorful legal anecdote, up to after this.
  • Several places you use "began [verb]ing" which seems to unnecessarily focus the reader on the beginning of a task, even though the task gets completed without interruption. Would "[verb]ed" suffice? E.g. "Clark began studying law" → "Clark studied law", "Clark began to mobilize..." → "Clark mobilized".
    • I've rephrased most of these instances away
  • "He further warned"
    • Done
  • "speech as being humiliating"
    • Done
  • "the harsher Mormon Extermination Order" - "harsher" feel weak and unnecessary when we're immediately treated to "must be treated as enemies, and must be exterminated or driven from the State"
    • Removed
  • "the statement that" - this may be a personal preference, but I often feel "that" is a removable filler word. CTRL+F "that" and you'll see a handful that can be removed without changing the meaning of the sentences.
    • I've removed about eight or so uses of "that"
  • "spread claims that the Whigs had spread" spread... spread. Maybe "distributed" for the second?
    • Done
  • "in parts of the state... Democratic candidate" had to read this twice to understand. Would it be accurate if shortened to "in parts of the state that substituted Clark for Thomas Reynolds, the Democratic candidate."?
    • Done
  • "...and James H. Birch, with the Democrats claiming" at first read I was confused and thought "with the Democrats claiming..." was describing the contents of the aforementioned letter (rather that its provenance). Can we split this into two sentences? "Birch. The Democrats claimed..."
    • Done
  • "Jackson's letter claimed to transcribe the contents of a letter... sent" Can we shorten to something like "Jackson transcribed a letter... purportedly sent..." I think "letter... letter..." and "claimed to transcribe" made my brain trip over itself for some reason.
    • Done
  • "a possibility for the Whig" "considered for the Whig" would read more naturally to me.
    • Done
  • "He continued to practice law..." → "He practiced law..."
    • Done

Happy to support. Thanks again for the read. Looking forward to the next one. Ajpolino (talk) 21:02, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

  • The article is largely sourced to 15 books: 11 from major university publishers, one from a major textbook publisher. The other three broken down below. Other sources are used sparingly to add dates or contemporaneous color. All seem uncontroversial.
  • Burchett is not a Civil War historian (I think he's a visual arts professor?), but his book was reviewed positively by one. He's cited for just three things; two add color to Clark's biography, one is a date. Seems fine to me.
    • Consider whether "The historian Kenneth E. Burchett..." is deserved. He wrote a book of history, but his academic discipline isn't history per se. Where is the line for the title "historian"? I've no idea, and I don't feel strongly either way. But flagging it for you to consider.
      • I've gone with "The author Kenneth E. Burchett ..." - is that better? Hog Farm Talk 00:23, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hinze and Farnham is written by a high school teacher and published by a company for whom our Wikipedia page gives me pause (haven't looked into it any further than that). But it's only used here thrice to cite minor details, so I'm not worried. A historian calls it "the most comprehensive piece of research written on the Battle of Carthage to date." He has some criticisms, but they're not relevant to the bits cited here.
    • Yes, unfortunately there is a paucity of modern scholarship on Carthage. I found that work conflating William Y. Slack and Mosby Monroe Parsons in one paragraph while working on a different article so I've been using it with caution since then. I keep having a nagging feeling that something isn't quite right with one of the things sourced to this work, so I've removed it for now. Hog Farm Talk 00:23, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Brooksher - According to University of Nebraska Press, the publisher didn't take on the name "Potomac Books" until 2004. The archive.org version is under the imprint Brassey's Washington and lists a location of Dulles, Virginia. Do you have a paper copy that was reprinted later under Potomac? Truly not sure this matters at all, just curious.
    • I have a "First paperback edition" that gives the publishing date as 2000. The publisher given is "Potomac Books An imprint of the University of Nebraska Press"
    • Either way, Potomac is a university publisher; Brassey's is a specialist publisher in the military sphere (I gather). So that all seems fine.

Sourcing seems solid. Happy to pass source review. Left a point above for you to consider. Feel free to educate me on anything I've got wrong. This field is new to me. Best, Ajpolino (talk) 21:54, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ajpolino: - Many thanks for the revieew! My replies are above - I have removed one brief bit sourced to Hinze & Farnham due to nagging doubts and a bad experience with that source at William Y. Slack. Hog Farm Talk 00:23, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your replies all look good to me. I gather our University of Nebraska Press article is not quite right then. Perhaps once you get every MO civil war figure and event to FA status, you can start on the academic publisher articles ;) Ajpolino (talk) 00:40, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@WP:FAC coordinators: - would I have permission for a second concurrent nomination (Arkansas, not Missouri this time) - for the article in question several major sources need to be back to the library by mid-May so I'd like to get as much of the FAC process done for that one by then to reduce the number of trips to the library. Hog Farm Talk 00:48, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead. FrB.TG (talk) 06:43, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mission: Impossible – Fallout[edit]

Nominator(s): Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:43, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Mission: Impossible – Fallout. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:43, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from LegalSmeagolian

"relatively brief" - is not the case, article is potentially overly detailed. Additionally just because you liked a film does not mean the article meets the FA criteria. LegalSmeagolian (talk) LegalSmeagolian (talk) 20:14, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So what was the purpose of this comment when you clicked publish? Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:36, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To highlight the size of the article and the fact that it was not relatively brief, which you must agree with to some extent as you edited your nomination to be more accurate towards the length of the article. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 21:37, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No I don't agree, I removed it because it was meant to be a joke and it's attracted unnecessary comments like this. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:40, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by TompaDompa[edit]

Without committing to a full review, I have to agree that roughly 8,000 words is not relatively brief. It's at the upper end of what might be appropriate for most well-covered topics. I think it's a pretty good length to aim for when writing about topics where the literature is extensive—Assassination of John F. Kennedy is about that length, for instance. Rarely, some topics may warrant lengthier treatments. WP:SIZERULE says roughly the same thing, as it turns out. TompaDompa (talk) 21:18, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP: Size is a guide. When discussing popular culture topics the size goes up and with every. single. nomination. 1000 of those words are thematic analysis which I have to include, don't choose to, and am forced to make reasonable coverage thereof. Hence the actual content is 7000 words but even if it was 8000 there would be no justification for splitting the article because it's all within scope and this isn't Geocities. As always, I appreciate your boundless support Tompa, it isn't killing my passion for this process at all. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:27, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said, the current length of this article is about what I would aim for if I were writing an article on a topic about which there is (fairly) extensive literature. I don't know if this is such a topic, not having taken a close look at either the article or the sources (at least not yet), but it very well might be. Generally speaking, 1,000 words of thematic analysis by no means seems excessive to me; it obviously depends on the work in question and the coverage in the sources, but in many cases an even greater (absolute or relative) length would be appropriate. TompaDompa (talk) 22:15, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, makes sense Darkwarriorblake (talk) 15:01, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Draken Bowser[edit]

I don't immediately balk at the length, but I'll do what I can to help you cut it down to standard. I'll start off by providing my assessment on the production section, hopefully some of the suggestions can also help in polishing other sections.

  • I'm concerned with the citation stacking. Three I'd consider borderline, but often fine. Four to five stacked citations could with few exceptions be considered overkill. If several reliable sources agree there is no need to cite them all. If citing up to five sources are necessary to piece together the preceding sentence, the text is probably trying too hard.
  • The text talks a lot about the sensibilities and motivations of the involved. Maybe this is just a personal sentiment, but I occasionally find it a bit jarring to state this in prose (until things have moved further into the past), I much prefer the use of quotes. My skittishness is not universal, sentences like this is perfectly fine: "Cruise was particularly interested in resolving the long-running narrative between Ethan and his wife Julia.."
    • For example: "McQuarrie's main interest was in better exploring Ethan's emotions and motivations. He felt that the previous films made the character effectively a cipher on which the audience could project thoughts and motivations without depicting the character's true thoughts and feelings. For Fallout, McQuarrie wanted Ethan to be vulnerable and more relatable, exploring his fears such as the threat of nuclear annihilation, so audiences could establish a more emotional connection to the character." This is an occasion where I'd appreciate anchoring his motivations to a quote at some point during the paragraph.
  • "..ideas they wanted to explore through the narrative." or story.
  • "Fans often asked Cruise about Julia's fate and he wanted to provide them with closure, for Ethan and Julia which could also serve as Fallout's primary emotional narrative arc.
  • "Abandoning this plot helped other scenes come together, such as the England-based sequences." "McQuarrie described his four main women characters — Alanna, Erica, Ilsa, and Julia — as independent and not requiring Ethan's protection." I suggest cutting these as superfluous.
  • "A dispute over Cruise's pay stalled production in August 2016." "Although the dispute was resolved by September, it further delayed filming from January 2017 by several months." This can be rewritten into one sentence.
  • "The helicopter weighed 14 t (14,000 kg) while the helipad was only rated to hold four so the pilot hovered the craft imperceptibly above the pad's surface." In my estimation this is an interesting tidbit, but still trivia.
  • Filming: there are no technical details on the cameras used, although I'll have give you props for including details on lighting, which is easily overlooked. :)

I'll hold here for now. Cheers, and thanks for taking Dredd to FA-status. That's a boss movie. Draken Bowser (talk) 21:49, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just letting you know I've seen this, I've had the good fortune of spending the extended weekend in perpetual pain from migraines, I will get to this as soon as it passes. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:01, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, ain't no hurry. Get well soon though! Draken Bowser (talk) 22:58, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Funny thing, I lost my original print out and made another one. I was surprised to learn that the movie was released in 2015 (I swear I saw it a few years ago with my mates, time sure flies..), halfway through the plot-section I realized my mistake. The good news is I was able to do some light c/e-work on Rogue Nation.

Now for Fallout.

Lead

  • "McQuarrie's return marked the first time that anyone would direct more than one film in the series." Feels a bit clunky, is it ok to call him a "returning director" in English?
  • "..by the interesting filming locations the production identified and allowing.."

Plot

  • "..Ilsa explains that MI6 assigned her to kill Lane to prevent foreign governments interrogating him and prove her loyalty after working undercover as a Syndicate agent." Could use a comma or two.
  • "Walker is also unable to kill Ethan.."

Stunts and effects

  • "For the pursuit sequence through Paris after Ethan recovers Lane, Ethan's and Walker's escape truck becomes lodged in an alley, and they kick out the windscreen to escape; the scene had to be refilmed as Cavill's initial kick was powerful enough to knock it well away from the vehicle." To me this is trivia, re-shoots happen all the time. Ultimately it didn't affect the end result or impact the production.

Post production

  • "Hamilton suggested adding sound effects, but McQuarrie wanted the score to further convince the audience that the events were happening." Perhaps I'm just being dumb here, but how would sound effects run contrary to realism?

Box office

  • The final list in the third paragraph is not in order.

Release

  • "..the proceedings, and making Fallout.."

Thematic analysis

  • For me these kinds of sections offer the writer a lot of poetic license, since there is no obvious standard for balancing prose with quotes. Only stacking quotes is probably wrong. Only writing prose makes the section read like it's entirely in wikivoice, offering a few quotes would remind the reader that we are restating the views of prominent experts. How many quotes would be required for this? No idea, poetic licence.
  • Fake news: why the first two thematic sections are included is obvious. This one confounds me a bit. Is it really unusual for news anchors to perform in movies like this in the US? Actual news anchors have been used to add realism to Swedish movies for at least a couple of decades. I understand reliable sources said all those things, but I'm still uncertain whether the coverage is extensive enough to make the information due when compared to coverage of themes in Fallout as a whole.

Legacy

  • "..Fallout is often ranked as the best or second-best film." If Fallout is beaten by the same movie in most of the polls it should be spelled out, otherwise leave it as it is.

References

  • The harvnb/sfn-anchors of Jinde, Lamb and Purse are broken.

Other than my concerns over refbombing, we're good. Draken Bowser (talk) 15:28, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Draken Bowser, I think I've done all of these now. I haven't removed the helicopter information because unlike kicking out the window I think it's a very interesting technical aspect of the film while yeah kicking out the window is not very important. With the ranking, it's almost always number 1 and if it's not it's always different films so there isn't a consistent challenger. Regarding themes, on all 3 of my previous nominations I have been criticized for using direct quotes so while I get where you're coming from if I start introducing quotes someone else will probably just tell me to take them out. Rest assured I have done my best to be faithful to the texts since I hate having to re-read sources, especially thematic ones that can be 30 pages of waffle with one page of interesting information. As for the fake news, I don't think it's always super common but there were several sources that focused on this aspect and I think in terms of contemporary media it came along at the same time fake news became a more prominent theme in real life which may be why it got more attention in analytical sources, I especially think it's a growing trend still. If several sources cover it it's more difficult for me to ignore that when tasked with comprehensiveness whereas if it's one fringe theory it's easier to ignore. Sorry for taking so long btw, still not feeling great.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:16, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
EDIT: Oh and I added some camera technical details per your mention. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:17, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good work, especially finding a decent source for "cameras".
Ok, I can buy into the "having to fake realness" aspect of the helicopter scene.
Yeah, I suppose "fake news" is zeitgeist, but the section still feels a bit forced to me, maybe that is clouding my judgement. The Vanity fair and Esquire articles make the case for such a section. I don't think that using Lamb here makes sense though. It's about the mustache Caville had to grow for Fallout, sure. But the fake news aspect is the retouching done for Justice League, which also seems to be used more as an example of what the technology can do (no direct connection made between Fallout and fake news).
I'm still clueless on the "post-production" question. Could you ELI5? Draken Bowser (talk) 21:02, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh missed that one, let me try to rewrite it. The gist is that McQuarrie wanted to use the score to evoke whatever feelings necessary in the audience that would convince them the scene was real rather than hypothetical, and he thought sound effects would lessen the effect since previous MI films have similar hypothetical scenes but it's obvious they are hypothetical. I'll re-read the source and try to give a better explanation. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:07, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've just removed it, the actual explanation is too convoluted to properly parse and I don't think it's super important in retrospect as we've got hte main point of it. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:20, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks for the explanation. I think it's time to pass the torch. I still want Lamb removed, but I'm willing to agree to disagree on the section as a whole. Either way, the article seems to meet the criteria as far as I can tell. Support A final note on length: for many (most?) movies we don't have the kind of overarching sources discussed on the FAC-talk page, which might help us decide on appropriate length. This should result in a lot more leeway than usual. After the few tiny trims we agreed on, I'm not sure that theres even anything I'd want removed, so the size does not bother me. Thanks for making the effort to address or contend with my concerns. Draken Bowser (talk) 05:33, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Removed Lamb, thanks for the support Draken. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:33, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Igordebraga[edit]

Support I understand pushing straight for FA even though it would possibly pass the GA with ease (though both are taking quite long to review nowadays), and it's weird to see so many stacked refs (it's understandable regarding opinionated parts such as the ones on reception, but on Production, seems more fit for more complex sentences like the one regarding Cruise's rehabiliation, the ones in Development could backed up by one or two sources alone). Otherwise, can't deny this type of work deserves a promotion. igordebraga ≠ 19:15, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Igordebraga! Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:45, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Great cuckoo-dove[edit]

Nominator(s): AryKun (talk) 12:42, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's been a while since I've nominated at FAC and I am still procrastinating on toco toucan, so we have this pigeon instead. It's somewhat better studied than most island species, but still pretty poorly-known; as always, the article covers pretty much everything ever written about the bird and is probably the most comprehensive resource on or off the web. AryKun (talk) 12:42, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FM[edit]

  • More birds are always welcome! I ran the "expand citations" tool, which only seems to have removed two source links, which I guess were already accessible from their DOIs, just so you know. FunkMonk (talk) 16:12, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I added some context for the illustration, the caption was pretty bare bones, and added a higher res version.
  • No cladograms?
    • No cladograms of Reinwardtoena that I could find, just one or two that include one species from the genus as an outgroup that aren't particularly useful for the species page.
And its position is not just because it's basal to the rest, which would be interesting to show? FunkMonk (talk) 14:40, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't really get what's supposed to mean. AryKun (talk) 14:32, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do these sources specifically that this species is used as an outgroup, or is it just basal to the other groups shown in the cladograms? FunkMonk (talk) 15:38, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • You give subspecies for some for the image captions, but can't it be established for the rest? I see the remaining photos have coordinates showing where they were taken, could indicate subspecies?
    • Added ssp for photo of juvenile, didn't add it for the last photo because I don't think it's relevant.
Is it the same subspecies as that in the taxobox? I think it's relevant for comparative purposes, especially since you list it for all the other photos. FunkMonk (talk) 14:40, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, same ssp, added in the caption now. AryKun (talk) 14:33, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • You could give location for photo captions, if that is relevant?
    • I only added the island for the juvenile photo because otherwise the caption sounds a bit brusque, I don't think it's necessary everywhere.
  • Perhaps rename "Status" to "Conservation status", for clarity?
    • Tweaked
  • Redirect all synonyms here.
    • Done.
  • Thanks, see responses above. AryKun (talk) 07:02, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "on the basis of a specimen from Ambon Island" Specify this is in Indonesia.
    • Done.
  • I think it would make sense to mention the etymology of the species name already when the naming is first mentioned in the first paragraogh, the reader has noidea you'll return to this latr,and I was puzzledatleast,as that's where you'd look for this information. Then when you mention the genus, you can just say something like "the generic name also referenced Reinwardt" or similar.
    • Most of our bird articles tend to follow the rough order of nomenclatural history→etymology→taxonomic relationships, which is what's followed here.
Hmmm, I'm not sure those are necessarily comparable, because most other recent bird FAs have not been about type species of a genus or monotypic genera. But not a big deal. FunkMonk (talk) 14:54, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link subspecies.
Seems to have been done. FunkMonk (talk) 14:54, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "t is very similar in appearance to the pied cuckoo-dove" Perhaps give its binomial in parenthesis here, considering the possible relation?
    • Done.
  • "The upper back, back" Reads a bit oddly, perhaps second back should be "rest of the back"?
    • Changed "upper back" to mantle.
  • "Its population has not been estimated" Could add "size" after population for clarity.
    • Done.
  • "per square kilometre" Could give a conversion.
    • Discussed in the GA review; this isn't the result of some survey or anything, just a rough estimate. Converting to sq mi gives a decimal that gives a sense of false precision, so I'm against it.
Hmmm, but this is not about giving a precise estimate, but to give readers unfamiliar with the metric system at least some idea of the area. The fact that it has now been brought up twice indicates that it's an issue. FunkMonk (talk) 14:54, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really have a solution; any conversion makes the number seem excessively precise. I also think that familiarity doesn't matter because most people don't have a good handle on how big large areas are anyway, I couldn't tell you big a square kilometer or a square mile is if you asked me to mark it out.
A lot more people would know if there was some indication, though. But let's see if more reviewers bring it up; if they do, it's probably time to do something about it. FunkMonk (talk) 15:38, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "preferring plants in the Araliaceae" Add "family" for clarity.
    • Done.
  • "Its typical courtship display consists of a deeply undulating flight, with the bird flying sharply upwards, spreading its wings and tail or clapping its wings together at the top of the flight, and descending sharply. Another reported display involves the bird flying up obliquely from a perch and then returning after flying in a wide circle, similar to the displays performed by Macropygia cuckoo-doves." Is this done by one sex, or do both do it? Quite unclear now.
    • None of the sources say anything about the sex of the bird doing the display.
  • The Distribution and habitat section could specify what countries the listed areas are located in.
    • Added for the Moluccas, left out for New Guinea because I think it's well-known enough to not need it.
  • "Fledglings begin picking food by" What is meant by "picking food"? Could just say "foraging" for clarity, now it reads as if they "choose" food.
    • Source says "pick on food items". Changed to foraging.
  • "sometimes joining flocks of other frugivores" Could specify these are birds, as you do in the intro.
    • Done.
  • "It is known to defend fruiting shrubs it is feeding on, an uncommon foraging behaviour among frugivorous birds" I don't think the last" frugivorous" is needed, as this is implied by the start of the sentence.
    • Removed.
  • Support - looks good, I added some responses above, but that shouldn't hold it back. FunkMonk (talk) 15:38, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jens[edit]

  • Known parasites of the species include the feather louse Columbicola taschenbergi[16] and Coloceras museihalense. – Since "louse" is singular but two species are mentioned, does this mean that the second is not a louse?
    • The second also is, but we don't have an article on its family, so I miss dit. Now tweaked.
  • Add legend to the range map.
    • Done.
  • R. r. griseotincta Hartert, EJO – We do not provide author initials in species names, or do we? Same for one other subspecies.
    • Just following the IOC; there's one other Hartert who authored three ssp and synonyms, so they added initials for clarity on the more famous Hartert.
  • Looks very comprehensive. More soon. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:03, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

All images are free (various CC licenses). The sounds linked to are CC, but NC and/or ND, so can't be hosted on Commons; using an external link in a template for them is fine. Suggest to use "upright" for the portrait format images (why should they be so much larger than the landscape ones?) ALT text has been provided. —Kusma (talk) 07:39, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kusma, I've altered the image sizes for portrait photos to make them smaller. AryKun (talk) 01:33, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Great. Image review is passed. —Kusma (talk) 12:47, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Grungaloo[edit]

Marking spot, will come back later once others have finished so I don't retread anything. grungaloo (talk) 22:47, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild[edit]

Recusing to review.

  • Is there no publisher location for Gibbs et al?
    • Added.
  • Any images of R r brevis?
    • Only one of iNat and it's BY-NC.
  • "The feet are pink to purplish-red in adults." It would make sense to move this to the end of the previous paragraph.
    • Done.
  • "purplish pink". Should this be hyphenated?
    • Added hyphen.
  • 'the "slender-billed cuckoo dove" '. Why the quote marks?
    • It's a species complex that was split up, as mentioned later in the sentence. I thought there should be some difference bw the complex and the "good" species mentioned otherwise.
  • "but is also found in logged forest, secondary growth, and gallery forests on Biak." Is it only found in any of those three when on Biak, or just gallery forests?
    • All three, reworded.
  • "(377–4,593 ft)" seems spuriously accurate. As does "(3.9–16.4 ft)".
    • Rounded the first to three sig figs, the latter is appropriate as the original estimate also seemed to use two sig figs.
  • "115–1,400 m (377–4,590 ft)": The source is to the nearest 5 m; your conversion is to the nearest 0.3 of a metre. This is spuriously accurate.
  • "(3.9–16.4 ft)": Your second conversion is to 3 sig figs. More importantly, the source gives an accuracy to the nearest 100 mm; your conversion is to the nearest 30 mm. This is spuriously accurate.
  • " It flies under the canopy". I am reading this as it only flies when under the canopy. Is that right?
    • Not only, but generally; tweaked the wording.
  • "is rather fast". What does "rather" fast mean?
    • I'm paraphrasing "graceful, slow wing-beats but flight is deceptively fast"; tweaked it slightly to further emphasize the contrast that the source makes, but "deceptively fast" isn't really a measurement of speed either.
Delete "rather".
  • "Breeding occurs throughout the year and varies in different parts of its range." What is it that varies?
    • Season; reworded.
  • "Breeding occurs throughout the year ... On New Guinea, breeding seems to occur throughout the year"?
    • Reworded the first; it seems redundant, but I feel like both should be mentioned since breeding season is year round on both NG and its range as a whole, even though islands other than NG have a variable but not year-round breeding season. I can't really explain it well.
How you have it now seems fine to me.
  • "Nests may sometimes". "may" and "sometimes" seem redundant. Suggest "may" → 'are'.
    • Done.
  • "Young are brooded until 13 days after hatching". While "brooded" is a perfectly accurate word, it is not well known and almost certainly going to be confused with the more common usage meaning incubated.
    • I can't think of another word that has quite the same meaning; something like "cared for" would be inaccurate since parental care still occurs after brooding is over.
Ok. But perhaps add a Wikionary link.
  • "it can be locally common in hills and mountains." A picky point, but "in" a hill? Perhaps 'it can be locally common in hilly and mountainous areas'?
    • Done.
  • Elsewhere in the last paragraph, I am not convinced that "fairly" and "rather" are either encyclopedic or professional.
    • It's what the source says more or less; "Fairly common to common in hills of Seram" and "fairly common in Papua New Guinea". It's hard to make definitive statements about abundance without any quantitative estimates, so the sources use imprecise terms too.
Suggest deleting "fairly" and "rather".

That's all from me. A nice article. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:53, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some comebacks above. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:40, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rachelle Ann Go[edit]

Nominator(s): Pseud 14 (talk) 01:10, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

After previously working on a Filipino music BLP of a band, here's my next work on singer and actress Rachelle Ann Go. She began her career in pop music after winning a talent show in the Philippines, before transitioning to musical theatre. Some of her earlier roles on stage include Ariel from The Little Mermaid and Jane Porter from Tarzan. She had her international breakthrough portraying a hardened bargirl in the 2014 West End revival of Miss Saigon, reprising the part on Broadway in 2017. She followed this with more prominent roles on West End, playing Fantine in Les Misérables and Eliza Schuyler in Hamilton. 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) 01:10, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from ZooBlazer[edit]

Saving a spot. -- ZooBlazer 18:21, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Go then competed at the 2004 Shanghai Music Festival and the 2005 Astana Song Festival, each winning the Silver Prize and Best Song" --> Needs a little rewording. It doesn't make it sound like she won.
I've tweaked it a bit for clarity. Hopefully that reads better. Happy to change if still ambiguous.
  • "Go's father raised her to pursue musical interests and would encourage her to perform in front of a crowd" --> Go's father raised her to pursue musical interests and encouraged her to perform in front of crowds
Done
  • Link bachelor's degree
Done
  • "where she later advanced as one of the ten grand finalists" --> this might just be a personal preference, so feel free to ignore if you disagree, but what about "where she would advance as one of the ten grand finalists"
Done as suggested.
  • 'featured vocals on a cover "Love of My Life"' --> featured vocals on a cover of "Love of My Life"
Thanks for catching this. Done
  • "The track list initially contained songs Go had written, but decided against including it" --> this refers to the unreleased songs, correct? "...songs Go had written, but she decided against including them"
That is right. I've revised per your suggestion.
  • Link DVD
  • "a concert staged at the Music Museum on October 26, 2012" --> The paragraph starts with "Go began 2012", so you could probably just make the date October 26 without the year
Agreed. Done.
  • Link R&B in its first use
If this the R&B singer Alicia Keys (I think), I've linked it now.
  • She also considers Patti LuPone as one" --> Start the sentence with Go to avoid any confusion as the previous sentence was about what Salonga said
Good point. Done
  • "Early in her career, Go's singing style has drawn comparisons to Carey" --> drew comparisons
Done
  • Unlink Celine Dion from the influences section as it is a DUPLINK
Unlinked

That's all from me. Another great article from you. -- ZooBlazer 17:42, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ZooBlazer: thanks very much for your review. All comments actioned and addressed. Let me know if I might have missed anything. Thank you for sparing your time. Pseud 14 (talk) 18:09, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me. Happy to support! Good luck the rest of the way with this nom. -- ZooBlazer 22:20, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image/media review - passes[edit]

  • Both images are properly licensed, have alt text, and use makes sense in the article.
  • There's one sound sample. It is under 10% of the full song, properly licensed, and its use fits the article.

I'll be back with prose comments later, but I did the image review and found no issues, so it passes. -- ZooBlazer 18:21, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for doing the image review, and appreciate your time in having a look. Pseud 14 (talk) 18:30, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

  • "performed rock-influenced covers in the live album" => "performed rock-influenced covers on the live album"
Done
  • "eponymous brand of bridal line" => "eponymous brand of bridal wear"
Done
  • "were impressed of the overall production" => "were impressed with the overall production"
Done
  • "Described as a "hodgepodge" of wide-ranging global influences, Go again employed" - it (presumably) wasn't Go who was described as a hodgepodge. Presumably it was the album that was described in that way?
Oh right, I see where my error is. Thanks for catching that. I've revised it so that it begins with The album was described as ..., and Go again..
  • "Go recorded "Paano" for the compilation album GV25" - album title should be in italics
Thanks for catching this too. Done
  • "Critics were generally enthusiastic with the depth of her characterization" => "Critics were generally enthusiastic about the depth of her characterization"
Done
  • "While for her cover album Falling in Love" => "For her cover album Falling in Love"
Done
  • "and has sang "Butterfly" and "Never Too Far" in one of her first headlining shows" => "and sang "Butterfly" and "Never Too Far" in one of her first headlining shows"
Done
  • "A reviewer from The Philippine Star has characterized her debut album as" => "A reviewer from The Philippine Star characterized her debut album as"
Done
  • "As of 2020, they reside" - 2020 was four years ago, so if no more up-to-date info is available this should be "As of 2020, they resided"
That is correct, they still live here. Done as suggested.
Thank you for your helpful review ChrisTheDude. All comments have been actioned. Let me know if I might have missed anything. And thanks for the edits you did a while back on instances that require BE'ing. Pseud 14 (talk) 16:03, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

750h[edit]

Hi @Pseud 14: I have one minor concern: After Go's musical transition to theater in 2011,[126] reviewers were appreciative of her clear and sweet-sounding vocals… I recommend changing “were appreciative” to “appreciated” for conciseness.  750h+ | Talk  14:56, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for driving by 750h+. Done as suggested. Pseud 14 (talk) 15:00, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I don’t have anything else. Great work, your articles are always nice to read!  750h+ | Talk  15:02, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Edward, Duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha[edit]

Nominator(s): Llewee (talk) 01:03, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Edward was born a British prince and had a quintessential upper-class Victorian upbringing. Nannies, governess, prep schools, Eton and regular visits to Granny Vicky. Until one day a succession crisis in a tiny German statelet changed his future forever. He was not the first candidate for the dukedom but German emperor (and cousin) Wilhelm wanted a boy he could mold into one of his henchmen and Charles Edward, whose father had been dead since before he was born, seemed like the perfect candidate. The teenaged prince had been put on path that would take him to strange, nasty places.

This is my first featured article candidacy. I have been working on this article sporadically over recent years, heavily in the past several months and done a lot research into this man's life. The article has been promoted to good status, informally and formally peer reviewed since december. Thank you to anyone who takes the time to review it, I will try to respond as fast as I can. Llewee (talk) 01:03, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and welcome to FAC! I'll open with an image review

done

  • Suggest adding alt text where it is missing

done

  • File:Groepsportret_van_de_familie_van_koningin-regentes_Emma,_anonymous,_1896_-_1897.jpg is missing information on first publication, and if the author is unknown how do we know they died over 70 years ago? Ditto File:Duke_Charles_Edward_of_Saxe-Coburg_and_Gotha_with_wife_and_children.jpg

The first image is old enough to be assumed in the public domain. I've added a copyright tag specifying that. The second image has been given to the commons by the German archive.

The first one still has a tag based on publication date, so we still need info on first publication. On the second, how did you arrive at that conclusion? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:40, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  1. The United States section of List of countries' copyright lengths says that anonymous works enter the public domain "95 years from publication or 120 years from creation, whichever is shorter" so it should be in the public domain by now whenever it was published. However, I'm not sure what tag to use to indicate that point.
  1. The 120 from creation piece only kicks in if it was first published after 1978, according to that table, so we'd still need to know when it was published. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:35, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've found the relevant page on the source website. It says the picture's in the public domain. I'll update the page momentarily.--Llewee (talk) 22:44, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]


  • Okay, so why then are you adding a CC BY tag? I'm confused. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:28, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think I have got the right licence now.--Llewee (talk) 12:01, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Sorry I got mixed up between images, I'm not quite sure how to interpret the second image, the source says (http://www.zeno.org/Zeno/-/Lizenz%3A+Gemeinfrei) it thinks the image is in the public domain but isn't sure. Llewee (talk) 23:06, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Since this is hosted on Commons, even if we take that as correct we'd still need to know US status. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:35, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same author problem exists with File:Bundesarchiv_Bild_136-B0556,_Karl-Eduard_von_Sachsen-Coburg_und_Gotha.jpg. Ditto File:Landwirtschaftliche_Ausstellung_Coburg_Juni_1910.jpg

I've looked up a translation of the source and it seems to have been taken by someone who died in 1913. I've added a translation

What about File:Landwirtschaftliche_Ausstellung_Coburg_Juni_1910.jpg? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:40, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry I meant the second image, the first image was taken by someone who died in 1936. Llewee (talk) 23:06, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Saxe-Coburg_and_Gotha_in_the_German_Reich_(1871).svg: suggest clarifying the caption to specify which portion is the polity of interest - there are two shapes that could potentially be highlighted

Both are - one is Coburg and the other is Gotha. I've added a clarification of the relevant colour.

  • File:Gotha_Order_of_the_Garter.JPG: under US law replication of a 2D work doesn't garner a new copyright - this should be tagged for the status of the work pictured

I've added a UK government copyright template. I'm not sure if it also needs a US template?

No, but the source should be clarified. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:40, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've tried to make the source and author sections more informative--Llewee (talk) 23:06, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see that these have been edited? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:35, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I forgot to publish the edit, done now.--Llewee (talk) 10:53, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:ZIEL_ERKANNT!_12._Reichs-Frontsoldatentag_des_Stahlhelm_B.d.F._Breslau_30_31_Mai_1931_15_Propaganda_Erinnerungsschrift_(Commemorative_rally_book_of_Stahlhelmbund,_German_right-wing_paramilitary_organisation_1918–1935)_No_known_copyri.jpg: why does this have a CC license? I don't see that at the source. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:29, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken that image out now.--Llewee (talk) 14:46, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review Nikkimaria, apologies for asking lots of questions, I'm not hugely fluent in copyright issues.--Llewee (talk) 23:06, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken out the order of the Garter image and added File:"L'oncle de l'Europe" devant l'objectif caricatural - images anglaises, françaises, italiennes, allemandes, autrichiennes, hollandaises, belges, suisses, espagnoles, portugaises, américaines, etc. (14776736585).jpg.--Llewee (talk) 13:56, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is a more specific tag available for this new image? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:14, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a couple of more specific tags.--Llewee (talk) 00:01, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nikkimaria, I've added an additional image to the article. File:Sibylla med Prins Gustaf Adolf och alla barnen.jpg

Drive by comment by Nick-D I don't think I'll have time to post full review, but the statement that "In March 1945, the German government formed a "Committee for the Protection of European Humanity" of which Charles Edward was made chairman. This group was meant to negotiate with the Western Allies in order to gain better living conditions for the defeated Germans after the war. The committee members were in theory "uncompromised" Germans with fewer links to the regime. The quick collapse of Nazi Germany after that point meant that enough time was not available for negotiations" jumped out of me:

  • The first sentence is surprising given that the main body of what remained of the German Government (Hitler and his group in Berlin) was determined to go down in flames. Hitler sacked, jailed or killed anyone he found was engaging in negotiations of this type. Was this a committee formed by one of the breakaway elements of the government who recognised that the war was lost?
  • The last sentence is wrong as the Allies had a policy of insisting on the unconditional surrender of Germany, and they would not have engaged with this group (except to see if it could be used to bring about unconditional surrender) no matter how much time was available. Nick-D (talk) 09:30, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The source "Charles Edward of Saxe-Coburg: The German Red Cross and the Plan to Kill "unfit" citizens 1933-1945 pp 165-166" says;
In March 1945 Hitler asked Foreign Minister von Ribbentrop to form a Committee for the Protection of European Humanity. Charles Edward was designated as chairman, and the group was supposed to represent "uncompromised" Germans in their association with the National Socialist government who could negotiate with the Western Allies to ensure tolerable living conditions for civilians in Germany after the war concluded. As president of the DRK, Charles Edward contacted ICRC Vice President Carl Burckhardt who agreed to act as an liaison with the British and American governments on the matter. The coordinated military thrusts from both East and West resulted in such a rapid collapse of the German military that the committee never really had time to begin fruitful negotiations with the foreign governments. Total surrender devolved by May 1945, and Hitler was dead (Zimmerman, 1980; Stauffer, 1991, 167-190, Stauffer, 1998, 350; Poguntke, 2010, 125).
Given the quality of the source I mainly just took its contents on trust. I suppose lack of time might be shorthand for not enough time for the allies to be asked and say no but I don't really know.--Llewee (talk) 11:45, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I checked Ian Kershaw's book The End today, which is one of the standard works on the last period of Nazi Germany, and it confirms that Hitler didn't want to enter into any form of peace negotiations (aside from sort-of tolerating negotiations to end the fighting in Italy). There were multiple breakaway groups though that attempted this. As this topic seems to be outside of the book you're consulting's area of focus, I'd suggest cross checking these claims against more specialist sources, as I'm fairly confident that the author here is mistaken. Nick-D (talk) 09:53, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've searched the book you referenced on Google books for uses of the phrase "Committee for the Protection of European Humanity" but none appeared. I can't find any relevant search results on this website or the wider internet. As the sources Rushton references are all German language sources I probably wouldn't be able to much information out of I think it might be best just to take the text out.--Llewee (talk) 18:47, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies Nick-D, I forgot to link to you.--Llewee (talk) 11:47, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drive by comment. ... died ..., [[Haemophilia in European royalty|having suffered]] from [[haemophilia]] is a MOS:EASTEREGG violation (and perhaps one of MOS:SUFFER as well). You could write something like "... who was a haemophiliac like many other European royalty, died ..." but I am sure there is an even better way to phrase it. —Kusma (talk) 10:13, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed the wording now.--Llewee (talk) 21:06, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments and support from Gerda[edit]

I am interest to read the article again after the informal peer review. I will leave the lead for last. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:19, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the additional comments, I'll work through them as quickly as possible.--Llewee (talk) 00:36, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Birth and family background

  • I think Family would be enough of a header.
    • I've done that and moved the detail about his birth to the childhood section.
  • I'd like to see both father and mother introduced before his father's death, and the titles the boy inherited at birth. Possibly even before the sister.
    • I've reorganised the section so that his parents are introduced first, then his sister and then the stuff about his father's death

Childhood

  • "He was then sent to school without his sister. His schooling took place at boarding schools." - I feel that these extremely short sentences could perhaps be combined, avoiding "school" - "schooling".
    • done

Selection as heir

  • I believe that the "colonies" in the image caption is not needed, as the two districts will not be expected in colonies.
    • ditto
  • ref order: I notice twice in this section that references are not in numerical order as expected, - didn't watch before, please check.
  • "... King William II of Württemberg, and found him a tutor. Later, Emperor Wilhelm organised ..." - it looks a bit strange to see two people with the same name so differently next to each other.
  • I can see that but it's based on the names the two men's articles use.
  • "He attended Bonn University. He studied law but ..." - I bet these sentences can be combined.
  • done

Marriage ...

  • "His entry in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography comments that they were happy, but Urbach indicates otherwise." - if the "happy" from the dictionary should be mentioned at all - how would they know - please find an abbreviation when it's mentioned first.
  • The dictionary entry does cite sources. I've added an abbreviation.--Llewee (talk) 23:39, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Personal life

  • "They are so sensible, 'wenn sie nicht verhetzt werden' (when they are not poisoned)", - I suggest to render the sentence in English, and give the German expression in brackets. I believe that "poison" is too ambiguous, - my dictionary has no good word for "verhetzen" but "incite" seems to work.
  • The quote uses different brackets than those usually used for translations by Urbach, so I think the duke might have decided to write the phrase in both languages in his letter.--Llewee (talk) 01:04, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The family often do not appear happy in photographs." - I am not happy with that sentence, as a construction (The family often do not ...), and it contradicts the two photographs we can see ;)
  • "It is unknown whether it was true." - I feel that this sentence is redundant to "allegations".
  • "When they grew up, Charles Edward's children were often a disappointment to him in their choice of romantic relationships, ..." - I think it could be simpler saying that the their choice disappointed him, which would also make "when they grew up" redundant.
  • I've given the paragraph these previous few points refer to a general tidy up.--Llewee (talk) 19:03, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The marriage meant that Sibylla would be expected to become Queen of Sweden (which however did not happen)." - I seem to remember that we discussed that all this is implied in "second to the Swedish throne".
  • "The former duke began to look for political options he felt were tougher than the former emperor had been during the First World War." - sorry, I don't understand the meaning.
  • I've reworded this, is it clearer now?--Llewee (talk) 23:39, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Political ...

