Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/June 2021

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

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 28 June 2021 [1].

2016 FA Cup Final

edit
Nominator(s): The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 07:04, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Even though it's lost a bit of polish over the last few years, this is still the premier domestic association football cup competition in the world. I believe we now have a comprehensive and detailed article covering all aspects of the final, and I look forward to addressing any and all constructive comments, with thanks in advance for taking the time and interest to help the nomination. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 07:04, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from ChrisTheDude

edit
Resolved comments from ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:33, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
;Comments
  • "Just before the interval in the first half of the additional period" - there isn't an interval in the first half of extra time
  • "Manchester United's Rooney was named as man of the match" - this is the first mention of him, so his forename needs adding (as does a link)
  • "Zaha scored in the first half, after [...] passing the ball past Jakob Haugaard" - he scored by passing?
  • "Crystal Palace went into the match without a win in the league" - pedantically, they hadn't won in the league that season, rather than ever? Also, why mention this in relation to this round in particular?
  • "Manchester United's first shot on target came from substitute Memphis Depay, who was fouled in second half stoppage time by Dean Hammond for a penalty kick" - this is a long sentence which seems to conflate two completely separate incidents - might be better to break it up
  • "United were forced play" - missing word there
  • "when James Tomkins' scored with a header" - no need for that apostrophe
  • "West Ham halved the deficit in the 79th minute [..] and despite dominating the closing stages, including a disallowed goal from West Ham United's Cheikhou Kouyaté, the match ended 2–1" - this reads a bit clumsily, suggest a reword
  • "saved Romelu Lukaku's subsequent spot-kick" - last word is a bit slangy
  • "sent in a cross which was deflecteed" - typo
  • "off Chris Smalling" - previously at second mentions, you haven't repeated the forename
  • "In the two league matches between sides" => "In the two league matches between the sides"
  • "The referee for the final was Mark Clattenburg, from Consett, County Durham, and was assisted" => "The referee for the final was Mark Clattenburg, from Consett, County Durham, who was assisted"
  • "by both BBC" => "by both the BBC"
  • "All tickets prices " - lose the s on tickets
  • "The financial prize for the winning the" - there's either a word missing here or one word too many
  • "the latter dropping to the substitute's bench" => "the latter dropping to the substitutes' bench"
  • "Mata was then shown the yellow card for high and late tackle" => "Mata was then shown the yellow card for a high and late tackle"
  • "while Alan Smith in The Guardian " - link The Guardian
  • "a low cross from Valencia was partly clear" => "a low cross from Valencia was partly cleared"
  • "Rooney was named man of the match and expressed admiration of his opponents" => "Rooney was named man of the match and expressed admiration for his opponents"
  • "Crystal Palace defender Dalenay" - name spelt incorrectly
  • "Alan Smith, writing in The Guardian described" - comma needed after Guardian, also you can delink it here as you will have linked it above per my earlier comment
  • "Crystal Palace one point above the relegation positions in the Premier League" - overlinking on Premier League
  • Think that's it from me :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:27, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
ChrisTheDude thanks, I think I've got to all of your points. I really appreciate the review. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 15:36, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review – Pass

edit

Will do soon. Aza24 (talk) 22:43, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting
  • James M. Ross seems to be the author for ref 13
  • ref 19 is missing a work/publisher
  • The Rostance refs seems to have "21 May 2016" as their dates. It's above the summary and under "Mourinho latest & FA Cup final reaction"
    • Suggest a "find and replace" tool to update this quicker
  • ref 47 is missing the date
Reliability
  • No issues
Verifiability
Aza24 thanks so much, I've addressed your concerns, let me know if there's anything else. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 09:01, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just took another look and its looks great. Pass for source review. Aza24 (talk) 06:11, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Aza24 thank you very much for taking the time to look, much appreciated. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 08:34, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Casliber

edit

Comments Support by Amakuru

edit
General comments
  • This might be partly down to me, with some of the articles I've written, and I don't know if it matters or not, but there's a bit of a difference in formats emerging with the Final articles. In 1987 FA Cup Final, we put Background first, giving a general introduction to what the competition is, as well as any other over-arching themes, with a separate "pre-match" section in the match Summary. I would probably slightly prefer this way of doing it, as otherwise the "Route to the final" section begins with a bit of a lack of context. Particularly for a newcomer unfamiliar with football competitions, and who hasn't already read the lead. This is more food for thought though, and obviously articles like 2017 FA Cup Final are already FAs under the format of showing the Route-to-the-final first.
That's a fair point, I am generally reluctant to wholesale delete a previous set-up just to impose "latest" style on it. If the content is sufficient then I don't think it has to precisely match the format of other, recently promoted material. There's certainly no criterion I'm aware of at FAC which says that articles of a "common" grouping should have consistently identical formatting. Having said that, I'm happy to borrow from '87 to feed '16. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 11:17, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, of course. This was just a general observation really.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:25, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've done it now, what do you think? The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 11:39, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, that looks good cheers. There's some guff about when the big boys enter the competition on the 1987 page, as a precursor to our saying the finalists entered in the third round, but I think that's strictly optional.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:33, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I saw that but thought it was an offline source and wasn't sure it could be assuredly applied to the 2016 final? The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 15:46, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Route to the final (Crystal Palace)
Route to the final (Manchester United)
Background
Amakuru addressed thus far, cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 11:58, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
First half
Second half
Extra time
Post-match
  • "Five days after the final, van Gaal was dismissed by Manchester United" - any particular reason? We were told earlier that his job had been saved.
    Well far be it from me to speculate on the motives of Ed Woodward etc. Money? Success? European football? If I was a betting man, I'd say he'd have been sacked before the FA Cup final if they hadn't got to the FA Cup final. But we'll never know. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 12:14, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Lead
Amakuru done, thanks! The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 12:14, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent. Passing on prose. Good work.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:33, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Kosack

edit

Nothing much to complain about on my part as usual. A few minor points above. Kosack (talk) 13:05, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kosack hey, thanks a lot! I've addressed your concerns and responded to the flag icon point. Please don't hesitate to get back to me if anything else is required. Much obliged. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 14:47, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nice work, my concerns have been suitably addressed. Happy to support. Kosack (talk) 18:48, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Query for the coordinators

edit
@FAC coordinators: four supports, source and image review passed, can I nominate another FAC? The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 18:03, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You certainly may. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:17, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 28 June 2021 [2].

Alicia (album)

edit
Nominator(s): isento (talk) 20:45, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another album article, as complete as can be... Barring some major blind spot, just might need some tweaks, which the review process oughtta sort out. isento (talk) 20:45, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from TheAmazingPeanuts

edit

The article look good, you have my support. Wish you luck. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 08:50, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from K. Peake

edit
Resolved comments from K.Peake

It is only fair for me to comment on this FAC since I was the GA reviewer and you've helped out with my recent FAC, so before listing concerns I will say honestly that this article is mostly in great shape! However, Bustle should be removed or replaced because WP:RSP has come to no consensus about the reliability of the source, making it not suitable for FA. I understand that Rap-Up is usable for GA, but I do not see how it is a highly quality source for FA so would recommend replacing or removing, unless you have a reasonable argument for it being of such quality. Citation #32 is missing Rolling Stone from the ref layout, plus I suggest adding the url access parameter with subscription to all refs using this magazine like you have done for The Times and The Sunday Times to be consistent with formatting, while The New York Times should have this parameter and cite limited. --K. Peake 07:55, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've replaced the first Bustle source. But I would defend the second because the writer is one of note -- Shayla Lawson, a published author of music-related topics -- and the few citations to her article are observations/commentary on the album's music (WP:SUBJECTIVE). isento (talk) 15:14, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Using a disputed source is fine when the writer is considered reputable, so I will accept this. --K. Peake 19:51, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
How isn't Rap-Up a high-quality source for an R&B album article? It's impact and reputability in this particular area are documented in Rap-Up#Impact. isento (talk) 15:14, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The article itself says Rap-Up has no audit, plus can you provide evidence of an editorial process? --K. Peake 19:51, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The nytimes article sourcing that claim (from 2005) is referring to that in the context of its sales, so audit (as in the primary definition) is of the magazine's finances. Like the nytimes article, Muckrack lists the Lazerine brothers as the magazine's editors ([3], [4]). isento (talk) 21:08, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
On the other hand, I'm sure I can replace these references since they mostly source quotes from Keys that may have been reprinted elsewhere... isento (talk) 21:29, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Replaced them. isento (talk) 22:30, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've added the parameter to the nytimes citation, but I don't see why the Rolling Stone citations need them. Last I checked, the website's content is still free to all visitors. isento (talk) 15:14, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just checked and for the majority of the RS sources you are correct, but refs 41, 46 and 55 are all subscription required, so add the appropriate parameter. --K. Peake 19:59, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I checked other references, and it seems that articles from this magazine sometimes do ask for a log in and sometimes don't... so I will add the parameter to them all. Sad development I'm seeing, in any case. isento (talk) 21:08, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is always best to be on the safe side so good job here; I will now fully support this candidacy! --K. Peake 06:04, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from 100cellsman

edit
Resolved comments from 100cellsman

I think this article is acceptable enough for FA status, but the quote-box on the left is kind of lengthy to me. Also, the refrain for "Authors of Forever" should be best omitted since it can count as a copyright violation. 웃OO 01:21, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. And I've trimmed the quote-box a bit. But I would defend the quoted lyrics with criteria from WP:NFCCP: "Minimal extent of use" (only four lines, as specified by Keys, of a ~48-line work), "Previous publication" (in Keys' memoir, with permission from the copyright holder), and "Contextual significance" (connected to central themes of the album, as discussed by Keys and other sources in the article). Similar qualities of pertinence and contextual significance at WP:QUOTATION also seem to justify this case, as does the idea of incorporating lyrics in the context of an "analytical framework" at WP:LYRICS. But let me know what you think to all of the above. isento (talk) 15:51, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I changed my stance to support now. 웃OO 19:27, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Images/Files

edit

Is there any source discussing the sample File:Alicia Keys - Authors of Forever.ogg or is it just a custom-made cut that features the most representative portion of the song? Otherwise, sections are pertinent and ALT text is so-so; some files lack it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:42, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

NPR uses the same soundbite, with the same lyrics that are oft-cited in sources, a few among them cited in this article. isento (talk) 16:38, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry but I don't understand what you mean about "some files lack it". Which images can use an improved ALT text? isento (talk) 16:38, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It means that not all files have ALT text. I think normally the point of an ALT text is to replace the information provided by the image, not to describe its content. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:24, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I wrote alt text for all images. In my experience, I am normally asked to offer descriptions of the images. Can you respond more thoroughly in regards to your concerns so I can have a better idea of how to resolve them? isento (talk) 20:24, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The general purpose of ALT text is to replace the image for readers that cannot see it. Ergo, if the image is meant to convey a specific information (e.g a physical description) that information needs to be in the ALT text. Otherwise, a generic description is OK. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:32, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. But I've also been advised of its connection to visually impaired readers. In any case, I've revised the alt text for each to comply with both concerns. Let me know what you think and whatever else needs to be resolved. isento (talk) 21:03, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps a bit overlong, but OK. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:20, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What issue do you still have with the ALT text? isento (talk) 13:12, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, seems like I missed some of the improvements. I think it's ready to go now. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:23, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Great, thanks ! isento (talk) 17:55, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review–pass

edit
Resolved comments from Heartfox

Spotchecks not done. Heartfox (talk) 19:42, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pass for the source review. Good luck with the rest of the nomination! Heartfox (talk) 04:00, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I appreciate it very much. I'm listening to it now, and it's a beautiful album, really deserves more recognition. isento (talk) 05:35, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from KyleJoan

edit
Resolved comments from KyleJoan

I did a deep dive and found the article to be superb. The writing alone is outstanding. I'm only familiar with the album's singles, so the thorough read has been enlightening. I do have some revisions I'd like to suggest:

  • "during 2017 to 2019" → "from 2017 to 2019"
    • I would keep "during". "From" implies a definite start point, which no source can really verify here. 2017 is the earliest known year of recording, and "during" merely connotes a course of time ([13]) and thus is a more grammatically appropriate compromise, imo. isento (talk) 04:47, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • My qualm about "during" is the "to 2019" extension. It would work fine if the statement only read "during 2017". How about "between 2017 and 2019"? It doesn't specify a start or end time, only estimates. KyleJoantalk 05:21, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Done. isento (talk) 05:41, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • On second thought, and to avoid another "and" construction, I'll revert to "from 2017 to 2019". The sentence begins with the qualifier "primarily" (which can subsume the years of recording as well), and the sources indicate that she began recording at some point after Here (2016) and the absence from the Voice season (2017) -- returning to Oven would mean after Here, since that is also where that album was recorded. So the bulk of the timespan is 2017 to 2019. isento (talk) 05:46, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "identity as a multifaceted concept" → "a multifaceted concept of identity" – This would read more smoothly, as the other two themes in the sentence exist as a matter of fact rather than interpretative.
  • "The album has been described by Keys" → "Keys describes the album"
  • "Keys will perform in concert" – Replace "will" with "is set to" or "is expected to" to adhere to WP:CRYSTAL.
  • "In 2016, Alicia Keys released her sixth studio album Here" – The "singer-songwriter" description in the first sentence should go here as well since this is the body's opener.
  • "In the spirit of Here's unrefined aesthetic, the singer stopped wearing makeup that year." – The Variety article doesn't correlate her not wearing makeup with the album. It seems the two merely coincided with her stance on perfection, all after Girl on Fire. It would be more appropriate to state the three neutrally and let readers draw the connection. It seems fairly easy to infer that Here's bareness fits the idea of going makeup-free and the rejection of perfection.
    • Actually, revisiting that article now, I see it suggests Here and going bare-face were acts of her ditching perfectionism. So I've reworded accordingly. Thanks! isento (talk) 04:35, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Keys reportedly returned to Oven Studios" – When?
  • "However, it avoids emphatic hooks and motifs characteristic of her past music." – In this structure, to avoid mistaking "characteristic" as a noun, maybe use a different adjective (e.g., "singular" or "distinctive")?
  • "evoking a particular mood rather than conforming to a singular sound" – The NME article says that mood is more important than any sound, which seems like a simple way of saying "a conventional genre", so rephrasing the description "a singular sound" to anything that resembles it would work.
  • "Alicia has been described by Keys as 'a musical exploration of identity – both my own and ours collectively'." – Make it clear that this is a quote from her book so readers get a sense of who she means by "ours".
  • "reflecting different dimensions of her relationship to people as a whole" – Would "mirroring" be more appropriate than "reflecting"?
  • "Subsequent tracks advocate more positive pleas for hope and change" – Make it clear that she was referencing the state of the world in this sentence. While sentences later in the paragraph hint at this, a clear reference would make the general statement less ambiguous.
  • "She performed 'Good Job' and 'Perfect Way to Die' for CNN and the BET Awards 2020, respectively." → "She performed 'Good Job" and 'Perfect Way to Die' on CNN and at the 2020 BET Awards, respectively."
  • "In June 2020, Keys premiered 'Gramercy Park' during her first-ever appearance on NPR's Tiny Desk Concerts, alongside 'Underdog', 'Show Me Love', and her 2001 song 'Fallin'." – Since she didn't premiere the other three songs, state that she simply performed them.
  • "she made appearances at Good Morning America and the iHeartRadio Music Festival" → "she made appearances on Good Morning America and at the iHeartRadio Music Festival"
  • "and a performance at the 2020 Billboard Awards on October 14" – State the award ceremony's proper name and italicize "Billboard" (i.e., "2020 Billboard Music Awards")
  • "'Generosity tempered with humility is a rare and welcome look', he wrote of her performance." – From reading the review, it seems Dolan was commending the album's content and not any performance since the paragraph from which the quote is pulled highlights specific songs (and lyrics).
  • "For the 2021 NAACP Image Awards, Alicia was nominated in the category of Outstanding Album." → "At the 2021 NAACP Image Awards..." – It would be appropriate to also note that "So Done" and "Jill Scott" received nominations in other categories.

Please feel free to challenge any of these points. I'd be happy to discuss them. Wonderful work! KyleJoantalk 10:25, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I really appreciated seeing your kind comments and the suggestions, thank you. Apart from a few points, I edited the article accordingly. isento (talk) 04:35, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Now that we've addressed all of the suggested revisions, I'm happy to support this candidacy. Wonderful work! KyleJoantalk 06:16, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks buddy :D isento (talk) 06:20, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Aoba47

edit

Although R&B is one of my favorite genres, I have surprisingly not heard any of the songs from the album. Hopefully, my more outside perspective will be beneficial for my review. My comments are below:

Resolved comments
  • This is rather nitpick-y, but I have a comment about this part, Keys collaborated with more artists on the recording than in her previous albums, from the lead. I find the "recording" word choice to be unnecessarily vague. I would instead just say with more artists on Alicia to avoid that.
    • Her first name already appears in the lead seven times. For variety's sake, I'd stick with it. And an album is a recording, as evinced to readers by the second sentence. isento (talk) 00:43, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I just remember getting a note in the past about recording being too vague of a word choice since it mean almost anything, but I do not feel strongly about it either way. Aoba47 (talk) 00:51, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am uncertain about the subtly melodic music part from the lead. It is a Variety quote used in the body of the article so I do not think it is appropriate to use in the lead without clarifying it is a quote and attributing it. For that reason, I would suggest that you paraphrase it. Also, I find this to read more like praise, which I do not think fits in the lead, but that could just be my reading of it.
  • I am not sure this album had a traditional rollout campaign. From my understand, this would entail a lead single followed by a single at (or around) the album's release with further singles after that. That is not true here as all the singles were released prior to the album. The lead somewhat acknowledges this by saying it was "extended", but the body of the article identifies this with that type of campaign. In fact, this album's campaign reminds me more of those used in Asian markets (specifically J-pop and K-pop) where all the singles put out before an album. So I am curious on where this traditional rollout is coming from?
    • The Rolling Stone source cited in "Marketing and sales". And these kinds of campaigns are elaborated on in album era, whose source(s) identify singles (without a release-timetable specified), music videos, media appearances, and a supporting concert tour as characteristics, which this project ha(s/d). The pandemic prolonged the marketing campaign. isento (talk) 00:43, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am uncertain about the surprise album link in this part, After a surprise announcement of its impending release in September. I do not think this would be considered a surprise album since Keys made an announcement four days prior to its release, and while that is a very short period of time, I always thought surprise albums were released without any announcements. I think the link here is a little misleading (and I could see it being an Easter egg).
  • This part, a raw departure from the more sophisticated and anthemic R&B music of her first five albums, reads rather promotional to me in tone. I can understand the "raw departure" bit at the beginning, but the sophisticated and anthemic part in particularly reads too much like praise for her past work to me.
    • It's really not. Anthems are of a particular aesthetic/tradition, as described at that article. And the word is used here merely as an adjective to denote those qualities, which is integral to an intellectual discussion of her music. I think you're projecting a certain connotation onto these words, when they're merely being used here to describe, as per the sources cited. isento (talk) 00:48, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I could see the anthems part being objective, but describing something as "sophisticated" reads like praise to me. Aoba47 (talk) 00:57, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • Why? isento (talk) 01:23, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            • I do not see "sophisticated" as an objective way of describing something. I see it more as praising something as being "sophisticated" (whether in design or complexity). I am mostly uncertain about this since this information is presented in Wikipedia's voice as an objective fact about her music, and to be honest, it just reads like a very positive review of her past work. Aoba47 (talk) 01:35, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
              • I meant, why does "sophisticated" read as praise to you? I've read (and can cite) plenty of reviews where the critic devalues sophistication in their appraisal of the work's merits. If you're (unconsciously) projecting positive values onto this quality, however, then I'm afraid it's your objection that isn't objective. isento (talk) 01:43, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            • I looked at the citation and it describes Keys herself as "sleekly sophisticated" not her first five albums. The anthemic part works after your explanation, but the sophisticated does not work tonally (in my opinion) and does not match the source. Aoba47 (talk) 01:39, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
              • Lol you're really splitting hairs there. The writer says she spent the first five albums as a sleekly sophisticated musician. I just paraphrased it, but the original meaning is the same. isento (talk) 01:43, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
                • I would have really appreciated that explanation without the lol. That part was just unnecessary. You did help me to see the part that I was missing so this part is fine as it stands. Aoba47 (talk) 01:48, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Sorry, it was meant as an ice-breaker... I also wanted to add that other high-quality sources verify this identification of her past music, among them PopMatters and AllMusic. isento (talk) 01:53, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
                    • It's all good. I had misread the source so that was on me. Thank you for taking the time to explain that. The article is in very great shape btw if I have not made that clear already. My review is mostly just minor things. Aoba47 (talk) 01:55, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • What are unfixed romances? I am referring to this part, explored themes beyond the unfixed romances that predominated her earlier music.
  • I would revise this part, from the show's 2017 season, to say (and probably link) the exact season as two seasons aired that year. Also, I have never heard a season (at least for an American show) being referenced by a year like this.
  • I am uncertain about the citation placement for this part, her impressionistic lyrics, since it cuts off the prose rather awkwardly and hinders readability (at least in my opinion). I understand why you put it there, (to make sure this part is directly attributed), but it still looks off to me.
  • For this part, advocates voter turnout in the context of a movement, I would write out "social movement" in full just to make it absolutely clear to the reader what is being referenced and what article is being linked there.
  • This is super nitpick-y, but for this part, featured in a TV ad, spell out TV as television. TV is a little informal for Wikipedia.
  • I would link grand piano in this part, an upright piano (rather than her customary grand piano). It may be a redirect, but it goes to a rather informative part of the piano article.
  • "Girl on Fire" is linked twice and after you mention the song for the first time, you do not need to include the release year for subsequent references. I would look through the article to make sure other songs are not over-linked in this manner.
  • For this part, She performed "Good Job" and "Perfect Way to Die" on CNN, I would provide more context (i.e. this was performed as part of a CNN town hall meeting) as the current wording is unnecessarily vague about that.
  • For this part, during her first-ever appearance on NPR's Tiny Desk Concerts, remove first-ever as it not needed.
    • I think this is a worthwhile thing to mention, since the show's been on for many years and generally spotlights alternative acts (as opposed to mainstream/pop acts). It would also give some reason as to why she performed "Fallin'" (2001) on there. isento (talk) 04:35, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neither of the two wikilinks in the "See also" section seem necessary to me. I do not really see a strong tie with this article and album era and while this was affected by COVID-19, I do not think that link is particularly useful (and I would instead incorporate it into the article's prose).
  • I do not think the "Further reading" part is needed either, especially since I do not think student newspapers like The Harvard Crimson are seen as appropriate sources for Wikipedia.
  • I would encourage you to archive all of your web citations. I believe a majority of them are already archived, but I would make sure to do the rest. It is not required for the FAC, but it will save you a lot of headache in the future.
  • I believe that Keys should linked in Citation 25 since she is linked in other citations.
    • That would be overlinking. And I'm gonna reduce linking of her name throughout the references to only the first time. MOS:DUPLINK says citations can repeat links, but I don't see the sense in having an entire section of repeated links to authors and publications, so I'm gonna choose no to. isento (talk) 05:01, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Great work with the article. Once everything is addressed, I will read through it again to make sure I have not missed anything and I will likely support at that point. Have a great weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 00:38, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! And I hope you get a chance to listen to the album. It's not a musical masterwork or anything, but it certainly has merit on its own terms. isento (talk) 05:01, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for addressing everything. I support this FAC for promotion. Great work and I will check it out sometime in the future. You did a good job with writing an article that kept me engaged and makes me want to listen to the album. Aoba47 (talk) 16:40, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 28 June 2021 [15].

Peloneustes

edit
Nominator(s): --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 14:44, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about perhaps the most completely known short-necked pliosaurid, a group of plesiosaurs, prehistoric marine reptiles with four flippers. This is also the first FAC for a Jurassic plesiosaur. Peloneustes has had quite a long history, and a great deal has been said about it in the literature, so I've done my best to cover all important aspects of its history, anatomy, and biology in the article. This is my first time at FAC on my own, though I have been a co-nominator for two other articles. In addition to GAN and PR, this article has also passed through the WP:PALEOPR page. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 14:44, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think it might even be the first pliosaur at FAC, period? FunkMonk (talk) 16:29, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yeah, I think that you're right about this (it wasn't the first at GAN, which is probably why this didn't cross my mind). --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 16:38, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Image review
  • File:Peloneustes and Pliosaurus andrewsi Mandibles.png, File:Peloneustes Skeletal Mount from Andrews (1910).png, File:Peloneustes Skull Jaccard.png, File:Peloneustes Crania and Teeth.jpg, File:Peloneustes Middle Cervical Vertebrae.png, File:Peloneustes Pectoral Girdle Andrews.png, File:Peloneustes Pelvic Girdle Andrews.png, File:Simolestes Skull Dorsal View.png, File:Liopleurodon Skull Dorsal View - Extracted.png, File:Peloneustes Paddles.png — claimed to be PD because "author's life plus 70 years or fewer", but no death date given. You can fix that by adding the death date (I assume it's known and actually 70 years ago) in the image description. (For works before 1901, if you don't know the death year, {{PD-old-assumed}} plus a US PD tag may be used).
I've added the "deathyear" parameter to all of these, except for File:Peloneustes Skull Jaccard.png. I couldn't find anything online about Jaccard's death date. Adding {{PD-old-assumed}} creates a template stating that the image was published more than 120 years ago, which is not quite true by six years. What should be done in this case? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 22:05, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you can't show it's public domain in both the source country and the US, it would have to be removed. (t · c) buidhe 07:22, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
An alternative is to upload it locally on English Wikipedia, where only US copyright applies. Like this image:[16] Then the Commons version should be nominated for deletion. FunkMonk (talk) 08:12, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've nominated it for deletion and removed it from the article. I think that it might just be easier to use another image from an older source (such as Andrews' skull paper) in its place. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 17:58, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Could also move another image already in the article up there to make it less crammed elsewhere. FunkMonk (talk) 18:45, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've moved the image of the paddles up to that place (as it has some relevance as they came from the Leeds Collection) and the life restoration down to where they used to be. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 20:24, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Other image licensing looks OK.
  • I would consider scaling up images. I have mine set to display larger than the default and I still have trouble seeing the full details of the images.
I've scaled up the ones I felt could be larger. How do these look, and are there any others that could use larger sizes? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 22:05, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Looks better. This is somewhat subjective as it depends a lot on your display settings. (t · c) buidhe 07:22, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sandwiching in Palaeobiology section
I've moved the life restoration up into classification. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 22:05, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(t · c) buidhe 16:48, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Cas Liber

edit

Taking a look now....will make straightforward copyedits as I go, please revert if I inadvertently change the meaning, and jot queries below. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:26, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • ....that was around 30–50 metres (98–164 ft) deep.. - nitpicky but I'd round this to "that was around 30–50 metres (100–170 ft) deep"
I think that I've implemented this, although I'm not sure how to change it from 160 to 170. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 23:24, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • As seen in other pliosaurs, the pelvis of Peloneustes bears very large and flat ischia and pubes. - usually the use of "very" is discouraged - do you think is justified here?
Probably not. I removed it. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 23:24, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe put Henry Porter's ccupation in...was he a miner or paleontologist....
Some cursory research seems to suggest he was a geologist. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 23:24, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In addition to the limb girdles, the specimen also consists of a partial mandible, teeth, multiple vertebrae - I'd leave this in the past tense (i.e. "In addition to the limb girdles, the specimen also consisted of a partial mandible, teeth, multiple vertebrae") to align with the past-tense narrative flow here. Reads weirdly otherwise I think
I'd prefer to keep this in present tense, putting it in past tense could imply that some parts of the specimen were lost. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 23:24, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, valid point too Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:28, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • By then, PIN 426 had suffered from heavy damage. - err....what from?
Pyrite damage. I originally explained this, but it was pointed out that this could be excessive detail considering the specimen almost certainly belongs to Pliosaurus, so I removed it. I could reinstate this if it would be helpful. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 23:24, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, back then I suggested you should remove the details about how this damage works, not what kind of damage it was, must have missed it, I think the term "pyrite damage" should have been left in. This was the part I meant back then: "(a buildup of iron sulphate crystals in specimens containing pyrite due to oxidation and exposure to moisture, leading to cracking)". But who knows, maybe someone thinks it would also be appropriate to leave that explanation in. FunkMonk (talk) 23:40, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, re-added "pyrite". Sorry for the overcorrection! --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 23:43, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Overall a good read and I only have the few tiny nitpicks above. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:52, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've implemented or explained why I didn't yet implement all of the above comments. All your copyedits to the article look good! --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 23:24, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Jens

edit
  • I had my say already during the review, and have little to add. But see below for a few more quibbles:
  • The premaxilla (front upper tooth-bearing bone) of Peloneustes bears six teeth, and the diastemata (gaps between teeth) of the upper jaw are narrow; these are characteristic features of this pliosaurid. – This second part of the sentence does not say much/says what is expected anyways. Maybe remove or start the sentence with "Characteristically, the premaxilla …"?
Done. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 20:00, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see some issues with singular/plural in the description part. You gou "The premaxilla" (singular) but then you have "nasals" and "frontals" in plural. Then you have "The frontals (bones bordering the orbit)", which sounds that there is only a single orbit, bordered by two frontals. And it continues: "contact both the orbit and the external nares" – orbit is singular, external nares is plural.
While planning an expansion to another pliosaurid article (currently all off-wiki), I began to wonder if my writing might have this problem. I've tried to pluralize paired skull bones and fenestrae, though I'm not totally sure how to make it clear that there is one bone bordering one fenestra on each side. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 20:00, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • link palate, palatine bone, and parasphenoid?
Done. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 20:00, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The parasphenoid (a bone that articulates with the lower front part of the braincase) bears a long cultriform process (a frontwards projection of the braincase) – The first explanation implies that the parasphenoid is not part of the braincase (but I would say it is), while the second explanation implies that the cultriform process is part of the braincase.
Looking at Noè's thesis (which has a handy chapter on pliosaurid skull osteology), it looks like the parasphenoid is indeed part of the braincase. I've amended the explanation. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 20:00, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • You need to use many technical terms, but some of them may be avoided, which can only help the reader. For example, you could just replace "orbit" with "eye opening"; alveoli with "tooth socket", and autapomorphy with "unique feature". The respective technical terms should be pipe linked but there is no real need to mention them (one rule is "don't use technical terms just to teach them").
I've changed alveoli, autapomorphy, orbit, and caudal fin to more familiar terms. Is there anything else that should be changed? I'm not really sure what the cutoff is for when to use a technical term. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 20:00, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I talked with FunkMonk about this recently, and the conclusion was that we could avoid technical terms whenever reasonable and relatively unambiguous substitutes in plain English exist (which is the case, for example, in alveolus -> tooth socket). But most of the time, such nice common English words just do not exist, so the technical term is required.
Another term you could replace is "external naris" -> "bony nostril". And btw., I am not sure if "eye opening" or "eye socket" is better. The latter seems to be more common and is the term used for humans, but we don't have much of a socket in these reptiles. What do you think? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:35, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Bony nostril" sounds rather strange to me, and I worry it implies that the entirety of the external nares were taken up by the nostrils, so I think that it would be better to stick with the more technical term here. I think that "eye socket" may be the better term here, just because that's its only meaning in English (whereas "orbit" and "eye opening" are more commonly used to refer to other things). --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 21:22, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • the rami (sides of the mandible) – maybe just "the left and right branches" to be clearer and avoid another term explanation? To many explanatory glosses can also make it tedious to read.
Just changed to "the two sides of the mandible". --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 20:00, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The ventral rami of the two scapulae – again, this becomes very technical. Why not use "lower" instead of "ventral"?
I think that these are the actual names of the structures (like "cultriform process"), which is why I didn't change them when I otherwise removed all references to anatomical direction. I can still change it to something like "lower projection" if that would be preferable. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 20:00, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Such combinations (e.g., ventral rami) are usually descriptive in nature and used ad hoc, and not so much defined terms. Not sure about this particular example though. I think a substitute would be fine (maybe just "lower part", to indicate that it is quite a bit of the bone?), but the decision is yours. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:35, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Since "lower projection" doesn't seem to imply that the feature's very big, and "lower part" could also be used to describe the entire underside of the bone, I think that I'll stick with the more technical term here. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 21:22, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 20:00, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support by JJE

edit

Going point-by-point through WIAFA:

  • 1a: Prose seems to be good, although I note that prose is not really my area of expertise. Some technical terms such as chaparral and Callovian need explanation, though.
I've replaced chaparral with Mediterranean climate, as this is likely more understandable and the link goes to the correct place. I'm not really sure how to explain things like Callovian and Oxfordian though, beyond stating that they're geological stages. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 15:32, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In Resolution Guyot I used inline parentheticals. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:30, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've added the approximate time intervals for the stages. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 16:15, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1b: Only thing I am missing is discussions on why it went extinct.
I've elaborated a bit more on this. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 15:32, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1c: Again not my area of expertise, but it seems like the number of sources used relative to those in Google Scholar indicates that research was thorough. Inline cites used thorough, several old sources are used appropriately. No source jumps out as questionable.
  • 1d: Seems to fit.
  • 1e: OK.
  • 1f: The "drop random sentences into Google" test shows no issues.
  • 2a and 2b seem to fit.
  • 2c: Some of the citations have inconsistent identifiers, seems like.
What exactly are inconsistent identifiers? Is this when the links don't all lead to the same place? (Sorry for my lack of knowledge on the finer points of citation style, I tried searching the MOS for this term, but I couldn't find anything). --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 15:32, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 3: There are a lot of images, which are all suitably placed. I don't see any ALT text anywhere. I can't find the licence of File:Peloneustes Holotype Rostrum.svg. I take none of the images is outdated? Sometimes later reconstructions are different from previous ones.
The holotype rostrum image was drawn by myself, following the photographs (and, to a lesser extent, interpretive drawings) in the paper cited in the image description. The line drawing of the whole skeleton is outdated (the uncrushed skull shape wasn't yet known), but it is labeled as "1913 skeletal reconstruction based on the above mount". I'll begin adding alt text. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 15:32, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've added the alt text now. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 15:53, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 4: Seems to fit.

Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:50, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Qualified support here, in the sense that, since I am not an expert on prose or the subject matter, my support here should not be held any legitimate concern about either prose or subject matter raised from here forward. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:08, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Jo-Jo Eumerus I still haven't addressed the issue of the inconsistent identifiers, as far as I know. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 16:34, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Upon checking carefully, it seems like most of the inconsistency is because not all the sources have the same identifiers, or because the bots that add them didn't make a pass yet. I wouldn't consider these critical issues. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:05, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HF

edit

Always had an interest in extinct reptiles, although I wouldn't consider myself to be particularly knowledgeable in this area. I hope to get to this soon; it looks like an interesting read. Hog Farm Talk 03:08, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • "With a total length of 3.5–4 metres (11–13 ft), Peloneustes is not a large pliosaurid." - Would "was" be better than "is" here since the varmint is extinct? I can see a case for either way.
Since this is still true, I prefer to keep "is", using "was" only for things like unknown tissue and behavior. Using "was" here could imply that larger specimens have since been found, that most other pliosaurids were grossly overestimated in size, or that these larger species were removed from Pliosauridae. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 14:02, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Was the catalog number CAMSM J.46913 or CAMSM J.16913? Both are used in the first paragraph of the body
It's the former, I've corrected it in the article --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 14:02, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recommend moving the link for caracoid up to where the term is first used, as its not going to be a familiar term to many.
Corrected placement --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 14:02, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a complete pelvis save for an ischium;" - ischium probably is not a familiar term. It is link as ischia later in the article; recommend moving the link up to here where it is first used
Corrected placement --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 14:02, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I noticed that the sclerotic ring mentioned in the research history isn't found in the description. Should this be included, or was the skeleton with the sclerotic ring one of the ones later reclassified?
Added a sentence. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 14:02, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The following cladogram follows Fischer and colleagues, 2017" - who is Fischer?
Added first name. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 14:02, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • What makes the Oceans of Kansas page a high-quality RS? It appears to be self-published by Ben Creisler and is marked as "under construction" yet
Oceans of Kansas is the website of paleontologist Mike Everhart, who has published a great deal on plesiosaurs. Ben Creisler is well-known for his work on the etymology of scientific names. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 14:02, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Perssons, P. O. "A revision of the classification of the Plesiosauria with a synopsis of the stratigraphical and geographical distribution of the group" (PDF). Lunds Universitets Arsskrift. 59 (1): 1–59." needs the publishing date
Added, not sure how I missed that. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 14:02, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not seeing where "Temporal range: 166.1–163.5 Ma" in the infobox is supported in the article
Hmm, that was there when I started expanding the article, so I'm not entirely sure where it comes from myself. This time span represents the whole Callovian, but the sources cited in the article state that Peloneustes only lived during either the middle Callovian or the late early to early late Callovian, neither of which seem to have any official dates attached to them. I'm not sure what to do here, perhaps just state "Callovian" in the taxobox and cite this with the ICS source (currently ref 45)? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 14:02, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that Callovian (or maybe "Middle Callovian" if that's the strongest sourcing) would be the best thing to do here. Hog Farm Talk 14:31, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think that just "Callovian" is actually used the most for the Peterborough Member, so I've kept it at that in the updated taxobox. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 19:29, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looks okay to the best of my knowledge besides the points above. Hog Farm Talk 03:08, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support on WP:FACR #1a, source reliability, 1d, 1e, 2a, 2b, 2c, and 4; did not check or not confident assessing others. Hog Farm Talk 20:30, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass

edit

Will also attempt to conduct one of these. Hog Farm Talk 14:31, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Add the accessdate for Creisler
I just added today's date (the cited information's still there). --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 21:06, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Add the parameter indicating the language for non-English sources (Jaccard 1907, Linder 1913)
Done. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 21:06, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Philips 1971 needs page numbers
Added. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 21:12, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • McHenry 2009 seems to be almost 500 pages long; it'll need exact page numbers
Added. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 23:44, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Noe 2001 may need page numbers; how long is the thesis?
Well over 300 pages, so I think that it does. It may take some time to track down the page numbers for everything, especially for the heavily cited publications. I'll try to get this done over the next few days. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 21:06, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Added. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 23:56, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Martill 1991 is an entire book chapter; can we at least get a page range for the chapter?
Added. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 17:39, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Andrews 1910 needs page numbers; again looks like it may be an entire book
Added for both volumes. I believe that I've finished adding page numbers to everything needing them. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 17:39, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Will do a handful of spot checks and will post results at Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Peloneustes/archive1. Hog Farm Talk 20:41, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 25 June 2021 [17].

Battle of Saint-Malo

edit
Nominator(s): Nick-D (talk) 04:35, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article covers a large but little-remembered battle between the US Army, with the support of French and British forces, and the German Army in France during August and September 1944. Allied forces assaulted the heavily defended resort town of Saint-Malo in the hope of capturing its port and eliminating the German garrison. This led to what the war correspondent Lee Miller described as "fortress warfare reminiscent of crusader times". The Allies eventually prevailed, but as the Germans had completely demolished the port little was achieved by the victory. The battle is perhaps most known today as the subject of the final chapters of the award winning novel All the Light We Cannot See.

I first became aware of this battle and its unusual nature after seeing an exhibition of Miller's photographs at the Imperial War Museums in London during 2015. I created this article last year after belatedly realising that we didn't have an article on it. It was assessed as a GA in March 2021 and passed a Military History Wikiproject A-class review in April. The article has since been further expanded any copy edited, and I am hopeful that the FA criteria are now met. To pre-empt a possible comment, the article relies heavily on the US Army official history as every other source I have been able to find is also obviously based on this work; there doesn't seem to have been any subsequent significant original research into the topic. Given this, I favoured going to the horse's mouth, rather than using works which re-hashed it. I have drawn on a large range of other works, including more recent works, to round out the story wherever possible. Thank you in advance for your time and comments. Nick-D (talk) 04:35, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

edit

Interesting. Last year I was looking to write an article or three on some of the US Army's pre-breakout battles in the Cotentin. But I really struggled to find much in the way of sources. (I ended up writing a couple of articles on the Battle of Crete.) So I look forward to seeing how you have addressed a similar problem. A full review to follow.

Gog the Mild (talk) 11:59, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • "The Allies sought to capture the town so that its port could be used to land supplies ... it was decided to capture rather than contain Saint-Malo in order to secure its port ..." This seems like a duplication.
  • "the Oberkommando der Wehrmacht". This being the English Wikipedia, why are we communicating in a language very few readers will understand?
    Some German terms are better known to English readers in that language. OKW is one of them. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:23, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and the other French ports with prewar fortifications as fortresses" Suggest deleting "the".
  • "gained a reputation for war crimes." Insert 'committing'.
  • "any partisans taken as prisoner". I am not sure about "as".
  • "after it managed to breakout from Normandy." It may just be me, but this looks a bit clunky. Perhaps "after it broke out from Normandy."?
  • "a collapse in the German positions." Optional: → 'a collapse of the German position'.
  • "led to a change in plans." Whose?
  • "On 3 August Bradley suggested to Patton". Suggested or ordered?
    • I've added material clarifying the changes in plans here. They're a bit hard to follow, as the senior American generals were changing their plans very frequently at this time due to the unexpected German collapse Patton and some of his divisional commanders pushing back against (and occasionally ignoring) orders they didn't agree with. Nick-D (talk) 10:29, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the resistance in Brittany was activated on 2 August". You explained earlier that it had always been active?
    • I've clarified this - they were directed to start a general attack, while avoiding "open warfare". It seems that the resistance exceeded their instructions though! Nick-D (talk) 10:42, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "of these areas and their transport infrastructure". Suggest "their" → 'of the'.
  • "This fort had originally been designed by the great engineer Sébastien Le Prestre de Vauban." Is it known when?
  • "Pointe de la Varde (fr)". Is there meant to be a link here?
  • "were mutually supporting". Perhaps a brief in line explanation of this concept.
You have rephrased to avoid "mutually supporting", which you have done well and is fine, but you use it twice more in the article. You either need to rephrase both of these or actually define it somewhere.
Tweaked. Writing this article has illustrated that our coverage of siege/positional warfare isn't great, as it should be possible to link these terms. Nick-D (talk) 23:14, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I frequently think that we could do with a glossary of military terms, similar to the naval or cricket ones. A project for MilHist? Gog the Mild (talk) 10:28, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A key deficiency was that few artillery guns were emplaced." Does this mean that there were too few artillery guns, or that there were sufficient, but that they were not emplaced? And what does "emplaced" mean?
You have removed this mention of "emplaced", but have used it twice more ...
Tweaked Nick-D (talk) 23:14, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "assault guns"> An explanation of what these might be for non-aficionados?
If it were easy, they wouldn't need us.
  • "Despite Patton's intention to avoid siege operations, Middleton believed that the German force at Saint-Malo was too strong to be safely bypassed, as it could potentially attack the supply lines supporting the forces advancing into Brittany." I don't understand the first part of this. It reads to me as if both commanders wished to avoid sieges.
    • I think that the changes earlier in the article should make this clearer, and have tweaked the wording here as well. Middleton was much more cautious than Patton, and had a better feel for the area. Nick-D (talk) 00:42, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should the dates not be given in US format?
    They are in US military format. See WP:MILFORMAT. True story: visiting one of the antebellum homes in Louisiana, I signed the visitors' book using a military format date. My two US Army buddies signed it the same way. Then a bus load of American seniors arrived and complained bitterly about having to use the US military format - the idea of not doing so did not occur to them. (Later we got into trouble for locating the slave quarters out the back - not part of the tour apparently.) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:12, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep, this is the format used in the US Army official history, for instance. Nick-D (talk) 00:42, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I knew that, I had a brain fart!
  • "To transport the troops, 15 US Navy landing craft, vehicle, personnel were moved by truck"> Something has gone awry with the grammar here.
    • This was the awkward name of the things. Despite their central role in the Allied war effort, the grammar for amphibious craft was awful (eg, pretty much everything hinged off the awkwardly-named Landing Ship, Tanks). The abbreviations are often used, but I'm not sure if that's an improvement in this context. Nick-D (talk) 00:42, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There is no requirement that we use the contemporary military nomenclature - imagine if I did so with my Medieval articles. How about "US Navy landing craft, vehicle, personnel" → 'US Navy infantry landing craft' or similar/
Tweaked to 'LCVP landing craft', which seems to be the common name and should be clearer (with the link). Nick-D (talk) 11:03, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent work. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:31, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • What qualifies Bardham to be described as an "historian"? And why is "To the last man" a reliable source? Gog the Mild (talk) 00:45, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • It was published by Frontline books, which is an imprint of Pen & Sword, a reputable publisher of military history works (I think they have a few other imprints). Googling him shows that he authored a couple of other works on related aspects of the war, including Hitler's U-Boat Fortresses which was published by one of the scholarly publisher Rowman & Littlefield's vast stable of imprints. It doesn't look like he was a qualified historian, but a couple of obits noted that he wrote about the war [18] [19]. Nick-D (talk) 01:00, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I am convinced. I have and have read the same volume and it is indescribably poor. As you only cite it twice and for non-controversial points I shall be Nelsonian.
Hmm, OK. I've been relying on the Google Books previews, which are pretty good for this battle. As you note, the two points I've used it as a citation for aren't controversial - Bradham simply states a conclusion about the nature of the German resistance that pretty much every other author describes (Blumenson for instance highlights all the instances the German commanders made histrionic statements and fought on in the face of obvious defeat, and almost every author notes that Aulock was nicknamed the 'mad colonel' for these behaviours. A range of sources also note how badly Aulock treated the civilian population during the battle and turned down opportunities to avoid the destruction of the town). Nick-D (talk) 23:14, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Even better after the changes in response to the various reviewers comments. A handful of come backs from me above. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:38, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for these further comments. Nick-D (talk) 23:14, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
However, the following week, the Allies refused to allow the evacuation of the civilian population from Le Havre, and over 2,000 of them were killed by air and naval bombardment. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:43, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, and as I understand it a lot died in the bombing of that town shortly after D-Day as well. Nick-D (talk) 05:50, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hawkeye7

edit

@Gog the Mild: Zawed would have been my first port of call for an article on Crete. As Nick pointed out, there hasn't been a lot of American interest in the campaigns in North West Europe, except for the Battle of the Bulge. However the Brits and Canadians have done a lot of work lately, and I have a pile of material on the campaign in southern France. Let me know if you're interested in working on some of them.

Oh yeah. I reviewed this article at A-Class and Support it here. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:50, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for this. Yes, there's lots of opportunities to develop articles on the campaign in North West Europe. Our coverage of the fighting in 1945 is especially bad. Nick-D (talk) 07:55, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nick-D, I have for a while been toying with writing an article on the Battle of La Haye-du-Puits. Might you be interested in a collaboration?
I would be willing to help you with it. Looks like we don't have an article in English, although there is one in French (fr:Bataille de La Haye-du-Puits) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:17, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hawkeye7, re Crete: possibly, but I have pushed two battles through to FA anyway. I seem to have run out of steam a bit on these. Zawed, you reviewed them both, would you be interested in a collaboration on the Battle of Prison Valley?
Gog the Mild (talk) 21:53, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Gog the Mild, would be good to work with you on a collaboration. I have a few print sources in relation to the NZers on Crete that will be useful. Zawed (talk) 10:32, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Ceoil

edit

Comments by Sturmvogel_66

edit

Just some drive by comments on stuff that I noticed while doing the source review

  • Burt's book British Battleships 1919–1945 specifically states that Malaya bombarded the islands off St. Malo on 1 September. Lemme know if you want fuller bibliographic info.
    • Thanks, but I don't think that's necessary: in the note here I'm using some illustrations from the main works on the topic rather than noting what every source says. It seems most likely that the ship was HMS Malaya given the BBC record, though Warspite was also operating in the area at the time (she shelled Brest). The British official histories don't mention this action unfortunately, as they would be the best source here - I suspect that this is what has led to the confusion in the sources. Nick-D (talk) 11:13, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The German garrison names are misspelled. Should be Küstenverteidigungsgruppe Rance, etc.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:24, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

edit
  • Cites consistently formatted.
  • Some British publications have United Kingdom as part of the location, others don't. Standardize these. Otherwise consistently formatted
    • My understanding is that the convention is that highly specific locations only need to be added for cities which aren't well-known publishing centres (e.g., no need to refer to 'New York City, United States' or 'London, United Kingdom' as everyone will know what's being referred to). The UK locations where I've included 'UK' are those which are a bit obscure - Barnsley, Abingdon-on-Thames, etc (ditto Annapolis, Maryland, etc). Oxford and London are well-known. Nick-D (talk) 11:08, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Randal needs an ISSN
  • Spotchecks on ISBNs and ISSNs proved out
  • Sources are highly reliable
  • Prose spotchecks not done--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:24, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment (not to step on Sturm's toes here, but it occurred to me when I looked over the article) - are we concerned about the age of a few of the sources, most notably Blumenson, since the article relies on it heavily? The source obviously predates the public release of Ultra - have you looked into more recent publications to see whether Enigma decrypts played a role in the operation? I'd assume it was a factor in Allied planning, for instance. Parsecboy (talk) 13:03, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing on Ultra's role in this battle in Zaloga's recent work, and he usually comments on this form of intelligence in his works on World War II. The relevant volume of British intelligence in the second world war notes that intelligence on German naval operations from Saint-Malo before D-Day that was sourced from Ultra and that the Allies were tracking the 77th Infantry Division as it moved between Normandy and Saint-Malo, but doesn't cover this battle in any detail. This Masters thesis has a few interesting snippets, but as a masters thesis isn't a RS (though its author recently retired as a Lieutenant General!). The other recent works consulted don't mention Ultra. My understanding is that the value of Ultra at this time was mixed, as German Army units in France used landlines for communications wherever possible. The fact that the Americans greatly under-estimated the size of the garrison at Saint-Malo and blundered into a bigger battle than they expected indicates that Ultra wasn't much use to them in this battle. I've added some extra material to flesh the intelligence picture facing the Allies out. Nick-D (talk) 11:17, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Jim

edit

Not my area at all, and it's been picked over by reviewers who know what they are doing, but an interesting and comprehensive read. A few comments to show I've read it, please ignore if I'm showing my ignorance of milhist guidelines. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:58, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Saint-Malo was once an island, but had been joined to the mainland by the time of World War II. — joined how? bridges or infill/reclamatin?
  • Kriegsmarine (German Navy). Luftwaffe (German air force) — why aren't these piped as eg German Navy rather than using both the English and German names?
    • The German names are the current common names for these armed forces in English language works. I would personally prefer to refer to them as 'German Navy' and 'German Air Force', but modern usage is against me. Nick-D (talk) 10:48, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The German forces managed to block the Allies from breaking out into France for almost two months— given that they are already in France, this needs tweaking a bit
  • You convert US units to metric, eg 2 miles (3.2 km). Given that we are in France, which uses metric units, shouldn't the local unit come first?
    • I did this as the article is written in US English, and is focused on the activities of US military units. I think that this is in line with the guidance at MOS:UNIT ('In non-scientific articles with strong ties to the United States, the primary units are US customary'). Thanks a lot for this review. Nick-D (talk) 10:48, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 25 June 2021 [21].

William Lyon Mackenzie

edit
Nominator(s): Z1720 (talk) 16:54, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Journalist. Politician. Rebellion Leader. William Lyon Mackenzie held many roles and got into a lot of trouble. He tried to reform the Upper Canada political system (what is now known as Ontario, Canada) and became Toronto's first mayor. He led the Upper Canada Rebellion, went a little crazy, and fled to the United States when government forces defeated the rebels. He organised an invasion of Upper Canada with American volunteers but was arrested by the American government and pardoned by President Van Buren. Upon his return to Canada, he became a politician and ranted against government proposals.

There are too many people to thank for their comments, both informally and in the PRs and GAN, so I will post a note on their talk page. I hope you enjoy reviewing this important biography in Canadian history as much as I enjoyed researching it. Z1720 (talk) 16:54, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Peer review/William Lyon Mackenzie/archive2. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:20, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Watchlisting with an eye towards supporting; please ping me when independent reviewers have been through. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:20, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/William Lyon Mackenzie/archive1#SandyGeorgia SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:33, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Image review—pass

Support by Lee Vilenski

edit

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

Lede
Prose
Additional comments

Additionally, if you liked this review, or are looking for items to review, I have some at my nominations list. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:45, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HF

edit

I've got this weekend off work, so I'll try to review this over the next couple days. Might claim for 5 points in the WikiCup. Hog Farm Talk 23:30, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • "In 1834, York became the city of Toronto and Mackenzie was elected by the city council to be its first mayor, but he was not reelected the following year." - This makes it sound a bit like he lost election, when he really wasn't actively running. Rephrase?
    • What about, "He declined the Reformer's nomination to run in the 1835 municipal election."
      • That would work wonderfully.
        • Done
  • ". He is the most recognizable Reformer of the early-1800s." - Not sure that the hyphen is needed
    • Removed
  • What the Family Compact was is explained in the lead, but not really in the body.
    • Removed pre-1833 references to the Family Compact, explained who they were when they were named by Mackenzie in Sketches of Upper Canada in 1833.
  • Second paragraph of Election to the Legislative Assembly, four of five sentences all start with "He". Can this be varied some?
  • "with each new constituency (also known as a riding) " - Piped link Riding (division)#Canada?
    • Done
  • "Van Rensselaer, Mackenzie and 24 supporters occupied Navy Island on December 14" - Link Navy Island
    • Done
  • "Durham sent an agent to interview Mackenzie, who reported that Mackenzie's grievance was with the composition of the Legislative Council vague references "to lift the hand of tyranny from the soil" - Something seems off here grammatically to me. Missing a word?
  • "calling the legislature illegitimate after the Governor-General reinstated the Mackenzie-Cartier Administration without an election" - Is this an error for Macdonald-Cartier?
    • Not sure what you mean. Z1720 (talk) 18:25, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think it should be "Macdonald-Cartier Administration" based on context, rather than "Mackenzie-Cartier Administration". Is this correct?
        • You are correct. Fixed.
  • "He is the most recognizable Reformer of the early-1800s." - From the lead - I didn't see this explicitly stated in the body
    • From "Historical reputation" section: "Historian Albert Schrauwers described Mackenzie as the "best-known reformer" of the early 1800s." Lee stated above that the meaning was unclear, so I changed "best-known" to "most recognizable" in the lede. Should I also change the wording in the body and remove the quotation marks? Z1720 (talk) 18:25, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, it's fine as is. Just me not seeing something.

Good work. Hog Farm Talk 15:22, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

edit

Spotchecks not done. Version reviewed.

  • Some of the details in the lead don't appear to be cited anywhere - for example, that the post-pardon papers failed due to lack of subscribers
  • Similarly some of the details in the infobox don't appear to be cited anywhere - for example, the role of Alexander Macdonell
  • Explanatory notes should generally be in a different section to references
    • Done
  • FN262: if you're going to cite the updated version, this should also credit the author who did the update
    • Added
  • FN263: page? Ditto FN265, check for others
  • How are you ordering multiple works by the same author in Works cited?
  • Archive link for Armstrong 1971 is non-functional
  • Was the print version of DCB the one consulted, or the online version?
    • Although I used the online version originally, Johannes Schade said I should reference the print version instead. During the changeover, I verified the information (as I had to find the page numbers) and the information is now cited to the book. Z1720 (talk) 02:33, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Volume statements generally shouldn't be part of the title
  • Be consistent in whether you include locations for books
    • Done
  • Hamil is missing publisher
    • Fixed
  • What makes Hoar a high-quality reliable source?
  • Dundurn Press or just Dundurn? Check for consistency. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:39, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments Nikkimaria. I have commented above. Z1720 (talk) 02:33, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support by GP!

edit
  • Support: As the GA reviewer for this article a few months ago, I have watched its steady improvement over the past several weeks and have deliberately refrained from commenting here until some other uninvolved editors had a chance to look. Their reviews in tow, I am confident that my own impression has been confirmed, which is that this article is incisive, well-written, well-referenced, comprehensive, neutral, and interesting, representing the very best of what Wikipedia has to offer. As such, I am delighted to offer my support to this FA nomination (based on assessment of criteria 1, 2, and 4 ... I have not independently examined images). Go Phightins! 22:25, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Tkbrett

edit
Lede
  • "He published his first newspaper in 1824 called Colonial Advocate": this reads a little awkwardly. You use "the" before Colonial Advocate throughout the article, so I presume "He published his first newspaper, the Colonial Advocate, in 1824" would be fine.
Done
  • "In 1834, York became the city of Toronto and Mackenzie was elected by the city council to be its first mayor" can be made active as "... and the city council elected Mackenzie its first mayor."
Done
Prose
  • "Dundee Advertiser" -> "Dundee Advertiser newspaper".
Kilbourn doesn't specify if the Advertiser is a newspaper, so I added Sewell as a reference to verify the info. Z1720 (talk) 01:49, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 1811 he was a...": comma needed after 1811.
Done
  • "His congregation agreed to baptise James after a fine of thirteen shillings and fourpence was paid to the church and Mackenzie endured public criticism for fathering an illegitimate child.": passive voicing can be made active as "... after Mackenzie paid a fine of..."
I tried flipping the sentence but it felt like it was dragging and long because Mackenzie's punishment is a large part of the sentence. Suggestions?
In the source, is it saying that the church agreed to baptise Mackenzie's son only after he paid the fine and endured public criticism? Or did the church only require the fine and the public criticism is a separate thought? If it's the latter, I think the sentence can be split. Perhaps: "Mackenzie endured public criticism for fathering an illegitimate child. His congregation agreed to baptise James only after he paid a fine of thirteen shillings and fourpence to the church." If it's the former, then I think it should be flipped to make it clearer that these two punishments were joined: "His congregation agreed to baptise James after Mackenzie endured public criticism for fathering an illegitimate child and paid a fine of thirteen shillings and fourpence to the church." Tkbrett (✉) 11:48, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The source says he had to do both before James could be baptised. I used your second sentence. Z1720 (talk) 13:25, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Inflation equivalencies across the article use a lot more significant figures than I think are necessary. For example: "£625 (equivalent to £52,521 in 2016)". Rounding it to 53,000 would be preferable. Others include: "£250 (equivalent to £24,272 in 2016)", "£1,000 (equivalent to £94,340 in 2016)", "$5,000 (equivalent to $120,547 in 2019)", "$12,000 (equivalent to $321,766 in 2019)".
These are calculated using a template so that the numbers are updated when the template is updated. I'm not sure how to round the money. Z1720 (talk) 01:49, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Inflation provides some info on this under rounding where it mentions to avoid excessive precision. If we add r=-3 to the template this will eliminate the precision of the last three digits. For example: £625 ({{Inflation|UK-GDP|start_year=1826|value=625|fmt=eq|r=-3|cursign=£}}) → £625 (equivalent to £67,000 in 2023). Tkbrett (✉) 11:48, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the info! I rounded all the numbers except the $10 fine (with inflation $241). Z1720 (talk) 13:25, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lieutenant governor is spelled differently across the article, whether with or without a hyphen and either capitalized or not, including: "Lieutenant-Governor Peregrine Maitland", "advisory committee to the lieutenant governor of Upper Canada", "Upper Canada Lieutenant Governor John Colborne", "new lieutenant-governor Francis Bond Head", "the authoritarian power of the lieutenant-governor." Presumably this should be standardized, unless I'm missing something.
You are right, it should be standardised. Sources don't agree on the spelling, but since its spelt "lieutenant governors" in the Wikipedia article, that is what I have used and I changed the article accordingly. Z1720 (talk) 01:49, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done
  • "on December 14 and Mackenzie proclaimed the State of Upper Canada on the island": I believe State of Upper Canada can be piped to Republic of Canada.
Done
Done
Done
  • "Mackenzie proposed abolishing of the Court of Chancery, ..." -> "Mackenzie proposed abolishing the Court of Chancery, ..."
Good catch. Done
  • "and he was removed from the committee by the Parliament in retaliation" can be made active as "and the Parliament removed him from the committee in retaliation."
Done
Additional comments
  • copyvio score is a good 33% (Violation Unlikely).
  • This is my first ever time commenting on a FAC, but it seemed like a good place to start given my love of newspapers and Canadian history. This page is superb. Once the above are addressed I'll be happy to support. Tkbrett (✉) 01:08, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you enjoyed reading and reviewing the article. Comments above (and one question) Z1720 (talk) 01:49, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed both the baptism sentence and the inflation. Z1720 (talk) 13:25, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for all your hard work on this incredibly important Canadian history page. It's a great read! Proud to offer my support. Tkbrett (✉) 13:47, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Ceoil

edit
  • pursued the policy proposals - ppp. Also what does presued here mean...supported or enforced
  • He was successful in criticising government officials .. what does "successful in criticising" actually mean. Criticising takes no effort.
  • Changed to "He was a popular politician because of his criticism of government officials"
  • provoked an armed conflict - "rose in"....otherwise its is as if the fooled their buddies into doing so
  • He was elected to the Legislative Assembly of Upper Canada where he investigated government corruption - add the year
  • Done
  • an unsuccessful invasion of Upper Canada in the Patriot War - during the patriot war, or in what became known as
  • I couldn't find a source that said "This is when it was first referred to as the Patriot War." Historians refer to these events as the Patriot War, and I found a source where Van Buren refers to the events as the Patriot War in 1839. I'm comfortable with keeping it as-is. Z1720 (talk) 01:59, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think I misread your first comment in this section; I thought you were asking if the war was referred to as the "Patriot War" while the war was ongoing. Mackenzie was an element in recruiting for the Patriot War, as outlined by Gates [25]. I changed the wording slightly to remove the implication that he initiated the Patriot War. Z1720 (talk) 02:31, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • struggled to implement - is "struggled" a nice word for "failed"
  • Lets go so with "majority failed"
  • organised American support to invade Upper Canada and overthrow the Upper Canadian government ...overthrow it's government?. also rallied is better than organised
  • Added.
  • Thanks
Comments above. Z1720 (talk) 01:59, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging Ceoil in case they did not see my last comment. Let me know if there are other concerns. Thanks! Z1720 (talk) 14:58, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ceoil, last chance... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:24, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
no need to hold up on my behalf: looks good now from a scan, would be unlikely to oppose. Ceoil (talk) 10:09, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from TRM

edit
  • Upper Canada Rebellion overlinked in the lead alone.
  • Link Upper Canada on its first use.
    • Done
  • "He is the most recognizable Reformer of the early 1800s." bold claim, according to whom? And I guess you mean specifically an "Upper Canada Reformer"?
  • "Canada in 1820" comma after Canada.
    • Done
  • Link Toronto.
  • "first mayor" first should be part of the pipe.
    • Done
  • It's like the lead has a lead, the first para of the lead is a synopsis of the next two...!
    • I agree. The lede struggled with explaining why Mackenzie was notable, but I think I added too much detail to the first paragraph. I tried trimming it, but suggestions are welcome. Z1720 (talk) 14:05, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "for over ten months" more than.
    • Done
  • "State of New York" is that a formal name? Our article allows for "New York State" but not "State of New York" thus capitalised.
  • "was a weaver" also a weaver (on the second usage).
    • Done
  • "public dance, Daniel became sick" I assume there's some intended causality here, any explanation at all as to what this is all about? Severe hangover...
  • "after his son" make it clear this is William you're talking about, I'm not certain at this point if he had any siblings etc.
    • Replaced "his son" with "William"
  • "independently.[9] She instructed" merge, "independently and instructed"
    • Done
  • Isn't the Dundee Advertiser the The Courier (Dundee)?
    • After looking at The Courier article, I think you are right. Wikilinked.
  • "to his son" isn't it "their" son?
    • Done
  • "baptise" v "summarize" I assume this is okay in Canadian English?
  • "thirteen shillings and fourpence" link this to an appropriate LSD article and also consider inflating so we get an idea what that actually means these days.
  • Link Montreal on its first use.
    • Done
  • "son James joined" did he have any other sons? If not, we already know his name from previous section.
  • No further mention of Isabel Reid, did she just disappear from the scene?
    • Pretty much. Most biographers don't mention her, Biographi says "Nothing is known of the mother, Isabel Reid,"
  • "His mother invited..." James' mother or William's mother? Last "He" was James.

That takes me to "The Colonial Advocate..." section. More to come. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 09:29, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments above, and a question. Thanks for your review! Z1720 (talk) 14:05, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "press to create the" create->publish.
  • organised - is that Canadian Eng?
  • he wrote -> he had written.
    • I assume this is at "inscription he had written". Changed
  • "the paper had the highest circulation among York newspapers" paper .. newspapers, repetitive. Perhaps replace the first one with the name of it again.
    • Done
  • "In 1826, a ... " Mackenzie is mentioned three times in one sentence...
    • Rephrased
  • "nearby bay" put nearby in the pipe.
    • Done
  • ""two representatives" is that the same as Member of Parliament (Canada)?
    • No. Parliament of Canada doesn't exist yet (Province of Canada is created in 1841, Canadian Confederation happens in 1867). There's a lengthy discussion about this on the FAC talk page, but basically none of the sources described the official title of legislators in the Parliament of Upper Canada, (it could be MLA, MP, MPP, or something else) so I only used general job titles like "representative" and "legislator".
  • "evaluated... evaluated" repetitive.

