Legality of Cannabis by U.S. Jurisdiction

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

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

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

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

  • actionable objections have not been resolved;
  • consensus for promotion has not been reached;
  • insufficient information has been provided by reviewers to judge whether the criteria have been met; or
  • a nomination is unprepared, after at least one reviewer has suggested it be withdrawn.

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

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

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

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

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

Table of Contents – This page: Purge cache

Shortcut

Featured content:

Featured article candidates (FAC)

Featured article review (FAR)

Today's featured article (TFA):

Featured article tools:

Nominating[edit]

How to nominate an article

Nomination procedure

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

Commenting, etc[edit]

Commenting, supporting and opposing

Supporting and opposing

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


Shortcut

Nominations[edit]

Bleed American[edit]

Nominator(s): MusicforthePeople (talk) 20:24, 5 July 2022 (UTC); DannyMusicEditor (talk) 20:24, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello everyone. This article is about the fourth album from alt rock act Jimmy Eat World, released in mid 2001. After nearly becoming a casualty of the major label system following their third album, the band bounced back with their most commercially successful release to date. It was certified platinum in the US, gold in Canada and silver in the UK. Sometime before this, the album's title was changed to Jimmy Eat World following the 9/11 attacks. Its second single "The Middle" was a top five hit in the US, becoming a staple of the pop punk genre, and is the band's signature song.

While I initially did some expansion to the article a few years ago, DannyMusicEditor (talk · contribs) did further work on it and took this to GA status in 2016. After I did some more expansion in 2021, ahead of the album's 20th anniversary, Danny and I talked about bringing this to FA status. In the interim, we brought Tell All Your Friends to FA earlier this year and have decided to do the same for Bleed American. We had previously taken this to FAC, but the nomination stalled after only receiving one support, so this is the second attempt. MusicforthePeople (talk) 20:24, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt[edit]

Very familiar with the album, one of my favorites.

  • I am somewhat surprised not to see Andy Greenwald's book, Nothing Feels Good: Punk Rock, Teenagers, and Emo, used as a source, since it includes discussion of Jimmy Eat World and Bleed American. You should be able to get the relevant parts from Google Books preview. Sellout: The Major Label Feeding Frenzy That Swept Punk by Dan Ozzi may also have something.
Ping me when you're ready for me to continue.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:54, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review: Images given are appropriately licensed, but could a sample be included under a FUR? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:51, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Hamilton U.S. Custom House[edit]

Nominator(s): Epicgenius (talk) 16:18, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a building that once contained the United States' most profitable custom house. The magnificent design includes a plethora of sculptures and statues on the exterior. The second floor contains a sprawling rotunda with ceiling murals, as well as other rooms embellished with carved details. It was first proposed in 1889 to replace 55 Wall Street, though various delays and disputes pushed back the opening to 1907. It was to be more expensive than every other public building in New York City except for the notorious Tweed Courthouse. The U.S. Customs Service left the building in 1974, and it fell into disuse for several years. Luckily, the building was restored in the 1980s and the building now contains the George Gustav Heye Center as well as U.S. government offices.

This page was promoted as a Good Article two years ago after a Good Article review by CaroleHenson, for which I am very grateful. In addition, the page received a GOCE copyedit a few months ago from Rublov, whose efforts I also appreciate. I think it's up to FA quality now, and I look forward to all comments and feedback. I nominated this article for FA status back in May, but that nomination was archived due to a lack of feedback. I hope this is more successful the second time around. Epicgenius (talk) 16:18, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt[edit]

  • "offices for the National Archives" I might say "of" rather than "for".
  • "Gilbert was selected as an architect following a competition." Since no one else is credited, I would strike "an". Which leads to the question, should French be credited as an architect in the infobox?
  • Can anything more in the "site" section be said about the history of the location? I see some scattered info later in the article.
  • "Unlike most custom houses, which face the waterfront, the Alexander Hamilton Custom House faces inland toward Bowling Green.[11][16]" I wonder if it could be stated more clearly that it faces the one direction (north) where there is no nearby water.
  • "Near the building's south end is space formerly used by the United States Postal Service, " if I recall correctly, this was for the Bowling Green Station of the New York post office, which might be worth mentioning.
  • "The new New York Custom House was only the fourth building to be built under the Tarsney Act.[82]" Didn't the competition take place, not under the Tarsney Act, but under Section 3 of the 1899 act? Admittedly, they seem to be more or less the same.
  • "I'd capitalize Platt's and Quigg's titles.
  • " The next February, during the 55th Congress, Platt and Quigg proposed bills to acquire the Bowling Green site, providing $5 million (about $136 million in 2020[a]) for land acquisition and construction." According to Congressional ProQuest, H.R. 9077, which became the authorizing act, was introduced by Rep. Philip Low (R-NY) on 2/14/1898. It came out of the Committee on Public Buildings and Grounds on 2/6/1899, entirely rewritten, along with a report by a Congressman Mercer of that committee.
  • The bill passed both houses on February 28, 1899, not during March. McKinley seems to have signed it on March 2.
  • "The selection of Gilbert was controversial, drawing opposition from Platt and several other groups" Platt was not a group. Also, it's worth a mention (see here that Platt's opposition was based in part on Gilbert not being a Republican, that being typical of Platt if you look him up.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:55, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "that Gilbert was a "westerner" who had newly arrived to New York City," I'd change "to" to "in". And if he had moved to NYC, should he be referred to, as you do, as "Minnesota architect"?
  • "A branch of the United States Postal Service" the United States Post Office Department, as we are pre-1971. And it was a station. Stations were usually within city limits, branches outside.
  • "From 1974 on, the Custom House was vacant," Wasn't the post office still open?
That's it.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:55, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Suggest adding alt text
  • All images of statues/sculptures will need tags for the original work in addition to the photo. Ditto photos of 2D works.
  • File:King's_Color-graphs_of_New_York_City6.jpg: source? Not sure what is referenced by the current image description
  • File:US_Customs_House_New_York_of_to-day._(1912)_(14782617492).jpg: is more specific tagging available? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:48, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Branford Steam Railroad[edit]

Nominator(s): Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:26, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a short (about 6 miles in length) industrial railroad in Connecticut with a surprisingly long and storied history. The Branford Steam Railroad started operations in 1903 to carry passengers to a trotting park for horses. Within a decade, it transformed into an industrial shortline hauling trap rock from quarries. The company has hauled trap rock from the same quarry since 1914 to today, and plans are that it will continue this task for at least the next 200 years. The "Steam Railroad" has not used steam locomotives since 1960, but the seemingly absurd name is necessary since the Branford Electric Railway also exists to this day as a museum preserving streetcars. I completely rewrote this article in October 2021, and have made a few further improvements since then. Following the promotion of my first FA last month, I would like to see this little known railroad become a featured article as well. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:26, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild[edit]

Recusing to review.

  • What does "exchanges freight" mean?
    Ah, that's one of the sentences I didn't rewrite when I redid the article last year. This is referring to Interchange (freight rail), where rail cars are transferred from one railroad company to another for continued transport. BSRR rail cars are transferred to the Providence and Worcester Railroad which runs dedicated trains to Fresh Pond Junction near New York City. At the docks, the BSRR transfers much of the trap rock from the quarry to barges. I have revised the article to state this information. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:25, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems a little strange that the lead states neither the length nor the gauge of the railway. It may also be helpful to overtly state that it is still running.
    I can specify standard gauge, but as 99% of U.S. railroads are standard gauge, it's usually assumed. I note that AirTrain JFK, a FA, does not mention the gauge in the lead, likely for this reason. The gauge is listed in the infobox. I have added the length to the lead section. That the line is still running is established by the use of "is" rather than "was" and the lead being in present tense. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:03, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "built an extension from the BSRR's northern terminus". "BSRR" - see MOS:ACRO1STUSE.
    Abbreviation now introduced at the first mention of Branford Steam Railroad in the body. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:25, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Events outside of the area set in motion the line's conversion to an industrial railroad hauling rock." I don't see that this adds anything, and suggest deletion.
  • "Fisk initially responded to this demand by opening a quarry at Pine Orchard in January 1902." How is this connected to the BSRR?
  • "another railroad, known as the Damascus Railroad, which built an extension". You have the railroad doing the building. Suggest rephrasing.
  • "a modification to the Damascus Railroad's charter allowing it to expand further into North Branford". !. "expand" seems an odd thing for a railroad to do. Perhaps 'extend'?
  • "where he planned to open a quarry." Suggest "a" → 'the'.
  • "and advocated for support from the town's residents for the railroad extension, finding most residents supportive. Despite local support". "... support ... supportive ... support". Perhaps a bit of variation?
  • "to exercise eminent domain". Could we have an in line explanation per "Do not unnecessarily make a reader chase links: if a highly technical term can be simply explained with very few words, do so" in MOS:LINKSTYLE.
  • "pronounced the bill as legal". This may be a USEng thing, but in BritEng this would read better without the "as".
  • "allowing the modified charter to take effect." What modification?
  • "While the Damascus Railroad allowed Fisk to expand rail operations northward". Don't you mean "Damascus Railroad" → 'new charter'?
  • "Fisk applied for a modification to the Damascus Railroad's charter"; "the Branford Steam Railroad would apply for an amendment to its charter". Exactly which body was chartered?
  • "along with improved interchange facilities with the New Haven Railroad." This is the first mention of the New Haven Railroad and of interchange facilities. Perhaps they could be explained earlier? Ie, prior to improvement.
  • "allow the Branford Steam Railroad to assume control of the Damascus Railroad by purchasing its stock." Could you clarify throughout the article when you are using a term to describe a physical structure, eg a railroad, and when an incorporated body, eg a company.
  • "By April 29, 1909, the General Assembly approved". "By" - is the precise date not known?
  • "the General Assembly approved", 1. The general assembly of what? 2. What is a General Assembly? 3. Why the upper case initial letters?
  • "by crossing most streets at grade". Possibly this is clear to US readers. It isn't elsewhere. What does "at grade" mean?
  • "intersect with a diamond crossing". Is it possible t explain what a diamond crossing is in line?
  • "something the Branford Steam Railroad was strongly opposed to." Why?
  • Link "injunction".
  • "and again obtained an injunction forcing the Shore Line to cease construction". Is it known when?
  • "construction, which had begun in earnest on the night of February 5." This may fit more naturally into the previous sentence.
  • "As such, the Connecticut Superior Court ordered". I am not sure what "As such" adds - or even means.
  • Optional: it would be helpful to be told what "trap rock" was and how it was used.
  • "for the construction of the nearby Lake Gaillard." Just checking that the spur was constructed so that a lake could be built?
  • "A number of locomotives were used within the 300-acre (120 ha) quarry complex." What/which quarry complex?
  • "with fronting 1.25 miles (2.01 km) in length." What is fronting?
  • "Ownership of the company changed several times". Which company? (Quarry or railroad?)
  • There seem to be an excessive number of very short paragraphs.

Gog the Mild (talk) 14:02, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fallout (video game)[edit]

Nominator(s): Lazman321 (talk) 00:00, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fallout is a 1997 role-playing video game developed and published by Interplay Productions for the PC. It was a critical success, with praise for its unique setting and gameplay compared to other role-playing games for the PC at the time. As a result, it spawned a successful series of role-playing games and is often credited as one of the games that revived the genre.

I started work on this article in April 2021, with a successful good article nomination in July 2021. Then, I started working on it again in March 2022 with hopes of turning it into a featured article for the 25th anniversary. To get the elephant in the room out of the way, my previous nomination that lasted from April to June 2022 failed, because only one review on the candidacy directly supported its promotion, with the others either being drive-by reviews or reviews that didn't vote. However, the article did improve during and after the previous candidacy, so hopefully, this candidacy will be different. Please, if you decide to review this article, please try to make it at least somewhat in-depth and vote. I do not want a repeat of the last candidacy. Lazman321 (talk) 00:00, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: there are a couple of citations does not verify the text in the article, which is not good for a prospective FA. Most sources do verify the claims well, however. Spot-checking sources in this version, in FAC talk page here. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 06:31, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have addressed some of the requests and do plan on finishing later. Lazman321 (talk) 15:36, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@CactiStaccingCrane: I have now addressed all your requests. Lazman321 (talk) 20:05, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, this is not what I meant. My point here is that you should go over the article and check all the references before FAC. If a spot-check like this cover this much issue, I don't think that the article is ready for FA just yet. There's plenty of time to fix this, however, and I am more than happy to do a spot-check again in a few weeks. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 01:50, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiley Rutledge[edit]

Nominator(s): Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:39, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiley Rutledge served on the U.S. Supreme Court for only six years, but he still managed to make his mark on history. Known for his stalwart defenses of civil liberties in several landmark cases, he gained a reputation for being not only a staunch liberal but also a genuinely kind and compassionate man. Many thanks are due to TheTechnician27 for a GA review and to Kavyansh.Singh and Tim riley for very helpful suggestions at PR. I look forward to all feedback! Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:39, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt[edit]

  • "Wiley Blount Rutledge Jr." does he need to be referred to as Jr. in lead sentence? WP:JUNIOR. He is certainly not notable as Jr. and I don't think he ever went by it in his professional career.
  • "In 1920, Rutledge enrolled at the University of Colorado Law School" For the sake of continuity, it might be worth mentioning this was in Boulder.
    • Done.
  • "to appoint someone from west of the Mississippi – such as Rutledge – to fill the next opening.[8]: 112  Roosevelt selected William O. Douglas instead of Rutledge when that vacancy arose" It might be worth noting that Douglas was from Washington state.
    • Done.
  • "As a judge of that court, therefore, Rutledge had the opportunity to render decisions on a wide variety of topics" I might say "write opinions" rather than "render decisions", since he was usually on a panel.
    • Done.
  • It might be a good idea to put the case citation as a footnote when mentioning a case, especially when there is a red link.
    • I've created a notes section and cited them all with Template:Ussc—does that look alright?
  • It might be worth mentioning that Hand would have been the oldest justice at time of appointment by a good margin over Hughes (second service, as Chief Justice) and Lurton.
    • I haven't been able to find any sources that explicitly make that connection (though you're certainly right), so I think I'll have to leave it out lest I get in trouble for original research. (The "old" Hand outlived the "young" Rutledge by more than a decade, ironically enough.)
  • " Roosevelt's latent desire to appoint a Westerner weighed in Rutledge's favor" I suppose, with Douglas, it might be termed "another Westerner". What is a latent desire?
    • Reworded.
  • "Rebutting each of Stone's contentions point by point," "each of" is redundant to "point by point".
    • Removed.
  • " the strategy pursued by future Supreme Court justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg in her efforts to challenge laws that discriminated on the basis of gender" presumably while she was with the ACLU, thus before her court tenure.
    • That's what I was trying to imply with "future", but I've clarified it further.
  • " On appeal to the Supreme Court," (UMW v. US) Our article on the case says it was on writ of certiorari. I would say "On review in the Supreme Court" or some such.
    • Good catch; fixed.
  • "but the grave is empty: as of 2008, his physical remains are held at Cedar Hill Cemetery in Suitland, Maryland, pending further instructions from his family.[43]: 25 " It's been over 70 years! Can more be said about the circumstances of this?
    • I wish I could, but all that the source (this article) says is: "Another quick telephone call to Tina Hodge in Suitland, Maryland, confirmed that the ashes of both Justice Rutledge and his wife Annabel are still being held at Cedar Hill Cemetery, still awaiting disposition instructions from the family." There don't seem to be any sources that explain why it could possibly be taking so long.
I doubt anything will ever be forthcoming. Interesting article, Fortas is there too.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:07, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's it. Very interesting..--Wehwalt (talk) 22:24, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks, Wehwalt; much appreciated. Responses above. Best regards, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:59, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent article.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:07, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel Dyer[edit]

Nominator(s): Dugan Murphy (talk) 17:41, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is a novel by John Neal (writer), considered by scholars to be his best. Nobody's ever heard of it, but it is the first bound novel about the Salem witch trials and had a clear impact on later works by Longfellow, Hawthorne, Whittier, and Whitman. If you have heard of it, that may be only because of the book's preface, which is somehow more famous than the novel itself. It deals with universal themes like justice, sexual frustration, and cultural pluralism. I've taken a few articles through FAC and one of them was about a novel, so I feel pretty equipped for this nomination. The article just went through GAN review, so it's somewhat polished already. I'm excited to read and respond to whatever comments people have to help me further improve the piece. Thank you in advance for your time! Dugan Murphy (talk) 17:41, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:Rachel_Dyer_by_John_Neal_Title_Page.jpg: it's unlikely this is creative enough to warrant copyright protection
  • File:Philip_King_of_Mount_Hope_by_Paul_Revere.jpeg: source link is dead, needs a US tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:43, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

USS Johnston (DD-557)[edit]

Nominator(s): –♠Vami_IV†♠ 15:27, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is finally my great pleasure to submit to FAC the fightin'est ship the US Navy ever saw. This article is about the destroyer Johnston, famed for its two-hour brawl with basically the whole Japanese surface fleet in October 1944. If it is not the most famous destroyer to ever sailed, or even the most famous US destroyer, then it is certainly the most famous the 175 Fletcher-class destroyers. Speaking of, I hope this to be the first of a long, long line of submissions to FAC. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 15:27, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy link to MILHIST A-class review. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 15:27, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

All of the images have licenses that seem feasible, but all of the source links are currently dead. Not sure if that's a permanent problem, but if it persists in a day or two I would suggest looking at archives or updated links. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:39, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild[edit]

Recusing to review.

  • Suggest running the first paragraph of the lead straight into the second.
  • "the Liberation of the Philippines." I suspect that should be a lower case l. Do a majority of hte HQRSs capitalise liberation?
  • "On 25 October 1944, Johnston ... were engaged by a large Imperial Japanese Navy flotilla." Could we have an introduction to this? If only 'While doing this ...' or similar.
  • "with 187 losses". By "losses", do you mean 'killed'?
  • "which included Evans." → 'including Evans.'
  • "Johnston was laid down in May 1942 and was launched a little more than a year later." The article states "Her launch ... took place on 25 March 1943." This is not "a little more than a year later."
  • "Design and characteristics" section: I think that it would be helpful to introduce this section with something like 'USS Johnston was a Fletcher-class destroyer built for the US Navy.'
  • Somewhere in the article could what "DD-557" means be explained.
  • "The Fletcher-class destroyers were designed, beginning in October 1939, to be large enough to". This is an odd construction, usually dates are at the start of a sentence. 'Beginning in October 1939, the Fletcher-class destroyers were designed to be large enough to' reads more felicitously to my eye.
  • "to be large enough to adequately carry the armament of the preceding Gleaves-class destroyers." Does this mean that the Gleaves-class destroyers were not large enough to adequately carry their armament? Is any further information on the Fletchers' design specification or requirements known?
  • Link "standard load" and "full load".
  • "and 0.5 inches (13 mm) on the deck over its machinery". Was the rest of the deck armoured? If not, is in known what it was made of?
  • "five dual-purpose 5 in (127 mm)/38 cal. guns". Were they in single mounts? Where on the vessel were they positioned?
  • "Mark 37 Gun Fire Control System"; "Mark 27 Torpedo Fire Control System"; "Mark 27 Depth Charge Fire Control System"; "Mark 51 Fire Control System". Why all the upper case initial letters?
  • "at the Seattle-Tacoma Shipbuilding Corporation's yard". Is it known where this was located?
  • "fitted out into early November." Should "into" be 'in'?

I am going to pause here. Vami_IV, this is looking distinctly under-prepared for FAC. While some of the above is minor, some is not, and there are a lot of issues given that I have not yet got into the meat of the article. I am thinking that withdrawal, a visit to PA and possibly GoCE prior to a renomination may be the way to go. Or are you quite confident that things will improve once I move into service history? Thoughts? Gog the Mild (talk) 16:06, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

  • A revised edition of Friedman was published last year
  • Conway's is an anthology with chapters by different authors
  • Rohwer is the 3rd edition and needs the full subtitle added
  • The DANFS entry needs a date
  • While I appreciate your use of Hornfischer and McComb, I'm afraid that I cannot regard Morison and Roscoe as highly reliable sources due to their age and lack of access to Japanese sources
  • I'd strongly suggest cross-referencing Hornfischer's account of Johnston's final action with the individual Japanese ship pages on combinedfleet.com to see exactly which ships engaged the destroyer at which time and any effects their fire might have had on the ship.
  • While I'm not fully up to date on recent publications on the Battle of Leyte/off Samar, I've found Milan Vego's The Battle for Leyte, 1944: Allied and Japanese Plans, Preparations, and Execution and John Prados's Storm over Leyte: The Philippine Invasion and the Destruction of the Japanese Navy helpful for my Japanese ship articles that were involved in the battles.
  • Oppose--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:51, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just to tag on, Wilmott's The Battle of Leyte Gulf: The Last Fleet Action would be a good choice to consult. Parsecboy (talk) 16:49, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Title (EP)[edit]

Nominator(s): NØ 08:10, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Meghan Trainor's debut extended play Title, which was promoted for a very short duration in 2014. It had a modest commercial performance and was the first appearance of Trainor's best-selling single "All About That Bass" on a full-length project. It received mixed reviews from critics who noted its repetitive lyrical themes despite its short duration. You may have heard its title track when it went viral on TikTok last year. I have reworked this article recently and think it is in good shape. Thanks a lot to everyone who will take the time to give their feedback here.--NØ 08:10, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aoba47[edit]

  • The lead says the EP received mixed reviews, but only the negative aspects are highlighted.
  • Added the positive aspect.
  • It may be worthwhile to link catchiness in the "the catchiest stuff" quote.
  • Linked.
  • Agreed on both.
  • I'd change the ballad link to sentimental ballad as I believe that is more accurate and reflective of this type of music.
  • Done.
  • For Citation 41, there appears to be an author named for the article (i.e. Ians). It's not much of a by-line, but I'd include it in the citation for completion sake.
  • That makes sense to me. Thank you for the clarification. Aoba47 (talk) 01:46, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article looks solid to me. These are my comments after reading through the article a few times. Once everything has been addressed, I will look through everything one more time. I hope this is helpful. Aoba47 (talk) 22:51, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for another very helpful review, Aoba47! These should all be addressed now.--NØ 01:05, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for addressing everything. I will look through the article again tomorrow if that is okay with you. Aoba47 (talk) 01:46, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • That sounds great to me.--NØ 01:49, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Once this last point, I will support this FAC for promotion. I hope you are having a great start to your week. Aoba47 (talk) 09:50, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Done. It's going well. Hope you are having a great week as well!--NØ 10:11, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for addressing everything. I support this nomination for promotion based on the prose. Aoba47 (talk) 14:50, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Elias - article's prose is looking good so far, although some concerns present themselves.
  • The standout one - the article says that the EP "received mixed reviews"; however, no source directly says this. We need to be careful with summarising reception like this, since this counts as novel synthesis and goes against the original research policy. Does Metacritic aggregate reviews for EPs? They might help.
  • Minor nitpick - "It additionally entered charts", shouldn't this be "It also entered charts"?
  • "Trainor's eponymous 2009 release" we can simplify this to "Meghan Trainor (2009)" since the previous sentence doesn't mention her name and there's no concern with repetition.
  • More to come. If I black out and forget this discussion exists (which I often do) please do not hesitate to ping here or on my talk. ‍ ‍ elias. 🧣 ‍ ‍ 💬reach out to me
    📝see my work     01:47, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wizards of Waverly Place[edit]

Nominator(s): SatDis (talk) 04:05, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the American teen sitcom Wizards of Waverly Place, which aired on Disney Channel and starred Selena Gomez. This TV series was a hit for Disney and launched the career of Gomez. This article became a Good Article just over a year ago in March 2021 and has since been copy-edited. The article is classed as "High-importance" in the Disney WikiProject. I had a great time researching and writing this, so am keen to revisit with any feedback welcomed. Thanks in advance. SatDis (talk) 04:05, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would appreciate any comments, but understand if you are unable to. Thank you all! SatDis (talk) 04:12, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, but IRL issues have been unkind, and I can't keep up. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:39, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - passed[edit]

Almost all of the images look good, but I am concerned about File:Selena Gomez 2009.jpg; the permission field has me confused as it appears to be copyrighted, yet that is contradicted by the section below, which states that it is Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported. Something doesn't seem right here? --TheSandDoctor Talk 04:46, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Creative Commons licensed doesn't mean not copyrighted - it means the copyright holder has licensed it to be used under those terms. The permission field you reference confirms this, providing the preferred means of attribution. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:32, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for clarifying, Nikkimaria. I simulated making my screen smaller and didn't notice any sandwiching. Given the clarification, I'd say that this passes image review. --TheSandDoctor Talk 16:28, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aoba47[edit]

  • These two terms, wizard (from the lead) and wizards-in-training (from the article), link to different articles and I would be consistent with one or the other.
  • Did any scholarly sources discuss the competition aspect of the series or Max being temporarily turned into a woman?
  • I have added a couple of line from scholarly sources about the competition and its impact.
  • I'd revise this part, such as the Quinceañera., into something like such as having a quinceañera. I think the use of the determiner (i.e. the) to be a little awkward, and I'm not sure the italics are necessary. Even though it is a foreign language word, I think it has passed into the English lexicon to the point that it is not entirely necessary.
  • I'm uncertain about "claimed" in Murrieta claimed he changed the family's surname. Unless this claim is more contentious, I'd use something more neutral like "said".
  • Done both above.
  • I'd avoid one-word quotes as they are not particularly beneficial in my opinion. This comment is tied specifically to "edgy", "dumb", "weird", and "heartbroken". I think it would be better to paraphrase these and focus on more impactful quotes, and I'd encourage you to look throughout the article to see if I had missed any others.
  • There are a few spots where the quotes need clearer attribution in the prose. This is in reference to "slightly goofy", "comic relief", "sweet and sassy", and "absurdly hilarious". As with my above point, I'd look throughout the article to see if there. are any other quotes without clear attribution.
  • I have removed all the one-word quotes and attributed to those listed above. Let me know if there are any further quotes that should be changed.
  • I would reexamine this part, Reviewers like Garron described the central characters, as this claim is not supported in the citation. This part claims that multiple reviewers described the characters in this way when it is only Garron doing this. Aoba47 (talk) 20:26, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have a question about this part, after Murrieta left the program in April. Is there any information on why he left the show?
  • I have added a brief explanation on this.
  • I do not really seen an explanation for this in the prose. It now says he left prior the renewal, but that's not really an explanation (and it is okay if one is not available as some people just do not share this information publicly). Aoba47 (talk) 20:28, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have a comment about this part, with the episode depicting the family's wizard competition. I have received and seen the following note in the FAC space a fair bit. I would avoid the sentence structure "with X verb-ing" as I have been told that is not appropriate for FA writing. I'd look throughout the article for any other instances of this and revise where necessary.
  • Fixed a couple of these I think.
  • I have a few comments for this part, while reviewing the video game, Jack DeVries said that the series was not as much of a rip-off as people might expect. This is the first time the article mentions the video game so it is somewhat jarring. I also think the rip-off criticism would benefit from further expansion because it seems more like a brief mention at the moment.
  • I am not sure of the value of this sentence, The show was also compared to Bewitched. It does not really convey that much information so I'd either remove it or go into more detail.
  • I've tried to clarify both of the above and remove the mention of the video game as it might confuse things.
  • I hate to be this person, but what makes Plugged In a high-quality source? I also found it a little jarring to have a single, more religious citation used in the article.
  • That is understandable. I will leave this for whoever does the source review. Aoba47 (talk) 20:23, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed.