  • I think that the lead of the linked article gymnasium is better than the footnote offered.
  • Apologies if I'm mistaken but I assume the school types weren't the same in the 1920s. I've changed the footnote to something more general.--Llewee (talk) 23:39, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unofficial diplomat

  • the dictionary again, - it should certainly not be linked again
  • done

Second World War

  • "Hubertus † fürs Vaterland" (Hubertus died for Germany). - no Vaterland means "fatherland", or home country, not Germany.
    • Apologies, I am aware that's the literal translation but I thought it would be easier for readers to translate it as Germany. I have changed it now.--Llewee (talk) 01:04, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "committed suicide" - I guess you are aware that the phrasing is contentious, - too close to "commit a crime"
  • done

Trial ...

  • dictionary once more
  • done
  • can we avoid "as a result" in two sentences in a row?
  • done
  • "Seaforth Highlanders" are mentioned five times, linked three of those (1,2,4) - perhaps check for duplicate links.
  • done

Death

  • "Elsässer Straße (Alsatian Street)" - if the street is needed (which I doubt) there's no need to give it italics and a translation.
  • done

General: the separation of personal and political life (under Far-right) makes for a tricky chronology - something to think about. I'll look at the lead tomorrow. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:59, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've now organised it into sections based on time period--Llewee (talk) 23:39, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lead, infobox

  • I believe that the lead has some unneeded detail. It should focus on the subject.
    1. I don't need his father's cause of death, and even less that the father's condition was frequent in nobility, - that's for later, the latter perhaps not at all.
    2. Instead of "His paternal grandparents were Queen Victoria of the United Kingdom and Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha.", an addition to the father as being the Queen's son might be enough to make the connection.
      • I'm reluctant to take out the reference to Prince Albert because I think the "of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha" is a helpful way of quickly conveying to the reader why a British prince might have been in the line of succession for a German dukedom.--Llewee (talk) 00:36, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        understand that now --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:15, 30 March 2024 (UTC) (accidentally deleted comment)
    3. I didn't get "sickly" from remembering the body section, rather "the perfect little prince" ;) (but that may be just me).
    4. I don't think his children are lead material (beyond saying "five"), unless perhaps Sibylla. They have prime position in the infobox.
      • I've kept her but taken the rest out.--Llewee (talk) 00:36, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think if we hit the reader with "Nazi politician" in the first sentence (on top of the uniform), we might want to add his position with the Red Cross and "unoffical diplomat" there, for perspective.
    • I've put the details about his Nazi positions into the first paragraph and moved down the content about his life as a kid. I've added a brief reference to his status as a British Prince to the first sentence as I think that's one of the most notable details to an English-speaking audience and necessary context to his diplomatic roll.--Llewee (talk) 00:36, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think he lost his English titles before the German ones which might be reflected.
  • "like the other German monarchs" - he was no monarch, and for "nobility", it's the wrong link.
    • Federal prince, I think this the right one?--Llewee (talk) 00:36, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      That looks better to me. I know, however, very little about nobility, - others may have other ideas. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:18, 30 March 2024 (UTC) (accidentally deleted comment)
  • I think his function as head of the Red Cross should somehow in the infobox. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:24, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've embedded an officeholder box.--Llewee (talk) 16:30, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for restoring the comments, I tried the indenting also. Easy rule: when replying to something indented, copy that indenting. (If not the whole idea gets lost. Which may make it tricky for someone blind.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:39, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For your return: reading the lead again after your changes, I like it much better. I suggest you introduce "a state of the German Empire" sooner, because that is so unexpected. I wonder if it would be better to mention in the first paragraph - which should be a rough overview - his functions in the Red Cross and as informal diplomat, and bring the details later. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:14, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've made those changes.--Llewee (talk) 23:39, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I wasn't clear, but I don't know how else to say it. In the first paragraph, I'd just say he was leader of the Red Cross and an informal diplomat (to distinguish from a SS leader or minister). The details - that at the time the Red Cross was carrying out eugenic concepts - don't belong in the first few sentences, but rather the last para of the lead, and in not too much detail. Other than that, I'm ready to support. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:16, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
done--Llewee (talk) 09:40, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, it was a pleasure, - support. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:49, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Therealscorp1an[edit]

  • I have noticed the lead being brought up, but not this point: the lead currently exceeds "four well-composed paragraphs", which is prohibited per MOS:LEAD. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 00:59, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have reorganised the lead now.--Llewee (talk) 16:55, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]


  • @Llewee: "In 1899, the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha decided on how to deal with the succession of Duke Alfred, who was in ill health. Duke Alfred's only son, Prince Alfred, had died in February 1899." These sentences may seem a little confusing. Specific dates are given as to when Prince Alfred died, but not for when the succession is dealt with. I would suggest changing it to "In late 1899, the House..." - Therealscorp1an (talk) 00:36, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think its taken awkward wording from one of sources. It should be better now.--Llewee (talk) 20:36, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Llewee: Keeping the sections of "Selection as heir" and especially "Regency" out of the "Duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha" section may seem a bit illogical as he had a regent while being the Duke, so should it not technically be inside the Duke section? - Therealscorp1an (talk) 00:17, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I created a new section in order to create more of a balance between the different sections sizes. I'm reluctant to split up education and regency because they cover heavily overlapping time periods.--Llewee (talk) 23:47, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Llewee away until next weekend (Old post, please ignore)[edit]

Hello all, thank you for your comments which have been very helpful. I am about to go away on holiday, I'll carry on working on the article when I get back.--Llewee (talk) 01:11, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for letting us know. I came to say that in this edit (conflict?), you lost indenting and replies, wanting to ask you to fix it. Perhaps I can do it, just not right now. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:14, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Buidhe[edit]

Article says that Martha Liebermann was going to be deported to Auschwitz. This is unlikely because elderly German Jews and especially those well connected were almost always deported to Theresienstadt. Martha Liebermann's article seems to have the correct information with a source. Can you fix this? (t · c) buidhe 17:49, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Buidhe, The cited book says it was Auschwitz.--Llewee (talk) 14:04, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure it's wrong though, for the reasons discussed above, and especially because the source in Liebermann's article seems to say the opposite. (t · c) buidhe 14:10, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Even just googling for "Martha Liebermann" "Auschwitz" I find plenty of sources that say she was about to be deported to Theresienstadt, and no claims that she was going to Auschwitz. —Kusma (talk) 16:42, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed it and added a source from her page.--Llewee (talk) 18:50, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My Beautiful Dark Twisted Fantasy[edit]

Nominator(s): K. Peake 13:33, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about My Beautiful Dark Twisted Fantasy (2010), the fifth studio album by American rapper Kanye West. It was recorded during West's exile in Hawaii after a period of controversy through 2009, resulting in a maximalist style with elements of his previous work. The album was met with widespread critical acclaim and also received much retrospective praise, including being ranked as one of the greatest albums of all time. West promoted the album with four singles that were top 40 hits in the United States and the film Runaway, while it reached the top 10 in countries like the US and Canada. The article became a GA back in 2011, more than five years before I joined this site, though I have monitored it over the years and put in extensive work back in both 2022 and the start of 2024 for a FAC. I did take it through peer review before a third FAC and also made sure to incorporate the book sources, as West's magnum ops my dedication was guaranteed! --K. Peake 13:33, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Elias[edit]

Will be saving a spot ‍  Elias 🪐  (dreaming of Saturn; talk here) 02:10, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • You do not use false titles in the lead section but you do in several instances down the article (e.g. "recording artist Lady Gaga"). Make this consistent
  • Not sure about this one; the lead has lists of collaborators, so wouldn't it be tedious to list all of them out with the identities? --K. Peake 20:01, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • It feels weird to cite grammy.com pages as "Grammy Awards", given the awards/ceremonies themselves obviously do not write or publish the articles. usually I see those sources cited under the work/publisher The Recording Academy.
  • I will be commenting on the lead after I'm finished reviewing the prose, to ensure that it properly summarizes all relevant details in the article.

Background

  • Not quite; you missed [10]. - E.
  • Done, sorry I must have not noticed. --K. Peake 08:58, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it would be more beneficial if the explanation for the "public-image controversy" bit came immediately after the sentence. What's the purpose of the sentence "Around a year previously..." in this part of the paragraph?
  • Done, also I moved that to the end and I've kept because it shows the relevancy of this studio. --K. Peake 20:01, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Linking just the word "outburst" and "interruption" is a MOS:EASTEREGG issue; furthermore, the sentence does not clearly convey that the outburst happened at the VMAs.
  • Done, although does the version in the lead look acceptable now? --K. Peake 20:01, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would say yes. - E.
  • Indicate the VMAs acronym immediately after spelling it in full, as the article uses the acronym a few more times down the line.
  • Great, but I think you can remove the "VMAs" from the lead since you don't use the acronym elsewhere in it. - E.
  • What is "rode the waves and rode it and rode it" here supposed to say? I assume it means West thought Swift was "riding the wave" of public sympathy - if so, make it clearer, possibly with a wiktionary link .
  • "he feels like 'a soldier of culture', realizing no one wants this to be his job and he also honestly set out to maintain a large involvement in culture" two things. first, all of the verbs should be in past tense, and number two, i do not understand what any of this intends to convey. unfortunately, i do not have access to the cited book at the moment, so it will be hard to check.
  • "I feel like, in some ways like I’m a soldier of culture, and I realize that no one wants that to be my job...will I feel convicted about things that really meant stuff to culture that constantly get denied for years and years and years and years, I’m sorry, I will. I cannot lie about it in order to sell records." phrased to be most appropriate. --K. Peake 20:01, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I feel like this can still use a bit of work. The easiest approach, I think, would be to let the quotation speak for itself. You may replace this with the quotation, but I warn you will have to be careful with limiting these. - E.
  • close paraphrasing issue with "a minimum of 80 percent was what he wanted to deliver, with the remainder 'fulfilling a perception'". it does not sufficiently reflect the source, "It's always going to be 80 percent, at least, what I want to give, and 20 percent fulfilling a perception". from what i understand it's "80%" of west staying true to himself and "20%" assuming the role the public expects him to play?
  • "dissing Dark Fantasy" can be paraphrased; also I don't think you should enclose "Dark Fantasy" in single quotation marks since West was clearly referring to the album
  • "what he wanted to deliver" can be tightened to "genuine" IMO. - E.

Recording and production

  • the "later" in "He later explained" is not necessary
  • "Various contributors engaged in sessions with West... Other artists recorded vocals for the album... Record producers who contributed in the sessions..." repetitive sentence structure. i think we can switch it up a bit?
  • Eh, good enough - E.
  • "Record producers who contributed in the sessions include:" misuse of the colon
  • link the "Tweeting" from "No Tweeting" to Tweet (social media), removing the wikilink in "West tweeted", and link Rolodex
  • Linking rolodex has yet to be done - E.
  • Done, must have not seen. --K. Peake 08:58, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The heavy work ethic led to West and his crew having a multi-course breakfast" was this, along with the 21 games, marijuana, and workouts, a one-off thing? readers would benefit from a clarification that these happened regularly or at least a lot
  • "solicited other producers" perhaps you mean enlisted ? to solicit sometimes means to ask someone for sexual favours ..
  • "to weigh in" sounds informal; trim to "for opinions"
  • "In an interview with Callahan-Bever" don't think this is needed given the previous sentence establishes we are in the context of an interview"
  • IMO the fourth paragraph of this section contains too many quotations, and there are ways to paraphrase some if not all of them to avoid this issue.
  • Done, if this is enough? --K. Peake 20:01, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I still think there are still too many. - E.
  • Any examples now after edits? --K. Peake 20:01, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not to my knowledge, no. - E.
  • "West subsequently recorded in hotel rooms for Watch the Throne" i am unsure if this fact is relevant enough for inclusion in the article.

Will return with comments soon, perhaps this weekend ‍  Elias 🪐  (dreaming of Saturn; talk here) 13:51, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the long delays. Here are some further comments after a sweep at my previous suggestions.

  • WP:CLOP issue with the last sentence at the Background section. Furthermore, I don't exactly understand why this sentence is relevant to comprehending the article's contents.
  • Done, also it is relevant since it gives the background on West's views re the album. --K. Peake 08:58, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • It might be worth namedropping chipmunk soul in the article, as it is a prominent production style used in the album.
  • This has been added as best as it can be now; see my edit to understand why and I will add more info if you can find any FA level sources about chipmunk soul further. --K. Peake 08:12, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Usually, I appreciate the use of quote boxes when the quotation picked is compelling. In this case, I am unsure about using it for the aforementioned section especially since we already have so many quotations. It just essentially repeats what is already said in the prose. Perhaps we can remove this?
  • Apologies in advance, but I still see even more quotations in the article as I read through the musical styles section. I completely understand that some descriptions of the album and summaries of critical commentary are best described by quotations and/or cannot be sufficiently paraphrased, I found twenty-three quotations in the musical style section alone --- in almost every sentence, some in close proximity to each other. Of the 452 words in that section, 149 come from quotations, or almost 33% or around 1/3 of the section. In the next section, 165/423 (39%) of the words come from quotations, and I note that every sentence about a critic saying something consists of at least one quotation. The rest are more generous: the song section has a 205/964 (21.3%) quotation/prose ratio, title/packaging 128/654 (19.6%), marketing 106/631 (16.8%), sales 0%, reviews 116/476 (24.4%), rankings 80/456 (17.5%), and industry awards 110/479 (23.0%).

I will have to pause my review here and oppose this in the meantime. Two sections have over a third of its words come from source quotations, indicating an overuse of them, which in turn tells me more work needs to be done to properly summarize the literature around this album. Not to mention a hint of close paraphrasing issues; if you wish, you may ask for spotchecks from a more experienced reviewer to weed out some of these instances. My sincere apologies because I have never opposed a nomination before, but my gut feeling tells me it must be done. ‍  Elias 🪐  (dreaming of Saturn; talk here) 01:07, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your Power Thank you for the comments, regarding the direct quotes and close phrasing I have chopped these down heavily throughout now if you want to take a look. While I do appreciate these comments for improvement and will also be searching today to find source(s) for chipmunk soul, the opposition is not justified since these are not issues that take a long time to resolve so it may not be supportable upon your comments but they would be more suitable as comments rather than oppose – sorry if this strikes your gut, so to speak. --K. Peake 08:58, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, a reviewer should feel free to oppose anytime they feel the FA criteria are not (yet) met. If the issues can be dealt with quickly, and the oppose struck, that's great, but a reviewer clearly flagging such concerns is a benefit to the process. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:26, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand where you are coming from, this should not have really been somewhere to intervene regarding whether it is suitable or not for the user to oppose. Who knows, maybe they will support on next comments now... K. Peake 07:25, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Elias, any further comment in light of the changes? Gog the Mild (talk) 13:19, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

100cellsman[edit]

Support on prose. The only thing I suggest is using subheaders in the Songs section, i.e. Tracks 1-6 and Tracks 7-13. 웃OO 02:19, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I added these in now, although it actually is 1-7 and then 8-13 but thank you! K. Peake 20:09, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

magiciandude[edit]

Also support on prose and as well as the issues addressed above. Erick (talk) 02:33, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NØ[edit]

Got into Ye's music recently so I will try my best to make time for this!--NØ 15:13, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Is the Swift interruption relevant enough for the lead? It looks too text-heavy, honestly.
  • I would say so since this album is often seen as West's redemption after his incident with Taylor Swift, therefore this being in the lead brings significant context for viewers instantly. --K. Peake 08:02, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "During the album's marketing, West released free songs through his weekly GOOD Fridays series, as well as four singles, including "Power" and "All of the Lights", with all of them becoming top 40 hits on the Billboard Hot 100." - "During the album's marketing" bit is redundant. Maybe the simpler "Alongside several free songs released through his weekly GOOD Fridays series, West supported the album with four Billboard Hot 100 top 40 singles, including "Power" and "All of the Lights"?
  • I would avoid referring to the singles as "hits" later on in the article as well for neutrality
  • "It eventually registered a triple platinum certification" - Registered does not sound right. Maybe achieved?
  • The "RIAA" abbreviation does not need to be included since it is not used again.
  • A clean version of the alt cover seems to be available from Amazon, which seem to be generally preferred
  • Is this really suitable since the censorship is mentioned and also, shouldn't the original be shown ideally anyway for readers? --K. Peake 08:02, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest combining more than three refs in a row to avoid citation overkill: "[6][26][27][28]"
  • The "EW" abbreviation in the bracket after Entertainment Weekly seems unnecessary to me
  • I disagree with you here, being that EW is later used in the rankings sub-section. --K. Peake 08:02, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why not "Commercial performance" instead of "Sales" as a section title? The certifications included here include streaming performance and the last sentence concerns Spotify.
  • Done, I agree with you here but this had been the idea of another editor a while back yet that was not at FAC so commercial performance outweighs sales verdict! --K. Peake 08:02, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "At the end of 2010, numerous critics and publications included My Beautiful Dark Twisted Fantasy on their year-end top albums lists" - That the lists were published at the end of 2010 is sufficiently implied by them being year-end lists, imo. So I would let go of the part preceding the comma.
  • Are HipHopDX Awards notable enough to be included? Just asking since I am not familiar with the hip hop scene and these do not seem to have a Wikipedia article.
  • I would say yes, being that this is an established website with the hip hop community and there is a section in their article. --K. Peake 08:02, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will refrain from voting since this isn't an in-depth review. Hope this is helpful--NØ 02:18, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • MaranoFan Thank you for your beginning comments, these have been addressed now and feel free to leave more comments or even ask away if anything is uncertain here! --K. Peake 08:02, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
MaranoFan, is there more to come? Gog the Mild (talk) 12:55, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am a bit dissatisfied with the convolution in the prose. That's the primary reason I haven't converted to a support after my initial comments. Significant work looks required in that department and I unfortunately won't be having the time to help with that within the time constraints of an FAC.--NØ 16:04, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Iron Man[edit]

Nominator(s): Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:50, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When engineering genius Tony Stark was kidnapped and forced to build a weapon, he turned the tables on his kidnappers by designing a powered suit of armor and fighting his way out. With this new armor, he pledged to fight evil as the superhero Iron Man! First created by Marvel Comics in 1963, Iron Man has since become one of the company's most popular characters, in no small part because of his central role in Marvel's films. In the 60 years since Iron Man was first created, the character has appeared in countless comic book stories and other media, commenting on issues like Cold War politics, alcoholism, and technological progress.

There's little precedent for comic book superheroes as featured articles. The topic area is rife with articles that depend on primary sources and go into excessive detail, both things that I had to address when I began working on this article. I've cleaned out the comic book citations entirely, replacing them with analytic, scholarly sources, supplemented by reviews, news articles, and character handbooks to fill in the details. I'm hoping that by refining this article to FA standards, it will create such a precedent for other articles in the comic book topic area. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:50, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

  • Suggest adding alt text
  • File:Iron_Man_(circa_2018).png needs a more expansive FUR. Ditto File:Tales_of_Suspense_39.jpg, File:Iron_Man's_armors.jpg
  • File:TalesOfSuspense48.jpg: source link is dead. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:12, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alt text added, source link replaced, and non-free use rationale improved for File:Iron_Man_(circa_2018).png. I don't see any missing non-free use information for File:Tales_of_Suspense_39.jpg or File:Iron_Man's_armors.jpg. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:59, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Generally speaking, the more non-free content is included, the stronger the rationale required for each. These rationales have no empty fields, but they are also not strong enough to justify having so much non-free media. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:10, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: "I'm hoping that by refining this article to FA standards, it will create such a precedent for other articles in the comic book topic area.". I hope so too. :) There are a great many comic book characters, superheroes having dominated the field for most of the media's existence, that have this kind of potential; right now at GA we currently have Captain America, Joker (character), Norman Osborn, and Spider-Man which have the most potential for FA, and several others that are GA but may not be suitable for FA, and easily dozens of other characters that could be GA or better if someone could find the time and energy to find the sources and basically rewrite them from scratch. Batman and Superman are former FA articles, so it would be nice to see a comics character back up there. BOZ (talk) 06:21, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by ZKang123[edit]

I thought the film was being reviewed. That said, I shall review this article to the best of my ability.

No problems with the lead I can find.

Creation and premiere:

  • "superhero comic books" – would it make a difference to just say "superhero comics"? Just want to make it more general, succinct and referring to the genre.
  • "designing an unlikeable character and making him likeable." – suggest changing the connector "and" to "while"
  • "Lee described the national mood toward Vietnam in which Iron Man was created as" – This chunk is worded rather weirdly. Would suggest "Lee described the national mood toward Vietnam at the time "when..." "
  • "Heck continued as the primary Iron Man artist until 1965, as Kirby had obligations to other Marvel properties." – "Until 1965, Heck continued as the primary Iron Man artist, as Kirby had obligations to other Marvel properties." I find the initial wording a little confusing as it seems the reasoning was due to his tenure until 1965, and not exactly Heck's tenure itself.

More to come.--ZKang123 (talk) 02:13, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ZKang123, just checking if further comments are on their way? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:17, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will get back to this. A bit busy these days with other things at the moment.--ZKang123 (talk) 01:40, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aoba47[edit]

  • I would briefly mention Stark's relationship with Patsy Walker (aka Hellcat) in the "Romantic Interests" section. I believe it is notable enough as they did have an annual publication together (here).
    • Interesting. I would think that was significant, but the sources that cover this area don't mention her.
      • There is this source from Syfy about the relationship, but there does not seem to be too much high-quality coverage about it. It seems that the relationship is not particularly major or noteworthy in the overall scope of Iron Man's story so I will leave it up to you. Aoba47 (talk) 17:25, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is the rationale for the infobox image choice? It is an awesome cover, but I could see the external pieces of armor potentially confusing readers who are not as familiar with the character design. I'd imagine that there would be a clearer image of just the armor by itself so why not go for something like that instead? Just to be clear, I am not saying you need to change it. This just came to my mind when I first saw the image.
    • This was the image that was there when I started editing the article. I had the same reservations, and I skimmed through Iron Man cover art while writing the article to see if there were any good alternatives, but nothing stood out to me. I'm sure there's something good out there however.
      • Thank you for the response. That makes sense to me. I do not have a good alternative in mind either. Aoba47 (talk) 17:25, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do think File:TalesOfSuspense48.jpg has a strong enough justification for inclusion. The red-and-gold armor is already shown in the infobox and the all gold armor is already shown in File:Iron Man's armors.jpg so this image does not add much and could be removed without losing anything.
    • Agree, removed.
  • This part, (As a superhero, his armor suits), is grammatically incorrect. It reads that the armor suits are the superhero.
    • Fixed.
  • Errol Flynn is linked twice in the same paragraph. There are other instances of duplicate links, but I believe they are intentional as those kinds of links are more accepted now. Would that be the case?
    • Flynn definitely should not have been linked twice, and there were a few other accidental ones. I chose to use duplicate links in the character biography since it's a single narrative explanation, but I have no issue removing them if you or any other reviewers object.
      • Thank you for the response. I do not have any objections. I can understand the purpose of links in the biography as I can imagine readers jumping down to that section separately to read through. The links there would help them in that regard. Aoba47 (talk) 17:25, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am uncertain about this part, (and for much of popular fiction). It is a bold claim to say that telling a story about an alcoholic is "unprecedented" in "popular fiction", particularly when there are no limits put on the type of media or the location. I just do not think this claim is true. I could believe the "unprecedented for a major comic book hero" claim though.
    • I imagine the author meant it in some context, but after looking at it again, it doesn't elaborate enough to where I feel comfortable using it like this. Removed.
  • Thor, Wasp, and Scarlet Witch are each presented without the "the" in front of them in the "Fictional character biography" subsection. I am accustomed to always seeing them with the determiner used, but are they referenced without it?
    • It can go either way I think, but I'll add "the" to Wasp, Scarlet Witch, and Hulk since that's how it is in their respective articles.
      • Understandable. You would know best or at least better than me. I am just used to seeing them with the "the" attached, but it is up to what you think is best. Aoba47 (talk) 17:25, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would Iron Man's roller blades be worth mentioning in the article? It may not be notable enough or too trivial, but it is a sillier aspect of the character that I do enjoy.
    • I don't believe I encountered it in any of the sources, unfortunately.
      • Understandable. Thank you for the response. It is likely one of those things that would be discussed amongst fans as a silly fun fact over anything else. Aoba47 (talk) 17:25, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The section on Iron Man's reception seems rather short. I can appreciate going for a more summary-style approach for a character who has such a long history and will only continue to have more stories in the future, but it does abruptly jump from his reception on his debut to his MCU revival. I am talking about the "Cultural impact and legacy" just to be clear. What about his reception in the time between all of that?
    • I clarified that part of it is in the 1970s. "General" reception for a character like this is hard to come by beyond "he's a popular superhero".
      • That makes sense. Thank you for checking this point. I understand what you mean as I'd imagine a lot of the discourse falls into the same conversations. Aoba47 (talk) 17:25, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • From my understanding, Iron Man was not a super popular character prior to the MCU, which is why the character was not sold off to other studios as was done with the X-Men and Spider-Man. The lead does mention that the MCU helped to popularize the character, but I think it would be worth mentioning this more explicitly in the article. That would be of course only if I am correct.
    • That's my understanding as well. Currently the lead says Downey's portrayal popularized the character, elevating Iron Man as one of Marvel's most recognizable superheroes and the cultural impact section says Iron Man became widely popular following the success of the film Iron Man, which made him one of Marvel's most recognizable characters, and Iron Man is credited with redefining the superhero film genre. Are there other aspects that you have in mind?
      • Thank you for including the quotes. I saw the part in the lead, but for whatever reason, I had read over the second bit in the article itself without fully processing it. Apologies for that. Aoba47 (talk) 17:25, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Make sure to italicize titles in the citation titles. For instance, The Invincible Iron Man should be in italics for Citation 59 and Iron Man should be in italics for Citation 210. There are quite a few instances of this so I'd make sure to carefully go through the citations to correct it.
    • Done.
  • It is not required for a FAC, but I would still encourage you to archive your web sources just to avoid any future headaches with potential link rot and death.
    • I never got around to figuring out how to do this automatically.
      • There is a bot for it (here), but I have not used it in a while as I had difficulty with it later on. Again, it is not required for a FAC so I would not worry about it too much. I just wanted to leave it more as a note than anything. Aoba47 (talk) 17:25, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I hope these comments are helpful. Once everything has been addressed, I will do a more thorough read-through of the article. Best of luck with the FAC. Aoba47 (talk) 16:51, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aoba47, I've addressed everything so far. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:46, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the responses. I will look through the article again tomorrow if that is okay with you. I hope you have a great rest of your day. Aoba47 (talk) 17:25, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apologies in advance for this admittedly super nitpick-y note. I am unsure about the word "iconic" in this part, (he builds his iconic Iron Man armor out of scrap), from the lead. I am not denying that the look is iconic, but at least in the beginning, wouldn't this reference the silver armor (i.e. File:Tales of Suspense 39.jpg) and not the iconic red and gold look?
    • Good point. Removed.
  • Would it be worthwhile to include the civilian names for Black Widow and Hawkeye in the lead? I ask this because War Machine, Rescue, and Ironheart are all presented with their names so it may be nice to have some consistency. It would also signify which of these characters are being discussed, although I believe Natasha Romanova and Clint Barton are the ones that are most commonly associated with these roles.
    • Added.
  • This may be a bit contradictory to my above comment, but is Rescue such a prominent and definitive aspect of Pepper Potts to be named and linked in the lead as opposed to just linking Pepper Potts? Is it done this way to match the other names in the listing?
    • Yeah, she's not known primarily as a "superhero". I've removed her from the lead. Maybe if "Rescue" catches on more in a few years then she can be listed with them.
  • Would it be the Sub-Mariner or is just Sub-Mariner also correct? Apologies for harping on this part.
    • That's how it is in his article, so I've added it.
  • It may be helpful to link inking in this part, (While inking the series), as well as other comic-specific words to help readers who may be less than familiar with them or want to read up on them. I cannot remember if other similar words are used in this article, but if so, they be worth linking.
    • Linked. The only other jobs I see are writer and artist, which probably don't need links.
  • This is more of a clarification question. Marvel has recently started a new Ultimate Universe. Has there been any stories with Iron Man or a new version of the character in this?
    • A quick search doesn't show anything significant. Another thing where maybe it will come up in the next few years.
  • Is there a reason why the Hoskin source does not have page numbers?
    • Yes, it's an encyclopedia-type source that uses entries by character instead of page numbers.

Here are some additional comments. I hope they are helpful. I will look through the article again later today. Thank you for your patience. I just want to make sure I look through the article as thoroughly as possible. Aoba47 (talk) 01:43, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • For this part, (Soviet spy Black Widow and American street criminal Hawkeye), do you mean the more specific Black Widow link for the Natasha version?
    • Fixed.

I believe this should be the end of my review. Best of luck with the FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 15:04, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aoba47 I've replied to all of the above comments. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:42, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for addressing everything. I support this FAC for promotion. I hope this review is helpful. I do have one quick additional comment. I would link Marvel Comics, superhero, and American comic books the first time that they are used in the article to be consistent with how they are linked in the lead. It is not a major point though so it does not hold up my support. Aoba47 (talk) 15:37, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
TBUA ? Gog the Mild (talk) 19:17, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Impressive work. Considering the only comic book character FA is Anarky, is good to see one that is worth a promotion. igordebraga ≠ 18:53, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Igordebraga, just to clarify, you didn't see any details or any aspect that might need to be changed to best meet the featured article criteria? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:51, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Reading it extensively, could only find one issue, and it's less about the FA criteria than article consistency: the character biography ends on Infamous Iron Man, but the publication history above mentions the series that followed that. I understand that it's because it was the latest story on the ref (Marvel Encyclopedia), yet it still makes that section incomplete. If a reliable source summing up at least Tony Stark: Iron Man could be found, it would be very helpful. igordebraga ≠ 04:17, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from PMC[edit]

Putting myself down here. If I don't get to it within a week, feel free to give me the gears. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:44, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Premeditated Chaos, It's been a week. :) Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:44, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Aaaah it's the gears. Okay, here we go. My FAC comments are always open to discussion, anything that's a hill I'm going to die on will usually be marked as such, otherwise I'm generally willing to be convinced. Suggested phrasings in particular are only suggestions, feel free to ignore or re-revise them. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:57, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lead
  • I have very little to gripe about here. This is a 7000-word article and the lead is a nice tight summary of the most salient points.
  • "Iron Man's supporting cast has produced" - not sure of the phrasing here, as a supporting cast doesn't really "produce" things, but I can't think of how to replace it. Something like "Many of Iron Man's supporting cast and reformed villains have become superheroes in their own right, including blah blah blah"?
    • Reworded.
  • You have "as well as" in two successive sentences
    • Reworded.
  • "elevating Iron Man as one of" - "into" rather than "as" I think?
    • Changed.
Publication history - up to 1970s
  • "Lee was interested in designing an unlikeable character and making him likeable". I think you could say a bit more here. It's not just that he was unlikeable generally, it's that per the source, Iron Man exists as he does - as a billionaire weapons developer - because Lee wanted to pique the presumably lefty audience. It underpins the entire character.
    • Specified that it was a generally anti-war audience.
  • Some context for Howard Hughes and Errol Flynn please, so the unfamiliar reader doesn't have to stop and wander off to find out who they were and why they would use them as inspiration
    • Described them as a business magnate and an actor, respectively.
  • Since you're comparing Tony Stark's visual design to Flynn here, you could probably get away with a photo of Flynn
    • Added. I tried to find an image other than the main one on Flynn's article, but all of the good ones had questionable copyright licenses.
  • "Heck later said that when designing Tony Stark, he was attempting to create "an Errol Flynn type" this sentence is redundant to the first mention of Flynn, which already mentions Heck
    • Removed.
  • Since "creation and premiere" starts in the 60s, it feels odd to have the next section be titled "1960s". Maybe "Late 1960s" or "Early Avengers"? Idk
    • Renamed to Late 1960s.
  • "Some of Iron Man's villains were given new motivations" - not essential, but any interesting examples in the sourcing?
    • Specified "personal motivations", but the source didn't have more than that.
  • Did Friedrich take over from Conway or write for him during his 4-year tenure? It's not quite clear
    • Reread the source, it looks like I had the details wrong there. Fixed.
  • The two sentences about his alcoholism/Demon in a Bottle feel a bit stilted to me. I might condense and combine them, something like: "Their largest change was making Iron Man an alcoholic, an unprecedented issue for a major comic book hero, addressed in the Demon in a Bottle story arc that ran from #120 to #128."
    • Changed.
Publication history - 1980s and 21st century
  • Since you're very picture light in the whole publication history section, you could maybe throw in some pictures of the more famous writers just to break it up visually? Not mandatory.
    • Added one.
  • "having the character again fall into his alcoholism" - "having him relapse" maybe? It's tighter
    • Changed.
  • "O'Neil eventually wrote..." do we know when? The next arc starts in 1987, but it would be nice to know when Tony retired and how long it lasted.
  • "This story blended..." you have "Iron Man" twice in this sentence, you could maybe write around it with "aspects of the character" or similar phrasing but it's not a hill I'll die on
    • Changed
  • "with issue #211" again year might be nice here, so we know how long they lasted before Byrne replaced them
    • I added years for each issue that didn't have context about its release date.
  • "In 1990, Michelinie and Layton stopped writing for Iron Man, and the series was given to John Byrne" - it feels like the middle part is redundant to the bit about Byrne. If the series was given to Byrne, surely the others stopped writing it? I'm willing to be convinced here.
    • Reworded.
  • I might swap the order of the two sentences that start "He did not have" and "During his run". To me it makes sense to say here are the arcs he did, here's the change he made, and here's where he quit
    • Yeah, switched them.
  • "He did not have further interest in the series by 1992" this feels a bit clunky. "By 1992, he had lost interest in the series" maybe?
    • Changed.
  • "The 2014 AXIS event led into the Superior Iron Man series by Tom Taylor, featuring Iron Man with a new reversed personality." in what sense? What caused this change? Did it last?
  • "This series moved away from the developments and deviations" Is there any way you can expand on these? Right now this doesn't give the reader very much. What changes were undone? Why?
  • This section (and the end of the 1990s section) feels a bit dry, mostly being "and then this guy wrote it. and then they rebooted it. and then this other guy wrote it." It's not necessarily your fault - if that's all the sources say, that's all you have. But if you have anything else you could get in here, I think it would break it up a bit.
Characterization - Fictional biography
  • This section is quite tightly written, covers the main points at a good clip without getting bogged down in trivia or being too brief. Comments here are basically nitpicks, there's no major concerns.
  • Your link to retroactive continuity is a bit of an easter egg; I might swap the phrase "changed retroactively" from a line or two down to up here
  • You've dupelinked Obadiah Stane, why not dupelink SHIELD also? Seems useful in this section
  • You link to Armor Wars and Civil War in this section but not Demon in a Bottle or Extremis - any particular reason to link some and not others?
  • "During this time, James Rhodes takes the Iron Man armor." this is ever so slightly ambiguous - takes as in he swipes it from Tony's estate or takes as in "takes up" the mantle
  • "and he fakes his death" you could probably get away with "and fakes" since I think it's clear who we're talking about
  • "their real son could be hidden" from?
  • "When several heroes' personalities are temporarily inverted" how or by whom?
Characterization - Personality
  • Organization
    • I'm going to start by apologizing for the amount of commenting I'm about to drop in about this section. The general organization of the paragraphs isn't 100% working for me. Having skimmed the sources, however, I can see what you're working with and it's a lot, and a lot of it is intertwined in a way that feels difficult to separate. This may well wind up just being a situation where there's no perfectly-optimized organization. That being said.
    • I have the biggest problem with para 2. You start out with how Iron Man acts differently depending on which self he's being, then pivot into masculinity, then pivot to his negative traits without really explaining how he represents American masculinity. Then we're into his moral ambiguity and how it helps readers relate to him.
    • This is a bit of a radical change, but hear me out. I suggest splitting para 1 into the "billionaire playboy" stuff and the physical disability stuff. Then move the "acts different depending on which hat" and masculinity content from its current spot to paragraph 1, putting that all under "billionaire playboy" in a way that more clearly explains how he reflects American masculinity. Then with para 2 being now about his injury, the mention of how it threatens his masculinity calls back to what you discussed in para 1. Then you can transition from his health issues into a third paragraph about the rest of his flaws and how they make him interesting.
    • Para 3 is all about his intellect and technology - might the opening sentences of para 1 not fit better here?
    • I'm surprised that there's such minimal discussion of his alcoholism in this section. It's such a big part of his character, it feels like it would be a good place to expand on, but maybe the sourcing isn't there
  • Nitpicking of prose
    • "Iron Man is a businessman and an entrepreneur who constantly seeks to innovate and improve his technology. In this capacity, he is motivated to create and develop technology both for personal benefit and for the benefit of society." You could merge these two sentences for less redundancy
    • "Stan Lee modeled Iron Man after businessman Howard Hughes, and the character shares many traits with Hughes," similarly, second clause is redundant to the first.
    • "making him misanthropic so as not to reveal" I'm not sure this is quite in line with the source. It reads to me like it's saying Tony's reliance on the armor as well as his superhero identity make him isolated from other people. I don't see where he's described as becoming hateful or distrustful of other people.
    • "While he engages in" - you have "engages" twice in this sentence
    • "Stark was a child prodigy, and he graduated from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology at age 15." isn't this more like character bio?
    • "His form of intelligence is..." this sentence feels a bit knotted up in itself. If you move the MIT sentence, you could combine it with the first sentence and convey your meaning more clearly: "Like many Marvel superheroes, Iron Man has a genius-level intellect, although he distinguishes himself from them by focusing on the practical societal applications of the technology he develops." That does make the following sentence "Iron Man is defined by..." slightly more redundant, but you could trim or combine them too ;)
    • Tacking on to this, ref 105 refers to him as a "philosopher guardian", which is a lovely turn of phrase that neatly summarizes how he acts at his best as Iron Man, and I feel like there's a place for it in the article (perhaps following the bit about how he acts more superheroely as Iron Man)
Themes and motifs
  • "By 1975, Iron Man was an opponent of the Vietnam War.[121] This created a new driving motivation to make up for his past of being too willing to promote violence,[124] and he responded by becoming a philanthropist." I'm not sure the connection here is supported by the sources. Neither Robichaud nor Henebry mentions Vietnam in their separate discussions of Tony's attempts to right his wrongs. Wright kind of does on 243, talking about Stark's vow to avenge the lives lost by warmongers like himself, but he doesn't connect it to philanthropy.
  • "but it was shown as less threatening." I think you need to expand on this for it to be meaningful to the reader.
  • "A second Civil War event in 2016 portrayed Iron Man as an advocate of free will against Captain Marvel's determinism." I recall Civil War I being hugely divisive against Stark which is mentioned in the article; was there a similar reaction to Civil War II against one side or another?
  • No issues through Technology section
  • "It must be calibrated to the user, and Iron Man has to design the armor specifically for who will be using it, whether it be himself or an ally" - suggest tightening to "Iron Man must calibrate the armor to its specific user, whether it be himself or an ally."
  • "The armor's primary function was to produce" - past tense - does it not do that anymore?
  • How did Extremis ultimately conclude? Has he still got bioarmor or what? I just realized the resolution is never explicitly mentioned. Maybe here isn't the best spot, but somewhere earlier might be.
  • That's it for this section, which is overall pretty tight
Supporting characters
  • I think you could definitely dupelink all these people in this section for reader ease
  • I'm torn here. I understand the need to be clipped because you don't want to be redundant to these characters' individual articles, but some stuff feels like it needs more explanation:
    • Does Pepper still need the arc reactor?
    • Iron Man built her a set of armor in secret, and after finding it she became the superhero Rescue. - why in secret? What was he up to that she had to find it rather than him handing it over?
    • Was Rhodey WM before Stark gave him control of Stark Industries and the War Machine armor?
  • "were leadership of" - not sure this works. "were leaders in" maybe?
  • "Justin Hammer,[71] Shockwave, the Controller, the Mauler, and Stilt-Man." Fragment of a reordered sentence I assume
  • I would probably mention that Zeke Stane is Obadiah Stane's son
Cultural impact & other media
  • I'm a bit surprised that for a character with 60+ years of history, there's only 2 paragraphs of impact/legacy
  • Usually good practice to mention the year of a film to give context (either in the text or in parentheses after works)
  • "in the top ten in best Marvel character and best superhero lists." something in here is not right. Maybe try "in lists of best superheroes and best Marvel characters"? Bit simpler anyway
  • Why did that particular Italian town erect an Iron Man statue?
  • No gripes for Other media section

Okay, that's all I have for now. For the most part, the article is really well-written, and there are plenty of places I had little-to-nothing to criticize. My biggest thing is the organization of the Personality section, but as I said above, given the complexity involved, I'm open to discussion. Take your time responding. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:18, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mount Hudson[edit]

Nominator(s): Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:50, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about one of Chile's most active volcanoes. Mount Hudson had several intense eruptions during the Holocene, the latest of which took place in 1991 and had substantial impacts on . A few notes: The table contains only cross-correlatable tephras; not all tephras are present at all sites hence the incompleteness. While the 1991 eruption is the best documented in its history, it isn't actually the most significant either in the volcano's history or its impact on humans in South America, hence why it gets only a little more coverage than the others. That and I think a detailed coverage might overwhelm the article. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:50, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review by ZooBlazer[edit]

  • File:Cerro hudson.jpg - Is used in the infobox and has proper licensing, but could use alt text. The source link also appears to be broken/dead.