Changed the first "evaluated" to "assessed"

  • Church of England - could link.
    • Done
  • Link Quebec City.
    • Done
  • "with Reform leaders" vs "the reform leaders"
    • Fixed
  • Link Colonial Office.
    • Done
  • criticised - should that be criticized?
  • Link Tory.
  • "while James FitzGibbon" context, who's that?
  • "submit grievances" -> "submit the grievances" (you've already mentioned them)
    • Done
  • the Legislature or the legislature?
  • "Lord Stanley" no article?
    • Found him, done.
  • ""the Legislature would not let him participate in the legislature" clunky. And L/l again.
    • reworded.

That takes me to "Upper Canada politics", more to come. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 19:45, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • ""city council. ... Toronto city council" repetitive.
    • Changed "Toronto city council" to "the council"
  • "the highest amount among all candidates" amount is not required.
    • Removed amount.
  • Could link mayor appropriately here (as you have in the lead).
    • Done
  • Link Ticket (election).
    • Done
  • "with each new constituency" avoid repeat, maybe 'each new sub-division'?
  • "Grievances.[85] The committee interrogated" merge to avoid repeat of "committee".
    • Done
  • Anglican church - we'd normally capitalised Church in this usage.
    • Done
  • "with the reform movement.[91] " Reform or reform? There are a few of these throughout.
    • Yeah, this has been discussed before. If it's the political party, it's Reform, if it's the political ideology, political movement, or it's the verb, it's lowercase. This creates a lot of grey zone. I ctr f'ed this and I think I changed all instances to the correct capitalisation. Z1720 (talk) 20:33, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the Constitution on July 4, 1836. The Constitution accused" repetitive.
    • Done
  • "meeting with reformers dubbed" Reformers?
    • Yep, done.
  • "He spent the summer..." who? Mackenzie or Bond Head?
    • Changed to Mackenzie
  • "the Patriotes asking Mackenzie to" asking him.
    • Done
  • "other reform leaders" Reform?
    • Done
  • "sent a warning to Mackenzie about" -> "sent him a warning about"
    • Done
  • "Lount instead. Lount responded" -> "Lount instead who responded"
    • Done
  • "the leader of the rebellion, Anthony Anderson" previous text said he was one of the two leaders?
    • Removed
  • "sympathised" is that Canadian Eng?
    • Fixed
  • Link British Empire.
    • Done
  • "invasion of a country that the US government had not declared war against" -> "invasion of a country against which the US government had not declared war"
    • Done
  • ""in the Caroline affair and the" overlinked.
    • Removed second wikilink
  • "witnesses giving" to give.
    • Done
  • ""Mackenzie was denied permission"" He was...
    • Done
  • "so John Montgomery arranged" context, who is he?
    • Added a blurb on who Montgomery is.
  • "editor. Mackenzie became" He became.
    • Done
  • "July 1844, he was" Mackenzie. Try to mix it up a little, previous para has "Mackenzie" for two consecutive sentences and then "he" for the next four...
  • Some "equivalent" values are dated to 2016, some to 2019, why the difference?
  • "the New York Tribune" New-York.
    • Done
  • "the Tribune until" italics.
    • Done

That's up to "Return to Canada". More to come. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 08:48, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for your excellent comments! Responses above. I look forward to more later. Z1720 (talk) 20:33, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "to investigate the causes of the rebellion" -> "to investigate its causes".
    • Done
  • "Mackenzie for the report. Mackenzie told"" -> "Mackenzie for the report who told"
    • done
  • "and he wanted" and that he wanted
    • I'm going to disagree. The source states that these were two separate grievances, and this change would link them in a way that is not verified. The quote from the source (Gates 73): "From him I could extract no reference to any specific grievance beyond the composition of the Legislative Council and the vague statement that they wanted "to lift the hand of tyranny from the soil"" Z1720 (talk) 21:45, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the Baldwin-Lafontaine" Baldwin is overlinked and I think that hyphen should probably be an en-dash.
    • Changed to an en-dash. Removed Baldwin's wikilink
  • "first responsible government" what does that mean?
  • "including a movement for an " including one for...
    • Done
  • "Greely" our article has him at Greeley.
    • Fixed
  • (Link Whig earlier wherever it appears first).
  • "H.N. Case," two things here, I would {{nowrap}} it and would space out H. N.
    • Done
  • "denounced the court's practice" denounced its practice
    • Done
  • "from Baldwin's colleagues for his project caused Baldwin"" caused him.
    • Done
  • "the MacNab-Morin coalition" again I think that should be an en-dash.
    • Done
  • "Accounts and its reports" is it more like "while"?
    • Done, I think while is an improvement.
  • "and Parliament removed" what's the strategy on capitalisation of P/parliament outside its fully formal title?
  • ""with the Clear Grits of George Brown" what are those? Explanation needed.
  • Is re-election hyphenated or not?
  • "the Macdonald-Cartier Administration" en-dash and why is admin capitalised?
    • En-dash placed, admin no longer capitalised.
  • "Brown-Dorion Administration" ditto.
    • Done
  • "Macdonald-Cartier Administration" etc.
    • Done
  • "a half-mile and"" maybe "half a mile (0.8 km)".
    • Done

That takes me to "Writing style", not far to go! The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 18:27, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • "and used too many footnotes" in her opinion.
    • Added
  • "described ... described..." repetitive.
    • Changed some of these.
  • "invented quotations he would misattribute" -> "invented misattributed quotations"
    • Done
  • "issues he advocated for " issues for which he advocated.
    • Done
  • "constantly ... constantly" repetitive.
    • Changed one to frequently
  • (Horace Greeley is now overlinked).
    • Done
  • Link Whig first time.
  • "John Charles Dent said" who's he?
    • Added text to explain who he is.
  • "John Sewell said"" similar.
    • Added text to explain who he is
  • Our article capitalises Social Gospel.
    • Done
  • criticised - CanEng?
    • Done
  • proselytise - likewise?
    • Done
  • "George Brown wrote" who he?
    • He was introduced as a political opponent of Mackenzie in "Return to the Legislature".
  • "John King called " same
    • He was introduced in the "Political philosophy" section as Mackenzie's son-in-law
  • "the Lower Canada Rebellion, Louis" overlinked.
    • Removed Lower Canada Rebellion link, this is the first time Papineau is mentioned so I think it's appropriate to link.

That's it! The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 12:30, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: Sorry for my delayed response: real life has been busy. Comments above. Also, some of my responses have questions that might need a follow-up. Thanks again for your review! Z1720 (talk) 20:29, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is in a really good condition, good work. I responded above but nothing now to prevent my support. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:44, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 25 June 2021 [26].

1987 World Snooker Championship

edit
Nominator(s): Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:00, 10 April 2021 (UTC) and BennyOnTheLoose[reply]

This article is about the 1987 World Snooker Championship. After losing in the final of both of the previous two tournaments, Steve Davis finally won his fourth title. This event was bookened by Joe Johnson who won the previous year having barely won a match all season, but still making the final. It also marked the final appearance of six-time champion Ray Reardon.

Benny and I have done quite a bit of work on this, and have promoted all of the previous three events (plus some newer ones). Please let us know what you think. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:00, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

HF

edit

I see this hasn't gotten much attention, so I'll give it a read-through. Might claim for 5 points in the WikiCup. Hog Farm Talk 00:16, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Featuring 32 participants; the highest ranked 16 players were awarded a place in the first round draw, whilst a pre-tournament qualification event was held for 104 professionals between 26 March to 4 April at the Preston Guild Hall for the remaining places" - Are you sure that should be a semicolon?
  • " Stephen Hendry, aged 18 became the youngest player to win a match in the tournament's history," - I believe there should be a comma after 18, as "aged 18" is an appositive
  • "The championship was held from 18 April and 4 May 1987" - Maybe this is an engvar issue, but giving a date span with "and" just does not seem right to me.
  • So maybe I'm missing something really obvious, but I did my math in Excel, and I'm still not getting things to add up right. So the winner gets $80,000, second place gets $48,000; two people get $24,000; four people get $12,000; eight get $6,000; and 16 get $3375; in addition, $8,000 for highest break and $80,000 if you pull off a maximum break. It's adding up to 414,000 for me. (Yes, I know it's pounds, but my keyboard doesn't have a key for the pounds sign).
  • It looks like the total from sources included the amount for third and fourth qualifying round losers, but excluded the £80,000 that would have been awarded for a maximum break. I've added a source that includes the qualifying amounts. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:12, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move the link to deciding frame from the second mention to the first.
  • "Stephen Hendry was the youngest player to date to win a match at the event." this caption and the lead both suggest that Hendry's win was the youngest ever in tournament history (back to 1927), while the body text for this suggests that Hendry's was only the youngest since the move to the Crucible Theater as the arena
  • Is there a link for foul shots? It's not obvious to someone unfamiliar with snooker what a foul shot would be in this sport, as presumeably these aren't like free throws.
  • Downer needs a publisher.
  • I did some digging around, and do agree with you that this is probably an acceptable source. It seems to be widely cited.

Support Comments by Z1720

edit

Please consider this a non-expert review.

  • "Johnson, however, reached the final, in a rematch of the previous year's final, he played Steve Davis in the final." Very awkward sentence, with "final" used three times and too many commas.
  • "Stephen Hendry, aged 18 became the" comma after 18
  • Prize fund: as a non-snooker player, I understand who gets the money in most of the categories. However, I don't understand what Highest break and maximum break refers to. Perhaps a note or an explanation under the prize fund section is in order.
    • Sure, we do link to these though in the table. (I.E Highest break and maximum break. Perhaps we should have something on the maximum break that clarifies that it's a bonus if someone did make a maximum, rather than a prize for something that is guaranteed to happen. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 07:50, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • In other FACs, it's been mentioned that uncommon terms and jargon should not require a reader to click a wikilink. Since people can win money for fulfilling these conditions, I suggest a note be used for these terms so that readers can get the info at the bottom of the page. This is how other articles with specialist terms have fulfilled this suggestion lately. Z1720 (talk) 01:53, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Gino Rigitano conceded the 11th frame of his match against Steve Newbury when there were still enough balls on the table for him to win," Why did he concede? Seems like a significant event if it's getting its own sentence.
  • The source says "...Newbury having victory handed to him .... The Canadian conceded the 11th frame when he was 61 points behind with six reds on the table. He quit altogether when the score was 9-4, deciding not to come out for the last frame." I think this was commented on because it's unusual for a professional snooker player to concede a frame and match from these positions, but the source doesn't say that. I'll see if any other sources have more. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:30, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't find anything else in sources about this, so I suppose the options are either to leave it pretty much as it is, or remove it as not significant given that only one source found mentions it. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 08:39, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • " Bill Werbeniuk and Eddie Charlton both also failed" Remove both
  • "He received £2,000 for this break, the highest during qualifying." Is this separate from the £8000 in the prize fund section?
  • "with the match being going to a deciding frame" delete "being"
  • "then won the next after needing his opponent to make foul shots to win 10–7." Did his opponent succeed in the foul shots? What are foul shots? This sentence confused me.

More comments will come later. Z1720 (talk) 01:51, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • In the references, sometimes news articles show the date in the brackets after the author and other times they list it further into the reference. Please standardise.
  • Crucible Almanac's refs seem like they are missing something. Should a publisher be listed?

That's it for my first round. Z1720 (talk) 13:59, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Round two, just one comment:

  • "The 11-time pool world champion Jim Rempe,[29] made a break of 104" Either remove the comma or put one after champion

Some bullet points above are also missing responses. Z1720 (talk) 23:55, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I added two comments above, and one below:

  • For the first paragraph in "Format", why is reference [14] used three times in a row? Is it WP:OVERCITE or perhaps we can separate the page numbers and identify on which specific page number each sentence is verified by. Since articles are first-and-foremost for readers, imo excessive footnotes when they are not needed (and are repeating the same footnote after each sentence) should be avoided.
  • I've changed the references here as the 1987-88 Rothmans Yearbook has a clearer statement than the 1991-92 edition that this was the last ranking event of the season, and I've amended another one to Downer's 2019 Crucible Almanac. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 06:10, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for tolerating my nit-picking. Z1720 (talk) 01:53, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment

edit

Well past the three week mark and little sign of a consensus to promote developing. If this hits the four week mark without garnering considerable further interest I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:54, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Pawnkingthree

edit
  • I think this is a well-written and comprehensive article, well up to the standards of Lee's previous snooker FAs. My only concern is with the awkward and long-winded sentence, "After this, Davis required White to make foul shots in order to gain the necessary penalty points from them for Davis to win the frame." Why not just "After this, Davis required snookers?" I realize it's jargon, but that's what wikilinks are for.-- P-K3 (talk) 17:07, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't disagree... But I've had prior with links not being suitable for jargon terms at FAC. It's one of those things that is worse because snooker has a few different meanings, so specifically saying foul points does explain what is on, and the link can also explain more. Thanks for the support. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:47, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from TRM

edit
  • "had a series of poor results since his 1986 victory" I guess you mean in the run-up to this tournament but it's not 100% clear.
  • Amended in the lead and body, but may need a bit more work. The sources used are really commenting about the season as a whole rather than than match results, so I'm not sure that "poor results" was really the right phrase. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:23, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "66–1 outsider" perhaps to avoid having to explain what 66–1 means in the lead, drop that and just mention it in the main part of the article, perhaps with a link to fixed-odds betting?
  • Pending... I think it's worth keeping something in the lead that mentions he was seen as an outsider, but that doesn't feel like the right term without the connection to bookmakers' odds. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:23, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "was a 127 made" can't decide if "a" is needed here or not.
  • Infobox says it was organised by WPBSA but that's not really mentioned explicitly.
  • "at the Crucible Theatre in Sheffield, England, the" you literally said this the last sentence of the previous para.
  • "four-round knockout qualifying competition" isn't there a suitable link for this?
  • "as seeded players" seed was mentioned before this linked variant.
  • "4 April, and produced" -> "4 April which produced"
  • "as best-of-19-frames" not like me, I know, but perhaps you could add "meaning ten frames were required to win the match" only because you then go on to talk about how many frames were required in subsequent rounds.
  • "bookmakers' outsider, priced at 66–1 " I've been asked to link bookmaker and also you could link "priced" to the odds article I noted above.
  • "On 6 April" maybe more contextual to say "Twelve days before the start of the tournament..."?
  • "most serious being" -> "most serious of which was" to avoid ing ing.
  • "104 entrants to qualifying, although four" gah, MOSNUM, comparable values, all numerals or all words...
  • "but Frank Jonik, Eddie McLaughlin, Sakchai Sim Ngam and Omprakesh Agrawal all withdrew" you've said four withdrew already, need to merge these.
  • "11-time pool world champion" was he a specific variant of pool champ?
  • The source used here didn't mention this so I looked around. His BCA Hall of Fame entry mentions that he won 11 world titles but doesn't give a full list - looks like the World One-Pocket Championship, the World 9-Ball Championship, and the World Straight Pool Championship were among the titles, as well as the impressive "All-Around Champion of the World." BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 16:11, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • If using the surname is not ambiguous, just use that and not repeat the first name, your approach at the moment is inconsistent.
  • Amended. I've kept it so that the first round uses first name and surname, even though some players are mentioned earlier to avoid a mix of full names and surnames being used for players in the same section of the article. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 17:12, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The first round was" maybe "of the main tournament"
  • "Stephen Hendry was the youngest player..." add a "pictured in" because that photo was taken 22 years later...
  • "player Willie Thorne. Hendry led 5–4" -> "player Willie Thorne and led 5–4"
  • "player to win a match" repetitive use of "win", perhaps "to secure a victory"?
  • "wasn't" avoid contractions.
  • "The 1985 Champion" no need for capital C.
  • "best-of-25 held" frames.
  • "frame on a re-spotted black.[18] " overlinked.
  • "Hendry wrapped up a" bit colloquial.
  • "O'Kane, ranked 39th in the world rankings," probably should have mentioned that in the first round when he beat the second seed?
    Amended. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 17:12, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "frames in a row and were tied at 8–8. " reads odd, maybe "frames in a row and the match was tied at 8–8."?
  • "frames in-a-row to" not sure that needs hyphenating. At least, be consistent.
  • "failed in an attempt to pot a red" why not "missed a red"?
  • "frame 7" vs " frame eight"...
  • Link maximum break.
  • You normally link fluke to the cuegloss.
  • (I'm not going to ask you explain the notion of a free ball here, but can you imagine trying to do that...?)
  • Put "pictured in" for Davis image too, once again it's 20 or so years after this event.
  • "The last time that two players had met in consecutive finals at the World Championship " just to be clear, say where these were played as the "at the Crucible" is vital to the previous sentence.
  • "This was the" also.
  • "Davis' lead" Davis's.... :(
  • "last red ball when" you link red ball here?
  • "but failed on an attempt to pot a red" again, "missed a red"?
  • Yeah, it's a pitfall I've falled into a few times. I've reworded that line entirely, as it's not very clear. "Failed to pot" is indeed much better than "Missed a red", which I would indeed suggest gets into foul and a miss teritory.Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 07:57, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • You link yellow ball but not green or pink...
  • "won on the colours" probably needs a bit more.
  • "winners.[17][16][78]" order.
  • "first frameof the" space.
  • "lowest world championship high break" beating which record low?
  • 1977's highest break was 135 by John Spencer. This was the "lowest high break" at the Crucible until 1986, where Steve Davis' 134 was the highest. Should something be added about this? BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 16:16, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 71, en-dash.
  • Ref 40, get rid of extraneous title material.
  • Ref 11 links the work, seems to be the only one?
  • Ref 30 is BBC Sport.
  • As is ref 40.
  • Consistent ISBN formats.

That's my thoughts for a first pass. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 12:01, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review – Pass

edit

Will do soon. Aza24 (talk) 21:36, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Version reviewed: [27]
Formatting
  • You seem to be a bit inconsistent with including websites & publisher or just publishers, is there a reason for this?
  • wpbsa should be wpbsa.com for ref 10—like the others, right?
  • I think ref 11 has an author and date
  • ref 17 has a missing author
  • ref 19 should have "pp." and spaces after the commas
  • I'm not really sure what your retrieval date inclusion criteria is here
  • I've filled in a missing retrieval date, and the other missing one had gone as part of merging what were refs 74/75. Unless I've missed any, all website sources should now have a retrieval date, but if there are any other issues then please advise. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:57, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • ref 74 and 75 seem to be the same one
  • ref 74/75 seems to have 2008 as the year
  • Snooker.org vs snooker.org
  • I would take "May 2011 update" out of ref 89 and add it as the date parameter
Reliability
  • The sources that seem less than high quality also seem to be citing only statistical information, so no issues there I think
  • Seems fine in general, particularly considering the subject matter.
Verifiability
  • Many thanks for taking on the review and for your helpful comments, Aza24. I've tried to address everything but appreciate that more may be required, in which case I'll make further changes. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk)

Prose review

edit

Placeholder. Expect the review sometime between 16–18 June. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 00:01, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Any news ImaginesTigers?Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:31, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Lee. I'm sorry about the delay. Life has been a little bit busy recently. It should be done today (Tuesday 22), but there's a chance it'll be tomorrow. I'm remaining hopeful, but it was my aunt's funeral today, and there is a chance I'll be very worse for wear tomorrow. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 03:14, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Lee. Sorry for the delay in what has otherwise been a very short FA review. No keeping you waiting; I support the article's promotion. I've carried out a copy-edit, which you can feel free to disagree with. There are no issues with the prose, and these are really just rearrangements to wording more than anything else. You and Benny have done a good job on this one. I'm not interested in snooker, but it genuinely was a good read. (Do we have an article on drug use in snooker? Sounds kinda funny.) Good job both of you! — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 13:05, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not drug use, no. We do have a list of snooker players investigated for match-fixing. It would be an interesting read, I'm sure. Maybe something for the backburner. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:13, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Amakuru

edit
Overview
  • "the sport was popular in the British Isles" - when was this?
  • "The championship featured 32 professional players competing in one-on-one snooker matches in a single elimination format..." - from the past tense, I assume this (and the subsequent point about WBPSA promotions) refers to the 1987 event in particular? Worth making that clear.
  • And, given the above, I'd put the history of the championship (Joe Davis and the 1977 move to the crucible) before specifics about 1987.
  • "the 11th consecutive time that the tournament was held at the venue" - "consecutive" feels slightly redundant here, as the previous paragraph already implies that the event has been there every year since 1977.
  • "The top 16 players in the latest world rankings automatically qualified for the main draw as seeded players" - this feels like it belongs before the sentence about the qualifying competition, especially as we've already mentioned the 16 seeds.
  • "ten frames were required to win the match"- per MOS:NUMNOTES, "Comparable values should be all spelled out or all in figures" so probably use "10" here to match all the other frame numbers in this paragraph.
Tournament summary
  • "The defending champion Joe Johnson failed to reach as far as the quarter-finals of a major tournament in the 1986–87 snooker season" - I assume this sentence doesn't include the 1987 championship itself. Probably make that clear.
  • "This was described as a "disappointing" or "poor" season for him" - please say who made those comments, per WP:WEASEL.
  • "Sydney Friskin of The Times reported that Johnson prepared for the Championship by reportedly practicing diligently" - I assume the "reportedly" shouldn't be there? Also, "practising" should be spelled with an S in British English. Unless this article is written in US English? (I don't think it says).
Qualifying
  • "The qualifying rounds were played at the Preston Guild Hall from 26 March to 4 April 1987" - the location and dates were already mentioned in the section above.
Qualifying (continued)
  • "Hendry led 8–1 at the end of their first session" - you haven't said who he was playing yet, so "their" sounds wrong.
  • "Hendry won the match at 10–4" - "at" sounds a bit unusual here
First round
  • "Steve Davis was 7–1 ahead of Warren King at the end of their first session. King then won six of the next seven frames..." - I might link these two into one sentence with a "but"
  • "in frame 17; where he successfully" - probably should be a comma, not a semicolon?
  • "Hendry then took the 17th frame" - repetition of "then" shortly after the previous sentence. Consider just removing it.
  • "Hendry became the youngest-ever player to win a match at the Crucible" - presumably a world championship match? (Maybe they don't play any other snooker at the Crucible, but might be nice to clarify)
  • "The win made MacLeod the first Scottish player to secure a victory at the Crucible Theatre" - we've already heard that Hendry won his first-round match too. Is this record held by MacLeod just because his match finished earlier than Hendry's?
Semi-finals
  • "Davis won the match 16–11" - did anything noteworthy happen in the final session?
  • I've added a little detail. Snooker Scene has a bit on how White didn't question being called for a foul in the second frame when potting a red, but as it seems it really was a foul, and he was already 26 points behind by then, I'm not sure that's worth including. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 16:25, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Final
  • General point - decide whether "world championship" is capitalised or not. I'd suggest maybe it shouldn't be, given that the proper noun is actually "World Snooker Championship" and not "World Championship". But needs to be consistent, either way.
  • "Davis compiled a 127 break, the highest of the tournament" - clarify whether this is the highest so far, or if it ended up as the maximum altogether. Also, was this the only century in the final? You don't mention any others that I can see.
Amended, added a mention of Johnson's 101. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 16:25, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Johnson responded winning three frames in a row with Davis doing the same" - maybe "followed by" instead of "with"?
  • "at the start of the second session which finished" - put a comma after "session"
  • "which finished with him leading 9–7" - I would probably put the final score at the end of the session summary, after "and the last of the day by Johnson".
  • "Johnson led 50–0 in the next frame, and with both players making a number of errors during the frame, Davis left him an easy brown that allowed Johnson in to win his fourth consecutive frame to move to within one frame at 13–14" - four occurrences of "frame" in the sentence, maybe reword a bit.
  • The last paragraph isn't related to the final, and should probably in in an "aftermath" or somesuch section.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 24 June 2021 [28].

Katie Joplin

edit
Nominator(s): Aoba47 (talk) 19:24, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a 1999 WB sitcom which starred Park Overall as a host of a phone-in radio program. It was optioned as a potential mid-season replacement for the 1998–1999 television season, but was delayed for a year. The WB had already decided to cancel the series prior to its premiere and seemingly did little to no promotion for it. This show is so obscure that it did not have a Wikipedia article until 2018, and I would be surprised if anyone has heard of it before this nomination.

I worked on this article back in 2018, and I was inspired to expand it further for this FAC. I am looking forward to hearing everyone's feedback. I will do my best to further improve the article and address all the suggestions. Thank you in advance! Aoba47 (talk) 19:24, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from SNUGGUMS

edit
Resolved
  • While not an absolute requirement, I would recommend adding a photo of at least one cast member (and this doesn't include TV logos)
  • I agree. Ideally, I would love to use an image of Park Overall since she is the star of the show, but unfortunately, she does not already have an image in the Wikimedia Commons and I am honestly quite bad at tracking down free-use images. Jay Thomas, Jim Rash, and Majandra Delfino each have images, but neither are from the time period that this series was filmed so I do not want it to be misleading, and the Simon Rex image seems too low-quality for the article. Apologies for the lengthy response. I just wanted to be show my thought process behind this one. Aoba47 (talk)
  • Let's trim "has an estranged relationship with her husband" down to "is estranged from her husband"
  • Does "secure a better career" mean one that makes more money, something Joplin enjoys more than her prior job, or both?
  • According to the Terrace source, it is more about Katie wanting to start over so it more the second reason, but I am sure money also played a factor in it although that is not directly said. I have reworded this part to hopefully make it clear that it is more about her starting over and trying to find a new direction in life. Aoba47 (talk) 19:15, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure how pertinent the "more fashionable" bit is (I've never watched the series and hadn't even heard of it before looking at this article)
  • I have added a bit more on this. Liz works as a fashion editor and her focus on fashion seems to one of the show's ways of distinguishing her from Katie. Aoba47 (talk) 19:29, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "is a recurring character on the show"..... that sounds like a stretch when Katie Joplin only runs for 5 episodes total, and "recurring" makes it sound like one appears inconsistently in a show that has multiple seasons (or at least one with many more episodes). You should instead discuss Sara's characterization/plot elements.
  • That is a fair point. I have removed the "recurring character" bit altogether. Thank you for encouraging me to look further into the characterization/plot elements. I have added a bit about that. Let me know if any further work is needed for that part. Aoba47 (talk) 19:56, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "started production in 1998"..... is a specific day or even month known? If you can find anything on when filming concluded, then I definitely feel that should also be added
  • Unfortunately, I cannot find further information on the show's production. It is likely the entire thing was filmed in 1998 and then the WB decided to pass on it and only later aired as a burn-off or some kind of filler. However, that is pure speculation on my part. That being said, I will look around some more just to make sure I did not miss anything. Aoba47 (talk) 20:11, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "cited Katie Joplin in his book"..... listed would read better, and I would make it clearer that the "sitcoms you never saw" is part of the Forgotten Laughs: An Episode Guide to 150 TV Sitcoms You Probably Never Saw title. Elaborating on any commentary Irvin left would be helpful here.
  • I have used your suggestion. When I first wrote the article, I was able to access the Katie Joplin part of the book through the Google Books preview, but unfortunately, my access to that particular book has been greatly limited. I have put in a request here as I agree that it is best for me to re-examine that source to see if I can find anything new. Aoba47 (talk) 20:05, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're missing a citation for "Overall learned the WB canceled Katie Joplin while promoting the sitcom Ladies Man; she said: 'I think that pretty rude. Honey, they didn't even call me to tell me they were canceling it!' According to Overall, the WB decided to cancel the series months before it aired as they did not believe it could attract a young demographic." Also, shouldn't "that pretty rude" be "that's pretty rude"?
  • Yikes! Apologies for that as I am not sure how that happened. You are correct. For some reason, I made a typo. I made a lot of silly mistakes in this part in particular >< lol. Aoba47 (talk) 20:07, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For a short-lived series that many are unaware of, you mostly seem to have covered all the essential aspects. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 16:02, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • @SNUGGUMS: Thank you for your review. I believe that I have address everything. I will let you know when I get further access to Forgotten Laughs: An Episode Guide to 150 TV Sitcoms You Probably Never Saw. If you have any questions about my responses (or any further comments), I would be more than happy to respond to them. If you are interested, here is a clip from the show and you can watch the opening credits here. It seemed like a fairly standard, and rather unremarkable, sitcom for the time period. Aoba47 (talk) 20:11, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • My pleasure, and let me know once that Irvin bit gets expanded. You still haven't given the full title of his book within the prose, though. Perhaps I should've been more explicit in saying that should be included. I see what you mean with the photos. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 21:41, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @SNUGGUMS: I have added the book title to the prose. I was able to get a hold of all the pages from the Irvin citation about the series and I have added that information. I am glad that I did as the book had information on the unaired episodes and at least gave the month that production ended as well as a vague reason on why that had occurred. Thank you again for the help. Aoba47 (talk) 23:01, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I forgot to say this in the above message, but the only commentary Irvin had about the show was comparing it to Muprhy Brown. Otherwise, he just focused on the facts about the show's episodes and production. Aoba47 (talk) 23:11, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good, so I now support this nomination, and the media review passes as well. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 23:57, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • @SNUGGUMS: Apologies for the ping. I just wanted to let you know that I added an image of Jay Thomas per a request from a below review. I wanted to update you since you did the media review and you had also requested an image be added to the article. I think it does look better with an image so I was likely over-thinking with my hesitancy about it before. Aoba47 (talk) 19:52, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from ChrisTheDude

edit
  • "the series portrays Katie characterizes Katie" - think there's a stray word or two in there
  • "Katie's radio show received a city-wide promotional campaign" - shouldn't that be in the present tense like the rest of the synopses?

Comments from Tintor2

edit
Resolved
  • The lead feels a bit small even for its size. Maybe the unaired episodes' could be mentioned there.
  • Since the lead is an intro to the body, it could give a brief reason for why the response was negative.
  • Unfortunately, I do not think that is possible. From my experience, these kinds of reasons are only included in the lead if there was some sort of critic consensus, but while both of the retrospective reviews are negative, their reasons do not really overlap. Aoba47 (talk) 21:04, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • What exactly happened to the last two unaired episodes? Were they released in VHS? I'm kinda confused. I mean there are brief summaries about what happens in the narrative.
  • The series was not released on VHS or in any other format to the best of my understanding. You can watch a clip from one of the unaired episodes here. It could be that journalists were given summaries of all the episodes to either review or run in the newspapers. While the WB had always planned on canceling this show, the network may have originally wanted all the episodes to air so the summaries could have been given out for TV listings, but that is pure speculation on my part. Aoba47 (talk) 21:04, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Only these three confused me. I'll do a source review if you want another day.Tintor2 (talk) 20:23, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Tintor2: Thank you for your review. I have expanded the lead, and I have left responses for your second and third comments. A source review would be greatly appreciated if possible. I hope you have a great rest of your day! Aoba47 (talk) 21:04, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Supporting nomination. The only nitpick I might throw is that "Rob Owen believed the series would appeal to fans of Overall" Does he specify that the actor is quite popular within a certain demography? Kinda like how the character Takayuki Yagami you once read was given the facial expressions and Japanese voice of the celebrity Takuya Kimura to make his video game more popular within fans.Tintor2 (talk) 21:42, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for your support. That is a good question. The part about this from the source is the following, If you're a fan of actress Park Overall (Empty Nest) tune to the WB's summer sitcom Katie Joplin, and I have added a part about her association with the Empty Nest sitcom. Aoba47 (talk) 22:45, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review – Pass

edit

Will do tomorrow. Aza24 (talk) 09:26, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Version reviewed [29]
Formatting
  • Though I can't access ref 4 (see below) I assume it needs a subscription marker like the other Los Angeles Daily News refs
  • Retrieval dates are a bit inconsistent. If I understand it correctly—it seems like you're not having them for archived pages, which is fine, but there's some inconsistency otherwise, Newspapers.com for example has retrieval dates for some but not others.
  • Thank you for catching this. Apologies for my sloppy work. I have archived the web sources, but not the newspaper or ProQuest sources. I believe it should be consistent now, but please let me know if there is anything I have overlooked. Aoba47 (talk) 17:18, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • ref 12 should be via Newspapers.com, right?
  • wrong first name for ref 16 I think :)
  • ref 25 should probably have via Newspapers.com
  • Burnett doesn't seemed to be used
  • Removed. It was used to cite that a recurring character, but since the show aired for only five episodes, it is a little silly to say someone is recurring when they never had the chance to do so in the first place. Aoba47 (talk) 17:18, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Reliability
  • Given the subject matter, seems fine in general
Verifiability
  • Link for ref 4 is broken for me
  • Hmm Irvin really needs page numbers, or a page range if that's more convenient. If there's no page numbers (which is my guess for why you don't have them already) add a chapter or section title if possible, with |loc= instead of |p=
  • Thank you for the suggestion. You are correct that it does not have page numbers (at least for the digital version and I have checked a few different places to confirm this). I have added the chapter title to better help readers who want to find this information in that source. Aoba47 (talk) 17:24, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Aza24: Thank you for your review. Apologies for my very silly mistakes with the sourcing on this one. I hope you are having a great end to your week and an even better start to your weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 17:24, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you again for your review and I greatly appreciate that you added the access-dates for the ProQuest sources. I am not sure why I missed those. Apologies for that. I hope you are doing well and staying safe! Aoba47 (talk) 05:55, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Heartfox

edit
  • "It is about Katie Joplin (Park Overall) who moves from Knoxville to Philadelphia" → I think something should describe who Katie Joplin is, like "It is about a single mother, Katie Joplin, ...". Right now it feels like the reader should already know who she is.
  • I believe it should be written "The WB", not "the WB"; "The" is a part of its name.
  • "original program WB" → "original program The WB"
  • "was the subject" → "was a subject" (not the only one)
  • "the series characterizes her through her fashion" → what does this mean?
  • The show (at least according to the sources I have found) presents Liz as a far more fashionable person than Katie. I have revised this part with a quote from the source. This was something from an earlier draft of the article before I found the source about her career as a fashion magazine editor so that may already cover this and if necessary, I can just remove this part altogether. Aoba47 (talk) 21:13, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • author-link=Marilyn Beck
  • Thank you for catching this. I have marked the url as dead and I have used the press release template. I always forget about it so I will be better about using it in the future. Aoba47 (talk) 21:13, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • link "1998–1999 television season" in the lead and body
  • Advertising Age url-access=subscription
  • location of Statesman Journal?