I hope these comments are helpful. I did this review after reading through the article once, so once all of my comments have been addressed, I will go through the article a few more times to make sure I do my due diligence as a reviewer. Please let me know if you have any questions. Have a great weekend!

  • @Aoba47: Thank you for the comments. I would specifically appreciate if you looked over the new additions I have made. Thanks again! SatDis (talk) 05:04, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for addressing everything. The article looks great so far. I have left some responses above, and I will read through everything again tomorrow morning (as I have the day off work). Apologies for the delay, and thank you for your patience. Aoba47 (talk) 20:30, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I support this FAC based on the prose. Wonderful work with everything and best of luck with this FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 09:58, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Evelyn Gandy[edit]

Nominator(s): Indy beetle (talk) 07:02, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Evelyn Gandy, the first woman elected to a statewide constitutional office in the American state of Mississippi, and the first woman to serve as a lieutenant governor in the Southern United States. Ambitious from a young age, she was the only woman in her law school class and even served as the school's student body president before being hired as a research assistant by Senator Theodore Bilbo. In that capacity she ghostwrite his book outlining and defending his racist views. From there she trailblazed her way through state government, serving variously as a legislator, welfare commissioner, state treasurer, and insurance commissioner, before being elected lieutenant governor in 1975. Her politics were something of a mixed bag of reform and status quo. Her two subsequent gubernatorial campaigns were narrowly brought down due to her gender and her old views on race, which she repudiated. Considered something of an enigma in her day by her contemporaries and distrusted by black leaders of the time for her erstwhile segregationist platform, in death she has become a hero of Mississippi feminists for overcoming a fair amount of sexism to achieve her career aspirations. Before she was buried, she broke through one final barrier by being the first woman to lie in state at the Mississippi Capitol Building. -Indy beetle (talk) 07:02, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Image review: File:Cliff Finch, Evelyn Gandy and Thomas Hal Phillips. (8795718613).jpg Flickr link no longer works. Claimed status "no known copyright restrictions". It's unlikely this work is public domain unless it was published without a copyright notice before 1989 but I see no indication of that. (t · c) buidhe 07:55, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • It was published by the official Mississippi Department of Archives and History Flickr account, which no longer exits. Hundreds of those photos were imported to the commons before the account was suspended. This appears to have been an official government photo, so the MDAH opinion on its rights status would be definitive as another Mississippi state agency. -Indy beetle (talk) 08:23, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

HF Will review at some point over the next three or four days. Hog Farm Talk 16:06, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Was her Mississippi House seat a 4-year term or multiple terms?
    • Single term, clarified.
  • Is it worth noting who she lost re-election to in 1952?
    • Neither the Brown et al. nor the Hawks et al. papers say who she lost to (election was in 1951 btw, Mississippi state officials are usually seated at the beginning of the year following their election)
  • The link for the War Between the States goes to Names of the American Civil War, would it be better to link it directly to the Civil War article? (War Between the States and The War Between the States target different articles)
    • Relinked to the Civil War, though her choice of language was certainly geared towards invoking the Lost Cause feelings which the names article explains.
  • I think a sentence or two explaining how the primary/runoff system worked would be useful - I can't tell if the second place finisher had the right to call for a runoff in certain circumstances, or if this is a Louisiana primary-style thing where the runoff was automatically triggered if a certain condition wasn't met
    • I'm not finding very much information on the state's primary laws at the time. I know that if a candidate won over 50% of the first primary vote they would win the nomination outright and there could be no runoff. But it is not clear to me whether if no candidate took a majority that the second place finisher could concede to the plurality winner or if there was a required runoff.
  • "Her campaign literature omitted any mention of her employment under Senator Bilbo" - does the source specify if this was an attempt to distance herself from Bilbo's segregationist views?
    • Clarified that this is noteworthy because she had in years past billed her connections to Bilbo as a reason to vote for her. The source doesn't explicitly say why this was done, but the implication is that she was trying to modernize her style.
  • "It opened in 2006" - the highway itself opened, or the named stretch was dedicated, or something else? This isn't clear
    • Revised. The state stated it would name the parkway in 2002, but the actual roadway was not complete and open until 2006.
  • her Mississippi Encyclopedia entry (p. 487) notes that she "implemented a program to ensure the fair and equitable distribution of state funds to all banks across Mississippi", refers to the public school land leasing bill as "her most important legacy" and states that she received the Margaret Brent Award from the American Bar Association. (author is Martha Swain). Is any of that worth mentioning?
    • Gee don't know why I overlooked that. I've now incorporated these elements.

I think that's pretty much all from me. Hog Farm Talk 22:37, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Hog Farm: I've responded to your comments. -Indy beetle (talk) 09:35, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Supporting Hog Farm Talk 18:33, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's That Man Again[edit]

Nominator(s): Tim riley talk 14:57, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Some while ago, together with a cherished and respected but now-retired colleague, I brought a celebrated BBC radio comedy series – Round the Horne – to FAC, where, I am pleased to say, it was successful. Before my collaborator retired we worked together on the article of an earlier BBC radio show, ITMA, which was a much-loved feature of British life during the Second World War, and did quite a bit to keep people's morale up during the darker years of the war. Looking at it again I think the article is of similar thoroughness and readability to our earlier effort, and I present it for FAC. Tim riley talk 14:57, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt[edit]

Only a few quibbles thus far:

  • "government departments and the ostensibly petty wartime regulations" it's a bit jarring to recognise exact phrasings from the lead in the body.
  • "Foster and Furst observe that averages a laugh every eleven seconds" Do we need inline attribution for mathematics?
  • "Worsley began experimenting with the size of the audience to see which worked best" I'm sure it's an EngVar thing, but I would say "what" for "which".
  • Yes, EngVar: "what" would seem odd here to my eye. It's "which size" rather than "what audience" we are emphasising. Tim riley talk 17:13, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The premise of the show changed again with Handley now dismissed as the mayor of Foaming-in-the-Mouth, and now the manager of a munitions factory." Are both "now"s necessary?
  • "Before the sixth series began recording, a film version It's That Man Again was released." should there be an "of" after "version"?
  • I've put in a pair of commas, making the title non-restrictive, rather than restrictive, which I think clarifies the point. Alternatively we could make it "also called It's That Man Again" but the blue link might then look a bit odd to the casual reader. Tim riley talk 17:13, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Handley's health was beginning to decline by the end of the 38-week series, and it was suggested that series 12 was delayed." Again likely engvar but I would conclude "be delayed".
  • It is indeed an EngVar thing, and in my younger days we thought the subjunctive was dying out in such constructions. But now, rather to my regret, it seems to be making a comeback, no doubt under the influence of American English. Nonetheless "suggested that series 12 be delayed" strikes an inappropriately ultra-formal note here, to my ear. I have made it "suggested that series 12 should be delayed".
Remainder soon.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:29, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
All excellent so far; looking forward to the rest at your leisure. Tim riley talk 17:13, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A prototype of the character appeared in the third series:" perhaps "unnamed" before "prototype"?
  • I might move up the wiktionary definition of twerp to the first referent of Handley's office.
  • "The phrase "It's That Man Again" was originally used by members of the American Republican Party when referring to President Franklin D. Roosevelt as he introduced another element of the New Deal," the source no doubt says what it says but FDR was more likely to be called "That Man in the White House". (probably no action required)
  • I'll follow this up and tweak the note if the sources allow. Thank you for the pointer. Tim riley talk 20:29, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's it. There's so little that I'll Support now. I'm glad to have made my acquaintance with this.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:07, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Wehwalt, for your support and helpful comments. I'm so pleased you enjoyed making the acquaintance of ITMA. My collaborator and I certainly enjoyed researching it and writing it up. TTFN. Tim riley talk 20:29, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild[edit]

Recusing to review. It looks as if you and you retiring collaborator had fun.

  • "around whom all the other characters orbited." Is the "all" necessary?
  • Strictly no, I admit, but I feel the "all" emphasises Handley's centrality with everyone else revolving round him. I'll remove the "all" if you insist, but I'd rather keep it. Tim riley talk 17:21, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't insist. I merely pose the question.
  • "Parts of the shows were re-written in the hour before the broadcast, to ensure its topicality." "shows" → 'show'. (Or "its" → their".)
  • The singular pronoun relates to "broadcast"; the syntax stands up and I think I'm happy with the wording, but if you press the point we could go full-on plural: "Parts of the shows were re-written in the hour before the broadcast, to ensure their topicality" (or perhaps, though I don't think it flows well, just "to ensure topicality".)
It reads a little oddly to me, but if you are content with it after further consideration, then fine.
On further pondering I think just "to ensure topicality" is probably the best phrasing. Thanks for this point. Tim riley talk 18:47, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Parts of the shows were re-written in the hour before the broadcast, to ensure its topicality. The show broke away from the conventions of previous radio comedies, and from the humour of the music halls. The shows used numerous sound effects in a novel manner, which, alongside a wide range of voices and accents, created the programme's atmosphere. The show presented more than". "... the shows ... The show ... The shows ... The show ..."
  • Good point. Duly tweaked. (The show must go on, but not necessarily on and on.)

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:36, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looking forward to it, and thank you for what we have so far. Tim riley talk 17:21, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "was recorded at the Criterion". Is it known where the Criterion was located?
  • Well, yes: at Piccadilly Circus, as we say in the text.
  • "but the show failed". In what way?
  • Worsley's phrase (p. 45) was "a near-'flop' ... it simply did not come off". He doesn't enlarge on the reasons. Should we perhaps say "the show was not well received", do you think? Tim riley talk 19:53, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To my mind that would be much better.
Done. Tim riley talk 21:26, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Sources - Books: I don't think Gaye (1967) is cited to.

Priceless. Such a gem of an article that I shall IAR a couple of MoS points. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:55, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Gog, for your review and kind comment. It's so pleasing when other editors give the thumbs-up to an article one has worked on and is fond of. Just wondering if in your current FAC for the Second Punic War you can find room for a mention of Radio Cunctator's show Hic Est Homo Iterum? Tim riley talk 21:26, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Suggest adding alt text
  • Absolutely! Done. Can't think how I came to omit it. Tim riley talk 06:55, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks like IWM linking has changed - all images except File:Sam_Costa_2_radio_personality121.jpg include a dead first source link
  • So it does. Thank goodness the second source links are all fine. Should I delete the first links in the Commons pages of all those images?
  • Would suggest doing so if they are not needed. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:13, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Sam_Costa_2_radio_personality121.jpg has a warning template - is there any evidence to support that the image was released by the copyright holder under the given license? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:31, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the absence of further information, would suggest so. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:13, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you (as ever), Nikkimaria. Where would FAC be without your indefatigable image reviewing! We are in your debt. I'll follow your advice on both outstanding points. Tim riley talk 12:04, 30 June 2022 (UTC) Afterthought: if I may further impose on you, may I ask for your thoughts on the sizing of the three images remaining in the article? I'd rather like to make them a bit bigger, but I don't want to overdo it, and your comments would be most welcome. Tim riley talk 12:14, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Could go up to 1.3 or even 1.4 on the images in the body; for the lead image suggest switching over to upright scaling instead of using fixed px size. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:42, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done, with grateful thanks for the steer. Tim riley talk 18:47, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from BennyOnTheLoose[edit]

Looks good. I might not have much in the way of comments. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 01:17, 30 June 2022 (UTC) Broadcasts[reply]

  • "The writer and comedian Barry Took writes..." - shouldn't this be "The writer and comedian Barry Took wrote..."?
  • This construction is of long standing and widely used. It's a variant of the historic present, so that even with long-dead writers we might say, e.g. "In Hamlet, Shakespeare makes extensive use of the soliloquy". You'll find it in the standard style guide, Modern English Usage: "Meredith writes…", "Swift writes…", "Stevenson writes…" and so on. Tim riley talk 11:57, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Leading characters

  • "Some of the best known are described below, in order of first appearance in the show." - not directly sourced. How do we know that they are some of the best-known, and, for example, that Cecil and Claude did not appear before The Diver?
  • We're following the main sources here: these are the ones particularly mentioned in Foster and Furst, Kavanagh, Took, and Gifford. Citations added after the end of the introductory para of the section. Tim riley talk 11:57, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Catchphrases

  • "These are among the best known of the catchphrases from the show. Some became common currency among the general public for many years; others were more ephemeral." - not supported by the cited source, as far as I can see.
  • I've added an additional citation to confirm the statement. Tim riley talk 11:57, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It's being so cheerful that keeps me going" also remains in use, seen in British newspapers more than 100 times in the first two decades of the 21st century." - isn't this WP:OR?
  • I only get 70 results since 1990 for "It's being so cheerful that keeps me going", which includes some duplicates. I think you used a different search term, or perhaps the sources indexed vary depending on who the NewsBank provider is. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:13, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aha! You have the advantage of me here, as my access to Newsbank went phut not long after we wrote the present text. 100 was right enough then, but from what you say, perhaps we should change "more than 100 times" to "on numerous occasions"? Tim riley talk 12:20, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I think that proposed wording is safer. I had a quick look in the British Newspaper Archive, which has limitations of scope (e.g. very few national papers) and often-appallling OCR transcriptions, and found only 38 instances since 1950. By coincidence, PressReader also gave me 38 results, all since 2008. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 13:18, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reputation

  • "In the show's early days critical response was not enthusiastic." - this seems to be based only on a single review.
  • Redrawn. Took (p. 26) quotes other less than laudatory reviews, but I don't want to overload our text with quotations, and have footnoted one example of them. Tim riley talk 11:57, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox & Lead

  • "more than seventy regular characters" - I make the count of Leading characters and Other characters mentioned less than 70.
  • I've just run through them again, adding the "regular roles" in the Performers table to those listed in Leading Character and I make the count very nearly 100. Tim riley talk 11:57, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "half-hour show"/"30 minutes" doesn't seem to be explicitly cited in the body, although there is "... between 8.30 and 9 p.m. on a Thursday night..."
  • No harm in spelling out the duration in the main text: done. Tim riley talk 11:57, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whats the support for "305, plus 5 specials"
  • Took, p. 29 and Foster and & Furst p. 27 (total) and pp. 28–39 (stats per series). I've added this in the main text, avoiding having citations in the i-box, which I think looks clunky.

Sources

  • "Eric Egan". British Film Institute seems to be unused.
  • Indeed. An editor added some excellent information about Egan in November 2021, and removed my somewhat despairing statement "he is not mentioned in Who's Who in the Theatre or on the British Film Institute's website", but he/she omitted to remove either Who's Who or the BFI site from the sources. Both now removed. Tim riley talk 11:57, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I could see for now, Tim riley. I enjoyed reading the article, thank you. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 09:41, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

BennyOnTheLoose, Thank you very much for these really excellent points. I think I've attended to them all – satisfactorily, I hope. And I'm so glad you enjoyed the article. – Tim riley talk 11:57, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. TTFN. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 14:39, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, BennyOnTheLoose for your suggestions and your support. The article is decidedly improved and I'm most grateful. Tim riley talk 17:38, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment[edit]

I'll try to do a full review in due course, but one thing that jumped out at me is that in the "catchphrases" section, there is absolutely no reason to have a full stop after each character's name in the second column...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:49, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

By a curious coincidence the same thought struck me earlier this morning when looking again at the article. I blush to say I thought "Oh, the Hell with it!", but your comment has spurred me to action. Thank you, and I hope to see further suggestions if you have time. Tim riley talk 12:00, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Past tense[edit]

An IP has objected to our use of the past tense for the show. For our earlier FAC, Round the Horne, we used the present tense, because the series was recorded in its entirety and is regularly rebroadcast to this day. Few recordings of ITMA survive and those that do are not often heard, for reasons we explain in the text, and so from the outset we thought it sensible to use the past tense. If any editors have views on this I'd be glad to hear them. Tim riley talk 16:50, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant guideline is MOS:TENSE, which would seem to support use of present tense for that situation. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:54, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, as always, Nikkimaria. I hope the other editors who have also commented in the review will feel able to comment too. Pinging Wehwalt, Gog the Mild and BennyOnTheLoose. Tim riley talk 17:57, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
When I read the article, going just on my vague memory of the guideline, past tense seemed appropriate. Rereading it, it still does - "use past tense only for past events, for subjects that are dead or no longer meaningfully exist". I can see how either view could be argued, but past tense seems both most naturally appropriate and the best binary-choice fit to the guideline. I write this in opposition to Nikkimaria's view with some trepidation. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:19, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, I don't have a personal preference, and if writing off-wiki may have made the same choice. But the guideline as written - "By default, write articles in the present tense, including those covering...works that have been discontinued" and the example of Earth: Final Conflict - IMO more supports present. (I don't know the background of why the peculiar division of print vs non-print media was set up, so that might be worth looking into or revisiting). Nikkimaria (talk) 19:29, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Mmm. That's a good point. I am tempted to reverse course. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:32, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • For works that still exist (including Round the Horne, which is still broadcast on occasion and which can still be purchased) “is” is appropriate. There is only a little left of ITMA, it’s never broadcast and I think I’m right in saying that it’s not available for purchase any more. As the guideline says to use past tense when subjects “no longer meaningfully exist”, “was” seems far more appropriate in this case. 2A00:23C7:2B86:9801:E160:3432:925D:975C (talk) 19:50, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Technically, present tense seems correct, but your use of past tense makes sense, especially since the work no longer exists in its entirety. If I were reading the entry, I would have no problem either way. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:55, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hrabri-class submarine[edit]

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:10, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Yugoslav acquisition of this class of two British-made submarines in the late 1920s marked the beginning of the Yugoslav submarine service, something that has been celebrated as recently as 2013 in the Yugoslav successor state of Montenegro. The subs were built using parts assembled for British L-class subs that were cancelled with the end of World War I. They had an uncommon offensive set-up, with six bow-mounted torpedo tubes and two deck guns. When they were acquired, they sported the largest guns in the Yugoslav Royal Navy. One was captured by the Italians during the April 1941 Axis invasion and was quickly scrapped. The other escaped to safety with the British in Egypt, and was used for training purposes until returned to the navy-in-exile towards the end of the war. Transferred to the new navy of post-war socialist Yugoslavia, it served a static classroom until it was disposed of in the mid-50s. This article passed Milhist A-Class years ago, and has recently been updated with a comprehensive new source. The two individual sub articles are FAs, so the promotion of this article will mean all articles in the featured topic will be also be featured. Have at it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:10, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

HF

Will review over the next couple days. Hog Farm Talk 15:01, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Specify in the infobox that the length figure is overall (o/a)
  • "but regulations restricted them to a maximum depth of 55 m (180 ft)" - is this internal regulations or one of those post-WWI international navy regulations
  • "En route one of the boats suffered from engine trouble" - Hvar or one of the submarines?

I think that's all from me. Hog Farm Talk 23:35, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild[edit]

Recusing to review.

  • "Their maximum diving depth was restricted to 55 metres (180 ft) by regulations." Which/whose regulations? (Also in the main body.)
  • "Hrabri was captured by the Italians at the surrender". Could we have a little elaboration on what "the surrender" was?
  • "a revolt by Yugoslav generals based in Egypt." Any link? Ok, I see it red linked in the body.
  • "they were deployed them around the world". ?
  • Link "aft" at first mention.
  • No link for Austro-Hungarian Navy?
  • "10 kn (19 km/h; 12 mph)" and "10.5 kn (19.4 km/h; 12.1 mph)." Does 0.5 kn really equal 0.1 mph?
  • "during her sea trials ... During her trials ... during trials ... During the trials".
  • "The crews of all four vessels were commended for their good behaviour on the cruise." Optional: "on" → 'during'.
  • "was captured there by the Italians after the Yugoslav surrender. In the interim, the commanding officer of Sitnica had been willing to take command of Hrabri and captain the boat to Greece". The break in the chronological flow jars a little.
  • "the pending surrender". As with the lead, what is/was "the surrender "?
  • "At 02:45 on 26 April, the group of vessels was met by a British warship and escorted towards Alexandria. At 12:20 on 27 April Nebojša's ..." Personally I don't like (or even understand) commas after dates, but you should be consistent.

Gog the Mild (talk) 16:42, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Wilson (basketball)[edit]

Nominator(s): Therapyisgood (talk) 23:10, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Anna Wilson, the sister of NFL quarterback Russell Wilson and the woman who holds the Stanford Cardinal record for most career games played, with 160. She won the 2021 NCAA tournament with the Cardinal, and was in the final four in 2022 until losing to Uconn. I believe this is ready for FA status. I don't believe she is pursuing WNBA but she is keeping her options open. If anything changes I'll be sure to update the article. Now that her college career is over, I think the article is stable enough to be a featured article. Therapyisgood (talk) 23:10, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from ChrisTheDude[edit]

Please bear in mind I know almost nothing about basketball, although I did attend a game once while on holiday in New York........

  • "Wilson played as a senior, Wilson averaged" - could probably change one of the two Wilsons to "she"
  • "Wilson played primarily a bench role" - what's a "bench role"? Is there an appropriate wikilink?
  • "year, where she started" - a year isn't a place, so I don't think "where" is the right conjunction to use here
  • "Her father played football" - presumably what he played was American football rather than real football soccer......? ;-)
  • "By age five, Anna played basketball" - wikilink basketball (as far as I can see it isn't actually linked anywhere in the article......
  • "As a high school sophomore" - what is a "sophomore"? Is there an appropriate wikilink?
  • "Wilson only played in six games her freshman year" - what is a "freshman year"?
  • "Wilson only played in six games her freshman year due to health issues: Wilson missed the first eleven games of her freshman year" - could change the second Wilson to "she" and lose the second "freshman year" as it's obvious you are still talking about that year
  • "In her junior year" - what's a "junior year"?
  • "As a senior" - what's a "senior" in this context?
  • "As a fifth-year senior" - what's a "fifth-year senior"? Presumably someone in their fifth year at university?
  • "who played college football as a wide receiver, and college baseball" - could lose the "as a wide receiver" as extraneous detail given that it isn't his article (it would help the sentence flow a bit better as well)

That's what I got. A good read although I got lost trying to figure out some terminology which would probably be really clear to someone from the United States but isn't to someone from the other side of the pond....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:10, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@ChrisTheDude: thanks for the review, comments responded to. Therapyisgood (talk) 14:44, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

image review

Comments from Sportzeditz[edit]

  • "American college basketball player" → "American former college basketball player"
  • "At the 2014 FIBA Under-17 World Championship for Women, Wilson won a gold medal as a part of Team USA" - link Team USA to United States women's national under-17 basketball team and make this a separate sentence.
  • McDonald's All-American selection and state championship, as well as Pac-12 Co-Defensive Player of the Year award, may be worth including in the lead. High school statistics can be removed from lead.
  • Rename "Early life" section to "Early life and high school career".
  • 2014 FIBA Under-17 World Championship information can be moved to a separate "National team career" section following "College career", if there is enough info. Participation in 2013 USA Basketball Women's U16 National Team Trials could be added here as well.
    • I'm not sure there's enough for an entire section but I did add that she participated in U16 trials. I also added some from her time at Collegiate. Therapyisgood (talk) 22:16, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • To improve comprehensiveness, add more information from this article about early life and early high school career. Wilson's relationship with her late father is also notable to include in this section.
    • Added first article. Therapyisgood (talk) 20:25, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Will add the second soon. Therapyisgood (talk) 20:45, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • I added a line from the second article but I couldn't find specifics on her relationship with her father. I remember reading about it somewhere. I'll be sure to add a line on it. Therapyisgood (talk) 21:45, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wilson entered the 2022 WNBA draft and was undrafted, which should be included in the body and infobox.
  • In personal life: add information about undergraduate and master's degrees, as described here. Sportzeditz (talk) 16:16, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Sportzeditz: comments responded to, thanks for the review. Therapyisgood (talk) 21:55, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gurl.com[edit]

Nominator(s): lullabying (talk) 19:36, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Gurl.com, a website aimed at female teenagers and young adults that was prominent in the 1990s and 2000s. Gurl.com was an influential part of 1990s Internet culture as one of the first online media and communities aimed at young girls. It was mostly known for being a peer resource for teen advice, containing honest discussions about sexuality, body positivity, and adolescence, back when female-oriented media, such as magazines, hardly addressed those issues. In addition, Gurl.com is also credited for Internet activity in girls from generation Y and has been a point of reference in academia regarding behavior of teenage girls on the Internet in the 2000s, such as the topics they discussed and the websites they would create. I started and brought this article to Good status in the past year. Particularly where Internet culture and technology is involved, media and communities aimed at women don't get discussed that often, especially since now most people have moved towards social media. lullabying (talk) 19:36, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Suggest adding alt text
  • File:Gurl_2011_logo.png: FUR is incomplete - since the article includes two non-free logos there needs to be strong justification. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:32, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Alt text added in the infobox. Justification for the 2011 logo is added; please let me know if there is anything I need to fix. lullabying (talk) 03:39, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Late Registration[edit]

Nominator(s): K. Peake 07:05, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Late Registration (2005), the second studio album by American rapper Kanye West. The album marked a distinctive change in style for West and was a widespread critical success, which has also received much retrospective acclaim. Five singles were released for promotion, including the international hit "Gold Digger", while the album performed well commercially in countries such as the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom. The GA review of this article came about way back in 2012 before I was even a user of this site, though I have regularly edited it over the past few years. I recently held a FAC for the article that may have failed, but I took on the comments from it and a subsequent peer review for improvement to submit for FAC once more! K. Peake 07:05, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt[edit]