Two total images in the article, one being the map of Chile to mark the location of Mount Hudson. -- ZooBlazer 18:00, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ALT text added and source fixed. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:12, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. The image review passes. -- ZooBlazer 17:50, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

HF[edit]

I'll review this but it'll probably be a few days - I've got a GA review and a FAR review to finish before I can get to this. Hog Farm Talk 15:38, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • "It is often erroneously considered the southernmost." - the statement in the source is " including Hudson, the southernmost in the Andean Southern Volcanic Zone (SVZ).". This doesn't really support the footnote content here
    This one's a tough one - lots and lots of sources say that Hudson is the southernmost SVZ volcano. They are demonstrably wrong about this because Río Murta (volcano) is farther south still and is considered part of the SVZ, but it is obscure so I guess many sources just don't consider them. I think we need some formulation to point this out. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:32, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If it's only one or two sources that are clearly wrong, I usually just ignore them. But in this case, it sounds like a lot of sources make this error. Maybe It is sometimes considered the southermost ... [three or four of the higher-quality refs making this statement], but Rio Murta is part of the SVZ and is further source.[supporting reference]" if the references will support this outright? Hog Farm Talk 02:05, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:42, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "During eruptions, pyroclastic material and lava can melt the ice." - is this necessary? It seems, well, obvious
    Sometimes the ice is simply run over instead, so yes. Also, how much of the ice melts is important at times. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:32, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm assuming that AVZ is the Austral Volcanic Zone but this is never explicitly stated
    Buh, not sure how I missed this. Added. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:32, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The composition of Hudson rocks diverges from that of other SVZ volcanoes" - is it known why?
    Probably b/c it lies just east of the triple junction. I am not sure that any of the sources says so explicitly, Weller 2015 and Kilian 1993 might. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:32, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since we discuss the flora of the volcano, do any of the sources provide detail on the presence or absence of fauna?
    There probably is, but I haven't seen any source discussing any fauna relating to Hudson specifically. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:32, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stopping for now; I'm ready for the eruption history material and will hopefully start back tomorrow. Hog Farm Talk 03:24, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • "The closest tephra record to Hudson is the Laguna Miranda record 50 kilometres (30 mi), which shows on average one tephra layer every 225 years " - this feels like it is missing a word somewhere in the vicinity of the 50 kilometres
    Added word. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:42, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Thicknesses reach 4 to 20 centimetres (2 to 8 in),[110] thicker than deposits closer to the volcano" - do the sources say why? This seems unexpected
    Aye, sometimes ash layers have secondary thickness maxima. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:42, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "-21 (1971 AD)" in a Dates Before Present table. Is Present being calibrated at 1950?
    Yes, that's the radiocarbon calibration date.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:42, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The H2 eruption occurred about 4,200 years[j] ago." with the footnote stating "Older estimates of its age are 3600[107] or 3920 BP[17]". What does "older estimates" mean here? These estimates are for newer dates than the one given in the main text and of the five sources used for the sentence for the 4,200 bp age, only two are actually newer sources than the footnote sources. I'm not sure what "old estimates" means here
    It means that more recent dating estimates are about 4,200 years ago e.g this one. I don't like spelling out exact values b/c they tend to vary for every site. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:42, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • " Not fluorosis, as is commonly reported.[155]" - I'm struggling to find this in the source although admittedly it is hard to look for it as all of the various tab on the page share the same URL
    It's the one at October 1991 (BGVN 16:10) in the "Bulletin Reports" tab. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:42, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Chile Volcanoes (USGS)" - this external link redirects to a homepage now - can this be pointed to a page more immediately relevant to this volcano or should it be removed?
  • ""Cerro Hudson". Global Volcanism Program. Smithsonian Institution." - this is used as a source so it should not be listed as an external link as well
  • "Mount Hudson at AGU" - this external link is a 404 deadlink
  • "Mount Hudson at VolcanoWorld" - I struggle to see how this external link clears the WP:ELNO hurdle
    Eh, removed them all. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:42, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is this the best title for this article to be at? It looks like a number of the references use names other than Mount Hudson. A google scholar search (which of course has its limitations) has 794 results for "Cerro Hudson", 989 for "Hudson Volcano", and only 313 for "Mount Hudson"
    I have my doubts, a page move might be in order. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:42, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's it for the first read-through. Hog Farm Talk 02:05, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Supporting with the understanding that the article titling issue will be revisited after the FAC closes, since it is not recommended to move an article during the FAC process. Hog Farm Talk 01:19, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Harry[edit]

Mostly just prose. Haven't checked sources.

  • Check for duplicate links throughout.
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:15, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are we using BCE/CE or BC/AD? It doesn't really matter but you should be consistent.
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:15, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some terms might benefit from an explanatory gloss (eg "lahar")
    Done, but I'm afraid that I am not that great at spotting technical terms that require explanation. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:15, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • which is technically the correct name of the volcano as "Hudson" is the name of a different mountain. Huh? That caught me by surprise a bit. I feel some elaboration is needed.
    I have moved it down to a footnote. I don't know of any map of local toponyms from that time and it's just one source. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:15, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we know how its volcanicness if that's not a word it should be! was discovered? Your footnote says there was an unpublished report in 1970 but doesn't mention the method of discovery.
    Sans access to the unpublished report, we can't. I figure that geologists went there and noted that the structure was a caldera, one year before the eruption. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:15, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • With more than 55 eruptions during the past 22,000 years,[40] Mount Hudson is the most active volcano in Patagonia I don't think that's a strictly grammatical use of "with"
    Is the reformulation better? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:15, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Likewise The tephra was emplaced northeastward, with thicknesses exceeding 50 centimetres (20 in) which is what Tony calls Noun plus -ing.
    Rewritten. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:15, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • and was preceded by increasing hydrothermal activity.[174] It was preceded by several days Repetition of "preceded" and generally repetitive sentence structure; can the sentences be merged?
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:15, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • It began on October 26 What did? The eruption or the earthquake activity? Could be read as either.
    Clarified. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:15, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Three vents formed in the southern sector of the caldera, with ash columns rising see above about noun plus-ing
    Rewritten. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:15, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • However, as of 2023 the municipal planning of the municipalities on the Chilean side close to the volcano largely ignores volcanic hazards. "however" is a word to watch because it's often editorialising (as it is here); repetition of "municipal".
    Removed the however, but I am not sure what to replace the first municipal with. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:15, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there much to say on its proximity to other volcanoes or their relative activity levels in relation to each other?
    Not really much beyond what's currently there - Hudson is the most active volcano in the area, and only Lautaro has unambiguous historical activity. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:15, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:53, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I'm satisfied that my quibbles have been addressed. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:33, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild[edit]

Recusing to review.

I assumed so. In which case could we say. Perhaps add 'during the past 100,000 years.'
Don't think that works without OR - it tends to be an unstated assumption. Every mountain in the world was once part of a volcano during the Hadean, and yet we don't call them all "volcanoes". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:33, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't looked at the sources, but currently it is an inaccurate statement. And possibly unsourced(?) Gog the Mild (talk) 15:29, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hrm. Individual Hudson eruptions are often cited among the largest (e.g doi:10.1016/j.earscirev.2013.03.007 for H1 and doi:10.1007/s004450050193 for them in general) Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:01, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find any mentions of specific Hudson eruptions in the first of those. The second has "This eruption, which is considered to be the largest for Hudson and possibly for any volcano in the southern Andes during the Holocene" which does not support your claim.
It's in figure 4 of the first source. Also, the claim is cited in the article, to doi:10.1007/s00410-009-0426-1 and is plausible - Cerro Blanco (volcano) is the only confirmed Holocene VEI7 eruption and there aren't that many VEI6 eruptions in Holocene South America - Michinmahuida, Huaynaputina and Quilotoa are the only other volcanoes cited by GVP. I've changed the lead so that it matches the article. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:47, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Four large eruptions took place 17,300–17,440 (H0), 7,750 BP (H1), 4,200 BP (H2) and in 1991 AD (H3)". Is there a BP missing from after "17,300–17,440"? Add 'in' after "place". Link BP at fist mention. Are "H0" etc the names of the eruptions? If so, say so.
    All done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:25, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nice phrasing.
  • "The volcano has the form of ..." Name it in full, the last volcano mentioned was "south of Hudson is a smaller volcano".
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:25, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Only one image? Are there no other free use images available?
    Not that many, as the volcano is so remote; commons:Category:Cerro Hudson is pretty empty. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:25, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think File:Map chile volcanoes.gif could be used in this article. Volcanoguy 14:04, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hudson's GVP entry also has USGS photos that could be uploaded on Commons to use in this article. Volcanoguy 16:26, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Regarding File:Map chile volcanoes.gif, possibly, but I wonder what the inclusion criteria are. Put one other image in. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:52, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    File:TOMS SO2 time nov03.png could be used in the 1991 eruption section. The caption could be something like "1991 eruption sulfur dioxide emission levels compared with other volcano eruptions from 1979 to 2003". Volcanoguy 18:29, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm. Currently there is not much discussion of sulfur and Hudson in the article. I don't think this volcano is considered a major sulfur source. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:41, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "accessed either from the sea through the Huemules River". I don't think you mean "through" the river.
  • "or by land through the Blanco River". Likewise.
    Done and done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:25, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "covers an area of about 300 kilometres (190 mi)". Should that be square kilometres?
  • "and covers an area of about 300 kilometres (190 mi) ... and it covers an area of about 300 square kilometres (120 sq mi)." Duplication?
    Merged the previous sentence, as the information was duplicated. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:25, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "including the Cerros Hudson 12 kilometres (7.5 mi) south of the volcano". I thought Cerros Hudson was another name for Mount Hudson.
  • The top of the infobox has "Cerro Hudson". Is this the same as Cerros Hudson, and why is this name not mentioned in the lead?
    No, Cerros is a plural form of Cerro, not the same name. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:25, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. What about the other question. "Cerro Hudson" is at the top of the infobox but not mentioned in the lead.
Added it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:33, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Subduction-en.svg or similar would be helpful at the start of the Geology section.
    Added. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:33, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the Tres Montes Fracture Zone to its south that forms the northern boundary of the slab window." This doesn't form a whole sentence. (Or make sense to me.)
    Rewritten. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:33, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The subducted plate is still young". Is it known how young? Ie, when did it form?
    Pretty unclear from the sources; In agreement with this geometric model of the plates, the subducted segments of the Chile Ridge at about 6 and 3 Ma would be located close to HV and the surrounding monogenetic cone from Gutierrez 2005 isn't clear on whether that's the age of the plate there. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:33, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "may be responsible for its unusually high activity." The activity of Hudson, the triple junction or the plate? Ie, what does "its" refer to?
    Clarified. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:33, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it really necessary to have that single sentence paragraph? It looks as if it could run on quite happily from the previous paragraph.
    No, merged it up. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:33, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "in the late Pleistocene and Holocene ... emplaced during the Cretaceous-Neogene" and any others. Could we be told the age of their ranges at first mention.
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:33, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Hudson rocks define a potassium-rich" What does "define" mean here? Is there a less specialist way of describing it?
    Went for "are". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:33, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "deglaciation may have enhanced volcanic activity, explaining why the volumes of the intense Hudson eruptions have decreased over time". I don't understand: "deglaciation may have enhanced volcanic activity" means that activity increased, while "the volumes of the intense Hudson eruptions have decreased over time" means it decreased which is it? And why should deglaciation have any effect?
    'cause deglaciation occurred at the beginning of this period. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:01, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand the response. Possibly my queries were unclear. They are:
  • Why should deglaciation have any effect on a volcano's activity.
  • In this case did the deglaciation a) enhance volcanic activity or b) decrease the volumes of intense eruptions? On the face of it, these are opposites. If deglaciation caused both - which is what the article claims - I think some level of explanation is necessary; especially regarding the mechanism.
  • Sorry, I meant that if eruptions are enhanced by deglaciation, it's not a contradiction if they decline after deglaciation. The sentence is just a little unfortunate syntactically; I've rewritten it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:47, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The 1991 Plinian eruption was larger than the 1971 event". This seems a strange way to introduce H3, when a reader has not been told anything about the 1971 event - and so the 1991 event being larger does not mean anything.
    Recasted it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:01, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The H3 event should have the date it occurred in the first sentence about it.
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:01, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cite 131: should it not be to page 27 as well as 25?
    Cite 131 currently contains page 9, did it shift in the meantime. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:01, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Seismic and fumarolic activity continued for the next months" which is cited to Naranjo et al page 25.
Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:47, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Seismic and fumarolic activity continued for the next months" Given "Durante estos meses no se registró actividad eruptiva, aunque continuó una debil actividadfumarólica" couldn't we be a little more specific?
    According to the page, there were also seismic phenomena in the following months. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:01, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The largest Holocene eruption of Hudson – and any volcano of the southern Andes". This does not match the lead.
    Changed. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:01, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Naranjo and Stern have "This eruption, which is considered to be the largest for Hudson and possibly for any volcano in the southern Andes during the Holocene" so there would seem to be disagreement among the sources as to whether it is definitively the largest regional Holocene eruption. The article should reflect this.
Hmm. The problem I see is that this source isn't the only one and gives no specific justification for the "possibly". Certainly, most sources discussing the impacts of volcanism in Patagonia say that H1 was the most significant (not necessarily the largest) volcanic event during the Holocene there and the only comparable eruption (MIC1 of Michinmahuida) has smaller volume estimates. I think the problem is that we don't have any sources that are dedicated to volcano to volcano tephra volume comparisons. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:47, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "trachydacite/trachyrhyolite". The MoS: "Generally, avoid joining two words with a slash". See MOS:SLASH for more details and suggested alternatives.
    Unfortunately, it is not clear from the sources why sometimes trachydacite and sometimes trachyrhyolite. So we can't do without a slashed word here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:01, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think we need to. See MOS:ANDOR. ('which consist mostly of trachydacite, trachyrhyolite or a mixture of the two'?)
No, because the definitions partially overlap and I can't be sure that they aren't referring to the same thing. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:52, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "while (subglacial) lava flows". I suggest removing the parentheses.
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:52, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "About 84,000 people live around Hudson." If we also cite page 40, can we be more precise and say 'About 84,000 people live within 50 km of Hudson'?
    We can, I guess. Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:52, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It appears to consist of two nested calderas." The source says (my translation) "two or even three".
    My impression is that most other sources only credit Hudson with one or two calderas, and the more detailed ones on the local structure prefer two. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:52, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You can't cite "It appears to consist of two nested calderas" to a source which says (my translation) "two or even three caldera ... two or, possibly, three caldera".
Well, that's interesting. doi:10.1007/s00445-014-0815-9 says that there are two calderas, but cites Orihashi which mentions "two or three". Anyhow, it seems like I was mistaken here; so it now says two or three. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:47, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Which may be an overestimate." If "yielding more than 20 cubic kilometres (4.8 cu mi)[m] of tephra" is an estimate, could we say so in the text.
    This is another case where sources disagree. My impression is that Bertrand 2014's objection hasn't been picked up widely. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:52, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the sources disagree, we need to explicitly say so.
Hence the parenthetical - there is that disagreement, but not enough to put it down as an equal opinion. For example, doi:10.1007/s00445-015-0991-2 knows about Bertrand 2014 and yet uses the Weller estimate. These sources too cite the large estimate despite post-dating Bertrand 2014. I think the objection needs to be mentioned, but it'd be undue weight to say it in text. If there is a better way to present a situation where 1 source has a substantial objection and yet 3-4 keep going with the previous estimate, though, I am listening. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:47, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's all from me. Nice work, as always. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:54, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Volcanoguy[edit]

  • The volcano type for Mount Hudson is inconsistent. In the article, Hudson is described as a caldera but in the infobox stratovolcano is given as the volcano type.
    I hate dealing with infoboxes, fixed. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:12, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I notice throughout the article that Mount Hudson is simply referred to as Hudson. Isn't this a bit informal?
    I've seen plenty of academic articles shortening the name. Besides, as you can see a few sections above, the article will be due a rename after the FAC. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:12, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Introduction
  • "Hudson has the form of a 10 kilometres (6 mi) wide volcanic caldera filled with ice." 10 kilometres (6.2 miles) wide → 10-kilometre-wide (6.2-mile)
  • "covered a large area in Chile and neighbouring Argentina" - would "in" be better replaced with "of"?
    No, because while the area is large, it is not a large portion of Chile. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:12, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Geology
  • "Hudson rises from the Patagonian Batholith, a 1,000-kilometre (600 mi) long formation" - formation (geology) redirects to geological formation which is about stratigraphy rather than intrusions.
    The Patagonian Batholith is also a stratigraphic formation. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:12, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I haven't been able to find any sources describing it as such. Volcanoguy 17:34, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You also checked Spanish ones? One would expect that these intrusions (which are grouped together as an unit) being called in a certain way. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:58, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "including the Liquine-Ofqui Fault Zone (LOFZ) that runs parallel to the volcanic belt" - I think "that" should be "which" here.
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:12, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Composition and magma plumbing system
  • "The cone lavas include MORB and ocean island basalt components" - why not spell out MORB (mid-ocean ridge basalt) since it isn't used elsewhere in the article?
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:12, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "possible along with the assimilation of crustal material" - should "possible" be "possibly" here?
    Yes, done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:12, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Magmas ascending into Hudson halt at about 6 to 24 kilometres (4 to 15 mi) depth" - this would read better if it were changed to "Magmas ascending into Hudson halt about 6 to 24 kilometres (4 to 15 mi) underground".
  • "and is then stored at a few kilometres depth" - like above, it would read better if it were "and is then stored a few kilometres underground".
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:12, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Climate and vegetation
  • "Winds usually blow from the north or northwest and are strong, easterly winds are rare." Should the comma in this sentence be a semicolon instead?
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:12, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Eruption history
  • "has yielded ages of 120,000-100,000 years" - en dash.
  • "from the Pleistocene-Holocene transition time" - en dash.
    Done and done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:12, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Holocene
  • "erupted rocks have grown less mafic" - I think you mean the rocks have become less mafic; rocks don't "grow".
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:12, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Having erupted 55 time during the past 22,000 years" - time should be times.
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:12, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why do some tephra layers in the table have footnotes while others don't? The dates appear to be missing sources completely.
    'cause some of them are sourced in the column header. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:12, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
H1 eruption
7,750 BP
  • "The tephra deposits have three layers," - I think this comma should be a semicolon.
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:12, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
H3 eruption
1991 AD
  • "a phreatomagmatic eruption commenced on August 8 at 18:20" - 18:20 UTC?
    Source does not specify; I figure it's Atlantic Time Zone though as that's Chile's timezone. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:12, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "entered a trachyandesitic reservoir at 2 to 3 kilometres (1.2 to 1.9 mi) depth" - this would read better as "entered a trachyandesitic reservoir 2 to 3 kilometres (1.2 to 1.9 mi) underground".
    Eh, I think in this case the first formulation works. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:12, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Part of the ice cap melted." - this sentence would be better off as part of the previous sentence using a semicolon.
    Not sure that it is germane to that sentence, though. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:12, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "tephra fell along two axes: A narrow northern one" - the "A" doesn't need to be capitalized here does it?
    I think it should, after a colon. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:12, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the southeastern one by the Plinian one" - I would replace "Plinian one" with "Plinian phase" to avoid repetition.
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:12, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Other historical activity
  • "On the morning of August 12, 1971 tremors" - missing a comma after 1971.
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:12, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "between 0 to 10 kilometres (0 to 6 mi) depth" - I would use "underground" instead of "depth" here.
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:12, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hazards
  • "the highest hazards exist in the Huemules and Sorpresas valley" - I think valley should be plural.
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:12, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "As of 2023 the municipal planning of the municipalities" - comma after 2023.
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:12, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FYI I've nominated the Big Raven Formation article for FA. Volcanoguy 20:16, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Etika[edit]

Nominator(s): PantheonRadiance (talk) 07:00, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Desmond Amofah, better known as Etika, rose to popularity through his gaming videos, reactions, and spirited personality. However, his life took a tragic turn when he publicly underwent numerous incidents due to his struggles with mental health, leading to his suicide in June 2019. I nominated this article for three reasons.

  1. Etika was the reason I created my Wikipedia account. When I first heard of his passing, an overwhelming mix of emotions whirled in the pool of my mind, with regret leaping for air the most. As someone who saw his unraveling in real time, all I wanted to do was change the past, but was powerless to do so – instead I focused on the future. In 2023, I brought the page to GA status as a healing process of coping with tragedy through copy-editing and typing. This year I continued my journey in hopes to bring it to FA.
  2. If everything goes well, Etika would become the very first article of a YouTuber, and perhaps an Internet personality, to reach the coveted title. This is quite unprecedented territory in several ways, and I feel that in those same ways there couldn't be a more fitting person to wear that crown, because
  3. His story is a compelling yet tragic tale about one's journey through fame and battles with social media and mental health. Although dealing with troubling subject material, Etika's life is one future generations deserve to know about. I wanted to do my part in honoring his life and legacy.

I'd like to thank @HappyBoi3892, Vaticidalprophet, Masem, and VARNAMi: and every other contributor to the article. Thanks, PantheonRadiance (talk) 07:00, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

I only have time to look at the lead right this minute, but I picked up these points:

  • "He became known online for his enthusiastic reactions to Super Smash Bros. character trailers"......"He garnered popularity following the release of Super Smash Bros. 4, primarily stemming from his videos discussing news related to the game" - "enthusiastic reactions to trailers" and "discussing news" don't really sound like the same thing. Can you clarify?
    • It was meant to convey that he uploaded both news and reaction videos to the game. I'll rewrite to "...from his reaction videos of news surrounding the game" for now.
  • There are three refs against the penultimate sentence. Refs should only be in the lead in exceptional circumstances. Are the observers who commented also mentioned in the body? If so, just have the refs there....
    • I mentioned this in the GA review, and admittedly this is a bit unorthodox. But the reason why I kept those was because I felt they were the three best and most pertinent sources discussing him. I intended it so that if an interested reader had little time to read all the sources, they could at least check those articles. If anyone disagrees however, I'd be more than open to refactor them.

I'll look at the body later.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:44, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

More comments[edit]

  • "Amofah had stated that he was distant from his father" => "he stated that he was distant from his father" ("Ambofah" is ambiguous as you have just talked about multiple people with that surname)
  • "Amofah had an older brother" => "He had an older brother" (same reason)
  • "He would be pulled out" => "He was pulled out"
  • "He had also stated in a livestream" => "He also stated in a livestream"
  • "Within months after creating" => "Within months of creating"
  • "screams "Mewtwo!" with other profanities" - Mewtwo is not a profanity, so saying "other profanities" doesn't work. Try "screams "Mewtwo!" with several profanities"
    • I also added specific profanities he exclaimed per sources.
  • "Despite his earnings, Amofah had revealed in a June 2017 video" => "Despite his earnings, Amofah revealed in a June 2017 video"
  • "Amofah continued to evince erratic behavior" - "evidence" is a pretty obscure word, I think. Maybe "display" would be better?
  • "where he was subsequently taken to a Brooklyn hospital in an ambulance" => "after which he was taken to a Brooklyn hospital in an ambulance"
  • " and as part of this, sends information" => " and that as part of this, it sends information"
  • Bridge image caption isn't a full sentence so doesn't require a full stop
  • That's what I got. An excellent (but, of course, sad) read -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:13, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:24, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from NegativeMP1[edit]

I'll take a look soon. I'll likely do an image review alongside one for prose. λ NegativeMP1 19:26, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't able to find any issues with the prose, and all images are free to use. My only comment is requesting the addition of alternative text to all images for accessibility. λ NegativeMP1 23:54, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to apologize for the halt on this, I forgot that I put this down. Since alt text has been added, I'm giving my Support.

Comments from Skyshifter[edit]

  • As I said in the peer review (though now I say as a view of mine instead of "what FAC reviewers may say"), I think some sources listed as "primary" can't be used, as they are fan reuploads of the original videos, meaning they could be altered, for example. The sources in question are 2, 3, 4, 6 and 8 (from this revision). I'd try to find primary sources from Etika himself or secondary sources to confirm the information instead of fan reuploads.
  • Those primary references also need consistent formatting. Some examples are:
    • You should use {{cite tweet}} for ref 10 as you did with other tweets.
    • Some YouTube sources are lacking author and the |via=YouTube parameter.
    • References 5 and 11 list the author as "Etika @ 999 [@Etika]", while ref 7 lists him as "Amofah, Desmond [@Etika]".

Skyshiftertalk 19:41, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Skyshifter and NegativeMP1: Apologies for the late response - I've been trying to find more suitable substitutes for some of the primary sources the past few days. I replaced some so far, but even the Wayback Machine isn't helping me here - some of the videos aren't even archived properly (like the 200,000 sub video where source 8 comes from). This might be a case where the reuploads either remain as surrogate archives per WP:IAR or rewritten entirely; I'll let other editors weigh in on this. Considering how sparingly they're used however, I don't think it should be too much of a loss if removed. Also, I implemented the Alt Text. PantheonRadiance (talk) 09:05, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, just checking in. Anyone still have more comments for the article? PantheonRadiance (talk) 00:00, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
4/19 Reply: Skyshifter Hey, I just wanted to let you know that I fixed the formatting for several of Twitter and YouTube sources. Unfortunately, after searching for several weeks, I was unable to locate other sources that replace 2, 3, 4 and 6. In advance for the source review, I would like to refer to this past discussion, and if the reviewer is okay with it based on said discussion, I'll leave that section intact. Otherwise, if I still don't find any by next week, I'll trim that info. Besides that, any other comments and suggestions? PantheonRadiance (talk) 06:00, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly I don't think the fact that these were reuploads was made very clear in that discussion. For example, one user referred to "self-published primary sources". However, self-published here would mean published by Etika himself, and that's not the case here: the sources were published by, basically, random Internet users. Again, the problem of reuploads is that the content could be edited or altered in a way not intended by the person themselves (in this case, Etika). I think more opinions are necessary here. Skyshiftertalk 13:04, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from DecafPotato[edit]

Just a drive-by comment: In the second paragraph of the "Origins and popularity" section, the article states that he was earning over $300,000 a year through stream donations. The New York Times article to which this quote is attributed says that When the sessions got frank, or the high jinks got crazy [...], viewers would shower the chat with donations. At one point Etika claimed he was making over $300,000 per year. That source, to me, doesn't attribute the income directly to stream donations (although donations are mentioned in the previous sentence so it does carry that implication). Would it be better to rephrase that sentence to "he was earning over $300,000 a year through streaming" (or some other variant that doesn't explicitly mention donations)? DecafPotato (talk) 20:10, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense; how about "$300,000 a year through his internet career"? PantheonRadiance (talk) 19:05, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That works for me. DecafPotato (talk) 07:08, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Elli[edit]

  • "and he stated that he was distant from his father because of his political occupation" this is a bit of a nitpick, but this could technically be read ambiguously (the "he" could refer to either his father or himself). Maybe could rephrase with a bit of expansion on why his father was in NYC at the time, and clarify when exactly he went back to Ghana (to get an idea of when the two had time together).
  • "During that time" is kinda redundant to "in 2007"; maybe do "Under that name"?
  • The comicbook.com source doesn't appear to be relevant to the sentence about Model Mayhem (it says less on the topic than the other sources do and as far as I can tell doesn't link the profile either).
  • The first paragraph in the "Origins and popularity (2012–2018)" covers content from the following section as well. Kinda breaks the sequence here. If the info on subscriber counts is meant to be a summary, I'd pull it out to the "YouTube career" section and also integrate the information on subscriber counts to the particular sections where it's sequentially relevant.
  • Is there more coverage of his personal life? He was in a relationship with Cardona for six years but she, nor his other potential relationships, aren't mentioned anywhere outside the context of his YouTube career. Understandable if the sources don't exist, though (and it's not our job to try to dig up that sorta stuff from his YouTube videos).
  • "he blocked close friends of his and other YouTubers" not sure this is supported entirely by the sources? Kotaku: "Sky Williams, who apparently considers himself a friend of Amofah’s, realized he was blocked by the YouTuber today" and Shacknews doesn't say anything about Slasher being a friend with Etika at all.
  • "which he also posted to Twitter repeatedly" can't find this in the sources? All they say is that he posted it -- not repeatedly.
  • "he assaulted the police officer in self-defense" - assault is a crime, not an action. The Power Unlimited source says "hit" (at least, with Google translate as I can't read Dutch), and the People source doesn't mention self-defense at all. Would figure out a different phrase to use here (it's fine to use "assault" generally, but it doesn't make sense to say someone "assaulted in self-defense").
  • "A tweet Amofah posted" saying "had posted" would probably be clearer.
  • "both from his fans and from mental health facilities" maybe better to say "by both his fans and mental health facilities" or similar.
  • "After raising money for charity, Abe Hunter and Double A worked with mural artist BK Foxx and graffiti artists Kestaadm and JMZWalls to create a 40-feet-long mural completed by November 2019 dedicated to Amofah in Bushwick, Brooklyn." would it be possible to add a picture of this? (think it would be considered non-free copyrighted artwork, but there's a good case for including it here).

Overall, this is quite good. These are just some minor nitpicks and shouldn't be too difficult to deal with (also if you disagree with me on some of them, that's fine, just let me know what your thoughts are). Elli (talk | contribs) 23:34, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mars Society[edit]

Nominator(s): CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 12:51, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Mars Society is a nonprofit organization that advocates for human Mars exploration and colonization. There is very little available source that is said about the Mars Society, yet early in its history it played a crucial part in Elon Musk's creation of SpaceX. I've spent more than two years trying to improve the article and I'm hoping for the best for the third FAC. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 12:51, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've also contacted some Mars Society members to take a look at this article. No responses yet, but hopefully there will be a few by the end of the week. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 14:01, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They don't know what more to add to this article. Looks like this is comprehensive enough for now. Also, I just managed to borrow the book and is skimming it for facts. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 12:29, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note, this is when I contacted individual members of the Mars Society. Now that I finally found the official communication forum for the TMS, I emailed to the New Mars Forum to get more feedback. Hopefully they will provide insights that are still missing from the article. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 01:02, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@WP:FAC coordinators: is this article still missing an image and source review? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 12:54, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I have placed a request at WP:FACSR. FrB.TG (talk) 13:09, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment by TompaDompa[edit]

I almost certainly will not do a full review, but I would like to suggest using Robert Markley's Dying Planet: Mars in Science and the Imagination (2005) as a source. There is a fair amount of material about the Mars Society therein; the index points to pp. 23, 350–353, and 385, but there's more—I would suggest at minimum checking out the "Mars Direct and the High Frontier" portion (pp. 346–354) of chapter 8 ("Mars at the Turn of a New Century"). It could for instance be used to verify James Cameron as a member. TompaDompa (talk) 21:54, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TompaDompa Thank you so much for the source! It took me ages to make sure that every single source has been extensively checked, and you proved me wrong. Always nice to find more sources for the article, will get the book and write the article. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 14:15, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@TompaDompa Reading it... CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 12:44, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@TompaDompa, I just finished adding everything I can think off to the article with that source. Wow, what an oversight. It confirmed some of my suspicions about the society earlier, but it's nice to confirm it with a reliable source. If you know any other sources that mentions the Mars Society, please tell me as soon as possible! CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 17:19, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's it, I'm afraid. I'm only aware of Markley's book because I used it heavily for Mars in fiction. TompaDompa (talk) 20:00, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prose support from PCN02WPS[edit]

  • Minor, but maybe reword "Many Mars Society members and former members" in the lead to "Many current and former Mars Society members" to avoid repetition?
  • The "Philosophy and propositions" section mentions a founding conference in the present tense initially and then switches to past tense
  • "2003 that Mars Society is a fundamentally" → when referred to like this elsewhere in the article, the phrasing "the Mars Society" is used
  • "They published their plan to NASA" → recommend linking NASA on first mention
    • Secondary point: The wording that they published a paper to the organization sounds a little strange, maybe "for NASA"? I'm not really sure what the best fix would be here.
  • "the same year as the sixth and last Case for Mars" → I think you can drop "sixth and" since you mention that the sixth was the final one earlier
  • "near Hanksville, Utah" → comma after "Utah" per MOS:GEOCOMMA
  • The crew would stay for eighty days" → reads better to me as "The crew stayed for eighty days
  • "totaling 236 crews,with each crew" → need a space
  • The second-to-last paragraph in "Earlier activities" seems to be missing a few articles here and there; for example, I think it reads better with wording like "later renamed to the Mars Gravity Biosattelite" and "students from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology"
  • MIT doesn't need to be linked again in the last paragraph
  • I would also consider giving the "MIT" abbreviation at first mention and using it instead of the long form name at subsequent mentions as it is far more digestible
  • "had dwarfed the one of Mars Society" → "had dwarfed that of Mars Society" - also might need a "the" in front of "Mars Society"
  • remove links from FMARS and MDRS; they're given already above
  • Ditto for Devon Island and Hanksville, Utah
  • "As of 2017, it is back" → consider "it was back" since you're mentioning an update given seven years ago with no update since then

That's all I've got as far as prose goes, nice work! PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 05:07, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your excellent review! I've implemented all of your changes to the article. I still haven't being able to loan "Dying Planet: Mars in Science and the Imagination" yet but I hope I will be able to loan it soon. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 12:32, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I went back and changed a couple words to fix tenses and such myself so I didn't have to hold this up just for that. The article is very well-written and I'm happy to support on prose quality. (As a note, if you've got a bit of time I have an FAC of my own that could use some eyes) PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 15:18, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for the support! It's my 4th year on Wikipedia and my 5th FAC, and this is the first ever FAC support that I've received. Thank you so much for believing in this FAC. I really do appreciate that. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 16:48, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Draken Bowser[edit]

Neat and to the point, probably doesn't need to be much longer than this until we get boots on the ground. I'm having a little trouble with the "current" in the "current projects" heading, in part because we're unaware of whether two of these projects are even ongoing as of 2017 and august 2022.

  • "..and Peter Smith" If he is notable as a member we should be able to verify his membership with a secondary source.
  • "president is Robert Zubrin., and nNotable members" English loves commas, couldn't we still do a full stop here?
  • "The testimony seems to not have influenced the committee" Reads a bit like a stylistic understatement, can we be blunt here?
  • Could we do the inverse: "where the island is not uninhabited and lacks vegetation."
  • Google hits for the exact phrasing "student university competitions" do not look promising, rephrase?
  • "The MarsVR Project aims.."
  • Source spot check (random.org) 13, 14, 16, 24 and 28 — 24: I can't seem to find the date on page 4, or any other page. It's in source 17 though. Also, please add the rp-template to source 17.

Regards. Draken Bowser (talk) 14:23, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In order:
  • Cannot verify whether Peter Smith was a board member or not, even on his personal website. If he had ever been a Mars Society member, he was most likely a member in the society for an insignificant amount of time. Removed.
  • I was stupid. Implemented.
  • Rewrote to "The committee was indifferent to the testimony"
  • Made sense. Implemented.
  • Removed "student"
  • To be explicit, added another ref after "In December 2001,"
Thank you so much for the source check! Sorry if I haven't been about to respond to you immediately. Courtesy ping: Draken Bowser. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 12:44, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No probs. I'm gonna hold here for a while pending further comments/polishing and return later for another read through. Draken Bowser (talk) 14:29, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Draken Bowser Would you mind reviewing the article again for any further omissions? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 15:09, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can't get to a printer today, unfortunately, will get back to you no later than Wednesday. Draken Bowser (talk) 15:14, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Draken Bowser Wow, you're very dedicated to copyedit the article. Thank you so much for your time and effort! CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 15:30, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I mostly wanted to see how far my holistic impression had improved since the first look.

Final notes:

  • "This goal can be seen in.." prefer "These goals were set out.."
  • "..to espouse his own views on how human Mars mission should be done." Add "-s" or "a".
  • "Mars will be a way to give birth to an ideal society." Prefer "would".
  • "..and no further development of TEMPO3 has been done since the initial proposal." Do our sources confirm this, or should we go with "reported"?

That's all, and Support. Draken Bowser (talk) 16:14, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thank you so much for your support and your comprehensive review. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 00:59, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild[edit]

Recusing to review.