Heartfox (talk) 20:20, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Heartfox: Thank you for your review. Apologies for all the silly mistakes that I had made in the article. You have helped to improve the article immensely and if there is anything else that can be improved, please let me know and I will get to it. Have a great weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 21:13, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from 100cellsman

edit

This is a short but sweet article about an unsuccessful television show. 😃 웃OO 00:56, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Spy-cicle

edit
Resolved

Not an expert on writing TV articles but here are some comments, mostly on prose.

  • I have added a local short description, feel free to adjust.
  • Any way we can reduce the repetition of 1999 in the lead sentence maybe: from August to September 1999.?
  • What are your thoughts on changing the second lead sentence to "Park Overall stars as the title character, a single mother who moves from Knoxville to Philadelphia and tries to balance her job as a radio program host with parenting her teenage son Greg (Jesse Head)." or something else, to avoid repeition of Katie Joplin.
  • The part about "fashion-plate" uses a hypen but the article does not, is there a reason for the discrepency?
  • Per infobox documentation the run time should not include commercials but this appears to be case in this article since in text it says each episode lasts 30 minutes with commercials
  • Good point. Unfortunately, I cannot find a more exact time for the episodes so I have removed it from the infobox. The closest thing that I could find is that all seven episodes aired for 210 minutes. A typical American sitcom runs 22 minutes, but I am not sure if that would be original research to add without a citation. Aoba47 (talk) 16:45, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah I see understandable, if no reliable source exists I guess it is just easier to note this in prose.
  • I know there is probably limited coverage for such an obscure show but do reviewers break down the parts of the show, like writing, acting, direction, or was it all broadly seen as a "failure"
  • TheRadio World critique is focused on the premise, while the USA Today one just lists it as one of The WB's biggest failures without any real explanation, but that is probably due to how quickly the show was canceled and how little The WB promoted (or even seemed to care about) it. Aoba47 (talk) 16:53, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah I see thanks for clarifying that.
  • I am hesitant to add images that were not taken from around the same time period as the show as I think it could be rather misleading. The Jim Rash and Jay Thomas ones were both taken over a decade after/before the show. The Jay Thomas one is at least from the 1990s, but I am uncertain about helpful it will be. Ideally, it would be great to have an image of Park Overall, but I am pretty bad at finding free-use images. Aoba47 (talk) 16:53, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I understand the hesitancy. Could not find any free images of other actors. I can understand the Hampton/Regalbuto images are probably not relevant enough considering they only directed one unaired episode each. Jim Rash's image closest to airing is 2011, so 12 years out. However, Jay Thomas's image File:Jay Thomas at 44th Primetime Emmy Awards cropped.jpg is only 7 years out (1992) compared to the airing of the show (1999) and is billed third. From looking at other media articles it does not seem unprecedented to use free images that are out by a number of years (For instance Groundhog Day (film) (1993) uses cast images from 2017 and 2018, Ghostbusters II (1989) uses cast/crew images from 2009, 2010, 2013, 2019). Regards  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 13:52, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any sources mention opening theme (if so could add to infobox)
  • Ah I see thank you for clarifying.
  • Seeley and Gunzenhauser should proabably listed as executive producers in the infobox as well.
  • Worth mentioning some of writers/directors in prose?
  • Unfortunately, there is not much I could add about them in the prose. The only information I have found is that they were involved with the show. The only writers that had further background on them were Norm Gunzenhauser and Tom Seeley since they created and produced the show. I tried doing another search to see maybe if I could find something on Steve Zuckerman since he did the pilot episode and directed the most episodes, but I could not find anything else. Aoba47 (talk) 17:00, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah I see no problem, thank you for clarifying.

That's is pretty well all I could think of, hope these comments help. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 12:56, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Spy-cicle: Thank you for your review. It helps a lot. Your copy-edits to the article have helped to improve a great deal as well. I have addressed all your comments (either through revisions or responses). Please let me know if there is anything else I can do to improve the article. I hope you have a great rest of your weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 17:04, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Status update

edit
  • @FAC coordinators: Apologies for the ping. I was wondering if I could get a status report on this FAC. It has received a good amount of support as well as source and image reviews. I am only asking as it was recently pushed down into the "Older nominations" list. Thank you and I hope everyone is staying safe and have a good week so far. Aoba47 (talk) 03:23, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Kailash

edit

Support from PMC

edit

Hi Aoba! Just a few prose comments. Generally this looks really well-researched and well-written.

  • Brooks and Marsh wrote that the series portrays Katie through her "perception, Southern wit, and strong opinions": I'm not sure it's grammatical to say that someone is portrayed "through" her characteristics. Maybe "with", like "Brooks and Marsh wrote that the series portrays Katie with..."?
  • and they believed these qualities are why she is hired to host a phone-in radio program: This feels like it's worded from an in-universe perspective. The show calls for Katie to be a talk-show host, so she is one. Maybe reword to say that it worked for her character to be a radio host.
  • The third paragraph under "Premise" focuses on Glen and Sara, but then the last sentences talk about Katie's storylines and Head's feelings about his character. Those should be moved.
  • In the Reception section I notice there's no commentary on why the show failed so badly. Is that information available? It seems like it would be pertinent. The closest we get is the Radio World review where he talks about how unrealistic the premise is, but even that doesn't really tell us why the show wasn't good from a general perspective.
  • I have provided some additional context. These articles do not go into further depth on why this particular show was not good since it is a minor part of their larger discussions. I have tried to add some context about that, like Mediaweek being about network's rising interest in summer programming, USA Today's review of The WB and UPN's first five years, and Radio World's questions on why radio-based television shows have not found greater success. Please let me know if further revision would be helpful. I was just worried that it would be too tangential if that makes sense. Aoba47 (talk) 17:12, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise this is one of those cool niche articles that make Wikipedia so delightfully odd, and I'll be happy to support. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:15, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Premeditated Chaos: Thank you for the review. You have helped to improve the article. I believe that I have addressed everything, but please let me know if further revisions would be beneficial. I love working on obscure topics like this one, but I do also understand the importance of working on broader and more well-known topics as well. I hope you are doing well and staying safe! Aoba47 (talk) 17:13, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 22 June 2021 [30].

Second Battle of Newtonia

edit
Nominator(s): Hog Farm Talk 14:19, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Having been given permission for a second nom, here comes another minor ACW cavalry fight. On the run after defeats at Westport and Mine Creek, Price's Confederates halted at Newtonia before entering the wasteland of 1864 northwestern Arkansas. Pursuing Union cavalry caught up, attacked, and got a little more than the bargained for before reinforcements came up and the Confederates fell back. Both sides claimed victory, but history has attributed the win to the Union. Hog Farm Talk 14:19, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

edit

Recusing to review.

  • All infobox entries should start with an upper case letter.
    • Done for the "near Newtonia" one, which I think it where the issue is
  • "he instead began moving his force west towards Kansas City" seems a little clumsy. 'instead he moved his force west towards Kansas City'?
    • Done
  • "Price ordered the withdrawal of his main army, and ordered Shelby". Any way to avoid "ordered ... ordered"?
    • Rephrased
  • "Blunt's smaller line". Perhaps "smaller" → 'shorter'?
    • Done
  • "supplies and soldiers were lost to capture." "lost to capture" → 'captured'.
    • Done
  • "Claims of execution of prisoners" → 'Claims of the execution of prisoners'.
    • Done
  • "arrived on the field". A bit jargony, and not very informative - just where did they arrive?
    • Rephrased, and added the direction from which Ford's men reached the battlefield.
  • "Blunt personally fought with the 16th Kansas Cavalry during this stage of the fighting." I suggest moving this to the last sentence of this paragraph.
    • Yes, it makes more sense to state that Blunt arrived before it is mentioned that he is fighting - not sure why I didn't notice that. Moved.
  • "the entire Union army was upon him". "upon" → 'attacking'.
    • Done
  • "Regardless, Shelby's command was the only functioning force left in the Confederate army." What is "Regardless" trying to communicate?
    • I have no idea why I added that word. Removed.
  • "aligned left to right in the order of" → 'from left to right'.
    • Done
  • "Shelby aligned his men". This may be a USEng thing, but I find the use of "aligned" confusing. Here and in later uses. (What does it mean anyway?)
    • In USEng, this would indicate that Shelby formed his men into a line. I've rephrased all instances
  • "In total, Shelby had about 2,000 or 3,500 men on the field" This seems to hide a debate. Any chance of some detail as to who said which, when, ideally why, and possibly alterna'e break downs of these numbers?
    • Made a little clearer. No breakdowns of these numbers are really given. To me it looks like two historians spitballing numbers based on vague/unreliable source, as neither explicitly states where they got their numbers, and given what had happened to Price's army in the last 5 days, I don't think anybody really knew or cared exactly how many men were around.
  • "The Union lines fell all the way back to the Ritchey Farm" → 'The Union lines fell back all the way to the Ritchey Farm'.
    • Done
  • "Even after this lined was formed". "lined"?
    • Fixed. I'm a bad copyeditor.
  • "temporarily threw the Confederates into surprise." I don't think that one can be thrown into surprise - although I like the image. 'caught the Confederates by surprise and temporarily threw them into confusion'?
    • Rephrased
  • "forced marched". This is a noun, not a verb.
    • Rephrased. I didn't think that was grammar, but I kinda hoped it was for some reason
  • "These newly arrived guns fire 22 shots". "fire" → 'fired'.
    • Fixed. Probably shoulda got this copyedited.
  • "the artillery advantage growing more disparate". An advantage cannot grow more disparate. A 'differential' can, or an advantage can become more 'marked', for example.
    • Rephrased
  • "In addition, the modern historian Mark A. Lause". Delete "In addition". Possibly reinsert after "participated in the action".
    • Done
  • "as one of Marmaduke's officers filed a report about the battle." I assume this relates to the earlier part of the sentence, but you don't tell us how.
    • @Gog the Mild: - I have no idea how to address this. Lause states "At least parts of Price's other two divisions [Marmaduke and Fagan] also pitched in to the fight ...[evidence for Fagan's participation] ... At least one commander from General John S. Marmaduke's division also filed a report on its fighting there." So Lause seems to be implying that this report is (basically all) the justification for assuming that Marmaduke's men participated. Lause lumps all of the footnotes for this paragraph together, so its unclear what exactly he is referring to. As other sources do not mention the involvement of Marmaduke's men, this statement is attributed to Lause, but I'm not sure how to draw the connection in the article without OR-ing when Lause is vague on this. Hog Farm Talk 04:44, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I would delete "as one of Marmaduke's officers filed a report about the battle". Who cares why secondary sources believe what they do? You don't try to justify every other claim in the article.
I have removed it.
  • "they occupied the town itself". Delete "itself".
    • Removed
  • "were probably similar or even less than those of the Union". Why "even"?
    • Removed
  • "and that Union officer Richard J. Hinton provided a figure of 114 casualties". For which side?
    • Union. Added
  • "The American Battlefield Trust estimated 250 and 400". Should that be "estimated" → 'estimates'? Or have they since changed their mind?
    • Yes, it should be estimates. Changed.
  • "due to the Price's army's inability to transport them." Delete "the".
    • Done

Nice. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:03, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All good. Your one query responded to. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:14, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Zawed

edit

This looks to be in good shape. Just a few nitpicks:

  • The first two sentences of the 2nd para of the background section uses the word 'war' 3 times. Suggest swapping the 2nd one out for 'conflict'?
    • Done; I've also removed the third one as well.
  • Battle: suggest a group of soldiers of his brigade to meet the threat.? This would provide antecedence for the mention of his brigade in the 3rd para of this section
    • Done
  • Battle: suggest ...Curtis described as "badly cut up". Curtis He helped to rally...? Curtis is used three times in close succession
    • Done
  • Battle: Lause believes that part of Brigadier General John S. Marmaduke's Confederate division participated in the action in addition. I'm not sure what " the action" is here - the move to the woods or the battle itself? Regardless, suggest "also participated" and deleting "in addition".
    • The battle. Clarified
  • Aftermath: been driven back 3 miles (5 km)
    • Done

That's it for me. Zawed (talk) 10:09, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Heartfox

edit
  • "In September 1864, Confederate Major General Sterling Price had entered the state of Missouri" → from where; with who?
    • Clarified
      • I believe you forgot to write "entered" in the sentence "On September 19, Price the state from Arkansas with the Army of Missouri."
        • Yes, added now.
  • "Price's column halted" → I think column should be linked; also in "On September 19, Price's column entered the state."
    • I've simply used a different word. Column has a technical military sense, but it's also used frequently in a more general meaning to mean a sizable organized body of troops. Because it's used in an informal sense here, I've simply swapped for a different word.
  • "he ordered Shelby to provide a rear guard" → Without reading the lead, I don't know who Shelby is.
    • Glossed
  • "McLain's battery"; "helped to rally the Colorado battery" → is "battery" supposed to be capitalized? I'm not really familiar with this.
    • In these two contexts, it's not a proper formal name, so lowercase is fine
  • "An armed mob after Marmiton River" → Can "Marmiton River" link to something? Heartfox (talk) 01:33, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Glossed
    • Heartfox - Thanks for taking the time to review this; I've replied to all points above. Sorry about the lack of glossing in places; this is part of a multiple-article series of mine, and they're all on very similar topics which leads to me forgetting what I've linked and what I haven't in individual ones. Hog Farm Talk 03:31, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would add basic alt texts for the map images, like alt=refer to adjacent text. Heartfox (talk) 03:41, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Heartfox (talk) 05:09, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley

edit
  • Strength "1,500 or 2,000 2,000 or 3,500" should be "1,500-2,000 2,000-3,500". "or" implies that it is not a figure in between.
    • This is an odd case - source provide different estimates without really supporting a range there, so it seems kinda synth-y to try to call it a range
  • "As the American Civil War began in 1861". "When" the American Civil War began in 1861" sounds better to me
    • Done
  • "This movement prevented Price from sending any reinforcements to Shelby during the ensuing battle, even though they would be requested. Shelby's command was the only functioning force left in the Confederate army." This is unclear. If Shelby's was the only functioning force, presumably he could not have been reinforced even if the main army had not retreated?
    • Wood does stress that element a bit (that Shelby wouldn't have received anything useful anway), so I've tried to rephrase to make this clearer, as well as replacing functioning with Wood's exact word of "effective"
  • "While the two mountain howitzers helped hold the Union right against Confederate threat". the Confederate threat?
    • went with "Confederate threats"
  • "there were now about 1,500 or 2,000 Union soldiers in the fight". Again "or" sounds wrong.
    • Same as above with the "or"
  • "The Confederate force, which Castel described as being essentially an armed mob after the October 25 Battle of Marmiton River". Does this mean the main Confederate army?
    • Yes, clarified
  • "Curtis' pursuit ended on November 8, at the Arkansas". The Arkansas River?
  • I do not think it is a matter of grammar. I would refer to the Mississipi or the Thames. I just found it confusing as a foreigner because I had only heard of Arkansas as a state before. Dudley Miles (talk) 07:29, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The campaign had cost Price more than two-thirds of the men he had taken into Missouri." Is there any estimate of how many he lost through desertion and how many from death, capture etc? Dudley Miles (talk) 22:22, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Dudley Miles: - neither Castel 1998 nor Collins 2016 nor Lause 2016 provide a breakdown. I'll be hopefully digging Sinisi 2020 out of storage to work on another article tomorrow, but I'd be amazed if such a breakdown is provideable - it was simply a complete disintegration of an army barely surviving, that didn't seem to have been too keen on record-keeping. Hog Farm Talk 04:44, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Z1720

edit

Please consider me a non-expert.

  • "Sanborn formed on Blunt's left, and the Union troops counterattacked." Counterattacked is wikilinked here, but I'm not sure it is necessary. I know very little about war stuff but I know what a counterattack is. I'll leave this to your discretion.
    • Done. Yeah, everyone probably knows what an attack is, and the formation is probably reasonably obvious that a counterattack is to counter an attack
  • "Shelby ordered a retreat, and the Union troops did not begin to pursue until October 30. Once the pursuit resumed, it continued until they reached the Arkansas River." Was there one pursuit, which began on October 30, or was there more than one pursuit, one of which resumed until the river? Perhaps resumed should be replaced with began?
    • Good point. Swapped resumed for began
  • "By the beginning of September 1864, events in the eastern United States, especially the Confederate defeat in the Atlanta campaign, gave Abraham Lincoln, who supported continuing the war, an edge in the 1864 United States presidential election over George B. McClellan, who favored ending the conflict." This feels like a very long sentence with lots of commas. Maybe split in two? Suggestion: "By the beginning of September 1864, events in the eastern United States, especially the Confederate defeat in the Atlanta campaign, gave Abraham Lincoln an advantage in the 1864 United States presidential election. Lincoln supported continuing the war while his opponent, George B. McClellan, favored ending the conflict." (I also replaced "an edge" because that sounds a little too WP:IDIOM to me, but I'll leave that to your discretion.)
    • Done
  • "overwhelm Collins;[29] Shelby ordered an attack," I think that semi-colon should be a comma
    • Corrected
  • "that Curtis described as "badly cut up"." It takes a couple of sentences to get to a citation; since this is a direct quote, I think a ref should be present here.
    • Done. Especially since the next citation is three citations, and I had to look in the sources to determine where this was coming from
  • I also checked the summary and infobox to ensure that their information was also present in the article, and I found no concerns.
  • I recommend archiving the American Battlefield Trust references.
    • Done via IAbot run

Those are my comments. Z1720 (talk) 23:33, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 22 June 2021 [31].

Lancaster's Normandy chevauchée of 1356

edit
Nominator(s): Gog the Mild (talk) 14:09, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My first Hundred Years' War FAC for over a year - how time flies. A brief campaign typical of those of this phase of the war and for which there are unusually detailed records. It is fresh from GAN and I believe it to be up to FAC standards. As ever, any and all constructive criticism is welcome. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:09, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review and source review—pass

edit

Image licensing looks good. Sources look OK but I still have to do a full source check (the Rogers 1994 ref is OK though) (t · c) buidhe 18:54, 3 May 2021 (UTC) Checking Wagner refs[reply]

  • Wagner 2006c. Needs pg#
Added.
Buidhe, I did, realised that I had completely missed referencing the final paragraph and then forgot to fix it. Apologies, and thanks for the reminder. Now appropriately cited and I am wondering what I was on when I supposedly did my pre-FAC check of the referencing. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:57, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wagner 2006c, pp. 142–143. —also does not match the page range given in the source section for Wagner 2006c
Grr! Corrected. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:43, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HF

edit

Will take a look at this soon. Might claim for 5 points in the WikiCup. Hog Farm Talk 20:18, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • "One of those imprisoned was the notoriously treacherous Charles of Navarre, one of the largest landholders in Normandy" - Is this Charles of Navarre the same Charles II of Navarre the English tried to cooperate with earlier?
Yes.
  • Which are the new alliances cemented by the chevauchée? Is it the Norman nobles who are mentioned to be turning to the English in the prelude material?
Rementioned in the first sentence of Aftermath. I have tweaked the language for clarity.
  • For the Curry ref, are both the (2002) and the (published 13 November 2002) needed?
Scratches head. It's the 2002 edition. Dunno where 2012 came from. Fixed. Thanks.
  • With Jaques, you provide both state and city, while with Madden, you only provide the state. For consistency's sake, would it be possibly to add the city in Minnesota for Madden?
Nope. The place of publication is not given.
  • Not seeing the start date explicitly referenced as 22 June in the body except for the indirect statement that the 22 days ended on July 13. Is it possible to work this exact start date into the body?
Done.

Good work, anticipate supporting on most criteria. Hog Farm Talk 14:44, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Hog Farm. All done. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:04, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Supporting on WP:FACR #1a, 1b, source reliability and formatting, 1d, 1e, 2a, 2b, 2c, and 4, did not check others. Hog Farm Talk 15:10, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Dumelow

edit

Looks good to me. I had a few minor comments from a quick read through - Dumelow (talk) 09:13, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • "John attempted to strongly garrison his northern towns and fortifications against the expected descent by Edward III, at the same time assembling a field army; he was unable to, largely due to lack of money to recruit more men" The last part reads a bit strange to me, though I am not sure how to reword it. Potentially the reader may be confused as to whether John was unable to strengthen the garrisons or assemble the army or both
After checking the source I have expanded to "after allocating garrisons the French field army was unimpressive, largely due to lack of money."
  • "The English expedition to Normandy was intended to be carried out with the cooperation of the French magnate Charles II of Navarre" this is the first mention of Normandy, we've only previously stated that the English were planning offensives in "northern France and Gascony". Should this be "English expedition to northern France"?
Clumsy phrasing by me when I copy edited it down from something more understandable. Tweaked.
  • "Arras rebelled and killed loyalists". Reads a bit strange to me, perhaps "the inhabitants of Arras" or similar?
Tweaked.
  • "The French took control of most of Normandy and laid siege to those fortifications which refused to surrender.[36] Charles, as the Duke of Normandy, took charge of suppressing these holdouts.[37] He took personal command of the siege of Évreux, the capital of his holdings in Normandy as Count of Évreux." The reader could be confused here as to which Charles we were talking about (the dauphin or Navarre) as both were mentioned recently and we haven't mentioned the Duke of Normandy title before.
Clarified and introduced better.
  • "Houdetot also ordered assaults, which also failed" repetition of also, could perhaps be avoided.
This was deliberate, to emphasis that the same course of action was followed with similar (and by implication) unsurprising results. I could of course change it if you don't like it.
  • "Horses transported in the ships of the day needed several days rest to recover, otherwise they would break down" feels a bit out of place. Are we explaining that the English couldn't act immediately upon landing? Might fit better elsewhere
I was explaining why a small number of men arrived in a large number of ships 17 days before the main force, as otherwise a reader might consider that a silly thing to do. So it seems appropriately located to me.
  • "When Lancaster marched east, John believed he was striking for Rouen, and moved his army there.[49] He took steps to block the fords across the Seine, in the belief Lancaster may have been heading for Calais." Might be better as "...he also took steps to block the fords..."
Done.
  • "The French army, which Rogers describes as "vastly superior ... in numbers", ", is this the same French army as was at Condé-sur-Iton? If so, we've already established it was "much stronger than the English force, with perhaps ten times the number of men"
All of the information on the size of the French army grouped at first mention.
  • "The three-week expedition had been very successful: The two besieged towns had been re-victualled" maybe "two of the besieged towns" or just "two besieged towns" as Tillières-sur-Avre was not resupplied
Good point. Changed.
Thanks Dumelow, you have picked up a number of issues which I should have, and that is appreciated. Your comments all addressed above. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:49, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support on prose. Changes/explanations are all good for me. I think you're missing an "it" in "It was much stronger than the English force; Rogers describes as "vastly superior ... in numbers" with perhaps ten times the number of men"? I think what threw me on the horse bit was that there was no previous mention that the ships were carrying horses, perhaps this could be stated? - Dumelow (talk) 21:26, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"it" added; number of horses added in appropriate place. Thanks for both.
Thanks Dumelow. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:43, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Catlemur

edit

I previously reviewed this article at GAN. My comments focus on prose and the parts of MoS I am familiar with.

  • "With French finances and morale at a low ebb after Crécy" - I think this falls under MOS:IDIOM.
Tweaked. ("With French finances and morale low after Crécy".)
D'oh! Done.
  • "The Norman nobles who had not been arrested sent to Navarre for reinforcements, where Charles' younger brother Louis was administering the country." - I think this sentence warrants an extra comma after arrested.
Done, although in all seriousness that renders it unintelligible to my eye. That said, I am with Liz Truss on commas ;-) . I mean, try reading the sentence without the section which is between the commas.
I am usually of a different school of thought on commas than Gog, but do agree with them that adding the comma after arrested makes it more difficult to read. Hog Farm Talk 19:44, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

--Catlemur (talk) 16:22, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Catlemur, this is good of you. Your comments so far addressed above. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:57, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support on prose. All issues I raised have been addressed.--Catlemur (talk) 17:41, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Query for the coordinators

edit

Ian Rose, @FAC coordinators: This one has three supports and image and source passes and has been running for nearly four weeks. I realise that it needs a look over by a non-MilHist editor, but meanwhile, could I have permission to nominate another? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:03, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, should be okay. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:17, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Mind you I feel like making it conditional on the next one having "chevauchée " in the title as well -- never heard the term before this series of articles and now I really look forward to seeing (and saying) it... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:20, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Wehwalt

edit
Support. Seems to meet all the criteria, though I know little of this century. A few minor points.
  • "Following a series of disagreements between Philip VI of France (r. 1328–1350) and Edward III of England (r. 1327–1377), on 24 May 1337 Philip's Great Council in Paris agreed that the lands held by Edward III in France should be taken back into Philip's hands on the grounds that Edward III was in breach of his obligations as a vassal." I might consider moving the 1337 date to the start of the sentence, because to that point the reader has no idea what the timeframe is.
Good point. Done.
  • "Lancaster's small army was delayed for several days at Montebourg, setting off on 22 June[45] and arriving in Carentan, 25 miles (40 km) to the south, on the 23rd." I would suggest instead of the final clause, that "the next day" be placed after "arriving".
Done.
  • "in the belief Lancaster may have been heading for Calais" Calais is linked to the article on same, but there is a previous mention of Calais that is not linked to anything.
D'oh! Corrected.

--Wehwalt (talk) 14:58, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Wehwalt, much appreciated. Your comments above all addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:13, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley

edit
  • "Norman-based French nobles". This should surely be Normandy-based?
It should, it should. Fixed.
  • "planned for the Duchy of Brittany under Lancaster to the Cotentin". Perhaps for clarity "to the Cotentin Peninsula in north-west Normandy".
Done.
  • "The truce did not stop ongoing naval clashes between the two countries, nor small-scale fighting in Gascony and the Duchy of Brittany, nor occasional fighting on a larger scale." I think that grammatically the second "nor" should be "and".
You may be correct and I will change it if you insist; but IMO that would make things trickier for a reader with 'and the Duchy of Brittany, and occasional fighting'.
  • "arrived in Bordeaux, the capital of English-held Gascony, on the 20th". Of what month?
Oops. How embarrassing. Thank you. Fixed. The month had been copy edited out and I read straight past that reference to it!
  • "Houdetot also ordered assaults, which also failed; so he drove mines towards its walls in an attempt to sap them. Philip of Navarre, the younger brother of Charles of Navarre, took command of his remaining adherents and withdrew to the northern Cotentin." I find this confusing. 1. What does "his" refer to? Did Philip take command of Houdetot's adherents or was he serving under Houdetot and deserted with his own troops? 2. You refer above to Charles's younger brother Louis, so Philip cannot be the younger brother. 3. Why remaining adherents? Had some deserted? 4. "also" is repeated.
Second sentence here changed to "Philip of Navarre, another younger brother of Charles of Navarre, took command those adherents of his brother who remained loyal and not besieged and withdrew to the northern Cotentin." which I think addresses all of you concerns. (And the first brother is now introduced as "where one of Charles' younger brothers, Louis, was administering the country."
  • I am still not clear about this paragraph. The first sentence is "The French took control of most of Normandy and laid siege to those fortifications which refused to surrender." Presumably at that stage the Norman nobles were rebelling but not yet allied with Edward, and the French took control of their lands apart from fortifications loyal to the rebels. It would be helpful to spell this out if correct. "Philip of Navarre, another younger brother of Charles of Navarre, took command those adherents of his brother who remained loyal and not besieged and withdrew to the northern Cotentin" It should be "command of those adherents". Presumably Pont-Audemer was a possession of Charles of Navarre and his men were besieged, but some defected to the French ("who remained loyal"). Again it would be helpful to spell these points out. Your account seems to me too abbreviated to be clear. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:52, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Dudley, I am struggling a little with this. The previous section ends "The Norman nobles who had not been arrested, sent to Navarre for reinforcements, where one of Charles' younger brothers, Louis, was administering the country. On receiving the news Louis began raising troops. The Norman nobles also turned to Edward for assistance." This to my eye covers your "Presumably at that stage the Norman nobles were rebelling but not yet allied with Edward, and the French took control of their lands apart from fortifications loyal to the rebels. It would be helpful to spell this out if correct." I may be being a bit slow, but barring saying the same thing immediately after having just said it I am not sure how I could be clearer. If you have a concrete suggestion, it would be gratefully received.
"of" added.
Pont-Audemer - good point. I have made this explicit.
"adherents" - sentence simplified. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:58, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Loooking at it again the only sentence I find unclear is "The French took control of most of Normandy and laid siege to those fortifications which refused to surrender." It is probably me being thick but you distinguish here between the French and the Normans, whereas above you imply that the Normans were French in such comments as "Much of the north of France was openly defying John". Perhaps "The king's supporters took control of most of Normandy and laid siege to those fortifications of the rebel nobles which refused to surrender." Dudley Miles (talk) 14:51, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Dudley, ah, I see. Well, I am not using "the north of France" as synonymous with Normandy; eg the sentence immediately after the one you quote from talks about a revolt in Arras. But I take your point. I have changed the sentence to "John's army took control of most of Normandy and laid siege to those rebel-held fortifications which refused to surrender." Does that work? And apologies for taking so long to get back to you on this. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:47, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "On 1 June an initial force of 140 men-at-arms, 200 archers and 1,400 horses left Southampton". You say below that all participants were mounted, so presumably they acquired more horses in Normandy?
"On 18 June 1356 Lancaster arrived and brought the strength up to 500 men-at-arms and 800 longbowmen". Ie a total of 1,300 men for the 1,400 horses. One assumes that other detachments already based in France, English and Navarrese, arrived on their own horses, but no source specifies this.
  • 30 em for the notes looks odd with only 4 notes. They would be easier to read if they were not in columns.
I very much disagree, but that may be my failing eyesight, so changed. Actually I find that really difficult to read, you sure about it?
Thank you Dudley, and thank you for reading through it and pointing out those flaws. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:28, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Z1720

edit

Consider me a non-expert.