Resolved comments from Wehwalt
  • "Late Registration was often viewed as a vast progression " the phrase "was often viewed" almost creates an implication that this has changed, and I don't think you mean to imply that. Also, "vast" seems a bit strong. Maybe "Late Registration was seen as a considerable improvement" or similar? You could include "by a number of reviewers" if you deem what I wrote vague.
  • I changed to has been and removed the usage of vast, while keeping progression. --K. Peake 16:41, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The album led to West receiving eight nominations at the 48th Annual Grammy Awards, including the award of Best Rap Album, which it won." I would cut "the award of".
  • "while reaching the top 10 in nine other countries, such as Ireland and the United Kingdom." I might change the second half to "including the United Kingdom and Ireland" (mention the country with larger population first
  • Done, not only is there no specific rule on alphabetical order for the lead but also the album was more successful in the UK. --K. Peake 16:41, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It eventually reached more than 3,000,000 copies sold in the US " I would simplify as "It eventually sold more than 3,000,000 copies in the US"
  • Done, the previous was a bit too wordy. --K. Peake 16:41, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "became highly imitated" maybe "was widely imitated"
  • Changed to something similar, rearranging the sentence for flow. --K. Peake 16:41, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The rapper gathered interest in Brion's music while watching the 2004 film Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, reacting positively to his score," Maybe "The rapper heard and liked Brion's score while watching the 2004 film Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind"
  • "after only one afternoon in the studio" I would move this earlier in the sentence, to after "discovered".
  • Done, adding when to the sentence. --K. Peake 16:41, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "recording it in over a year" Over a year sounds indefinite by itself. Will sources support "just over a year"?
  • Yes, but I used slightly since that is a better tone for Wiki. --K. Peake 16:41, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "fellow Hollywood locations" "fellow" reads oddly when we're talking about places
  • Used other instead, writing further sessions earlier on in the sentence. --K. Peake 16:41, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "working in the studio" Are we talking about Sony? If so, I'd say so. If we're talking generally, I'd say "studio work"
  • This is actually not specified, so I simply changed to begin recording material. --K. Peake 16:41, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not done, as this has already been linked earlier in the body. --K. Peake 16:41, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and ensuring all being synchronized " maybe "and ensuring all were synchronized"
  • "completely reconfigure the entire song in a manner that its verses are built around the rhythm of his vocals, " maybe substitute "so that" for "in a manner that".
  • Done, also changed to the verses for consistency with the choruses part. --K. Peake 16:41, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
More soon.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:12, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • What are "raw instruments"? Is there a way the reader can understand what is meant?
  • The source originally uses real instruments, but I replaced with the term authentic in prose since that reads smoother and doesn't sound potentially biased. --K. Peake 07:43, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Kim noticed a clear difference between West's the album and West's previous work, stating, " some problem with the prose here.
  • Done using the term heavy, unless large would work better here? --K. Peake 07:43, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you link "outro" to something?
  • "features the last vocals fading out as various bells and whistles are incorporated, succeeded by the bass synthesizer" Are these really bells and whistles? Given that this can mean something extraneous, I'd try to make it clearer that these actual sounds are meant if so.
  • The actual source (PopMatters, listed as generally reliable) says that various bells and whistles are used. --K. Peake 07:43, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "all of which initially come in brief staccato bursts and act" I think come should be comes and act should be acts
  • Done, changing the preceding part as well to be less wordy. --K. Peake 07:43, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A University of North Carolina scholar" Why not name the scholar?
  • " In his analysis, the former" it is unclear who is meant.
  • Replaced with the album, per the sentence's language making it clear he is talking about the later one. --K. Peake 07:43, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "On the bonus track "Diamonds from Sierra Leone", West links Sierra Leone's civil war to the jewellery trade.[7][51]" This is, I think, the third time you've discussed this track. Can't this sentence be placed with one of the other two?
  • Done, rewording slightly. --K. Peake 07:43, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The rapper was then supposed to support U2's Australian concerts on their Vertigo Tour in March 2006, until the shows were postponed.[72]" I might say "but" instead of "until".
  • "who both served their roles for Partos" What does this mean?
  • Removed the "who both served their roles" part and added the company before Partos, as that is what this refers to. --K. Peake 07:43, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dropout Bear is an animated figure of an animal, and probably should be referred to as "which" rather than "who".
  • Removed who, but used alternate language from which still. --K. Peake 07:43, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and shows West serving the role of a cab driver in an imaginary city." I might say "taking" rather than "serving"
  • I decided to use taking on. --K. Peake 07:43, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and what is acheivable within hip hop's appropriate boundaries.[27]" Appropriate?
  • Changed to traditional, per this being the truly "appropriate" term. --K. Peake 07:43, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • " and assured that West is arrogant, "only that's not why he always samples".[26]" I'm not sure you can use "assured" in that way.
  • Reworded most of this. --K. Peake 07:43, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Late Registration appeared on year-end best album lists for 2005 by numerous publications, including being named the best album of the year by Spin,[103] Time,[45] and USA Today.[104] Rolling Stone also gave the album this ranking," Appearing on a year-end album list is not a ranking.
  • Changed to this accolade. --K. Peake 07:43, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It scored a 107-point lead, standing as the narrowest margin in the poll's history.[108] " Is this going to mean anything to the reader?
  • This is historic, especially with Robert Christgau being a veteran critic, so it can be kept. --K. Peake 07:43, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Late Registration was West's second consecutive album to be rated "XXL" by XXL, the magazine's highest rank, which has been awarded to only 16 other hip hop albums.[112]" Given that this is a 2005 source you're citing from, "has been" should likely be "had been"
  • Done, adding by 2005 at the end. --K. Peake 07:43, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and the staff noted that West's ambition to be "bigger than hip-hop" was correct.[116]" How can an ambition be correct? Do you mean "realized"?
  • Reworded quite a bit. --K. Peake 07:43, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Late Registration was ultimately nominated for the award at the ceremony, " I gather it did not win the Album of the Year and that should be made clearer.
  • "Despite West's previously instated problem of failure to win, he was happy with eight nominations.[130] Both "instated" and "failure to win" sound like odd phrasings.
  • Reworded to "having stated that he would have a problem with not winning". --K. Peake 07:43, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and gave him nearly double that of The College Dropout's first-week sales." Maybe "and gave him first-week sales nearly double those of The College Dropout."
  • "In the United Kingdom, the album reached number two on the UK Albums Chart for the issue date of September 5, 2005, being prevented from topping the chart by McFly's album Wonderland; however, both albums were new entries that week.[155] " Why the "however"?
  • Removed that and I don't really think both debuting is notable anyway. --K. Peake 07:43, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's it.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:51, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wehwalt All covered, are you sure there is nothing left and will you now support? --K. Peake 07:43, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Massive thanks, I really mean it! --K. Peake 12:42, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from ErnestKrause[edit]

Following up on my peer review comments on the Peer Review page for this featured article candidate, I'm supporting this article for promotion. Its well-written and has a comprehensively researched bibliography and references. Its also been previously proof-read and edited at its successful GAN by another editor. It should be intereting to see other editors comment on this article during assessment here. Supporting this nomination. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:31, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mick Jagger[edit]

Nominator(s): TheSandDoctor Talk 19:23, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]


This article is about Sir Michael Philip Jagger -- most commonly known by his stage name Mick Jagger. While studying to become an economist, he found success in a little known band he co-founded called the Rolling Stones in '62, which went on to be the most commercially successful band in history...with him at the helm. AllMusic and MSN have called him "one of the most popular and influential frontmen in the history of rock & roll" and Billboard has called him "the rock and roll frontman". He is best known for being the trailblazing lead singer of the Rolling Stones and half of the Jagger–Richards songwriting team, one of the most successful songwriting partnerships in history. According to Steven Van Zandt, Jagger's acceptance on pop radio "was a turning point in rock & roll. He broke open the door for everyone else."

He received a knighthood in 2003, has been inducted into two music halls of fame (Rock and Roll Hall of Fame and UK Music Hall of Fame), and even had a 19-million-year-old species of water nymph named after him. Jagger's style has been studied by academics and his vocal delivery and his sense of pitch and melody have baffled other singers. He has either directly or indirectly (through the Stones) served as inspiration for many artists, including Taylor Swift, Jack White, Steven Tyler, and Iggy Pop; in 2011, Maroon 5 released "Moves like Jagger", a song inspired by his unique dancing style. Despite all this (there is much more I didn't cover) and the immense success he has achieved in life, he didn't let the fame get to his head; the late Charlie Watts described him as "the least egotistical person" who would "do what's right for the band". I believe that this article is ready to be considered for featured article status and hope that you will support it along with me. Seeing as I am too late with this nomination for this year, I hope to have this on the main page to commemorate his 80th birthday in July 2023. TheSandDoctor Talk 19:23, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

Pass. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:37, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Avoid sandwiching text between images
    @Nikkimaria: How would you recommend addressing this? Removing some images? Are there any particular sections of concern? --TheSandDoctor Talk 14:55, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That's one option, but there are others - for example use of multiple image templates. The worst example at the moment is the pop-culture section. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:12, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nikkimaria: Good idea. Used a multiple image template for the pop-culture section. How does that (section) look now to you? --TheSandDoctor Talk 05:35, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Better. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:05, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Stones_ad_1965-2.jpg: contrary to the tag, there is a copyright notice in the source (page 4)
    That is a good catch. We can bring this local to remedy that? Do you have any idea who would hold the copyright? --TheSandDoctor Talk 15:45, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    In order to bring it locally we'd either need it to be free in the US, or have a feasible fair-use claim. The problematic tag is for US status so that would need sorting whether to leave where it is or bring locally as free. As for who would hold copyright, not sure, but you could see if it's listed in the copyright catalogue. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:12, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see anything in the catalogue from that year or surrounding it. Could that potentially mean that it wasn't listed in the states? link --TheSandDoctor Talk 05:35, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I wouldn't draw that conclusion from just that search - listings can be a bit "creative" in their titling. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:05, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Image replaced with File:Rolling Stones op Schiphol, Bestanddeelnr 916-7422.jpg. I was tempted to bring this one in (at a reduced quality and smaller) but discovered a free one so went that route. --TheSandDoctor Talk 23:19, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from ErnestKrause[edit]

Several comments to start this assessment.

(1) On my 13 inch screen there are several problems with image sandwiches; these should be dealt with and addressed.

  • For the left-right image pairs in your article, that is, when you have a left aligned image immediately follwed by a right aligned image, there appear to be image sandwiches in the 1960s section, in the 2000s section flowing into the 2010s section, and the Popular culture section. Let me know if it needs more pinpointing on your screen. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:18, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Going to 'all on the right side' format does not always work, since it sometimes leads to image 'bunching' on the right side; that is, when a sequence of several images carry-over into the next section where they don't really belong. The approach which other editors sometimes find successful is to deal with the left-right image pairs by trying to separate them by an extra paragraph of narrative text if the section is large enough to do this. Its sometimes possible to simply move one of the images in the image pairs down one paragraph in the section or up one paragraph in the section, in order to remove the image sandwich. In some cases, sometimes you may need to prune some images out. ErnestKrause (talk) 17:39, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I moved them around a bit for the 1960s section as a test. Does that help any? I might try replacing both of those with another (singular) image from the '60s if I can find a suitable one. I wonder if we should remove the photos from the personal life section? --TheSandDoctor Talk 18:39, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @ErnestKrause: I have removed an image from the 1960s section and replaced the other per the above image review section. Do you think we should remove the photos from the personal life section? They aren't adding that much to the article and that would also help with the crowding. As for the 2000s image overflowing, I do see what you mean. Hmm...I think that both images are important to keep...would reducing the size of that image potentially help you figure? --TheSandDoctor Talk 23:27, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The image sandwiches on my size screen seem better now; you might want to double check with Nikkimaria on how it looks on her screen. Regarding your use of multiple image formats, did you try the Bianca and Jerry Hall image in landscape mode for comparison; seeing the two of them side by side might be an interesting feature to see. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:49, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @ErnestKrause: I have now done that. How does it look to you now? @Nikkimaria: do you still see the image sandwiching on your display or has that been resolved? TheSandDoctor Talk 18:38, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • On my screen there is minor sandwiching in 2000s/2010s, otherwise good. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:07, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nikkimaria: Thank you. I don't remember if Template:Clear is permissible in articles. If it is, would that help? Do you think that this now passes the image review? I believe I've addressed your listed concerns? TheSandDoctor Talk 05:57, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding Nikkimaria on the image in the 2010s, I'm agreeing with her and it should be pushed down one paragraph lower in that section on the left side. Regarding the landscape mode for Bianca and Jerry Hall, it looks improved over the portait mode version. It would be nice to see some comment on his wealth added into the article; if he is supporting philantrophies and charities as you state in the article, then readers will want to see how much money he is using to support them. See this article [1] and see this book [2] for Jagger's wealth. I'll try to have something done by way of a source analysis for your article by early next week if that is useful. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:19, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @ErnestKrause: I moved the image down a bit and found some better references than an illustration book (The Times, namely) and added 2021 wealth estimates. How does that look for you now? The downside is that neither of the sources you had or the two I found specify how much he gives to charity. He is very much a private individual offstage. TheSandDoctor Talk 14:53, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(2) The lead section could use a little more summary from this fairly long article. Possibly some more about the distinction of his solo career and of his career as lead singer of The Rolling Stones.

  • What would you suggest adding? I think the lede summarizes the article fairly well? --TheSandDoctor Talk 15:53, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seemed that the third paragraph in the lead section could add a little more... there's nothing you could add about his solo career versus his appearances with the group? ErnestKrause (talk) 16:19, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have expanded the third paragraph of the lead section to include more legacy/honours related content. How does that look now? --TheSandDoctor Talk 23:27, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(3) Business career profits and commercial success numbers would be nice to see more of in this article. How profitable were his mechandising attempts over the years? How profitable was his solo career? How profitable was it in comparison to his career and profits from The Rolling Stones? Is it known just how large his commercial success has been when royalties and everything else is taken in account?

  • This information doesn't seem readily available for the stones or his solo career. --TheSandDoctor Talk 15:51, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some of the individual album articles on Wikipedia and concert articles on Wikipedia do speak about profitability, marketing, promotion, etc.; also, are you saying that there is no information about what percentage of his wealth comes from his efforts with The Rolling Stones as opposed to everything else he does? ErnestKrause (talk) 16:20, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article used to mention a networth of $360 million, if I recall correctly, but it was removed as being not exactly relevant during the peer review. The only net worth mention that I have seen is that number by The Richest and other sites of questionable reliability for an FA. I have never seen a breakdown of percentages. --TheSandDoctor Talk 17:19, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I need to retract part of that. The Richest now includes a breakdown, but it stops at 2016 (there have been tours in the last 6 years) and the intro appears to have been written when A Bigger Bang was their last tour, meaning it is closing in on 20 years out of date. That said, I am not confident about The Richest's reliability for an FA and neither was Aoba47. --TheSandDoctor Talk 17:32, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm actually going to confirm reading that his wealth in over $300 million, and that its useful to the article to include this. It means that he is not on the verge of bankruptcy, that he is actually very wealthy, and that he is not suffering from insolvency in any way. Aoba can of course offer his views on this as you have pinged him above. It looks like useful data to know about Jagger. Regarding profits from individual concert tours and individual album sales, this is also useful; Wikipedia has many articles on this subject such as the 3 articles about Bridges to Babylon and the related tour. Where did his money come from questions seem relevant to an article about a person like Jagger who has accumulated this much wealth. ErnestKrause (talk) 17:49, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you aware of a better source for that figure or the other financials you propose, though? --TheSandDoctor Talk 23:27, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(4) Private life and progeny. My understanding is that Jagger's family of children and grand-children is rather large, exceeding 2-3 dozen at this point and prominently discussed in the press. Could some more be added in this article? How many children does he recognize as his own? How may grand-children does he recognize? Also, how many children have been alleged to be his? There were several high profile court cases which disputed these facts; can they be added to the article here?

  • We don't typically name minors. From what I've found he only has one great-grandchild and I don't see why he wouldn't recognize grandchildren etc. "Two or three dozen", based on reliable sources, is also a massive overstatement; I count 14 total kids (great/grand/otherwise included). Do you have any specific examples of court cases? Of grandchildren he doesn't recognize? This section is already fairly long and complicated and this seems a tad excessive. --TheSandDoctor Talk 15:51, 26 June 2022 (UTC); updated with realization 16:05, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    What I have found on illegitimate kids is a single article in The Globe and Mail about a theatre(?) performance of a parody of Jagger with a fictitious "Jack" who is a "member of that ever-expanding, worldwide club made up of Mick Jagger's illegitimate children." That article isn't about real life and I haven't so far found any (real life) mentions in reliable sources. --TheSandDoctor Talk 16:02, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's useful to read here. The reliable sources I've just searched using the Google engine seem fairly consistent that he recognizes: "Mick Jagger has eight children with five different women, five grandchildren, and is a great-grandfather." For example here: [3]. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:21, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) By "That's useful to read here" do you mean that that parody should be included (presumably in the "In popular culture" section)? --TheSandDoctor Talk 17:19, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Following RS is always important at Wikipedia. If there are reliable sources for a rock star's life and his girlfriends then it should be included in this article. From his various book-length biographers, Jagger is not portrayed as an innocent touring the world. ErnestKrause (talk) 17:49, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Following RS is indeed important, I never said that it wasn't. The article mentions his adultery already in the personal life section. If you have any specific examples in mind that pass WP:DUE, I am all ears and you are welcome to add them. Going back to my actual question, I added mention of the parody to the "In popular culture" section and the number of grandchildren/great-grandchildren to the relationships section. I was also asking about if you had sources for ones he (allegedly) doesn't recognize, not the ones he does; it is already established well in reliable sources and in the article already for the ones he does recognize. --TheSandDoctor Talk 18:39, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just discovered that for some reason my Newspapers.com subscription through TWL expired despite, from what I can tell, supposedly being valid still; I've requested a renewal. --TheSandDoctor Talk 18:39, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(5) Adding #5 by way of Source review. There appears to be an issue of whether the Bibliography and References sections are comprehensive for FAC when they are compared to the article and Bibliography in the GA for The Rolling Stones. Much of the biography of Mick Jagger is covered in the many published books about The Rolling Stones, though the list of books in this article for Mick Jagger is not matching up with the sources used in The Rolling Stones Wikipedia article. Has a check been done to ensure that the comments and information about Mick Jagger covered in the Rolling Stones Wikipedia article are also adequately covered in this Mick Jagger article along with the sources and citations which appear in the group's separate Wikipedia article? For example, in the Early History section of The Rolling Stones article it is stated that "In the mid-1950s, Jagger formed a garage band with his friend Dick Taylor; the group mainly played material by Muddy Waters, Chuck Berry...", while giving credit to the book by Nelson which does not appear in this Mick Jagger article. The same for the other sections of The Rolling Stones article and the many citations and sources there which deal with Mick Jagger directly by name. Have you done this check of sources and citations in the group's article and compared them to this Mick Jagger article? ErnestKrause (talk) 22:28, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@ErnestKrause: I have looked through The Rolling Stones and ported some sources and content over. My concern, though, is that we don't want to essentially clone that article entirely (there is a reason there are two articles and {{main}} is in use). They don't need to match up for those sections by sources or verbatim, at the very least, and can be more shallow versions. That said, I have added a few thousand more bytes of content from the main Stones article. Does that look any better to you? Any areas that jump out as needing more? Willing to work with you on this. TheSandDoctor Talk 04:51, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've been watching you add the materials over the last day or two with your positive results. The main insight for doing that, I think, is to single out the material which focuses on Mick Jagger when using the books about The Rolling Stones. It looks like you've been adding sfn sources to supplement your previous list and it looks more complete now. Nikkimaria looks like she is ok with your images and passing based on images, and I think I'm ok with your upgrades to the sources and cites in the article and am now going to support the promotion of the article. ErnestKrause (talk) 13:44, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@ErnestKrause: Thank you for the review! It is greatly appreciated. You might want to make the support vote in bold so that it better leaps out at coordinators? TheSandDoctor Talk 16:00, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aoba47[edit]

I am posting this as a placeholder. I will post a review once ErnestKrause is done with their comments. Aoba47 (talk) 13:48, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aoba47 It looks like Nikkimaria is answering the part about image sandwiching, and I'm planning to switch over to look at the source review sometime early next week if all goes well. If you have any FAC comments then you can add them at this time without waiting if that works for you. ErnestKrause (talk) 00:16, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the ping. I will look through the article tomorrow. Unfortunately, it is too late for me to do a review today, but I will try to do it tomorrow. Aoba47 (talk) 02:03, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is nitpick-y, but the lead and the article say Dartford, Kent and the infobox says Dartford, England. I would be consistent with one way or the other.
    Fixed. --TheSandDoctor Talk 04:17, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have a question about this part, and they continue to collaborate musically. Are they still collaborating on music (i.e. in 2022 and beyond)? The Jagger–Richards article makes it seem like that is more of a past thing rather than a current and potential feature venture.
    This is ongoing. I changed it to "His ongoing songwriting partnership with Keith Richards". Does that address your concern? --TheSandDoctor Talk 04:17, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That looks better to me. Aoba47 (talk) 16:53, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • For this part, He has been married and divorced once, would it be worthwhile to mention Bianca Jagger by name since she is notable enough for her own Wikipedia article?
    Probably, yes. Just not sure how to word that in with the current structure. Add in when they married/divorced? "He has been married and divorced once to Bianca Jagger, and has..." would read funny to me. --TheSandDoctor Talk 04:17, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    To be honest, and I debated on including this in my original comment, I found the "married and divorced once" wording to be a little odd as it places the emphasis on the fact that he was married/divorced once. I would expect that wording more so for an individual married/divorced multiple times where the amount would get the focus, but since he has only been married/divorced once, it seems a little odd to put the focus on the number rather than the person he married, even more so since she has her own article. Aoba47 (talk) 16:53, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Aoba47: I reworded it. How does that look? --TheSandDoctor Talk 18:11, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That looks better to me. Thank you. Aoba47 (talk) 02:25, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I understand the value of putting citations in the middle of a sentence (i.e. to clarify what is being cited by what citation), there are a few spots where I believe this impairs readability. Having a citation right after "a former gymnast," and "was a hairdresser" awkwardly cuts up the sentence and distracts from the prose in my opinion. In both cases, there is a citation, three words, and then immediately another citation before the sentence continues. I'd move these citations to the end of the sentence.
    Moved in those two instances. How does it look now? --TheSandDoctor Talk 04:17, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It looks much better now. I do not know if this is required for a FA, but I'd put the citations in numeric order. Aoba47 (talk) 16:53, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. --TheSandDoctor Talk 18:11, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • For this part, an excerpt from Shelley's poem Adonaïs, why not use Percy Bysshe Shelley's full name?
    That is a good point. I've changed it to be the full name now. --TheSandDoctor Talk 04:17, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Life is linked twice in the article.
    Good catch! I've removed the second link. --TheSandDoctor Talk 04:17, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not sure if this sentence, Jagger portrays an English art dealer-collector and patron in Giuseppe Capotondi's thriller The Burnt Orange Heresy (2020)., needs to be a separate, one-sentence paragraph.
    Merged it with the paragraph above. How does that look? --TheSandDoctor Talk 04:17, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks better to me. Thank you. Aoba47 (talk) 16:53, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would make sure to archive the web citations to avoid any future headaches with link rot and death.
    Good idea. Done. --TheSandDoctor Talk 04:17, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I hope this review is helpful. Once everything has been addressed, I will read through the article one more time to make sure that I catch everything. Aoba47 (talk) 03:39, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: Thank you so much! It is very helpful, as always. Please see the above where I've either addressed all points or asked for clarification. --TheSandDoctor Talk 04:17, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for addressing everything. I have left responses to your responses above. Aoba47 (talk) 16:53, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're welcome! I think I have now addressed everything you raised. Please let me know if you see anything else. --TheSandDoctor Talk 18:11, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for addressing everything. I support this FAC based on the prose. Thank you for your patience. Aoba47 (talk) 02:25, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your review, Aoba47! TheSandDoctor Talk 04:51, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt[edit]

  • "Jagger has had two genera named after him, Jaggermeryx naida and Aegrotocatellus jaggeri. "If I understand this correctly, only one is a genus, the other being a species.
@Wehwalt: Good catch. Corrected. --TheSandDoctor Talk 18:07, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we need the birthdays of Jagger's parents and brother?
Probably not. Removed. --TheSandDoctor Talk 18:07, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would suggest the RS's first number one UK singles are significant enough to cover in main text, rather than just a footnote.
I agree. Where would you recommend putting that in the prose?
Maybe start a new paragraph with "The group played songs by American rhythm and blues artists like Chuck Berry and Bo Diddley, " and then describe the two covers that became #1. Then pick up again with how they were urged to write their own songs in a new paragraph.--Wehwalt (talk)
That worked, thank you! --TheSandDoctor Talk 20:43, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "There, he learned to play guitar" I assume after going back two sentences that we are talking about the south of France. But given I had to go back two sentences to figure out what was meant, some better formulation might do.
Changed. How does it look now? --TheSandDoctor Talk 18:07, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Director Alejandro Jodorowsky approached him in the same year to play the role of Feyd-Rautha[148] " This had no connection with the version in the 1980s with Sting in that role?
Based on the LA Times writing "Herbert's book would eventually be broguht to the screen in 1984 by David Lynch" and the surrounding context, no, no relation. Jodorowsky's project fizzled. --TheSandDoctor Talk 18:07, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "McCarthy predicted the film would fare better once released to video than in its limited theatrical runs. (Unnecessary detail imo)[164] " Some commentary here? If I could put my oar in, I'd say I'd agree unless you tie up whether it did in fact do better on video.
I thought that that was your commentary, but then saw it in the article. Wow. Not sure how that ended up there and it wasn't mine. Huh. Anyhow, based on data from The-numbers.com, that estimate was well off the mark. Do you think that that should be referenced in the article or just drop the sentence? I've already cut the parenthesis bit. --TheSandDoctor Talk 18:07, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Jagger has been married and divorced once,[170][171] and has had other relationships, resulting in eight children with five women, five grandchildren, and one great-grandchild.[172]" This could be read to say that his children were with the aid of his descendants. I might also toss in an "as of 2016" as the statistics might have changed by now.
How would you propose clarifying it? I've tossed in an "as of 2016". --TheSandDoctor Talk 18:07, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe "... five women. He also has, as of 2016, five grandchildren ..."--Wehwalt (talk) 18:55, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That works! Implemented. TheSandDoctor Talk 20:41, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it a good idea to give exact birthdates for non-notable people?
Probably not. Do you think a year by itself would be appropriate for timeline sake? --TheSandDoctor Talk 18:07, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds fine.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:03, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done. TheSandDoctor Talk 20:41, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Jagger's father and daughters Karis and Elizabeth were in attendance." Since you can be "in attendance" on royalty, I might say "present" instead.
Changed. --TheSandDoctor Talk 18:07, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The 2000 film Almost Famous, set in 1973, refers to Jagger: "Because if you think Mick Jagger'll still be out there, trying to be a rock star at age 50 ... you're sadly, sadly mistaken."[221]" I'm a little dubious about this, cute as that line is, and as much as I love that movie, if it's only a "mentioned in" and there's no explanation of why it's relevant that he's mentioned.
He has similarly shared this view in the past, though he said 45 and said it two years after the year the show was set in. Source. I've added a bit more, but would also be okay cutting it or tweaking further. What do you think? --TheSandDoctor Talk 18:07, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd leave it in but it's among my favorite films so I'm biased.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:55, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • CNN should be linked and I don't think it should be italicised.
Done. --TheSandDoctor Talk 18:07, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's it.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:30, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. Support.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:55, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the review, Wehwalt! Could you please take a look at the theatrical vs video release point again? Otherwise I think I've covered everything. --TheSandDoctor Talk 20:43, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from zmbro[edit]