  • "advocates for human Mars exploration and colonization". This may be different in US English, but to my ear it is clunky. Perhaps 'advocates for human exploration and colonization of Mars'?
  • "to make human mission to Mars". Not grammatical. Either 'to make human missions to Mars' or 'to make a human mission to Mars'.
  • "... which aims to make human mission to Mars as lightweight and feasible as possible. The Mars Society aims to generate ..." Is it possible to avoid "aims" twice in such clos proximity?
  • "the Mars Society has been active with organizing events and research activities." Suggest 'the Mars Society has organizied events and supported research activities.'
  • "aim to replicate a true Mars mission for research." Suggest 'aim to stimulate a Mars mission.'
  • "Crew members in the stations must perform ..." Delete "must".
  • "do research assignments" → 'carry out research assignments'.
  • "and researching the effects on Martian crews via Mars analog habitats." Researching the effects of what?
  • Reference: books should either all have publisher locations or none should.
  • "and notable members and former members" → 'and notable current and former members'.
  • "chapters in Canada, Australia, Japan, Europe, etc". Etc doesn't really work. Is it possible to give a full list? Or end with 'and x other countries'?
  • "The Mars Society's founding conference" - give the year.
  • Link Mars Direct.
  • "a panel made by the Obama administration" → 'a panel set up by the Obama administration'.
  • "During a testimony". Delete "a".
  • $20 bn is not "one-twentieth the cost" of $250–500 bn. Perhaps 'less than one-twentieth the cost'?
  • "conference had happened" → 'conference took place'.
  • "as a spiritual successor". Delete "spiritual".
  • "Some of the invited were from the Mars Underground and those who had written to Zubrin" → 'Some of those invited were from the Mars Underground or had had written to Zubrin ...'.
  • Section heading: "Earlier activities". You shouldn't use "earlier" without saying what it is earlier than what. Perhaps 'Historical projects' or similar.
  • "on Devon Island." Where is that?
  • "The construction cost for FMARS is jointly shared by the Mars Society and the Haughton–Mars Project team. Part of the funding also came from commercial sponsorship such as the Discovery Channel." The second sentence contradicts the first.
  • "FMARS was first occupied in July and August 2000". It can't be first occupied on two dates.
  • "In mid-2001, the Mars Society received a US$5,000 check from Elon Musk for a fundraiser event." That is not what the source says. Possibly you mean 'at a fundraiser event'?
  • "Musk joined the Mars Society's board of directors". I cannot find this on the pages cited. It is discouraging that the one cite I have checked seems to have two errors.
  • "invited aerospace engineers whom he had met beforehand at Mars Society-sponsored trips". Delete "beforehand".
  • "Since then, Musk occasionally kept contact with the Mars Society". This needs rewording. Maybe 'Since then, Musk has occasionally worked with the Mars Society' or similar?
  • "as evident by his presentation". Either 'as is evident in his presentation' or 'as is evidenced by his presentation'.
  • "The first four-month-long mock mission was done in 2007" → 'The first four-month-long mock mission took place in 2007'.
  • "Shorter missions were done in 2009 and 2013" → 'Shorter missions were carried out in 2009 and 2013'.
  • What is a "field season"?
  • "The money that had been donated by Elon Musk". Delete "that had been".
  • "MIT": In the last paragraph of Earlier activities you use MIT twice, then give the name in full. Is there a reason for this?
  • What is a "student university"?
  • Is "MarsVR Project" a computer program? If so, say so at first mention.

That's it for my first run through. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:53, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild, thank you so much for your kind comments! I've implemented most of your suggestions to the article. As for "Musk joined the Mars Society's board of directors", it can be verified with this quote, around page 100-110: "Musk took to the Mars Society right away and joined its board of directors." I need to find the page number for the print version though... CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 17:14, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On my epub, the print edition page number for that quote is 100. Unless I own a hardcopy of the book, I really don't know what's wrong with the citation here. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 17:21, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have sorted it. If you think I have done anything wrong, could you flag it up here. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:24, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sources: Bishop, 2011 needs a page range.
  • "Field season" is not the same as "fiscal year".

Looking good. Just the two minor points above. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:05, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild Done. As a side note, all three citations to Bishop, 2011 have attached {{rp}} CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 12:37, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Bishop: I know, doesn't matter. If a source is a part of a larger work (eg a chapter of a book or an article in a journal) its page range needs to be given along with the other details on how to find it. Note the tweak I gave. Nice work. Supporting. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:58, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Graham Beards[edit]

The article has improved by leaps and bounds since its first FAC coming up to two years ago. I think it satisfies the FA criteria. I made a couple of tiny edits rather than list them here. Well done. Graham Beards (talk) 14:41, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Graham Beards, would you mind taking a look at the article again? I've made some addition to the article from the source that TompaDompa has suggested. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 15:08, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes: "degree" should be "degrees" and you should say if they are university or college degrees. Here " with certain influences from science fiction", you don't need "certain". Here " The first convention also saw the signing of the Founding Declaration of the Mars Society" the "also" is redundant. Graham Beards (talk) 15:17, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your feedback! I've made my first copyedit pass through the article and fixed the issues that you've addressed. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 15:29, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source and image review[edit]

Image placement and ALT text seems fine for me. Regarding File:Elon Musk at MSC 2006.jpg, I kinda wonder why the Flickr images are so lacking in EXIF details. I am not sure that the licence statement on File:FMARS Station Construction 2 2000-07-21.JPG means that it can be re-used by other. Source review wise reviewing this version. Looks like we are working mostly with major news sources and specialized sources here. Spot-check:

  • 3 The fee thing is on the other page. OK otherwise, although you may want to alphabetize the countries list.
  • 4 Can I have copies of the pages in question?
  • 8 OK
  • 10 OK although I wonder if this is somewhat detailed information for a Wikipedia article.
  • 13 OK
  • 14 Mostly OK but where is it said that it was a "successor"'
  • 15 OK
  • 17 OK
  • 18 OK
  • 19 OK
  • 20 Where is "temporary foundation for his publicity projects,"?
  • 22 OK
  • 24 OK
  • 25 OK
  • 27 Can I have copies of the pages in question?
  • 28 OK, but it's interpreting the reasons why these sites were chosen.
  • 29 OK
  • 33 OK, some paraphrasing of "propulsion module, heat shield and landing engines" may be warranted.
  • 35 Need a copy of this webpage.
  • 36 Where is "the training part has an attached cost for the public"?

Not source or image related, but the article is conspicuously lacking in any outside review or commentary on the organization. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:33, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your review. About the images, I will email to the Mars Society to confirm that these images are indeed made by them. As for the reviews that you're talking about, sources available for TMS are very scant, even more so for external commentaries. I tried my best to layout critical commentary of the organization at Mars_Society#Philosophy_and_propositions.
Addressing source concerns... CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 14:08, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As for the IRS filing information, I think it's appropriate to put it into the article. The organization is really small by many standards and there's no official member count for the TMS. So the next best thing is to assess the revenue and spending of the organization. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 14:25, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

St. Michael's Golden-Domed Monastery[edit]

Nominator(s): Amitchell125 (talk) 09:19, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is a former FA. It is about the monastery in Kyiv, which was rebuilt since its destruction in the 1930s. The article about the monastery and its beautiful cathedral has been extensively expanded. Amitchell125 (talk) 09:19, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

  • As Ukraine does not have freedom of panorama consistent with Wikipedia's definition of freedom, all images of 3D works (including the building itself) will need to include a tag for the original work.
@Nikkimaria: Understood, but there is is discussion here that I think makes the situation with this monastery less clear cut. I have replaced one of the article's images with the one that was discussed. Amitchell125 (talk) 13:54, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All the images of the reconstructed parts of the monastery have now been removed. Amitchell125 (talk) 14:28, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Several 3D works still need a tag for the original work. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:43, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Tags added. Amitchell125 (talk) 18:47, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Still some missing, eg File:Kiev_khmelnitsky.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:43, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: Image removed. There were several tags there, and I have no idea why you still think another is required. Please advise which other images in the article still do not meet the FA criteria, and I will remove them as well. Amitchell125 (talk) 08:43, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Kyev_Zakrvsky_map_02.png (here) needs an author date of death. Ditto File:Plan_of_St._Michael's_Golden-domed_Monastery_in_Kyiv.jpg (here)
Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 17:07, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Er, looks like one of the authors listed died less than 100 years ago? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:31, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Tag replaced. Amitchell125 (talk) 18:50, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Kyiv_Pechery_Kalnofoysky_Athanasius_Teraturgema,_1638.jpg (here) needs a US tag. Ditto File:Kyiv-Michael-monastery.jpg (here).
Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 17:47, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Київ._Михайлівський_Золотоверхий_собор.jpg (here): which rationale from the Russian tag is believed to apply?
2 (a). Amitchell125 (talk) 18:01, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ditto File:Cathedral_Church_of_St._Michael's_Golden-domed_Monastery.jpg (here),
@Nikkimaria: I have changed the tag, do you agree with the one I have used? Amitchell125 (talk) 21:32, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When and where was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:10, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria:1914, Kyiv—text amended to make this more obvious. Do you agree with the tag?
FYI, pings don't work if they're not signed. Yep, that's fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:43, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Cossacks_of_Haydamatsky_Kosh_of_Slobid_Ukraine_near_the_St._Michael's_Cathedral_in_Kyiv.jpg (here).
Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 21:45, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Where was this first published and what is the author's date of death? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:43, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Tag replaced. Was it not first published in 1918? Amitchell125 (talk) 14:16, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a source saying it was? The source link provided appears to simply state it was taken then. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:31, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No source found after an extensive search, so image removed. Amitchell125 (talk) 18:53, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Румовища_собору_Михайлівського_золотоверхого_монастиря_після_підриву_14_серпня_1937_року.jpg (here) needs a US tag.
Image (dated 1937) now removed from article. Amitchell125 (talk) 21:52, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ditto File:Michael_of_salonica.jpg (here).
Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 08:14, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Carl_Peter_Mazer_-_St._Michael's_Golden-Domed_Monastery.jpg (here and here): when and where was this first published?
Both drawings were made in 1851 for a project that never materialised. They are to be found in an album now at the Nationalmuseum in Stockholm. Commons pages edited accordingly. Amitchell125 (talk) 09:21, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the project never materialized, when were they published? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:31, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm unclear why you are asking about works of art being published, as most works of art are never 'published'. Imo this tag is correct—if I am wrong, please let me know which is the correct tag to use for these drawings. Amitchell125 (talk) 19:03, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm asking about publication because publication is what matters in most instances for US copyright status. For example the current tagging indicates that "This work is in the public domain in the United States because it was published (or registered with the U.S. Copyright Office) before January 1, 1929." Do we know that that happened? If no, then to figure out the appropriate tag to replace that with, we need to know what the first publication known is. This applies to several other works as well - we can't assume date of creation and publication are the same. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:43, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: If Mazér died in 1884 and his 1951 drawings were never published but have subsequently made available on the internet in Ukraine, which tag do you advise I use for them? Amitchell125 (talk) 08:54, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When were they made available on the internet? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:19, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: The link from WikiCommons states "05 . 04 . 2022". Amitchell125 (talk) 16:55, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If that is the earliest publication, {{PD-US-unpublished}} might apply. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:54, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 19:23, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Refectory_of_St._Michael's_Golden-Domed_Monastery.jpg (here): if this is dated to the 1930s it can't have been published before 1929. Ditto File:Economic_Gate,_St._Michael's_Golden-Domed_Monastery.jpg (here),
Both images now removed. Amitchell125 (talk) 09:41, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Replacement image found to depict the Economic Gate. Amitchell125 (talk) 13:55, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What's the status of this photo in the US? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:43, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Tag added. Amitchell125 (talk) 15:04, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ditto File:Ceremonial_kissing_of_the_holy_remains_of_St._Barbara_(St._Michael's_Golden-Domed_Monastery,_Kyiv).tif (here).
Image replaced with similar photograph (known author, known date of publication). Amitchell125 (talk) 12:59, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Lithograph_of_Mikhailovsky_Golden-Domed_Monastery._Kyiv.jpg (here) needs an author date of death and info on first publication.
Date already provided, but author not able to be identified. Amitchell125 (talk) 13:56, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the work dates to 1911 and the author is not able to be identified, how do we know they died over 100 years ago? Where was this published? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:43, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The source is the website (I searched but have so far not found any further information). Tag replaced.Amitchell125 (talk) 14:49, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This tagging requires that the work was published in a certain place by a certain date - can that be verified to have happened? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:31, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, so image removed. Amitchell125 (talk) 19:15, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ditto File:V._Nikolaev_-_drawings_of_the_iconostasis_of_St._Michael's_Golden-Domed_Cathedral_in_Kyiv.jpg (here).
Done. The best date to be found is still "1880s", though. Amitchell125 (talk) 14:13, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is that a creation date or is that known to be a publication date? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:31, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Publication. Amitchell125 (talk) 19:16, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose simply due to the volume of issues - happy to revisit if they can be addressed. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:21, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Above issues addressed, hopefully. Amitchell125 (talk) 14:14, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note[edit]

This has been open for more than three weeks and has yet to pick up a support. Unless it attracts considerable movement towards a consensus to promote over the next two or three days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:11, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FromSupport from Tim riley[edit]

I'll look in over the next day or so, Tim riley talk 08:41, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First comment after an initial read-through: we need to be clear which language the article is supposed to be in. At present we have a mish-mash of English and American spellings: BrE centimetres, centre, metres, remodelled, storey, and traveller alongside AmE center, colored, colorless, honoring, neighborhood, remodeled, and sepulcher. Those the ones I spotted, but there may be more. Either BrE or AmE throughout, please. Tim riley talk 08:47, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Tim riley: BrE now in place as recommended, and rest of article checked. Amitchell125 (talk) 17:24, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

After a second perusal I have no further comments. One or two things in the prose I'd have written differently but there's nothing that calls for objections from me. The content of the article is not within (or anywhere near) my area of expertise but to my eye it looks balanced, comprehensive and well and widely sourced, and it is beautifully illustrated. Having reviewed other articles by the nominator I feel confident that the content meets the FA criteria and that once the language is sorted out I shall be able to support. Tim riley talk 09:33, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to add my support. A top-notch article, it seems to me. I look forward to its appearance on our front page. Tim riley talk 22:38, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Review and support from Gerda[edit]

I'll look now. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:02, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The lead makes sense, but I'll return to it after reading the rest. The infobox has a bit too many ill links for my taste, but that's no problem. The headers and article structure look fine. I'd probably integrate the one See also item as a link in the article.

Reading with pleasure, there are only tidbits:

Frescoes

  • Mary is linked here, but wasn't further up.
Link moved. Amitchell125 (talk) 20:14, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mosaics

Sorted. Amitchell125 (talk) 20:16, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The lead proves fine. Support. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:50, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

Spot-check upon request. This just looks like a random website to me - can we trust that it reflects the encyclopedia? I see lots of Ukrainian news websites in the source list, does anyone know whether they are reliable? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:31, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: I'll check the dictionary entry. Any news websites that were used cited non-controversial information, and seem quite reliable to me. Is there a particular reference that concerns you? Amitchell125 (talk) 12:55, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The entry seems fine, see the identical text here. Amitchell125 (talk) 13:22, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing specifically, just that my familiarity with Ukrainian news isn't great. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:49, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Aza24[edit]

Happy to review this. May be later this week. Best – Aza24 (talk) 04:02, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've been delayed, but should be able to look at this either tomorrow or Wednesday. Best – Aza24 (talk) 04:14, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments below:
  • Generally, I applaud the depth of research present here. Given the variety of sources, and the vast amount in Ukrainian, I'm convinced that this article is worthy FA-worthy in its coverage and survey of the relevant literature.
  • When speaking about the time of Iziaslav I, could something be said to explain to what nation/empire Kyiv was controlled by? I.e. a mention of Kievan Rus'. Green tickY Done. AM
  • "wealthiest monasteries in Ukraine"—again, what is "Ukraine" here? Perhaps "in what is now Ukraine"? Green tickY Sorted. AM
  • Could the ref for Tagebuch des Erich Lassota von Steblau have an orig-date/year=? Green tickY Done. AM
  • There's a few architectural terms in Lassota's quote, which I suggest be linked, e.g. cupola and choir. Green tickY Done. AM
  • You have "Saint Sophia" and "St. Sophia"—I'd stick to one. Green tickY Done (should be St Sophia). AM
  • aisle could be linked, given its specific meaning for churches. Green tickY Done. AM
  • II don't understand what "low-strength soil" means—is there a better way to explain it? Green tickY Sorted. AM
  • "To prevent public protests, the art critics ... were arrested"—not entirely sure of this meaning either; are you saying that these art critics were expected to oppose the demolition, so were arrested before they could say anything? Or had they already commented on it? Green tickY Done. AM
  • I'm wondering if the "Restoration" should also be a subsection of "history"; otherwise the "History" section alone is incomplete, and makes it seems like its history ends at demolition. Alternatively, the "History" section could be renamed "History [of original building (or something?)] Green tickY Done, let me know what you think. AM
  • Similarly, the "In modern Ukraine" seems strange as its own section. Green tickY Agreed, text now moved. AM
  • Could Cathedral artworks (pre-1935)#Frescoes somehow be linked when the "In the 1880s, the Russian art historian Adrian Prakhov discovered" paragraph begins?
  • I'm afraid I don't think I'll have time to read more in depth, but I've skimmed through the rest and found no other issues. Aza24 (talk) 01:51, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Aza24: All the above now addressed, apart from one comment—sorry, I don't understand this last one. Could you explain it please? Amitchell125 (talk) 20:24, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Aza24, is there any more to come? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:18, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy to support this article.
@Amitchell125, as for the last comment (a minor observation, which does not effect my support): when I read Prakhov's discovery in the 19th century section, I'm wanting to see a link to the frescoes in question. Since those frescos are mentioned later in the article (in the Cathedral artworks (pre-1935)#Frescoes) section, I'm wondering it the 19th-century could somehow link to the Cathedral artworks (pre-1935)#Frescoes. – Aza24 (talk) 21:10, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1914 FA Cup final[edit]

Nominator(s): Eem dik doun in toene (talk) 08:38, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This was the first final to be attended by a reigning monarch. Although both teams struggled with the heat and nerves, the King was treated with a worldie. I've used contemporary and modern sources, and am curious what you think of it. All comments are appreciated! Eem dik doun in toene (talk) 08:38, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

  • I don't think "of which six Lancastrians" works grammatically. I think it should be "of whom six were Lancastrians" (in two places)
    • Done
  • "Watched by a crowd of 72,778, although attendance figures ranged between 72,000 and 100,000" - this reads oddly - if wildly varying figures were given, a reader may wonder how you settled on the figure of 72,778? I think you need to clarify that this was the official attendance figure
    • Removed the latter part (but retained it in the body of the article)
  • "became the first footballer to receive the trophy from a reigning monarch" - is this not a bit redundant to the mention just a few sentences earlier that it was the first final attended by a monarch?
    • True, reworded
  • "Burnley began its campaign" => "Burnley began their campaign" would be by far the more common way to express this
    • Done
  • Boo hiss to Liverpool for beating Gillingham!
    • This made me chuckle, thanks.
  • You mention that West Ham and QPR played in the Southern League but not the Gills?
    • Added
  • "Villa won 12 of their last 13 matches before the semi-final tie" => "Villa had won 12 of their last 13 matches before the semi-final tie"
    • Done
  • "It was the first meeting between both clubs" => "It was the first meeting between the clubs"
    • Done
  • "The Birmingham Daily Post stated the majority expected" => "The Birmingham Daily Post stated that the majority expected"
    • Done
  • "Although improvements were since made to the ground" => "Although improvements had since been made to the ground"
    • Done
  • "Miller scored for Liverpool but he was ruled offside by the referee" - in that case he didn't score, is there a way to reword this?
    • Reworded
  • "and made slow progression" => "and made slow progress"
    • Done
  • That's what I got - great article! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:38, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:30, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie[edit]

Support.

  • "One of the people in attendance was Freeman's father, who travelled 13,000 miles (21,000 km) from Australia to see his son play": this seems unlikely as he would have to have left before the semifinals given sailing times.

That's the only thing I can find to complain about, and it doesn't affect my support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library)

  • Hi Mike, thank you very much! Hmm good point about the travelling. It might be possible he was staying in the UK for a few weeks/months, not just for the final, but the reports only mention him having travelled many miles and being present at the final. Do you think the sentence should be deleted or retained? Eem dik doun in toene (talk) 19:01, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Do the sources actually they he came specially to see his son, or just for the final? I think it's worth mentioning whatever the sources can support (so long it's not illogical per the travel time). Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:03, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The (book) references just stated the fact without further context. However, I found a reference (by the Burnley Express) that did provide some further info; Freeman sr. was visiting family! I've corrected it in the article and added the ref. Eem dik doun in toene (talk) 21:33, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image and source review[edit]

I'd probably put a "PD-published too long ago" template on File:1914 fa cup final programme.jpg just to be safe - while I don't think it's copyrightable, it's also quite long and "selection and arrangement" copyright might be close. That image also needs ALT text. Regarding File:The King George V presents the FA Cup 1914.jpg do we know when it was published? What is "Football Post"? Is historicalkits a reliable source? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:51, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jo-Jo Eumerus, thanks for the review. I added that template, and added ALT text. Looking in the British Newspaper Archive, the second picture was already published two days after the final (in the Sheffield Daily Telegraph; added the info on Commons). Football Post was part of Nottingham Post; added wikilinks in the article. Historicalkits is a site used on many FACs, the authors/historians/experts make use of books and newspapers (as can e.g., be seen at the bottom of the Burnley entry). Eem dik doun in toene (talk) 10:35, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Nice piece of work. I made a couple of very minor tweaks, and am happy that this article satisfies the FA criteria. - SchroCat (talk) 07:01, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pseudastacus[edit]

Nominator(s): Olmagon (talk) 01:52, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a fossil crustacean which lived during the Jurassic and possibly Cretaceous periods. Olmagon (talk) 01:52, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jens[edit]

  • though the placement of some species remain – "remains"
Fixed Olmagon (talk) 00:05, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • late Cretaceous – here and elsewhere: "Late" and "Early" has to be upper case (except for stages, which are lower case).
Fixed Olmagon (talk) 00:08, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The carapace is usually uneven, with either small tubercles or pits across the surface. – Could be reformulated with "surface" in the first part of the sentence, otherwise it is not immediately clear what "uneven" refers to when reading.
"Surface" is now in the front half of the sentence. Olmagon (talk) 00:05, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • link "invalid"
Linked Olmagon (talk) 00:05, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • change "et al." to "and colleagues" to make it easier for non-experts to understand
Changed Olmagon (talk) 00:05, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 1: pages are missing. Also, could you link to the exact page where the genus is named in the BHL?
Pages added and linked directly. Olmagon (talk) 00:05, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • A year later, Münster described several fossils from the Solnhofen Limestone he believed to represent isopods, and erected the genus Alvis to contain the single species A. octopus, naming it after the dwarf Alvíss from Norse mythology. – Why is this relevant here? What is the point?
Alvis is a junior synonym of Pseudastacus, just added in the part where it gets synonymized (took me way too long to find out what publication lumped the two). Olmagon (talk) 23:49, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The name Pseudastacus means "false Astacus" – from which language? If possible, provide the original word from which it is derived ("pseudo").
Seems to be a Greek word, added that now. Olmagon (talk) 00:32, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • and that P. muensteri is a junior synonym of P. pustulosus – you could directly state here that they suggested they were female specimens of P. pustulosus, which would me more reader-friendly.
Now directly written. Olmagon (talk) 00:05, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • synonyms of Pseudastacus – (in the taxonbox): Why is "synonyms" in lower case, but the heading of the section in upper case?
All now start with capital letters. Olmagon (talk) 00:05, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link Oppel in the taxonbox?
Linked Olmagon (talk) 00:05, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fossils of Pseudastacus had been described prior to the naming of this genus, under other names which are currently invalid. – seems to be without a source?
The taxonomic history is explained within the section, by reading the years you will realize Bolina and Alvis (now invalid) were named prior to Pseudastacus. Olmagon (talk) 12:25, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The generic name references the nymph Bolina from Greek mythology. – Maybe add that she "threw herself into the sea" to give a hint for why the genus was named after her? (this hint is provided in the first description).
Added. Olmagon (talk) 12:26, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • some have since been moved into different genera after they were discovered not to be closely related to the type species. – should this be "after it was discovered that they were not closely related to"?
Changed to that. Olmagon (talk) 12:26, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • In 2020, Sylvain Charbonnier and Denis Audo published a study including a summary of recognized stenochirid species, which covered the reclassification of former Pseudastacus species and left the following as members of the genus – This could be more concise, e.g. "A 2020 revision by Sylvain Charbonnier and Denis Audo retained five species within the genus Pseudastacus" or similar.
Changed to that. Olmagon (talk) 12:26, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • moved to Pseudastacus in 1861. – moved or renamed?
I suppose "renamed" works better. Olmagon (talk) 12:27, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • and is a fragment of the pincer. The chela is very large, – if "chela" is just a synonym of "pincer", then please stick to one term. Always use the same term for the same thing, otherwise the reader assumes that you mean something different.
Changed to pincer.Olmagon (talk) 12:28, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pseudastacus is a small crustacean, with the carapace of P. lemovices reaching a length of 11 mm (0.43 in) excluding the rostrum, and a height of 6.5 mm (0.26 in).[6] The known specimens of P. pustulosus range from 4–6 cm (1.6–2.4 in) in total length. – Any reason why you cover lemovices before covering the type species?
Reordered to have the type species first. Olmagon (talk) 12:28, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • lateral – you could avoid this term by writing "on the sides".
Changed to that. Olmagon (talk) 12:29, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • arch-shaped incision. – translate for the general reader
Changed "incision" to "depression". Olmagon (talk) 12:29, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • and long setae on the margins. – explain setae (just "bristles"?)
Now explained. Olmagon (talk) 12:29, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • in a wide variety of families by many different authors – I think it is better to drop the "wide" and "many" here.
Removed. Olmagon (talk) 12:29, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Albert Oppel noticed that Pseudastacus fossils from the Solnhofen Limestone could be distinguished into two morphs – "divided" instead of "distinguished"?
Replaced with "divided" now. Olmagon (talk) 12:30, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • a separate species which in 1862 he named P. muensteri. – suggest moving "in 1862" to the end of the sentence.
Moved. Olmagon (talk) 12:30, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • actually representing female specimens of the sexually dimorphic species. – I think this doesn't fit grammatically with the first part of the sentence.
Rewrote this part a bit. Olmagon (talk) 12:31, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • possibly indicating the species exhibited gregarious behaviour, – needs a "that"
Added. Olmagon (talk) 12:31, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • You use a mixture of British and American English spellings (e.g., both "palaeo" and "paleo"). This should be uniform.
The 'a's are now removed. Olmagon (talk) 12:32, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pseudastacus pustulosus, the type species of the genus, is also known from the most specimens. – Why "also"? Is there another one that is known from "the most specimens"?
I think I originally meant that it is both the type species and most abundant, but yeah it seems better without the also. Olmagon (talk) 12:33, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • interbedded – explain or avoid the term
Changed to "embedded between each other". Olmagon (talk) 12:33, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think something like "alternating mudstone and clay layers" is better. Also, aren't mudstones simply the diagenetic form of clays? (i.e., clays turn to mudstones upon compaction). --Jens Lallensack (talk) 13:04, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Used "alternating" instead now. Geology isn't really my strong suit but the first sentence of the mudstone page seems to support that they come from clays. Olmagon (talk) 13:24, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What does the source say precisely? Jens Lallensack (talk) 13:41, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In the abstract: This is reflected through the marine interbedded calcareous mudstones and clays. Olmagon (talk) 13:47, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do not really understand this; usually you have interbedding of mudstones and sandstones, but mudstones and clays do not make sense to me; how would they have been formed? I just see that the source is a Bachelor thesis. These are generally not considered to be high-quality reliable sources per WP:Reliable sources, unless they can be demonstrated to have had significant scholarly influence, but I can't find a single paper that cites it. I fear this source has to be removed/replaced. Jens Lallensack (talk) 14:44, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Found a whole different source now and rewrote that bit to match the new source. Olmagon (talk) 17:33, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

grungaloo[edit]

Marking my spot, will be back later. grungaloo (talk) 03:13, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • "noted that the name Bolina was preoccupied" - would change to "was already assigned to" or something similar
Changed. Olmagon (talk) 20:09, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The name Pseudastacus combines the Greek word ψεύδος (pseudos, meaning "false") " - Greek spelling is probably not needed, having "pseudo" is good enough I think
I don't think it's too much a problem to have it there, the Greek spelling is also shown in some other paleontology featured articles like Tyrannosaurus and Megalosaurus. If you still insist though I suppose it could go. Olmagon (talk) 20:11, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "His analysis also found that the specimen named as Alvis octopus by Münster is not an isopod" - is to was? Keeps the tense consistent throughout this section
Changed now. Olmagon (talk) 20:11, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "lived in Lebanon during the Cenomanian stage." - switch to "found in Lebanon" so it's consitent with the other listings
Switched. Olmagon (talk) 20:12, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Individuals with smoother carapaces are also documented, though this may be due to abrasion" - was this abrasion caused during its life or during fossilisation?
Source doesn't say unfortunately, though I guess it might be difficult to tell. Olmagon (talk) 20:13, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Will be back later with more. (talk) 19:20, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Grungaloo, just checking to see if there will be more? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:45, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Did a final read-through, nothing else stands out to me. Support grungaloo (talk) 00:06, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Morrison Man[edit]

Leaving this here just to mark my spot. Will be back with comments soon. The Morrison Man (talk) 11:28, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • "of which one was from the Redenbacher collection of the Berlin Natural History Museum" - I would change the first words around to "one of which"
Changed to that. Olmagon (talk) 01:36, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "but have now been moved to different genera." - Change now to since?
Done. Olmagon (talk) 01:36, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and actually represent female specimens of the sexually dimorphic species." - I still don't think this fits with the first part of the sentence. Maybe change to something like "representing female specimens of this species."
Tried to keep "sexually dimorphic" in the sentence since I was told by one of the other reviewers to link it in the section at least once but the sentence has now been changed a bit. Olmagon (talk) 01:39, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This sediment in this locality" - Change this sediment to the sediment
Done Olmagon (talk) 01:39, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "mantis shrimps" - Should this not be mantis shrimp?
Fixed. Olmagon (talk) 01:38, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "that initially was deposited during a period of low sea level" - Change the first part to that was initially
Changed. Olmagon (talk) 01:39, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's all the notes I have. Apologies for taking so long to leave them here. The Morrison Man (talk) 14:45, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Considering the changes made, I will Support

Coordinator note[edit]

The last FAC was archived due to lack of feedback, and I'd hate to see that happen again; Olmagon I would recommend following up with the editors who participated last time to see if they're willing to give input this time. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 14:03, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just left a post about this on the WP:Paleontology talk page. Olmagon (talk) 16:58, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Olmagon, don't know why I didn't think of this before at the GAN, but have you considered doing a life restoration? We have that for all other extinct taxon FAs, and since you do restorations yourself, would be fitting? Or one could be requested at WP:paleoart. FunkMonk (talk) 15:43, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Had been using Oppel's 1862 recons which as far as I can tell are still accurate (not too surprising with how complete Solnhofen fossils get) but I suppose I could also make one, perhaps also one of P. lemovices in addition to P. pustulosus. Not sure about the other 3 since 2 of them have no remaining material and one is just a pincer, not to mention their status as members of the genus being questionable. Olmagon (talk) 00:28, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I didn't realise so many of them were already reconstructions (thought they depicted fossils). Perhaps this could be stated explicitly in the rest of the captions (instead of just "illustration"), I only see it in one? FunkMonk (talk) 08:28, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Now that I read this comment I'm starting to question if those are recons or extremely well-preserved fossils. I had just assumed the former all along because they look so life-like, but Solnhofen seems like the type of place to produce fossils like that. Olmagon (talk) 20:33, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, from what I checked, it didn't seem to be labelled as a reconstruction. But it's a bit hard to check them all, because the Commons descriptions don't link to the correct pages. Could you fix those links, then I and Jens could maybe check their German captions? FunkMonk (talk) 21:28, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Should've fixed the Sources sections of the images now. Olmagon (talk) 23:18, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From what I can read, they all just seem to be illustrations of particular specimens, with no indication of reconstruction. Perhaps Jens Lallensack can confirm. FunkMonk (talk) 23:37, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, they are interpretative drawings of particular specimens, not life reconstructions. Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:29, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Damn, Solnhofen preservation really is something. Well I have uploaded a reconstruction of P. lemovices now, waiting for approval on the paleoart review page. Could also restore P. pustulosus now thay those turn out not to be recons. Olmagon (talk) 01:09, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source and image review[edit]

Some of the file have raw URL links, I think some information about what's in the link would be good lest link rot sets in. Also, File:Pseudastacus pustulosus Oppel.jpg isn't on the linked page. Images need ALT text. Spot-check upon request, and reviewing this version. Not sure that sources with DOIs need a retrieved on. There is some inconsistency in which sources have publishers and which don't (e.g #9). I have been always unsure if Frontiers in Earth Science and Frontiers... things in general are reliable or not, given what it says on Frontiers Media. Don't think that Google Books archives bring anything. Lots of oldish sources but I don't think that's wrong here. #7 needs a bit more information on what it is about. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:05, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Links on the image files should be fixed now, Retrieveds removed from DOIed sources, source 9 has a publisher. Not sure what more in particular you think source 7 needs. Leaving the Frontiers source there for now but if there's a consensus to get rid of it I could probably find another article on Lebanese Cretaceous squamates to put in its place. Olmagon (talk) 00:45, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jo-Jo, how is this looking now? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:13, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd love to have a discussion somewhere about the suitability of Frontiers in general, but that's not here. Do folks want a spotcheck here too? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:16, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Spotcheck would be great, thanks Jo-Jo. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:14, 31 March 2024 (UTC) Gog the Mild (talk) 13:38, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1 Need a source that says Pseudastacus=Bolina. Where is the timing of the Solnhofen limestone stated?
Sources 3 and 5 at least, anything with a systematic paleontology section for the genus lists Bolina as a junior synonym. Olmagon (talk) 21:52, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 2 Needs a pagenumber since apparently you can't search this source.
Alvis stuff starts on page 20. Olmagon (talk) 20:00, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:14, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 3 That doesn't say that the name Bolina was already taken.
Sorry this took embarrassingly long but I finally figured out where I first read the name was preoccupied (in the Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology), apparently I saw it and forgot to properly attribute that source assuming Oppel would write the same thing in German. Anyways adding this source has made all the source numbers afterwards shift by one so I am adjusting the number points below. Olmagon (talk) 16:06, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 6 It says "median-sized" and describes additional grooves? I am not sure that list in "Late Jurassic" always reflects species in the Solnhofen environment.
Extra grooves now mentioned, the list should all be Solnhofen since the whole paper was about Solnhofen taxa. I supposed it is median-sized compared to other members of its own family but 6 centimeters is still a small animal. Olmagon (talk) 16:46, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 7 Can I have a copy of this page?
Here Olmagon (talk) 21:50, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Got it, where is "oldest known"? Also having some difficulty finding the "chelae" description. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:14, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion section says something about the pereiopod differences between the species and being oldest is said at the end of Conclusions. Olmagon (talk) 12:45, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 8 Searching for "mucronatus" doesn't find the information.
Weird thing, I don't think I see it either yet that paper is cited by anything else mentioning P. mucronatus as the publication that described it. However the "claw of a large species" mentioned on page 124 and figured near the end is the type specimen (according to the P. lemovices description paper). Olmagon (talk) 02:27, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Decided to add source 7 in there as well since that paper does state the things written. Olmagon (talk) 00:49, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 10 Searching for "minor" doesn't find the information.
The P. minor stuff is right on the linked page. Olmagon (talk) 20:06, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:14, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 12 Can I have a copy of this page?
I think I need you to send me a wikimail so I can reply with the file attached. Olmagon (talk) 00:16, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Got it, it checks out. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:21, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 15 OK
  • 19 Neither family name appears in the source.
Protastacidae is literally right in the title and the whole paper is about the establishment of that family, with Pseudastacus being assigned to it. Olmagon (talk) 20:07, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK, not sure how I missed this. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:14, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 21 Supports some of the information
  • 22 Not sure what information comes from this source.
Getting placed in Chilenophoberidae. Olmagon (talk) 20:09, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 23 OK
  • 25 OK
  • 25 OK
  • 28 OK
  • 42 Doesn't mention "minor"
Well it's not about P. minor, it's just a reference for the Lebanese Cretaceous environment. Olmagon (talk) 20:10, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 43 OK
  • 45 Supports some of the information
  • 48 Supports some of the information

Gotta say, verifying stuff with sources that are 10s or 100s pages long sans pagenumbers is hard, especially when keywords don't help. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:30, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm turning this into a list using "*" because it is easier to read as a list this way. Olmagon (talk) 20:12, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:14, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Jo-Jo, is that a pass on all three? Ta. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:36, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, several things in the spotcheck are outstanding. Did I send that wikimail? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:36, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed I did. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:21, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Olmagon, just checking, is Jo-Jo waiting on a response from you? Gog the Mild (talk) 16:16, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what exactly else is left unless "supports some of the information" needs me to do something about it. Olmagon (talk) 17:46, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you believe that you have addressed all of Jo-Jo's comment you need to ping them to tell them that. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:48, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well then, @Jo-Jo Eumerus is there anything left to fix? Olmagon (talk) 00:50, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I really keep forgetting to finish these reviews. It seems everything checks out now. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:18, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Wolverine XI[edit]

Reads well, don't have much to complain about though a life restoration would nice. Will add some suggestions if I spot anything. Wolverine XI (talk to me) 00:00, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Two of those have now been added. Olmagon (talk) 01:33, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Both of these are labelled as "own work". In what way are they not OR? Where are they cited to "high-quality reliable sources"? This recent discussion is relevant. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:44, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did make mentions of the papers I based their proportions on. I guess I could make a note in the caption about color being hypothetical and all. Olmagon (talk) 23:07, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comments[edit]

  • References: some of the works cited have a publisher location and others don't. In the latter cases, are they not known.
  • Several works lack identifiers when they are available. Eg Garassino and Schweigert (OCLC 1104150486).
  • It would be helpful if at the first mention of each age, era, etc how long ago - which may mean giving its age range - it was, for readers for whom descriptions such as "Sinemurian-aged" do not convey this. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:15, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Turabay dynasty[edit]

Nominator(s): Al Ameer (talk) 21:34, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the Turabay dynasty, a family of Bedouin emirs that governed northern Palestine in the 15th–16th centuries under the Ottoman Empire. Their territory, formalized first as the 'Iqta of Turabay' then as the Sanjak of Lajjun, spanned the area between Jenin and Haifa. The long reign of the Turabays was owed to the strength of their tribe, their largely consistent loyalty to the sultan, and their success in administering and securing their sanjak. Backed by their close allies, the Ridwan and Farrukh dynasties of Gaza and Nablus, they prevented Fakhr al-Din II, the powerful Druze emir who had reduced Ottoman rule in the Levant "to a mere shadow", from conquering Palestine. These three local dynasties treated Palestine as their own dominion and, ironically, with Fakhr al-Din out of the way, the Ottomans were freed up to gradually eliminate these dynasties' power. Turabay governance finally ended in 1677. Their descendants still live in northern Palestine and Israel. Al Ameer (talk) 21:34, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FM[edit]

  • Sanjak is linked twice in the intro.
  • Add date in captions of images that lack it for context?
  • Link Mamluk.
  • I don't think the common term soldier needs to be linked.
  • "were in the coastal plain of Palestine" it seems a bit odd that Palestine is only mentioned and linked this far down, shouldn't it be already in the first paragraph of the article body?
  • "according to Sharon" You haven't presented any Sharon before this point.
  • Link Arabian horses?
  • Link Transjordan.
  • "to avoid a future a Ma'nid takeover" Second a seems redundant.
  • You use both Laurent d'Arvieux and Chevalier d'Arvieux, probably best to be consistent.
  • Do we know anything about the women of the family?
  • Unfortunately, no, at least not from the modern, secondary sources. Al Ameer (talk) 04:52, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see you added a map, but unfortunately it creates some WP:image sandwiching under Governorship of Ahmad. Are there other ways the images can be placed to prevent this?
  • I replaced the map with one I produced using a PD map as the base. Al Ameer (talk) 03:38, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The copyright info of the new map also needs to be the same as the original, as it is still the same authorship and public domain though it has been modified
  • "and the use of a band composed of tambourines, oboes, drums and trumpets" For what purpose?
  • Clarified that sentence in general—the innovations concerned their tribal way of life (not innovations to government) and the band is a military band. Let me know your thoughts on the revision. Al Ameer (talk) 18:06, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The building was the only grave of the Turabays to have survived into the 20th century and no longer exists today" Do we know what happened to it?
  • No. According to the source, the mausoleum no longer exists as far as he knows. For my part, I cannot find anything else about it. It was last documented in 1941 by an antiquities inspector with the surname "Husseini" and was in a deteriorating state at that time. Al Ameer (talk) 18:06, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The mausoleum image could be right aligned to precent it clashing with the section title beneath it.
  • "Sharon attributes the decline of the Turabays to the eastward migration of the Banu Haritha to the Jordan Valley and the Ajlun region in the late 17th century" How would this have affected them? It was their power base that moved away, or?
  • Clarified. The tribe was their base of power and with them migrating away from northern Palestine, the Turabays probably lost their means to keep order and enforce their rule and became useless to the Ottomans who were trying to centralize power away from local dynasties anyway. I should note here that so far it has been frustratingly difficult to find much information about the Haritha tribe in general. The plain south of Haifa, the 16th-17th-century stomping grounds of the tribe, was known as “Bilad al-Haritha” as late as the 19th century but even for this I cannot locate a source that explicitly associates the name with the tribe. I also have no information about why they left the region or what later became of them. Al Ameer (talk) 18:06, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The family remained in the area, with members living in Jenin at the close of the century and in Tulkarm." But the article body indicates they still exist?