  • "But after relieving and re-victualling the besieged citadel". I've never heard the word "victualling"; it might be too technical. Perhaps "relieving and providing supplies"
You need to broaden your vocabulary. Changed to "resupplying".
  • "Two besieged fortifications had been re-victualled..." Does this sentence describe what happened during the 330 mi march? I was unclear by this.
Immediately before this, in the same sentence, it says "The three-week expedition had been very successful:". Is that insufficient linkage?
  • "should be taken back into Philip's hands on" -> "should be given back to Philip" to avoid MOS:IDIOM
That is not what happened. Changed to "should be taken into Philip's direct control".
  • "A treaty ending the war was negotiated at Guînes and signed on 6 April 1354." -> "The Treaty of Guînes was negociated to end the war and signed on 6 April 1354." to avoid an MOS:EASTEREGG and name the treaty in the text.
I prefer the existing text. There is no Easter egg: a reader clicks on "A treaty ending the war" and finds an article giving information on a treaty to end the war. It does not "require the reader to open [it] before understanding what's going on".
  • "The latest extension to the truce was due to expire on 24 June." Did it expire on 24 June? If so, maybe "The latest extension to the truce expired on 24 June and both sides were committed to full-scale war."
At that point in the chronology it was only due to expire. I prefer to retail an account in the order events occurred, rather than risk confusing a reader by jumping back and forth in time.
  • "John attempted to strongly garrison" Delete strongly, I doubt anyone wants to weakly garrison an area.
To the contrary, it was normal practice to weakly garrison fortifications most of the time. Pulling most of their (potential) garrisons out was the normal way to raise a field army. Strongly garrisoning all fortifications would have required having most of the nation in arms most of the time.
  • "the modern historian Clifford Rogers concluded" He should be wikilinked here, instead of in the next section.
Oops. Thank you. Done.
  • "The Norman nobles who had not been arrested, sent to Navarre for reinforcements," Should there be a comma after nobles?
No.
  • "which also failed; so he drove" the semi-colon should be a comma, or delete so.
Commaised.
  • "Horses transported in the ships of the day needed several days rest to recover, otherwise they would break down." Is break down the right term to use here? I've never thought of horses as breaking down, as they are not machines. Maybe "several days rest to recover, otherwise they would be ineffective" or something similar?
Break down is the correct term, but you are right that it is technical. I have explained more fully.
  • "and Évreux; but by the time he landed" either replace the semi-colon with a comma or delete but
"but" deleted.
  • "On the 7th Lancaster rested his men and horses,[56][57] but they did so arrayed in battle order outside Verneuil in case of a French attack.[57]" I don't think I've heard of "arrayed" before. Perhaps, "On the 7th Lancaster rested his men and horses,[56][57] arranged in a battle formation outside Verneuil in case of a French attack.[57]"
You should read more widely, "battle array" gets 270,000 hits on Google. Changed to "they did so in battle order".
  • "the French arrayed themselves for battle" same as above, maybe "arranged themselves for battle"?
Changed to prepared.
  • "The, by now, Anglo-Navarrese force" This is a bit awkward, maybe "The newly-merged Anglo-Navarrese force" or "The newly-formed Anglo-Navarrese force"
Simplified to "The force returned to Montebourg"

Those are my comments. Z1720 (talk) 21:07, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that Z1720. My responses to your comments are above. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:05, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

More comments:

  • The caption for John II's image in "Return" is centered. Any reason for this? The formatting looks weird on my computer because the caption is on two lines.
I always centre all captions in all articles I do significant work on. I find left justified cations difficult to read, especially when the last line has a single word. I also feel that centred captions look neater and more professional (criterion 1a). Centring does not change the number of lanes a caption runs over - try it and see.
Can I upload a screenshot of the article on Flickr, and post the Flickr link below to show you the formatting I see on my computer? Z1720 (talk) 14:01, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Gog and I have exchanged emails, and have resolved this concern. Z1720 (talk) 17:56, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is the ISBN of Kenneth Fowler's source not given? It's available in the archive.org link.
I have the hard copy which only gives the SBN. I was reluctant to include a retroactively designated identifier which was not on the title page of the volume I was holding. I could do so, or I could use the SBN?
I would not add the SBN, because that is a different number from ISBN, so it wouldn't make sense for one source to have an SBN while the others don't. Does an ISBN apply retroactively? I do not know enough about this to determine what to do, maybe Gog can ping an editor you think would know the answer to this? Z1720 (talk) 13:37, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Z1720, there is nothing wrong with using a retroactively applied ISBN. I have done it several times myself. So I am probably being irrational in being reluctant to do so just because there is an SBN on the title page. I have replaced the OCLC with the ISBN. Which turns out to be the SBN with 978-0- in front. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:30, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In terms of my vocabulary: I'm not well read in military history topics and I prefer reading about other topics such as Canada, political history, alternative religious movements and stage dance. While many Wikipedia readers are military buffs, others are high school students or passerbys whose vocabulary in military topics is not as strong. All I can do as a non-expert is point out when things don't make sense to me; it's up to the nominator to consider my suggestions. I won't oppose unless I feel something is very technical, but I have to be honest when I don't understand something.
Of course, understood. All Wikipedia articles are meant to be broadly comprehensible and reviews by non-specialists are hence especially valued, for much the reasons you outline. The FAC coordinators will not promote a milhist article which has not been reviewed by a non-aficionado and it is especially pleasing to me that this nomination has attracted so many such reviews.

That's my second set of comments. Z1720 (talk) 23:01, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Z1720, good points. All addressed, in one case with a query for you. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:16, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My concerns have been addressed. Support. Z1720 (talk) 17:56, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 22 June 2021 [32].

Deutschland-class battleship

edit
Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk) 15:43, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article covers the last class of German pre-dreadnought battleships, which were built in the early 1900s. Interestingly, most of them were completed after the revolutionary HMS Dreadnought rendered their design obsolescent, but three of them outlasted Dreadnought by more than a couple of decades. I initially wrote this article a little over a decade ago, and it passed a MILHIST A-class review at that time. I've since thoroughly rewritten it with new sources, and it went through a peer review last month that helped to iron things out. Thanks to everyone who takes the time to review the article. Parsecboy (talk) 15:43, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Suggest adding alt text
    • Have added alt text
  • File:Niemiecki_pancernik_szkolny_"Schlesien"_podczas_ostrzału_Helu_(2-64).jpg: what is the author's date of death? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:50, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • The source lists the author as "Zell"; I can't find out whether that's a last name or a company. I wonder if @Piotrus: might have some familiarity with who or what that might be. If not, I'll have to replace it (with this Bundesarchiv image, which should not be a proble). Thanks as always, Nikki. Parsecboy (talk) 20:51, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Can't help with Zell, very generic, but the next line mentions German WWII newspaper published in Poland ([33]). This means that Template:PD-Poland may be applicable - granted, Poland was occupied at that time, but Poland obviously did not accept the fact (that's an interesting issue when it comes to copyright). Further, based on some discussions in Commons I remember, since the file was officially uploaded here under PD by the Polish National Archive, similar discussions when it comes to Bundesarchive generally ended with saying that "even if some facts are not clear/dubious, Bundesarchive has made the legal declaration this is PD so that's their responsibility, not our problem". So I think the picture is fine, as we have both the Polish-PD plus the backing of the official Polish institution. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:56, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by PM

edit

I have returned... Will get started on this shortly. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:41, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • one thing in the lead, decap Invasion in the final para
    • Done
  • suggest "marking a significant increase in firepower"
    • Works for me
  • you could put "oa" in the infobox to specify which length is being shown
    • Done
  • "Deutschland had had a larger forward conning tower"?
    • Fixed
  • "equipped with three-shaft triple-expansion steam engines that each drove a screw propeller" is confusing. Would "each equipped with a three-shaft triple-expansion steam engine; each shaft drove a single screw propeller." work?
    • I think just removing the "-shaft" bit might solve the problem?
  • there is some repetition regarding the boilers
    • Replaced one of them
  • instead of the minimum, you could put the speed range in the infobox
    • Works for me
  • "carried an 147.5 kg"
    • Good catch
  • you could add the barbette armor to the infobox
    • Done
  • "four of her 8.8 cm guns were replaced with four 8.8 cm anti-aircraft guns"
    • Fixed
  • "like her sisters'"
    • Good catch
  • "for four 8.8 anti-aircraft guns" rm excess space
    • Fixed

More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:15, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • "the new armored ship Deutschland" armored ship? Wasn't she a heavy cruiser?
    • Yes, though the Germans initially classified them as "panzerschiffe" - but I suppose we should use the classification that we use in their article for consistency
  • fn 23 should be pp.
    • Fixed
  • author-link Friedman
    • Done
  • Koop & Schmolke doesn't have any unique detail?
    • I assume that it does, but it's not readily available so I haven't been able to consult it.

That's all I could find, nitpicks really. Nice job. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:14, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks PM, and welcome back! Parsecboy (talk) 19:45, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
All good, and thanks. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:28, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note

edit

Well over three weeks in and this has only attracted one general support and an image review. Unless there is clear evidence of a consensus to promote beginning to form over the next couple of days I am afraid that this nomination is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:31, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Parsecboy, this could do with a prose review by a non-milhist editor to wrap it up. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:00, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'll see what I can scare up. Parsecboy (talk) 11:48, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Lots of support but unless I missed something (or someone), nothing outside the MilHist fraternity yet... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:17, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing as of yet, unfortunately - I did a couple of other FAC reviews the other day with the hope of securing a reciprocal review, but so far no luck. I'll do a couple more and see if I can find anyone with the time to look at this one. Parsecboy (talk) 18:00, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HF

edit

Will take a look at this soon. Hog Farm Talk 16:24, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Do we know why the machine cannons were removed?
    • Unusually, I can add a reason! Not usually the case in things like this.

It's rare for me to review and not have significant comments, but I'm supporting on WP:FACR 1a, 1b, 1d, 1e, 2a, 2b, 2c, 4, and source reliability. Hog Farm Talk 21:08, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much, Hog Farm. Parsecboy (talk) 00:49, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dumelow

edit

Looking good to me. Only a few minor comments, some may be my personal preference and can be ignored, as you please - Dumelow (talk) 20:30, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • "After the battle, the four surviving ships were removed from front-line service and used for coastal defense through mid-1917. Hannover alone remained on patrol duty, while the rest were used as barracks or training ships." Is there an "afterwards" missing here? The main text indicates the barracks and training duties were post August 1917
    • That could probably use clarification - I added a "thereafter" to clarify we're talking after mid-1917
  • " Hannover had a pair of above-water 50 cm (20 in) torpedo tubes and four of her 8.8 cm guns were replaced with 8.8 cm anti-aircraft guns, and a tubular mast like her sisters' was installed." Missing "installed" or similar after "torpedo tubes"?
    • Good catch
  • "During the operation, the ships operated under the command of Konteradmiral (Rear Admiral) Franz Mauve." "operation ... operated" is a bit repetitive, is there another wording that could be used?
    • Swapped the second bit for "were commanded by"
  • "Being significantly slower than the rest of the German line of battle, the ships of II Squadron saw no action during the first stages of the battle.", likewise, maybe "during the first stages of the engagement"?
    • Done
  • "Toward the end of the fleet battle on the evening of 31 May, the five Deutschland-class ships came to the aid of the mauled battlecruisers of I Scouting Group, when Mauve places his ships between them and their counterparts in the British Battle Cruiser Fleet." Should be "placed", I think?
    • Fixed - a typo no doubt
  • "Hannover was modernized in the late 1920s", modernized again? We've already said that "All three ships were heavily modernized in the early 1920s"
    • Yes, twice - have added an "again" to make that clear
  • "During this period, Germany came under the control of Adolf Hitler and the Nazi party, which set upon a rearmament and an aggressive foreign policy that led to the outbreak of World War II in September 1939." Something a bit off here, is it better as "a rearmament strategy and an aggressive foreign policy" or similar?
    • That works for me
  • " After the end of the Polish campaign, the ships returned to training duties, and in early 1940, Schlesien was used as an icebreaker in the Baltic Sea", the commas feel a bit off, perhaps: "After the end of the Polish campaign the ships returned to training duties and, in early 1940, Schlesien was used as an icebreaker in the Baltic Sea"?
    • I think the commas are right - at the very least, the one should come before the "and", not after - I'm a little more iffy on the first one, but we might cut that knot by rewording it to "The ships returned to training duties after the Polish campaign..."
  • "Hannover was broken up starting in 1944; the work was completed by 1946." maybe "Hannover was broken up between 1944 and 1946"?
Support on prose. No big deal on the comma point - Dumelow (talk) 18:50, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by From Hill To Shore

edit

I have provided my initial review below. I'll come back to the service history section later. From Hill To Shore (talk) 01:51, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Review complete. From Hill To Shore (talk) 14:36, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Design: Do we clarify what the "fiscal year" is being referred to here either by the sources or by the German state of that time period? Fiscal years vary between countries and over time. Some follow the calendar year from January to December while some others use April to March. This could be resolved by linking to the article on fiscal years; it may encourage other editors to add a section on Germany to that article.
    That I don't know - I haven't ever seen a specific reference to how Germany defined it at the time (though I suspect it involves the 1 April date specified in the naval law. I've added a link to fiscal year.
  2. Design: "The naval command had originally intended to build ten battleships of the Braunschweig type, starting with the 1901 fiscal year with two ships built per year, but ultimately they only built five. During construction, a series of minor improvements were incorporated into subsequent designs, and by the time work began on the second vessel of the 1903 fiscal year, a more significantly altered design had been prepared." That implies the second ship in 1903 was ship number 6. I am guessing number 6 is the SMS Deutschland mentioned in the next paragraph but there is a slight disconnect there. Would it be better to phrase it as the first of the 1903 would be the last of the Braunschweig type and that the second of the 1903 would follow the new Deutschland design?
    Reworded a bit to provide clarity
  3. General characteristics: "The ships handled less easily than the preceding Braunschweig-class ships, though they suffered less marked weather helm." Do we have any details on how or why the ships handled less easily than the previous class? If sources are silent on this, it is fine to leave the statement as it is.
    No, unfortunately - the ships were essentially the same size and weight, and I'd assume the hull forms were more or less identical as well.
  4. General characteristics: "When one of them was a squadron flagship, the crew was augmented by 13 officers and 66 enlisted men; while serving as a second command ship, 2 officers and 23 enlisted men were added to her standard crew." I am assuming that is an "or" statement; the ship was either a squadron leader or a second command ship but not both at the same time. If it is an "or" statement, would it be better to give the total numbers for a squadron leader and the total numbers for a second command ship? That way readers don't try adding the 3 sets of numbers together.
    Yes, an "or" - see if how I reworded it is an improvement
    Yes, that is much clearer, thanks. From Hill To Shore (talk) 19:05, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Machinery: "These were divided into three boiler rooms, each of which was ducted into a funnel." I would tend to say "each of which were" as we are talking about multiple boiler rooms. However, this could be one of those regional rules of English similar to the collective noun problem, so feel free to ignore if the sentence is gramatically correct in the style of English used for the article.
    Yeah, that's a British/American thing
  6. Machinery: "though on trials all five ships exceeded both figures..." Out of curiosity, do we know where the trials were conducted? The choice of testing location can affect the results of the speed test, due to efficiency of the engines in different depths of water. If sources are silent on this, feel free to ignore.
    Nothing specific to these ships, but I have seen references to other vessels built during WWI having been constrained to the western Baltic for their trials (which resulted in lower trials speeds), so I'd assume further out in the Baltic or in the North Sea
  7. Machinery: "Schleswig-Holstein was the fastest member of the class." Do we know if that was under trial conditions or actual service?
    Clarified this was from the trials - I haven't seen any references to their service speeds (which of course can change at various loadings)
  8. Machinery: "Deutschland was designed to carry 700 t (690 long tons; 770 short tons) of coal and the other members could carry 850 t (840 long tons; 940 short tons), though additional spaces could be utilized as fuel storage, which increased fuel capacity to 1,540 to 1,750 t (1,520 to 1,720 long tons; 1,700 to 1,930 short tons)." For the figures related to the additional spaces, do the figures follow the same pattern as the first half of the sentence? As in, Deutschland had 700t normally but could increase to 1,540t, while the others had 850t normally but could increase to 1,750t? Or does the range for the additional fuel capacity apply equally to all five vessels?
    The former is correct - have split the range for clarity
  9. Machinery: "Electrical power was supplied from four turbo-generators that supplied 260 kilowatts (350 hp) each at 110 volts." Is it worth linking to Turbo generator?
    Good idea
  10. Armament: "The primary armament comprised four 28 cm SK L/40..." Are we missing a link here? All the other guns are linked in infobox and the first mention in the article; this one just has an infobox link.
    It's linked in the first paragraph of the design section
    Ah, I see. I did a word search for "SK L/40," so didn't spot the earlier link on "28 cm (11 in) gun." From Hill To Shore (talk) 19:05, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Armament: "These were placed in casemates in hull sponsons, in embrasures in the superstructure, and in open mounts." I assume this is trying to say that the guns were arranged in three different types rather than them being in hull sponsonsons with embrasures and them also having the mount open. I would suggest rephrasing the sentence, perhaps by replacing that "and" with "or."
    Done
  12. Armament: "The ships were temporarily fitted with four 3.7 cm (1.5 in) machine cannon, but these were quickly removed." Do we have a time period for this temporary placement? Were they there at the time of commissioning but removed in the first year, or were they added and removed later?
    That's all I know, unfortunately - they're mentioned in Groener and Gardiner, but Dodson doesn't discuss them at all. The ten ships built a decade earlier (the Kaiser Friedrich III and Wittelsbach classes) carried a dozen of them, and I'd assume they were retained in the next set of ten ships due to inertia, but Germans realized quickly that guns of that caliber were useless against the latest torpedo boats and got rid of them to save weight.
  13. Armament: "These weapons were 5.15 m (16.9 ft) long and carried a 147.5 kg (325 lb) TNT warhead. They could be set at two speeds for different ranges." By "these weapons" I assume that we have switched from talking about the torpedo tubes to the torpedoes themselves; it wasn't until I got to the setting of speeds that I realised the subject had changed slightly. Perhaps use "These torpedoes" instead of "These weapons." You could then use "weapons" after the 26 knots statement in the next sentence, to avoid overuse of torpedoes.
    Done
  14. Armor: "Deutschland had a slightly different arrangement in the belt armor and the citadel..." Is it worth linking to Armored citadel?
    Done
  15. Armor: "Her sister ships' belts was increased..." Should that be "were"?
    Good catch
  16. Modifications: "Schlesien had her two forward funnels merged together, while Schleswig-Holstein had hers similarly modified in 1928." Do we have an indication on the timing of Schlesien's change in funnels? The sentence implied that it came before 1928 but are we talking about a difference of weeks or years?
    During the mid-1920s refit mentioned earlier in the paragraph
  17. Modifications: "Hannover had a pair of above-water 50 cm (20 in) torpedo tubes and four of her 8.8 cm guns were replaced with 8.8 cm anti-aircraft guns, and a tubular mast like her sisters' was installed." I think we are missing a word after torpedo tubes there, or else there is an extraneous "were" later in the sentence. The second "and" also makes the sentence a little long; could the bit about the mast be added to the next sentence on the sponsons?
    I think this was fixed in Dumelow's section above
  18. Modifications: "Schlesien received four 3.7 cm (1.5 in) L/83 anti-aircraft guns..." Do we know if this is referring to 3.7 cm SK C/30? The weapon article lists it as an L/83 and says the weapon type was used on this class of battleship.
    Yes, those are the same
  19. Modifications: "In August, Schlesien had her 3.7 cm guns taken off and Schleswig-Holstein was almost completely disarmed, retaining only her 28 cm guns. The following year, she received four 8.8 cm guns, four 3.7 cm guns, and three 2 cm guns." In the second sentence, which vessel is "she"?
    Schlesien - good catch
  20. World War I: "when Mauve places his ships between them and their counterparts..." I think that should be placed.
    Dumelow also got that one
  21. Inter-war years: "which set upon a rearmament and an aggressive foreign policy..." This doesn't read quite right; I'd suggest either removing the "a" before rearmament or adding extra words. For example, "a process of rearmament."
    Also fixed per Dumelow - see how it reads now
    I'm happy with the revised wording. From Hill To Shore (talk) 19:05, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  22. World War II: "Schleswig-Holstein steamed to Danzig, Poland..." This is technically incorrect, as Danzig was not part of Poland at the time. It was the Free City of Danzig. I'd suggest removing Poland from the sentence and using the Free City link; that way the correct context can be read in the linked article.
    Good point
  23. World War II: "culminating in the Polish surrender on 7 September..." I assume this means the surrender of local Polish forces as Poland was still fighting a month after that and never formally surrendered to Germany. It might be worthwhile clarify which forces surrendered here.
    Good point, clarified
  24. World War II: "Hannover was broken up starting in 1944; the work was completed by 1946." It isn't vitally important but do we know where the ship was being broken up? Readers may be curious whether it was dismantled in the eastern or western occupation zones (the zones predating the formation of the east and west German states in 1949). If sources are silent, feel free to ignore.
    Added. Thanks very much! Parsecboy (talk) 16:40, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I have added a few replies above. I'm happy to support this promotion to FA. Good work. From Hill To Shore (talk) 19:05, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

edit

Support from 100cellsman

edit

Nice article. I did not find any problems. 웃OO 01:03, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SupportComments from Z1720

edit

Please consider me a non-expert.

  • "they had become an obsolescent" -> "they became an obsolete"?
    • Obsolescent and obsolete aren't exactly interchangeable, and the former is better in this case
  • "when they were used for training including overseas cruises." -> "when they were used for training, which included overseas cruises." (I also assume that this does not refer to a cruise ship.)
    • Done, and yes, that's correct
  • The infobox and first picture are creating MOS:SANDWICH, which is not recommended.
    • It's fine on my laptop (and even less of an issue on mobile devices, which is what most readers use these days) - I don't think it's possible to create an image layout that satisfies all display sizes and resolutions, and I'm not particularly a fan of having all images on one side (which can cause its own problems on certain monitors).
  • "The naval command had originally intended to build ten battleships" delete originally, as it is redundant
    • Done
  • " but ultimately they only built five." Either delete "they" or flip "they" and "ultimately".
    • Done
  • "which mixed set of fire-tube and water-tube boilers," which mixed sets? which mixed a set? Wording seems weird.
    • Good catch
  • " all the major navies pointed to battleships armed" -> "all the major navies favoured battleships armed"
    • Check that again - the "pointed" refers back to the trend, not the navies
  • "all-big-gun batteries; indeed, work" -> "all-big-gun batteries, and work"?
    • I don't think "and" is quite right here
  • " Tirpitz had insisted on building" Delete had
    • Done
  • "Deutschlands in large part due to the fact that they" -> "Deutschlands because they"
    • Done
  • "As a result, they were rendered" -> "As a result, the Deutschland-class battleships were rendered"
    • Done
  • " though they suffered less marked weather helm." -> though they suffered a less marked weather helm? What does a marked weather helm mean?
    • There's a link to weather helm - I think an explanation of the term here is a bit beyond the scope of the article
  • "and six fire-tube boilers but the rest of the vessels received twelve water-tube models, all of which were coal-fired." -> "and six fire-tube boilers, but the rest of the vessels received twelve water-tube models which were all coal-fired."
    • Done
  • "while Schleswig-Holstein only lost three of hers." delete only
    • Done
  • "Both ships were broken up in situ after the war." what does "in situ" mean? Either wikilink or use more common language.
    • Linked
  • Why are the four books listed in "Further reading" not used as sources in the article?
    • Conway's doesn't add anything beyond what's already in the article, but it's a fairly well-known source for ships of the era, which some readers may be able to access. Koop & Schmolke is more or less impossible to find in the US. Weir is more focused on the context surrounding the construction of these ships (and the rest of the Imperial fleet) that is a bit beyond the scope of this article, but someone who's interested in the topic would probably want to read it. Dodson & Cant, like Conway's, doesn't have anything to add to this article, but it's a new publication still in print, and readers may find it useful as well.

That's it for my first round of comments. Z1720 (talk) 02:13, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Parsecboy (talk) 23:49, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My concerns have been addressed, so I'll support. Z1720 (talk) 23:55, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 16 June 2021 [34].

York County, Maine, Tercentenary half dollar

edit
Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 22:17, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about...One of the more obscure of the commemoratives issued in 1936. Still, the coin tells a story, and the only scandal seems to be that Congress let standards drop and chose to commemorate a very local event. Wehwalt (talk) 22:17, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Suggest adding alt text
  • File:York_county_tercentenary_half_dollar_commemorative_obverse.jpg: what's the copyright status of the photo? Ditto File:York_county_tercentenary_half_dollar_commemorative_reverse.jpg
  • File:LVPL-1CFD55_Silver_pine_tree_shilling_of_Massachusetts,_North_America_(FindID_285997).jpg should include an explicit tag for the coin. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:27, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
First two swapped for ones that areOTRS pending, will advise when permissions come through. License added on pine tree shilling. As for Alt text, I don't feel I do it well, so I prefer to leave it for others who care to. Thanks for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:46, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OTRS has added permissions.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:58, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Ceoil

edit

Know York quite well and spent a few days there during my honeymoon in 2014. The town has a rather picturesque and storied graveyard that have visited many times in last 8 years. Maybe so have a COI here, dunno ;)

Quibbles:

  • The commemorative coin craze of 1936 - as this is not linked, perhaps "a commemorative coin craze" rather than "the"
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:51, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • selling the coins to the public asked that the maximum issue of 30,000 coins be struck, but for uncertain reasons the Philadelphia Mint struck only 25,000 for public sale - is the second "public sale" here redundant. Same with "the remainder was sold to the public in the 1950s"
The "for public sale" was to exclude the 15 assay pieces, which were either tested to destruction, melted or sold to the 1937 assay commissioners. Tweaked.
  • what is now the state of Maine was at what is now...: change one "what is now" to "today's"
Done, more or less.
  • oldest and southernmost county in Maine and one of the oldest political units in the United States - oldest x 2. Does "first" political units in the United States follow?
I changed the other "oldest" instead.
  • Sparked by low-mintage issues which appreciated in value - sparked? Due to a series of...which appreciated...
I like the existing language, which I've used in other articles, better.
  • The new pieces then came on to the secondary market - entered
Fine.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:24, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The apparent easy profits to be made by purchasing and holding commemoratives attracted many to the coin collecting hobby, where they sought to purchase the new issues - speculative buying and collecting are different things, so would re-phsase "drew many" as "brought attention to". where they sought to purchase the new issues - "especially in" rater than "where they sought to purchase"
Tweaked somewhat differently.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:24, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • an explosion of ?
Tweaked.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:24, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have read through, and made minor tweaks rather than listing here....please feel free to revert at will. The sources seem as of the usual quality for this topic and editor. Support. 15:18, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the review and support. I've made the changes per the above.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:24, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HF

edit

Will take a look at this soon. Might claim for 5 points in the WikiCup. Hog Farm Talk 22:22, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • "In 1636, York County was formed, the first and southernmost county in Maine and one of the oldest political units in the United States" - Is it worth briefly noting that Maine itself technically didn't exist at that time, as it was part of Massachusetts until the early 19th century?
I'm not sure that's necessary here.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:14, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we know why Taber objected?
No. Working directly from Congressional Record there.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:14, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The original coin holder in which up to five York County half dollars were sent to purchasers are worth from $50 to $125, and if accompanied by original insert up to $150, depending on condition" - Source is almost ten years old, recommend adding as as of date here.
Did that, more or less.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:14, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent work here; I couldn't find much to nitpick. Anticipate supporting. Hog Farm Talk 04:37, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for the review. I've addressed those.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:14, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support on WP:FACR #1a, 1b, 1d, 1e, source reliability, 2a, 2b, 2c, and 4, did not check others. Hog Farm Talk 01:40, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Moise

edit

Hi Wehwalt, I'll review this. Here are some comments:

  • Lead: "the remainder was sold": I would say "were sold" because coins is plural, but if you disagree this is no dealbreaker for me.
Changed to "were sold".--Wehwalt (talk) 19:19, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Background and inception: Does "senior among them" mean "first among them". If so, could I propose "several coins minted in prior years were produced again, dated 1936, first among them the Oregon Trail Memorial half dollar, initially struck in 1926"? (I assume "senior among them" doesn't mean "most importantly among them" as that would sound subjective.)
It means that the Oregon Trail was first struck in 1926, the other coins referred to came along later (1934 and 1935). It's a simple way of saying it I've used in other articles, other ways seem messier.---Wehwalt (talk) 19:17, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The York County, Maine, Tercentenary half dollar was one of several early commemoratives issued despite its local significance": I initially was confused what "despite its local significance" refers to, but I see it is explained a bit farther down. I think it would be clearer to reword this as "despite its lack of national significance". Moisejp (talk) 18:39, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done, more or less.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:17, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Design: "The obverse depicts Brown's Garrison, located next to the Saco River... The reverse depicts the York County seal." This seems to repeat details mentioned just a bit above in the Preparation section. I'm not sure what the best solution would be if you feel the details are needed in both sections. One idea would be in the Design section drop the detail of Saco River (I don't believe it's actually shown on the coin?) and say something like "On the obverse four sentries are seen in front of Brown's Garrison, with one of them mounted,[29] making the York County half dollar the third U.S. coin, after the Lafayette dollar (dated 1900) and the Stone Mountain Memorial half dollar (1925), to depict a horse." In this way the repeated detail about Brown's Garrison is mentioned less directly and unobtrusively than "depicts Brown's Garrison". Likewise maybe the detail about the York County seal on the reverse could be slipped in less directly.
Done, more or less.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:08, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Release, distributing, and collecting: "Senator White, in a March 15, 1937 letter to Mint Director Nellie Tayloe Ross, stated that the committee had erred, thinking only 25,000 pieces were authorized": Presumably it was the committee that thought only 25,000 pieces were authorized, but grammatically in the current structure of the sentence it may not be clear whether it was White or the committee that thought this. Also (if one assumes it's clear that it was the committee that thought this), did White know/presume that the reason the committee had only struck 25,000 pieces was because they believed that was all that was authorized, or did his letter only state that the committee had erred, and he found out the reason afterwards? The current structure of the sentence makes the timeline a bit fuzzy, and the reader may wonder.
The letter from Senator White seems inconsistent with the letter to O'Reilly. I can't explain it and commemorative coins are ill-studied, this one in particular. The source presents the letter but does not comment on.it.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:08, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Those are all of my comments for now. I'll likely give another quick read-through when you've addressed these. It's a very interesting article; I especially enjoyed the controversy about a commemoration of non-national importance getting a coin, and enjoyed the quotation from William F. Sheehan. Moisejp (talk) 19:22, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've started my second read-through early since I have time now and you've already addressed some of the points.