Staking my place here as you requested. I should get to this in no time but if I don't say anything by the end of the week please ping me. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 02:04, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speak Now[edit]

Nominator(s): Ippantekina (talk) 09:12, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the 2010 album by Taylor Swift. It sold one million copies within one week—a record in the digital era. Because it was the first album Swift released after 2009's Kanyegate, Kanye was very much inspired by its success (among many others in later years) to claim that he made her famous. Stripped off all of this context, Speak Now is a decent album, though her vocals are a little nasally at points. The first FAC failed because it did not generate any interest, so I hope this second round would get more lucky. Cheers, Ippantekina (talk) 09:12, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass[edit]

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:16, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

--Guerillero Parlez Moi 21:35, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A.C. Monza[edit]

Nominator(s): Nehme1499 00:54, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

After over a decade of financial troubles, in 2018 Italian football club A.C. Monza was purchased by media tycoon (and generally controversial figure) Silvio Berlusconi. After a lot of passion (and money) injected into the club, Monza gained promotion to the Serie A (the Italian top division) for the first time this year. I thought it would be a good idea to nominate it for FA, given that it has just come back from a successful GA nomination. Nehme1499 00:54, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • In order to be freely licensed in both the US and Italy, the photographs must have been out of copyright in Italy on 1 January 1996. This means that photographs that cannot be dated to before 1976 should not be used (File:Monza lineup in 1975-76 (1).jpg). Other images look ok for licensing based on my non-expert understanding of Italian copyright law. (t · c) buidhe 16:33, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Buidhe: Given that the picture was published in a 1976 book, it must have logically been taken the year prior. Also, line-up pictures of footballers are usually taken at the start of the season (so 1975 in this case). I have no concrete evidence to prove that the picture was taken before 1 January 1996, though.
  • Also, out of curiosity, is the cutoff of 1 January 1996 fixed, or will it become 1997 next year? Nehme1499 17:16, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The URAA date won't change and if the image is from 1976 it will go out of copyright most likely on 1 January 2072 (1976+95+1)—see the Hirtle chart. I don't think we can assume that an image published in a 1976 book must have been from the previous year, since news photography and some books are published in much shorter timeframes. (t · c) buidhe 17:21, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Buidhe: You're right, the image is actually most likely from 1976. I compared the players in the image with the players in Monza's roster throughout the 1975–76 season; a few players who left before 1976 are not in the picture. I'll try to replace it with another image. Nehme1499 17:25, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kelenken[edit]

Nominator(s): FunkMonk (talk) 13:01, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is the first FAC about a phorusrhacid (or "terror bird"), and the largest one at that. Despite having had the largest head of any known bird, little has been published about it beyond its original 2007 description, and most of it is summarised here. FunkMonk (talk) 13:01, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Image review—pass Maybe I'm missing something but where does the source say that File:Feeding Kelenken.jpg is released under a CC license? Other image licensing looks ok. (t · c) buidhe 16:38, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In the upload by the original artist:[4] FunkMonk (talk) 16:49, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I can see now that it is higher resolution that the version on the external site so I'm willing to accept that it's by the artist. (t · c) buidhe 17:12, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for review! FunkMonk (talk) 19:11, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • FN2: work should be italicized, and exact date and page should be included
Fixed now, I believe. FunkMonk (talk) 19:11, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN6 should include book editors
Added. FunkMonk (talk) 16:29, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't duplicate identifiers in |url=
What ref would be an example of this? FunkMonk (talk) 16:29, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN11 is missing publisher
Added. FunkMonk (talk) 19:11, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Added. FunkMonk (talk) 19:11, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for review. FunkMonk (talk) 16:29, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Query by WereSpielChequers[edit]

Interesting read, I've made a couple of tweaks, hope you like them, if not, its a wiki.

Re: "dominated Cenozoic South America in the absence of mammalian predators, though they did co-exist with some large, carnivorous mammals." If they were large and carnivorous how were they not predators? I'm assuming that what was meant was two different periods of time within the cenozoic, one after and the other before North and South America were linked.
Ah, good catch, the source specifies placental mammals, which I somehow overlooked, now added. FunkMonk (talk) 16:29, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for fixing that. ϢereSpielChequers 22:15, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"These bones were thought to belong" Surely "These bones are thought to belong" unless academic opinion has subsequently changed. ϢereSpielChequers 22:06, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Clarified as "The describers concluded these bones belonged to a single specimen" to keep it in past tense for the narrative. FunkMonk (talk) 19:11, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"The area's stratigraphy had only been preliminarily studied at the time, and the age of the sediments had not been adequately determined, but compared with other fossil beds of the South American Land Mammal Age and radioisotopic dating, it is estimated to date to the Colloncuran age of the middle Miocene, about 15 million years ago". I think what the sources are saying is that other fossil beds with comparable fossils have been dated to about 15 million years ago by radioisotopic dating. Which begs the question, why have these deposits not yet been radioisotopic dated, but also the current wording implies that there are two dating methods - finding fossil beds with the same population and also radioisotopic dating. But I think what is happening is that the fossil analysis is linking these fossil beds to ones that have been dated to 15 mya by radioisotopic dating, not that these deposits have been radioisotopic dated. ϢereSpielChequers 20:21, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why it hasn't been done to this particular area I can't say, and I have looked for newer articles that might have done it, but nothing came up. But I have added "from different areas of the Collón Curá Formation". 16:42, 2 July 2022 (UTC)FunkMonk (talk)

Mostly support[edit]

I looked through this article with the FACR in mind during the GAN at the nominator's request, and found it to meet most criteria. My primary concern was 1f, " free of plagiarism or too-close paraphrasing". Some were fixed, but one example that remains is

  • Article: "...hunting in areas with tall vegetation, providing the agility needed to move amongst vertical obstacles, while the narrow upper maxilla permitted greater access to small prey animals hidden among tree trunks or stones"
  • Source: "...hunted in regions with high vegetation, permitting their greater agility between verticle obstacles. A very narrow upper maxilla would furthermore facilitate the apprehension of small animals hidden amongst trunks or stones"

Putting aside 1f, this article meets 1a-e, 2a-c (although I leave confirmation of 2c to the experts), 3, and 4. CMD (talk) 01:50, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I changed some of it back to be a bit closer to the source because the tweaks removed the text too far from the intended meaning or added info not in the source, the wording in the source is pretty condensed already, so it is hard to paraphrase without altering meaning too much. We need to know it is tall vegetation, not just any vegetation, the source doesn't specifically mention gaps between rocks, etc. But I changed it to "tall plants" just to vary it a bit more. I think the wording and tenses are changed far enough from the source to be considered rewording, but as usual when it comes to copy-editing as such, I'll ping Gog the Mild to see if he has any input on this. FunkMonk (talk) 16:42, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My first ping was possibly botched, trying to ping Gog the Mild again. FunkMonk (talk) 16:56, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. Looks close to me. Hmm. Maybe 'They pointed out that the narrowing of the pelvis, upper maxilla, and thorax may have been adaptations to enable the birds to search for and take smaller prey animals in tall plant growth or broken terrain.'? No need to mention maxilla again in the same sentence. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:09, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild[edit]

Recusing to review.

  • "Kelenken is a genus of phorusrhacid (or "terror bird", an extinct group of large, predatory birds)". Suggest 'Kelenken is a genus of phorusrhacid (or "terror bird") an extinct group of large, predatory birds'.
  • "The long and slender tarsometatarsus of Kelenken instead shows". "instead" of what?
  • "and eat small animals". As we have just been told that it is a predator, "and eat" this add anything to the lead. Why else would it chase them down? And this is covered again in the next sentence.
  • "the most completely known skull of a large phorusrhacid known at the time." "known ... known". Any chance of some variation?
  • "Previously, such skulls were known only from the fragmentary Devincenzia and Phorusrhacos, the latter of which disintegrated during collection (leaving only the tip of the beak), which hampered comparison between phorusrhacid taxa of different sizes, until the discovery of Kelenken." This doesn't really work as a single sentence. Suggest breaking after "Phorusrhacos".
  • "the latter of which disintegrated". Delete "of which".
  • "though their validity had not yet been confirmed through cladistic analysis". Perhaps 'had not then been ...'?

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:29, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dunkleosteus77[edit]

  • Could you break up the sections into smaller subsections? Giant 1,500 word essays can look pretty daunting to read Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 18:32, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's better to say 5 ft 6 in than 5.5 ft or 66 in Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 18:32, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you find anything about a Tehuelche spirit named Kelenken? Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 18:32, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wubslin[edit]

  • Phorusrhacids were large, flightless birds with long hind limbs, narrow pelves, very small wings, and huge skulls, with a tall, long, sideways compressed hooked beak. Are "pelves" pelvises? I think an English plural is more suitable for our general readership than a Latin one, as this may make the meaning unclear.
  • Kelenken differed from other phorusrhacids in a combination of features, including the length of its beak, in having a supraorbital ossification (a rounded edge above the eye socket) that fit into a socket of the postorbital process, and in having an almost triangular foramen magnum (the large opening at the base of the skull through which the spinal cord enters). That's quite a sentence! I suggest removing "a combination of features, including"
  • Phorusrhacids are thought to have been ground predators or scavengers, and have often been considered apex predators that dominated Cenozoic South America in the absence of placental mammalian predators, though they did co-exist with some large, carnivorous borhyaenid mammals. Rather than the apparent contradiction of saying one thing, then the contrary, I suggest recasting this sentence as "Phorusrhacids are thought to have been ground predators or scavengers, and apex predators. They dominated Cenozoic South America when there were few placental mammalian predators, and co-existed with some large, carnivorous borhyaenid mammals." or something similar.

That's just the lead. More to follow. --Wubslin (talk) 21:48, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This Year's Model[edit]

Nominator(s): – zmbro (talk) (cont) 02:47, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about... Elvis Costello's second album This Year's Model, which was also his first with the backing band known as the Attractions. Even better than his debut My Aim Is True, Model really shows the artist and band at their best in terms of songwriting and musicality. I've been rebuilding a few of Costello's albums from the ground up now and I believe this one is ready for the star. I'm happy to address any comments or concerns. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 02:47, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Realmaxxver[edit]

Adding comments soon. Realmaxxver (talk) 15:29, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Realmaxxver Would appreciate feedback sooner rather than later. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 21:13, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from ErnestKrause[edit]

(1) Lead section. Use of the word 'viscious' seems a quote of Costello in his interview but you do not quote this word in quote marks. Suggest you quote it, or change it to 'cynical' or 'sarcastic' without quote marks.

(2) Side one section. It seems like a good idea to quote Elvis's opening words which kick off the song. Direct quote of the first 9-10 words before the band kicks in.

Its "I don't want to see you, I don't want to touch." Its surprising to see that none of the songs on this album have a Wikipedia page. It would be nice to see the opening lyrics from this song in this section. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:46, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(3) Packaging and artwork section. Its obvious, but mention that he is photographed in his signature black frame glasses.

(4) Critical reception section. It says that it was album of the year 1978 here, but its not stated as such in the lead section. Album of the year for the Village Voice is worth putting in lead section.

  • I mean "appeared on several year-end lists" I think makes that clear. And is it? Since it appeared on multiple lists stating an American publication and not the others seems odd to me. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 15:52, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • You could select the top 2-3 in the list to add to the lead section at your option. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:46, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I personally feel like it would make it feel cluttered, as through my previous FAs, I was told to keep things simple and not over-indulge. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 02:07, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(5) The phrase "ranked as one of Costello's best...", may look better as, "ranked as among Costello's best...".

(6) No Legacy section? No one has ever tried to copy one of his songs with any success?

There is a duet with Elvis Costello & Billie Joe Armstrong doing No Action. Since there are no singles articles from this album on Wikipedia (other than Radio, Radio?), then it would be nice to see a Legacy section for the album and its hits, listing any notable covers which might be out there. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:46, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
ErnestKrause Wasn't able to find much stuff on potential legacy, unlike something like Low. If we go on a song-by-song basis I guess we could add something like that, or Linda Rondstadt's covers, or even Olivia Rodrigo's potential plagiarism of "Pump It Up" for "Brutal". But then again, I'd want legacy or influence to about the album as a whole rather than that. Might be just a me thing. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 01:07, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That should serve as some start comments. ErnestKrause (talk) 21:41, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are a number of optional further edits that I am listing above which you might add to the article, and I'm supporting this nomination. The article already has a top to bottom copy edit from its good GAN and the sources are well-developed and comprehensive. Supporting this nomination. If you have time to make some comments, then I've put in a nomination for the pop music group BTS for possible support/oppose comments from you if you can get around to it. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:46, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for supporting :-) – zmbro (talk) (cont) 02:07, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Moisejp[edit]

Cool, this is one of my all-time favourite albums and I always had it at the back of my mind I'd like to expand it someday, but it looks like you beat me to it. :-) (Ha, it looks like I made two edits to this in 2006 but haven't edited it since.) I will try to review this soon. Cheers, Moisejp (talk) 01:37, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, in my impressionable mid-teens I'm pretty sure it what sparked my interest in this was the 1987 Rolling Stone issue ranking it #11 best album of the last 20 years. I was instantly won over by its energy and catchy hooks, and have been a big fan ever since. OK, enough gushing, better get started with the review!

First read-through:

  • Critical reception: "calling the album "more potent" than its Aim". Should this be "its predecessor Aim" or is this meant to be part of the direct quote? If it's not part of the direct quote (this may be personal preference but) it feels a bit casual to me for an encyclopedia article to use a shortened version of the album name. But if you disagree, no worries (I know I've seen other people in Wikipedia do that kind of thing, so again, it may be personal preference).
  • Was a typo. Fixed that. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 21:14, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In the midst of the punk movement, Christgau dismissed This Year's Model as punk rock, but acknowledged the genre's influence on the album and artist". How I naturally read "dismissed as" is meaning "dismissed as being" which I understand from the context is the opposite meaning to what is intended here. How you intend it is also a valid reading, but would it be possible to rewrite this so there is no ambiguity? Moisejp (talk) 05:15, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retrospective appraisal: "finding the material "gall"... He considered the package "unfeasibly invigorating" following its "mild-mannered" predecessor, but commended Lowe's production." I found this confusing—not sure what the overall message is supposed to be. "Invigorating" has a positive connotation, "unfeasibly" perhaps not, "but...commended" suggests what follows is good and what precedes is bad. Also "gall" seems to be used as an adjective, a usage I'm not familiar with and didn't immediately find with a quick internet search. Also, while I'm in this section, "package" seems a bit of a casual usage to me (at first I assumed it was talking about the packaging). Could I suggest Jim Irvin's section be reworked? Moisejp (talk) 05:58, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Spanish Model: This seems like a run-on sentence: "La Marisoul, a huge fan of Costello's, felt honoured to sing "Little Triggers", now titled "Detonantes", who approached the track by saying "Okay, I'm gonna live in these lyrics." Moisejp (talk) 06:06, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed/adjusted. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 02:37, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Spanish Model: I wonder if it might be worthwhile to mention the release date of September 2021 earlier in this section. The start of this section mentions 2018 and then "led Costello to conceive reimagining the entirety of This Year's Model in Spanish". For three or four paragraphs, I was assuming this was shortly after, but finally realized it didn't happen for another three years. I guess I could have looked at the infobox, which I didn't. I don't know, it's just an idea to fit in mention of the release date earlier somehow, but if it proves not feasible, no worries. Moisejp (talk) 06:15, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I tried to keep this chronological but I see what you mean. Do you think it should be worded like the start of a normal album article? – zmbro (talk) (cont) 02:14, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:Elvis_Costello_Spanish_Model.jpg needs a more expansive FUR in order to justify having two non-free album covers. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:17, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Definitely better, but now it's basically the same as the other cover - what's the rationale for including both? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:15, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from BennyOnTheLoose[edit]

  • I seem to be 300km away from the nearest library copy of Perone's The words and music of Elvis Costello, but looks like it could be a valuable source, from the preview pages. If you have access to the relevant chapter, I think it can provide some further material. I can't say it's an essential source, but it does look like it might be useful. (I did have a browse of Perone's Elvis Costello: A Bio-Bibliography earlier today, but that has only a dozen pages of biography preceding lengthy discographies and a bibliography.)
  • I just bought the book cuz why not. Figure I'll be doing quite a few more of his anyways. I'll see what I can dim I'll probably be making quite a few new additions. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 14:45, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The use of the sleeve notes as a source, except for the catalogue number, seems a bit like original research. I think the St Michael source (page 34) supports the content without needing to add the sleeve notes. The Attractions weren't named on the cover, but they were pictured (on the back, with Costello), I believe. Might be worth mentioning that, if it's in reliable sources.
  • They are not OR. Costello himself wrote extensive liner notes for the reissues by both Rykodisc and Rhino for all of his early albums, so they constitute WP:PRIMARY here. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 01:15, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I should probably have mentioned that the reference in question is to "Anon. (1978). This Year's Model (LP sleeve notes)" rather than to the later editions. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 08:54, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • BennyOnTheLoose That was only to fix the error that comes with the template if there's no author. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 22:35, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it's in reliable sources, consider mentioning:
  • there were videos for "(I Don't Want To Go To) Chelsea", "Pump It Up", and "Radio, Radio". (The "Pump It Up" one is mentioned in passing under the Spanish Model part of the article.)
  • Unfortunately none of the bios talk about any of his videos from Model nor Get Happy!! (maybe for Armed Forces but can't recall atm) – zmbro (talk) (cont) 22:35, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll see what I can find on that because that would be good to mention. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 22:35, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added. How's that look? – zmbro (talk) (cont) 02:25, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This Year's Girl"/"Big Tears" was released as a single in the US.
  • Unfortunately none of the bios discuss non-UK singles either; definitely not as in-depth as Bowie (ugh). I'll check out some websites but I don't recall many mentioning them. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 22:35, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Clayton-Lea writes that most of the relationships in the songs concentrate on the artist failing to get the girl" seems quite a close paraphrasing of "..mostly concentrated on how Costello failed to get the girl" (p.38)
  • "provokes and invokes" - I couldn't see this in the St. Michael book. Which page is it from?
  • What makes acclaimedmusic.net a reliable source?
  • It's just an aggregate website similar to Metacritic. It's only being used for overall album rankings and nothing else. I used it in my previous FAs Hunky Dory and Low and they passed just fine. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 22:35, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any reason for specifying the nationalities of "American writer Jon Pareles" and " English writer Colin Larkin"?
  • Force of habit? I'll adjust. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 22:35, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Banded broadbill[edit]

Nominator(s): AryKun (talk) 12:13, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Another species of Southeast Asian broadbill. Pretty well-known, and rather well illustrated for an article on a species from this part of the world. AryKun (talk) 12:13, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild[edit]

Recusing to review. I may do some light copy editing as I go. If I mess anything up, could you let me know here.

  • "Mainland Southeast Asia". Why the upper case M? Also in the main article.
    • No reason, just used it because it was in the main article.
Could we make them both lower case then.
  • "On Java, the broadbill might breed year-round." "might" doesn't seem helpful here. Do you mean something like 'sometimes' or 'has been observed to'?
    • Replaced "might" with "is thought to".
  • "are sister to the Grauer's broadbill". Why the definite article? Which is not used in the preceding sentence.
    • Removed definite article.
  • "has more metallic grey underparts and pinker throats and upperparts." Just checking: the underparts are both "more metallic grey" and "pinker"?
    • Second reference is to upperparts.
D'oh! Sorry.
  • "with an indistinct neckband, blacker foreheads, and pinker throats". Either all singular or all plural.
    • Changed all to singular.
  • "with pale dark streaks". I am unsure how something can be both pale and dark.
    • Dark compared to the background, but pale overall. For example, look at the photo of the West Javan juvenile. The streaks on the breast are rather pale overall, but dark compared to the yellowish background.
Hmm. Ok.
  • Perhaps link still-hunting to Hunting strategy#Still hunting?
    • Added link, but the hunting strategy article is about human hunters, so unsure how helpful it would be.
That's why I put "perhaps". Personally I think it's of some utility. But if you disagree, take it out.
  • "as well as catching prey in flight in more elegantly." Is there a word missing?
    • Rephrased.

That's all I have. Nice work. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:50, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just the M/mainland issue, but no reason for that to stand in the way of my support. Gog the Mild (talk) 07:57, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Funk[edit]

  • I'll have a closer look soon. FunkMonk (talk) 01:37, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect all subspecies names and synonyms here, if they aren't already.
    • Done.
  • This individual[5] seems much lighter than the ones shown in the article. If it's a juvenile, perhaps clearer than the current juveniles shown in the article?
    • Definitely not a juvenile. I suspect that it's due to the lighting, since the background indicates the bird is captive. It might be an immature or perhaps a different subspecies, but I can't be sure since the photo doesn't provide any location info.
  • "All the subspecies excluding javanicus are sometimes split as a separate species on the basis of morphology, which would make the current species monotypic (having only one subspecies)." but does anyone still follow that scheme? If it is an old proposition, could be said in past tense.
    • IUCN/Birdlife still split it into two.
  • "The species is called takau rimba in Malay and Nok Phaya Paak Kwaang laay leuang in Thai." Considering the nominate is from Indonesia, and some of the other subspecies occur there too, wouldn't it make sense to have the Indonesian name there?
    • Haven't found any sources with the Indonesian name. The source for the Thai and Malay names is only a guide for the Malay Peninsula and thus restricts itself to those.
  • "This larger clade is sister to one formed by the long-tailed broadbill and dusky broadbill. Both of these clades are sister to Grauer's broadbill." Is this level of text description detail needed when it is shown in the cladogram?
    • Can't hurt, and might be helpful for those with screen readers or those who don't know how to "read" a cladogram.
  • What do the subspecies names mean?
    • Generally, this information isn't given in the article, as it's a bit excessively detailed.
  • "It is the type species of the genus Eurylaimus, which was created for it." Both parts of the sentence means the same, but I can see the latter part could be needed as an explanation.
    • Yep, the second part is meant as an explanation for those unfamiliar with taxonomy.
  • "The weight of 10 specimens of adults of pallidus" unnecessarily wordy, what about "The weight of 10 adult pallidus specimens"
    • Done.
  • "that allows it to mash and "chew" its food, helping the species consume relatively large prey." Isn't this more suited for the diet section?
    • Well, I guess it might fit in there, but the first part of the sentence is actually describing its bill's appearance and size; the latter part is just there to provide an explanation for why the bill is so large.
  • Explain anatomical terms like supercilium in parenthesis.
    • Added glosses for supercilium and lores, but haven't added them for all the feathers, since those require a rather lengthy explanation of their function and position that would obscure the focus of the paragraph.
  • You state the location of some pictured specimens, but not others, could be consistent.
    • Added location for the picture lacking it, don't think the infobox image needs location as the subspecies is already mentioned.
  • In one place you say "coloration", though the rest seems to be UK "colour".
    • Fixed.
  • "which splits the banded broadbill into two species" Which two species?
    • Mentioned earlier in the taxonomy section, assuming readers are at least skimming it as they go through.
  • And on that issue, what authority are we following here in only having one species? I believe we generally follow IOC, what do they say? In case the article will have to be split.
    • IOC keeps it as one species, so that's how I've treated it.
  • Terms like ovoid and lateral could be explained or replaced with common terms.
    • Done.
  • "is a striking species" Seems rather informal and hyperbolic for the very first sentence.
    • Striking means distinctive or conspicuous, which it is; also, since the BOW account calls it "remarkable-looking" and "comical-looking", I thought that at least a cursory mention of its distinctive appearance was needed at the start.
  • "is sometimes split into two species, one including only the nominate subspecies, E. j. javanicus, and one including all the remaining subspecies." The article body should go into this in more detail under taxonomy. What is the name of the other supposed species, and what is its nominate subspecies?
    • Adde extra detail in taxonomy.
  • On what basis are the other subspecies grouped together to the exclusion of the nominate?
    • Added.
  • Link arthropod in intro.
    • Done.
  • Not a big deal, but instead of having the very long double image of immatures, perhaps use one of them under reproduction where immatures are mentioned, and perhaps give the month the photo was taken (can be seen in the exif data of the photos) in the image caption, since this seems important in the text?
    • Added months, but I think the images are best placed where they are.
  • "the other subspecies as being of least concern" Shouldn't this be the other species? I don't think they cover subspecies.
    • The other subspecies as in all three of them, changed to "and all the other" to make it clearer. I think saying subspecies maintains internal consistency, since the rest of the article treats it as one species, not two.
  • Should be possible to identify which subspecies are pictured from their locations?
    • I guess, since the subspecies live on different islands.