@FunkMonk: Thank you for taking the time to review this candidacy. I believe I addressed the points you raised but let me know if there is anything else that needs improvement. Al Ameer (talk) 03:38, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - looks good, I still see some image sandwiching under Governorship of Ahmad (perhaps move an image to the empty Governance section?), but that won't hold it back. FunkMonk (talk) 04:59, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @FunkMonk: Thank you for your helpful suggestions and support. I adjusted accordingly--please let me know if images look ok now. Al Ameer (talk) 17:03, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Borsoka[edit]

  • Are Bakhit (February 1972) and Rhode (1979) reliable sources?
  • Yes. I replaced Bakhit's 1972 thesis with the version published in 1982. He is one of the leading authorities of Ottoman history of the Levant and this work in particular is widely cited by scholars in the field. Rhode's work is well-cited in academia about the subject of his work—16th-century Ottoman Safed and its sanjak. Al Ameer (talk) 03:38, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Introduce Deir al-Balah as a Palestinian town/city in footnote "a".
  • Is this suggested because Deir al-Balah is relatively obscure? (we are not treating other cities mentioned in the article this way). Al Ameer (talk) 03:38, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the geographical context should be determined because for the time being Palestine is first mentioned in connection with the Mamluk rule.
  • Their power was dealt a serious blow in a Mamluk campaign in 1253. Unclear: were they fought for or against the Mamluks?
  • ...tradition claims that their ancestors "migrated to Palestine during the Early Islamic period." Do we know from where they migrated to Palestine?
  • Rmv; this was added later and without a page number or way for me to verify, but more importantly the article already offers more elaboration on the family's origins. Al Ameer (talk) 03:38, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is not "transl" template used when mentioning Mamlakat Safad. I would also mention that it was a Mamluk province to introduce the reference to the Mamluks in the next sentence.
  • Mamlakat Safad is a proper noun, so not sure it should be presented that way, but please correct me if I am wrong. Mamluk-era Palestine is mentioned as the context in the sentences preceding and following this mention. Al Ameer (talk) 03:38, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we know why Turabay was executed and why allowed the Mamluks his son to succeede him?
  • Unfortunately, none of the secondary sources on hand provide any explanation. Abu-Husayn mentions that Bakhit elaborates about the possible reason in his Arabic-language article in Al-Abhath vol. 28, but I have zero access to it (and cannot read Arabic in any case!) Al Ameer (talk) 03:38, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Qaraja's son is Turabay or Turabay II?
  • Turabay II but the sources do not denote any of the emirs of the same name as the first or second, etc., so not sure we should either. Al Ameer (talk) 03:38, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I understant Qaraja was still alive when his son joined the Ottomans. This fact should be mentioned because Qaraja's execution in 1519 surprised me in the next paragraph.
  • Qaraja's activities are mentioned in the preceding and following sentences so this should be sufficient for a reader to conclude he was still alive. I will take another look to see if I can make this clearer. Al Ameer (talk) 03:38, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would make it clearer and explain why the son joined the Ottomans instead of the father. Did he support the Ottomans on his father's order or against his father's will?
  • Revised, let me know if clear now. Qaraja supported the Ottomans and his son Turabay even joined the sultan's campaign against the Mamluks in Egypt. The sources do not elaborate on whether Qaraja ordered his son to go on campaign but it is probably implied. Al Ameer (talk) 03:59, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • A link to the conquest of Mamluk Egypt?
  • Delink soldier.
  • Done!
  • Why Constantinople instead of Istanbul?
  • Introduce Via Maris.
  • Why is not "transl" template used when mentioning iqta?
  • A sentence about the iqta system?
  • ...three chiefs... Bedouin chiefs?
  • Turabay was already introduced as Qaraja's son.
  • A link to akce?
  • Some general remarks about the administration of Palestine under Ottomans? Perhaps: extensive taxation, employment of local chieftains in state administration, appointment of rival chiefs to offices, ( I am only guessing). Do we know why the Turabays were frequently conspiring against the Ottomans?
  • In Early relations with the Ottomans, I added further context about the Ottomans' main challeges in the Levant and how the Turabays played into this. In Assessment, I added about the power dynamics between the Ottoman imperial state and the local chiefs on whom they often relied for keeping order and, most importantly, collecting taxes. Still looking to add further info about why the Ottomans had to rely on such local leaders in the first place and the administration of Palestine, or the Levant more broadly, during early Ottoman rule. As for their run-ins with the authorities, the Turabays are actually noted for being mostly loyal to the Ottomans while preserving their autonomy and Bedouin spirit of independence to a great degree, as hopefully the article demonstrates. This was the key to their unusual longevity as practically hereditary governors of Lajjun. Their 'rebellions', unfortunately are rarely elaborated by the sources, but were usually short-lived and could simply mean they were stockpiling muskets or failing to meet tax obligations, both illicit activities that were often reason enough for the state to deem someone a rebel. They may also have been implicated in Bedouin raiding against Muslim pilgrim caravans, either by direct participation or failure to prevent, though this is only speculation by the secondary sources. Al Ameer (talk) 01:46, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pending. Al Ameer (talk) 03:38, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Iqta of Turabay became its own sanjak... Perhaps, "The Iqta of Turabay was transformed into a sanjak..."? Do we know why?
  • Revised wording. I can only guess why at this point, so will look into this further. Al Ameer (talk) 03:38, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we know the relationship between Ali and Assaf?
  • Was Assaf exiled to Rhodes and pardoned in the same year?
  • Why is Sinan Pasha linked in the name of his son?
  • Ahmad's rule over Lajjun was soon followed with the appointment of the Druze chieftain Fakhr al-Din Ma'n to... I assume Ahmad's ascension was followed by Fakhr al-Din's appointment, because Ahmad will be mentioned in subsequent sentences.
  • Fakhr al-Din became governor of Safed in 1606 (he was already governor of Sidon from 1593) and Ahmad became governor of Lajjun after the death of his father in 1601. Al Ameer (talk) 02:47, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the wording is misleading: for me, "Ahmad's rule was followed" indicates that Ahmad was dead or dismissed by the time Fakhr al-Din was appointed governor.
  • Revised, hopefully much clearer now. Al Ameer (talk) 03:59, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overall commander? Perhaps supreme?
  • ... he ignored summons... Who?
  • In the picture's caption: Ahmad Turabay sounds a little bit strange.
  • Explain the terms "kethuda" and "sekban" with one or two words.
  • Introduce Ali Janbulad.
  • A link to piaster? What is the exchange rate between piaster and akce?
  • Never thought about this until you raised it: apparently a piaster was how Europeans often referred to the Ottoman kurush—1 kurush was apparently equal to 120 akce. Al Ameer (talk) 02:47, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An excellent article. Thank you for it. Borsoka (talk) 02:38, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the comments and suggestions Borsoka. I addressed most of the points you’ve raised but there are a few more I need to tackle. —Al Ameer (talk) 03:38, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you watch a preview for the article before publishing your edit you will find two messages at the beginning indicating errors in the "cite journal" and "cite book" tags.
  • File:Khan al-Lajjun.jpg: it needs a US PD tag, and the source link does not verify the picture.
  • File:Lajjun Sanjak in Ottoman Palestine.png: I would add a direct source to the picture.
  • Replaced this map with a clearer one and provided link to base map. Al Ameer (talk) 03:59, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • My concern is that the map is verified by a primary source. Could a secondary source be added? Borsoka (talk) 01:37, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Revised the map slightly based on Marom et al, a source cited in the article, as well as Hutteroth and Abdulfattah's work about the 16th-century Ottoman tax records concerning Palestine. Sources listed in the file summary. Al Ameer (talk) 01:46, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Palm trees at Jenin, possibly the site of ancient Jezreel. C Wellcome V0049488.jpg: PD tags are needed.
  • I added an alternative (more universal) PD tag.
  • File:Muhammad Turabay by d'Arvieux.png: the name "Muhammad Turabay" is strange in the caption.
  • File:Qubbat Amir Turabay Jenin 1941.png: it needs a US PD tag.
  • ...preeminent household... Household? Borsoka (talk) 01:30, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Revised the lead sentence altogether. Let me know your thoughts. Al Ameer (talk) 03:59, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think two three pending issues remained (citation errors, general remarks about Ottoman government in Palestine, one picture). Borsoka (talk) 01:37, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Al Ameer son ? Gog the Mild (talk) 17:09, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
BorsokaGog the Mild Truly sorry for the slow-going here. Please see replies above. Al Ameer (talk) 01:46, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. An excellent and interesting article. Borsoka (talk) 03:15, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cplakidas - support[edit]

Looks very interesting, will have a look. Constantine ✍ 17:51, 1 April 2024 (UTC) Not much to complain about, just a few nitpicks.[reply]

Lede
  • under the Mamluks for clarity for readers who may not immediately understand the reference, perhaps 'under the Egypt-based Mamluk Sultanate', or similar? Likewise, During the Ottoman conquest 'during the conquest of the region by the Ottoman Empire'?
Origins
  • Mamluk (1250–1518) periods the end date is incorrect here
Early relations with the Ottomans
  • Do we know why they defected to the Ottomans? Was this common occurrence or were they driven by rivalries or ambition?
  • Their motive is not spelled out by any of the sources that are available to me. However, I clarified that their contacts with the Ottoman sultan followed the Ottomans' victory against the Mamluks in Syria. We're left to presume they simply went with the tide to preserve their Mamluk-era position and priveleges, and the Ottomans clearly saw them as useful from that earliest stage. Al Ameer (talk) 04:00, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to Bakhit, he has not been introduced yet
  • The iqta was a Mamluk-era form of land tenure while technically correct in that it was also used by the Mamluks, the iqta pre-existed them, and was established by the Abbasids in the 9th/10th century; perhaps strike the 'Mamluk-era' part or replace it with 'common form of land tenure in the medieval Islamic world' or similar?
  • but Abu-Husayn suggests Abu-Husayn has not been introduced yet
  • akces -> akçes, an requires a {{transl|ota|}} template I think as it is not a common English word. BTW, the {{transl|tr|}} should likely be {{transl|ota|}} throughout.
Early governors of Lajjun
  • in connection to a Bedouin rebellion any more details here?
  • While checking on this, it turns out the whole episode of his dismissal, possible exile and return and his successor was a confused series of events, the confusion starting with the 16th-century imperial records and then with modern scholarship's reading of events. Revised to clarify. Al Ameer (talk) 04:00, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Governorship of Ahmad
  • of the janissaries corps either 'Janissary Corps' or 'corps of the janissaries'
  • held iltizam, timars, and ziamets as the latter two terms have not appeared in the main text so far, suggest linking them and adding a brief explanation

Will do the rest later today. Constantine ✍ 10:10, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Later chiefs and downfall
  • "courageous, wise and modest" does this quote come from said sources or is it Sharon's summary of these sources' portrayal?
  • Sharon's summarization. Let me know if the new wording needs to be adjusted. Al Ameer (talk) 04:00, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Linked ulema, though will look into faqih (might be more fitting for a grouping called the fuqaha, plural of faqih). Al Ameer (talk) 02:09, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Governance
  • akce per above
  • They levied customs recommend spelling out the Turabays again here
  • Maltese pirates I assume that this refers to the Knights of Malta? Then relink and/or adapt accordingly.
  • whose solidarity 'solidarity' is an odd word to use here; perhaps 'loyalty'? Or is this meant to represent asabiyya?
Way of life

That's it. The article is well-written and well-referenced, comprehensive and takes pains to introduce the context to the non-expert. Constantine ✍ 18:39, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Cplakidas: Thank you for taking the time to review, and for your recommendations. I addressed most of the points raised and aim to finish by tomorrow evening. Al Ameer (talk) 02:09, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Cplakidas: I completed the final items, pending your review. Al Ameer (talk) 04:00, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support or oppose?[edit]
  • Hi Constantine, I was wondering if you felt in a position to either support or oppose this nomination? Obviously, neither is obligatory. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:36, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi Gog the Mild given that my comments are mostly minor or cosmetic issues, I have no problem with supporting as-is. The article is definitely a very solid piece of work. Constantine ✍ 17:50, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image and source review[edit]

Image placement is sound. I see no ALT text. If File:Qubbat Amir Turabay Jenin 1941.png was taken in Jenin which is in the West Bank, wouldn't a Palestinese copyright law apply? commons:Commons:Copyright rules by territory/State of Palestine implies that the copyright law applicable is unclear, though. Spot-check upon request. Sources seem reputable, although with distinct information available for each. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:45, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Al Ameer son ? Gog the Mild (talk) 13:48, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus:@Gog the Mild: I missed the part regarding the missing ALT text, which I have now added to all of the images in the article. As for whether or not Palestinian copyright law applies, unfortunately I am not sure. I had been under the impression that Israeli copyright law still applied in the occupied territories. @FunkMonk: As usual with any of my image copyright queries, can you please offer some guidance on this point? Thank you ;) --Al Ameer (talk) 17:26, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seems mandatory/British law would apply then, so it may only have to be switched to another tag. It also depends on where the photo was first published, though,not where it was taken. FunkMonk (talk) 17:41, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nasutoceratops[edit]

Nominator(s): FunkMonk (talk) 01:53, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This aticle is about a ceratopsian dinosaur which is unusual for its large snout and similarity to a Texas Longhorn. This is perhaps also why it has gained a bit of fame recently by being featured in the Jurassic World franchise. Everything published about it should be summarised here, and luckily there are a lot of nice, free images available. Note that a Master's thesis (Ridgwell) that was also used in the FA Kosmoceratops is included here for comprehensiveness, as it does not present controversial information. FunkMonk (talk) 01:53, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

HF - support[edit]

Will review later this week. Hog Farm Talk 02:23, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Specimens were discovered in Utah in the Kaiparowits Formation of the Grand Staircase–Escalante National Monument (GSENM) from 2006 onwards," - it seems odd to put this in the past tense, as there's nothing that would prevent new specimens from being collected in the future
Changed to "The first known specimens". FunkMonk (talk) 05:40, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • " including a subadult skull with a partial postcranial skeleton and rare skin impressions and two partial skulls. In 2013, the adult was made the holotype of the new genus" - I'm assuming "the adult" is one of the two partial skulls, but it might not hurt to clean up the phrasing here a bit
Well-spotted, it refers to the same subadult as the former sentence, changed. FunkMonk (talk) 05:40, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The holotype specimen UMNH VP 16800 consists of a partial, associated, and nearly complete skull that preserves most of the skull roof. The specimen has been interpreted as being a subadult, based on fusion of skull elements and bone surface texture." - but the lead says the holotype is an adult specimen
Yep, fixed per above. FunkMonk (talk) 05:40, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is an epiparietal a type of epiossification?
Yes, I've now presented the different types of epiossifications by name in the first paragraph under description. FunkMonk (talk) 05:40, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move the link for neoceraptosians up to the first mention
Done. Unfortunately it doesn't have a separate article from Ceratopsia. FunkMonk (talk) 05:40, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Since the holotype was not fully grown, it is possible such hooks would have developed as it matured, but this is considered unlikely due to the fusion of its epiparietals on the frill and fusion of other bones related to maturity" - does the descriptions of the adult skulls shed any light on this matter?
Unfortunately they don't preserve that part (what they do preserve is listed under discovery). FunkMonk (talk) 05:40, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 2018, Dalman and colleagues found the specimen from New Mexico" - for reader clarity, I would recommend mentioning upfront that this is the Menefeeceratpos specimen
Good idea, I changed to "the specimen that was later named Menefeeceratops" to make clear it wasn't named by the time the statement was made. FunkMonk (talk) 05:40, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's it from me for the first read-through. Hog Farm Talk 00:43, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, all should now be addressed. FunkMonk (talk) 05:40, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AryKun[edit]

  • "Petri, Alexandra (2 December 2021). "Three-horned poems for the new dinosaur, Nasutoceratops, relative of the triceratops". Washington Post." If you're italicizing and capitalizing Nasutoceratops here, you should also do that for triceratops.
Fixed, but that brings up something I'm uncertain about, the actual source[20] neither capitalises or italicises these names, so should I do that or not? It is of course formally incorrect not to do it, but it doesn't reflect the source to do it. FunkMonk (talk) 22:01, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While not wishing to opine on this particular case, what the sources do and what, eg, the MoS requires us to do frequently differ. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:51, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I'll just keep the "corrected" titles for now, then. FunkMonk (talk) 05:40, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Irmis, Randall B. (21 June 2022). "NHMU Dinosaur Stars in Jurassic World Dominion". nhmu.utah.edu" Publisher name should be National History Museum of Utah.
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 22:01, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Whalen, Andrew (16 September 2019). "All 7 Dinosaurs in 'Battle at Big Rock,' Including Nasutoceratops". Newsweek." Italicize genus.
Done, but note it has the same problem as above. FunkMonk (talk) 22:01, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Rivera-Sylva, Héctor E.; Hedrick, Brandon P.; Dodson, Peter (2016). "A Centrosaurine (Dinosauria: Ceratopsia) from the Aguja Formation (Late Campanian) of Northern Coahuila, Mexico". PLOS ONE." Sentence case.
Fixed, I think. FunkMonk (talk) 22:01, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Dalman, Sebastian G.; Hodnett, John-Paul M.; Lichtig, Asher J.; Lucas, Spencer G. (2018). "A New Ceratopsid Dinosaur (Centrosaurinae: Nasutoceratopsini) From The Fort Crittenden Formation, Upper Cretaceous (Campanian) Of Arizona". New Mexico Museum of Natural History and Science Bulletin." Sentence case.
Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 22:01, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done, though these are usually not linked in other articles. FunkMonk (talk) 22:01, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "honors Alan L. Titus" Since we don't have a link here, maybe mention his profession ("honors the paleontologist Alan L. Titus")
Added. FunkMonk (talk) 22:01, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Will add some more comments later. AryKun (talk) 13:22, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, addressed the above. FunkMonk (talk) 22:01, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi AryKun, I was wondering if you felt in a position to either support or oppose this nomination? Obviously, neither is obligatory. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:06, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It looks nice, but I don't think I've read through it deeply enough to have an opinion either way. AryKun (talk) 17:37, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie[edit]

  • "and the collaborative effort has been called the Kaiparowits Basin Project": seems rather hesitant wording; could this be just "and the collaborative effort is known as the Kaiparowits Basin Project"? Or is it the case that this isn't any sort of official name?
Changed, yeah, it's called this in most sources. FunkMonk (talk) 23:52, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Among the discoveries made were three new ceratopsian (horned dinosaur) taxa": if the project is still going on, I'd make this "that have been made", and shouldn't it be "are", not "were"? They were discovered, but they are taxa.
Took your suggestions. I meant "were" as in they "were among the discoveries", but not sure if that's unclear. FunkMonk (talk) 23:52, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there a link available for "air scribe"? Or could it be redlinked? Maybe an entry in Glossary of sculpting, if my Googling hasn't led me astray.
Redlinked, but I think it's a more specialized tool:[21] FunkMonk (talk) 23:52, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "based on fusion of skull elements": I haven't looked at the source, but would this be better as "based on the degree of fusion of"? I assume it is less completely fused than an adult skull would be.
Yeah, added. FunkMonk (talk) 23:52, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "right hindlimb without hand bones": is it customary to use "hand" for a hind limb?
Yikes, no, it should have been forelimb, not sure how that happened, fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 23:52, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The external nostril forms 75% of the skull length in front of the eye sockets, which is unique for ceratopsians": perhaps "The external nostril forms 75% of the skull length in front of the eye sockets, more than in any other ceratopsian"?
Went with "more than in other ceratopsians", the source doesn't specifically say it's more than in any other, but I assume that's what's meant. FunkMonk (talk) 23:52, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "snout-region": I don't think this should be hyphenated unless I'm missing some nuance of meaning (or it's hyphenated in the sources).
Removed. FunkMonk (talk) 23:52, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The nasal bones had well-developed internal cavities behind the horn, which suggests they were hollow": I think it should be "have", not "had", though "were hollow" seems right as I assume we don't have currently existing examples of complete nasal bones.
Right, fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 23:52, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The brow horns of Nasutoceratops also differed from those of other ceratopsids": should be "differ"? I assume the rule being followed is to use the past tense when speaking of the ceratopsids as animals, but present tense when speaking of their specific anatomical characteristics as known from fossil evidence.
Yep, fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 23:52, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "being convex across from side to side": "across" seems redundant.
Removed. FunkMonk (talk) 23:52, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The paragraph starting "The scapula" has "typical of ceratopsids" four times in the last four sentences. Would it be possible to replace these with a sentence at the end of the paragraph saying something like "These characteristics of the humerus, ulna, and radius are typical of all ceratopsids"?
As the "typical of" does not necessarily refer to all the features of these bones listed, I've tried by instead using different wording and taking one instance out, if that is any better. FunkMonk (talk) 07:28, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest linking "narial" to nostril.
Glossed with "(bony nostril)" instead, as nostril is a pretty common term. FunkMonk (talk) 07:04, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just checking that there is intentionally no mention of MOR 692 (which is in the cladogram) in the body text -- I know nothing about it, but there's considerable discussion of related taxa and specimens so I thought this might be an omission.
I originally went into this, but cut it as maybe unnecessary and confusing because it's only known by specimen number. I've re-added the cut text now now, which also discusses other unnamed specimens, perhaps a bit of a mouthful: "These authors named this new clade Nasutoceratopsini, with Nasutoceratops as the type genus; this group was defined as all centrosaurines more closely related to Nasutoceratops than to Centrosaurus, containing Nasutoceratops, Avaceratops, MOR 692 (previously treated as an adult Avaceratops), CMN 8804, and another undescribed ceratopsian (specimen GPDM 63) from Malta, Montana." FunkMonk (talk) 07:28, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "they only became common in the Early Cretaceous": suggest "angiosperms only became common in the Early Cretaceous".
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 07:04, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which ranges 200–350 m (656.2–1,148.3 ft)": what do these distances refer to?
That should be depth, I've added "relative depth", but perhaps Jens Lallensack can confirm if this is the right terminology. FunkMonk (talk) 07:04, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, that should be "in thickness"; you could even link to the article Thickness (geology). --Jens Lallensack (talk) 14:26, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, added that instead. FunkMonk (talk) 07:28, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Rivers flowed generally west across the plains and drained into the Western Interior Seaway": surely they flowed east, given the geography?
I can see what you're getting at, but this is what the source says: "The Kaiparowits Formation was dominated by an array of continental depositional environments, with large, deep fluvial channels supported by stable banks. Rivers flowed generally west across the alluvial–coastal plain, draining into the retreating Western Interior Seaway. The floodplains to these large channels were dominated by long-lived perennial ponds, wetlands, and lakes. The nearly ubiquitous nature of large aquatic mollusks, coupled with the abundance of aquatic vertebrates (Gates et al., 2010) and plants (Miller et al., this volume) in many overbank units, testifies to the wet nature of this alluvial system and the persistence of standing water deposits." I'm not entirely sure how this adds up, so pinging Jens Lallensack again (an actual palaeontologist). FunkMonk (talk) 07:28, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll wait to see what Jens says. I'd almost be inclined to drop the reference to the direction as it seems so implausible I wonder if it's a typo. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:05, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I also think it's just a typo. No way the rivers were flowing west. Jens Lallensack (talk) 11:32, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I tried with the following by removing reference to direction, if that looks ok: "Rivers flowed across the plains and drained into the Western Interior Seaway". FunkMonk (talk) 13:27, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That works. If you contact the authors they might issue an erratum; I've seen that done a couple of times and then you could cite that. But it's fine as is. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:36, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These are all minor points. I know little about the subject but the article is in excellent shape as far as I can tell, though I'm not competent to review the detailed skeletal discussions. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:31, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, very useful observations, all should now be addressed (but see last uncertain answer). FunkMonk (talk) 07:28, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:36, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Wolverine XI[edit]

Will look more into this. Wolverine XI (talk to me) 08:24, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the wait; reviewing now. Note the underlined words.

  • In 2016, Lund and colleagues stated that the functional adaptations associated with the very short and deep front part of the skull of Nasutoceratops were unknown, but suggested that the may have been related to a change toward more derived masticatory functions in basal ceratopsians. The sentence seems long, and would benefit from splitting.
Tried with semicolon for better flow: "In 2016, Lund and colleagues stated that the functional adaptations associated with the very short and deep front part of the skull of Nasutoceratops were unknown; they suggested these may have been related to a change toward more derived masticatory functions in basal ceratopsians." FunkMonk (talk) 15:43, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • In a 2017 Master's thesis, the paleontologist Nicole Marie Ridgwell Not idiomatic
Different reviewers always have different opinions on this, but the important thing is that an article is internally ocnsistent. In this case, "the" is used throughout, so shouldn't be different in a single instance. Both forms are correct. FunkMonk (talk) 15:43, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See also current discussion about this here:[22] FunkMonk (talk) 14:44, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sampson and colleagues stated in 2013 that while various hypotheses about the function of ceratopsid skull ornamentation have been proposed, the consensus at the time was use<--
I'm not sure what this is trying to say. FunkMonk (talk) 15:43, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I was pointing at the word use. Wolverine XI (talk to me) 16:38, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So are you suggesting something like "was as use in" or similar? FunkMonk (talk) 21:14, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not really, I feel like it should be "its use in" as that makes much more sense. Wolverine XI (talk to me) 15:26, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's a well-written article with a few corrections needed. Wolverine XI (talk to me) 08:53, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

Spot-check upon request and reviewing this version. #7 doesn't have a complete date. Regarding #9, theses are seldom good sources but I see that this one's been cited a few time so it might pass. Does the news coverage really require 5 sources? Some sources seem to link to the PMC and DOI links twice. #26 is also a thesis, but not cited anywhere, which makes it a bit iffy as a source. Everything else seems OK. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:00, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • For ref 7, I assume you mean that the year isn't in parenthesis like the other citations? I have no idea how that happened, I can't find any difference in the formatting of that and the other citations? Pinging J JMesserly, who has helped with citation formatting before. FunkMonk (talk) 12:13, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That and the article has a day and a month. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:45, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think ref 8 is the outlier in how the access date is formatted? None of them have other than year as the publication date. FunkMonk (talk) 13:47, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging User-duck, who also works on citations, if they know where the parenthesis went. FunkMonk (talk) 17:21, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like a very good article at first look. Guidlines:
  1. Use templates and let them do the formatting. Parens only appear if there is an author/editor specified.
  2. News articles and web posts should have the complete publication date. Do not omit authors.
Yes, ref 7 is a little unusual but deserves a better cite. I will do one this evening (about 11 hours). It will be my opinion and feel free to change it.
P.S. Decide on a date format and add {{use dmy dates}} or {{use mdy dates}} template to document it. Thanks for asking, User-duck (talk) 19:09, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot for that, I had no idea the parenthesis wouldn't show up around the date if there was no author field. I've also added full dates for the other news sources. FunkMonk (talk) 10:22, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • As for 9, all it does it say he used another name for his thesis version of the description, which shouldn't be controversial. Same with the theses used for 26 and 33, they don't provide any controversial information (one just lists fossils from the formation, the other reports on fossil dung).
  • As for all the news sources, I use several because they're used to support a wider statement about how the discovery was reported, which would hardly make sense with fewer citations: "the large nose of the dinosaur was emphasized... This was reflected in news outlets", with the examples cited.

Image review - failpass[edit]

  • File:Nasutoceratops UDL.png: While not wishing to question UnexpectedDinoLesson's credentials, what leads you to believe that they are a HQ RS?
The image has had a very detailed review here[23], where it has been cross-checked with all available sources (cited on Commons). FunkMonk (talk) 22:44, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Kaiparowits Formation swamp.jpg and File:Kaiparowits fauna.jpg: Similarly.
These match the inferred environment and published figures of the fossils (as listed in the Commons description). You can see if such images have been listed for WP:dinoart review under their links. FunkMonk (talk) 22:44, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am unsure what you mean by "links". If either has been listed, could you give me the links to the discussions. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:30, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, if you scroll down on an image page, you can see everywhere it has been used across all Wikipedias. Here's the section where one of the images was reviewed[24], and here's the section with the other.[25] Note I had heavily modified the first image to make it more accurate according to the sources, and the second one was pretty accurate, so they did not get many comments at the reviews. Reviewers mainly comment when something is wrong, so if they don't, nothing has been identified. FunkMonk (talk) 21:23, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Two follow up queries.
  • If you have "heavily modified the first image to make it more accurate according to the sources" should your name and that of the sources not be in the image Summary?
  • Are all details of Nasutoceratops in the images clearly supported by a consensus of the HQ RSs? I am particularly thinking of the colouration and the false eyes in the upper neck frill, but their may be others. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:04, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The sources are listed in the description field, as for crediting myself, I think that would be too much, it's made clear in the upload summary that I've modified them either way, I don't really feel like it warrants listing me as author. As for colouration and markings, we don't know for the species depicted here (we do know from a handful others, though), but it has been generally suggested that the ornamentation of dinosaurs could have been colourful and bold in life, as it is in modern animals. But it's such a general idea and repeated in most sources about that subject that I wonder if it makes sense listing any particular citation for that? Here are two sources mentioning colour in relation to dinosaur display off the top of my head:[26][27] FunkMonk (talk) 22:26, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have no objection to colouration and patterning being informed but conjectural. However, there is the risk of a reader taking it at face value. Perhaps the two group images could have 'colouration is conjectural' or similar added to their captions? Gog the Mild (talk) 23:16, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, that is a given, and not really how the sources (or even popular works) would treat such an image, so I'm a bit wary of it (would make a lot of captions unnecessarily long). It is usually the other way around in relevant sources and other articles; if colouration is known, it is noted in the captions (as in for example Microraptor and Tylosaurus). As for those eye spots specifically, ceratopsian dinosaurs are not uncommonly depicted with them, here by Gregory S. Paul[28] and Mark Witton.[29] FunkMonk (talk) 02:56, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is not really how Wikipedia works. If we say or portray something it is because we have a solid source which states it is a fact and we refer to that source. If no source states something, we don't mention it. I don't see how "Anything you see or read may just be a guess, but we will let you know if there happens to be something we are sure about in there" is compatible with a Wikipedia article, much less one at FAC. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:40, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but it goes both ways; an article about a subject should cover it in a way similar to how it is covered by the relevant sources or by other encyclopaedias, not in an original way. And you usually just don't see either with captions like that (saying depicted colouration is conjectural or even addressing colouration if it isn't because it is actually known), so there are no published sources to use as precedent. To take some example, Britannica's article about the related Pachyrhinosaurus:[30] The original Nasutoceratops press release intended for general audiences with a bare-bones image caption:[31] National Geographic'scoverage of the dinosaur:[32] FunkMonk (talk) 13:31, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is Wikipedia, we do lots of things differently here. Is there any reason in policy or the MoS why we should follow the sources in this? Or policy support for "an article about a subject should cover it in a way similar to how it is covered by the relevant sources"?
I am unconvinced by the "would make a lot of captions unnecessarily long" argument. Currently the article includes captions 178 and 317 characters long (including spaces). Adding the 28 characters of my suggestion would make the two captions affected 126 and 113 characters long. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:59, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I'm aware this is not the case on any of the other Dinosauria-related FA's with life reconstructions. If necessary, perhaps just adding 'colouration subjective' at the end of the caption could work. If it is a requirement, we should at the very least employ this unilaterally across all dinosaur FA's, maybe even all FA's on extinct animals. The Morrison Man (talk) 15:15, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't say the overly long captions is the main argument (though I personally find it unappealing), but rather the lack of published precedent in relevant sources. I do think such information could maybe make sense as part of the alt-text, which is concerned about the visual side of an image. Could that be a compromise? But yeah, if this really is an issue, it should be brought up at a more general venue rather than in a specific article, since we literally have thousands of articles with the same issue. FunkMonk (talk) 15:24, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's an issue. I am entirely open to being persuaded that we are not telling readers something not supported by HQ RSs - in the two specific cases in this FAC. I don't think that "but it's that way in other articles" is going to convince me. And has this has, to my surprise, become an "issue" I am formally recusing. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:48, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not about following other Wikipedia articles, but about following the published literature we base our articles on. The reason why I mention other Wikipedia articles is just that if we create a new precedent here, it should be followed everywhere else on Wikipedia, hence it would need a wider discussion to see if there is really support for this. I'm totally open for that if we believe the issue is serious enough for it. FunkMonk (talk) 14:20, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If there is a consensus of the HQ RSs on the colouration portrayed in the images and the false eyes then cite it and I'm happy. If not, state so in the article and I'm happy. Or come up with a policy based reason why things are fine as they are. Barring any of those I don't see how I can support the use of either of those images in an FAC. Everything else is fine and the closing @WP:FAC coordinators: may disagree with my approach regarding this, narrow issue. I am not over-fussed one way or the other what other editors support. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:46, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I think we have differing interpretations of the rules then (me emphasising that we should follow how the relevant sources cover a subject). I'll bring it up at a more general venue at some point, faster if more people find it an issue. FunkMonk (talk) 16:05, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure that we do have "differing interpretations". The first thing I wrote in my summary of my position was "If there is a consensus of the HQ RSs on the colouration portrayed in the images and the false eyes then cite it and I'm happy." What do you consider to be the difference between that and "we should follow how the relevant sources cover a subject"? Gog the Mild (talk) 16:11, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because no sources exist that give such a rationale for depictions of particular species because there is no fossil evidence to base it on, they only give very general pointers, and generally no comment is made on the colouration shown in image captions. Going beyond that isn't possible with existing sources, except for the very rare cases where colouration has been preserved in the fossils, but that is not the case for the animals depicted here. As I mentioned above, some notable palaeontological artists have shown such spots, but entirely without comment, so while there is published visual precedence for it, there is nothing in the captions for these images that can be cited in support. Gregory S. Paul had this general statement, for example: "Archosaurs of all sizes may have used specific color displays for intraspecific communication or for startling predators. Crests, frills, skin folds, and taller neural spines would be natural bases for vivid, even iridescent, display colors, especially in the breeding season." A citation to something like that could be added to the Commons description, no? FunkMonk (talk) 15:43, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, as I mentioned earlier, I'll start a discussion about this at a more general venue, as it's a general issue not restricted to this FAC. FunkMonk (talk) 13:27, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Added "hypothetical life restoration" to all restoration captions, per the discussion here:[33] FunkMonk (talk) 19:48, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Caption "The Kaiparowits Formation environment has been compared with the swamplands of Louisiana." Perhaps 'The swamplands of Louisiana, with which the Kaiparowits Formation environment has been compared'?
Why not, changed. FunkMonk (talk) 15:15, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Make File:Ceratopsia skin integument.png larger.
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 15:15, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alt text is missing from most but not all images.
Added to rest. FunkMonk (talk) 22:34, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild (talk) 16:54, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Should now be addressed. FunkMonk (talk) 22:34, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RoySmith (comments)[edit]

I don't know if I'll be able to commit to a full review, but I'll make a few suggestions.