  • 1. "The commemorative was approved largely due to the connections that many of the coin's sponsors had, including numismatist Walter P. Nichols, who was at the time the Treasurer of the Committee for Commemoration of the Founding of York County"; 2. "By 1936, thanks to enabling legislations put forth by accommodating Congressmen, it was possible—or nearly so—to get a coin struck to observe a town picnic... Although there was no paper trail showing payoffs from local promoters, the fix was in and hardly anyone cared": Are these two ideas (which are far apart from each other in the text) related, and would it be worthwhile to acknowledge (or, as the case may be, clearly refute) a possible relation or similarity of the ideas, for any readers who may wonder about any link. Moisejp (talk) 19:51, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've addressed this in dealing with the matter below.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:08, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't have a strong opinion about this, but if you decide to do something with my idea above, there might be an opportunity at the same time to link "The national response to and interest in York County’s 300th anniversary could generously be described as, 'Huh?'" " with what is said about this in the Background and inception section. But I understand the nuance is slightly different here: Rick Sear seems to be saying among other things that nobody cared nationally about in particular the bribing for the York County proceedings because York County was so local and far away. Moisejp (talk) 20:06, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there was an implication of bribery, just of influence. I've put the quotations together, but it may be overkill.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:41, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've addressed these issues. Many thanks for your review.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:08, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

edit

References

  • #9: Is there no volume/issue number? Is 29 the page you're citing to, or is it a one-page article?
I've added the volume/issue number and it's one page.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:19, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing the volume/issue number. --Usernameunique (talk) 19:17, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oops. Obviously I goofed.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:42, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • #12: It's in the public domain, so should be available online somewhere.
  • #13: Ditto.
  • #16: Ditto.
  • #18: Ditto.
  • #19: Ditto.
  • #20: Ditto. Also, why is Congressional Record italicized here, but not elsewhere?
12 through 20 all addressed.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:19, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • #21: Volume/issue? Page range, or one-page article?
Added. One page.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:19, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • #33: Could take a "– via ProQuest" signifier.
(you mean 22). Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:26, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at it again, I see that one ProQuest source uses the "via=ProQuest" parameter, but the others say "via Congressional ProQuest" in the publisher parameter. I would change these all so that they use the "via" parameter (either "via=ProQuest" or "via=Congressional ProQuest"). --Usernameunique (talk) 19:17, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • #27: Coinsite should be the name of the source, not in the name of the page title.
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:19, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • #28: Volume/issue? Page range, or one-page article?
Added. One page article.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:19, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • #30: Volume/issue? Page range, or one-page article?
Added. One page article.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:19, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

  • Bullowa 1938: Needs ", NY" for consistency.
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:19, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sheehan 1975: Volume/issue?
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:19, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:19, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • May 29, 1936 source: It's in the public domain, is it available for free anywhere? Also, could take a "– via ProQuest" signifier.
  • March 11, 1936 source: Ditto and ditto.
  • May 21, 1936 source: It's in the public domain, is it available for free anywhere? Also, is this the same thing as footnote 13, above? And should the United States Government Publishing Office be mentioned?
It doesn't say that. I did searches on each of these and did not see these documents available.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:26, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Generally speaking, what's the difference between these three sources and the Congressional Record sources in "References"?
The Congressional Record is the transcript of the debates of Congress. These three sources are transcripts of committee hearings, or reports of committees on bills, and are less widely available.
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:19, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeoman 2020: Any reason there's an LLC at the end of Whitman Publishing here, but not for Slabaugh 1975?
I know Whitman has changed hands over time, no doubt it's related to that.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:19, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This version looked at. --Usernameunique (talk) 16:41, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Noted. I'll work on these probably this weekend. Many thanks for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:40, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Congressional Record cites have been italicized and also linked to PD sources.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:39, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think I've covered everything.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:26, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Gog the Mild & Wehwalt, two minor comments above. Signed off once they're addressed. --Usernameunique (talk) 19:17, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
All done now, Usernameunique. Thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:42, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wehwalt, I'd move "via Congressional ProQuest" from the "publisher=" parameter to the "via=" parameter. --Usernameunique (talk) 23:41, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Usernameunique That's done too.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:35, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Usernameunique, as a coordinator it is always tricky for me to know if a nominator saying that something is addressed is the same as a reviewer feeling that they have been satisfactorily addressed, and I feel that I always need to err on the side of caution. Thanks for the clarification, I thought that was what you would say. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:07, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Z1720

edit

Consider me a non-expert

  • "authorized by Congress that" Might want to add that this is the American Congress.
Done in the lede. I think it can be skipped in the body.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:20, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The first European settlement in what is today the state of Maine was at what is now the city of Saco in 1631, where the fortification known as Brown's Garrison was built." This sentence has a lot of "what is known as" statements. Maybe, "The first European settlement in what is today the state of Maine was a fortification called Brown's Garrison. It was built in 1631 at the current location of the city of Saco." Or something similar, just to break up the language a little bit.
Tweaked a bit differently.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:20, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "no fewer than fifteen were issued for the first time." Do you mean this is the first time Congress issued commemorative coins, or that it was the first time 15 were issued at the same time?
Clarified.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:20, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "At the request of the groups authorized to purchase them, several coins minted in prior years were produced again, dated 1936, senior among them the Oregon Trail Memorial half dollar, first struck in 1926." Too many commas are breaking up the flow. Perhaps, "At the request of the groups authorized to purchase them, several coins minted in prior years were produced again and dated 1936, including the Oregon Trail Memorial half dollar which was first struck in 1926." (I removed "senior among them" because I don't know what that means in this context.)
Clarified and cleaned up, hopefully.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:20, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikilink "Director of the Mint" to "Director of the United States Mint"?
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:20, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikilink "Committee on Coinage, Weights, and Measures" to "United States House Committee on Coinage, Weights, and Measures"?
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:20, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "while the dies were reduced" should this be "dyes"?
No. Helpful pipe inserted.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:20, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and provoked much favorable comment." from who?
Nichols did not say.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:20, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "thought the obverse design "splendid"." -> "thought the obverse design was "splendid"."
  • It's weird how the sale of the first 100 coins is presented at the end of the paragraph. Perhaps flip the order so that it is chronological.
Moved.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:20, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Those are all my comments. Z1720 (talk) 15:14, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've done those things.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:20, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My concerns have been addressed. I support this FAC. Z1720 (talk) 18:28, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 16 June 2021 [35].

1999 Football League First Division play-off Final

edit
Nominator(s): The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 09:00, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is another dive into the single most valuable association football match in the world. Obviously a disappointment here since the Tractor Boys didn't quite make it, but a fun ride nevertheless and some big names of English football involved too. As always, sensible and constructive criticism is welcomed and will be actioned as soon as practicable. Thanks in advance for your time. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 09:00, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What about unconstructive criticism? Therapyisgood (talk) 18:25, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That would be interesting. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 18:28, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ChrisTheDude

edit
Comments on the lead
  • The top division should be referred to throughout as the Premier League. "Premiership" was a sponsored name.
  • "Bolton Wanderers ended the season in fifth position while Watford sixth" - missing word near the end I think
  • "Allan Smart doubled their lead with two minutes remaining as Watford won the match 2–0" => "Allan Smart doubled their lead with two minutes remaining and Watford won the match 2–0" ("as" suggests they won with two minutes remaining)
  • "since its inception in 1992–93 season" => "since its inception in the 1992–93 season"
  • "It also meant that Watford were promoted second successive season" - missing words I think
  • Putting this here partly as a placeholder - I'll look at the rest later..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:20, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    All done Chris, thanks. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 12:35, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comments on the next bit
  • "Michael Johansen volleyed the ball past Richard Wright in the Ipswich goal, and securing....." - bit of a grammar issue there. Probably best just to remove the "and"
  • Frandsen is mentioned for the first time without his forename or a wikilink
  • "despite Holland's 20-yard (18 m) strike making it 4–3 to Ipswich in the 116th minute, the tie ended 4–4 on aggregate" - the tie didn't end 4-4 on aggregate despite Holland's goal, it ended 4-4 on aggregate because of his goal. Suggest a re-wording here.
  • "Watford faced Birmingham City in their play-off semi-final and played the first leg away at Vicarage Road" - Watford played away at Vicarage Road??
  • "Before half-time, Birmingham City's Chris Holland had hit" => "Before half-time, Birmingham City's Chris Holland hit". Also suggest the second "before" in this sentence be changed to "and" to avoid repetition..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:44, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    All done Chris, thanks again. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 15:14, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comments on the rest
  • "Watford manager Graham Taylor last managed a team" => "Watford manager Graham Taylor had last managed a team"
  • "Bolton's top scorer in the league was Taylor who had fifteen goals for the season" - as a completely different Taylor was just mentioned in the last sentence, might be worth giving his full name to make this 100% clear
  • "Despite Bolton dominating the midfield, in the eleventh minute Steve Palmer's long ball forward was allowed to bounce before Kennedy's shot was high over the bar" - this is a bit unclear. Does all of the bit after the comma refer to a single move or two separate moves? Also, how does this relate to Bolton dominating the midfield?
  • "On 13 minutes, Eiður Guðjohnsen was defended by Robinson and Page" - not sure I have ever seen the wording that Player X was defended by Player Y......?
  • "Guðjohnsen had another chance after breaking free but was defended by Page" - same again
  • I would write Bolton Wanderers in full in the details section
  • "Elton John had watched the match live from Seattle said" => "Elton John, who had watched the match live from Seattle, said"
  • "the club finished bottom of the Premier League, 12 points from safety, and losing 26 of their 38 matches" => "the club finished bottom of the Premier League, 12 points from safety, losing 26 of their 38 matches"
  • Think that's all I've got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:59, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Third tranche done Chris, many thanks. Let me know if anything else remains to be done. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:03, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Follow-up

Coordinator note

edit

Coming up to the three week mark and this has only attracted one general support. If there are not further signs of a consensus to promote building over the next two or three days I am afraid that the nomination is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:06, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is fine to draw other editors' attention to a FAC, so long as this is done in a neutral way. Gog the Mild (talk) 08:52, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Good to know, perhaps all the co-ordinators should get up to speed with that. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 10:39, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Yep -- while I don't think I use the expression "calling in favours", I've often suggested that nominators seek reviews in a neutrally worded manner when necessary, and haven't changed my position on that. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:26, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Kosack

edit
  • "gained automatic promotion to the Premiership", noting what Chris said above regarding the use of Premiership, is this a deliberate usage or an oversight?
  • Could perhaps link overhead kick to Bicycle kick in the lead and the match summary.
  • "before a 50 yards (46 m) run", should that be yard rather than yards?
  • What is the source for the captains in the match details section?

In all honesty, I'm struggling to find much to complain about. I'll be supporting either way really but there are a handful of very minor points to look at. Kosack (talk) 16:18, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kosack thanks for the review! I addressed all your comments and as for the captains, no sources, so that's sadly gone. Cheers, let me know if there's anything else I can do? The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 15:45, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy to support, this is another high quality piece of work. Kosack (talk) 06:39, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Lee Vilenski

edit

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

Lede
Prose
Additional comments

Additionally, if you liked this review, or are looking for items to review, I have some at my nominations list. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:05, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Vilenski I've responded to and/or actioned all your comments, thanks so much for the review. Let me know how to proceed with those I haven't satisfactorily addressed. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 15:52, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Lee Vilenski hi Lee, just checking in to see if there's anything else I can do for you here? The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 23:37, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I have come up with some additional wording if you fancy, but fine to support regardless. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:32, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support

edit

from me. Only minor thing I think would improve is this (which I undid) as it introduces the 2nd tier one sentence earlier. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:50, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review by Amakuru - Passed

edit

General points:

  • Noting the use of Soccerway as a source for the league positions. Discussions at WT:FOOTY have mostly concluded by saying Soccerway shouldn't be used as a secondary source, or for certain purposes, but this league table looks OK as no independent commentary is being used.
  • Ref 24 should have the usual "AFS Enterprises" for 11v11.
  • Nothing else I can really see.

Spot checks:

  • [1] - both the league table and the contents of the first paragraph of "Route to the final" are confirmed by this ref.
  • [2] - mostly checks out, although pedantically, the source doesn't actually say the winning goal was volleyed past the keeper; for all we know he might have been somewhere else entirely.
    Stuck to source, perhaps an old memory of mine... The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 16:46, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • [3] - the link seems to be wrong. It points to the same article as ref [4].
  • [4] - checks out.
  • [6] - checks out.
  • [7] - checks out.
  • [9] - checks out.
  • [10] - checks out for both.
  • [11] - checks out.
  • [12] - checks out.
  • [14] - checks out.
  • [16] - checks out.
  • [17] - checks out for both.
  • [20] - looks fine, I checked a few of the minute-by-minute things although I didn't look at every single one of them!
  • [21] - fine for the quote; it doesn't say they were "favourites" for relegation though, only that they were 4/7. Unlikely perhaps, but there might have been another team with even shorter odds than that.
    Add that they were odds on to get relegated and that the guy writing in the Irish Indy said they were favourites, hopefully covering the concern here. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 16:46, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • [23] - checks out.
  • [24] - checks out. Although I know they did beat Cov on the last day of the season to deny us a single away win from that campaign, because I was there.
  • [26] - checks out.

Just a couple of minor things then, and this one will be good to go.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:10, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Amakuru addressed the two issues you noted, thanks for scouring those sources. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 16:46, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nice one. You missed the things about AFS Enterprises, but I've taken the liberty of doing that one myself. Otherwise all good so I'm passing the source review.  — Amakuru (talk) 17:06, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, sorry, and thanks! The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 17:10, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@FAC coordinators: as this is in good stead now, with three supports, a source review and an image review, can I now start another nomination? Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 17:10, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:56, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 16 June 2021 [36].

Raiders of the Lost Ark

edit
Nominator(s): Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 12:56, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the 1981 action-adventure film Raiders of the Lost Ark (a.k.a. Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Ark). Though not my favourite film in the series it's the most important one, not just for the film series itself but for its influence on films that followed, it's massive success, and somehow George Lucas was making this and The Empire Strikes Back simultaneously. Questionable talent that he may have become, the man was a genius at his peak. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 12:56, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from theJoebro64

edit

Gonna leave some comments soon. I may make slight edits while I go through, as I think it'll be easier than just leaving comments on minor points. JOEBRO64 13:51, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, thanks TheJoebro64 Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE!
Yo, TheJoebro64, pinging you bro. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 09:10, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the nudge. I've read the article fully and don't see really anything to nitpick. My only issue was a minor quirk in the Writing section; the "they" in "They agreed to use 'Jones' instead" refers to Spielberg, Kasdan, and Lucas all, correct? I think it should be clarified because it's the start of a new paragraph. Otherwise I don't think I need to hold this up much longer so I'm throwing in a support. JOEBRO64 15:46, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Changed, thanks TheJoebro64!! Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 18:51, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from 👨x🐱

edit

Excited to review this. BTW, given the comments you've received on your previous, if you'd like to review other featured articles in the review, I would strongly encourage it. I'm planning some film FA nominations in the future, although I don't have any right now.

Initial comments and lead
  • I'll start out by saying every citation here is from reliable sources and formatted perfectly from a skimthrough, so that's a good sign.
  • Poster doesn't have WP:ALT description.
  • "While the pair had ideas for notable scenes in the film" Clarify. Are we meaning concepts for scenes that would be known years after release, or scenes that are the most essential in progressing the plot?
  • An oddity I noticed with the locations listed. I get why La Rochelle and Tunisia were there because they were filmed the most prominently judging by the filming section, and I get Hawaii because even though it was filmed there for one scene, it was filmed in several areas of the state for the scene. However, I don't know why the entire state of California is listed. Only one scene used only one location of California, a University. Additionally, by that logic, shouldn't England also be listed since it was also used for one scene in location of the country, Rickmansworth?

More comments coming soon to a theater near you. 👨x🐱 (talk) 20:45, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Added an ALT caption for the poster. I changed the lead part to setpieces and stunts. The gist of it from my research is they had an idea like "Oh let's have a big boulder chase Indy" and it was Kasdan's job to get Indy in front of the boulder and then NOT in front of the boulder, if that helps understanding. England is technically mentioned but not in an on location capacity so I've reworded and took out California. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 12:15, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi HumanxAnthro, did you see my response? Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 09:10, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse the delayed reactions yet again. A result of juggling everything at once. 👨x🐱 (talk) 12:15, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Plot
  • This section two major issues
    • One, even though it's well under 700 words, it still feels like a list of scenes in order instead of a concise summary.
    • Two, while I understand sentence length variation is importance and it's fine to have short sentences here and there, I feel this section has too many of them and the prose is choppy in some spots.
Cast
  • Looks good, character descriptions keep true to sources cited. On a side note, however, can I just it's weird that the Variety source refers to Rene by the actor's name?
  • Ref 11 does give character names and actors for Musgrove of Eaton, but doesn't specify they have those positions for the U.S. Army.
  • I do, however, need to state that Ref 10, cited first in this section, is url= linked to a BBC article different from what I expected. The archiveurl link at least is correct, but not the url= link.
  • What is the Bantu Wind? This is the first section it is brought up.

👨x🐱 (talk) 17:51, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed a few short sentences by integrating them into larger ones. As for the plot itself, as you say it's well under the word limit, I've refined and refined it down to it's bare bones, but I do not believe anything there is unnecessary. It's a constantly moving story that switches locations frequently, and every element mentioned is relevant to a different part of the story. It's as tight a summary of the key elements as you could ask for. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 18:24, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Anthro, god catch on ref 10, I've fixed that and the other issues. I've added some additional references for the US army guys, it's bizarrely difficult to find sources on the "Top Men" guys. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:33, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging HumanxAnthro. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:27, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Production section in general
  • That simply comes from invoking previously used citations (and evidently not the same order they were first used within the article). I don't see a problem with this as long as they support the attributed text. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 16:25, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
They were in order but as I've had to tweak things, they've fallen out of order. It's fine, I'll fix it. Thanks both. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 17:24, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done HumanxAnthro Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:49, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Friendly ping @ HumanxAnthro because they're as beautiful, fleeting, and uncatchable as the wind. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 10:11, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Conception
  • Sorry this is taking so long, because checking if the citations correctly cite the info is taking a long time because the sources are so long to read. Anyone, it looks mostly good, but I'm skeptical about the following:
    • "In 1975, Lucas discussed his serial film idea with his friend Philip Kaufman. The pair worked on a script for two weeks." Source state they "worked on the story for two weeks". The story and screenplay are too different things from what I understand.
    • "In May 1977, Lucas vacationed in Hawaii to avoid the potential failure of the theatrical debut of Star Wars." "Potential failure"? The sources do state the meeting took place the day after the premiere and admits they were anticipating Star Wars' first-day performance, but that doesn't indicate it had the potential to fail. Am I missing something

👨x🐱 (talk) 12:51, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HumanxAnthro, I've changed the wording a little, I definitely recall reading something about its potential failure but I may have misread it from "not sure if it would suceed" or something along those lines, so I've just changed it closer to the reference which is he was avoiding the hype of the opening, good or bad. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 14:16, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Actually scratch that, I found a source and added it. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 14:31, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging HumanxAnthro Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 11:42, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Update (5/27/21)
  • Just to keep myself active in this discussion, I will say the prose is looking great in the production sections overall. Again, it's just that there's so many sources to spotcheck and they're so long that it's taking a while. 👨x🐱 (talk) 17:47, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging HumanxAnthro Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 13:30, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You know what, Darkwarrior knows what he's doing, so Support. I'm joking. This is just such a long article... If someone wants to check certain parts of the article to quicken up the process, please feel free to. 👨x🐱 (talk) 16:37, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you read SNUGGUMS comments, they also went pretty in depth HumanxAnthro Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 17:08, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Media review from SNUGGUMS

edit

Are you by any chance hoping to get this featured on the main page for its 40th anniversary in June? Either way, here are some comments:

More to come later. From a glance at the prose, I'll say now that "notable" from "notable scenes" is inappropriate POV and editiorializing, and that you could link to Indiana Jones (character) in the "Cast" section. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 02:42, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough on the linking. File:Karen Allen (8707577445).jpg is definitely a better choice for Allen since I could verify its copyright status. As for the "Indiana Jones Stunt Spectacular" pic, it's too bad Cybjorg hasn't edited since 2018 or we could ask that user for clarification. You're better off replacing it with something else or having no pic of it at all. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 18:11, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Other comments from SNUGGUMS

edit
Resolved
  • Starting two consecutive sentences with "it" like you've done in the lead's third paragraph feels repetitive
  • "that includes three more films"..... are you only saying this instead of "four" because the fifth film hasn't been released yet?
  • The use of "affair" (both in "Plot" and "Casting") makes it sound like Indy and/or Marion were unfaithful to other partners during their first entanglement (which I don't recall being the case but maybe I'm forgetting something here when it's been a long time since I last watched the movie). You could simply say "relationship" instead.
  • "An imam deciphers the medallion for Jones; one side bears a warning against disturbing the Ark, the other the correct measurements for the "staff of Ra", an item used to locate the Ark" is quite a mouthful! I'd split it into separate sentences by turning the semi-colon into a period.
  • The plot's last paragraph is rather short with only two sentences. Super tiny paragraphs like that are discouraged because they make the flow of text feel choppy.
  • From "Conception", "Development and pre-production", "Post-production", and "Special effects", I'd avoid having two sentences in a row begin with "Lucas", and there's a similar issue with "Spielberg" under "Writing"
  • Within "Casting", remove the colon from "Those considered for the role included"
  • The use of "Ironically" from "Ironically, the actors' strike of 1980" is inappropriate editorializing
  • Not sure what you mean by "hold their own" from "who could hold their own against their male counterparts"
  • "after his wife's grandmother"..... grandmother-in-law
  • "because the pay was better"..... it offered more money
  • For "Filming", I think you can guess my thoughts on opening two straight sentences with "the", and its last paragraph should be merged to expanded to avoid looking so stubby
  • "Post-production lasted a few months"..... can you be more precise on whether this was 3, 4, or 5?
  • Three consecutive sentences starting with "he" under "Music" is even worse than the prior concerns of two in a row.
  • From "Stunts", the term "several" is an ambiguous word that's best avoided whenever more specific descriptions can be used, its first paragraph should be expanded/merged, and too many sentences from its second paragraph start with "the"
  • "Allen was reportedly so scared"..... any confirmation or denial on this?
  • It should be obvious by now what I'd do with the fourth paragraph's use of "the" to begin sentences in "Stunts"
  • "Visuals and sound" has a bit of repetition with "Slocombe" openers
  • Expectations on Superman II don't seem very relevant here, and neither do the other 1981 films predicted to earn the most money that year
  • Wanna guess what's wrong with the first paragraph of "Critical response"?
  • "Several reviewers noted the film's PG rating"..... I'd use "asserted" or "believed" instead of "noted", and see my previous comments on "several"
  • Spell out Videocassette recorder for "Home media". Don't just assume all readers will know what "VCR" stands for, though it's fine include that abbreviation right next to it in parantheticals.
  • Link the first instance of VHS, and it looks like you forgot a comma after its mention within "Like the VHS it was a success".
  • Another misuse of a colon for the overly short first paragraph of "Other media", and almost every sentence of its second paragraph starts with "The" or "A".
  • "There is irony in the Nazis attempting to use a Jewish artifact to subjugate the world"..... see my prior comments on using "ironically"
  • Wanna guess how the third paragraph from "Cinematic homage and nostalgia" could be improved?
  • Under "Legacy", it feels like puffery to say "significant and lasting impact" when you could simply say "lasting impact" or "major impact"
  • Don't italicize Rotten Tomatoes from "Modern reception", and try not to have back-to-back "In *year*" sentences (this is how literally each one from the fourth paragraph starts!)
  • "Several publications have ranked it as one of the greatest films of all time, including:"..... do I have to spell it out again?
  • "A 2013 episode"..... "A 2014 essay"..... see where I'm going? You could at least mention the Esquire writer by name.
  • The last paragraph from "Prequel, sequels and adaptations" could use some elaboration
  • Remove the italics from "Creative Bloq", "Cinephelia & Beyond", "Syfy", and "Collider"
  • How trustworthy are "Moviefone", "Screen Rant", "SuperHeroHype", "TravelPulse", and "The Ringer"?
  • "Slashfilm" → "/Film'
  • Ref#194 has a stray comma in its title
  • Capitialize the W for Wired (magazine)

While this definitely needs some work to become FA-material, instinct tells me you can spruce it up enough within a reasonable time. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 18:11, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK I think I've hit all your points. As for the website reliability, can I just say how much I hate Infinite Scroll stopping you getting to the bottom of a webpage. MovieFone has an About Us page and it's a long standing company, it's been around forever and reliability is the foundation it was built on. TravelPulse is owned by a big company as well and has a named page of editors and senior staff. ScreenRant has robust pages about About Us, Press Kit, and Fact Checking Policy. It does allow for contributors but you have to link to previously published works. The Ringer is another major website owned by Spotify, and they are currently hiring a new Fact Checker. SuperHeroHype is owned by Mandatory (formerly CraveOnline) which in turn is owned by Evolve Media. It's a big fish but the site itself doesn't have much in the way of policy. Given the thing it is sourced, I can easily replace this one if necessary. RE: The Superman and other films stuff, it's context for the year and what Jones is competing with. I used it to similar effect on Ghostbusters II to show how it was expected to beat those films and didn't. Here it's showing Superman II et al. were expected to do well and Jones wasn't, which is relevant later in the BO section when we get into discussing Raiders's phenomenal success, and Superman II is also brought up in the themes section, so I think for the size of the content, it provides much needed context and setup for later references. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 19:30, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is looking better. I did a bit of copyediting myself here, and have no qualms with File:Indiana Jones Epic Stunt Spectacular! (8187488890).jpg. Getting into the last section, it wouldn't hurt to add some bits on how novels, comic books, and video games expand on stories of Dr. Jones et al. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 20:41, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK I will take a look tonight/tomorrow, feeling pretty wrecked today. Thanks for your input Snuggums it's much appreciated. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 20:44, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi SNUGGUMS, I've added an expanded segment on this touching on the notable legendary items and quests he is involved in in novel/comic/game form. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 18:00, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Following sufficient improvements, I'm happy to give my support! You're also welcome for that and the assessments. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 18:08, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from A. Parrot

edit
  • Drive-by comment from A. Parrot. The article is certainly comprehensive—approaching it from an Egyptological viewpoint, I certainly appreciate the thematic analysis—but it may actually be too much so. I know the article was trimmed somewhat in response to Sandy's peer review, but it's still at 11,593 words. As much as size limits tend to be ignored these days, I feel like the level of detail here may tax even a fairly determined reader, and there's a lot that doesn't feel entirely on-topic. For instance, while the gist of the "context" section is certainly relevant, there's no reason why we need details about which movies were projected to do best that season. Similarly, the section on accolades doesn't need to list the nominees that Raiders lost to (many FAs on Oscar-nominated films don't do that, and if readers really want to know, they can click on the article for the Oscars that year). A. Parrot (talk) 04:13, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Parrot, thanks for your comments. I understand your perspective, but I will say that personally I regularly read these articles top the bottom with ease, particularly Groundhog Day and Ghostbusters II, which are of comparable length, Groundhog Day in particular because it's just a fascinating read, if I do say so myself. I don't think length is the issue as much as fluff and I agree, and as you say I have culled it quite a bit since the peer review. I can remove the award winners, I just felt this was a natural way of linking to more overlooked articles, since even as an 80s child I have never heard of some of them and would otherwise never come across the articles, which in turn may lead to the improvement of those articles. However, I'm not bound to that and can remove them if you prefer. The context section I feel is more important because it's setting the stage for what is expected to do well versus Raiders, which is kind of a meh on pre-release. Mainly it establishes that superheroics and comedy are the ones meant to do well. This is something I thought worked really well on Ghostbusters II which is the alternate, that Ghostbusters II is meant to do well and it ended up not doing so. I think especially with older films like this, where the history isn't just "and then we sent everything to the CGI department", and where it's history is occurring over multiple decades, it will veer on the longer side to do it justice. Anyway, let me know what you think A. Parrot Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 12:32, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think the point about box office expectations can be made more succinctly. When an article exceeds 10,000 words, I think it's advisable to start summarizing instead of detailing wherever possible. A. Parrot (talk) 07:38, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've trimmed it down a little, I know that HumanxAnthro is good at this stuff as well so it will likely come up in his review. As with the Die Hard review however, I will mention the themes section is 1,100 words and supplemental to the topic of the film itself, but a requirement of this level, and so it is difficult to cut 1,100 words to compensate for that section. Thanks for your input. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 19:12, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As a frequent FA reviewer, I can tell you a lot of experienced reviewers get pretty strict with making sure there's context or background for everything, to the point of comicality and violating 4 of the FA criteria at points. I think, however, context sections are useful in plenty of instances, box office sections included, especially since major studio films get released in these economic contexts and are possibly affected by them. I have to say that where DarkwarriorBlake's Box Office sections go too far is bringing up the grosses of other films on the weeks the main subject debuted or ran.👨x🐱 (talk) 19:37, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say it's VERY tight, but I've bought it down to exactly 10,000 words not including the themes section, so that's 10000 words relating to the film itself, and I trimmed some of the BO section. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:40, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

edit
  • All sources appear to be of high quality.
  • Works cited:
    • Use single quotes inside the double quotes
    • I would add the editor to Excavating Indiana Jones: Essays on the Films and Franchise
  • Further reading:
    • Why is Ballantine Books linked twice but not the third time?
  • Spot checks:
    • fn 82, 106, 108, 121, 152, 203 - all good
    • fn 76: Can you re-check this? The table in the source doesn't seem to be right to me.

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:14, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:58, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 20:00, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Cas Liber

edit

You know the drill....

  • Not a fan of "has grown in esteem" but honestly can't think of an alternative (so not a deal-breaker as such).
  • I'd add that Tanis is in Egypt as a bit obscure otherwise.
  • Lucas wanted to fund Raiders of the Ark himself, but lacked the necessary money - "necessary" unnecessary..actually why not, "Lucas wanted to fund Raiders of the Ark himself, but lacked the funds"?

Overall comprehensive and well-written. Is on the long side but the light subject matter and diversity of material makes it easy reading, so I can let that slide. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:18, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done all of them Casliber, thanks for taking the time to read this! Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 11:32, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
okay all good, a nice read. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:02, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Casliber: No disrespect at all, but your suggestion introduces a repetitive element ("fund...funds"). How about "capital"—or even back to money!—for the second one? ——Serial 12:14, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No disrespect taken and well-spotted (dang, how'd I miss that...) - I think "money" is fine (or moolah/dosh/readies/greenbacks...). Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:16, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support

edit

Per Cas Liber; all my concerns have been attended to, including any I might have had regarding my own spelling. ——Serial 12:54, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 12 June 2021 [37].

General Motors companion make program

edit
Nominator(s):  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 17:38, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Gee our old LaSalle ran great, those were the days."

General Motor's former "five brands" (the current three plus Olds and Pontiac) seems like a lot by today's standards, but back in the late 1920s GM tried to do even more. For a few years it had "companion makes" to fill in four of the classic five. Two of them, Viking and Marquette, you've never heard of because they were quickly killed in the Depression. You might have heard of LaSalle, since it carried on for another decade and gave Harley Earl, who invented the Corvette in the 1950s, his start at GM. You've definitely heard of Pontiac; this companion make program is the reason Americans (used to) have it instead of Oakland. We don't have a whole lot of car FAs on Wikipedia, and this is a fairly obscure niche of automotive history, but I've tried to do it justice here.

Thank you for your consideration of this FAC. If it passes, it'll be my first non-Four Award FA and my third overall. As always with my FACs, minor cleanups and tweaks (lint, ref number swaps, etc.) are encouraged to be done yourself rather than explicitly resolved here.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 17:38, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Version reviewed.

  • Some of the details in the lead don't appear to be supported by the text. For example, the lead claims that "companion makes were also used to increase the sales of their respective divisions by selling cars that cost less to produce"; the text states that they would increase sales AND cost less, which is a slightly different claim
    • I feel like the difference is minor, but if you insist I can reword it.
  • Work titles like Automobile Magazine should not be in |publisher=, and publishers like National Museum of American History shouldn't be in work-title parameters
    • Those two specifically have been fixed, let me know if anything else of that nature needs addressing.
  • How are you ordering Works cited?
    • By alphabetical order of short cite
  • Is there a reason to use "Encyclopedia" as a short cite rather than authors?
    • Changed to Ludvigsen et al.
  • How are you deciding when to include publication location?
    • I explicitly decline to include it in newspapers where the location is already in the title and well-known (in this article the Ottawa Citizen but not the Grand Island Independent, but in general the Chicago Tribune and The New York Times are other examples) per the spirit of USCITIES, and I omit it when I can't reasonably deduce the location (websites, for one). Thanks for asking!

Nikkimaria (talk) 02:59, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Accessibility - add row headers (!) and row scopes (scope="row") to the table per MOS:DTAB. Heartfox (talk) 16:43, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from HumanBodyPiloter5

edit
  • Is it necessary to clarify that GMC were owned by GM at that time? Have GMC ever not been owned by GM?
    • I just wanted to set the tone for the era; I've removed it.
  • I'm not really sure how it would be best to handle the confusing American "model year" concept. I think the initial footnote does a lot to help though.
    • Agreed, and thanks. There's a lot about car culture, especially American car culture, that is confusing to the uninitiated, and I tried to strike the balance between not explaining enough and loading unnecessary details onto the page.
  • When the lead mentions "GM's hierarchy" is that referring to the pricing of the cars or their priorities in terms of marketing, R&D budgets, etc.?
    • Pricing, duly clarified.
  • It might help to clarify that the archaic sense of "coach" is being used since this is a motor industry focused article.
    • I added "horse-drawn" to it.
  • Is there a particular reason why the companion make cars would cost less to produce or do sources not go into detail about that?
    • The source does not go into such details, I'm afraid, although Vikings were above Oldsmobiles.
  • There's a large number of jargon terms when discussing the LaSalle body styles that earlier links don't really help explain, particularly regarding the different types of sedans (the sedan article probably needs a substantial overhaul).
    • I tried to link Car body style (itself an orange-tagged mess) to slightly clarify what I'm talking about here, but ultimately I am not responsible for articles other than this one I'm afraid.
  • I understand that the "six-cylinder inline engine" is used the first time for the sake of wikilinking; but I do have to ask whether this is the standard usage in American English? In British English "straight-six engine" would almost always be used.
    • "Straight-six" is also used in America, and in the sources themselves, but I thought "six-cylinder inline engine" is clearer and less jargony for non-car people.
  • Since I can't access the sources I'll take it on good faith that the source is referring specifically to brake horsepower and not to some other variety of horse power. It's worth being careful with engines of this vintage to check that they're not referencing some now obscure units when power comes up.
    • I rechecked Kimes and trimmed the "brake" parts where necessary.
  • Some more context might be needed for the Death Valley to Pikes Peak drive. Was this just a successful marketing claim or was the car particularly praised by independent sources for its ability to climb hills without issues relative to its competition?
    • The claim comes from Kimes, which is the "Standard catalog" of American cars, so I think the latter.
  • A brief explanation of Opel's relationship to GM at the time might be helpful when they come up; particularly given Opel are now owned by Peugeot.
    • I just said it was GM's European subsidiary.
  • Is the "dean of design" reference regarding Harley Earl describing a position he held within GM?
    • It's an honorary title; duly marked as such.
  • Is "[Pontiac] remained in production until 2010" standard usage in American English? This comes across as saying that the original 1920s Pontiac model was in production until 2010 to a Brit, which obviously is untrue.
    • Slightly changed to clarify.