Aa77zz[edit]

Description

  • "The weight of adults of pallidus from the Malay Peninsula was ..." I suggest the present tense "is" – unless you specify a particular study.
    • Reworded.
  • "with a black band across the neck." and "a pure grey breast-band". This is confusing. Is this the same band? Does the male of the nominate subspecies have a band on the upper breast? Perhaps also mention the breastband/neckband when listing ssp in Taxonomy and systematics
    • The neck-band is black and across the neck; the breast-band is gray and lower down across the breast. This can be seen in the infobox image, where there is a black band across the neck and another grayish streak below the neck-band. The entire description para refers to the nominate ssp as mentioned at the beginning ("Adult males of the nominate subspecies"), while the neckband is mentioned in the ssp descriptions where it differs (eg in brookei - "with an indistinct neckband").
      • Thanks for clarifying this. Perhaps "and a pure grey breast-band." -> "and a pure grey breast-band beneath the black neckband." - Aa77zz (talk) 12:21, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consider mentioning the white spots visible on the underside of the retrices.
    • Already mentioned ("The tail..and has white spots on the underside").
  • The sentence beginning "It is among the widest-billed broadbills, ..." seems out of place. Consider moving the sentence to before "The irises are pale yellow...".
    • Done.

Distribution

  • link Indochina
    • That redirects to Mainland Southeast Asia, which is linked earlier.
      • Yes, I noticed that, but it wasn't obvious to me that "Indochina" is a synonym for "Mainland Southeast Asia". - Aa77zz (talk) 12:21, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Breeding

  • Perhaps mention that both sexes collect nest material (Gulson-Castillo et al 2019 p. 16)
    • Added.

References

  • The references are cluttered with links from overzealous archiving. For many Wikipedia articles link rot is a serious problem, but fortunately this is not the case for most of the references in this article. There is no need to archive links to scans available from the Biodiversity Heritage Library (BHL) or those from the Internet Archive (IA). (Note that the BHL and the archived copies are on the same IA web server.) I'm unable to display the archived copies of the BHL book scans.
    • Removed archive links to BHL content.
  • The archived copy for Kirwan et al 2021 (Cornell BOW) is useless – the article is behind a paywall so the archive contains no useful information.
    • Removed link.
  • Gulson-Castillo et al 2019 – the page numbers should be 8–27.
    • But 11–15 are the ones supporting cited info. The field pages in the ref template says "Pages in the source that support the content (not an indication of the number of pages in the source".
      • For journal articles and edited book chapters I use page ranges such as: 8–27 [11–15] – but I admit that this not standard. - Aa77zz (talk) 12:21, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dekker et 2000 Notes 3 – For journal articles it is usual to specify the page numbers of the article rather than the actual page. (as with your Notes 2 reference) The pages are 77-88.
    • See above

- Aa77zz (talk) 10:50, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • I still find the description of the neckband unsatisfactory. When describing the female you write: "although the neckband is faint or absent in males as well on Borneo and Java." Presumably the race on Java is E. j. javanicus, the nominate subspecies, which you've described earlier as "with a black band across the neck." Perhaps you should make it clear earlier that not all males of the nominate subspecies have a black band across the neck. - Aa77zz (talk) 12:36, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:EurylaimusJavanicusDist.png: what is the source of the data presented in this map?
  • File:Banded_Broadbill_-_Adult_feeding_juvenile.jpg is of rather poor quality. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:15, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Replaced map with new one citing its sources. The adult feeding juvenile may be a low-quality image, but it illustrates a feature of its behaviour well, and in any case, there aren't any other images that could be used for the Behaviour and ecology section. AryKun (talk) 06:43, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Second Punic War[edit]

Nominator(s): Gog the Mild (talk) 12:56, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

After a 20-month break from the Punic Wars I am returning, with elephants, Hannibal, Cannae, crossing the Alps, elephants, 17 years of slaughter, Scipio Africanus, Zama, and yet more elephants. All in fewer than 6,000 words. I took this to GA in 2020 and put it on the backburner while I concentrated on other matters. After a recent overhaul, especially of the sourcing - thanks Buidhe - I believe that it has a chance of meeting the FAC criteria. See what you think - as usual, all and any constructive comments welcome. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:56, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: As always, a great article by our FA regulars. I haven't read through the whole article, but the paragraphs are a bit odd: some are really long (>200 words), and some are just one sentence long. I also think that center-aligning captions is a bit odd, but feel free to ignore this complaint. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 13:31, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Tim riley[edit]

Shall review and report back. More anon. Tim riley talk 21:43, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

First lot of comments, down to the end of the Italy section:

  • "a now-largely-lost manual" – I'm often unsure about hyphens, but I rather think we don't need them here, as the adverb in the middle does the necessary work. I am quite prepared to be told I'm wrong.
Deleted. (A different review suggested their use, and you know how I hate to quibble.)
  • "personally interviewed participants" – can you interview people in any other way than personally?
Certainly, but point taken.
  • "Most male Roman citizens were eligible for military service" – just checking: does this mean they were allowed to join up or were liable to be made to do so?
An interesting point which I do not wish to go into here. Replaced with 'liable', following the source.
  • "The latter were usually Numidians" – pedantry alert: you can only have the latter of two. With any more it is "last"
Changed to 'The latter cavalry'[?]
  • "if it were to again confront Rome" – curiously convoluted construction: wouldn't "to confront Rome again" be more natural?
What's convoluted about it? But changed anyway.
  • "but was then ambushed and besieged itself" – how do you besiege yourself? (From my press cuttings file: "Lampard twice had chances to double the lead, first dragging a left-foot shot wide then failing to find Rooney in the box when he should have shot himself".)
:-) Fixed.
  • "nevertheless his is the best surviving source for this part of the war.[14][12][15]" – refs would be better in numerical order.
This is something I much disagree with. But I am going to get outvoted, so changed; much confusion to the readers.
Ah. I've wondered about this sort of thing when citing two or three sources for different parts of the preceding sentence. There is a case to be made for doing as you did, helping anyone unhinged enough to want to check to find the relevant source as efficiently as possible. I confess I assumed your order was an oversight, but if it was deliberate I withdraw my objection and encourage you to revert the change, contra mundum. Tim riley talk 18:32, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A significant part of Hannibal's campaign – what did it signify? I think you probably mean important or major or substantial. Yes, I know we've argued about this before, but I continue to press the Fowler line that "significant" should not be wasted as a mere synonym of "important".
I remain unconverted, but the offending word has been.
  • "the Hannibal's forces were compelled to evacuate" – unwanted definite article
Hmm. Gone.

More to come. Tim riley talk 21:11, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Concluding

Only four more comments:

  • The caption in the Iberia 218–215 BC section could be made more concise by changing "The warrior" to "He".
Good thinking. Done.
  • The caption of the bust in the Iberia, 214–209 BC section is a bit ambiguous: "identified" as Scipio could mean anything from "generally thought to be" to "someone has speculated".
Identify seems as unambiguous as a word can be to me: "establish the identity of". But stricken.
  • "they routed back through the Carthaginian ranks" – assuming this is "routed" to rhyme with "shouted" rather than with "suited" it is an intransitive construction unfamiliar to me. I'm guessing it means they routed the opposition, but I'm not sure.
Umm. I am not sure if you are winding me up here. (?) "Rout: To retreat from a confrontation in disorder." The elephants ("they") routed (retreated from the confrontation in disorder) through the Carthaginian (of which army they were a part) ranks. I honestly struggle to see the lack of clarity. The effect of this on the Carthaginians in those ranks and any irony inherent in this is left as an exercise for the class, this being a very summary style. I have changed "they" to 'the elephants'; does that help?
You expose my ignorance: I didn't know "rout" could be an intransitive verb. Now I know. Tim riley talk 18:32, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "'Shock' troops are those trained and used to close rapidly with an opponent, with the intention of breaking them before, or immediately upon, contact". – I struggle with this. First, why "them" rather than "him" – non-gender-specific language is hardly required unless there were soldieresses in the ranks of the troops, and secondly, I'm not sure what you mean by "breaking"? Killing? Making him flee?
"them" - ah, you have caught me attempting to have this both ways. "break" - a standard military usage, I have seen it in newspaper reports from the Falklands War. "To destroy the arrangement of; to throw into disorder; to pierce", with the example "The cavalry were not able to break the British squares." But if as sagacious a reader as yourself is confused then it needs rewriting. I have changed it to ' Changed to '"Shock" troops are those trained and used to close rapidly and aggressively with their opponents, with the intention of breaking their formation before, or immediately upon, contact.' Any better? Or any suggestions?
That's much clearer, thank you. Tim riley talk 18:32, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's all from me. My comments are just on the prose. I have nothing to say about Livy -v- Polybius, raised below, or any other aspect of the content. – Tim riley talk 05:57, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent as always Tim, and many thanks. I regret that you don't find Hannibal's goings on as gripping as Edward III's, but as you have said "de gustibus non est disputandum". Responses above. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:25, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. It is true that I don't find the Punic Wars as interesting as the Hundred Years' War, but this is still a splendid article: clear, widely sourced, balanced and comprehensive as far as I can see, and well illustrated. I note the disagreement about the relative merits of the Graeco-Roman historians, but as a non-expert I think the article meets the FA criteria, and I am happy to support. Tim riley talk 18:32, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by T8612[edit]

Hello Gog. Before reviewing the text body, I think a significant rewriting of the "Primary sources" section is needed. You put way too much emphasis on Polybius and discredit Livy in a way that is not justified for the 2PW.

  • Polybius The main source for almost every aspect of the Punic Wars etc. This is largely true for the 1PW and 3PW, but not the 2PW, because Polybius' text breaks off in 216 after the battle of Cannae. The main source for the war is Livy (discussed below). Polybius is nevertheless a very important source for the beginning of the war, but "fairly reliable" has to be toned down a bit for the 2PW. The most damning example is about Cannae, because one of the consuls (Aemilius Paullus) was the grandfather of Scipio Aemilianus, Polybius' patron and friend. Therefore, Polybius put the blame of the defeat on the other consul, Gaius Terentius Varro. This is quite a big manipulation that ought to be noted. In general, Polybius is much less reliable when he deals with the family of Scipio, or his native Achaean League (he is therefore biased against the Aetolians also mentioned in the article).
I also think Diodorus and Cassius Dio should be moved just after Polybius, because they used him and most fragments of Polybius' lost books are found in their works. However, you can ditch Appian for the 2PW, as he is more useful for the 3PW.
  • Livy. The main source for the 2PW is thus Livy, whose books had been lost for the 1PW, but are still extent for the years from 218. Livy almost only used Polybius for the events of the Greek East, but for the Italian theatre he mixed him with the previous Roman historians, up to Fabius Pictor (also used by Polybius). Livy's book is much more pro-Roman than Polybius. He also dramatised battle descriptions in a way that is much less accurate than Polybius. Livy could also be biased: interestingly, he too put the blame on Varro for Cannae, but not for the same reason as Polybius; Livy describes Varro as a careless demagogue, while Paullus is a moderate (Livy often uses this opposition demagogue/conservative in his book, with disdain for the former).
Nevertheless, as he wrote annalistically, Livy is invaluable for his precise recordings of all the Roman magistrates, commanders, triumphs, etc. which gives us a very good chronology of the events, something we don't have for the other wars because Polybius was not that much interested in recording these.
  • You mention Plutarch, I think you should cite the relevant biographies of his Parallel Lives: Fabius Maximus and Claudius Marcellus (and some parts of the lives of Cato the Elder and Titus Flamininus). For example: Living during the Empire, the Greek moralist Plutarch wrote valuable biographies of several Roman protagonists of the war in his famous Parallel Lives, especially Fabius Maximus and Claudius Marcellus.
  • Two modern sources:
    • A. E. Astin wrote a very useful chapter on primary sources for the period in the 1st chapter (especially pp. 3-11) of the Cambridge Ancient History volume 8. Check also pp. 51-52 for Polybius' treatment of Cannae.
    • John Briscoe & Simon Hornblower, Livy: Ab urbe condita Book XXII (Cambridge Greek and Latin Classics 22), is a recent source (2020) and has a very good introduction on the whole war, and details the relationship between Polybius and Livy (there are also dicussions on Roman manpower or political factions in Rome). I can send you a pdf if you need it. T8612 (talk) 23:28, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi T8612, response in two parts:
1. It is good to be back with the Punic Wars, I have missed them. It has felt like unfinished business for the last two years. I have a raft of work I want to get done, including, hopefully, several articles coming here. If you would care to get involved on the ground floor, preventing me from straying too erroneously, and perhaps even collaborating on an article or two, I would appreciate it. If this appeals, stick a post on my talk page. And yes please, a pdf of the 2020 source would be most helpful. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:28, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again T8612:
2. Apologies for the delayed response to your substantive points. Basically I disagree quite a bit with some of them - especially the Livy and Polybius ones. Or, rather, I don't - no one cares what I think, or (no disrespect intended) what you think - but the sources do. I have been going back through the sources trying to find support for your general position and can't. I include in the article several quotes on the reliability of Livy and Polybius. After consulting more than a dozen sources since I read your post I am inclined to think that I am a bit hard on Polybius and soft on Livy - there are plenty more quotes I could use. Yes, there is the occasional quibble with Polybius, and much of the 2PW relies on Livy, but I don't think that I have unfairly represented the balance of the sources. I'll try to read Briscoe & Hornblower - many thanks for this, much appreciated - this evening and then have a go at rewriting the Sources section. I would certainly be happy to say something about the potential Scipio relatives issue. Bear with me and come back to me once I have done this. It may then come down to each of us stacking up sources, which is fine, if time consuming, but let's try to settle this. But I think you will find it difficult to find many sources which contradict the basic thrust of what I write, and even harder to establish a consensus of RSs for that. Cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:03, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt[edit]

  • "The Second Punic War (218 to 201 BC) was the second of three wars fought between Carthage and Rome, the two main powers of the western Mediterranean in the 3rd century BC." I might add a "which were" after the comma to settle any ambiguity as what "in the 3rd century BC is intended to refer to."
Done.
  • "defended the Carthaginian colonial cities with mixed success until moving into Italy;" I should say "before" rather than "until"
Done.
More soon.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:00, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about the delay.
  • " by suborning pro-Roman factions." If they were pro-Roman, why did they need to be suborned?
That, ah, is an excellent point. Changed to 'by suborning factions within to give them entry'.
  • "Without the expected reinforcement the Hannibal's forces were compelled to evacuate allied towns and withdraw to Bruttium.[143][144]" Something odd going on with the second "the".
Indeed. Tim also picked up this stray definite article, which has now been humanely put down.
  • "After Publius Cornelius Scipio invaded the Carthaginian homeland in 204 BC," This is the first time you mention him in the body of the article.
It is?! Too many Scipios, too much editing. Edited out, so his introduction is also his earliest chronological mention.
With only minor quibbles in this excellent article, I support.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:48, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
High praise indeed. Thank you Wehwalt. Responses above. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:36, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

  • Suggest scaling up all maps except Hannibal's allies, and see MOS:COLOUR
  • Background map is missing a legend
  • File:Altar_Domitius_Ahenobarbus_Louvre_n3_(cropped).jpg: the citation to the French code for the original work includes a non-commercial clause, which is non-free for the purposes of Commons
  • File:Second_Punic_war_(cropped).png: source links are dead
  • File:Archimedes_before_his_death_with_the_Roman_soldier,_Roman_mosaic.jpg needs a US tag
  • File:Relieve_de_Osuna_(M.A.N._Madrid)_03.jpg needs a tag for original work. Ditto File:Bust_of_Sulla_(loan_from_Ny_Carlsberg_Glyptotek)_-_Glyptothek_-_Munich_-_Germany_2017.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:06, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Compassionate727[edit]

Alright, I've never done this before, but Gog the Mild convinced me to give this a try, so bare with me. I'll begin with comments on prose. If in the future, I should just make these kinds of changes myself, let me know.

  • First, I can tell you really hate commas. In fact, I'm not even going to bother pointing out all the places there should be commas but aren't; I'm just going to fix them.
Compassionate727, no, please don't. I will simply take them out again. I assure you that the article is correctly punctuated. For example, a comma inserted before "and" is known as a serial or Oxford comma. It is, under the MoS a permissible practice, but not a required one. The MoS states "Editors may use either convention so long as each article is internally consistent". Similarly, I am aware of the, to my mind strange, convention of inserting a comma after any initial mention of time. It is not one I use. So proponents of it would write, and, I assume, say "Today, I ate breakfast"; I would write and say "Today I ate breakfast". Either is acceptable. (Much as I itch to remove examples of the former when copy editing.) It is entirely acceptable to not use the former convention. And so on. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:52, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: I'll admit I don't know the MOS as well as I should, so if you can point me to something, please do. I know that commas are frequently omitted from short dependent clauses; "Today I ate breakfast" is a good example. But I believe they cease to be optional once the clause is a certain length. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 22:16, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Who does? The only place you will find commas in the MoS is at MOS:OXFORD and immediately above. Other comma use is just the normal rules of English grammar. Of which, contrary to many opinions, there are a multiplicity. The ones I use are a common and consistent set of such rules, which clearly are not those which you are accustomed to. That doesn't make either of us wrong, it just means that there are no - or fewer than we thought - universal rules of English. If your jaw is dropping, I sympathise; when I first discovered that some writers always put a comma before "and" and after any date I was so shocked I couldn't speak. I am as liable to err as anyone, so if you really, really think that a comma is missing in the article, flag it up below and I'll have a look at it. Meanwhile, I'm for bed. PS "length" - really? That's a new one on me. How long is "a certain length"? (Just curious.) Gog the Mild (talk) 22:32, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, go to bed; we'll both still be here when you wake up. I'll do some more research and get back to you. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 22:41, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
British English is on the whole much more sparing with commas than American English. For examples see pp. 4 and 732 of the current edition of Modern English Usage (Oxford University Press, 2015). On the other hand the Queen's English does not follow Amerenglish in proscribing commas where they are useful but outlawed by some made-up "rule": the superstition that American teachers propound that when a subordinate clause follows an independent clause a comma is forbidden between them has no place in BrE. Equally a BrE speaker has no urge to rewrite the opening sentence of the Bible to insert an unnecessary comma in "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth". It is in short unwise of a speaker of AmE to tell a writer of BrE how to punctuate - or vice versa, of course. Tim riley talk 06:50, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fair, and it's not my intention to be insensitive regarding Engvar issues; I just don't know what is an Engvar issue vs. an actual mistake until someone tells me its an Engvar thing. If you can recommend any good sources listing the differences, I would be delighted to read them. I recall attempting to find some many years ago without much success.
FWIW, my own research was only somewhat helpful. I was able to find a rather large number of sources saying that commas are necessary after initial dependent clauses, but we all agree that's not the full picture. I did find this article from Grammarly that says: Since the introductory clause consists of only three words, the comma separating the introductory clause from the main clause may or may not be used. (Grammarly, notably, prescribes according to American English standards.) It's not clear from this source if three words is actually a cut-off point or just an example of an acceptable omission (for whatever it's worth, I think three words is also what my Composition teacher in college said); I'm not inclined to treat is as a hard rule (it clearly never has been), and when I look at a Google Books preview of Modern English Usage, I see an example on p. 4 of a slightly longer dependent clause (four words) that also omits a comma.
I'm rambling now, though. If we accept that commas are definitely optional after subordinate clauses of three words or fewer, we eliminate most of the examples I'd ordinarily complain about. I can raise the rest below. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 13:45, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I so sympathise with your wish for a list of differences between English and American punctuation! It would indeed be useful all round. The main obstacle to compiling one, I think, is that where something is a non-issue, as in the use of a comma after "In the beginning" or between a main and subordinate clause it would no more occur to a writer of a good BrE guide to say do or don't use a comma here than it would to say do or don't start a sentence with a capital letter. Some things just don't need mentioning. (That being said, a teacher of infants told me not long ago that the American form "In the beginning comma God created..." is now being drummed into British tinies, on the orders of HM Government. Heigh ho! Fortunately I shall probably be dead by the time today's infants are perpetrating prose in public.) Tim riley talk 14:15, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Lead[edit]
  • The Romans established a lodgement in north-east Iberia When did this happen? A year would be nice.
Good point. Done.
  • took the offensive in Iberia and were badly defeated, while maintaining their hold Don't like this construction, would prefer "were badly defeated but maintained": parallelism is pretty.
I slightly prefer mine, but done.
  • The final engagement of the war took place between armies under Scipio and Hannibal at the battle of Zama in 202 strike "battle of", it's unnecessary when we already mentioned it was an engagement. If you prefer specifying that it was a battle (don't know what else it would be, but whatever), you can replace "engagement" with "battle"
Done.
  • resulted in Hannibal's defeat and in Carthage suing for peace. Personally, I think it would sound better without repeating the second "in", but this is a mild preference.
Good, cus I would have fought to keep the current construction. ;-)
  • The peace treaty imposed on the Carthaginians stripped them I would strike the imposition part. It seems odd to speak of a peace treaty being imposed when it didn't follow an unconditional surrender, and even if there is a sourcing reason for it, here it's just clunky. As it is, we can already tell that the treaty was quite harsh from the fact that most Carthaginian politicians opposed it
Like any politician has ever sung the praises of any treaty their country has signed of on after losing a war? And obviously the statements of politicians can be taken as an accurate reflection of reality? [/irony] I prefer it to stay, without being wedded to the exact wording, if only to reflect the sources.
Which is fair, but it's a little awkward IMO, and it doesn't strike as important to note in the lead. If you disagree, I'll think some more about how to possibly restructure the sentence. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 17:57, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Henceforth it was clear that Carthage was politically
Mr riley, if you could spare a moment, do I need a "that" there? I am inclined to believe not, and it seems clunky with one added, but I would value your opinion. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:48, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Scipio was awarded a triumph and received the agnomen "Africanus". "received" seems redundant
Why? Otherwise it would read as if he were awarded the agnomen.
Would that not be a fair statement? —Compassionate727 (T·C) 17:57, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. I see your point. The problem is that we don't actually know how he came by the name. Livy explicitly states this, so the modern sources all fudge it. As I have. :-)
Mmm. Could you briefly summarize what we do know and what is unclear? I'm not familiar with this issue and don't have access to the sources in question. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 16:20, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We know he became known as "Scipio Africanus". The sources use words like "accorded"; "as a tribute ... he would be known as"; "assume[d] the cognomen"; "he assumed". Lazenby writes "Livy says he could not discover who had first conferred it". [My emphasis.]
Are we reasonably confident that it was originally conferred (i.e., Scipio didn't just adopt it on his own initiative)? —Compassionate727 (T·C) 17:11, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"reasonably"? Depends what you call reasonable. We are not certain that happened, no. He could have just assumed it. He could have become known as Africanus informally before it was formalised; it is just about possible that it never was formalised. (IMO unlikely but not 100% ruled out.) IMO these possibilities is covered by the current form of words.
Yeah, I agree. Or at least, I agree that "received" is about as good of a one word description of what happened here as we are going to get. One last question: would it be acceptable to write: Scipio received a triumph and the agnomen "Africanus"? I recognize that "award a triumph" is a standard construction, so if "receive" would be considered inaccurate, it's fine to leave the sentence as-is. Just trying to tighten the prose as much as possible while faithfully preserving the meaning. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 17:44, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Opposing forces[edit]
  • The balance were equipped as heavy infantry "rest" or "remainder", not "balance". This isn't a bank account.Face-smile.svg
Done.
  • into three ranks, of which the front rank would prefer these clauses be separated by a colon or semi-colon (not certain off-hand which is correct) and "of which" eliminated
Done.
  • second and third ranks had a thrusting spear carried? bore? wielded? just not "had", please
Changed.
  • Both legionary sub-units and individual legionaries For some reason, when "both" leads like that, my brain's first reaction is to think that it means two sub-units. Maybe move it to afterward? Also, what the heck is a "sub-unit" in this context?
1. Done. 2. sub unit
The wikilink you (or someone) added to manicle is what I was looking for. Thanks. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 18:15, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Good. I should have thought to include it in the first place.
  • legionaries fought in a? relatively open order
Er, no.
Yeah, now that I actually know exactly what that means, I agree. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 18:15, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • elect two men each year, known as consuls, as senior magistrates, who Is it really necessary to specify that consuls were senior magistrates? I think everyone can infer this. If you feel like it is, the sentence would flow better if the title came after category of job (e.g., "two mean each year as senior magistrates, called consuls").
I do. Order tweaked as you suggest.
  • at time of war "at" should be "during," and "time of" is a waste of words
'during war' does not work for me. I am happy to rephrase, but my first two thoughts are both longer than the current formulation, which I assume you will object to.
Probably. This must be a British English thing, I don't think I've ever seen the preposition "at" used with time before. I don't suppose "in" would be less offensive to you than "during"? If not, don't worry about it. I would still prefer to eliminate "time of" if possible, though. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 18:15, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"in" is fine. Changed.
  • would each lead an army. An army was usually formed by combining two Roman legions This implies that there would be four Roman legions fielded during war (2+2=4), when the second sentence says that traditionally only two total legions of Romans were fielded. Not sure which is correct, but please fix.
Oops. Thanks. Fixed.
  • Carthage recruited foreigners to make up its army i.e., mercenaries, or should I understand something else here?
You should. My explanatory footnote seems to have gone walk about, so I have reinstated it.
  • were from North Africa and so were frequently Does this mean that even non-North African troops were called "Libyans," so long as they weren't Carthaginians?
Clarified.
  • provided several types of fighter, including: close order infantry while I understand why you wanted a colon there, I doubt it is correct
Possibly this is another example of "wo nations separated by a common language". It is usual to start a list with a colon. You have an issue with that?
It might be. My instinct is that you could use either a colon or "including" but not both together. But you can't remove "including" without altering the meaning of the sentence, and like I said, the colon's use makes a kind of sense to me, so I won't fight you over it. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 18:15, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • experienced infantry and cavalry. These infantry were
Done.
  • The Gallic cavalry, and possibly some of the Iberians, wore armour Unless your sources are stressing the possibility that some Iberians were heavy calvary, I would leave the possibilizing to the next sentence ("most or all" is adequate, I think)
Yes, the source is indicating that some of the Iberians were probably - but not certainly - heavy cavalry.
Should the sentence say "probably" instead of "possibly" then? Your call, I've not read the sources. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 18:18, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The source says "There is some evidence that some of the Spanish horse were heavy cavalry ... and may well have been armoured." Bleh!
  • I'm realizing I don't really understand what "open-order" and "close-order" means. I don't suppose there's something you could wikilink?
The first mention of close-order is already Wikilinked. I have just Wiktionary-linked open-order.
Compassionate727, lovely stuff. Many thanks. Responses above.
More will be coming as I have the time and mental capacity to do so. I intend to get through the entire article eventually. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 16:41, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Primary sources[edit]