I know WP:ALT is not a WP:FACR, and I do appreciate that all the images here do at least have alts, but I can't help feeling some of them could be improved. For example, File:Ceratopsidae Scale.svg. The image itself complies with WP:FIDUCIAL by including the silhouette of a human, but the alt text just teases our screen-reader users by not actaully telling them how that human compares to the dinosaurs. Even adding something as simple as "The tallest, Triceratops prorsus, is about twice as tall and the shortest, Nasutoceratops titusi, is about the same height" would add useful context. RoySmith (talk) 22:28, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I don't think most people feel particularly comfortable doing these, tried with something along your lines for that image. Anything else? FunkMonk (talk) 16:46, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Morrison Man - support[edit]

Seeing as this review seems to be missing a third reviewer, I'll provide some comments in a bit. Just marking my spot. The Morrison Man (talk) 10:35, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, finally got around to reading through the whole thing. A few notes:

Lead[edit]
  • “including a subadult skull with a partial postcranial skeleton and rare skin impressions and two partial skulls” - maybe clarify that these skulls do not belong to the partial skeleton, something like “two other partial skulls”.
Added "other". FunkMonk (talk) 15:43, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • “and may have formed a distinct clade within this group” - Isn’t Nasutoceratopsini well-established at this point? If so, may have can be removed here.
It has recently been put into question, see latter part of classification section. FunkMonk (talk) 15:43, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, I seem to have missed this one when I was looking over my list at the end! The Morrison Man (talk) 20:51, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • “the deep front of skull” - the deep front of the skull.
Added. FunkMonk (talk) 15:43, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Discovery and naming[edit]
  • “the paleotologist Alan L. Titus” - Fix typo.
Yikes, done. How did no one before spot that? FunkMonk (talk) 15:43, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • “which formed much of the upper jaw” - Would this not fit better in present tense? ‘which form much of the upper jaw’.
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 15:43, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Description[edit]
  • “that lined the margins of the neck frill [...] and on the cheeks” - I’d swap lined out for something like were present on, to make sure that first part matches up with the mention of the cheek ossifications.
Went with "on the". FunkMonk (talk) 18:57, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • “as is typical of ceratopids” - Fix typo.
Fixed, but note "ceratopid" is a valid alternate form! FunkMonk (talk) 15:43, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Did not know this, interesting! Though I do believe that using ceratopsid is the right way to go to avoid reader confusion.The Morrison Man (talk) 20:51, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, an article should of course be internally consistent (and ceratopsid is way more common). FunkMonk (talk) 18:57, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • “A maxillary flange at the front” - Considering the extensive explaining of anatomical terms, would an explanation for maxillary flange also be useful here?
Can't really find anything about this other than it's an, uh, flange, but tried to make it clearer that it's on the front of the maxilla: "The maxillary flange at the front of the maxilla". FunkMonk (talk) 12:59, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • “a somewhat raised teardrop-shaped expansion” - Comma in between raised and teardrop-shaped?
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 18:57, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • “hour-glass shape” - No hyphen needed.
Removed. FunkMonk (talk) 18:19, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • “without torsion. The postorbital bone” - It would make more sense to me structure-wise if this new section starts a line down from the ending of the skull section.
You mean as a new paragraph? FunkMonk (talk) 18:57, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes The Morrison Man (talk) 19:46, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Split. FunkMonk (talk) 12:59, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • “trihedral” - Would a link be possible here?
No article to link, but added "(with three plane faces meeting at the same point)". FunkMonk (talk) 18:57, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • “in for example Avaceratops” - Going a bit off of personal preference, I’d change this to in taxa like Avaceratops.
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 18:57, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • “The epiparietals are low, roughly crescent-shaped, asymmetrical and wedge-shaped” - What is the purpose of naming two types of shape here? 2d/3d?
Removed "wedge-shaped" as crescent-shaped is mainly emphasised by the sources. FunkMonk (talk) 18:57, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • “the back if the skull” - Fix typo.
Fixed, dammit... FunkMonk (talk) 18:19, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • “pavement tubercles” - Perhaps this could be explained?
Added explanation taken from a paper on hadrosaurs "(smooth, polygonal scales forming clusters)", but it seems to conflict or overlap with the description that's already there. Pinging Jens Lallensack who wrote about the hadrosaur mummies for advice, he may be more familiar with it. We should really have an article where dinosaur scale terminology is explained... FunkMonk (talk) 12:59, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See Edmontosaurus mummy AMNH 5060#Skin; combined with the picture, I hope it makes the meaning of the term clear. The term was, I think, coined by Osborn in 1912; he called them "pavement tubercles" because they are raised above the smaller "ground tubercles" in-between the clusters. Jens Lallensack (talk) 13:51, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, would "(clusters formed by raised scales)" work? FunkMonk (talk) 14:19, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, "pavement tubercles" are the individual scales, not the clusters. However, it looks like there is no evidence for such clusters in Nasutoceratops in the first place? As far as I see, Lund and colleagues seem to be the only ones who used "pavement tubercle" outside of the context of hadrosaurs. So I wonder if they had a different meaning in mind, or simply were sloppy with the terminology. Given that we are not sure what they mean here, maybe it would be best to just remove the term (and its explanation)? Maybe simply Patches A and B have variably sized scales that are round to elliptical and are arranged in irregular rows, similar to what is known from other ceratopsians (including Psittacosaurus, Chasmosaurus, and Centrosaurus)? Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:06, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Could be a solution, but what to do about the following sentence? "There is also no evidence in Nasutoceratops of round, ossicle-like scales surrounded by pavement tubercles, as seen in Chasmosaurus and Centrosaurus FunkMonk (talk) 15:08, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See this image: [34]. You see the normal, polygonal scales that Lund et al. call "pavement tubercles", as well as large, circular scales in-between. Maybe just write "There is also no evidence in Nasutoceratops of single circular scales much larger than the scales surrounding them, as seen in Chasmosaurus and Centrosaurus"? Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:08, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Jens Lallensack, implemented your wording now. FunkMonk (talk) 12:28, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd consider this fixed then. The Morrison Man (talk) 14:44, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Classification[edit]
  • “(including one that was previously considered an adult Avaceratops)” - Is this the same specimen as MOR 692, which you mentioned above? If so this second mention could probably be removed.
Yes, seems this happened when I copied an earlier deleted sentence in again. Removed that part. FunkMonk (talk) 18:19, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • “Dalman colleagues accompanying” - Should be Dalman and colleagues.
You're noticing a lot of bizarre mistakes everyone else missed... FunkMonk (talk) 15:43, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Surprisingly, yeah. Happens to the best of us! The Morrison Man (talk) 20:51, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • “Judith River Formation close to Nasutoceratops” - I’d change this towards ‘to be close to’ or ‘to be closely related to’, just for extra clarity.
Went with the former. FunkMonk (talk) 18:19, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • “of north and south of Laramidia” - Change this to either ‘of the north and south of Laramidia’ or ‘of northern and southern Laramidia’.
Took the latter. FunkMonk (talk) 18:19, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • “the northern centroaurines” - Fix typo.
Oof, fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 18:19, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • “north and south Laramidia” (x2) - I’d once again change these to northern and southern. It’s up to preference but I think it reads nicer.
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 18:19, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • “latitutudinally distributed” - Fix typo.
Ugh, done. FunkMonk (talk) 18:19, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • “found that this genus and other basal centrosaurines [...] to have lived” - Remove ‘that’ to fix sentence structure.
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 18:19, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • “fossil evidence indicated” - Should this not be present? ‘fossil evidence indicates’.
Changed, though since it is a past occurrence, I think past tense could work. FunkMonk (talk) 18:19, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Paleobiology[edit]
  • “suggested that the may” - Fix typo.
I'm not seeing this, perhaps sopmething that has been fixed since? FunkMonk (talk) 18:19, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to have been fixed in another edit, yeah. The Morrison Man (talk) 20:51, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • “(rarest of the three groups)” - Should there be an extra ‘the’ in front of rarest?
Added for good measure. FunkMonk (talk) 18:19, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Paleoenvironment[edit]
  • “were dominated by up to 30 m (98 ft) cypress trees” - Maybe change to ‘were dominated by cypress trees of up to 30 m (98 ft) tall’.
Went with "dominated by cypress trees up to 30 m (98 ft) tall" for this and the below. FunkMonk (talk) 18:19, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Works fine! The Morrison Man (talk) 20:51, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • “up to 10–20 m (33–66 ft) dicot trees” - Same as for the above comment. Maybe swap height around to the back and add ‘tall’.
As above. FunkMonk (talk) 18:19, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • “by conifers up to 30 m (98 ft)” - Again, same as previous two comments.
Added "tall", but the rest of the sentence is what you suggested to change the others to already, no? FunkMonk (talk) 18:19, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • “comprising cycads” - Change to ‘comprising of cycads’?
Changed, but note it will probably be changed back by a notorious editor:[35] FunkMonk (talk) 18:19, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh this one's new for me. Of all the crusades to go on... The Morrison Man (talk) 20:51, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have taken the liberty of sorting the comments per section for ease of navigation. If you have any questions, you know how to find me! The Morrison Man (talk) 22:08, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for noticing a lot of weird stuff, everything addressed, though I pinged Jens for the scale issue I'm uncertain about... Seems there are a lot of different ways to describe the same things... FunkMonk (talk) 12:59, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's probably best to wait for Jens to see if he has any comments on that. If that's addressed, I think everything has been taken care of from my point of view. As an aside, it would probably be good to get some kind of article up about dinosaur scale types, or maybe even include them in the Glossary of dinosaur anatomy. Should probably be discussed at WP:DINO. The Morrison Man (talk) 13:48, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Everything has been adressed. I will support. The Morrison Man (talk) 14:45, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Empire of the Sultans[edit]

Nominator(s): MartinPoulter (talk) 14:58, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

After a successful FAC last year for an article about an art exhibition, I invite review of this article about another exhibition: one that visited sixteen venues. As with Hajj: Journey to the Heart of Islam, this article results from my role as Wikimedian In Residence at the Khalili Collections. I make extensive use of paywalled news archives, so of course I am happy to answer any requests for detailed quotes from those sources. MartinPoulter (talk) 14:58, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Ghosts of Europa[edit]

Hello! I don't have much feedback for the Venues or Reception sections. However, I think the Background and Content sections are under-developed and would benefit from expansion. I also think the focus of the Background section is unclear; it doesn't seem to properly set up the rest of the article.

For the Background section:

  • You cite four sources to cover the history of the Ottoman Empire: Encyclopedia of the Ottoman Empire, Deseret News, BYU, and the Salt Lake Tribune. The Encyclopedia makes sense, but otherwise this seems like a strange choice of sources. Is Deseret News really the best source for what the Ottomans did in 1516? Why cite newspapers at all instead of peer reviewed history books?
    • Can't do this straight away, but I'll find better sources. The newspaper sources are already used in the article and were written specifically to give context to the exhibition, but their statements can indeed be backed up by scholarly sources. Done: newspaper sources removed, academic books used instead, paragraph re-worded to fit those sources.
  • I think you should explain Islam's views on idolatry and its preference for non-representational art. Without that context, it's surprising that an exhibition covering 600 years of art is so focused on calligraphy and doesn't include e.g. sculptures.
    • This is a good idea; as with the above, I'll have to dig into scholarly sources.
  • In 1516, the empire took over the holy places of Islam in Arabia - What were these places? Everything on this list?
    • Yes, the part of that list that relates to Arabia. I could insert "Mecca and Medina" to make it explicit? Sentence now replaced based on academic source.
  • Although officially an Islamic state, the empire promoted a religious tolerance that was unusual for medieval Europe - Is this relevant to the exhibition? It sounds like it specifically focused on Islamic art.
    • I think this is useful context because the sultans did not fully embrace the restrictions of Islam, for instance commissioning portrait paintings. The exhibition combined Islamic art with art made for people who were unbelievably wealthy — maybe the richest family in the world at that time — and liked to show off their wealth.
  • The empire's rulers, the sultans, were keen patrons of the arts, especially calligraphy - This feels overly simplified. Was every single sultan for 600 years a "keen patron"?
    • I don't think "every single sultan" is implied. Sources use "the sultans" as the subject of the statement. I agree it's a breezy generalisation but not sure more is needed to explain why someone would be interested in the sultans' art.
FAC doesn't do "breezy generalistion[s]". Perhaps "Many of the empire's rulers, the sultans, were ..."? Assuming that the sources will support this. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:38, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the suggestion: now done. MartinPoulter (talk) 17:30, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suleiman and the later sultans used this wealth to build large, domed mosque complexes that included schools and hospitals - It's not clear how this connects to the article. Did some of the art in this exhibit come from those mosques?
    • This was included just to underline that the sultans were very rich, but you're right that it doesn't illuminate the exhibition. Now removed. Removed mention of schools and hospitals, and added clause about inscriptions.
  • other objects with secular or religious purposes - This is pretty vague (isn't everything either secular or religious?). I don't have a clear sense of what's in this collection. More detail or examples would be helpful.
    • Many objects were religious in purpose but many were not. Rephrased to make this more clear. The scope of the collection is art from Islamic countries, whether or not that art has a religious purpose or function.
Then why does this, not relevant, split need mentioning? Gog the Mild (talk) 20:52, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: It's mentioned to head off the misconception that the a collection named "... Collection of Islamic Art" is exclusively of art with a religious purpose/ origin. This exhibition combines art from a religious tradition with luxury items whose purpose was to show off the wealth of a ruling family. MartinPoulter (talk) 15:07, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oops. Fair enough then. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:11, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For Content:

  • The exhibition's curators were J. M. Rogers, the collection's honorary curator; and Nahla Nassar, its acting curator and registrar - This wording is awkward. Its curators were curators?
    • The curators of the exhibition were the curators of the collection, which isn't always true of exhibitions. I agree the repetition of "curator" is jarring. How about "The exhibition was assembled by..."?
  • More than 200 objects were on display, covering 600 years of the Ottoman Empire - This is also a bit awkward. The article on the Ottoman Empire says it lasted from 1299 to 1922, or 623 years. Were 23 of those years not covered by the exhibition?
    • 600 years is the number used by sources, but it's almost certainly false precision. Changed to "six centuries".
  • These exhibits fell into four sections. "In the service of God" displayed texts including the Quran as well as furniture and ornaments for decorating mosques. - The subsection about this exhibit doesn't mention furniture, which makes it feel incomplete after this overview.
    • Well spotted. I've added a sentence under "In the service of God" about mosque furniture.
  • Architectural inscriptions were a feature of Ottoman mosque interiors - This seems like it belongs in the Background section.
    • Seems like I need a new background sentence combining the fact that the sultans built mosques and they decorated them in a particular way. I'll think more about this. Rephrased and moved to background section.
  • The armour, forged from iron or steel, included helmets, chain mail shirts, and a 15th century war mask - This is an abrupt start to this subsection; I needed to reread the overview to orient myself. Consider re-introducing the topic: "This exhibit featured armour, which..."
    • You're right; I got sick of repeating "The exhibition included...". Now rephrased.
  • Other pottery on display came from Syria, among which were a set of twelve fritware bowls from 1860, each inscribed in Arabic with "Imperial Chamber" and "a gift for his excellency Abraham Lincoln". - I feel like I'm missing huge chunks of this story. Why was a gift for Abraham Lincoln in Syria? Did they never send it? Did Lincoln give it back?
    • I have the same feeling, and frustratingly the questions are not answered by the sources! So it's known that they bear Lincoln's name but I don't think anybody knows why these gifts were made for him but did not end up in the USA. I've added a sentence to explain that the curators don't know.
  • In the 19th century it was routine for sultans to be trained in calligraphy - This also feels like it belongs in the background.
    • Moved.

Ghosts of Europa (talk) 08:23, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    • Very grateful for your feedback and happy to give the article more useful context. I've made some changes straight away; others require more thought and poring through sources. Cheers, MartinPoulter (talk) 11:57, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note to apologise for delay with the last remaining point. I've had a celebratory last few days. Also, my search for references about Aniconism in Islam led to discovering problems with the sourcing of that article and Muslim world that I have spent some time digging into. I will come back to the background section of this article this week. MartinPoulter (talk) 16:13, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Ghosts of Europa, I was wondering if you felt in a position to either support or oppose this nomination? Obviously, neither is obligatory. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:14, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don’t think I understand the FA standards well enough to have an opinion. This is my first time participating in the process. I’ll defer to you and SchroCat. Ghosts of Europa (talk) 21:19, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ghosts of Europa are you satisfied with my responses to the points you've raised in your review? I think the last one that needs work is the use of newspaper sources in the Background section. I have spent some time on this and you'll see that I have provided some scholarly sources, but there are still a couple of newspaper sources supporting general statements about Ottoman art. I've had less time than anticipated for wiki editing over the last week but I still intend to improve the Background section. If, looking at what I've done since your review, you feel any suggestion has not been answered satisfactorily, I can work on that too. The article is much better thanks to your involvement, so thanks. MartinPoulter (talk) 23:39, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ghosts of Europa (and anyone else who wants to review) I've now made substantial changes to the Background section to remove a couple of inadequate sources and to make some points about Islamic art in general. I've had to change and rearrange some statements, but this let me wiki-link a few relevant articles. Is that section now good enough for its role giving context to the exhibition? All feedback welcome, MartinPoulter (talk) 17:58, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the current version looks great! It provides good context for the prominence of calligraphy, and the wikilinks make it easy to learn more. I haven't checked source-text integrity, but the general quality of the sources looks good. Two somewhat nitpicky things:
  • Referring to "Istanbul" seems anachronistic, especially underneath a map that calls the city Constantinople.
  • The New York Times seems like a weird source for Calligraphy was as central to Ottoman culture as painting was to Europe during the Renaissance. I wouldn't expect NYT journalists to be experts in comparative art history. Is there a more academic source we can use?
Ghosts of Europa (talk) 19:19, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Martin, have you addressed these last two comments? Gog the Mild (talk) 16:28, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Ghosts of Europa for the feedback and @Gog the Mild for the nudge. That damn catchy song had me reflexively avoiding "Constantinople" even when it is the historically correct name. Now I have replaced the two references to Istanbul. I've also deleted the sentence sourced to the NY Times and instead used a statement sourced to an encyclopaedia article by Fikret Sarıcaoğlu, a professor of Ottoman history. I hope this makes the Background section fit for purpose. MartinPoulter (talk) 20:11, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Ghosts of Europa, I was wondering if you felt in a position to either support or oppose this nomination? Obviously, neither is obligatory. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:58, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SC[edit]

  • I thoroughly enjoyed your Hajj article, so I'm looking forward to this one too. Comments to follow shortly. - SchroCat (talk) 13:04, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lead
  • "from 2000 to 2004: a period" A colon is wrong here – a comma would suffice
Content
  • Image caption: link horse chestnut? (Only a mild suggestion – your call entirely)
Venues
  • Image caption: "c. 1560-80" should be "c. 1560–1580", per the MOS
Books, paintings
  • "some following a standard pattern": is it possible to explain what the "standard pattern" is, or is that too complex to achieve in a few words?
Venues
  • I'm not sure we need a whole subsection for the US tour, do we? Just making it part of the wider section would be better (and doesn't give excess weight to one of the four countries)

That's my lot. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:10, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SchroCat Thanks for your suggestions, all of which I've implemented. MartinPoulter (talk) 14:29, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Since the additions suggested by Ghosts of Europa, this article is now much stronger than it was and up to FAC standards. - SchroCat (talk) 15:02, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I saw this FAC posted in WP:Museums and came to take a look since I've been meaning to get more familiar with the FAC process. I've read the article carefully and I think my only contribution is to wonder whether the lead should be a bit further expanded to perhaps say what objects some of the critics praised were? I really enjoyed reading the comments above too Lajmmoore (talk) 21:04, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Nice surprise to see one of my wiki-heroes at FAC. Thanks for the support! Looking again at the summary of reviews, three of them specifically praise the calligraphy. So I've added a clause in the lead to reflect this. MartinPoulter (talk) 14:03, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by a455bcd9[edit]

File:OttomanEmpire1566.png is unsourced. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 09:21, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for noticing: that'll teach me that I've focused too much on what I've written/added rather than others' work! I've removed the image and replaced it with commons:File:OttomanEmpireIn1683.png which does cite sources. Are you happy with this substitution? I also note that there is commons:File:OttomanEmpire1590.png which is extensively sourced, but may not be ideal because the text labels are small. MartinPoulter (talk) 12:03, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Martin,
Thanks. Unfortunately, the new map cite sources but not all of them are RS: "Self drawn, mainly based on Robert Mantran (ed.), Histoire de l'Empire Ottoman, Paris: Fayard (1989), also en:List of Ottoman Empire dominated territories, Image:Ottoman 1683.png, [1], and [2]." 1st (Mantran) is OK, 2nd is Wikipedia => not OK, 3rd is an unsourced image as well, 4th: what's the original source?, same issue with the 5th one.
So I would use File:OttomanEmpire1590.png. If you want to improve it (SVG + larger labels) you can ask the Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Map workshop. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 13:26, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Makes sense. I've substituted the image in the article. If required by the review, I could paint out the tiny text labels but I agree it would be ideal to have an SVG version of this map, so will make a request. Thanks again, MartinPoulter (talk) 13:41, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 14:35, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note to reviewers: if we have trouble getting a map of suitable quality, we can swap out that image from the Background section. The information that the Ottoman Empire had territory in three continents is given in the text. Instead of the map, we could have a calligraphic work such as commons:File:Khalili Collection Islamic Art cal 0007.jpg or commons:File:Khalili Collection Islamic Art mss 0239.15.jpg to back up the text's discussion of the importance of calligraphy. MartinPoulter (talk) 14:10, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've created an SVG version of the properly-sourced map, and placed it in the article. MartinPoulter (talk) 10:53, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment[edit]

More than a month in and just the single general support. Unless this nomination makes significant further progress towards a consensus to promote over the next two or three days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:55, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. I've just put out calls to the article's four Wikiprojects. MartinPoulter (talk) 19:39, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Airship[edit]

Just here to note that I think the "reception and legacy" section could use significant improvement: see WP:RECEPTION for the kind of changes I'd like to see. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:42, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@AirshipJungleman29: Thanks for the input. There are a lot of principles at WP:RECEPTION and they are usually of the form "don't do X too much". Happy to improve the section, but can you be more specific about what changes from that list apply to the current article? One of the principles there is about summary sentences for paragraphs; this is an area where I'm very cautious of summarising what the reviewers said because it's especially important that this section is neutral. All clarification welcome, MartinPoulter (talk) 15:01, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of course MartinPoulter. From the lead, I can see that you have already identified three prominent themes—the highly positive reception for the calligraphy, the feeling that the exhibition presented a different view of the Middle East, and a general appreciation for the beauty of the exhibits. However, in the reception section itself, these themes are haphazardly scattered through the section: for the calligraphy you have the NYT in the first paragraph, the AP and The Oklahoman in the second, and the Atlanta Journal-Constitution in the third; while for the "alternative viewpoint" you have the New Statesman in the first paragraph, the Salt Lake Tribune in the second, and both John Edwards (with a perhaps too-lengthy quote?) and the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette in the third. A similar situation is for the last theme. As you have already identified these areas as worthy of summarizing in the lead, I do not think there is any neutrality-related issue with providing "topic sentences" if so required. Hope that helps. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:32, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point that the John Edwards quote isn't needed in its entirety; I've cut an unnecessary clause. I'll work on reorganising the paragraphs thematically rather than chronologically. MartinPoulter (talk) 13:16, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's turned out to be really helpful to look at the reviews thematically rather than chronologically! I realise now that the positive reception breaks into two themes: praise of the exhibition as a diverse collection ("wide-ranging", "impressive sweep") and praise of individual art works ("gorgeous", "gems of real art") so I've separated those into two paragraphs (for four paragraphs total) and added a counterpart sentence in the lead. I've also replaced a couple of colourful verbs as WP:RECEPTION recommends. Does the new Reception section meet all your concerns, @AirshipJungleman29 ? MartinPoulter (talk) 14:06, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your response. The rest of the article is excellent (aside from Islam being linked twice in the lead). Support. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:01, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image and source review[edit]

Image placement is somewhat random but not too bad. I am not sure if we are meant to be strict with tagging photos of historical objects with a copyright tag for the historical object. ([[Jo-Jo - we are.) The galleries could also use some ALT text. Spot-check upon request. It seems like there are differences between the various citation informations - I guess because they don't all have the same information available? Although #14 has a link that seems to encompass a lot of information that's not usually in a piped link. What makes Factiva a reliable source, or more generally, what is it being used for? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:03, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Jo-Jo Eumerus: and thanks for taking an interest in this review. I'll answer in reverse order, if I may. Factiva is not itself claimed here to be a reliable source. Factiva is a subscription database through which one can retrieve old published news stories, similar to Lexis Plus, Westlaw, or Gale OneFile. I've used it to get stories originally published in newspapers and magazines that are too old to be on those publications' websites. The reliable source in each case is the publication in which the news story originally appeared: The Times, The Columbian, The Salt Lake Tribune, and so on.
Ref #14 is a page on the Khalili Collections official site; there isn't a byline or date, so I've used the full title from the web page (same for Refs #66 and #67). Should I be abbreviating the title, or using the exact title given by the web page? I'm not seeing why you mention piped links, so maybe I've misunderstood. Gale Onefile and Factiva give different metadata about the news stories they retrieve, and it's less than what I would get from retrieving an article from the publication's website; that might account for the variation in citations. I've used the same citation templates but not all the citations have the same information.
Apologies about ALT text: I thought I'd sorted that out before nominating the article. I'll fix that now. All the exhibited objects are from before the 20th century, so I'm happy to put the relevant copyright tags on the Commons files (probably tomorrow rather than today). I could put the images in galleries next to the relevant part of the description, but that would leave large stretches of the article without illustrations, so I thought it better to vary the images and dot them throughout the article. I think that's an interesting visual journey for the reader. MartinPoulter (talk) 16:34, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ALT text now added for those images that were missing it, and copyright tags for objects added to all exhibit photographs in Commons. Cheers, MartinPoulter (talk) 17:08, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What I am saying about piped links is that the text with the link underneath is a bit too long. "This is a piped link" is more text compared to "This is a piped link". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:20, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I think I see what change you want made, but I'm looking at the documentation for Template:Cite_web and I don't see how to implement it. There doesn't seem to be a way to display "Empire of the Sultans. Ottoman Art from the Collection of Nasser D. Khalili, Musée Rath, Geneva, Switzerland" but not have all of it linked. If I truncate that title, then the link can be confused with other web pages whose title begins the same way, such as refs #66 and #67. Do you want me to do that anyway? MartinPoulter (talk) 15:55, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure that cite web is the best format here - it's a website, yes, but the citation is a physical collection. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:43, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but I'm not understanding. The things being cited in refs #14, #66 and #67 are web pages published by the collection, not the physical collection of objects. I'm not sure how a physical collection would work as a citation in Wikipedia. To help me get the concept, can you give me an example of a citation template or citation format that should be used for one of these long-titled web pages? MartinPoulter (talk) 11:10, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. Actually, upon rethinking, the title does contain the correct information. So nevermind on my link question. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:43, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So the only thing missing are copyright tags for the objects in the images, per Gog's (somewhat misplaced; pings require a signature) comment. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:35, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done. See my message above, dated 17:08, 9 April 2024. I've just checked again that I didn't miss any objects. MartinPoulter (talk) 15:19, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Raynald of Châtillon[edit]

Nominator(s): Borsoka (talk) 03:31, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a 12th-century French aristocrat who ruled first the Principality of Antioch, then the Lordship of Oultrejourdain, both by right of one of his two wives, in the Frankish East. Notorious for plundering raids and attacks against caravans, he is often held responsible for the fall of the first Kingdom of Jerusalem. Borsoka (talk) 03:31, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Funk[edit]

  • I'll have a look soonish. At first glance, the usual script[36] reveals a good deal of duplinks, not sure if they're all needed. FunkMonk (talk) 12:50, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for starting the review. A quick cheque shows that all duplinks are connected to individuals who are mentioned in section "Family" in addition to one reference to them in other sections of the article and in the lead. I think this approach is quite user friendly. Borsoka (talk) 14:17, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "but in 1989 Jean Richard demonstrated Raynald's kinship with the lords of Donzy." How? Could warrant at least a footnote, as it pertains directly to the subject of the article?
  • I do not have access to Richard's work.
Seems like it could be worth tracking it down, what is the citation? WP:RX usually works. FunkMonk (talk) 18:57, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your suggestion. I reqested assistance at WP:RX.
  • "Raynald was born around 1123 or 1125." Do we know where?
  • None of the two cited sources name the place of his birth. Britannica indicates that Raynald was born in Châtillon-sur-Loing but I am not sure that this claim could be verified by a reference to a secondary source. Borsoka (talk) 06:28, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done.
  • William of Tyre probably only needs to be linked in the first caption he's mentioned in, but now he's linked all three times.
  • Yes, he is linked in each caption of the pictures. I think this is the usual approach.
But in three different captions, one should be enough in the first. FunkMonk (talk) 18:57, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link Venetian?
  • Linked.
  • "The crusader states around 1165" State the colour of the area he ruled in caption.
  • Added.
  • Link excommunicated.
  • Linked.
  • Link Genoa.
  • Linked.
  • "Raynald made an alliance with Thoros II of Cilicia." Probably worth mentioning he was Armenian ("the Armenian lord"?) to show shifting alliances, since the previous paragraph tells of him fighting Armenians.
  • Added.
  • "orgy of violence" This sounds a little, err, loaded.
  • Reworded. I am curious how I could create this expression.
  • "Shaizar was held by Assassins, but it had been ruled by the Muslim Munqidhites who paid an annual tribute to Raynald." This seemingly implies that the Assassins weren't Muslims. Perhaps be more specific about what kind of Muslims the two groups were?
  • Reworded.
  • "On Manuel's demand, he and his retainers walked barefoot" I think you could name him instead of the confusing "he".
  • Modified.
  • Link Latakia.
  • Linked.
  • "horses and camels from the local peasants" State if they were Muslims for context.
  • None of the cited sources refers to their religion. I assume they were more likely local Christians.
  • A shame many of the old illustrations are so low res, I wonder if some of them can be updated with higher res scans?
  • Sorry, I do not understand your reference to "res".
Image resolution/size. FunkMonk (talk) 18:57, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I changed the size of most images. Borsoka (talk) 02:59, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, sorry, I meant their sizes on Commons, as in the original resolution of the files themselves. But probably not much you can do about it without access to larger versions. FunkMonk (talk) 08:53, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • This[37] image has a copyright warning tag that is probably invalid.
  • I think the tag is obviously baseless but I cannot delete it.
Hmmm, that's an extremely annoying template, I'll ask around how to fix it. FunkMonk (talk) 18:57, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I brought it up here[38], and seems to have been fixed for at least this image. FunkMonk (talk) 21:30, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Borsoka (talk) 02:59, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link leprosy?
  • Linked.
  • "but he protested when Baldwin confirmed Raynald's position as "regent of the kingdom and of the armies"." Why?
  • Explained.
  • Link Beirut.
  • Linked.
  • Link Arabian desert.
  • Linked.
  • Link Medina.
  • I am not sure it is necessary.
  • Link Holy Roman Emperor.
  • Linked.
  • It seems Saladin needs a proper introduction in the article body, now he's just mentioned without any context, unlike for example "a talented Turkic military leader Imad al-Din Zengi".
  • Introduced.
  • The long quote under Kingmaker seems kind of isolated, but could benefit from some commentary, if available, or introduction for context.
  • "Saladin sent blaming him" Not sure what this means, something missing?
  • This is a quote. I checked, and the quoted text contains the same wording. Borsoka (talk) 06:28, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "against ships delivering pilgrims" Specify Muslim.
  • Added.
  • Perhaps link Saracen, though it is only used in quotes.
  • You spell out Bernard Hamilton many times, when his full name would only be needed at first mention in the article body. This may possibly also be an issue with other names.
  • Modified.
  • "of French origin... a French noble family" Should be stated in the article body as well.
  • Added.
  • "he was the only Christian leader to pursue an offensive policy against Saladin" This does not seem to be explicitly stated in the article body.
  • The first sentence in section "Fights against Saladin" verifies the statement.
  • Link Red Sea in intro.
  • Linked.
  • Have to say it's fun to read these real accounts of characters I mainly know from the film Kingdom of Heaven hehe... Hope to see more!
Thank you very much for your comprehensive review and for your suggestion. I think I addressed most of the problems you mentioned above but I need some days to deal with the pending issues. Borsoka (talk) 04:32, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good, left some further replies about last issues. FunkMonk (talk) 18:57, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • FunkMonk thank you for your support. I added an explanatory footnote about Raynald's ancestry ([39]). Please let me know if further explanation is needed. Borsoka (talk) 03:35, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jens[edit]

  • He was released for a large ransom in 1176 but he did – maybe you can drop the second "he" for better flow.
  • Done.
  • He even refused to pay a subsidy to Raynald. In retaliation, he captured and tortured – the second "he" here does not refer to Raynald, but it should, right? Write "Raynald" instead?
  • Done.
  • Aimery excommunicated Raynald as a consequence between Antioch and Genoa – What does this mean, "between Antioch and Genoa"? I cannot follow.
  • Fixed.
  • and all other Christians prisoners – "Christian"
  • Fixed.
  • Manuel I Komnenos – Before, you referred to him as "Manuel" or "Emperor Manuel". I suggest to stick with one name, it makes it much easier for the reader to follow. There are already enough names that a reader need to keep in mind here.
  • Changed (now he is referred to as either Emperor Manuel or Manuel).
  • Hamilton proposes, these words suggest that Raynald led – "Hamilton proposes that"?

Thank you for your review and comments. Borsoka (talk) 12:10, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Raynald whose stepfather, Balian of Ibelin was Guy of Lusignan's opponent – needs a comma behind "Ibelin"?
  • Done.
  • Regarding the quotations, note that WP:QUOTE states Attribution should be provided in the text of the article, not exclusively in a footnote or citation. Readers should not have to follow a footnote to find out the quotation's source.
  • Done.
  • Saladin tried to seize Aleppo after As-Salih Ismail al-Malik, the Zengid emir of the town, died on 18 November 1181.[85] Raynald stormed into Saladin's territory, – a bit hard to understand how these actions are connected. Was Saladin's attack of Aleppo the cause of Raynald storming the territory? Or did those happen at the same time, independently?
  • Modified.
  • Thank you for your suggestions. Please let me know if any further modification is needed. Borsoka (talk) 01:26, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your support, and also for your thorough review. Borsoka (talk) 03:49, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Matarisvan[edit]

Hi, some minor comments on source formatting:

  • Sources #73, #121 and #156 will have to be formatted using sfn.
  • Reference style is consequent: primary sources are not cited by using sfn, whereas when citing other sources sfn is used.
  • Primary sources subsection: Consider linking to Baha ad-Din ibn Shaddad, Al-Kamil Fi'l-Ta'rikh, Ashgate Publishing? Also, wouldn't the second source be listed first in the alphabetical order, which you have followed for the secondary sources subsection?
  • Alphabetical order introduced and the publisher is linked. I would not link names in the title of books.

Secondary sources subsection:

  • Why do some of the ISBN numbers use different formats? You should use just one, ideally the one you intend to use in the Primary Sources subsection and the Firther Reading section.
  • I converted all ISBN (10) to ISBN (13).
  • You should sort out the ISBN for Baldwin 1969. It leads to to another work, Setton 1969, in some catalogues.
  • The same works: Setton is the general edition of the series A History of the Crusades, whereas Baldwin is the editor of its first volume.
  • Could we have a translation for this chapter title from Makk 1994, Anna (1.); Béla III? Also, consider linking to Gyula Kristó and Pál Engel?
  • The translation would be the same because these are two names. The two editors linked.
  • The Jean Richard link leads to a disambig page. I gather you meant to link to Jean Richard (historian)?
  • Fixed.
  • Further reading section: Consider using the standard ISBN format you decide to use in the previous section. Also consider linking to Chase F. Robinson, Amin Maalouf, John Man (author), Random House, Gustave Schlumberger. As you have specified in the previous section if a work is in another language, you should also do thjs for Schlumberger 1898, translate the title and add the publisher name (Librairie Plon).
  • I converted all ISBN (10) to ISBN (13). Wikilinks and publisher name added. Title translated.
  • Consider linking to Donzy in notes, on first mention and in infobox?
  • I linked it in the main text, but I would not link it when it is part of a person's name. For instance, we would not link "Habsburg" or "Bourbon" when mentioning a member of the Habsburg or Bourbon family.

More comments soon. Matarisvan (talk) 18:58, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you very much for your source review and comments. Borsoka (talk) 01:45, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi, made some minor source formatting edits, hope those are OK. Will post more comments soon. Matarisvan (talk) 15:32, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Borsoka, some new comments. Made a few grammatical and sequential edits, hope those are alright.

  • Consider moving to the right the images you have oriented to the left, per MOS:IMAGELOC.
  • The pictures' orientation depends on the content: pictures depicting people looking to the right are placed on the left side. I moved the two exceptions accordingly.
  • Consider adding context to the mercy petition to Emperor Manuel? How was he captured? This is important to include in the lead.
  • Expanded in the lead.
  • "the only crusader leader who tried to prevent Saladin from unifying the nearby Muslim states": Consider adding the meaning of this, in that it prevented all out war and annnihilation of the crusader states?
  • I am not sure that any of the two statements could be verified: the crusader states had been warring against the neighboring Muslim states before they were united by Saladin, and we could hardly state that the crusader states would have survived if Saladin had not united Egypt and Syria.
  • Moved the Komnenos Emperors' and other links a little bit to avoid WP:SEAOFBLUE. Hope that is alright?
  • Thank you for your edits.
  • Will you be creating pages for Lord of Donzy, Rainald II Masoir and Garenton of Saone? Otherwise I would suggest removing the redlinks.
  • I am not sure that I want to create pages for them, but red links may provoke other editors into creating the articles.
  • Consider linking to Saint-Valery-sur-Somme for Reynald of Saint-Valery?
  • I think linking settlements in an individual's name is not helpful.
  • For Raynald's seal, can we put the text on it in the caption? From what I can make out, the front says "EGAL DNS RENALDUS MONTI", the back says "CIVITAS + PETPACENSIS". But this seems flimsy, you might be better placed to read the text on there.
  • I have no access to reliable sources explaining the inscription on the seal.
  • When did Roupen marry Isabella? Do we have the date, as we do for the other other marriages mentioned?
  • Year added.
  • Link to Medina.
  • Medina and Mecca linked.
  • Link to prelates.
  • Added.
  • Is the Ashtara mentioned here the same as Ashtarak? If so, consider linking to it.
  • No, the two settlements are not identical, but expanded the sentence to help Ashtara's localisation.
  • Link to Ernoul on first use. You have added the link in the notes but not in the body.
  • Linked.

That is all for now. Cheers. Matarisvan (talk) 11:53, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for your comprehensive review and also for your edits. Borsoka (talk) 02:55, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Matarisvan, is there any more to come on this one? Gog the Mild (talk) 11:59, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Srnec[edit]

Invited by Borsoka. Srnec (talk) 20:05, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm not reviewing the 'Background' section. I will note, however, that it is required reading to understand the rest of the article, which refers to figures mentioned there. I'm not sure I like this approach, since I think many readers will tend to skip the background.
  • The section was added during the article's peer review because the article needed some context for potential readers (billions of people). I think there are two approaches for providing our readers with a context: 1. distributing the information in other sections and footnotes; 2. expanding the article with a "Background" section. I preferred the second approach because it makes possible a more coherent summary.
  • Are the Palladii an actual Roman family? Or just a part of the Donzy's claimed genealogy?
  • Expanded.
  • Did he receive the lordship of Châtillon-sur-Loire from his father?
  • No information in the cited sources.
  • The last paragraph of 'Early years' is confusing. Did Raynald leave the siege of Ascalon to visit Antioch? Or are we certain that he had visited it before the siege? Why are we attributing the date 1151 to Runciman? The idea that Raynald settled in Antioch in 1151 seems in tension with Buck's theory that he was still in Baldwin's service in 1153.
  • I rephrased the paragraph.
  • Buck argues that William's report is obviously biased since ... according to Buck. These clauses could be removed without loss.
  • Rephrased and shortened.
  • I am thinking of creating a new article about the office, but I need some time.
  • I do not have enough source to create an article about the office. What is clear, the duke was one of the eleven highest ranking officers of state in Antioch. Borsoka (talk) 02:36, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • that the Armenians had recently captured. From whom?
  • Modified.
  • Sorry, I think it should be clarified that the Syrian Gates had belonged to Byzantium. I assume that's the case?
  • It is unclear from the sources. I rather guess they belonged to Antioch. Borsoka (talk) 01:29, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • In context, the Armenians have risen against the Byzantines, who are asking Raynald for help.
  • Yes, but the territory seems to belonged to the principality. Borsoka (talk) 02:47, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • We should say so explicitly.
  • The cited sources do not say it explicitly, and I have not found further details in other sources either. Borsoka (talk) 09:58, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shaizar was held by the Shi'ite Assassins, but it had been ruled by the Sunnite Munqidhites who paid an annual tribute to Raynald. So it was held by the Assassins at the time, but had previously been held by the Munqidhites?
  • Modified.

More later. Srnec (talk) 20:05, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • I am grateful for answering my invitation. Thank you for your suggestions and edits. Borsoka (talk) 04:19, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing...

  • Unlinked Majd al-Din was the governor of Aleppo and two paragraphs later it's Gümüshtekin, who is described as "independent". This leaves me with questions. I think some explanation of who Majd al-Din was and what was going on with Aleppo may be needed.
  • Context added.
  • Do we have a date, even approximate, for Baldwin IV's embassy?
  • Added.
  • Raynald married Stephanie of Milly, the lady of Oultrejordain, and Baldwin IV also granted him Hebron. I'd break this up into two sentences. And do we have date(s)?
  • Date added, but I would leave the sentence united.
  • Raynald's name was the first among the witnesses who signed most royal charters between 1177 and 1180 Hard to parse. Should probably say something like "Raynald signed a majority of royal charters between 1177 and 1180, with his name always first among signatories".

Looks like I'll be doing this in short bursts. Srnec (talk) 20:33, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing...