Mostly nitpicks from me. Provided this passes source reviews and the like I would gladly support raising this to featured status. A well written and interesting article. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 02:15, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mr.choppers

edit
  • Support — Not an expert reviewer, but I know a bit about the topic. Thanks for calling me "prominent," flattery will get you everywhere. The article reads well and there are ample citations from authors with whom I am familiar. I added another Ludvigsen reference as I find it interesting that the Marquette engine went on to power the Opel Blitz, which ended up the workhorse of the German armed forces during WWII.
  • I do have two questions, which may or may not actually be answerable:
  • 1. What were the reasons for the market positionings of the various new brands? All except Viking were priced lower than their "mother brands," was this merely a result of the price gaps to be filled?
  • 2. Why was there no Chevrolet companion make?
  • It might be worth pointing out that in the 1920s, many US brands (including the GM roster, obviously) did not have models within the brands. I.e., Buick or Oldsmobile or Oakland were single lines of cars, using one chassis (often in two different lengths) and one engine. This seems odd today, when we are used to there being a Yaris beneath the Corolla beneath the Avensis beneath the Camry beneath the Crown and so on. This would go some way towards explaining GM's perceived need for different brands rather than just creating a smaller line of Buicks or a more Senior Oldsmobile.
  • I am aware that there may not be any references for these (and my view of the matters may be incorrect), but my support for FA status for this article is in no way contingent on your answering these particular ramblings. Best,  Mr.choppers | ✎  01:56, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for your support! As for your comments:
    • I don't know the market positions, but would probably assume that they were simply due to the gaps to be filled.
    • I also don't know why Chevrolet didn't receive one, but my speculation (which I don't find likely to find a source for) is that GMC already existed as a "companion make" of sorts; either that, or Chevrolet was too cheap to have anything "below" it.
    • I considered adding the "one model per make" info but couldn't find a good source for it unfortunately; I considered a Car and Driver article from 2000 that the original Thunderbird was Ford's first "second car", but that seems like synthesis.
Otherwise, I'm glad you liked it!  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 15:33, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note

edit

Well past three weeks in and this has only picked up the one general support. Consider this a heads up that it needs to move further towards a consensus to support by the four week point or I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:07, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"A coordinator may exempt from this restriction an archived nomination that attracted no (or minimal) feedback." Gog the Mild (talk) 15:43, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to get more reviewers

edit

@Sammy D III, Eddaido, and Mr.choppers: You seem like prominent car Wikipedians. If you are interested in this, please look at the article at your earliest convenience. If not, it would be great for you three to ping other Wikipedians who might be interested in reviewing this article. @Epicgenius, SandyGeorgia, and Wehwalt: are also FAC regulars I know who could provide feedback, even/especially if they are not car people, although if they are too busy that is more than understandable. I've also put this on the WP:FACURGENT.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 22:14, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I will give a review, but it may be several days. My time is limited at present.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:35, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@John M Wolfson: I can also take a look, but since I have real life commitments, it may also take me a while, perhaps a week or so. Epicgenius (talk) 23:19, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt

edit

Comments I've made a few hands-on edits; feel free to revert.

  • "to appeal to different consumers with different incomes" I might strike the first "different" as unneeded.
    • Done.
  • "Durant was expelled from GM in 1910 after over-aggressive expansion; he had over-leveraged the fledgling company in making these acquisitions, and was removed by the board of directors at the behest of the bankers who backed the loans to keep GM in business." The end of this sentence seems a bit muddled.
  • "The action of the bankers was partially influenced by the brief Panic of 1910–1911." I might be more direct, thus: "The bankers acted in part because of the brief Panic of 1910-1911."
    • I merged those two sentences.
  • "daily driver and racecourse tester" What might these be?
    • A "daily driver", in common parlance, is the car you use to just get around on a daily basis. Don also used the Viking to test the terrain of his (ultimately unsuccessful) record attempt; I have reworded the sentence to clarify.
  • "Death Valley, the lowest point in California," Or in the US, actually.
    • I didn't add that information and think it's a bit extraneous; I have removed it unless you have strong feelings to the contrary.
  • " It possessed distinctive styling, with a portly shape that led to its sobriquet of "the pregnant Buick" and a herringbone radiator to distinguish it from other GM makes.[18][38]" Consider adding at least one comma (after Buick and/or radiator)
    • I put one after "radiator" since that logically makes more sense even though my diction "wants" to put it after "Buick".
  • " ill-suited to build" odd phrasing
    • I think that was already fixed by you.
That's about it. Interesting. Some awkwardness of phrasing remaining which is surprising this late in a FAC.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:45, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks good.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:58, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Epicgenius

edit

Here are my initial comments.

Lead:

  • five car[a] brands, or "makes". - Footnote [a] seems weird to me, I guess you mean passenger cars?
    • I do, and added.
  • The companion makes were LaSalle introduced for the 1927 model year to supplement Cadillac, Marquette introduced in 1929 for 1930[c] to supplement Buick, Pontiac introduced for 1926 to supplement Oakland, and Viking introduced for 1929 to supplement Oldsmobile - I would reword this using semicolons to separate the different elements of the list. For instance, "The companion makes were LaSalle, introduced for the 1927 model year to supplement Cadillac; Marquette, introduced in 1929 for the 1930 model year[c] to supplement Buick; Pontiac, introduced for 1926 to supplement Oakland; and Viking, introduced for 1929 to supplement Oldsmobile."
    • Done
  • "at the expense of the Ford Motor Company" - Nothing wrong with this per se, just that from a financial background this initially struck me as a bit strange, since expense does imply a monetary expenditure in that context.
  • By the late 1920s, it was felt that there were excessive gaps in this ladder - leadership felt this?
    • I don't know, (Turns out it was Sloan, but still) I've said just "GM"
  • its popularity exploded after its introduction, and led - The comma is unnecessary, as "led to the discontinuation of Oakland after 1931". If you say "...after its introduction, and it led...", then the comma could be included. However, if the portion after ", and" would not be a separate sentence,
    • Comma removed

Background and concept:

  • Durant founded GM in an effort to replicate - Since you mentioned that Durant founded GM in the previous sentence, the reader already knows this. So you can just say "Durant intended to replicate..."
    • I wanted to make clear that he used GM for that, so "Durant intended for GM to replicate..."
  • Durant was unable to replicate his business model - The phrase "replicate his business model" was repeated from the previous sentence. Not a big deal, though, just something that stick out to me.
  • willy-nilly - This does not seem as professional as an alternative such as "arbitrarily".
    • Changed to "arbitrarily"
  • Durant created Chevrolet shortly thereafter, and
  • By the late 1920s, Sloan, who had replaced du Pont as GM president in 1923 - I would suggest reordering this chronologically, e.g. "Sloan, who had replaced du Pont as GM president in 1923, detected several gaps in GM's ladder by the late 1920s..."
    • Done, with a comma added.

More later. Epicgenius (talk) 16:05, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Launch:

  • The name dated back to 1893 - "back" in this case is unnecessary and "dated back" can be just "dated".
    • Done
  • By the 1929 model year the engine, a flathead, was able to make 60 brake horsepower (bhp) (45 kW) - For me, the fact that the template wraps is a bit weird, but that's not an issue. I think you can put a comma after "By the 1929 model year" or move it to the end of the sentence.
    • I tweaked it slightly
  • "custom cars for Hollywood actors and producers on the side" - Not really an issue, but "on the side" sounds somewhat colloquial.
    • Changed to "also made"
  • spring 1926 - Per MOS:SEASON, "spring" should probably be avoided unless it is from the source. I know it's a North American spring, but still.
    • It is from the source, which says "early spring", and I think it helps chronologically.
  • with either a 128 in (3,300 mm) or 134 in (3,400 mm) wheelbase - I would rephrase this as "with a wheelbase of either 128 in or 134 in", as the current wording does seem a bit unwieldy. These are two versions with slightly different wheelbases.
    • Done
  • It was initially priced at $1,595 but by the end of 1929 had become worth $1,695. - I would put {{inflation}} or a similar template. I know you include it below, but it may be useful here too. Also, has it "become worth" $1,695 (which implies a context such as on the secondhand market), or did the sale price change?
    • It "had" become worth that, meaning that it became more expensive during the year. Inflation footnotes added.
  • from Death Valley to Pikes Peak - Do you know how far that is?
    • I don't, and I don't think it's particularly important; the scale of the achievement can be deduced from clicking on the links.
      • I only mention this because for readers who aren't familiar with US geography, a journey from California to Colorado may not mean much. But I agree with you - it wasn't important to me so much as I was just curious if you knew. Epicgenius (talk) 05:23, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Demise and legacy

  • having failed to resuscitate Buick's sales,[46] it was discontinued at the end of the 1930 model year - While "it" refers to the Marquette, the layout of the sentence makes it appear as though this refers to the Depression. I would thus say "The Marquette similarly suffered from the Depression" or something similar.
    • Tweaked
  • Pontiac would have the opposite destiny. - I'm not so sure how encyclopedic the tone is; I get what the sentiment is, but it sounds unusual to me. Personally, I would also say something like "In contrast, Pontiac was profitable...".
  • Pontiac earned the distinction of being the only GM make - Here you can just say "Pontiac was the only GM make..."
    • I like these two phrases, they seem to have some character for me.

That is all I have. I should note that I plan to claim points in the WikiCup for this review. Epicgenius (talk) 17:32, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Parsecboy

edit

Nothing major, mostly nitpicks:

  • Do we need the first note explaining that GMC is not excluded?
    • I think it couldn't hurt, and is slightly more specific.
  • Sloan's role is not well-defined - he's described as du Pont's assistant, but all of a sudden he's calling the shots for GM. Can we get some clarity on what exactly was going on?
    • I believe Sloan, who had replaced du Pont as GM president in 1923, is enough context
      • Right, but we don't learn that until the next paragraph - there's also some jumping around in time going on - I assume Sloan is making these decisions after he becomes the president, but the paragraph starts in 1920, then it mentions 1929, and then it jumps back to 1922. Part of the solution might be to just move the last sentence about Scripps-Booth and Sheridan somewhere else, as it feels a little out of place where it is now. It strikes me that perhaps the best place to move it would be "Durant repeated his mistakes once back in GM; by 1921, there were seven different divisions producing ten models for GM. Scripps-Booth and Sheridan had been added to the lineup, though both were discontinued by 1922." Parsecboy (talk) 14:30, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Scripps-Booth and Sheridan were removed" - passive voice; if the source specifies who made the decision to cut those brands, we should make it clear
    • I don't think the source is too specific on the matter, and I don't think it really matters since the focus is on the brands' removal rather than who actually made the decision.
  • "In early 1926 Lawrence P. Fisher," - need a comma after 1926
    • Done
  • "of 110 in" - it's generally advised against abbreviating units like "inch" as it could be read as the preposition
    • The abbreviation would ideally have a period after it, but that's an issue with the template. In any event I believe the context ("wheelbase" and the conversion to mm) is probably sufficient to distinguish it as the unit of length.
  • As convertible and cabriolet are generally interchangeable, it would be better to standardize terms so as to not confuse readers who aren't as familiar with the topic. And on a related point, unless you can work in explanations of what the differences are between a phaeton and a sport phaeton, or a convertible landau cabriolet and a town cabriolet, it's probably best to cut all of the very specific types that will mean nothing to most readers and just give general types.
    • Done
  • "The encyclopedia of the American automobile" should be in title case
    • Done

If you have a moment to spare, I also have a FAC that could use a review from someone less familiar with the topic. Thanks. Parsecboy (talk) 01:08, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 10 June 2021 [38].

Assassination of Talat Pasha

edit
Nominator(s): (t · c) buidhe 19:20, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

After shooting the main perpetrator of the Armenian Genocide, Soghomon Tehlirian said, "I have killed a man, but I am not a murderer". His defense was so successful that, as noted by one newspaper, "In reality it was the blood-stained shadow of Talât Pasha who was sitting on the defendant’s bench; and the true charge was the ghastly Armenian Horrors, not his execution by one of the few victims left alive." The jury agreed with Tehlirian. But can extrajudicial killing ever "uphold the moral order of mankind"? Raphael Lemkin thought so; he later said that it was this assassination and the resulting spectacular trial that sparked his interest in war crimes, eventually leading to his invention of the concept of genocide. (t · c) buidhe 19:20, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:Talat_Pasha_cropped.jpg: for the purposes of the EU tag, on what date was this made publicly available?
    • It appears to be anonymous, or at least Library of Congress doesn't know who the author is. It was published by Neue Photographische Gesellschaft so I used a no author disclosure PD tag.
  • File:Armenian_deportations_in_Erzurum_by_Victor_Pietschmann_03.jpg: which rationale from the Austrian tag is believed to apply, and what's the status of this work in the US?
    • I believe that this is considered a simple photograph as it doesn't "involve artistic interpretations". If so, it was either unpublished or else published in Pietschmann's 1940 book, so the copyright would have expired by 1996.
  • File:Talat_Pasha_cable_of_29_August_1915.png: does the source give any further info on the provenance of this work?
    • No, although I'm pretty sure it was found in an archive.
  • File:William_Tell_LCCN2003689314_(cropped).jpg: when and where was this first published, and what is the author's date of death?
    • The source doesn't say exactly, just that it is free use. In this case the author was S. Zickel who apparently founded his own publishing house by 1870.[40]
  • File:Ein_Zeugnis_für_Talaat_Pasha.png: what is the author's date of death? Nikkimaria (talk) 17:43, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HF

edit

Will look at this one once I get through a review that's already on my reviewing list. Might claim for 5 points in the WikiCup. Hog Farm Talk 02:30, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry this took so long to get to, I had some stuff come up.

  • Would it be useful to add a couple sentences about the background between the Ottomans and the Armenians, maybe drawing from a very shortened summary of Armenian Genocide#Background?
    • I could, but I try to keep background short and am not sure of any specific information which would enhance reader understanding of this article topic.
  • "directly issued orders to generals in the Turkish war of independence from Berlin" - Would Turkish war of independence be a proper noun that should be capitalized?
    • It's not consistently capped in sources so I believe MOS:CAPS applies.
  • Harutian Mgrditichian is identified as Armenian in the lead, but not explicitly as such in the body.
    • removed. I don't believe the sources are clear on this because it's obviously an Armenian name.
  • "Ihrig and other historians have argued the prosector's strategy was deeply flawed," - Is this a typo for prosecutor, or is "prosector" a term in German law?
    • Typo
  • The prosecutor is always just referred to as "Gollnick", is this a surname with no introduction or a mononym?
    • His first name is not disclosed in the trial transcript or any of the sources.

I've got to take a pause here, ready for Tehlirian's testimony. Hog Farm Talk 15:44, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • "In the past, commemorative ceremonies were held to honor Talat at the Monument of Liberty, but this practice had been discontinued as of 2013" - Anything more recent for an update on this?
    • I couldn't find anything.
  • "Turkish writer Orhan Seyfi [tr] condemned the acquittal of Tehlirian but argued Germany made up for this by transporting his body to Turkey in 1943" - "his" in this formation would be read as referring to Tehlirian's body
    • Reworded
  • I'm unfamiliar with the Armenian and Turkish sources used, so I do not feel comfortable assessing them for a controversial topic.

That's my first read-through. Hog Farm Talk 17:25, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reywas92

edit
  • Why does this use "Talat Pasha" while the biographical article is "Talaat Pasha"? Can't tell why these would be inconsistent. And several quotations have "Talât" but the name could be translated/transliterated just as the rest of the sentence was. These should probably all have the same spelling, maybe with a footnote of alternatives.
    • "Talaat" spelling is historically more common, but the spellings with one "a" have become more common recently[41]. I think they are all similar enough that it's sufficiently obvious that they all refer to the same person. As for quotes, Talat, Talât, and Talaat are all valid ways of spelling the name in English and I believe changing the spelling would go against the principle of minimal change in MOS. I believe all the quotes with Talat's name are from English language sources.
  • From a modern American perspective it seems odd that the jury only decided on "deliberate murder" and there was no charge or way to convict on a sort of second-degree murder or manslaughter. Is there any comment on this?
    • In the law in force at the time, there was a provision for non-premeditated homicide (§ 212 as opposed to § 211), but the possibility of charging Tehlirian under that provision was not mentioned during the trial. Sources don't discuss it either.

Thank you for writing this, that was a fascinating history to read. Reywas92Talk 04:43, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note

edit

Coming up to three weeks in and this has only attracted one general support and an image review. Unless there is clear evidence of a consensus to promote beginning to form over the next four or five days I am afraid that this nomination is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:35, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You owe me! ;-) Gog the Mild (talk) 16:09, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I note the move request for the article but I don't think that should stop us closing this, especially as it seems far from a forgone conclusion that it will go ahead. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:44, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

edit

Recusing to review.

  • "he served in the Armenian volunteer units". Delete "the".
    • I don't think it reads better that way and most sources use "the" here.
  • "Deciding to take revenge, he joined Operation Nemesis, a clandestine program carried out by the Dashnaktsutyun (the Armenian Revolutionary Federation), and was chosen for the mission to assassinate Talat after he killed Harutian Mgrditichian, who helped the Ottoman secret police, in Constantinople." An over long and complicated sentence, which has its chronological order backwards. In fact, could the whole paragraph be put in chronological order?
    • I had worded it this way because some sources are vague about whether Mgrditichian's death can be counted as part of the Nemesis operation, but now rephrased.
  • "The defense strategy in Tehlirian's trial, held 2–3 June 1921, was to". Optional: → 'Tehlirian's trial was held 2–3 June 1921, and the defense strategy was to ...'
    • Done
  • ""one of the most spectacular trials of the twentieth century"": quotes, opinions and attribution.
    • Done
  • "telling a dramatic and realistic, but untrue story". Comma after "untrue".
    • Done
  • "Tehlirian's acquittal brought mostly favorable reactions." Are we still talking about the international media? If so, maybe a semi colon?
    • Done
  • "to cause their deaths" seems a little stilted. 'with the intention of wiping them out' or something may flow better.
    • Done
  • "after learning about the Armenian massacres Talat ordered, CUP former finance minister Cavid Bey predicted he would be assassinated". Delete "Talat ordered"; "he" → 'Talat'.
    • done
  • "the war guilt question". Perhaps a very brief in line explanation of what this was.
    • Done
  • "The Foreign Office kept tabs on the goings-on at this apartment". Something more encyclopedic than "kept tabs"?
    • Done
  • "Turkish war of independence". Upper case initial letters. [42]
    • Done
  • "the March 1920 Kapp Putsch". An in line explanation please.
    • Done
  • "viewed Turkey as the innocent and wronged party". "the" → 'an'.
    • Done
  • "comparing the Treaty of Versailles to the Treaty of Sèvres". Optional: reverse the order of the treaties.
    • Done
  • "mainly young men who either survived the genocide or lost their families". This seems to imply at least the possibility of volunteers who hadn't "survived the genocide"! And were the two mutually exclusive?
    • Tehlirian can't be described as a genocide survivor as he wasn't in Anatolia at the time. Similar to Jews who were in the US during World War II aren't called Holocaust survivors. No, not mutually exclusive so removed "either".
  • "where he assassinated Harutian Mgrditichian". Is it known when?
    • sources are contradictory. Hoffman says "March 1919". MacCurdy says it was 1920. From context it must be somewhere in that vicinity.
  • "Droshak". An in line explanation please.
    • Done
  • "At the Droshak headquarters in Geneva, he obtained a visa" A newspaper office seems an odd place to receive a visa.
    • That's what the source says: shortly after Tehlirian left for Europe, going first to Paris and then Geneva to the Troshag headquarters, an international ARF party center. There, with the help of party members, he obtained a visa to go to Berlin, under the guise of being a mechanical engineering student.
I read "There" as referring to Geneva, not Trosahg HQ.
  • "the commandos plotting assassinations". "Commandos"? At best this seems anachronistic.
    • Changed to "conspirators"
  • "Tehlirian continued to meet with the commandos plotting assassinations". "continued"; you haven't mentioned that they had started to.
    • Reworded
  • "At his trial, Tehlirian denied the assassination was premeditated". Maybe 'At his trial, Tehlirian was to deny the assassination was premeditated'?
    • I tend to err on the side of simple tenses, since complicated ones sound literary. I'm not convinced that this is necessary.
  • Dashnaktsutyun/Dashnak. Is there a reason why this is not standardised?
    • The former is the noun, the latter is the adjective form.
  • "his actions under German law of temporary insanity under section 51 of the penal code". There seems to be a definite article missing somewhere in there.
    • rephrased
  • "Historian Carolyn Dean writes that, "The cynical mission of the German government—to prosecute Tehlirian quickly while using the opportunity to redeem German conduct—inadvertently transformed Tehlirian into a symbol of human conscience tragically compelled to gun down a murderer for want of justice."" I think that this could usefully be paraphrased into Wikipedia's voice.
    • Partly done
  • "which revealed his knowledge of the genocide". The judge's or Tehlirian?
    • The former, clarified
  • The Expert witnesses section is more quotation than not. Separately, I really don't see what the block quote adds to the article.
    • Ditched
  • Could you go through the whole article and weed out some of the excessive quoting. Eg, at random, in Mental state, Ihrig's quotes.
    • Done
  • Lemberg/the judge: pick one.
    • I thought it was better to vary phrasing?
OK, in principle I like that; but in practice you introduce the judge as Lemberg at the start of the Trial section. refer to him six times as "judge", then make a single reference to him as Lemberg under Closing arguments, and revert to judge in Verdict. By the time I got to the single remention of him as Lemberg I had forgotten that was his name and had to do a Ctrl-F search, his role not being obvious from context.
Used "judge" consistently.
  • What does the block quote in Closing arguments add?
    • Removed
  • "A unanimous verdict, it left no possibility of appeal by the prosecution." Why not?
    • Source doesn't say
  • "Following his acquittal and deportation from Germany" → 'Following his acquittal Tehlirian was deported from Germany' or similar.
    • done
  • "where the editorial board of Hairenik honored him" How?
    • Source doesn't say.
  • "of many German newspapers on the same day". The same day as what? Maybe 'The assassination made the headlines of many German newspapers on the day it occurred'?
    • Done
  • "In 1922, the Kemalist government ... On 13 April 1924, the Kemalist government". Could the repetition be avoided?
    • Done
  • "At the request of the office of the prime minister of Turkey". When was this made?
    • Neither Olson, Kieser, or any other source I can find gives an exact date, although Olson implies that the request was made shortly before it happened.
  • "Talat's remains were disinterred and transported to Turkey". Is it known when this happened?
    • 25 February, a few days before the funeral. I did not think that the exact date was important enough to include.
  • The article is about the "Assassination of Talat Pasha". Talat's state funeral 22 years later is IMO not "stay[ing] focused on the main topic"; its effect on Turkey and, eg, mention of memorials on longer being held there seem waay off topic.
    • Really? I would think that "Death of X" articles include funeral in their scope. The transfer to Turkey would not have happened without the assassination in Germany. The JFK assassination article has disclosures of documents still ongoing several decades later.
I would agree, regarding Talat's first funeral. But his body's disinterment and reburial and the political effects of this in Turkey 22 years later, and even down to today, seemed, at a minimum, to be covered in excessive detail.
  • Do you really think that the popular culture section deserves to stay?
    • I mean, it's covered in the sources. I don't feel strongly about it, though, so I've axed it if you think that's better.
  • "Westphalian sovereignty". LOL. Seriously? I mean, I know about the three Westphalian treaties and have even visited the Osnabruck Rathaus but I doubt that one in a hundred readers will understand, even after clicking the link. How about 'then-extant concepts of national sovereignty' or something similar.
Ah! I did wonder.
  • "contrasted both cases from the later". "from" → 'with'.
    • Done
  • I am not sure that the last two sentences of the article add any encyclopedia-worthy content.
    • I think it's essential to include Kieser's take as he is the author of the only scholarly biography of Talat. I did move it to clarify how it's relevant.
  • There are plenty of images; William Tell seems pretty loosely connected to the article to merit a (fanciful) artist's impression.
    • Removed

That's it for a first rapid run through. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:16, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of comments above. If I haven't commented it means that I am content. I will reread the current version now. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:25, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Second reading
edit
  • "in the Armenian volunteer units in the Russian army" Suggestion ' in the Armenian volunteer units of the Russian army'?
    • Done
  • "The fourth paragraph of Closing arguments seems unduly quote heavy.
    • Cut down

Erm, and that's all. Nice work. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:41, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Re the visa, I still 'read "There" as referring to Geneva, not Trosahg HQ', but that is open to discussion so I won't let it stop me supporting this fine and important piece of work. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:03, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Reworded. (t · c) buidhe 10:45, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
pp. 30-44 Gog the Mild (talk) 11:47, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done (t · c) buidhe 11:49, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Chipmunkdavis

edit

I was impressed by this article when I did the DYK review, which included some source spotchecks. It would be a shame if it got archived, so I hope others will look at it. I will try to find the time for a more detailed review myself. Quick note that the Gyumri statue mention does not have a date, despite dates being given for the other locations. CMD (talk) 16:51, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I note this has three supports already, but some questions/comments:

  • Lead has great coverage of the article sections. A minor point, it is odd that "Ottoman court-martial" is a pipelink to a redirect, especially as in the body it pipes to the current article title.
    • Bypassed redirect
  • Background has "he ordered a second wave of massacres in 1916", but no timeframe has been established for the preceding massacre.
    • Mentioned World War I and 1915
  • It's not fully clear from the article why exactly Germany provided asylum to the CUP leaders. What made them so valuable that even the new German government would reject extradition?
    • The stated reason was that "Talaat has been loyal to us, and our country remains open to him." Added. To be honest, I don't really understand why this happened. It definitely seems to me that Germany had more to lose in terms of loss of reputation than anything it might gain from this arrangement.
  • Was the CUP plan to "organize a resistance movement" linked to the Turkish War of Independence? If not, how did Talat Pasha get involved?
    • Yes, this is discussed in Zürcher's book The Unionist Factor: The Role of the Committee of Union and Progress in the Turkish National Movement 1905-1926 . Talat wasn't that closely involved since he was forced into exile and soon sidelined by Kemal. Mentioned this connection.
  • "He wrote a memoir" should be "Talat wrote a memoir", as the preceding sentence is far-right Germans.
    • Done
  • "After it became clear that no one else would bring the perpetrators of the genocide to justice". This sentence seems quite wide and sweeping, especially as the preceding section noted Talat was wanted. Do the sources make such a claim, or is this the view of the Dashnaktsutyun?
    • It is a widely held view in all the reliable sources that I read that political will to prosecute and hold accountable the perpetrators of the Armenian genocide more or less evaporated by 1920. It's not just Armenian authors or the ARF that makes this claim. For example, the book Judgement at Istanbul states,

      for a variety of reasons the legal establishment of the fact of the Armenian Genocide did not produce a measure of retributive justice that, in scope and severity, would be commensurate with the magnitude of the crime. Addressing this problem, an American author recently went so far as to declare that “[t]he Constantinople (Istanbul) war crimes trials, had they not fallen apart, would have been remembered as comparable only to Nuremberg and Tokyo.”9 Another author deplored the fact that “this first tentative step toward defining and punishing genocide failed because of Turkish nationalism and Allied indifference.”10 Going one step further, he and the noted legal scholar C.M. Bassiouni attributed the perpetration on a larger scale of many of the subsequent cases of state-organized mass murders to the relative abortiveness of the Turkish courts-martial.

  • "the Turkish nationalist movement invaded Armenia". This feels odd, due to the idea of a movement invading something. Is this how sources usually word this information? If so, perhaps it would be better if "Nationalist" and "Movement" were capitalized, as they seem to be in other articles.
    • Yes, the Turkish nationalist movement is named as the belligerent in the Turkish-Armenian war. "Turkish nationalist movement" is not consistently capitalized in reliable sources[43].
  • "At first Tehlirian stood over the corpse, but after onlookers shouted, forgot his instructions and ran away." Is this missing a "he"?
    • Added
  • "Invitations from Hayriye and the Oriental Club were sent, but the turnout was higher than expected." Why is this a "but" contradiction, surely invitations lead to turnout?
    • Reworded
  • The first paragraph of "Trial" is a bit jarring, as the opening few sentences just after the "Trial" header do not specify they take place outside of the trial, before "At his trial" appears.
    • Reworded. I do think it makes sense to keep content about the investigation in this section rather than starting a new top-level heading for it.
  • Does Gollnick have a first name?
    • Not stated in any of the sources or the trial transcript.
  • "German police looked for Tehlirian's associates but did not uncover them." This sentence was a bit surprising as it sounds from the preceding paragraph that Shahan Natalie was part of the trial defence team.
    • I believe Natalie was in the US at the time. Regardless, this insight comes from internal documents, disclosed decades later. None of the sources say that Natalie or the other Nemesis leaders took a public role in the trial.
  • "but the Foreign Office rejected this solution". How was the foreign office able to reject part of the judicial process?
    • Hofmann states that the Foreign Office maybe not rejected, but caused the closed trial to be rejected:

      Gollnick did not prevail against the Foreign Office with his proposal to conduct the proceedings in camera. From the files, we deduce that personal contacts existed between the Chief Public Prosecutor’s office and the German Foreign Office, both before and after the trial.

  • Can't access the relevant source page, but it seems odd that Gollnick potentially weakened his case in response to newspaper lobbying, and was rewarded by a post on that newspaper editorial board. Does Ihrig offer an explanation?
    • Ihrig states that it's also possible he was simply incompetent:

      One might even go as far as to speculate that prosecutor Gollnick’s messy, uninspired, and apparently lackadaisical per for mance was perhaps, in turn, motivated by his disgust at Humann’s lobbying. Perhaps he indeed did not want Tehlirian to be convicted and secretly sided with the Armenian cause. Th at would have made his performance actually rather clever; if he did want Tehlirian to be convicted, on the other hand, it would just have been an abysmal performance, nothing more. Perhaps that is all that it was, because it appears that Gollnick was indeed rewarded by Humann, whom he served in the coming months as a member of his editorial board at the Deutsche Allgemeine Zeitung.