I'm not going to suggest copy edits to this section with your revisit pending and T8612's concerns still under discussion. I will say, however, that this section seems to have been basically copied and pasted between the various Punic Wars articles without attention to the context of each article. It is especially striking here: surely, the fact that almost all of Polybius's account of this war is missing deserves more than a single sentence, especially when the previous two paragraphs are almost entirely about how important Polybius's account is. If Polybius's account is broken and Livy's is suspect, who are we relying on? —Compassionate727 (T·C) 16:41, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Background[edit]

The same indiscriminate copying seems to have happened in the first paragraph of this section that happened in the primary sources section. It's overly detailed for a Second Punic War article. Do we really need to know about the Pyrrhic War to understand the Second Punic War? Or Richard Miles's opinion that they "stumbled" into the First Punic War? —Compassionate727 (T·C) 16:41, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes and yes. This is the sort of deep background which would be expected in a FAC in order to cover the second part of FA criterion 1b . (You may wish to skim my very recent oppose to CSS Baltic
1b. it neglects no major facts or details I would not consider the name of the Pyrrhic War a major detail in the background to the Second Punic War. (The first, sure, but not the second.) Neither is Richard Miles's name. The effect of the Pyrrhic War is important, of course; so is how Carthage and Rome didn't always see each other as inevitable enemies. I note both of these things in my proposed version of the paragraph below. But a few of the details that would be important background for the First Punic War become unimportant when you widen your view to include everything leading up to the Second. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 17:36, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, I might propose text like this: The Roman Republic had been aggressively expanding in the southern Italian mainland for a century before the First Punic War, and by 270 BC controlled all of peninsular Italy south of the Arno river. During this time, Carthage, with its capital in what is now Tunisia, had come to dominate southern Iberia, much of the coastal regions of North Africa, the Balearic Islands, Corsica, Sardinia and the western half of Sicily. By 264 BC, Carthage was the dominant external power on the island, (Sicily?) and Carthage and Rome were the preeminent powers in the western Mediterranean. Although their relationship was initially friendly, Rome's continued expansionary attitude and Carthage's proprietary approach to Sicily brought them into conflict. In 264 BC Carthage and Rome went to war over control of the independent Sicilian city state of Messana (modern Messina), starting the First Punic War. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 16:50, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would also consider glossing the Balearic Islands, Corsica, Sardinia as "the Western Mediterranean islands" (or "the islands of the Western Mediterranean"). It isn't shorter, but it is fewer items to process, which I believe is valuable when the goal is to convey an overview of Carthage's possessions and the islands' individual names aren't all that important. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 16:59, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why deprive a reader of information when we are not even saving words or characters!? Why force a reader to chase a link to find out which islands the broader term refers to?
Well, I can't speak for anyone else, but when I read that line, I had to pause for a second to process all those names before realizing: "Oh, that's just every island in the Western Mediterranean." It would have easier for me to understand its meaning if the sentence had just said that to begin with. You ask why we should force a reader to follow a link to find out their names, but I don't see why any reader would bother doing so, because at this point in the article, at the very beginning of the background section, none of these islands are important as individual islands. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 17:36, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You know what, I'm having second thoughts about this suggestion. I was quite sleep-deprived yesterday, which may explain why I stumbled while trying to process the sentence, and I'd rather avoid any ambiguity over what exactly is included in the phrase "islands of the Western Mediterranean" (I obviously wasn't understanding small islands just off the coast of Italy like the Pontine to be included, but I'm not sure there's any good way to communicate that). Consider this suggestion withdrawn unless someone else sees any merit to it. I would, however, suggest that Sardinia and Corsica be separated by "and" instead of a comma. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 15:31, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CSS Baltic[edit]

Nominators: User:Sturmvogel 66, User:Hog Farm

A co-nom from me and Sturmvogel. An object lesson in what happens when you try to DIY an ironclad. I believe that this is the first FAC for a warship of the Confederate States. Hog Farm Talk 02:56, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review pass per ACR (t · c) buidhe 04:18, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Support: A good article, but I think that long paragraphs in it may benefit from splitting. Long paragraphs are both very hard to keep track of and distasteful, and the issue would be further compounded by the new Vector skin. Other than that, I found the article is an interesting read about an obscure subject, will support if the aforementioned issue has been resolved. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 13:38, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@CactiStaccingCrane: - I've split one that did seem kinda long. Did you have concerns about the other paragraph lengths? The paragraphs are generally arranged fairly topically. Hog Farm Talk 22:34, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not really, partly because other paragraphs are long for a good reason. Changing my comment to support. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 00:16, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Vami[edit]

Reviewing this version. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 03:57, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • How often do we describe the Federal government during the Civil War as the "Union" on the English Wikipedia, and in the modern historiography of the war?
    • From what I've seen probably over 70% of recent works still use "Union", although a lot of what I read is bio/campaign histories and I'd say it's probably the more social-history stuff that use "United States" or other terms (Ed Bearss used "Federals", which is probably the second most common thing I see). As of right now, I'd say that "Union" is still probably the primary usage form, although it's possible that's no longer the case in 5-10 years. Hog Farm Talk 04:32, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • [...] the process of converting her into a military vessel began on December 22.[1] The process of converting her into an [...] Could use a switchup in the verbiage here.
    • I've rephrased the second instance. Hog Farm Talk 04:32, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • You edited the lead...? –♠Vami_IV†♠ 05:13, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's what I get for staying up late. Should be rephrased in the correct spot now. Hog Farm Talk 13:28, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A nice little treat of an article. Glad to see it at FAC now. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 03:57, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Support from Gog the Mild[edit]

Recusing to review.

  • This seems to be missing any background or context. After the description the narrative starts "On May 12, 1862, Baltic was transferred by Alabama to the Confederate States Navy." How about a summary of what the ACW was, its broad outline to that date and something about the struggle for control of the navigable rivers and why this was important so we know what gave rise to the building of the Baltic. Something on what she was intended to do and how she compared with other riverine ships of the time would also be useful.
    • Given that this is a short article, I don't want to delve too much into backstory. I've added another sentence about the importance of controlling the coast, which should go with the mentions of Port Royal and Fts. Hatteras and Clark up in the construction section to make it clear why the ship was built (this one had little to do with the riverine warfare) I'm afraid that a comparison with other riverine ships of the time isn't really possible - there's just too little about her pre-Confederate career, and her CSA naval career can be summarized as "floating pile of trash". I have added the mention of Fort Sumter as the start of the war. Hog Farm Talk 02:48, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry, but I disagree. While I would not expect the same level of background as I would for, say, the battle of Vicksburg, I would expect enough from scratch background and context for a new to the topic reader to be able to make sense of it. I fail to see how the short length of the article absolves it of this. I am regretfully opposing on the grounds that the second part of FA criterion 1b is not met. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:40, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: - I've added several sentences from scratch introducing slavery, states' rights, Lincoln, secession, and the formation of the Confederacy and then tying that into the Confederates firing on Sumter. Then flowing into the Confederate naval advantage, the Anaconda Plan and the blockade, and then the early Union coastal victories at Hatteras, Clark, and Port Royal. Does this provide the needed background? It's not easy to summarize the causes of this war in a few sentences. Hog Farm Talk 03:59, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just what I was looking for. While I don't wish to tell you how to write the minutiae of the article, so far as I am concerned you could delete "Slavery became a significant part of southern culture, and the ideology of states' rights was used to support the institution." and perhaps add something on the blockade throttling the Confederate supply of arms and materiel after "in order to cut off trade". Rest of the review to follow.
  • In passing: "the ship was too deteriorated for service, and was afterwards used to place naval mines". Is mine laying not "service"?
    • Clarified with "active service". For mine laying, it would presumably have just required that the ship floated and could move. Hog Farm Talk 19:00, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I understand that, but your average reader is likely to do a double take. Something like 'and so was relegated to mine laying duties ...' maybe? Gog the Mild (talk) 19:14, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've went with the "relegated" phrasing Hog Farm Talk 02:48, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild (talk) 13:17, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: - sorry for the delay in getting to this. I've added a bit of background (first battle, more specific date of start of war, clarified importance of holding the coasts). I could add some more, but I'm not sure how much there's really space for since this is a shorter article than normal. Any thoughts? Hog Farm Talk 02:48, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Optional: put the second paragraph (commencing "During the early 19th century") at the start. Possibly in a separate "Background" section.
  • "she served on Mobile Bay". I assume "on" rather than 'in' is a USEng varient.
  • "when the Confederates fired on Fort Sumter". Perhaps 'when the Confederates fired on the Union sea fort of Fort Sumter'?
  • "the crew frequently slept outside of the ship". Do you mean on the deck, or ashore?
  • "two Dahlgrens and three 32-pounders or possibly with one 42-pounder and two 32-pounders (presumably in addition to the Dahlgren guns). I am unsure what the bit in brackets adds.
  • Could we have an in line description/explanation of "cottonclad".
  • "and was afterwards relegated to placing naval mines". Suggest deleting "afterwards".
  • "On May 20, after Porter's inspection". I suspect that a reader can remember from the prior sentence that Porter's inspection had already taken place.
  • "mud scow". Perhaps a Wiktionary link?
  • "With the end of the war approaching, Baltic, Nashville, and other vessels were later sent up the Tombigbee." Delete "later".

Gog the Mild (talk) 10:58, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What the hell is this screen? It doesn't copy the text to which I wish to reply? WTF?
The source doesn't specify exactly where the crew slept. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 10:59, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Sturmvogel 66: - are these all taken care of or should I dig out the sources in my spare time tonight? Hog Farm Talk 22:34, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, these are all done. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:36, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers. It may be a day or two before I can get back to you on this. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:23, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Second reading[edit]
  • Construction and characteristics section: the first paragraph is nothing to do with either of these.
  • Suggest deleting "Slavery became a significant part of southern culture, and the ideology of states' rights was used to support the institution."
  • Could we have something - a sentence might do - on the effect, if any, and/or the intended effect of the blockade on the Confederate military.
  • Could you confirm that her armament was either "two Dahlgrens and three 32-pounders" or "one 42-pounder and two 32-pounders". Ie, in the latter case there were no Dahlgrens.
  • "her armament consisted of two Dahlgrens and three 32-pounders or possibly with one 42-pounder and two 32-pounders." Grammae: either delete "with" or replace it with 'of'.
    • Canney actually says "2 Dahlgrens and 3 x 32 pdrs (also reported as one 42-pdr with 2 x 32 pdrs)", which I interpret as 2 Dahlgrens and either 3 x 32 pdrs or 1 x 42 pdr and 2 x 32 pdrs. YMMV--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:24, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The link to scow does little to convey to the uninitiated what a "mud scow" might be. A scow made out of mud perhaps? A mud coloured scow? A scow whose name was mud? wikt:one's name is mud. Something else?
    • I dunno exactly what a mud scow is. I suspect that it's a boat that handles the stuff that a dredger brings up from a river or harbor bottom, but I can't swear that that's correct.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:24, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild (talk) 20:50, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See if my changes are acceptable--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:24, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Source for casemate type?
    • What do you mean? We only link to casemate ironclad.
      • Yes - looking for a cite for the claim that type = casemate ironclad. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:19, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Sturmvogel 66: - what are your thoughts on this? Joiner and DANFS call her an ironclad ram and Still p. 93 explicitly states "With the exception of two conversions - the Manassas and the Baltic - every Confederate ironclad placed in commission had an armored shield to protect its guns and machinery" when discussing the Confederate casemate ironclads. Hog Farm Talk 03:37, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • Ironclad ram is kind of an old-fashioned term for a casemate ironclad, IMO, as it's almost the only term used up until the 1970s or so for all of the Confederate ironclads. I'm not gonna get too fussed over the two terms, although I'm not sure that Still actually had any evidence that Baltic's superstructure wasn't armored, especially since Manassas was entirely armored above the waterline, but lacked a superstructure. We know the specifications of the Baltic's armor, but not where it was placed, so we can't positively say that Still is wrong.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 11:11, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Armament in infobox doesn't match text
    • It matches Luraghi, but not Canney.
      • Is there a reason to believe one is better than the other? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:19, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes. DANFS, Joiner, and Silverstone both support Luraghi's figure, while Canney appears to stand alone on this Hog Farm Talk 03:26, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Luraghi: what's the original that was translated? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:00, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure that the cite book template supports that info since trans-title is for books published in a foreign language.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:34, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Okay, but what's the rationale to remove translator? Is this a translation of something, or is it an original work? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:19, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • Nikkimaria - from the copyright page of my print version: "First published in Italian as Marinai del Sud: Storia della Marina confederata nella Guerra Civile Americana, 1861-1865 by Rizzoli in 1993". I am not really sure what to do with that information. Hog Farm Talk 03:23, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • Translator never should have been there in the first place.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 11:11, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Old Head coinage[edit]

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 16:38, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about... the last issue of coins of Queen Victoria, with the well-known portrait of her as an elderly woman. It received mixed to positive reviews at the time, which was an improvement from the previous Jubilee coinage anyway.Wehwalt (talk) 16:38, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Suggest adding alt text
  • File:Queen_Victoria_proof_double_sovereign_MET_DP100383_(cropped).jpg: where is that licensing coming from and what does it cover? Ditto File:The_Ashantee_Medal,_granted_by_the_Queen_for_the_Expedition_of_1873–74_MET_DP-180-162.jpg, File:Queen_Victoria's_Diamond_Jubilee,_1897_MET_DP-180-010.jpg
  • File:Victoria_1837-1901_coin_pic12.JPG is missing a tag for the original work. Ditto File:British_threepence_1899.jpg, File:Victoria_1837-1901_coin_pic19.JPG
  • File:1893_half_crown_obverse.jpeg: are the duplicate tags meant to cover the photo and the coin? If so, could that be clarified? If no, what's the status of the image? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:20, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
With the exception of the 1893 half crowns, those things are done. It looks like OTRS messed things up and thought they were purely PD. I will resubmit them tomorrow.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:00, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OTRS has now acted. That's everything.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:13, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild[edit]

Recusing to review.

  • "was immediately gilded to make it appear to be the more valuable coin". By whom?
  • "attributes suggests that". ?
  • "the committee recommended that the double florin not be further struck". Is it known why?
  • "using a different portraits". Delete "a".
  • Link mantle.

These fiddling suggestions are all I have. Great work. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:57, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review and support.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:55, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from ChrisTheDude[edit]

  • "coins struck dated between 1893 and 1901" - the two participles together read a bit oddly. Should it be "struck and dated"?
  • "The crown, or five-shilling piece, was struck for circulation for the first time since the 1840s." - source?
  • "The committee was chaired by the Liberal MP" - link Liberal?
  • "The government agreed (minting of the double florin had been suspended in August 1890)." - three words plus a parenthical aside reads oddly - any chance this sentence could be combined with another one?
No, but I've opened the parens.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:17, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The competition had a deadline of 31 October 1891, and on 27 November, the committee met at the Bank of England to consider them" - doesn't work grammatically, you need something earlier in the sentence to which "them" can then refer back
  • "The sculptors had been directed to include on their designs, Victoria's name and titles" - that comma should not be there
  • "Victoria had been lobbying since 1888 for her title as empress of India, granted by the Royal Titles Act 1876 to be" - you need a comma after 1876 to close off the subordinate clause
  • "The motto [...] were added" - motto is singular
  • "with the pattern continuing through 1900" - the article is presumably written in British English, and we don't say "through [date]" in the UK
  • "they would be restored in 1937" - source?
  • The last paragraphs of the circulation section are all extremely short - suggest combining some or even all of them
The thing is, they are each different in subject matter and hard to combine.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:17, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Except for as noted, all done.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:17, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review and support.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:56, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Tim riley[edit]

Three comments, none of which affect my support, but which you may like to consider:

  • "a portrait of an aged Queen Victoria wearing a diadem partially hidden by a widow's veil, designed by Thomas Brock" – although few, if any, will mistake your meaning, it might still be as well to make it crystal clear that Brock designed the portrait and not just the veil. Shifting "designed by T B" up to follow "portrait" would do the job.
  • "the chancellor of the Exchequer, George Goschen" – I'm blest if I can see why this dignitary is deprived of his capital C when lesser mortals such as the Deputy Governor of the Bank of England, the Chairman of the National Provincial Bank and the President of the Royal Academy get the full ulc treatment. (Looking at our article on the C of the E, it seems that the form is to capitalise "Chancellor of the Exchequer" but not "the chancellor".)
  • "Deputy Governor … deputy master" – further in-and-out running in capitalisation. I won't go on about "prime minister", "empress of India" or "Star of the Garter" or we'll end up sticking straws in our hair.

The article is clear, the prose is good, the illustrations are impressive and the sources, old and new, are many and varied. I'm happy to support promotion to FA. Tim riley talk 06:39, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review and support. I've made that slight change in the lead and capitalised where it seems appropriate.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:04, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Leonard Neale[edit]

Nominator(s): Ergo Sum 15:43, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is another article in the Georgetown University presidents series and the last necessary to promote its topic from Good to Featured status, an uncommon event! This article is a GA and I believe it meets FA standards. Plus, the subject's brother, Francis Neale, is already a FA. Ergo Sum 15:43, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:Leonard_Neale_portrait.jpg: is there a source indicating pre-1927 publication? The copyright info provided at the source is self-contradictory
  • File:Leonard_Neale.jpg includes an 1891 published source but also a claim of unpublished - these seem to contradict each other. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:16, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm working on tracking these down. Ergo Sum 11:56, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Query by WereSpielChequers[edit]

Nice read, an intersection of topics about which I know very little.

I'm assuming this chap was the first Roman Catholic bishop consecrated after independance, and that others had been consecrated in the 13 states before the revolution? Either way it might be worth qualifying this, with maybe a footnote or see also for any earlier consecrations in Miami or New Orleans.
As far as I can tell, Neale was, in fact, the first bishop ordained in any of the territory that is today the United States, including areas that were not part of the 13 colonies. I don't have any indication that bishops were ordained before Neale in Florida, Louisiana, or the Spanish missions in California or the Southwestern U.S. Do you have a source that says there were? Ergo Sum 11:51, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Given that Puerto Rico had bishops for at least two centuries before that I'd be surprised if this was the first consecration on what is now US territory, but the few I've checked do seem to have been consecrated in Europe and sent out. Can I suggest a rephrase to clarify that it was the first Roman Catholic consecration in what is now the continental United States, as I read the article as just claiming he was the first consecrated after independence. ϢereSpielChequers 15:43, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming he became Archbishop after becoming bishop I'd be tempted to swap those two round in the lede, unless there is a pressing reason for the reverse chronology?
With biographies in general and religious biographies in particular, I've noticed that the highest title attained always goes first, unless that person held many titles of comparable stature. Here, Neale's most significant office was certainly Archbishop of Baltimore, so I think it belongs in the first sentence. Ergo Sum 11:53, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The whole suppression and restoration of the Jesuits saga seems underplayed in the article. Unless he left the Jesuits for part of his career or the Jesuits were tolerated where he was? ϢereSpielChequers 17:18, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It does have a whole article on its own. I'm not sure what else that is relevant to Neale can be added. There is already mention of the suppression, how that impacted Neale's plans, and a whole paragraph about his advocacy for the restoration of the Jesuits. Ergo Sum 11:55, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments, WereSpielChequers. I've left some comments above. Ergo Sum 11:56, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Older nominations[edit]

Battle of Van Buren[edit]

Nominator(s): Hog Farm Talk 16:23, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

After Battle of St. Charles and Marmaduke-Walker duel, here is another Confederate failure in Arkansas. Of the three primary Southern figures at Van Buren, you have department commander Holmes who was kicked upstairs for incompetence elsewhere, army commander Hindman who has managed to completely alienate the state where he was once a popular politician, and outpost commander Crump who drew guard duty despite past poor performances in that area. Hog Farm Talk 16:23, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild[edit]

Recusing to review.

As I supported this at ACR less than ten days ago I imagine that I will be doing the same here. But I will have another read through to see if I can find anything to pick at. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:41, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Maybe "Disease, lack of supplies, and desertion had forced Hindman to previously begin withdrawing" → 'Disease, lack of supplies, and desertion had previously forced Hindman to begin withdrawing'?
    • Done
  • "the Union troops struck at an outlying Confederate cavalry unit". Consider deleting "at".
    • Done
  • "He was then replaced by Major General Theophilus Holmes". I'm not sure that "then" is necessary.
    • Done
  • "Hindman decided that it would be impractical to keep most of his force north of the Arkansas River in Van Buren given the condition of his army, and pulled most of his men south of the Arkansas to Fort Smith". "... most of his ... most of his ..."
    • Rephrased the first one
  • "had to travel through cold weather". Can one travel through weather?
    • Went with "during"; the other is a bit of a midwesternism (Missouri's half south and half midwest, so the English is a bit on the sketchy end)
  • Is there anything to link "commissary" to?
    • No great one unless it's well hidden. A specific military function in US armies at the time (the Confederates copied large swathes of the US Army structure)
  • "One of the Union mountain howitzers fired on the ferry at Van Buren, killing the horse powering it". The horse was on the ferry?

And that trivia is all I have. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:29, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Suggest adding alt text
  • File:Abraham_Lincoln_-_a_history_(1914)_(14583544379)_(cropped).jpg: is a more specific tag available?
    • Yes, the book it's from was published before 1927, so I've added that tag
  • File:Flag_of_the_Confederate_States_of_America_(May_1861_–_July_1861).svg: why is the uploader believed to hold copyright to this image? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:19, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not sure what exactly to do with this - the design has been published since it was created in 1861 so it's clearly pre-1927 PD, and Confederate copyright would have expired in 1889 because there would have been no way to renew after 1865 for ... reasons. Hog Farm Talk 03:03, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Funk[edit]

  • Will have a look soon. FunkMonk (talk) 02:02, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • A bit of a nitpick, but I wonder if it would look better if the James G. Blunt photo was right aligned, and the cannon photo left aligned? So that they would both turn towards the text instead of away from it?
    • swapper facing
  • No image for the infobox?
  • The Van Buren area doesn't seem to be linked in the article body.
    • Oops, fixed
  • Link Indian Territory at first instead of second mention.
    • Moved link
  • The name of R. P. Crump isn't spelled out like other names, which sticks out a bit.
    • Added (he's borderline notable, but not redlinked as an article on him doesn't seem likely in the near future)
  • "the river 2 miles below Van Buren" You give metric conversions elsewhere, but not here.
    • Converted
  • Some places you abbreviate to mi, other places you write out miles, could be consistent.
    • It should now only be miles on the first usage, which I think is reasonable
  • "crossed the river, apparently so that Blunt, Herron, and Huston could claim that they were the first Union officers to cross the Arkansas River" Could say something like "crossed the Arkansas River, apparently so that Blunt, Herron, and Huston could claim that they were the first Union officers to cross it", to avoid repetition of river and keep it concise?
    • Done
  • Link Parrott rifle and Fort Smith in image captions.
    • Done
  • "had previously forced Hindman to previously begin" Do we need the double "previously"?
    • Removed the second one

@FunkMonk: - I've implemented all of these except the infobox image. Any thoughts on using the map? Hog Farm Talk 01:59, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the map could hurt at least. FunkMonk (talk) 10:59, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - looks nice to me now. FunkMonk (talk) 10:59, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've added the map to the infobox now, although I've had to shrink/move the other map to avoid MOS:SANDWICH issues. Hog Farm Talk 14:23, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Toa Payoh MRT station[edit]

Nominator(s): ZKang123 (talk) 07:21, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Singapore's oldest MRT station, and this is my 5th FAC nomination. I hope for a successful review, and to have it passed and featured on 7 November. ZKang123 (talk) 07:21, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review Licensing looks fine but source is needed in the image description of File:SGMRT-LRT (zoom) map.svg for the location of the transit lines. (t · c) buidhe 07:41, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • buidhe Updated image description taken from here.--ZKang123 (talk) 08:04, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      That's better but I don't think open street map contributors are a reliable source since it's an open source project just like WP. Is there an official map that could be cited instead for the line layout? (t · c) buidhe 08:23, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      @Buidhe Added OneMap as source ZKang123 (talk) 08:27, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Great, pass ir. (t · c) buidhe 16:39, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: Overall, a great article! However the prose is not exactly up to par in my opinion. Seeing "station" 4 times in the row at the start of "Station details" paragraphs is both repetitive and boring and some phrases are very ambiguous ("Train frequencies vary"?, "extension of eight months and additional monetary claims in November 1985" – is the extension or the claims made in Nov. 1985? Or is it just the claims?) CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 13:18, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Technical ramblings: Image placement can be improved by moving two center-aligned images to "Station details" section; there's no reason to collapse the track layout template as it is very short; some numbers can be written out such as 2.5 to 5 minutes -> two and a half to five minutes; "Notes and references" and its child headings are redundant, you only need "Notes" and "References" level 1 heading only; the note itself need wikilinking; DEFAULTSORT is redundant. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 13:23, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
moving two center-aligned images to "Station details" section
The two center-aligned images are there rather than in "Station details" as a compromise solution. Reason being that the track layout is floated right (seems to be the norm in these articles) and depending on screen/browser width, text size or zoom settings, it can interact with the infobox to cause really awkward layout, something like this. {{clear}} has been applied before the "Station details" heading to remedy that, but it causes a different issue on wider screens, leaving a really large blank space between sections due to the height of the infobox. The images help fill that space. 2406:3003:2077:1E60:C998:20C6:8CCF:5730 (talk) 09:01, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@CactiStaccingCrane made changes as per requested ZKang123 (talk) 06:35, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
2406:3003:2077:1E60:C998:20C6:8CCF:5730: I understand, thanks for the explanation. ZKang123: Thanks for your edits! I don't think my reviews are comprehensive enough for a support, but I do think that the prose is better now. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 08:17, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from ChrisTheDude[edit]

  • "this station is integrated" - I would just say "the station is integrated". It's clear that in the article you are only going to be talking about this station.
  • It looks ever so slightly odd to have two images floating above the text in the first section but I guess there is nowhere else for them to go
    • Seems someone moved them around for me.--ZKang123 (talk) 08:04, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A plaque at this station" => "A plaque at the station"
  • "the contractor requested for an extension of eight months and additional claims" - I don't think this makes sense. What were the "additional claims"?
  • "It was later announced in September 1987 that the section will open on 7 November that year" => firstly, this should be "It was later announced in September 1987 that the section would open on 7 November that year". And secondly, in the previous sentence you said it was set to open in 1988. Do we have any info on why they were able to open it ahead of schedule?
    • Source states that the MRT construction had plenty of public support and MRTC ability to coordinate the MRT projects.--ZKang123 (talk) 08:04, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "About 44,000 people visited the station" - this is an extremely short sentence, I would combine it with the previous one
    • Added "During the preview," at start of sentence.--ZKang123 (talk) 08:04, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "But many expressed excitement and curiosity" - can't start a sentence with "But". Just remove the word completely, it will still make sense
  • "with plenty others" => "with plenty of others"
  • "On the day itself, the emergency button was activated at this station" => "On the day itself, the emergency button was activated at Toa Payoh"
  • "On 8 January 2006, this station" => "On 8 January 2006, Toa Payoh"
  • "The station has two underground levels: The upper" - the second "the" does not start a new sentence so should not have a capital letter
  • That's what I got on a first pass! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:46, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
looks ever so slightly odd to have two images floating above the text
I've attempted some layout tweaks, hopefully the new image placement is less awkward for the overall layout.
  • For History section, highlight the commemorative plaque by placing it at top of section. Float left.
  • Put photos of concourse and platform levels together in horizontal gallery at bottom of History section. Thumbnail heights matched, align centered
  • These could have been used to accompany the text description in the Station details section. But for layout reasons, putting here helps fills space (esp. on desktops with larger screens) before the {{clear}} needed ahead of Station details and {{Routemap}}.
HTH! — 2406:3003:2077:1E60:C998:20C6:8CCF:5730 (talk) 06:16, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Epicgenius[edit]

Lead[edit]
  • "HDB (Housing and Development Board)" - Should the full name be mentioned before the abbreviation?
  • "Lorong 1 Toa Payoh, Lorong 2 Toa Payoh and Lorong 6 Toa Payoh" - Are these all street names?
    • Eh yes. (also lit means Toa Payoh Lane 1, 2, 6 etc)--ZKang123 (talk) 08:04, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • By the way, what does Toa Payoh mean? You may want to expand the lead a bit with details such as the station design and etymology.
    • Actually in the GA reviewed version the etymology was there. Then I removed it at some point because some other GA stated that wasn't necessary. Might re-include.--ZKang123 (talk) 08:04, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think it would be good if you did include a brief etymology here, given how you included such an etymology before. Epicgenius (talk) 15:10, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The station was constructed as part of Phase I of the MRT system." - You may want to add details about when Phase I was proposed and when construction started, since you already have details about when construction was completed and when the station opened.
    • I already stated late when construction started. Oh nvm, thought you were talking about the body. Fixed.--ZKang123 (talk) 08:04, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yeah, these comments are solely about the lead. Epicgenius (talk) 15:10, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "On 7 November 1987, the station was one of the first MRT stations to open for revenue service." - I'd split this into two ideas, e.g. "The station opened on 7 November 1987 and was one of the first MRT stations to operate in revenue service."