  • Perhaps a link to Caravan (travellers) should be added somewhere, although that's not the most informative article.
  • Linked.
  • I notice inconsistent treatment of sun and moon letters. Should be consistent within the article, probably in favour of al-. Also, the Arabic definite article should only be capitalized where English 'the' would be.
  • I think inconsistency in article reflects inconsistency in the cited books. I would prefer scholarly usage to consistency.
  • But I think scholars will be internally consistent (unless they are Lawrence of Arabia). I would be surprised to see a scholar switch back and forth between "al-Din" and "ad-Din".
  • No, scholars are not consistent either (see Buck) :), but I changed the text. Borsoka (talk) 01:52, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • When Saladin tried to seize Aleppo after As-Salih died on 18 November 1181 Constructions like this are always ambiguous between whether al-Salih died on that date or Saladin tried to seize Aleppo on that date. Consider rewording.
  • Changed.
  • His defiance annoyed the king, enabling Raymond III of Tripoli's partisans to reconcile him with the monarch. Raymond's return to the royal court put an end to Raynald's paramount position. Raymond III comes out of nowhere here. These two sentences need to be reworked to make more sense to the uninitiated.
  • Context added.
  • Saladin revived the Egyptian naval force No article for the Ayyubid navy, but we do have Fatimid navy. I leave it up to you if you think a link could be worked in here.
  • Linked.
  • We need a link to Hajj to explain Muslim pilgrims. Could go in the lead, where they are first mentioned or elsewhere.
  • Linked.
  • Baldwin IV, who had become seriously ill, made Guy of Lusignan bailli (or regent) in October 1183. Is this different from the office of regent previously mentioned? The whole concept of "regent" during the reign of Baldwin IV may need some explaining.
  • I deleted bailli because not the title but the position is relevant in the article's context.
  • Baldwin V, crowned king Should be "co-king", I think, or perhaps add "in association with himself".
  • Modified.
  • The bailli, Raymond III When did he become bailli?
  • Deleted the reference to his office because it is not highly relevant.
  • Ali ibn al-Athir and other Muslim historians record that Raynald made a truce with Saladin in 1186. This "seems unlikely to be true", according to Hamilton, because the truce between the Kingdom of Jerusalem and Saladin covered Raynald's domains. . . possibly because he regarded the presence of soldiers as a breach of the truce ... stating in the words of the Estoire d'Eracles that "... he had no truces with the Saracens". Saladin [took] an oath that he would personally kill Raynald for breaking the truce. Seems like a lot of confusion then and now over whether Raynald was covered by a truce! Not sure there is much that can be done to fix this, but I can certainly imagine a reader scratching his head.
  • Rephrased. I think now it is much clearer. Borsoka (talk) 02:47, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, moving that Barber quotation was a good idea.

More later. Srnec (talk) 20:42, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Finally,

  • The reliability of the reports of Saladin's offer to Raynald is subject to scholarly debate, because the Muslim authors who recorded them may have only wanted to improve Saladin's image. I find this sentence odd. Is there a reason for scholarly debate on what seems to me a minor point?
  • The story about Saladin's offer to conversion to Raynald has been frequently deleted by editors. To avoid further edit wars, I added this sentence.
  • She followed her husband to Hungary, where she gave birth to seven children before she died around 1184. Raynald and Constance's second daughter, Alice, became the third wife of Azzo VI of Este in 1204. Do these sentences imply that Raynald is the ancestor of much European royalty? If so, it might be worth stating so explicitly.
  • Yes, he is obviously the ancestor of much of European royalty, but this statement is not verified in the sources cited in the article.
  • Spelling is inconsistent between Oultrejourdain and Oultrejordain.
  • Fixed.
  • Saladin compared Raynald with the king of Ethiopia who had tried to destroy Mecca in 570 The Year of the Elephant article ascribes the attack to Abraha, an Ethiopian king but not a king of Ethiopia.
  • Hamilton writes of the "Christian king of Ethiopia".
  • I'm going to assume that the primary source says the same.
  • Peter of Blois dedicated a book (entitled Passion of Prince Raynald of Antioch) to him shortly after his death. I found this intriguing and wanted to know more.

I have now done a first pass of the whole article and will read it over once more before making some final remarks and assessing the lead. Srnec (talk) 17:10, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Srnec, just checking to see if there will be more to come. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:24, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: I do still intend to. I was waiting to see what changes result from Dudley's review. Srnec (talk) 18:17, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi, Srnec, do you think the article has a chance for promotion? Borsoka (talk) 05:10, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A second pass...

  • Antioch was a crusader state in the Near East, Oultrejordain a large fiefdom in the crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem, and he ruled both territories by right of one of his two wives. I do not agree with the addition of this sentence. It is highly unusual to place this kind of background information in the second sentence of the lead.
  • Rewritten and shortened.
  • In fact, I find the entire background section excessive. It would be absurd to repeat it at ever crusader lord's article, so why Raynald's? For me, wikilinks is how to provide background beyond basic definitions. I'm not sure why the peer reviewers thought this necessary in a biographical article. It seems unusual to me.
  • Transformed into footnotes. I still need to check the wikilinks.
  • He received the lordship of Châtillon-sur-Loire, but a part of his patrimony was "violently and unjustly confiscated", according to one of his letters. I think you should lead with his claim and then identify his lordship. As it is, this sentence still reads awkwardly to me. It might require more research to flesh out.
  • Rewritten.
  • The paragraph beginning Raymond of Poitiers, the Prince of Antioch does not mention Raynald. The information should perhaps be moved elsewhere or its relevance made clearer.
  • Rewritten.
  • The historian Steven Runciman says that Raynald had already settled in Antioch, and was engaged to Constance before the siege began. In contrast, the historian Malcolm Barber says that their betrothal took place during a visit by Raynald to the principality before the end of the siege. This makes too much of a minor distinction between being betrothed before or during a siege. I'd combine it into a single sentence and leave out inline attribution. The sources seem to agree that he was betrothed before the end of the siege.
  • Rewritten.
  • duke of Antioch. Unless and until an article on the office is created, I think we need an explanation of this title. Could go in a note. I did find this.
  • I cannot open the link. Could you tell me the title?
  • Raynald captured and tortured him. I think "arrested" or "imprisoned" is the better word here.
  • Done.
  • Emperor Manuel sent his envoys to Antioch. This would be a good place for background.
  • Done.
  • According to Pharaoh's Island, "Ile de Graye" is a misnomer. We should probably avoid it.
  • Indeed. Done.
  • The title Kaisar needs some explanation (or wikilink).
  • I deleted because his title is irrelevant in context.
  • I notice inconsistent use of {{lang}} tags, although this is hardly a dealbreaker.
  • I think I fixed all.
  • I see no need to mention the opinion of a blogger associated with Breitbart. If this is the proper description of Delingpole—and his Wiki page suggests it is not—then he needn't be here.
  • Delingpole's opinion is verified by a reference to Cotts, the author of the sole monography about modern perceptions of Raynald. As Delingpole is a representative of a extremist view, I think we should mention his PoV.

In terms of comprehensiveness, sourcing and neutrality, the article is fine, although I would have sought out some academic papers. Compared to Henry IV, it is not as readable. I suspect it is hard to follow for the average reader. Srnec (talk) 03:30, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Could you propose some academic papers? I would list them in section "Further reading". Borsoka (talk) 03:44, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments. I think I understand most of your concerns. I will be trying to address them through structural changes, mainly by the most intensive use of notes. Borsoka (talk) 17:17, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi Srnec, I was wondering if you felt in a position to either support or oppose this nomination? Obviously, neither is obligatory. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:00, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

All images are OK except possibly File:IIIBelaFotoThalerTamas.JPG. According to Wikipedia, the reburial of the Hungarian king was in 1898 which means if the artworks in the picture date to then, we are probably OK for copyright status per the commons PD-old-assumed. However, I cannot confirm that the artwork in the photo also dates to 1898—if the artist died after 1953 it is still likely copyrighted. I would be inclined to remove the image as it is not crucial to the reader's understanding of the article topic. (t · c) buidhe 19:05, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Picture removed. Thank you for the image review. Borsoka (talk) 00:53, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Buidhe: I added a new image ([40]). I would be grateful for your review. Borsoka (talk) 04:54, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is not PD-scan because three-dimensional elements of the book are captured. The photograph could be copyrightable in some jurisdictions, so I cropped it. As long as it isn't reverted you should be good. (t · c) buidhe 05:05, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley[edit]

  • The first paragraph could give more context with a few words. I suggest adding that Antioch was one of the Crusader states, and that Raynald's marriage made him rule of Antioch.
  • Expanded.
  • "he married Constance, Princess of Antioch, in spite of her subjects' opposition". This is not supported in the main text, which gives the impression that they only found out about it and complained afterwards.
  • Modified.
  • "Always in need of funds, Raynald tortured Aimery of Limoges, Latin Patriarch of Antioch who had refused to pay a subsidy to him." Attributing the torture to shortage of funds is also not supported below. You give the immpression that it was retaliation for Aimery's insult in refusing the subsidy in protest at the marriage.
  • I think the main text verifies the statement.
  • You say "Aimery of Limoges, the wealthy Latin patriarch of Antioch, did not hide his dismay at Constance's second marriage. He even refused to pay a subsidy to Raynald. In retaliation, Raynald captured and tortured Aimery in the summer of 1154,[33] forcing him to sit naked and covered with honey in the sun, before imprisoning him. Aimery was only released on Baldwin III's demand, but he soon left his see for Jerusalem." I do not see how this verifies the statement. You say below in a different context that Raynald was always short of funds, but not in relation to his treatment of Aimery. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:24, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I expanded the main text to make it clearer, and less ambiguous. Borsoka (talk) 01:50, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "claiming that the truce between Saladin and the Kingdom of Jerusalem was not binding upon him". You have not said that there was a truce.
  • Modified.
  • "born around 1123 or 1125". This sounds odd to me. I would say around 1124 or between 1123 and 1125.
  • Modified.
  • "The 12th-century historian William of Tyre, who was Raynald's opponent". This reads to me as if he was an opponent in single combat. Maybe "was an enemy of Raynald".
  • Modified.
  • "and engaged to Constance before the siege began". "and was engaged" or "and became engaged".
  • Modified.
  • You several times use "propose that" to mean "argue that". Dictionaries do not give that meaning of "propose" and I think it would be better to use another word.
  • Modified.
  • "Buck proposes that Aimery's previous debates with the papacy over the Archbishopric of Tyre explain why Raynald was not excommunicated for his abuse of Aimery. Instead, Aimery excommunicated Raynald as a consequence of a conflict between Antioch and Genoa on the demand of the papacy." This is unclear. Are you saying that the pope forbade Aimery to excommunicate Raynald for his abuse but permitted it as a result of a conflict? What was the conflict and what was Raynald's part in it? Was the excommunication later lifted or did it become void when Aimery left Antioch? In view of the great seriousness of excommunication this needs much fuller explanation.
  • Rephrased, but there is little information about the excommunication and its circumstances.
  • "Before the capitulation of the garrison, Baldwin decided to grant the fortress to Thierry of Flanders, but Raynald demanded that the count should pay homage to him for the town. After Thierry sharply refused to swear fealty to an upstart, the crusaders abandoned the siege. "You imply at the beginning that the garrison surrendered and at the end that it did not.
  • Rephrased.
  • "Raynald hurried to Mamistra to voluntarily make his submission to the emperor." Presumably Raynald did not have the soldiers to fight Manuel, but it would be helpful to clarify this - or what other reason Raynald had to surrender.
  • Expanded.
  • Thank you for your comprehensive review and suggestions. Borsoka (talk) 01:40, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Ali ibn al-Athir and other Muslim historians record that Raynald made a separate truce with Saladin in 1186.[108] This "seems unlikely to be true"". "record" implies a true statement. As it is disputed, I suggest "stated".
  • Done.
  • "Saladin's mamluks". You show "mamluk" as an Arabic word, perhaps because it has a different meaning in English. It is not helpful to readers of English Wikipedia to have an untranslated word in a foreign language.
  • Changed to "soldiers".
  • "She was given in marriage to Raymond of Poitiers in 1136.[144] The widowed Constance's marriage to Raynald". It would be helpful to mention Raymond's death date for clarity.
  • Done.
  • "Their daughter, Agnes". You need to clarify that she was the daughter of Raynald and Constance.
  • Done.
  • 'Assessment'. From what I remember, historians also blame Raynald (and the Knights Templar) for the suicidal attack which led to Hattin. Should this be covered?
  • Mentioned in section "Capture and execution".
  • The last paragraph covers historians who argue on historical grounds and anti-Islam culture warriors such as Delingpole who glorify Raynald as an enemy of Islam. I think the use of Raynald in culture wars should be in a spearate section.
  • Title changed to "In historiography and popular culture". I think section should not be splitted because historians' views influence popular perceptions, and historians express their views about popular perceptions. Borsoka (talk) 02:31, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not think it is correct to refer to popular culture and popular perceptions. Out of the two people you refer to, Jeffrey Lee has a first class degree in Islamic history and he is the author of a guide to the Prayer Book published by the Society of St John the Evangelist. Delingpole is, as I said above, an anti-Islamic culture warrior. I do not have access to Cotts' essay which you cite as the source, but if it covers Raynald's role in the culture wars (which you hint at) I think it should be covered as a separate topic. "Historiography" and "popular culture" are both misleading headings for this aspect. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:08, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dudley Miles (talk) 09:40, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • What do you think if I delete the reference to Delingpole? I would not split the section. Borsoka (talk) 12:07, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have just seen that Lee's book was a biography, not a novel as you say. I think that makes the historiography heading (without popular culture) valid, but I think Raynald's role as a bogy to Moslems and a hero to anti-Moslems is important and worth spelling out in a separate paragraph. I would not delete Delingpole as his view is relevant to this aspect of the article. In the end it is your call. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:23, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seeing its cover and title, I was convinced that it is a novel. After reading some sentences from the first chapters, I came to the conclusion that I was not fully wrong. Of course, I will change the the sentence. I would prefer the present structure: modern Muslim terrorists' view is based on medieval Muslim historians' narration, and independent of modern anti-Islamic culture warriors' opinion, whereas anti-Islamic culture warriors repeat or exaggerate views expressed by western historians who regarded Raynald as a heroe of Christianity or anti-Muslim warfare. Borsoka (talk) 04:21, 22 March 2024 (UT
  • The last paragraph looks OK to me now, except for the description of Delingpole as a blogger, which does not tell us anything about him. Maybe quote his own self-description as a "libertarian conservative".
  • I would not use his self-assessment, so I added an alternative introduction.
  • "Historians such as Matthew Gabriele sharply criticised his approach". Gabriele is not listed in the sources. If you only have access to a quotation of his view, you could state the original source in a footnote.
  • I have no access to Gabriele's work.
  • It is very dangerous to state what an author says without checking the original source. There are many examples of academics copying misinterpretations of authors without checking the source. You could say "The scholar John Cotts states that historians such as Matthew Gabriele..." and add a footnote "Cotts cites Gabriele, his book, p. 00". Dudley Miles (talk) 10:50, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not remember that our policy requires us to evaluate scholars' interpretation about primary sources. Why do you think a scholar's statement about an other scholar's work is more dangerous? Borsoka (talk) 16:07, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because sometimes they make obvious errors. I've seen articles by reputable sources using source X to argue that volcano Y was active when X was actually talking about volcano Z. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:13, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exactly. Wikipedia should be a summary of reliable secondary sources, not primary sources, so there is a reasonable expectation that we have checked what reliable sources actually say. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:39, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, more like "reliable sources" - this kind of error happens more commonly to secondary sources and is the reason why for some kinds of information, primary ones are preferred. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:54, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • That would apply to articles about volcanoes. I was thinking of medieval history, where is does apply. I have never seen a primary medieval source which does not have errors, which is why they need interpretation by historians. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:11, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The section heading "In historiography and popular culture" is misleading as popular culture is not a significant part of it. Maybe "In historiography and culture wars".
  • I would rather return to "Historiography and perceptions".
  • Added.
  • It seems odd to list the only biography of Raynald in further reading and just quote a second-hand opinion of it. Lee is not a professional historian but as he has a First Class degree in Arabic and Islamic History from Oxford he is not simply a popular writer. (I wrote above that he is author of a guide to the Prayer Book but that seems to be a different Jeffrey Lee.) Dudley Miles (talk) 10:24, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is not a peer-reviewed book. Borsoka (talk) 04:04, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then it should not be in further reading. If you mention a book, you have to provide publication details in the sources. See how I have dealt with this issue in note 2 and references of Edmund Ætheling. If you disagree with my approach, I would be interested to hear what you think I should have done. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:50, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I deleted Lee's work from section "Further reading". Publication details of each book and article that are cited in the article are provided in section "Sources". Would you clarify what is your concern? Borsoka (talk) 16:07, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • On reflection I agree that the sources section should only include ones that are reliable, but publication details should be provided of any work discussed in the article. What do you think of my revised note 2 in Edmund Ætheling? Dudley Miles (talk) 09:39, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your suggestion. Added both Gabriele (in a note), and Delingpole. Borsoka (talk) 02:32, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have got a copy of Gabriele which I can send to you if you email me. The journal is The Historian, not The History. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:08, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would be grateful. You can send me an email from now because I changed my profile to allow correspondence. Sorry, I do not know how I could send an email.
  • If you go to my user page you will see an option 'Email this user' on the left. If I email you, Wikipedia will not allow me to attach a document, but if you email me I can attach to my reply. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:06, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I sent you an email. Thank you for your offer. I changed the journal's title.
  • Thank you for the copy. I slightly expanded the article basedon on Gabriele's review. Borsoka (talk) 05:35, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not see why you list Delingpole and not Lee in sources. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:08, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, but I am now totally confused. You suggested that Gabriele's work should be mentioned in the article, because his PoV is verified only by a reference to an other scholar's work. What is the difference between the two cases (namely, Gabriele and Delingpole)? A quote from Delingpole was earlier verified only by a reference to an other scholar's work, so I added a direct reference to his work. Lee's PoV is not mentioned anywhere in the article. Why should I cite him? Borsoka (talk) 17:20, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The cases are different. Gabriele is an RS and the issue was that you cite his view but did not provide a reference. Delingpole is not an RS but you cite him. You said that you have not cited Lee because he is not an RS, so I was asking why you cite one non-RS but not the other. Personally, I think that they are both RSs for the use of Raynald in culture wars even though they are not for his life, but other editors disagree and you have to be consistent. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:06, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the three authors can be divided into two group: (1) Gabriele's and Delingpole's PoV are mentioned in the article, so - in accordance with your logic - their works containing their PoV should also be mentioned; (2) Lee's PoV is not mentioned anywhere in the article, so his book is not relevant. Borsoka (talk) 03:26, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not understand what you mean by saying that Lee's PoV (point of view) is not mentioned. You say "In 2017, the journalist Jeffrey Lee published a biography about Raynald, entitled God's Wolf, presenting him in a nearly hagiographic style as a loyal, valiant, and talented warrior." This is a summary of his POV. It is presumably another writer's description, so you should attribute it inline and provide a citation immediately afterwards. You also need to give full publication details of Lee's book in a footnote.
  • Done.
  • No, it is a summary of Cobbs' critic of Lee's work. I made it clear in the article.
  • You do not cite Cobb for this. You should add a citation at the end of the sentence. You also need to give the details of Lee's book in a footnote as you comment on it. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:01, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not clear why you do not quote Lee as a source directly, particularly as his book is the only biography of Raynald. You said that it reads like a novel so you have access to it. He is not an RS, but neither is Dellingpole, and you do quote him. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:45, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because Lee's book "does violence to the study of the past", according to a historian's review of his book (cited in the article). No, I do not have full access to it.

Hi, Dudley Miles, did I miss something, do you suggest any more edit? Borsoka (talk) 05:08, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am just back from holiday and will look again in the next few days. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:21, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Among modern historians, Hamilton "attempts to dispel" Raynald's "bad press" (Cobb).[167] He describes Raynald as "an experienced and responsible crusader leader" who made several attempts to prevent Saladin from uniting the Muslim realms along the borders of the crusader states." This is confusing. You first appear to quote Hamilton, and then add (Cobb), implying it was not him you are quoting. For clarity, I suggest "Hamilton describes Raynald as "an experienced and responsible crusader leader" who made several attempts to prevent Saladin from uniting the Muslim realms along the borders of the crusader states." Cobb describes Hamilton's comments as "attempts to dispel" Raynald's "bad press". Dudley Miles (talk) 15:45, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done.
  • "historians such as Matthew Gabriele sharply criticised Lee's approach." You cite this to Cotts, but you should cite to Gabriele himself as you now have access to it - or cite the comment inline to Cotts. You should always cite inline when describing one historian's description of another historian's views, not make it a bald statement of fact. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:45, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gabriele is directly quoted in the following sentence. The quote verifies that he indeed sharply criticise Lee's approach. Borsoka (talk) 02:01, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Citing Cotts for Gabriele's view is wrong and unncecessary. You can move the Delingpole citation to the end of the sentence about his view, delete the Cotts citation and cite all Gabriele's comments to himself. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:01, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cotts write of more than one historian's opinion about Lee's book, so I would not delete the citation. I moved the Delingpole citation. Borsoka (talk) 03:48, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with moving the Delingpole citation, but it appears to make him the citation for "In 2017, the journalist Jeffrey Lee published a biography about Raynald, entitled God's Wolf, presenting him, according to a fellow historian, in a nearly hagiographic style as a loyal, valiant, and talented warrior." I suggest changing "a fellow historian" to "the historian John Cotts" and citing the comment to him. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:51, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done.
  • No change needed unless historian has commented on the point, but it seems very unlikely that Baldwin of Antioch was Raynald's son. He would have to be born after 1153, which would make him very young to move to Constantinople in the early 1160s, become a senior adviser to the emperor and die in 1176. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:51, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Interestingly, authors publishing recently came to the conclusion that Baldwin was Raynald's son. Even if he was born in 1153, he died at the age of 22. Perhaps, the elderly Manuel did not trust his Greek relatives, and he needed a loyal commander who would protect his young son by Baldwin's elder sister Maria, so he (or she) promoted Baldwin's career. Borsoka (talk) 00:54, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

Spot-check upon request. Is Paul Cobb unused? Looks like source format is consistentish and we are using university books and reputable historians as sources. I wonder if there are academic papers, too. Does this character have any presence in popular culture? I kinda wonder if basing Raynald's assessment mostly on a 1978 author is correct. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:30, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for your source review and comments. I expanded the article, so Cobb is now cited several times. I have not searched for academic papers because I think the article summarizes relevant scholarly literature. I added two sentences about Raynald's presentation in the film Kingdom of Heaven, and also about a historic novel dedicated to him. In the article, Raynald's assessment was based on three historians' PoV, now a further historian is added. Hamilton's positive assessment from 1987 is still regularly mentioned in scholarly works. Borsoka (talk) 03:22, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Jo-Jo, just checking if this is a pass. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:05, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, with the caveat that I didn't spotcheck. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:02, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Marshlink line[edit]

Nominator(s): Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:54, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I love travelling on the Marshlink line; it's an interesting idiosyncrasy on the rail network in South East England. Instead of high speed, high volume, electric commuter services, it's a picturesque run through rural Kent and East Sussex that still fills an important gap in the local rail network. We're lucky the line exists at all; in the late 60s it was almost certainly going to be closed, but it never quite happened. And there's always the hope of running high speed rail along it at some point.

I've been working on this article for years now, and combed through a large collection of sources that talk about the line in depth. I think it's finally ready to ask the community if it's good enough to meet the FA criteria. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:54, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

  • I'll definitely do a full review of this one, but in the meantime as a placeholder I will drop in that there is some grammar disagreement in "this once allowed [....] but were removed for safety reasons"..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:34, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, I was wondering how to write that better, I've given it another go. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:51, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Couple of iterations of 'political importance' / 'significance' in the lead. Definitely investing in popcorn futures though  ;) ——Serial 14:46, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The mid-19th century fights between railway companies is something incredible to behold. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:51, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

HF[edit]

I intend to review this over the coming week. Hog Farm Talk 21:38, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Since it's mentioned the origin of the name "Marshlink", is it known how the railway came up with this name?
It took me some time to find a source explaining the name, and I've not seen any source that mentions why the specific name was chosen. I can only assume it was some random marketing department somewhere that has been lost to the midsts of time
  • I'm struggling to see how we get to "The nearest equivalent is the A259 from Hastings to Folkestone via Rye" in the article from "In his speech, the Honourable Member for Rye referred to: the inadequacy of the roads (including the Folkestone to Honiton A259 trunk road) in the South East" in the source
This is one of those awkward things that I think needs to be fixed, but simply removing the text probably isn't the answer. We could mention the vehicle road from Ashford to Hastings, and cite any local Ordnance Survey map, but saying it's "closest" just from a map is going to invite criticism and accusations of original research. I'll have to think about this one some more.
  • From what I can tell, the Marshlink line is contiguous with the East Coastway line - shouldn't the connection between the two be mentioned in the route section unless I'm wrong?
I think it wasn't mentioned because it wasn't in the source given. I've dropped a source in now
  • Any information on how the difficulties in the Romney Marsh soil were mitigated
I've gone back to look at Gray's "The South Eastern Railway" and rewritten this. The principal problem was bad weather, and the specific term used in the source is "heel over", which is not the same as "tip over".
  • "and funded with a £2,800 capital." - this would not be grammatically correct in American English - is it okay in British English?
Copy edited
  • I don't think "The line is strategically important, as electrification and junction improvements would allow High Speed 1 trains direct from St Pancras International to Hastings." and "Despite its relative unimportance in the national rail network, electrification could allow High Speed 1 services to be extended to Hastings and Eastbourne." are entirely saying the same thing. It seems that the lead is saying that the line is unimportant but would still allow for the expansion of High Speed 1 services, while the body seems to be saying that the line is important because it would allow for expansion of High Speed 1
I've rewritten all this (both by addressing the comments here and other later on).

I think that's it from me for the first read-through. Hog Farm Talk 00:29, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick holding reply, most of these issues would benefit from a review of the original source material, most of which is held in reference-only books in my local library. Unfortunately, while I've got time to visit it today, Wednesday is early closing. I'll get back to you! Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:51, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As implied above, I did pop into the library today and checked a book source, that allowed me to address the comments you've made so far. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:26, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ping me when this has passed the source review and I'll take another look. Hog Farm Talk 18:06, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

I did that, and it completely screwed up the infobox formatting, rendering the article completely unreadable. (See history) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:57, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with that is that type was not set. This works fine, although you could use another type if you prefer. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:57, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That seems to work well. I remember wrestling with the images on the table for listed structures some time ago. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:00, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

  • "the line is then double-track" vs "After the tunnel, the line is double track" - inconsistent hyphen use
  • Doleham image caption needs a full stop
  • Ore station is linked in multiple places. Check for overlinking generally.
  • "On 5 August 1873, the SER were authorized" => "On 5 August 1873, the SER were authorised" (UK spelling)
  • "Work began on 8 April 1881 and opened to Dungeness on 7 December that year" => "Work began on 8 April 1881 and the line opened to Dungeness on 7 December that year" (it wasn't the work that opened)
  • "following in the Railways Act 1921" => "following the Railways Act 1921"
  • Winchelsea image caption needs a full stop
  • "The local member of parliament for Rye, Bryant Godman Irvine made" => "The local member of parliament for Rye, Bryant Godman Irvine, made"
  • "In 1969, Railway Magazine announced the remainder " => "In 1969, Railway Magazine announced that the remainder "
  • "and the figures did not consider" => "and that the figures did not consider"

That's what I got as far as "announced plans for British Rail to start electrification by 1995" - will pop back and do the rest later -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:06, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've addressed these issues as reported so far, though in some cases I've gone back and copyedited the original sentence. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:49, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 2015, Amber Rudd, Member of Parliament for Hastings [....] The aim is [...] This requires" - verbs are in the present tense, but 2015 was nine years ago.
  • "In May 2018, the Department of Transport allocated £200,000 for further electrification design, with the possibility of completion in 2022 when the existing track life-expires." - 2022 was two years ago, has anything actually happened?
  • "In October, a proposal was chaired" - October of which year (2019, I think.....?). Again, has anything actually happened? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:13, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "Again, has anything actually happened?" No, but more frustratingly, nothing's been reported in high-quality sources. Electrification and improvements have been talked about for decades, and I'm pretty sure we'll see parliamentary candidates campaigning about it at the next election, but like many things, the COVID pandemic slammed the brakes on everything and it got so far down the priority list, everyone (apart from a few local campaign groups) has forgotten about it. The only recent bit of news I can find is regular hourly services to Winchelsea and Three Oaks, which is covered in the article. We can only report what reliable sources talk about. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:39, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ritchie333, have all of Chris's comments been addressed? If not, could you. If so, could you ping them. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:38, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I'm aware, they've been addressed (either by fixing the article or expanding on the issue - in this case, that sources have dried up for the future of the line since Covid). ChrisTheDude Can you check your comments to see if there's anything else that needs doing? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:59, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Chris ? Gog the Mild (talk) 16:19, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Harry[edit]

Hey Ritchie! My FA reviews are mostly prose/grammar and style pedantry. I do review most criteria but 1a tends to account for the majority of comments. These are usually nice and easy to fix though so a long list is not necessarily a reflection on your writing!

  • East Coastway line towards Eastbourne Surely Brighton is the primary destination in that direction?
Good question. The line is described in sources such as Mitchell / Smith to Brighton, but official network timetables and other documentation only extend to Eastbourne. As sources aren't consistent, I've gone with "Eastbourne and Brighton".
  • Services are provided by Southern. I wonder about the wisdom of including something as ephemeral as a TOC so prominently in the lead. But I suppose it should be mentioned and I can't think of a better way of doing it.
I had a look at some related articles, such as Hastings line, South Eastern Main Line, Chatham Main Line and Ashford–Ramsgate line, and while none of them are GA, let alone FA standard, they don't mention the service operator in the opening paragraph of the lead, so I've taken it out. (The inconsistency with caps in the titles might want sorting out at some point....)
  • and was considered strategically important how? To say it and not elaborate arguably makes it a peacock term.
Changed to "as a priority for military traffic" (as mentioned in the body, cited to Gray 1990)
  • painting the name on selected rolling stock It's not clear who the subject of this clause is (Tony1 calls it "noun-plusing") and it doesn't strictly make sense
Changed to "Some trains had the name painted on the side."
  • The change was one of several in the region, including the "1066 line" 1066 line was one of several changes in the region?
Changed to "The line from Tunbridge Wells to Hastings was branded the "1066 line" at the same time."
  • Services run from Platforms 1 and 2 southwards Would "southwards from Platforms 1 and 2" make more sense or is it just me? And are we confident in "Platform" as a proper noun?
Changed. Regarding caps, looking at a random source, it would appear correct.
  • freight-only branch line operated by Direct Rail Services pedantic, but doesn't DRS operate the trains, not the infrastructure?
According to "Who Wrote That", this text was added by Peter Shearan (talk · contribs) on 10 March 2005 (diff). While I don't have the source in front of me (see above comment to Hog Farm), I'm reasonably confident that fails verification, and so I've removed it.
I've now found a source for DRS and added in the "Services" section. Regarding the original point, you're correct, Southern run the trains, not the line and infrastructure which is run by Network Rail.
  • On 27 July 1846, the LBR and BLHR amalgamated with several other lines I think the exact date is possibly excess detail considering it's not directly related to the line
  • complained about a lack of sufficient progress redundancy? Sufficient progress wouldn't be a lack, a lack is clearly not sufficient.
Removed "sufficient" (sounds like Tony1 exercise)
  • was granted on 24 July 1882, with the line opening on 19 June That's not strictly a grammatical use of "with"; you're using it and the comma to connect two clauses (which also forces the tense change). Better to use a semicolon or split it into two sentences.
  • numerous Army camps were established since we haven't specified an army, I wouldn't treat it as a proper noun
Removed "Army" as I think it's obvious from context that "World War I" and "camps" is within a military context
  • On 23 February 1966, the Ministry of Transport confirmed the branch to New Romney would close to passengers, which it did on 6 March 1967 I think both exact dates is excess detail; suggest culling the announcement date to just the year.
I have to disagree. Closure dates, especially related to the Beeching Axe seem to be well-known in rail enthusiast circles; for example Waverley Route mentions not just the date, but the specific times. So I think these dates need to be there to meet 1b.
  • In 1969, Railway Magazine wrote the definite article is part of the RM's name—The Railway Magazine; also suggest linking
Done
  • taking a longer journey, buying their tickets same problem as "painting" above
Reworded
  • The line was single tracked between You've used the term multiple terms above but this is the first time it's linked; it's also hyphenated on every other use so far that I've spotted
Should be "single-track" with a dash
  • However, the Marshlink line continued to attract criticism "However" is a word to watch; I haven't criticised your use use of it so far but I feel this one is editorialising—you're disputing the preceding statement in Wikipedia's voice rather than letting the facts speak for themselves.
In this case, the only sourced information is an opinion from Norman Baker. So this can be easily fixed by removing the entire sentence and just leaving Baker's opinion to sit in a neutral manner.
  • Ashford International to Brighton, with Marshlink services only extending same ", with" problem as above
Changed to "Southern announced services to Brighton would terminate instead at Eastbourne".
  • The company defended the decision "defended" is editorialising (it implies that the decision was wrong/controversial in Wikipedia's voice without explicitly saying so). You could put the criticism before the defence or just use a more boring verb like "stated".
Changed to "the company said", the aim here is to present the POV of both the rail company and the local council.
  • would improve capacity between Eastbourne and Hastings, and removing a 2 carriage diesel service Sorry, several problems here: the numeral should be a word (MOS:NUMERAL), "two carriage" is a compound adjective and needs a hyphen, and you've changed tense for no apparent reason (I'd lose the comma and go with "remove" and you should be fine).
Done

Will be back with more later. Ran out of time before work! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:29, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

HJ Mitchell I've addressed everything so far. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:42, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I like the listed buildings section. Is there anything to say about the buildings on the line (listed or otherwise) as a group? Do we know if the railway employed an in-house architect? Do the buildings follow a consistent architectural style? I have a few books on railway architecture (actually, probably all the books) so if there's nothing in your sources I'll see if mine have anything.
A number of the stations were designed by William Tress as part of a group, so that can be mentioned, though I'd want to go and consult the book sources in the library to double-check if I can. The other buildings date from different time periods and were assessed at different times.
  • Spell out diesel multiple unit on first mention.
Done
  • Isn't DMU train (in the caption) a bit of a tautology?
Done
  • In November 2017, it was suggested [by whom?]
Clarified
  • Is Damian Green's statement noteworthy? Don't local politicians endorse any suggestion that plays well in their constituency, regardless of how plausible it is?
No, now that the "Future" section is more developed. (Amusingly, if I google for "Damian Green Marshlink", I get this FA review in one of the top ten hits).
  • Suggest moving the link on St Pancras to the first mention (if you keep Green's statement)
Having tidied this up, the first mention of St Pancras in "Future", where it is mentioned
  • This required remodelling Ashford would have required? I'm guessing nothing came of it?
What extra context does "would have" add? As I mentioned above, the problem is this is one of several proposed over the last 20 years or so that keeps cropping up with the same detail again and again.
  • That October, a proposal was chaired [by whom?] and what does "chair" a proposal mean?
The Marshlink Action Group; however, the information here (new platform at Ashford) can be taken from the Network Rail source, which is a bit more authoritative.
  • Both proposals required closing the Ore Tunnel I'm guessing the proposals would require major engineering work on the tunnel but it would be nice to elaborate on what that was if it's supported by the source material.
Unfortunately, the source says "Ore Tunnel closed for 6 months" without any further comment. I'll hunt around to see if any other sources are available, but this is one of the few reliable ones in this decade to say anything on the subject.
  • If we're being pedantic, you don't seem to be treating books consistently—some are cited in full in the footnotes but most use sfns linked to the bibliography.
No problems with being pedantic if it makes the article better. Done.

I think that's it it from me. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:36, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review so far! Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:15, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I had a thumb through the most comprehensive books. The best is Biddle's Britain's Historic Railway Buildings. The Queen's Road bridge gets a mention (I do like me a railway bridge! I sense my to-do list getting longer!) and there's a good write-up on Rye station. There's a fair few column inches on the Hastings line stations but nothing on the Marshlink ones as a group. If any of it's useful I'm happy to send it over but the picking are slimmer than I'd hoped. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:58, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's a lot on Rye railway station (East Sussex), which is a GA like this one currently, though most of that comes from the same sources as this article uses. Still, might be worth adding a sentence or two from Biddle's source if it's not already mentioned here, plus it would be useful for expanding Hastings railway station, which could be improved to GA at some point, having an interesting history as a centre point between the SER and LBSCR's rivalry. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:40, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd love to see a bit more on the architecture if there are any sources that discuss it but I'm happy to take you at your word that you'll incorporate anything you find. I'll send over what I've got on Hastings and Rye stations in case it's useful for this or other projects. I made one copy edit from above that I assume you missed. I think that resolves everything for me so I'll support. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:21, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment[edit]

Well over three weeks in and this has received a fair bit of attention, but no indications of support for promotion. Unless this nomination makes significant further progress towards a consensus to promote over the next two or three days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:56, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comment. That would be a shame, as far as I know I have addressed every comment on the review in one way or another. (I was going to comment on the lack of activity somewhere at some point, but wasn't sure how long I should have left it). Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:22, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try and get back to this in the next few days with a view to supporting. There are no glaring issues as far as I can see. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:54, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the principal issue is there hasn't been an in-depth spot check of the sources. There's been a de-facto one where I spot-checked the sources and made a few corrections, but not from someone independent. I believe that's blocking at least one other support at the moment. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:42, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Tim riley[edit]

Don't know how I have managed to miss this FAC till now. I know this line, as I have a good friend in Rye and use the route a fair bit. I am pleased to support the elevation of the article to FA. I have given the text two slow and careful readings and have found nothing to carp at. I note the comment about the lack of a source review, and will volunteer do one if nobody else steps up, though I am not the world's greatest source reviewer (see under useless and bloody awful). – Tim riley talk 21:36, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source reviewish[edit]

Reviewing this version, is a spot-check needed? Southern is inconsistently capitalized. I see a fair bit of British local newspapers used, I presume we didn't unintentionally pick up any unreliable outfit? I kind of wonder about the usage of Hansard - using it to cite announcements by ministers seems fine, but I am not sure uses for statements of fact like #94 and #101 are OK. There are a lot of company-affiliated websites, press releases cited, but for technical information so I think it's fine. I confess that I can't tell much about the books cited, not being familiar with British railway literature - nothing jumped out as inappropriate but I wouldn't know any of them from a hole in the ground. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:47, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Southern is inconsistently capitalized." - apologies, I can't see where, can you specify?

    1. 17 and #18 are about the same source but have different capitalization. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:24, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm being dense - I've double checked all the web citations, and I can't see any obvious difference between the two. Sorry :-/ Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:38, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hansard is, in my view (and backed up at WP:RSP) okay in moderation, but the risk of straying into original research is significant, so should be taken with care. Taking the Hansard references in turn, using citations numbers from that diff:

  • [76] is an opinion of Bryant Godman Irvine, indicated as such (and backed with a secondary source, albeit a local newspaper)
  • [78] appears to be redundant and can be removed
  • [82] is an opinion of John Morris, Baron Morris of Aberavon
  • [83] and [84] are used to cite the general claim "The decision to close was delayed several times and continued for the rest of the decade." I'm going to remove this claim as it doesn't really tell us anything that the text around this section doesn't (and indeed, a large important section of the entire article concentrates on this fact - it was supposed to be closed by Beeching but never was).
  • [85] is an opinion of Michael Heseltine
  • [94] is an opinion of Charles Kerr, 2nd Baron Teviot, using the text "British Rail has tried to upgrade the railway between Ashford and Hastings, because Ashford is the town where everything is going to happen" to cite "By the 1980s, British Rail had started to modernise the route".
  • [95] is a discussion in parliament, citing the text "though electrification was rejected in preference to improving the South Eastern Main Line from Tonbridge to Ashford." This is factually incorrect - electrification of the SEML to Ashford took place in the 1960s, not the 1980s, and reviewing the source gives me the impression the debate was about both lines, and specifying that the Tonbridge - Ashford line was earmarked for improvements, but saying nothing about Ashford - Hastings.
  • [97] is an opinion of Roger Freeman, Baron Freeman
  • [101] is an opinion of Norman Baker, but I'd like to find another source for "However, the incoming franchisee is taking service improvement seriously, and South Central Ltd is investing £5 million in measures to improve the quality and perception of customer services." which is used to cite "In 2000, Southern took over management, and pledged to invest £5 million in improving customer service across its network."
  • [117] is a speech by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport on an accident on the Dungeness goods branch on 26 April 1984.