      WP:OR but the evidence that the DAZ Gollnick is the same Gollnick (based on checking the cited primary sources, none of them gives a first name) seems to be weak. They could also be different individuals, IMO.
  • "some leaders were arrested". Were these leaders part of the conscripted men from the previous sentence?
    • No, clarified
  • "the general deportation order was given and armed gendarmes forced the Armenians". I think this might be slightly more accessible to those without background knowledge if it was "a general deportation order" and "forced Armenians" (or "forced Armenians in the city" or similar).
    • Done
  • I don't fully understand the meaning of the quote "there had been changes in his resolve".
    • Ihrig states: "Again the judge intervened openly in favor of the defendant: when defense attorney Gordon asked him whether he had decided to kill Talât Pasha or whether the doubts about being able to kill a person had made him drop the idea, Judge Lemberg pointed out that “there had been changes in his resolve."" Not sure how I could clarify without going into WP:OR.
  • How did Terzibashian's story, which seems to focus on Enver Pasha, have strong bearing on this case regarding Talat Pasha?
    • Her testimony was an important part of the trial and is extensively discussed by both Dean and Ihrig.
  • "Talat's telegrams, not entered as evidence in the trial, were nevertheless". This "not entered as evidence in the trial" feels redundant; it is clear they are the ones discussed in the preceding paragraph.
    • Removed
  • Could the State funeral in Turkey section provide a timeframe for the remain request? It feels like it was quite a time jump from the trial and press coverage.
    • Neither Olson, Kieser, or any other source I can find gives an exact date, although Olson implies that the request was made shortly before it happened. (WP:OR: The earliest it could possibly have been was mid-1942 when Saraçoğlu went into office).
  • "Istanbul Military Museum in Istanbul". Don't think the "in Istanbul" is needed here.
    • Duh! Removed.
  • "It is commonly but incorrectly believed that Tehlirian survived the genocide by hiding under his mother's corpse." In the testimony Tehlirian stated it was his brother's corpse, is there a reason suggested that the myth switched to his mother?
    • Not stated in the source.
  • "Future Nuremberg trial prosecutor Robert Kempner, who attended the trial". "attended the trial" could be clarified given the last trial mentioned as Nuremberg, perhaps "the Tehlirian trial".
    • Done

Best, CMD (talk) 15:13, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks so much for your review! (t · c) buidhe 04:26, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Most dealt with/answered, so just replying below:
    • The sentences "Natalie saw it as an opportunity to propagandize the Armenian cause.[92] He believed that Tehlirian would likely be convicted according to German law but hoped to secure a pardon." need some clarification based on above. The preceding sentence starts with "The defense strategy...", and the subsequent sentence starts with "Werthauer [the defence lawyer already mentioned above] was more optimistic". Later another sentence says "Their strategy was successful," so the positioning and wording implies to me that Natalie was there as part of the team and involved in crafting the defence strategy.
      • According to the sources, he was involved in crafting the defence strategy. MacCurdy states that he visited Berlin at least once, in March 1921, but it's not clear where he was during the trial. I don't think the article implies his physical presence. (t · c) buidhe 04:16, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • On "there had been changes in his resolve", I get a much better understanding from your explanation above including the "in favor of the defendant" than I get from the article. Could you put a [Tehlirian] after "his" in the quote? I initially read "his" as referring to the prosecutor. May be worth added that explicit explanation of the judge's intervention as well, but will leave that to your assessment.
    • I remain unsure about the statement "no one else would bring the perpetrators of the genocide to justice" in wikivoice, perhaps because of hesitation around the "Bring to justice" phrasing. However, if this is the only remaining issue, and no other reviewers see an issue, I will support. CMD (talk) 04:22, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I can see how that might read as loaded language, but something like initiate criminal proceedings wouldn't work because the problem was as much enforcing judgements as about trying the perpetrators. (t · c) buidhe 04:16, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • While welcoming further input into the above from other editors either way as part of normal article development, I support based on 1a, 1b, 1d, 1e, 2a, 2b, and 4. As I mentioned earlier I had done some spotchecks on the article while looking at it for DYK, so while a limited check, I would also support 1c and 1f based on those. CMD (talk) 09:51, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tkbrett

edit

I'll try to get to this in the next day or two. Tkbrett (✉) 00:44, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • "About one million Armenians were murdered." -> fix passive voicing; who murdered them?
    • This is the total deaths of Armenians during the genocide, rephrased.
  • link propaganda
  • pipe Fake passport
  • "an attempted coup d'état." -> "an attempted coup d'état of the German government"
    • Done
  • link Coup d'état
  • pipe Russian Army to Imperial Russian Army (I think?)
  • "Tehlirian attended these meetings even after Despite falling ill with typhoid in mid-December."
    • Fixed
  • "At the end of February, the conspirators located Talat." Is there any further information on how they located him?
  • "went to Talat's apartment at Hardenbergstrasse 4, where Ernst Jäckh, a Foreign Office official and pro-Turkish activist, who often met with Talat arrived at 11:30 a.m.": move the comma after 'activist' to being after 'Talat'.
    • Done
  • pipe Red Cross to International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement
  • link Anatolia
  • link Ankara
  • link imam
  • Kaiser should be capitalized, no?
And linked to the kaiser it is referring to, not the title. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:35, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done (t · c) buidhe 23:45, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As you can tell by the above, I don't have much to critique here. This page blew my socks off. Now that I have Ihrig's book on the way to my local bookstore, Harvard University Press really ought to being paying you a finder's fee. ;) Tkbrett (✉) 14:22, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

  • Date formatting on #201 doesn't match the others, cite formatting otherwise looks good
  • Several publishers are redlinked; I suspect that this is an artifact of their links to German Wikipedia articles. I generally don't see a need for links to publishers, but that's just me.
  • Date formatting in the Journal articles section is inconsistent
  • Some books are part of series. I suggest adding them and the volume # (if any) to the bibliographic information
  • Spotchecks of ISBNs and doi's all OK
  • Sources are highly reliable--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:08, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 10 June 2021 [44].

Shuttle-Centaur

edit
Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:59, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a proposed upper stage for the Space Shuttle using the Centaur upper stage rocket. The whole Space Shuttle program was mired in controversy from the start, and this project spent a billion dollars with meagre results. The article addresses several questions and provides object lessons. It has been said that Shuttle-Centaur was a casualty of NASA's increased safety consciousness after the Space Shuttle Challenger disaster, but as the article shows, this was not entirely true. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:59, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Text review by Neopeius

edit

I promised to review this article, and I shall, but things are still very busy. I have a few issues I'll want to talk about when I've done the whole thing. Sorry for the delay. Putting this here as a placeholder so mods don't close the FAC for lack of interest -- this is a worthy article. --Neopeius (talk) 14:57, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here's my review, at long last, but I'm glad I waited as you had a chance to address other issues. There's not too much to be done as we worked together on A-Class. Here's what I've got:

  • I bounce off the second paragraph of the lede every time. It's practically a restating of a few paragraphs from the main text and not the most vital ones. I would just delete it. In any event, "Both versions were cradled" would be better phrased as "Both versions were designed to be cradled.." since none were ever actually flown.
    True, but they actually were mated with the CISS. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:17, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I won't block FAC for it, but consider making the second paragraph cover more ground than just the truss. I still bounce off of it. :)
    Expanded the intro. Let me know if there are more points you think should be mentioned in the lead. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:05, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that works, thanks. You may have addressed the points below, but I don't see a reply. Can you go through them and determine their status (including the corrections where I don't say change this for that but instead just post the sentence to be changed with strikeout incorporated in it? Thanks! --Neopeius (talk) 16:00, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Should all be done now. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:59, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Background

Centaur

  • Change "Centaur was developed by General Dynamics in the late 1950s and early 1960s as an upper stage rocket using liquid hydrogen as a fuel and liquid oxygen as an oxidizer." to "Centaur was an upper stage rocket using liquid hydrogen as a fuel and liquid oxygen as an oxidizer developed by General Dynamics in the late 1950s and early 1960s." -- most defining facts should come first.
    The proposed form makes it sound as if the oxidizer was developed by General Dynamics. Hawkeye7 (discuss)
    How about commas before "using" and after "oxidizer"? I think it's important that people know it's a rocket first and who is was made by second.
    Re-worded to effect this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:49, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]


*Change "The technical problems were overcome. The development" to "The technical problems were overcome, and the development" (it makes the sentence a little longer, but otherwise, the first sentence just sits there.

Space Shuttle upper stages

*"However, the IUS was constructed in a modular fashion, with two stages, a large one" Replace last comma with a colon.

  • Replaced comma with colon. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:22, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change "A configuration with three stages, two large and one small, would be enough for a planetary mission," to "A configuration with three stages, two large and one small, would be enough for a direct outer planetary mission," (a trip to Mars or Venus wouldn't need it)
    Sources don't say that. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:22, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course they do. How else would Galileo slingshot? :)
    The source says: Specifically, the Air Force asked NASA to develop an additional stage that could be used for planetary missions such as a proposed probe to Jupiter called Galileo. NASA made Boeing the prime contractor for developing the IUS. went with that. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:49, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deep space probes *"which was interested in the development of autonomous spacecraft that could take evasive action in the face of anti-satellite weapons, and the manner in which the JPL was designing Galileo to withstand the intense radiation of the magnetosphere of Jupiter, which had had application in surviving nearby nuclear detonations." I'm not sure how this relates to Galileo

Perfect.

*Change "there was another mission on the cards:" to "...in the cards" (since you're using American English throughout)

Decision to use Shuttle-Centaur

*"NASA decided to split Galileo into two separate spacecraft," replace comma with colon

Congressional approval

*Change "In addition to the funding, it directed NASA and Boeing to cease work on the two stage IUS for Galileo" to "In addition to allocating funding, the Ac directed NASA and Boeing..."'

  • Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:22, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Centaur G and G Prime avionics were the same as that of the standard Centaur and were still mounted in the forward equipment module. TheyIt used a 24-bit Teledyne Digital Computer Unit with 16 kilobytes of RAM to control guidance and navigation. TheyIt still used the same pressurized steel tank, but with some additional insulation including a two-layer foam blanket over the forward bulkhead and a three-layer radiation shield.[50] Other changes included new forward and aft adapters; a new propellant fill, drain and dump system; and an S band transmitter and RF system compatible with the tracking and data relay satellite system.[53] Considerable effort was put into making the Centaur safe, with redundant components to overcome malfunctions and a propellant draining, dumping and venting system so that the propellants could be dumped in case of emergency."
    Changes suggested because you are talking about two boosters.
    Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:22, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Management

*"At first, the engineers at the Lewis Research Center preferred to have it declared a payload" "At first" not followed by an expected "but later"...

Preparations

*"both crews were entirely composed of astronauts who had already flown in space at least once before, and were known to not suffer from it." Delete comma.

  • Deleted comma. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:22, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • change "This was an extremely dangerous maneuver under any circumstance, but it was also an extremely unlikely contingency, one that would never occur in the life of the Space Shuttle program." to "This was an extremely dangerous maneuver under any circumstance, but it was also an extremely unlikely contingency (in fact, one that never occurred in the life of the Space Shuttle program)."
    Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:22, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cancellation *I think the paragraph immediately preceding, about the Challenger disaster, would be better as the first paragraph of this section.

Legacy

*change "When the JPL tried to use its high gain antenna" to "When the JPL tried to use Galileo's high gain antenna"

*"The Ulysses project scientists had to wait even longer; the Ulysses spacecraft was launched using the IUS and Payload Assist Module on STS-41 on 6 October 1990.[33]" Currently this goes right into the Titan IV sentence. I'd put a carriage return after. It's all right if it stands alone.

---

That's what I got! --Neopeius (talk) 00:52, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nick-D

edit

Support Comments by Nick-D As disclosure, I'm reviewing in response to a request from Hawkeye on my talk page. I don't think I've ever given them an easy ride on nominations though, and won't be doing so this time either ;)

This article took six months to get through A-class, so I asked out of fear that it would get archived for want of reviewers like my last FAC submission. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:03, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first sentence of the lead should be be re-written to be less technical. E.g. was this a self-contained rocket system, or something which required a space shuttle? (and if so, how?) I'm a space nerd, and I don't really understand this sentence, and as a result the subject of the article isn't really clear on the basis of the lead. I didn't really understand the concept here until I saw the image in the 'design' section (which might be a better choice for the infobox as a result).
    Wait. Hold on. You're a space nerd? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:03, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Surely you're not surprised? The cross over of military nerds and space nerds is about 100%. I'm particularly interested in the Cold War-era space programs. The change to the lead looks good. Nick-D (talk) 10:28, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Centaur was developed in the late 1950s and early 1960s..." - say who developed it, at least broadly (e.g. was this developed by/for NASA and/or the USAF?)
    It says it in the next paragraph. Moved to this one. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:03, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first two sentences in the para starting with "Centaur upper stages were used..." are a bit complex and lengthy
    Cut it back. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:03, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ditto the sentence starting with "NASA Administrator Robert A. Frosch" (perhaps split into two sentences)
    Split. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:03, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "who contended that contamination observed during early Space Shuttle..." - it's not clear what this means
    Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:03, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Space Shuttle Challenger and Space Shuttle Atlantis were modified to carry the CISS" - were these modifications significant, and were they removed when the program was cancelled?
    Added "These changes included additional plumbing to load and vent Centaur's cryogenic propellants, and controls on the aft flight deck for loading and monitoring the Centaur upper stage". Challenger was destroyed before a Centaur mission could be flown; there is no record of the changes being removed on Discovery. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:03, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, fair enough. It seems that each Space Shuttle had a lot of unique quirks by the end of the program. Nick-D (talk) 10:28, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Shuttle-Centaur was certified as flight ready by NASA Associate Administrator Jesse Moore" - do we know when?
    Added "in November 1985". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:03, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This was an extremely dangerous maneuver under any circumstance, but one that would never occur in the life of the Space Shuttle program" - bit unclear (is the second half of this sentence needed?)
    Yes. The point is that it was a dangerous contingency, but an unlikely one. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:03, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "in which he made the case for Moore the Space Shuttle " - should this be "in which he made the case to Moore"? Nick-D (talk) 06:09, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:03, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Those changes all look good, and I'm pleased to support this nomination. Nick-D (talk) 10:28, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt.

edit
  • The lead paragraph is rather long. I might try to split it.
    Already split. Just a running issue with the browser. Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:42, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Someone reading the first paragraph by itself might not be clear on whether the Shuttle-Centaur actually happened, since you open by saying it was "proposed" but say two versions were produced.
    Deleted "proposed". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:42, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "during a demonstration to United States Air Force (USAF) and NASA officials.[6]" I would say "for" rather than "to" as more common in AmEng.
    Take your word for it. Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:42, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Budget cutbacks in the early 1970s led to the termination of Saturn V production" When did the Saturn V production in fact end? Just makings sure dates are correct.
    The decision to cancel was taken in 1969; the last one was delivered in 1972. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:42, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Added that the decision was taken in 1969. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:42, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "When the USAF questioned NASA's determination that all US space launches, civil and military, should use the Space Shuttle, NASA Administrator James M. Beggs insisted that expendable launch vehicles were obsolete, and that any money spent on them would only undermine the Space Shuttle's cost-effectiveness." This might be dated better since Beggs was Administrator under Reagan and you've just been discussing events in the early 1970s.
    Moved down to the a better place chronologically. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:42, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
More soon.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:30, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to be so slow. Here's the rest.
That's it.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:46, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by Balon Greyjoy

edit

Like Nick-D, Hawkeye7 requested this review on my talk page. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 17:51, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • "liquid oxygen as an oxidiser" The rest of the article uses MOS:AMERICANENGLISH, so I'm assuming this should be "oxidizer".
    Oooh. Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:23, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This was an attractive prospect in the early days of the Space Race" The advantages of using liquid hydrogen are clear with the higher energy/mass ratio over kerosene, and this makes it seem like the advantages of liquid hydrogen were only relevant in the early days of space travel, rather than beginning then and continuing through present day.
    Deleted "in the early days of the Space Race" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:23, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "rocket engineers had to first overcome enormous technological challenges" Many of the engineering problems for these rockets were presumably difficult and it's not clear how the hydrogen tank issue was notably difficult relative to the other technical challenges. This could be shortened as added to the previous sentence, something like "A rocket utilizing liquid hydrogen as a rocket fuel can theoretically lift 40 percent more payload per kilogram of liftoff weight than one with a conventional rocket fuel like kerosene, but this capability required new technology to be developed."
    It really was rocket science. Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:23, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Liquid hydrogen is a cryogenic fuel, meaning that it assumes liquid form only at extremely low temperatures and therefore must be stored below −253 °C (−423 °F) to keep it from evaporating or boiling." This states multiple times that liquid hydrogen must be very cold to remain a liquid. Since the boiling point is the temperature given, evaporation doesn't need to be mentioned, as that would happen in a colder environment. My take is "Liquid hydrogen is a cryogenic fuel that must be stored below −253 °C (−423 °F) to keep it from boiling."
    Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:23, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It adopted the weight-saving features pioneered by the Atlas rocket family: a monocoque steel shell that held its shape only when pressurized, with the hydrogen and oxygen tanks separated by a common bulkhead; there was no internal bracing and no insulation surrounding the propellants." The intro here makes it sound like there were multiple weight saving measures from the Atlas rockets, but then just lists one major feature, which was the unpressurized and unbraced fuel and oxygen tanks.
    It lists three: (1) a monocoque steel shell that held its shape only when pressurized; (2) hydrogen and oxygen tanks separated by a common bulkhead; and (3) no internal bracing or insulation surrounding the propellant tanks. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:23, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Aren't #1 and #3 the same thing? Balon Greyjoy (talk) 13:17, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Centaur-G added insulation while retaining the pressurised steel shell. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:17, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It must therefore be carefully insulated from all sources of heat, particularly the rocket exhaust, atmospheric friction during flight through the atmosphere at high speeds and the radiant heat of the Sun." I would add that the hydrogen needs to be insulated from the relatively warming liquid oxygen. To keep the sentence from getting too long, I would remove the atmospheric friction phrase and instead link aerodynamic heating. Additionally, remove "particular" as that implies there are other significant but unmentioned sources of heat.
    Re-worded as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:17, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The tiny molecules of hydrogen can leak through microscopic holes". Per Dawson and Boles, it seems like the concern for a lack of insulation is the buildup of pressure as liquid hydrogen turned to a gas that necessitated venting (and thus the loss of hydrogen fuel). They make it sound like lost of hydrogen through microscopic holes was a design defect but not the primary issue with keeping hydrogen in liquid form, so I would mentioned the venting here regarding hydrogen loss once it boils.
    Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:17, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Paved the way" is figure of speech; maybe use "allowed" instead?
    Changed to "led to" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:17, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "its use in the upper stages of the Saturn V Moon rocket and later by the Space Shuttle." This should link the upper stages that used liquid hydrogen. Additionally, the RS-25 engine's should be linked as well. "Moon" can be taken out, as that wasn't part of the name of the Saturn V.
    Linked. Removed Moon. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:17, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This lists the Viking, Helios, and Viking missions as among the Titan III-Centaur missions, but as far as I can tell, they were the only successful launches for Titan-Centaur. Saying "including" makes it sound like there were other launches/missions that Titan-Centaur successfully supported.
    There was one unsuccessful mission as well, Sphinx (satellite). Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:17, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I saw that when I was looking up the Titan III-Centaur launch history; my point is that the paragraph comes across like those missions are some of the successful missions, when in fact they represent all of the successful missions. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 11:32, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It's been re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:52, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Titan IIIE was viewed at the time to be the last expendable launch system; John Noble Wilford from The New York Times wrote that it was "expected to be the last new launching vehicle to be developed by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration until the advent of the reusable Space Shuttle which should be ready in 1978."" I know it's mentioned later in the article that this was viewed as the last uncrewed vehicle by James Beggs/NASA leadership; is there a quote/reference from them that could be used here? I know Wilford is a respected journalist, but since he was not a decision maker at NASA, I think it would make more sense to be referencing someone who was.
    Deleted this, as we have Begg's opinion later on. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:29, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It was hoped that the Galileo spacecraft would be able to make a flyby of asteroid 29 Amphitrite while en route." Was there any research group hoping for this, or just JPL scientists? I would state who was hoping for the asteroid flyby.
    JPL. The idea arose naturally as they plotted a course to ensure that the spacecraft would not crash into an asteroid. I don't want to get in too deep here, so I have written: "In December 1984, Galileo project manager John R. Casani proposed that Galileo make a flyby of asteroid 29 Amphitrite while en route.It would be the first time a US space mission visited an asteroid. NASA Administrator James M. Beggs endorsed the proposal as a secondary objective for Galileo." Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:29, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • " One such change was to allow the Milstar to have a direct connection with Centaur that would be separated using explosive bolts. This required additional testing." Is there any additional information about this testing, such as time or cost increases? If not, I would combine the sentences, since it's a short and abrupt sentence at the end of the section.
    All classified I'm afraid. Combined sentences. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:29, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Lewis Research Center pointed out that Centaur provided four advantages over the IUS." How did the Lewis Center point this out? Was it a press release, Congressional testimony, discussion at a NASA meeting, etc.? I would state how it was communicated (such as "The Lewis Center released a statement of the four advantages that Centaur had over the IUS"), since it's not like the Lewis Center can be pointing out advantages like a person can in a conversation.
    Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:29, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "they had 25 times the Centaur's fuel" I'm not positive this is grammatically incorrect, but shouldn't this be "they had 25 times the amount of Centaur's fuel" instead?
    Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:29, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Thus, a total of $959 million (equivalent to $1935 million in 2019) had been spent with nothing to show for it." I would remove most of this, and tack on the overall cost to the previous sentence. While there wasn't a Shuttle-Centaur launch, the system was still developed and flight hardware was created, which I'm assuming also affected Centaur G development, not to mention all of the jobs and experience gained from the development, so I think "nothing to show for it" may be a little too harsh/not entirely accurate. Maybe something like, "Shutting down the project cost another $75 million (equivalent to $151 million in 2019), bringing the total program cost to $959 million."
    Deleted "with nothing to show for it". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:29, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "To this had to be added the cost of launching satellites and space probes by other means." I would remove this, since it falls outside of the scope of the Shuttle-Centaur programs, and will always be the case for retired/abandoned projects that leave a need to be filled.
    Very well. Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:29, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • " most likely from vibration during overland transportation between the JPL and Kennedy Space Center three times or during the rough launch by the IUS" I would make this start with "likely from" or "potentially from" as I would only provide one option in the case of using "most likely" and this lists two.
    Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:29, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is the Glenn Research Center display using Shuttle-specific hardware, or just the Centaur G Prime in general? If so, I would state that, since the mention of the Titan IV mission manager makes it seem like it wasn't about Shuttle-Centaur.
    This is uncertain. "One of the Centaur-G Prime stages built for the shuttle is believed to have been modified for the launch of NASA's Cassini probe to Saturn atop a Titan IVB rocket in 1997. The Space and Rocket Center had labeled the Centaur-G now being moved as a mockup, though there is some data that points to it being the other stage originally built for the program. Glenn Research Center's records identify it being a high-fidelity ground test article." [45] Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:29, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I have; nice work! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 14:24, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

edit

Notes

References

This version looked at. --Usernameunique (talk) 18:45, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All issues addressed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:00, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gog the Mild & Hawkeye7, it generally looks good. Hawkeye, is there a reason you didn't add the date for 44, 58, 65, 79, and 104? And unless it's someone like Heppenheimer, where it's clear they go by initials, I'd recommend using full names; it can become a real pain trying to figure out who initialed authors are, so you may as well spare an interested reader that trouble. But initials are ultimately a point of preference, and assuming there is an intentional reason for not adding the dates, then I'm signed off on the source review. --Usernameunique (talk) 18:53, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't normally add dates for web pages, as not all of them have them. I've added them here (although one is a guess). In the case of academic papers, the authors are normally referred to in the form of their initials and surnames, that's all there is in the papers except an identification of the institution they work for, and often I don't have any way of finding out what the initials stand for. In the case of (for example) R. E. Martin, all I know is that they worked at General Dynamics in the early 1980s. The interested reader can find the paper simply by clicking on the link. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:10, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from TRM

edit

Lead

Background

That takes me to "Decision to use Shuttle-Centaur", more to come. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 08:39, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decision to use...

This is a really good read. I'm up to "Preparations". The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 13:50, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Preparations

That's all I have. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 19:39, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An excellent piece of work, gets my support. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:38, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your review. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:39, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 10 June 2021 [47].

Huaynaputina

edit
Nominator(s): Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:31, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK, the first nomination didn't work out but at least one editor who had raised concerns back then appears to have been satisfied by changes performed at Peer Review, so I am trying again. This article is about a rather unimpressive-looking volcano in Peru which in 1600 had a major eruption. This eruption devastated the surrounding region and caused worldwide climate change, including one of Russia's worst famines. Pinging participants of the PR, these mentioned there and of the previous FAC: @Gog the Mild, Iridescent, Femkemilene, ComplexRational, Fowler&fowler, MONGO, Ceranthor, SandyGeorgia, AhmadLX, Heartfox, Buidhe, and Z1720: Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:31, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Fowler&fowler

edit
  • Notes: this is the lead. Its language should be accessible and explain the science easily. "Central Volcanic Zone" redirects to a section of the AVB, so no need to repeat. No need to explain either that the SA plate might have an oceanic half, but some clue should be given of its birth (without going into the convection in the mantle). More later. Good to see this. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:38, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seems like I missed one other issue ... " and by the former's molten contents being forced up" isn't really how the process works. The article does not discuss this but the main process is the release of fluids by the downgoing slab into the overlying mantle, which causes the latter to melt. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:25, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Second paragraph, lead
  • "During" has the meaning of "throughout," or "in the time of" and is more commonly applied to a time that has ended.
  • Better in my view: "In the Holecene ..."
  • Witnessed by people in the city of Arequipa,
  • Arequipa was established in 1540, and after 60 years, it was most likely still a colonial settlement.
  • Better in my view: the "town of" or "the settlement of" (later on we say "Arequipa Metropolitan Area" so people will know soon enough that it is a city now.)
I think that by contemporary definition it would be considered a "city". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:32, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This index was not around then and is quite likely based on historical reconstructions
  • Better in my view: this eruption has been computed to measure 6 on ..."
  • infrastructure a
  • "infrastructure" is a modern word (ca. 1920s or 30s), with its meaning these days including power-plants, highways, airports, ports, dams, railroad tracks and whatnot.
  • Better in view: "the foundations of buildings" (if that is what is meant; if not, perhaps you can explain a little more what is)
  • economic resources
  • This too is vague in the context of a relatively new colonial settlement.
  • Better in my view to mention the most salient resources by name.
  • The eruption had significant effects on Earth's climate; temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere decreased, and millions of tons of acid were deposited. Floods, famines and cold waves resulted in numerous places in Europe, Asia and the Americas. The climate disruption caused social upheaval in countries as far away as Russia and may have played a role in the onset of the Little Ice Age.
  • There are some coherence issues here: "millions of tons of acid," whose origin and effect are unexplained, appear in the middle of climate. Social upheavals appear between cold waves and the Little Ice Age.
  • Better in my view: The eruption had a significant impact on Earth's climate: temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere decreased; cold waves affected places in Europe, Asia and the Americas; and the climate disruption may have played a role in the onset of the Little Ice Age. Floods, famines, and social upheavals resulted.
  • (Note semi-colons are allowed in lists, especially ones with internal commas.) If the eruption really did have such an impact, then it is likely that floods, famines, and social upheavals were more widespread than in a few countries we are able to list. Also, this was a violent physical event; it is a situation for which we can–without stylistic worries–use the word "impact" in its figurative meaning.
Third paragraph, lead
  • Huaynaputina has not erupted since 1600. There are fumaroles in its amphitheatre, and hot springs occur in the region, some of which have been associated with Huaynaputina.
  • Probably better if second Huaynaputina ---> "this volcano." and "This volcano" in the following sentence ---> Huaynaputina
  • lies in a remote region, where there is little human activity.
  • Better in my view to make the clause restrictive: i.e. "lies in a remote region in which there is little human activity."
  • "Even so" is probably more precise than "still," or "Although H. lies in a remote region, there are ..." (but this is not a biggie; I use "still")
  • "Surrounding area" can mean "immediately surrounding area," which can be confusing; better in my view: there are about 30,000 people living in its proximity, and another 1 million ..."
  • If an eruption similar to the 1600 event occurred, it would likely lead to a high death toll and cause substantial socioeconomic disruption.
  • occurred--> were to occur
  • likely--> quite likely. (Your last volcano article was written in British/Commonwealth English which shuns the adverb "likely," a relatively recent Americanism, preferring "very likely." In this instance, the more modest "quite likely" is probably better. (Note: I tend to use only "likely" myself, though usually in informal situations.)
Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:32, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's the lead. I hope I haven't made any typos. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:48, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

edit

AhmadLX

edit
Okay fine.
  • "Huaynaputina lies at an elevation of about 4,850 metres (15,910 ft)." This is vague. Is its base at that elevation (as "lies" would suggest)? Or the highest point on the rim? Or the floor of the amphitheatre? Should be changed to something like "The summit of Huaynaputina lies at an elevation of about 4,850 metres (15,910 ft)."
    The source does not specify and none of the others I've seen discusses this aspect. I am guessing that the unusual morphology of the volcano makes it hard to assign it a height. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:45, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This one says "Summit Elevation 4850 m (15912 ft)".
Hmmm. That source does not explain how it comes to that conclusion and the last digit (0) makes me wonder if they are approximating. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:52, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is the very source that you've used in the article to support the elevation thing.
Yes, but as I've said this volcano does not quite have a "summit" so I am wary of interpreting it as such. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:47, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe something like "The event continued with earthquakes and ash fall for over/about two weeks and ended on 6 March."?
Yeah, that's better; implemented it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:03, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It has been proposed as a marker for the onset of the Anthropocene." Important term; short description.
    I admit, the source there does not bother to actually state an explicit definition of the term and its importance; it's more like several allusions. Do you have a proposed explanation? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:03, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think the controversy regarding the exact starting point of the epoch is not relevant here. We can just brief that it is a period in Earth's history in which human impact on global climate has been considerable. This can be helpful.
I agree that the controversy doesn't matter, but even from the source currently used it doesn't seem like everybody defines it as "a period in Earth's history in which human impact on global climate has been considerable." Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:52, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
IMO, it is completely trivial. People scream in every disaster. There is nothing unusual about it to warrant a mention here. If people didn't scream and run around in such an event, that would be something of a note.
I am going to disagree on this one. I think that sentence helps underscore that this was an actual human tragedy rather than a statistical pattern. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:52, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@AhmadLX:Is there any other problem that needs addressing? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:31, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although I believe that several of my concerns were dismissed through unconvincing arguments (both here and in PR), I, nonetheless, think that this now meets the criteria. so I support. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 15:27, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HF

edit

Will take a look at this soon. Might claim for 5 points in the WikiCup. Hog Farm Talk 02:46, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • The Quechua name of Waynaputina from the infobox should be mentioned in the names section
    Removed it pending a source as I can't find anything endorsing that spelling. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:31, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not entirely for sure what the value of link to List of volcanoes in Peru in the infobox is
    For people who want to know more about Peruvian volcanoes? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:31, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is the redirect El Misti the correct link in the context of " Other volcanoes in this zone from northwest to southeast include Sara Sara, Coropuna, Ampato, Sabancaya, El Misti, Ubinas, Ticsani, Tutupaca and Yucamane"?
    Yes, it's a common name for that volcano. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:31, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The event continued with earthquakes and ash fall for about two weeks[82] and ended on 6 March;[5] the air was clear of ash from the eruption on 2 April 1600 - is the " an error, or is it an unclosed quote?
    An error. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:31, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the Huayruro Project began in 2015 and aims to rediscover these towns" - Any update on this?
    Not that much, and what little there is is a bit too specific I think. It's more about the towns than the volcano. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:31, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • While the flora of the volcano is mentioned, fauna don't seem to be. Even if wildlife is not present on the volcano in significant numbers, I feel like that should be mentioned.
    The problem is that there is no source definitively discussing fauna in the context of Huaynaputina. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:31, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The external link is dead and should be removed or archived. If it doesn't add anything significant, just remove it.
    Removed it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:31, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't see where the 500,000 age of rock figure from the infobox appears in the body; I may have missed it.
    It's not based on anything, just typical infobox OR. I've removed it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:31, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not all of the non-English sources state which language they are in; this should be added for all non-English sources.
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:31, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's it from me, I think. Hog Farm Talk 21:58, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Hog Farm:Replied to queries. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:31, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Supporting on WP:FACR #1a, 1b, 1d, 1e, 2a, 2b, 2c, and 4, with the understanding that the article will be updated in the future if studies on fauna on the volcano are performed. Did not check other criteria. Hog Farm Talk 17:39, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OpposeSupport from TRM

edit

That takes me to the Geology section. The biggest concern here is the jargon and also not mad keen on all the crowbarred references. More to come. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:19, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Did these things. If I may, I'd like to ask that the current reference style stay until everybody has got a chance to review the content - as mentioned before, grouped references make it harder to solve a content issue. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:19, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That takes me to "Eruption history". Generally this section is for all intents and purposes inaccessible to anyone without some level of expert knowledge in volcanology. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 15:15, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It should be clearer now I think, but the detailed geology and in particular composition are really only of interest to people who know at least some concepts. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:10, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed it. Volcanoguy 22:13, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Up to "1600 eruption" section. More to come. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 11:37, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That takes me to the "Local impact" section. More to come. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 12:34, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That takes me to "Climate impacts", more to come. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:21, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just the refs remaining on this first pass now. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 09:28, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man:OK, I totally missed these comments. I'll do these now... Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:17, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 11:54, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Volcanoguy

edit
I suppose it is good enough how it is. Support. Volcanoguy 08:49, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Featured_log/June_2021&oldid=1030942761"