Of that list:

  • Those that are obviously an opinion of a specific MP, and attributed as such are probably okay.
  • Those that attempt to synthesise specific opinions into something more general are straying into original research, and going against FA criteria 1c.
  • That leaves the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport. As this is a primary source close to a specific event, the chances of novel synthesis are low. It's probably okay, but it would be helpful if a contemporary news source could back this up.

A general note, is the Hansard reports are probably used as citations because the book sources focus on the 19th and early 20th century, and dry up around the 1980s. However, that also implies that the article should talk less about the line from this period, reflecting the general coverage of sources.

I'll go and fix the obvious problems now. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:32, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind the use of Hansard - I actually think that primary sources often are more reliable than news reports, as the latter often present the same information as the former but secondhand - but for certain claims we need more than "an MP claimed this". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:24, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I've gone through and removed or re-sourced the Hansard citations that appear to be used beyond a basic personal view of something. Is there anything else specific that needs addressing? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:38, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Jo-Jo, as Ritchie333 is a first-time nominator, both a sources spot check and a plagiarism check will be needed. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:57, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK; spot-check (with plagiarism check included) on this version:

  • 18 Broken URL, and since it's almost eight years old I don't think we can put it in present tense.
I've replaced it with a current timetable. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:21, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 20 Can I have a copy of this source?
  • 21 This source doesn't seem to add anything, but #22 seems to say "half-hourly" not "hourly". The source also implies that the service may have been reintroduced.
The source appears to have changed. I don't believe half-hour services are possible given the layout of the track, and Southern's official timetable makes no mention of them existing at all. Consequently, I've moved this out of the current services section and into history. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:21, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 33 Can I have a copy of this source?
  • 34 Can I have a copy of this source?
  • 39 Can I have a copy of this source?
  • 40 Can I have a copy of this source?
  • 42 Can I have a copy of this source?
  • 43 Can I have a copy of this source?
  • 45 Can I have a copy of this source?
  • 49 Can I have a copy of this source?
  • 51 Can I have a copy of this source?
  • 55 Can I have a copy of this source?
  • 67 Can I have a copy of this source?
  • 72 Don't think the "less than 10,000 passengers" thing is on the pages given.
The source says "Maps 1 - 9", which is this one. Map 1 marks the line as "between 5,000 and 10,000 passengers, while map 9 shows it as proposed for closure. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:16, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 86 Peyton does not explicitly say that the policy change was the reason for the review?
This source appears to be dead / unavailable at the moment. Bit worrying for Hansard. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:21, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The source is back up. This looks like a difference in interpretation over "in the light of his recent announcement about future railway policy. and whether or not that implies said announcement was directly linked to the line's future. I've rewritten this sentence to stick closer to what the source says, and explicitly attribute it as an opinion (good for Hansard, as previously discussed). Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:21, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 111 OK
  • 120 Can I have a copy of this source?
  • 123 Does "Class 171" (article) mean "diesel train" (source)?
Yes, the paragraph above says "Class 171 "Turbostar" Diesel Multiple Units", so I felt an additional description here was redundant. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:21, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 126 Needs an archive

A bit uneasy that almost every accessible source has a discrepancy. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:59, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jo-Jo, that does not sound good. Anything further since you last looked at it, or is this looking like a SR fail? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:22, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It depends on the sources I marked as "Can I have a copy of this source?" - for spotchecks, I insist on having a screenshot or photo of the pertinent page. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:22, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Damn, I could have done all this last Saturday. I'll have to get back to you, the library has reduced its opening hours. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:26, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)A general comment about the book sources - they all came out of my local public library. Some can be loaned out, a number are in the "reference only" section. However, unless someone can get access to the same library (or a similar one) to independently get the books, then I can't see any easy way that any of the information can be verified, beyond me having a look myself. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:24, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: I don't know where you live, but if you're in the UK the public libraries offer a service called "inter-library loans". For example, my local public library belongs to Oxfordshire County Council (OCC). and using my OCC library card I can borrow a book from any library in Oxfordshire (and also Reading, Berkshire), but if the book that I want isn't in stock in the libary that I visit, I can request it. OCC will then check their catalogue to see if there is a copy in any OCC library. If so, they'll transfer it to my local public library; if not, they'll check with other county councils until a copy can be located, which will then be sent to OCC and then on to my local public library. All this is done for a fee, and can take a few weeks. But it does mean that if the only copy in the UK happens to be in Ritchie333's local library, I can still request to borrow it. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:04, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
'Afraid that I live on the continent. Going by Worldcat most of these books don't exist in my country, either. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:19, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The easiest way is probably for Ritchie to take photos of the requested pages and email them. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 09:27, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Also noting that that's exactly the same thing that reviewers and responders traditionally do... and are expected to do. It would be odd if a reviewer were able to abrogate responsibility for their use of sources simply by telling the source reviewer they must work it out for themselves! ——Serial Number 54129 12:49, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jo-Jo Eumerus and Ritchie333, how is the source review coming along? Has Jo-Jo received photos of the requested pages yet? FrB.TG (talk) 13:13, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was hoping to get to the library and sort all of this out this week, but I haven't been in a position to do so. Hopefully, I will be able to get it sorted at a lunchtime next week. Unfortunately, a whole bunch of circumstances, not least the pandemic and then moving house have meant that I'm no longer in the position to pop down to the library in 5 minutes and get the answers. I hope you can be patient, but if not then the review might have to be closed as "can't verify". Hopefully it doesn't come to that. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:50, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can wait. Obviously, the FAC coordinators get a vote too in this regard. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:34, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the source review is successful and the nomination still needs eyes on the prose, let me know and I'll be happy to review. Anarchyte (talk) 13:19, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

John Pulman[edit]

Nominator(s): BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 17:21, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

John Pulman was an eight-time world snooker champion in a period when the sport was at a low ebb. He turned professional in 1946 and retired from competition in 1981 after breaking his leg when hit by a London bus. As ever, I am able to provide relevant extracts from sources to reviewers on request, and welcome all comments that help improve the article. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 17:21, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As this nomination is not attracting attention, I'm pinging Amakuru and Rodney Baggins, who offered challenges and suggestions at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Steve Davis/archive2, and HurricaneHiggins and Lee Vilenski who have a current nomination for 2023 World Snooker Championship, to see if any of them would like to contribute here. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 16:54, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

  • File:John_Pulman.jpg needs a more expansive FUR. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:30, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it possible to identify the copyright holder and year? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:00, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nikkimaria: I had a look around some sources to see if I could confirm whether it was published, but didn't find an example. The source has "This photograph originates from the International Magazine Services photo archive. IMS was a editorial photo archive in Scandinavia founded in 1948 but evolved from older archives that have images in the collection also .... The images in this archive where distributed in only 10-15 copies around the world at the time". The scan of the back of the photo does not give a date. Let me know if I should search for a diffrent image. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 09:22, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's fine, would just suggest adding that context to the image description. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:48, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ReviewSupport from Hurricane Higgins[edit]

I think this article meets all the criteria for a Featured Article. It's comprehensive, meticulously researched, detailed, and yet accessible to a non-specialist audience. The writing is fluid and readable. I learned a lot from reading it, and also enjoyed reading it. It beautifully illuminates an era in snooker that many will know little about.

If I were to revise anything about the writing, I'd rework the final two paragraphs of the "Later career and retirement section", with a focus on chronological order. They skip around confusingly between 1978 and 1998, mentioning his divorce twice, talking about his retirement and then the publication of a book 16 years prior to that.

In terms of content, was there anything notable about Pulman's life between his retirement from professional play in 1981 and his death in 1998? It might be useful, for instance, to know how long he worked as a snooker commentator. This article by Dave Hendon notes that Pulman commentated on the first officially recognized 147 by Steve Davis, which might be something to include. https://www.eurosport.com/snooker/he-can-see-the-pocket-closing-up-re-live-davis-history-making-first-ever-147-break-on-its-anniversar_sto8696729/story.shtml

Not much else of note here. I think this is an excellent article that easily equals or exceeds other snooker articles that have been awarded FA status. So more than happy to support its promotion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HurricaneHiggins (talk • contribs) 22:45, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Rodney Baggins[edit]

I've had a quick look. First comment would be: this is quite a short article, compared with some of the other featured articles we've worked on. Could it be expanded in any way? HurricaneHiggins has already noted some areas for improvement above, and I might suggest some more after I've had chance to read in more detail today.

I'll look forward to any suggestions for improvement. There is scope to expand on career history, but for personal life, playing style etc I think I 've pretty much wrung out the available sources. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 20:37, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lead

I've copyedited this section for you – hope you don't mind. Suggest adding in the following links:

  • I'm grateful for the copyedits; I see you've also kindly copyedited some of the related tournament articles leads. Links suggested above have been added. 20:37, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
Early life
  • Can we source his full name Herbert John Pulman?
  • The Times obituary is the source for this; I could add it directly after his full name. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 20:37, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change Devonshire to Devon, as in infobox, or vice versa, as long as they're the same. I think Devonshire's just an archaic version of Devon.
  • Second sentence could do with swapping round... "His father was Ernest Charles Pulman, a master baker and confectioner, and his mother was Ernest's wife Gertrude Mary Pulman, née Kent."... or something similar.
  • "He was allowed to pick a cue from a selection at the venue," > "He was invited to choose a cue from a selection at the venue,"
  • "and used that cue for the rest of his career." > "and he used that particular cue for the rest of his career."
  • "In his first match with the cue" > "In his first match at the event" ? Might be trying to imply that it was because of the cue that he did so well in the match!
  • I think we should be calling Barrie Smith by his professional name John Barrie.
  • I've added "later known as John Barrie" as he was still known by his original name at the time. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 20:37, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a 200-up match" doesn't mean anything to me – could you perhaps explain it in a footnote?
  • It means "first to 200 points"; I've added a footnote but there may be a more elegant solution. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 20:59, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The cue that Pulman chose" > "The cue that Pulman had chosen" (tense)
  • "included a metal plate mentioning Sidney Smith" – what do you mean by 'mentioning'? Was Smith's name just engraved into the plate cos it had belonged to him? Could just put: "included a metal plate with the name Sidney Smith engraved on it;"
  • The source has "The metal plate on the butt bore the name of Sidney Smith, a renowned professional of the day...". I imagine it was something like the examples here. Amended. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 20:59, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "using a cue with another professional's name on it." > "using a cue inscribed with another professional's name."
  • "making Spitfire wings" > "making wings for Spitfires" ... brings to mind "four candles / handles for forks"!
  • Spitfire doesn't need to be piped because it's a redirect – just put [[Spitfire]]s
  • Can you say a bit more about the medical grounds on which he was discharged? Was it something that affected his later snooker career?
  • "In the Smith piece, Pulman says, referring to his Army service, that he had varicose veins, but not that this was the reason for the discharge; I've added this in. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 21:50, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transition from billiards to snooker: I have noticed that the Early life section makes no mention of him playing snooker. He only appears to have played billiards before the war. Then the next section kicks off with him winning the 1946 English Amateur (Snooker) Championship, and billiards is not mentioned again, so how/when did he make the transition to playing snooker?
Early professional career (1946–1955)
  • "At 20, he was the youngest winner since the event was..." > "Aged 20, Pulman was the youngest player to win the event since it was...""
  • "he became a professional player" > "he took the decision to become a professional player"
  • "within ten days of each other." sounds a bit awkward. Maybe change to "just ten days apart" or "the second just ten days after the first"?
  • "Pulman lived at the house of his patron" > "Pulman was living at the home of his patron" (tense) – was he in fact lodging there? If so, would it be better to put "Pulman was lodging at the home of his patron"? (prefer the word 'home' to 'house')
  • What exactly does "patron" mean here? Was Lampard sponsoring him in some way?
  • According to Williams & Gadsby, "[Pulman] was lucky enough to receive the backing of a Bristol confectioner and baker named Bill Lampard... [who] let Pulman stay at his house"; Everton 2012 has "[Pulman] lived at the home, with billiard room attached, of his wealthy patron, Bill Lampard, who launched him into the professional game." Lowe says that Lampard "agreed to sponsor" Pulman. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 13:54, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a baker from Bristol and..." > "who was a baker from Bristol and..." (without the "who was", it sounds as if we're listing three people: (1) Bill Lampard, (2) a baker from Bristol, and (3) a member of the BACC.
  • "Lampard built a billiard room" > "Lampard built a billiard room in his house" – or did he just "set up" a billiard room in his house?
  • added "at his house" - Lowe has "set up a billiards room"; Williams & Gadsby have "built a special billiards room"; Everton says the room was "attached" but doesn't mention it being made for Pulman BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 13:54, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Clive Everton claims" > "alleges" might be a more fitting word here?
  • "seeking a level of consistency" > "in pursuit of a level of consistency" or just "pursuing"?
  • "due to influenza" – did he just have bad cold symptoms or was it a full-blown case of the flu?
  • The Scotsman has "due to influenza". Birmingham Daily Post for 27 January 1951 has "suffering from influenza"
  • The round-robin-with-points-handicaps format for the News of the World tournament had already been used for the Sunday Empire News Tournament the previous year, so the format description should perhaps be moved up to that previous event. Having said that, I can't see an easy way of doing it, so maybe leave it alone for now...

I've either commented above, or addressed the points about Early professional career. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 13:54, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

World snooker championship contests (1955–1968)
  • Shouldn't Jack Rea be Jackie Rea? Or was he referred to as Jack back in the day?
  • Newspapers.com has 114 matches for "'Jack Rea' snooker" in 1957, and none for "'Jackie Rea' snooker". BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 18:31, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest changing "along with Williams, Fred Davis, and Jack Rea," to "along with Fred Davis, Rea and Williams," (surnames in alphabetical order)
  • Should Blackheath be linked to distinguish it from the ones in London or Surrey? (there's even one in Australia!)
  • Is it necessary to mention that he took Harold Phillips out to lunch? Could just say "after talks with..." or "after an approach to..." the BA&CC chairman Harold Phillips.
  • "on a challenge basis" – might it be useful to link to [[Challenge (competition)|challenge]]
  • Is it accurate to say they "spun a coin"? – coins are usually "tossed" or "flipped". Pls check source.
  • Everton (2012) has "At one rural venue, no spectators showed up. Instead of playing, the players spun a coin." BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 18:31, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I notice that in the whole of this section, there's no link through to 1964–68 World Snooker Championships – that could do with working in somehow. One option might be to link it through "The championship was reinstated", i.e. [[1964–68 World Snooker Championships|The championship was reinstated]]...?
  • "between Pulman, the winner of the 1957 Championship, and Fred Davis" – it almost looks here as if we are listing three people: (1) Pulman, (2) the winner of the 1957 Championship, and (3) Fred Davis! Suggest changing to "between Pulman, who had won the most recent championship in 1957, and the challenger Fred Davis."
  • "Pulman defeated Davis 19–16 at Burroughes Hall in April 1964." – suggest appending: "to retain the title that he had claimed seven years earlier."
  • "in the deciding frame" – might be more impactful to change this to "in a final-frame decider"?
  • "where Pulman won by 25 matches to 22" – would it be ok to say "where Pulman won 25 of their 47 matches"?
  • "by seeing off the challenge of Eddie Charlton." – not sure about the phrase 'seeing off' – could this be changed to something like "by fending off a challenge from Eddie Charlton"? Or maybe that's not an improvement.

Amended the World snooker championship contests (1955–1968) section as suggested, apart from where comments above indicate otherwise. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 18:31, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Later career and retirement (1968–1998)
  • Suggest changing: "In 1967, Pulman had toured snooker clubs as promotional work for..." to "In 1967, Pulman had spent time touring snooker clubs doing promotional work for..." and where were the clubs? All over the UK, or just England, or the London area?
  • Amended. I've added "across the Midlands" as it's consistent with Everton's article and I didn't find any mentions of venues outside that area. (Meanwhile, Jack Karnehm undertook a 27-venue Engish billiards tour in Guyana, and Fred Davis and Rex Williams were using tubular metal cues "for all their tournaments and exhibitions"). BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 19:07, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The good attendances for the championship match" > "The good attendances for the Pulman/Charlton match" (possible alternative way of referring to it?)
  • "This championship is generally regarded as..." > "The 1969 event, with its updated format, is generally regarded as..."
  • "recovered in time" – might this be characterised as fully or sufficiently recovered in time?
  • The Park Drive 2000 was a series of tournaments, so it might be more accurate to put "the Park Drive 2000 series, which began less than two weeks later."
  • "an invitational event for four world champions." > "an invitational event with four world champions in competition." ?
  • First two sentences of 2nd paragraph appear to be unsourced. Are they both covered by Everton 1985, pp. 53–55? If so, maybe need to put ref tags at end of each sentence? I was actually thinking the 1st sentence ("Unable to defend his title, ...") might be best placed at end of 1st paragraph anyway.
  • I added the extra instances for the ref, and moved that sentence. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 19:07, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "After 1977, he was unable to win another World Championship match." – Would it be possible to work in that he entered the championship up to and including 1981, but didn't win any matches? e.g. "After 1977, he was unable to win another World Championship match, although he continued to enter until 1982 when he had to withdraw..." + reason? + source?
  • I think it's more usual to say "declared bankrupt" rather than "adjudged bankrupt".
  • "with debts of £5,916" > "with personal debts of £5,916" (assuming he didn't have any failed business ventures?)
  • Do you want to put any equivalences in this article (using the inflation template)? Debts of £5,916 are equivalent to almost 32 grand in today's money, and his £400 prize money for the 1948 Sunday Empire News Tournament is equivalent to over 15 grand these days.
  • "Pulman and his wife Frances divorced around 1978..." – should really be placed before the bit about his bankruptcy in 1979. Then you could change the sentence "By this time he was recently divorced, suffering from severe motivational problems and living in a hotel in Bromley" to just "By this time, he was living in a hotel in Bromley and suffering from severe motivational problems."
  • "He retired from professional play in 1981..." – could you add something to this sentence about him having to pull out of the 1981 world championship (which turned out to be his last one) and why?
  • Why was he hospitalised for six months? Surely not just for breaking his leg. The London bus incident must have been quite serious, so it might be worth explaining a bit more here if you can.
  • Amended here and in the next para - not sure where the "six months" came from, so I removed it. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 20:14, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "to work as a television commentator" – do you mean snooker commentator?
  • Suggest moving sentence about his book to start of 4th paragraph, so it fits in chronologically: "His book... was revised and published as Tackle Snooker in 1974." followed by "Pulman and his wife Frances divorced around 1978; they had three children." followed by "On 7 February 1979, he was declared bankrupt with personal debts of £5,916. By this time, he was living in a hotel in Bromley and suffering from severe motivational problems." Then the chronology's right.
  • I agree with HurricaneHiggins, I'd like to know more about the length of his commentating career, and what he got up to in the later years before his death, but I see that you've noted above that there's not much more you can squeeze out of the sources. It would be nice to see the last couple of paragraphs expanded slightly if possible.

Amended the Later career and retirement (1968–1998) section as suggested, apart from where comments above indicate otherwise. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 20:14, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Playing style and influence
  • I sometimes think it's best to write out simple conversions without using the convert template, because you can put non-breaking spaces in then (not provided by the template). {{convert|6|ft|2|in|cm}} > 6{nbsp here}feet 2{nbsp here}inches (188{nbsp here}cm) ... the template has already done the conversion, so you know the cm figure is accurate.
  • The clause starting "and adapted a stance..." needs to be broken up a bit, e.g. "and adapted a stance ... close together, meaning that more weight..."
  • "This enabled him to use his height and reach to his advantage while playing." > "This enabled him to take full advantage of his height and his reach while playing shots."
  • "In their 2005 book about world snooker champions," > "In their 2005 book, Masters of the Baize," (sounds more formal?)
  • ...wrote of Pulman that "If I ever > ...wrote of Pulman: "If I ever
  • "and a long-time snooker commentator" > "and was a long-time snooker commentator"
  • I tend to think it's best to give players' names in full when first mentioned in any new section: "Alex Higgins, the world champion in 1972 and 1982"; "praised by Ray Reardon"; "John Spencer admired"
  • Is it necessary to give the details of the Davis/Pulman match? You could just say something like "Steve Davis, who met Pulman in a *first-round* match at the 1977 Pontins Open, observed how..." (or whatever round it was!)
  • It was the last-32, which Davis refers to as the "first round proper", but even Snooker Scene doesn't say which round that was, so I've used "who met Pulman in a match at" BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 20:14, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why were the conditions imperfect? Is there anything you could add that might clarify what Pulman and Reardon adapted to there?
  • Amended, as David ony talks about the quality of the tables. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 20:14, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't need semi-colon before end clause, just put "...rather than bemoaning them, and he found this to be a valuable lesson."

Amended the Playing style and influence section as suggested, apart from where comments above indicate otherwise. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 20:14, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Career finals
  • Note [m] should surely read: "Pulman won the match at 37–28."
  • The 1955 match-play championship was won when the score reached 37–34, but this is not noted.
  • You forgot to note that the winning score for the October 1964 match was 37–23.
  • You also forgot to note that the winning score for the 1968 challenge match was 37–28.
  • I'd prefer to expand the notes to read: "?? won the match when the score reached ??–??." but I don't really mind either way!
  • At first sight, it's weird that there are two entries for 1964 and three for 1965. Might benefit from adding a note for the two 1964 WSC matches: "These were two separate challenge matches played in London in April 1964 and October 1964." and for the three 1965 WSC matches: "These were three separate challenge matches played in South Africa in 1965."
  • Amended. I've gone for a simpler note about challenges, with longer notes for those that were a series of matches. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 16:00, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Were there any dead frames played in the 1970 final that should be noted?
References
  • Refs 1 & 53 are dup cites (Independent obituary); refs 46 & 90 are dup cites (Snooker Scene: Higgins in top gear at Ford tournament); refs 49 & 84 are dup cites (Snooker Scene: Official rankings August 1976)
  • Refs. 15, 86, 87,88 lead to a British Newspaper Archive sign-in page so not particularly useful for most readers. Can the articles be found via Newspapers.com instead (like the two Guardian articles, refs. 47 & 52)? Are any of the other articles available to view, e.g. all the Times citations, The Scotsman (ref.18), The Age (ref.78), The Canberra Times (ref.79), etc.
  • Refs 15 and 86 (Western Daily Press) are available via British Newspaper Archive, so what about the other Western Daily Press refs (11 and 67a)?
  • Ref 88 (Birmingham Daily Post) is available via British Newspaper Archive, so what about the other Birmingham Daily Post refs (30, 41, 68, 75)?
  • Suggest unlinking The Glasgow Herald work param in refs 21–34 and 32–35 for consistency (none of the other newspaper work params are linked).
  • Is it possible to highlight SNOOKER rather than Swimming in the newspaper snippet for ref.35?
  • Is it possible to highlight SNOOKER rather than Weaver's Success in the newspaper snippet for ref.37?
  • Of the numerous Snooker Scene citations, only one (ref.51) cites Clive Everton as editor (inconsistent).
  • Ref.66: Is this book the same as this? It's compiled (authored) by Reg Perrin and published by BBC, isbn 0-563-20293-9. I can't find an Ian Morrison version.
  • No, it's the magazine Pot Black, not associated with the BBC. I've added the ISSN number. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:36, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've added links wherever I could, including swapping a couple of references. I couldn't find another online source for the winning margin against Williams (17 October 1964 source; other papers report the post-dead-frames score of 38-22); I didn't manage to repoint that link from the Swimming heading, which I think is due to the quality of the scan. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 13:09, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Making progress. Well, you know I find it impossible to not be thorough, right!?... Rodney Baggins (talk) 20:16, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Benny, one more section to check and we're done. I've been doing a bit of copyediting along the way too, which seemed easier while noting down my specific comments/queries for your attention, so you can use your own judgement for those. Rodney Baggins (talk) 22:41, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All done now – sorry it took me so long. I do hope this helps rather than hinders. Rodney Baggins (talk) 23:08, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for the thorough review, Rodney Baggins, I really appreciate it. Please let me have any further feedback once you've had a chance to digest my changes and replies. (Skip to 1:03 here for a glimpse of Pulman that you might not have seen before.) Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 16:09, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Rodney Baggins, I was wondering if you felt in a position to either support or oppose this nomination? Obviously, neither is obligatory. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:46, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild and BennyOnTheLoose: Hi, I'm just going over it now. Looking good apart from one or two minor tweaks that I will note here later. Yes, it will be a Support from me. Regards, Rodney Baggins (talk) 14:32, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Final comments
  • You said The Times obituary is the source for his full name; I would quite like to see that tagged directly after his full name at start of Early life section.
  • There are quite a lot of multi-tags that could do with swapping round, unless the first is specifically more useful as a source for the tagged material, e.g. [4][3] > [3][4] in Early life section. Also [7][4]; [10][3]; [47][42]; [53][17][54]; [1][54]; [60][57]; [72][17]; [23][19]; [42][17].
  • I commented above that, while he seemed keen on billiards as a youngster, there's no further mention of it after the Early life section. Maybe amend next section heading from 'Career' to 'Snooker career', to make it clear that there's no billiards included in his main career? Just a thought – purely up to you!
  • You didn't respond to these comments for Later career and retirement (1968–1998):
    • I think it's more usual to say "declared bankrupt" rather than "adjudged bankrupt".
    • "with debts of £5,916" > "with personal debts of £5,916" (assuming he didn't have any failed business ventures?)
    • Do you want to put any equivalences in this article (using the inflation template)? Debts of £5,916 are equivalent to almost 32 grand in today's money, and his £400 prize money for the 1948 Sunday Empire News Tournament is equivalent to over 15 grand these days.
  • I was going to suggest that note [h] needs a citation, but looking back at what it's referring to, I realise that wouldn't be straightforward. It's just there to point out that the QF was his first match because there were only 8 players in those tournaments. I'm not sure if the note needs to be reworded to make that clear, or just removed altogether?
  • I've amended the note and added citations. I think that "QF" suggests some progression in the tournament,and so a note is worthwhile. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:56, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note [k] might be wrong. It says the winning score was 37–31, but according to wiki article, the winning score was 37–34 (to Fred Davis) and there were two dead frames played, bringing the final score to 38–35. Or maybe the main article has it wrong?
  • The source used in the 1955 article does have 37–34, but the source I used here has Davis leading 36-30, losing the first frame of the next session, but then "taking the second... to become champion in the 68th frame of the week." I'll check other sources. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:41, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note [t] is incorrect. His opponent in the final was Reardon not Davis.
  • The page numbers appear to be wrong for refs. 49 and 92.
  • The printed page number for ref 49 is 6. I've added an edition parameter but I'm not sure as it seems to be a sports ("Pink Final" Special") sold separately. For 92, the preceding page in the scan in 9, and the fron cover states "Ten Pages". The Newspapers.com scan includes different editions. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:41, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adding in all the newspaper clippings – I think they're fascinating! Rodney Baggins (talk) 23:13, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose from Amakuru[edit]

First of all, I feel bad coming in to oppose here (and particularly since you pinged me into the discussion), as I appreciate a lot of good work has gone into this article, and I certainly applaud the work done by BennyOnTheLoose in bringing it to the state it's in now, which is very solid GA-level. The project is better for this and whether this passes or fails, I appreciate the effort that's gone in. This isn't a judgement on the editor(s) who've written this at all.

But unfortunately I'm going to have to oppose for the exact same reasons as I opposed at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Steve Davis/archive1. This is an eight-time world champion, presumably one of the greats of the game, similar to Davis or indeed more modern players such as Mark Selby. Yet when I run the page size tool, I find this article weighs in at only 15 kB (2664 words) of readable prose size. That's in comparison to Selby's GA-level article, which has 39 kB (6804 words) of prose and another FA-level snooker bio John Spencer (snooker player), which has 30 kB (5147 words). Ultimately, the main difference seems to be that articles such as Selby's have detailed blow-by-blow coverage of each and every season, with the highs and lows, and certainly a whole paragraph dedicated to each of his world title wins, whereas those for Pulman and Davis seem to only highlight the broad brush and big achievements, many lacking significant detail (for example his first defence of the world title is given one sentence "Pulman defeated Davis 19–16 at Burroughes Hall in April 1964 to retain the title that he had claimed seven years earlier".

Now I fully get the underlying reasons for this - Selby's career has played out int the Wikipedia age, and for better or worse, that means fans constantly updating with events as they happen... whereas for a player from the pre-internet age, we're reliant on bringing it all in from scratch. Hence why one of the all-time great tennis players Pete Sampras has an article that's 25% shorter than the less decorated but more recent player John Isner. I get that it's a lot harder to source the same level of information from sources for a bygone player and would likely require searches of resources that aren't just available online.

But this is FAC, nobody ever pretends it's easy... and I don't think we'd be doing our job properly if we nodded through articles of vastly different length and structure, simply because of how easy it is to find the relevant sourcing. Criteria 1b and 1c tells us that the article must be "comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context" and that it is "well-researched: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature". If we are to achieve those, we must delve into the sources of the days when Pulman played, and we must dig out the level of information which we see for Selby. Unless of course you can show conclusively that such sourcing simply doesn't exist, but I'm a bit sceptical on that point. So apologies once again, and I hold out the hope that this one or Davis will one day achieve the comprehensive I know they can!  — Amakuru (talk) 14:51, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Amakuru, I invited you to contribute precisely becasue you had opposed at Davis' article - challenge is good! (Pulman might agree). Of course more can be added, but there just wasn't the anywhere near the level of coverage during Pulman's heyday. The result of a world final would typically get one short paragraph in most papers. Due to the dispute between the B&SCC and the PBPA, professional competitions got very little coverage in the 50s and early 60s in The Billiard Player. There were also fewer (albeit often longer) matches in Pulman's day. According to Cuetracker, whch we have to take with a pinch or more of salt, Pulman played 265 matches (5,920 frames) over 36 years, while Selby has played 1,547 matches (11,039 frames) over 26 years. Spencer played 433 matches (4,268 frames) over 29 years; many of which were after the mid-70s when coverage really picked up. Are there any books or other sources that you think are missing from consideration? I'm not sure how I can show that sourcing does't exist; but if you look at results on the British Newspaper Archive or Newspapers.com I think you will find that many of them offer little beyond scores. I'll see if I can add some more about the more important tournaments in Pulman's career. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 18:06, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, looks like Spencer's article is a bit of an outlier in terms of number of words for snooker bio FACs. According to the Page Size tool we have Griffiths (2590 words), Donaldson (2608 words), Thorburn (2854 words), Reardon (3262 words), and Spencer (5147 words). BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 18:16, 4 March 2024 (UTC) (By the way, I would expect articles on Steve Davis and Alex Higgins to be longer, as there is so much more commentary available on both of them. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 18:21, 4 March 2024 (UTC))[reply]
Amakuru I added a little on the April 1964 match. Are there any others that you think are noticably lacking coverage, given my comments above? Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:27, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Amakuru, any more to come? Gog the Mild (talk) 18:35, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild and BennyOnTheLoose: ooh I'm very sorry, I did get the pings above but was out and about and then it kind of slipped my mind. I'll try to circle back to this in the next couple of days and see if I can marry up the content with how I think an FA ought to look, in the context of what's available about Pulman. My general point is that I'm uncomfortable with the idea that we should have two FAs on similar sorts of subjects with vastly different levels of detail. I guess nothing's perfect and it does happen, particularly if someone's poured what might be considered excessive detail into something (is Spencer's article an example of that?) The sourcing may mitigate that point, but the analysis needs to be thorough... Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 18:58, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Amakuru, have you had a chance to take another look? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 17:29, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs: - what do you recommend me to do? It's true that I don't have a whole plethora of sources to show that the article is definitively not a representative summary of the literature, and it's not easy to access those at present even if I had the time to do so, as the British Library has been effectively out of action for the past six months. But I'm also not particularly minded to withdraw my oppose, as I genuinely don't think this is long or detailed enough to be considered an FA-level summary of this individual and his long career. For me, the career section should have detailed analysis of what he did every year. And if he genuinely didn't play tournaments for large parts of said years, then that should be indicated, with sourcing. It's a nice article and definitely a GA, the nominator has put in good work, but we don't hand out FA badges just because nominators are good editors, it needs to meet all of the criteria I'd have thought? Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 18:20, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Amakuru I stand by my earlier comments about precedent with other snooker bio featured articles, and number of matches played, but now that the British Library Catalogue is back online (for most types of source, including books), is there any particular source you feel that has been neglected? I have access to a number of books immediately and can summarise their coverage of Pulman (see my Library). Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:34, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From Clive Everton's The Embassy Book of World Snooker (1993): "[In 1954/55] Nobody cared very much what the results were in professional snooker" (p.24); "Little notice was taken of any of Pulman's first five title defences, and not very much more of his sixth ... There was no snooker coverage in the national press and in the snooker world itself the talk tended to be of a new generation of amateur stars" (p.28); "[in 1968] Press coverage remained virtually non-existent" (p.29). Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:16, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sammi Brie (Support)[edit]

Going to give the copy a bath and provide a non-snooker-literate POV on the article.

  • "Pulman became a television commentator towards the end of his playing career, and retired from competitive play in 1981" Classic WP:CINS issue. There is one subject: Pulman. Remove the comma.
  • "In 1929, Ernest Pulman sold his bakery and confectionery business and the family moved to Plymouth, where he bought a billiard hall with two tables." Add comma after "business"
  • "John Pulman started playing billiards at the age of nine, and made his first billiards century break aged twelve. In his teenage years he also played snooker, and participated in local league competitions." More commas to excise
  • "In 1938, Pulman entered the British Boys Billiards Championship, but left his cue on the train on his way to the event at Burroughes Hall." Another CinS
  • "He lost his opening match in 1950, and withdrew from the following year's championship due to influenza when trailing 14–22 against Fred Davis in their semi-final match." Another CinS. Are mid-match withdrawls for illness normal?
  • Withdrawals for illness are uncommon, perhaps because they tend to lead to a loss of income from prize money (and, in 1950, loss of income from gate receipts). I think it's worth including as occasionally players withdrew for other reasons ("business reasons" is one rather vague one I remember seeing reported.) BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 11:55, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He was runner-up in the 1950/1951 edition, and won in 1953/1954." CinS
  • "He defeated Rex Williams 22–15 in the quarter-finals and Alec Brown 37–24 in the semi-finals, before losing 35–38 to Fred Davis in the final, which was played at Blackpool Tower Circus." Remove comma after "semi-finals"
  • "In the semi-finals, Pulman was level at 12–12 with Williams before winning the match 19–16. In the final, he trailed Jack Rea at 2–4, 5–8 and 8–11, before equalising at 11–11." Another comma to excise after 8–11
  • Is "noticable" a correct British English spelling?
  • "The match was played over 73 frames, and took place from 12 to 17 October at Burroughes Hall." CinS
  • "He extended his lead to 31–17 after the fourth day of play, and won the match on the fifth day by taking a 37–23 winning lead." maybe "He extended his lead to 31–17 after the fourth day of play, winning the match on the fifth day by taking a 37–23 lead."
  • "Pulman eventually reached a winning lead of 37–28, and finished 39–34 ahead after dead frames"
  • "He reached the final of the 1970 World Championship, but lost 33–37 to Ray Reardon" CinS
  • "In October 1972, he was retrieved, unconscious, from a road traffic collision, but he had fully recovered in time to play in the Park Drive 2000 tournament that was held less than two weeks later." maybe remove "had"
  • "His opponent, Spencer, took a 5–2 lead, before Pulman won five of the next seven frames to level the match at 7–7 and force a deciding frame." Drop last comma
  • "After 1977, he was unable to win another World Championship match, although he continued to enter until 1982 when he had to withdraw because he had not sufficiently recovered after his leg was broken in five places when he was hit by a London bus in October 1981." Very long sentence. Consider rewording. Also consider layout with the bus item...which really should be the end of the career.
  • "Fred Davis reflected that Pulman's impatience and lapses in concentration had probably cost him frames in their world championship finals in the mid-1950s, and that as Pulman became more patient in his play, he became a stronger opponent" Move the comma from after "mid-1950s" back to after "that". You have a CinS error and an incomplete appositive.
  • "11 year" hyphenate
  • " humour "did a tremendous salvage job for the game when it needed it most." " logical quote for a sentence fragment demands period out of quotes
  • "Alex Higgins, the world champion in 1972 and 1982, whose popularity helped make snooker a growing sport in the 1970s and 1980s, wrote" consider dropping the comma after 1982 to have a longer, unified appositive.

The links to terms of art are good, and I wasn't left wanting. Just a bunch of CinS and a few places that baffle me (bus). Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 04:26, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Many thanks, Sammi Brie. Hopefully I've addressed all of your points, but please do check the "Fred Davis reflected.." one in particular. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 11:55, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. All my copy issues are addressed satisfactorily. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 17:49, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

Reviewing this version, spotcheck upon request. Kinda think that with a name this generic we need better citations than "John Pulman". The Times. 31 December 1998. p. 25." Why is #74 formatted differently from the others? Are Alex Higgins, Spencer, John and Fred Davis Alex Higgins, John Spencer (snooker player) and Fred Davis (snooker player)? What make "Davis, Steve (2016). Interesting: My Autobiography. London: Ebury. ISBN 978-0-09-195865-7." and "Hayton, Eric; Dee, John (2004). The CueSport Book of Professional Snooker: The Complete Record & History. Rose Villa Publications. ISBN 978-0-9548549-0-4." a reliable source? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:27, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Many thanks for taking on the source review, Jo-Jo Eumerus. I've made some initial replies below which could need some actions after your advice. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 20:29, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • What should be added in the example of The Times John Pulman article? (It is not available via Wikipedia Library or free online sources. I have access to it through a library subsription to The Times Digital Archive.) No author is stated. I suppose one option would be to add in the location as London, to avoid any confusion with other publications listed at The Times (disambiguation).
    Some additional information so that it can be more easily told apart from other newspapers with that name. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:53, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Jo-Jo Eumerus I've added locations for The Times, The Independent and The Guardian references. Are there any others that need amending? Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 13:58, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't think so. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:03, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • ref 74 - as multiple sources were used (for the different editions of the tournament), I used WP:CITEBUNDLE rather than having something like [74][75][76][77][78][79][80] appear to the reader.
  • Yes, Alex Higgins, Spencer, John and Fred Davis are Alex Higgins, John Spencer (snooker player) and Fred Davis (snooker player).
  • Steve Davis's Interesting: My Autobiography is only used to support "Steve Davis, who met Pulman in a match at the 1977 Pontins Open, observed how Pulman and Reardon both adapted to the poor quality of the snooker tables rather than complaining, and he found this to be a valuable lesson." The book is published by Ebury, an imprint of Penguin Books.
  • The CueSport Book of Professional Snooker (Hayton and Dee) is one of the standard reference works for professional snooker, in my opinion. CueSport was a UK magazine that was published from around 2000 to 2009. John Dee, who wrote the history sections, was the snooker editor of CueSport and a correspondent for The Daily Telegraph and other newspapers. The bulk of the book's 1000+ pages consists of statistics, compiled by Hayton, including player-by-player results histories. The book has been used as a source for featured articles including John Spencer (snooker player) and Ray Reardon.
SC

Just one comment from me:

  • "In October 1972, he was retrieved, unconscious, from a road traffic collision": "retrieved" is an odd word to use in this context - makes him sound like an old pair of gloves! - SchroCat (talk) 16:56, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates&oldid=1220309006"