I will leave more comments later. – Epicgenius (talk) 16:54, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Should the full name be mentioned before the abbreviation?
An unusual situation, because the building is properly named "HDB Hub", using the abbreviation rather than the full name of the government body that it houses(ha!). I will tweak the phrasing.
Are these all street names?
Yes. Tweaked wording before to "underneath the street intersection between..." to help make that more explicit. Those are the official street names used in English (originating from Malay), so replacing with a translation isn't appropriate. Would a wiktionary link help?
what does Toa Payoh mean?
It is a place name; the article for that has been linked, and does discuss its etymology. The station being named for the area it serves is unremarkable and I don't think it really merits further elaboration.
split this into two ideas
Agreed and done.
– 2406:3003:2077:1E60:C998:20C6:8CCF:5730 (talk) 18:57, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding your second reply: yes, a Wiktionary link will be very helpful, as it's not a particularly common term in most of the English-speaking world. As for what Toa Payoh means, I would like to know the nominator's opinion on including etymology. While it may seem evident that the station is named after the planning area, other articles about MRT stations, such as Dhoby Ghaut, do explain the station's etymology in the article itself. – Epicgenius (talk) 04:37, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
History[edit]
  • "Toa Payoh station was included in the early plans of the MRT network in May 1982." - This should probably be "the early plans of the MRT network, published in May 1982".
  • "as part of the Phase I MRT segment" - Should this be "as part of the Phase I segment of the MRT"?
    • Hmm, as there's like '...of the a of the b', I find this alternative to be even weirder. Perhaps because of how repetitive it is?--ZKang123 (talk) 08:02, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This segment was given priority as it passes through areas" - There is a tense mismatch; it should probably be "passed through areas".
  • "The line aimed to relieve the traffic congestion on the Thomson–Sembawang road corridor." - Relieving congestion specifically on that road, or on a general corridor?
  • "the Toa Payoh and Novena station" - The word "stations" should be plural.
  • "the Toa Payoh Central bus terminal was relocated to an adjacent site" - Was this because the bus station was right above the MRT station site?
  • "beginning of the MRT network construction" - I suggest "beginning of the construction of the MRT network".
    • Similarly, I feel '...of the a of the b', to be even weirder.--ZKang123 (talk) 08:02, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Due to various soil conditions, " - This was announced after the topping-out?
  • "It was later announced in September 1987 that the section would open earlier on 7 November" - First, I would delete "later". Second, instead of saying "the section would open earlier on 7 November", I would say "the section's opening date was rescheduled to 7 November" (the reader presumably already knows that 7 November is an earlier date than early 1988).
  • "the station was opened for a preview" - I'd say something like "the station hosted a preview"
  • "Many expressed excitement and curiosity, with plenty of others planning to take the MRT ride on the system's debut" - You may want to say which news source reported this. Otherwise it may be seen as a bit irrelevant
    • Well, I did a bit more elaboration to highlight the people's experiences of visiting the early stations.--ZKang123 (talk) 08:02, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "was the most visited out of the opened stations" - This wording is a bit weird. I'd say "was the most visited station on the newly completed line" or something like that.
  • "backed and commissioned the planning" - I'd also rephrase "backed" as it's a bit vague. For example, if Cheong funded the project, say "funded". If he championed the construction of the MRT system, say something like "advocated for".
  • "inaugurated the start of MRT operations" - This phrasing is a bit redundant; one would not inaugurate the end of something. I'd say "inaugurated MRT operations" or, even better, "started MRT operations".
  • "On the day itself" - I'd also get rid of "itself" since the reflexive pronoun isn't used like that.
  • "flood prevention measures at this station, alongside 11 other MRT stations" - Do you know what types of measures? Also, I suggest "along with" rather than "alongside".
    • Added flood barriers as one of the prevention measures.--ZKang123 (talk) 08:02, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

More later. Epicgenius (talk) 15:10, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Epicgenius Any further comments? ZKang123 (talk) 06:30, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I forgot about this. I will add more comments in a bit. – Epicgenius (talk) 21:50, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Station details[edit]
  • "Toa Payoh serves the North South line (NSL) between the Braddell and Novena stations." - The current sentence makes it sound like Toa Payoh serves the NSL, which only runs between Braddell and Novena. I'd separate the sentence into two ideas, e.g. "Toa Payoh serves the North South line (NSL) and is between the Braddell and Novena stations on that line."
  • "Being part of the NSL, the station is operated by SMRT Trains" - Do you mean that SMRT operates the NSL and all stations on that line? If so, you should say that directly.
  • "The station is also situated" - The word "situated" is unnecessary.
  • "Toa Payoh means 'big swamp’ in the Hokkien dialect (with ‘Toa’ meaning ‘big’ and ‘Payoh’ meaning ‘swamp’), a reference to the large swampy area which existed prior to the development of Chinese market gardens in the area" - A couple issues here:
    • This is a long sentence. I would recommend splitting this into two sentences or, at the very least, adding a semicolon between the two parts of the sentence.
    • I think "in the area" is also repetitive; I'd say something like "there". E.g.: "Toa Payoh means 'big swamp’ in the Hokkien dialect (with 'Toa' meaning 'big' and 'Payoh' meaning 'swamp'); the name is a reference to the large swampy area which existed prior to the development of Chinese market gardens there".
  • "The station has two underground levels: the conourse at the upper level and the platforms at the lower level" - The word "concourse" is misspelled. Additionally, you can simplify this by saying "The station has two underground levels: the concourse above and the platforms below." Or "The station is underground, with a concourse on the upper level and the platforms on the lower level".
  • "has the island platform arrangement" - This can be simplified to "has an island platform".

More later. – Epicgenius (talk) 20:26, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Back to the Future[edit]

Nominator(s): Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:55, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dun dun dunnnnnnnn dun dun dun dun dun dunnnnnnnn da da da dun dun dun dun dun da dunnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn

You should now hopefully have the song stuck in your head for a while. This article is about Back to the Future, possibly the greatest family film ever made about a kid going back in time and almost accidentally having sex with his mom. Pure family entertainment with an enduring legacy, it is now your turn to go feel the power of love and supply the 1.21 gigawatts of electricity needed to elevate this article to FA status. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:55, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support, watched the film a few weeks ago and never knew that it is on FAC! I think that this article shines when you reads the whole thing, and with an exception of technical stuff, there's nothing much that I can think of to improve the article further. Some copyediting by others may be helpful, which is usually done in FAC anyways. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 13:22, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

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

  • Missing alts for File:Michael J Fox 2020.jpg, File:Christopher Lloyd May 2015.jpg, File:Lea Thompson by Gregg Bond (2008) (cropped).jpg and File:Crispin Glover 2012 Shankbone.JPG

Other alts are pretty descriptive enough.--ZKang123 (talk) 07:28, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review: Passed ZKang123 (talk) 01:03, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt[edit]

  • "Doctor Emmett "Doc" Brown (Lloyd). " I might omit the "Doctor"
  • "Trapped in the past," I might change "Trapped" to "While". Marty may not yet know how he's going to return to 1985, but he's not trapped in the past.
  • "inadvertently prevents his future parents' meeting" I wish I could come up with a better way of expressing this. It probably isn't their first meeting. George certainly knows who Lorraine is, and when Marty is urging Lorraine to go out with George, she knows who he's talking about. Maybe "inadvertently prevents his future parents from falling in love"?
  • " Biff has been bullying him since high school" perhaps "Biff was bullying George even then"
  • "Lorraine was supposed to meet George instead of Marty after the car accident" perhaps "George was supposed to be hit by the car, and tended by Lorraine"
  • "Back to the Future features a 1985-era cast that includes" Maybe "Also featuring in the 1985 portion of the film" or similar. I similarly suggest changing the "1955-era". I might even mention Strickland last, after detailing the 1985 characters and the 1955 characters.
  • Some of the cast members, for example Tolkan, are double-linked.
  • "serves as the Twin Pines ranch where Marty lands in 1955 and Puente Hills Mall in Rowland Heights is the Twin Pines mall that replaces the ranch in 1985." Do you want to footnote that Marty's killing of a pine causes these names to change?
  • "and Griffith Park, where Marty begins his drive to the courthouse to return to 1985, crossing by a lamp post, situated outside of the Greek Theatre.[80]" What does "crossing by" mean here?
  • "The flying DeLorean used a combination of live-action footage" I might throw in an "in the final scene".
  • "Even so, Marty's future is enriched at the expense of others." Anyone else besides Biff?
  • "Where most people can only know their parents, Marty is given the opportunity to see his parents as his peers, when they were his age and shared the same ambitions and dreams as him." The first part of this sentence doesn't really say what you want it to. Really, this is saying the same thing as what Thompson says in the Legacy section about kids and dreams and it might be good simply to replace the above with what she said.
That's pretty much it.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:13, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Wehwalt, thanks for taking the time to review this, these are the changes I've made, I think I've hit everything. Thank you again. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 20:51, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Changes look good.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:18, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Kusma[edit]

This is an amazingly comprehensive and well written article. I will do a close reading later, just one thing for now:

  • "Most reviewers agreed the film was almost the year's most entertaining, which offered a return to a focus on storytelling, despite Paul Attanasio considering some aspects to be "mechanically" designed to create the broadest audience appeal." This is a bit convoluted, and it seems to me that many reviewers actually did consider the film to be the year's most entertaining. Maslin in the NY Times writes "easily the most sustained and entertaining of this summer's adventure fables", for example. Can you re-word this?

More later! —Kusma (talk) 09:01, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done, that "almost" was meant to be "among", my bad, but I've copyedited it further. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 10:34, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lead and post-production section: "more time in theaters" isn't accurate; what is meant is more times during the peak summer season.
  • Lead: I'd prefer "three Saturn awards" as "an Academy Award, Saturn Awards, and a Hugo Award" reads a bit odd.
  • Cast: Why no cite for Fox/Marty? (for completeness, as the others all have cites)
  • Comma before respectively? (Not sure)
  • Conception and writing: "Originally, the changes to 1955 had a more significant impact on 1985, making it more futuristic" I don't know who "it" is here: 1985 or the movie?
  • Some of the Casting section is actually about filming, but it seems to work OK.
  • Filming with Stoltz: " he and Zemeckis collaborated on Romancing the Stone" had collaborated?
  • Special effects: "Optical department" looks odd; optical department or Optical Department (as in the source)?
  • Delorean: "The time machine was conceived " consider adding originally for clarity?
  • Art direction and makeup: "Actual brand names, such as Texaco were" Curious whether this would work better with zero or with two commas? (Not a native speaker so ignore me if I am wrong)
  • Context "avoid the negative perception of films released later in the summer period, instead of early like other blockbuster films" is that a thing?
  • Box office: "ahead of Independence Day holiday weekend" add the?
  • "the western Pale Rider" Western?
  • Cultural influences: "$78,500 was crowdfunded" when was that?
  • Sequel: do we know when they changed their mind about making a sequel? The current prose doesn't flow well from "sequel not originally planned" to "sequel written and split in two parts".

Think that's all! —Kusma (talk) 15:31, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done. The part about "Context 'avoid the negative perception of films released later in the summer period, instead of early like other blockbuster films' is that a thing?", yes that's a thing. May/June/July are the big months, while successful films can be released outside these (in December for example) studios rarely released big films expected to do well later in the summer, because if it was meant to do well you'd want it in theaters during the busiest time of the year. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 19:53, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My point about "western" was that is often in capitals, but Pale Rider can't make up its mind about that either, so lowercase probably works too. Other changes are fine, especially the sequel story is much better now. Happy to support. —Kusma (talk) 20:18, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Kusma! Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:01, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ovinus[edit]

Exciting. Coordinators: are spotchecks still needed? If so I can perform them. In any case, will review over the next week or so since it's a long one. Ovinus (talk) 22:02, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ippantekina[edit]

  • "A development deal was secured" with whom?
  • "delayed production and the film's release date but, following highly successful test screenings, the date was brought forward to July 3, 1985" wordy
  • Link critics to film criticism
  • "Critics praised the story, comedy" but the first sentence does not introduce it as a comedy
  • "was also a global success" WP:PEACOCK
  • "is now considered to be" by whom?

This is gonna be a long read... More to follow. Ippantekina (talk) 10:33, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:38, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1989–90 Gillingham F.C. season[edit]

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:40, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here is my 14th nomination of a season in the history of my beloved Gillingham F.C. This was the club's first season for 15 years at the fourth level of English football, which is timely as they have just been relegated to the fourth tier once again - sad times....... As ever, feedback will be most gratefully received and promptly acted upon..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:40, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:Peter_Heritage.jpg: the description states this was previously published on the town website - is there evidence of permission for republication? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:07, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Nikkimaria: - I hadn't noticed that one line on the Commons page. Switched for a different image to be on the safe side -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:19, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Nikkimaria: - BTW, not that it really makes any difference, but for 100% clarity when it says the picture had been previously published on the Eastbourne Town website, it means the website of the football club Eastbourne Town, not that of the actual town of Eastbourne :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:52, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • Nope, doesn't matter Face-wink.svg New image is fine though. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:29, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild[edit]

Recusing to review.

  • "meaning that they started the new season with a number of teenagers in the team. Gillingham started the season in poor form". " ... started the new season ... started the season ..." A little repetitive. Any chance of a bit of variation.
  • "goalkeeper Jeremy Roberts played as a trialist in that game ... he never played a game for Gillingham". Er ...
  • "he played for the first time in the home game against Scunthorpe United". How can it be his first game if he had scored "7 goals in 13 games"?
  • "after three league games they were still yet to score a goal". Delete "still".
  • "Lovell scored the only goal in the last 10 minutes". This has another meaning than the one you intend and so could do with rephrasing.
  • Link semi-professional.
  • "Key". In those competitions where they don't apply, is it helpful to include "o.g." and "pen."?
  • "both made a total of 51 appearances". "both" → 'each'. Likewise in the lead.

That is all I have. Lovely stuff. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:23, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: - all addressed, let me know what you think now....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:30, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Wehwalt[edit]

  • "but then slipped down the table after losing six consecutive games;" the slipping no doubt happened "as" or "whilst" losing, rather than "after".
  • "With injuries also ruling out Alan Walker, Tim O'Shea and Brian Clarke and further new signings not yet completed,[17] " should there be a comma after O'Shea? This seems to be your general practice.
  • "The draw, along with the results of the day's other games, left Gillingham nine points off the play-off places and therefore, with two games remaining and a maximum of six points available, unable to finish the season with any possibility of promotion." This seems a bit long-winded, especially the final clause. Cannot it be shortened?
That's all I have.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:49, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Wehwalt: - many thanks for your review, see what you think of these changes -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:32, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Wehwalt: - any further comments? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:57, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
All looks good. Support.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:27, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by FrB.TG[edit]

  • I made small changes here where I eliminated a great number of white spaces. There are other instances as well. Check throughout. Support otherwise. FrB.TG (talk) 14:34, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Galeb-class minelayer[edit]

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:27, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This hardy class of mine warfare vessels were made by Imperial Germany in the last throes of and immediately after WWI. Disarmed, they were sold to the fledgling Yugoslav navy as "tugs", but were quickly re-armed and used initially as training ships and for "show the flag" cruises to introduce the populace to the new navy. They laid mines in the immediate lead-up to the Axis invasion of Yugoslavia, resulting an a couple of "own goals" with friendly merchant ships. Captured by the Italians, they were put into commission as submarine chasers, and escorted merchant ships supplying the forces in North Africa. Subjected to air and submarine attacks, the six had been whittled down to one by the end of the war. The survivor was used to help clear the thousands of mines that had been laid in Yugoslav waters during the war, and wasn't disposed of until 1962. Good to be back at FAC. Have at it! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:27, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review licensing looks ok but the claim "virtually identical to the Galeb class" needs citation (t · c) buidhe 08:35, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I tweaked the caption and added a cited sentence to the body to support the new caption wording. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:49, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild[edit]

Recusing to review.

  • "The M 1 class comprised 137 ships built between 1914 and 1918". Should "1918" → '1919'?
Yep, fixed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:32, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Regia Marina (Italian Royal Navy) also acquired two M 1 class M1916 sub-class ships in 1921. These sister ships were M 120 and M 121" M 121 is shown in the list immediately after this as being the Yugoslav Kobac.
Doh, typo. Fixed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:32, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "to drive two three-cylinder vertical triple expansion engines driving two propeller shafts". "... drive ... driving ...". Optional: "to drive" → 'to power'.
Sure, fixed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:32, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In RM service". In full at first mention.
Fixed, actually KM... Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:32, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I thought it might be.
  • "In Yugoslav service" section: suggest moving the third sentence to the end of the paragraph, so all the information on armament is together. Optionally move the first sentence up to the information on design speed, so all of that is together.
It is intentionally in chronological order, so that the first para is "as they were initially set up" in 1921, the second reflects the armament changes in 1931, and the last reflects the post-war changes to the remaining ship. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:32, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a maximum range of 12,300 km (7,600 mi)". Extraordinary!!
LOL! Yep. Fixed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:32, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "They were renamed ... respectively." Why "respectively"?
Good point, a "pre-table" hangover. Deleted. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:32, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild (talk) 19:52, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a look, Gog! I think I've got them all. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:32, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Indy beetle[edit]

Let me know when you're done with Gog's comments, then I'll review. -Indy beetle (talk) 17:52, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GTG, Indy beetle. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:33, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • For "Description and construction" part, it might be worth qualifying the first part with an "Original configuration" subheading. For the part of the "Service history" section where you delve into each ship, it might be worth to qualify this as "Italian service history", and the first half as "Yugoslav service history".
Good idea, have done some re-organising of the structure. See what you think? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:59, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • In 1938–39 Jastreb was refitted for oil-firing only. I presume you mean oil-fired boilers? Would be good to specify.
Yes, done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:59, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The part about the two ships attempting to join the NDH Navy is not represented at Navy of the Independent State of Croatia. Not cirtical for this article, obviously, but I think should be mentioned there.
Sure, I have to go through all Yugo/NDH navy articles and add material from Freivogel. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:59, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • She was renamed Zelengora in 1955, and was finally disposed of in 1962. Is the nature of the disposal known, or was it simply struck from the register?
Checked and clarified. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:59, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • When the Italians withdrew from Benghazi on 18 November 1942, they scuttled her wreck in an attempt to block the entrance to the harbour. Was the wreck ever raised?
I can't find a reference to it, but it seems likely. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:59, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

-Indy beetle (talk) 09:12, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All done I reckon, Indy beetle. See what you think? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:59, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Seems good here. -Indy beetle (talk) 02:16, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

  • Conway's is actually an anthology; if you page to the front of the book, you can see who wrote which chapter. And yes, there are thousands of these entries that we need to correct.
Can you throw me a bone here, Sturm? I only have scans of the Yugo chapter and they don't mention the author. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:24, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Tsk, tsk! Done, but I'll let you change the cites in the article.
Thanks! Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:49, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link Friedman and add the subtitle of the book
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:24, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link Gröner. German Warships 1815–1945 is the title of the book, volume 2 has the title that you're listing first
I think I've fixed this. Perhaps there is a better way of doing this? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:24, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've fixed this one as well. Best thing to do is to put the volume subtitle in the volume field since the book is a two-volume set, not a series.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:46, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Spot checks not made given the nominators extensive history
  • All sources are known to me as highly reliable--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:07, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Partly done, just need a hand with one thing above. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:24, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Supporting--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:46, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Pendright[edit]

Lead:

  • The Galeb class were minelayers originally built as minesweepers for the Imperial German Navy between 1918 and 1919, and were also known as the Orao class.
and [they] were also known as the Orao class.
  • Re-armed with two Škoda 90 mm (3.5 in) guns and two anti-aircraft machine guns, they could [also] carry 24 or 30 naval mines.
Your call!
  • In the lead-up to the April 1941 Axis invasion of Yugoslavia several ships of the class laid minefields off the Yugoslav coast, which probably resulted in the sinking of two Yugoslav merchant ships.
Add a comma between Yugoslavia & several
  • The remaining vessel escaped being captured by the Germans during the Italian surrender in September 1943, and was handed back to the Royal Yugoslav Navy-in-exile at Malta in December.
and [it] was handed back to the Royal Yugoslav Navy-in-exile...
  • This surviving ship was handed back to the Yugoslav Navy after the war and immediately employed to help clear the thousands of mines laid in Yugoslav waters during the war.
handed back -> returned
All done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:28, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Description and construction:

  • The M 1 class comprised 137 ships built between 1914 and 1919, divided into three sub-classes, M1914, M1915 and M1916, each with progressive improvements.
each with progressive improvements-> such as?
  • These sister ships were [the] M 119 and M 120.[3]
AFAIK the convention is to drop the definite article. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:51, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest "the" above addition?
No, I would rather not. The approach I've used is very common in sources. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:09, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The ship hulls were of transverse steel frame construction with a box keel.[5]
Do you mean the hulls of the ships?
  • With their minesweeping gear extended, they could maintain a maximum speed of 12.5–13 knots (23.2–24.1 km/h; 14.4–15.0 mph). They were equipped with two yawls as ship's boats.[8] They were armed with two 105 mm (4.1 in) SK L/45 naval guns[a], and carried 120 rounds for each gun. They could carry 30 naval mines.
In this series of sentences the pronoun "they" is used three times?
All done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:51, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In Yugoslav service:

  • In Royal Yugoslav Navy (Serbo-Croatian Latin: Kraljevska mornarica; Serbo-Croatian Cyrillic: Краљевска морнарица; КМ) service, the highest recorded speed of any of the ships was 15 knots (28 km/h; 17 mph).
In "the" Royal
I don't think so, AFAIK it should be either the way it is, or "In the service of the Royal Yugoslav Navy...", but I much prefer it this way. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:04, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • When [the ships] they were acquired by the KM as "tugs" in 1921, their original armament had been removed.[10][11]
Suggest the above?
Sure. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:04, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • In KM service , their official crew numbered 19, but as they were training ships , this was supplemented with instructors and students, and shortly before the Axis invasion in April 1941 the complement was increased to 40.[10]
Can you live with these Changes?
Much better, thanks. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:04, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • These were surplus Austro-Hungarian Navy guns, [and they were] intended for mounting on ships that were incomplete at the end of World War I.
  • They [The guns] had been sent to Pula and the Bay of Kotor as coastal artillery, and [they] were seized by the Serbian Army as the war ended, and thus avoided being acquired by the occupying French forces.[10
Both done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:04, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • These guns weighed 1,180 kg (2,600 lb) each, and together with the mount, [weighed] 3,910 kg (8,620 lb).
Suggest the above changes
Went for something like that. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:04, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The shells weighed 10.2 kg (22 lb), and [they] could be fired at a rate of between three and eleven per minute to [for] a maximum range of 12,300 m (40,400 ft).
Partially done. I think shells are fired "to" a maximum range, not "for" it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:04, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • In [the] Yugoslav Navy service following World War II, the engines of the surviving ship were rated at 1,600 indicated horsepower (1,200 kW) and her top speed remained 15 kn.
No, the definite article is not used in this situation AFAIK. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:04, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Her crew was increased to 68. Her [The ship's] armament was replaced by two Vickers QF 2-pounder naval guns, one twin German 20 mm (0.79 in) Flak 38 and two twin Browning 12.7 mm (0.50 in) machine guns.
See above changes
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:04, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Service history: Yugoslav service:

  • The six minesweepers were bought by the government of the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes (later Yugoslavia) on 20 July 1921, for 1,400,000 marks each.
Drop the comma after 1921.
  • They were used as training ships for the fledgling navy, and engaged in "show the flag" cruises along the Adriatic coast and islands, introducing the navy to the populace.
Who engaged?
Both addressed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 12:36, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • In 1932, the British naval attaché reported that Yugoslav ships were engaging in little gunnery training, and few exercises or manoeuvres, due to reduced budgets.[17]
  • the British -> "a" British?
No, there was only one at any given time. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 12:36, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • add "the crews of" between that & Yugoslav
  • Drop the comma after gunnery training
These done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 12:36, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the weeks prior to the April 1941 German-led Axis invasion of Yugoslavia, the ships of the class laid several protective minefields along the coast.
Which coast?
Adriatic (Yugoslavia only had one coast, but that is assumed knowledge), added. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 12:36, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kobac's crew defected with their ship to the newly-created fascist puppet state [called or referred to as] the Independent State of Croatia (Serbo-Croatian: Nezavisna Država Hrvatska, NDH) at Šibenik on 10 April, but she was soon after seized by the Italian navy.
See the above change
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 12:36, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The crews of Galeb and Labud also sailed to Šibenik in an attempt to join the NDH navy, but [they] were intercepted and captured by the Italians on 17 and 21 April respectively.
See the above change
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 12:36, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • All six ships were re-commissioned as submarine chasers, and used as escorts on the supply routes between Italy and North Africa and along the North African coast.
and "they were" used
Sure, done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 12:36, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Selve:

  • From 1 to 4 August, Selve, Eso, and the Rosolino Pilo-class torpedo boat Giuseppe Dezza escorted the steamer Istria from Tripoli to Benghazi, and on 7 and 8 August, Selve and her sister Oriole escorted the steamer Iseo from Benghazi to Tobruk – also in Italian Libya.
Why the conma after August?
Because it follows a dependent introductory phrase and it indicates a pause. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 12:36, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Selve, along with the torpedo boat Sagittario, escorted the steamers Sibilla and Albachiara from Tobruk to Benghazi between 11 and 13 August.
Why the comma after Sagittario
there are commas both before and after the parenthetical element about Sagittario also being involved in the escort because the parenthetical element could be removed without changing the meaning of the sentence, as the subject is Selve, not Sagittario. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 12:36, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • On 31 August and 1 September, Selve escorted the steamer Alato from Tobruk to Derna in Italian Libya, and [she] was quickly joined by two German submarine chasers escorting Olympos to the same port.
See above changes
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 12:36, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • From 14 to 20 September, Selve escorted the steamer Sportivo from Benghazi to Tripoli, and on the [her] return voyage between 29 September and 1 October escorted the steamers Amba Alagi and Anna Maria.[27]
See the above chaanges
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 12:36, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Zuri then Oriole:

  • Brook was attacked and slightly damaged by Allied aircraft on 14 January, but [she] made it to Palermo under her own power.[29]
See the above change
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 12:36, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • After repairs following the collision with Eso, on 8 July[,] Oriole replaced the La Masa-class torpedo boat Enrico Cosenz, which, along with the Turbine-class destroyer Turbine was escorting the tanker Pici Fassio from Trapani to Tripoli.
See above changes
No, that would change the meaning of the sentence. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 12:36, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • She was scuttled by her crew on 10 July 1943 at Augusta, Sicily, in the face of advancing British troops,[16] following damage [she] sustained in an air attack south of Messina.
See above changes
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 12:36, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Zirona[edit]

  • Zirona had a short career in Italian service, as she was damaged and beached near Benghazi on 24–25 November 1941 after a British air raid, and [she] was partially blown up by the Italians on 28 November.
See above changes
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 12:41, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • When the Italians withdrew from Benghazi on 18 November 1942, they scuttled the wreck[age] in an attempt to block the entrance to the harbour.[27]
See above changes
The source refers to her as a wreck at that stage. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 12:41, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Eso:

  • Eso escorted the steamer Ascianghi from Benghazi to Tobruk between 15 and 19 September, and [she did it] between Tobruk and Tripoli [and again] between 27 September and 2 October.[27]
See the above chsnges
Did something similar. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 12:41, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
All done, Pendright! Thanks for taking a look, see what you think of my responses. Regards, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 12:41, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Supporting - regards - Pendright (talk) 17:03, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

G'day @WP:FAC coordinators: , this looks GTG. Could I have a dispensation for a fresh nom please? Ta, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:59, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Hog Farm Talk 13:55, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nadezhda Alliluyeva[edit]

Nominator(s): Kaiser matias (talk) 16:35, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The second wife of Joseph Stalin, Nadezhda Alliluyeva had a tragic life. Though quite a driven person in her own right, she was forced to temper her goals to appease Stalin, leading to an unhappy life. She died at an early age, and while she likely committed suicide there is some questions about that. Her death had a profound effect on Stalin, who once again lost a wife at a relatively young age. The article went through GA some time ago, and a peer review, and now I think it's ready for here. Kaiser matias (talk) 16:35, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:Stalin_in_exile_1915.jpg: the given tag relies on "known author" for Russian copyright and pre-1927 publication for US - is there evidence for either of those?
  • Is there no image of the subject available? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:35, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For the Stalin image, nothing I can reliably confirm at this time. And honestly with the lack of an image for the subject, I feel it may be better to not have one of him only (I feel it diminishes Alliluyeva's standing as an individual, rather than just being someone's wife). As for Alliluyeva herself, there was one image used previously but it's since been deleted on Commons as it's availability has not been confirmed (I've certainly tried). Kaiser matias (talk) 04:18, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have added an image. It is non-free, but it should satisfy all license requirements. MarcusTraianus (talk) 14:19, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This will need a more expansive FUR, and suggest using {{non-free biog-pic}} instead of the current tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:54, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: It is done.
The tag change is done - the FUR still needs work. And what was the decision around the Stalin image? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:50, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(outdent) Sorry missed the comment about the Stalin image. The source image lists a 1940 publication, so that doesn't match the tag (unknown photographer, so no proof they died before 1942). Kaiser matias (talk) 18:46, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps we could use File:Doctored Stalin-Lenin (cropped)(b).jpg or the similar File:Doctored Stalin-Lenin (cropped).jpg? This image is from the time they were married and has much better free use tagging, with a known author and known date of publication. --RL0919 (talk) 20:34, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks that should definitely work. Kaiser matias (talk) 23:26, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley[edit]

  • "Alliluyeva had several health issues, which combined with her suspicions that her husband was unfaithful led to frequent arguments with him." This seems a non-sequitur. Why should her health issues have led to arguments?
  • "shot herself the night of 9 November 1932" Below you say early in the morning of.
  • "born in 1907 to Stalin's first wife, Kato Svanidze, who died of typhus in 1907" Perhaps "died of typhus later in the same year" to avoid repeating 1907.
  • "moved to Moscow, joining other Bolshevik leaders as the capital was transferred there". Maybe add from St Petersberg.
  • "Zhemchuzhina trailed after her". Trailed is not a good word here. It means to trudge wearily, which I assume is not what you mean.
  • Looks fine. Just a few minor queries. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:01, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Judith Resnik[edit]

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:05, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Judith Resnik, one of the original six American women astronauts who died in the Space Shuttle Challenger disaster. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:05, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Image review—pass (t · c) buidhe 05:48, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, it is a featured article, though I would prefer to split long paragraphs and merge one-sentence ones. All in all, the article is really good! Kudos to the nominator for this. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 02:15, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild[edit]

Recusing to review.

Thanks. This is much appreciated. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:08, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "in military intelligence and aerial reconnaissance in the Pacific Theater and the Occupation of Japan." Possibly some commas, or a mild rephrasing, would avoid the reading that he worked in "aerial reconnaissance in ... the Occupation of Japan"?
    What's the problem? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:01, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    As it stands it reads that Resnik served in both military intelligence and aerial reconnaissance during the occupation of Japan. I am assuming, possibly incorrectly, that there was little call for aerial reconnaissance during the occupation of Japan.
    I am not assuming that. The source says: "He was stationed in New Guinea, and after the war, in Kyoto, Japan, doing both aero reconnaissance and prisoner interrogation." Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:42, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and with whom she became quite close." Why the qualifying "quite"? It seems wishy washy and I can't find where this is in the source given.
    Just my way of talking. Deleted "quite". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:01, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "one of six women selected out of over 8,000 male and female applicants". Is it known how many men were selected?
    Twenty-nine. Added. There is a detailed breakdown in the NASA Astronaut Group 8 article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:01, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "During the second attempt the following day". 'The following day, during the second attempt' would avoid the possibility of a misreading.
    Um, okay. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:01, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Space Shuttle Main Engines". Why the upper case M and E? I note that the source - NASA - uses lower case.
    Lower cased. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:01, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Discovery landed back at Edwards Air Force Base on September 5, after a flight lasting 6 days and 56 minutes." This jars a little as a single sentence paragraph and I don't think it necessary.
    We need it because her time in space is required. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:01, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a trouble bolt on the Space Shuttle Challenger's door." What is "a trouble bolt"?
    Changed to "troublesome". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:01, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Also, was it a threaded bolt or part of door latching/locking mechanism?
  • "reminding the cockpit crew of a switch configuration change". What is "a switch configuration change"?
    Gee, I don't know that either. Looking it up on StackExchange:

    A primary flight instrument for the shuttle pilots was the Attitude Direction Indicator (ADI). In the STS-51L days this was a electromechanical instrument. Pre-launch, the ADI ATTITUDE switch is set to the REF position, although LVLH is the desired frame of reference for flying the Orbiter in "airplane mode". This means that shortly after liftoff, the switch must be moved to LVLH to set up the instrument for a possible ascent abort. Although it was desirable to avoid switch throws during ascent, the switch could not be pre-positioned to LVLH by the Astronaut Support Personnel (ASPs, or "Cape Crusaders") who set the cockpit switches, because there was a singularity in the calculations of LVLH attitude at pitch of 90 degrees (which the Orbiter was at on the pad). [6]

    Any chance of informing the readers of that? Either by adding a brief "translation" or by replacing the technical term with a more plain English version.
    Yes, I have done this. Added it in a footnote. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:42, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Resnik was reading from the launch checklist. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:01, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "three of the crew members' Personal Egress Air Packs were activated for pilot Michael J. Smith and two other crew members." You don't need "three of the crew members" and "pilot Michael J. Smith and two other crew members." (Suggest deleting the former.
    Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:01, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Landmarks and buildings being named for her include". Why do you use the word "being"?
    Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:01, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "verified by flight experience (include launch date)". I don't understand what is meant by the words in parentheses.
    It's part of the application form. Replaced with ellipsis Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:01, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The goal of the center is to increase science, technology, engineering, and mathematics interest in children." This seems a little clumsy, even ungrammatical. Perhaps 'The goal of the center is to increase the interest of children in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics'?
    Reworded as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:01, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • No publisher for Wayne?
    Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:01, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild (talk) 21:46, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Addition thought: "Occupation of Japan"; why the upper case O? Gog the Mild (talk) 17:49, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Just the Occupation query immediately above left, but that doesn't stand in the way of my support. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:52, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    An artefact of the Wikipedia article name. De-capped. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:41, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt[edit]

  • I find the first sentence a bit unwieldy. Can we not cut it off after the disaster and put the other links somewhere else? This leads into my other comment re the lead, that the discussion of her NASA service should be expanded, after all, you use only two paragraphs for the lead. I note that the discussion of her time at NASA is the lead is small in proportion to that in the body of the article.
    Expanded intro. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:42, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "His family had emigrated to Israel in the 1920s," It wasn't Israel yet. Perhaps "British mandatory Palestine" or some such?
    Well spotted. Changed asc suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:42, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • It might be worthy of note (or might not) that in 1962, it was quite unusual for girls to mark their Bat Mitzvah.
    Yes! This points to things to come. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:42, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I suppose it is unusual for the child to be initiator, it's not at all unusual for a court to place custody where a mature teenager prefers, since such a person is the 800-pound gorilla of custody law, that sleeps where they want to.(probably no action required).
    Good to hear; back then the interests of the child were not paramount in the US. I have seen this happen: a teenager decides that they would rather live with their father and just moves out. When the Child Support Agency finds out, they cut the mother's child support payments. But no court action is required. What I've noticed is that most astronauts have good relationships with both their parents, but tend to be closer to their fathers. The only exception I've come across so far has been Scott Carpenter, whose father was absent. But of six biographies of women astronauts, three had bad relationships with their mothers. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:42, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In her second year she developed a passion for electrical engineering, discovering her interest in "practical aspects of science" after attending lectures with her boyfriend and future husband, Michael Oldak, who was on the engineering course.[1] " What do you mean by "who was on the engineering course"? Doesn't sound like AmEng to me. If he was taking the same class, that is already implied; if he was an engineering major, I would phrase it in terms of that.
    Yes. Sometimes you can see me thinking the sentence through. Deleted that phrase. Trying to get AmEng right is a big problem for me. The automated checkers do not pick up on such things. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:42, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Georgetown University law school," I would cap throughout, and possibly say and link "Georgetown University Law Center"
    I don't know why the call it that. I was afraid that readers would think it was a legal aid centre or some such. Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:42, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Jordan later regretted doing so." I might come out and say "After her death, Jordan regretted doing so"
    Just trying not to foreshadow. Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:42, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Was she recruited or did she apply? There apparently was a process, since she dated other candidates.
    Yes, there was an elaborate process, which I have written up at great length in NASA Astronaut Group 8. Changed to "selected". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:42, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Discovery landed back at Edwards Air Force Base on September 5, after a flight lasting 6 days and 56 minutes." Why "back"? It hadn't launched from there.
    Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:42, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Space Shuttle Challenger's door." The door spoken of is perhaps one of the payload bay doors? Then shouldn't "door" be plural?
    No, it was the door. Changed to "hatch". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:42, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it worth mentioning she's commemorated on the Space Mirror Memorial?
    Sure. Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:42, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's it.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:02, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Wehwalt (talk) 16:25, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Kusma[edit]

I reviewed the article for GA and am happy with its sourcing. I am also pleased to see that it has been further improved based on the comments above. I only have some small things:

  • "She piloted the Northrop T-38 Talon." a rather short sentence that perhaps could be clarified by saying that this was part of her astronaut training, not her civilian fun (which isn't obvious if you don't know what type of plane it is).
    Added a bit about this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:26, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "In popular culture" section is a bit short. Is there a way to merge it into "Legacy"? (A well justified "no" would be fine).
    Merged with Legacy section. It was once larger. I had retained it to collect additions. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:26, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd also like to hear that your decision not to talk about Franz Strambach here (author of the most comprehensive Judith Resnik website) is deliberate. I think that arguments could be made in either direction.
    I'd never heard of it. It seems fairly trivial and incidental, but added a footnote about it. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:26, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I had mentioned it while making conversation during the GA review. The footnote strikes the right balance for me (I find it borderline worthy of inclusion in a comprehensive treatment).

That's all from me. —Kusma (talk) 12:45, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Happy now, supporting. —Kusma (talk) 20:05, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Balon Greyjoy[edit]

Article looks in good shape! Some comments:

  • Not all of the photos have alt text.
    Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:58, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Bat Mitzvah was not common at this time." It's not clear how this fits into Resnik's story; was there resistance to her having a Bar Mitzvah?
    The majority of Orthodox and some Conservative Jews still reject the idea that a woman can publicly read from the Torah or lead prayer services. The more important point here that Wehwalt and I are emphasising is that Resnik grew up in an environment that was supportive of female equality. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:58, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Resnik was noticed for "intellectual brilliance" while still in kindergarten" I don't think "intellectual brilliance" needs to be directly quoted; it's not attributed to anyone and can be paraphrased without a loss of meaning.
    The idea was to avoid paraphrasing. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:58, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Why would paraphrasing be avoided on a two word quote? It's not a profound/unique quote. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 09:27, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Removed the quotation marks. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:29, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Playing classical piano with "more than technical mastery", she planned on becoming a professional concert pianist" It's not clear what it means to even be more advanced than technical mastery (which comes across like it is the highest level). Wouldn't it just be appropriate to say she was skilled in piano and planned to become a professional pianist?
    It makes it clear clear that this was a real prospect. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:58, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "When questioned about her intensity at the piano, she replied, "I never play anything softly"." I don't think this adds to any claims of her skills playing piano. Additionally, is this from an interview or just her commenting that she plays the piano loudly?
    She is talking metaphorically. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:58, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, but the metaphor of her playing loudly doesn't translate to her being a skilled pianist. The reference makes no mention of the metaphor, and the sentence itself is pretty close to the reference sentence, albeit flipped around. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 09:27, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:29, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The college entry and major selection is confusing. It starts off by saying she became an electrical engineering student, then goes into her deciding to become an electrical engineering student. Maybe something like, "She began college as a math major, but after attending lectures with her boyfriend, discovered an interest in electrical engineering and switched her major".
    Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:58, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Oldak said, "She was a math whiz, but at some point math lost the numbers and she wanted something more tangible so she switched her collegiate major to electrical engineering"." I think this quote can be paraphrased and put into the previous sentence, as it's already been addressed that she liked math but wanted practical applications.
    Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:58, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Carnegie Mellon University (as it now was)" Maybe move the Carnegie Mellon name change earlier? It's not clear if the college changed its name by the time she graduated, or if the name changed sometime before present day.
    I think it is clear enough that the name changed while she was there. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:58, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "attention of NASA during this time" Anyone particular at NASA? Did someone reach out to ask her about her paper?
    Source doesn't say. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:58, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "he wanted to start a family and she did not" I think this should be that he wanted to have children and she did not; they already had a family between the two of them.
    Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:58, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "After her death, Jordan regretted doing so. "She was an amazing person... I pushed her to excel, and I live with that memory every day."" I don't think this needs to be included. It jumps ahead in the chronology of the article, and it just seems like understandable regret from someone who encouraged her to apply.
    Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:58, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "where she would jog along the beach to improve her stamina and reduce her weight" Is this significant? Was she out of shape/overweight? It seems like it's just someone routinely exercising.
    Resnik struggled with her weight. The reader can see this in the images. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:58, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I may just be desensitized to overweight people in America, but I don't think any of the pictures make it look like Resnik was overweight. It seems like pretty standard exercising, especially for someone trying to be an astronaut. I don't think it needs to be stated, let alone explained why someone would run for exercise. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 09:27, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    In this case it is about her purpose: gaining astronaut selection. It wasn't common back then, especially for women, and demonstrates her determination to be selected. She is the only member her her class that I have examined so far who did this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:57, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This involved taking a pay cut, as her new salary was considerably less than what she was being paid at Xerox." Seeing as her pay isn't mentioned at all through the rest of the article, I'm not sure why this is mentioned. Did it factor into her decision to join NASA?
    Clearly not. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:58, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    So why is it being mentioned then? It seems like an out of place detail. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 09:27, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Precisely because it tells the reader that Resnik was not doing it for the money. Military astronauts were still paid their usual salaries; some of the others, like Sally Ride, were paid more than they were getting before; but Resnik took a pay cut. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:29, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "She dated some of her fellow astronaut candidates, who nicknamed her "JR"." This reads like it was a nickname only from the astronaut candidates she dated. Additionally, did she go by JR or did they sometime just call her by her initials?
    It's a military custom. Her fellow astronauts in Group 8 called her that all the time. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:58, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I wouldn't categorize using initials to refer to someone as a military custom, unlike the use of a callsign. Also, I don't have my copy of Mullane's book with me (currently moving back to the US) but I don't recall him referring to her as JR. I would argue that initials are just as much of a standard nickname as an abbreviated/informal first name, and there's no explanation for why she was called "Judy" (nor should there be). Balon Greyjoy (talk) 09:27, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It was more of a callsign. I have re-worded to make it clear that it was used by all the astronauts in her class. I don't know of any other astronauts who were nicknamed with their initials. If you read Mullane's book, you will find constant references to it. (She called him "Tarzan".) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:29, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Did she seriously date her fellow astronaut candidates? Simply saying that she dated some of them without further details may have some negative connotations and somewhat implies promiscuity. I don't want to break WP:NPOV, but I also think it's important not to imply things that could be perceived negatively, especially when it is a relatively minor details. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 09:27, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Sally Ride and Rhea Seddon also dated more than one other astronaut, and they eventually married one. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:29, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "as it had some similarities to the Space Shuttle" I'm not sure about this. T-38s at NASA pre-date the Space Shuttle, and NASA used a modified Gulfstream to simulate flying the orbiter.
    Correct. "The flying is not an exact physical simulation; the astronauts use the Shuttle Training Aircraft, or STA, for that. But flying the approach in a T-38 shows them what a landing in the shuttle will look like, time and time again." Deleted phrase to avoid confusion. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:58, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Astronaut Jerome Apt described her as "an excellent pilot and a superb operator in space"" Since she an Apt weren't on the same missions, its not clear how his testimony fits in here. If he was the CapCom or backup crew, wouldn't this make more sense under the STS-41 section?
    We're talking about her pilot skills here. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:58, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The last paragraph of the Selection section leans heavily on the opinions of Rhea Seddon, but it's not clear why she's being quoted, as it's not like she was in the position to make astronaut assignments. Regardless, I don't think there needs to be a quote talking about how much fun she was at happy hour.
    It tells us about Resnik's personality. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:58, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The first Seddon quote doesn't mention Resnik's personality; it was just Seddon's opinion on who would be picked. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 09:27, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "During a visit to a contractor's factory, Resnik whispered to Mullane: "there are no maidens on this flight"." What does this mean? I thought it might be a Selleck quote but nothing popped up when I searched for it. Unless I'm missing an obvious reference, it doesn't belong in the article.
    Resnik asserts her equality with the male astronauts. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:58, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That is not clear from the quote; it just reads like it's an offhand comment made to Mullane. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 09:27, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "She advocated the benefits of the solar array technology, particularly for future use in powering space stations" I'm assuming this occurred sometime after the mission? I'm assuming she did not begin advocating for a major tech change midway through a Space Shuttle mission.
    Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:58, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "send civilians on the Space Shuttle" would "private citizens" be better than "civilians?" A common definition for civilian is someone not in the military, which Resnik falls under.
    Not what we mean. Changed to "non-astronauts". The sources consistently use "civilians". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:58, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think the TV movie needs to be mentioned. There are already a lot of legacy/memorial things mentioned, and I don't think the role of a relatively unknown actress in a made-for-TV movie needs to be included, let alone in a standalone paragraph at the end of the section.
    I'm sure people will add more over time. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:58, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The IEEE source makes no mention of Resnik.
    A 301. Repaired. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:58, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • A number of the articles are missing dates.
    Added some. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:58, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I have! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 13:47, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work! I support this nomination. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 11:17, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shepseskaf[edit]

Nominator(s): Iry-Hor (talk) 12:57, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Shepseskaf last pharaoh of the Fourth Dynasty, who ruled Ancient Egypt for 4 to 8 years in the late 26th to mid 25th century BC. Shepseskaf's relations to his predecessor and successor are uncertain and very few activities are known from his reign. Strikingly, he broke with the tradition of his forebears who had built the great pyramids of Giza, and chose instead to have a (relatively) small mastaba tomb built for himself in a remote corner of the Saqqara necropolis. The reasons for and significance of this decision continue to be debated in Egyptology.Iry-Hor (talk) 12:57, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Query by Support by WereSpielChequers[edit]

Interesting topic, thanks for writing it. I've made a few tweaks, hope you like them. "He reigned most probably four but possibly up to seven years in the late 26th to mid 25th century BC." (my emphasis) Is a good sentence to have in the lede, but I'd expect a couple of sentences in the body of the text explaining that the chronology of early Egyptian history has not been precisely linked to our modern calendar. ϢereSpielChequers 08:20, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done WereSpielChequers Thank you for your comment, I agree with you so I have updated with the following (at the beginning of the "Reign" section):

In addition, all exact dates estimated for Shepseskaf's reign are detailed in the footnote [note 1], which is also available from the infobox. Also, did you know that in the infobox if you click on the [show] button next to "Royal Titulary", the full titles of Shepseskaf will appear in hieroglyphics with translation ? I ask this because often people don't notice this button. Iry-Hor (talk) 18:57, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for making that change. I hadn't noticed the show button but have now tried it and like what it does. ϢereSpielChequers 10:52, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"A causeway led to a valley temple which has yet to be located" Would it be more correct to say "A causeway is assumed to have led to a valley temple which has yet to be located" or even "based on similar complexes, archaeologists expect that there would also have been a causeway leading to a valley temple. Neither the expected causeway or valley temple have yet been found, and it is unknown whether they were demolished and the stones reused, or they were not built in his short reign and not built by his successors".
Done WereSpielChequers so the causeway is there alright, at least its beginning is there as it is visible on archeological maps (e.g. in Lehner's book). I wrote "Remnants of a causeway have been found, it is supposed to have led to a valley temple which has yet to be located" which is very close to what you proposed.Iry-Hor (talk) 12:20, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. ϢereSpielChequers 11:50, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Family relations between the Pharoahs and queens of this era seem uncertain. We know that at a much later time the pharoahs were a very incestuos bunch, and a daughter could also be a grandaughter is there concensus among Egyptologists that this wasn't a feature of the fourth dynasty? ϢereSpielChequers 10:52, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I guess it was a feature of the 4th dynasty as well since e.g. at least one of Menkaure's wife was his sister. But I wrote "daughter and grandaughter" because that is exactly what the source says, I guess Kozloff wanted to say some close female descendant. I have not yet found a source discussing incestuous relationship in the 4th dynasty royal family in particular and in Shepseskaf's case we do not know for sure what relationships he had with his wives since we don't even know for sure who they were.Iry-Hor (talk) 12:20, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK, we can't go beyond the sources. I have my suspicions that this may have lead to much more complex interrelationships than whether three Pharoahs were a father and his two sons or two brothers and a nephew, and we have plenty of historic examples of monarchs whose claim of descent from their predecessors was a tad sketchy, but the official line was that the current guy was the legit heir of their predecessors. But if the Eyptologists aren't saying that then we can't. ϢereSpielChequers 11:50, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well some Egyptologists do say that perhaps Shepseskaf didn't have such a perfect claim to the throne: perhaps he took power only by marriage. There is, however, no trace of struggle at the time so he must have been relatively legitimate, at least enough to be accepted as a king but perhaps not enough to be given a pyramid as explained in the article. This is only one hypothesis among many though.Iry-Hor (talk) 15:30, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Niches I understand, but magazines? Is this a meaning of magazine that is jargon within Egyptology? I'm pretty sure this era won't have had gunpowder. ϢereSpielChequers 11:50, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WereSpielChequers Yes this is Egyptologic jargon, it essentially means storeroom or storage-space. I have changed it so it is clearer.Iry-Hor (talk) 15:30, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for resolving my pedanticisms, happy to support this interesting and well written article. ϢereSpielChequers 21:59, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Tim riley[edit]

I hope to have a thorough perusal and then look in with a full review over the weekend, but from a quick canter through just now I notice that the spelling is a mish-mash of English and American: favour, favourite, hypothesises and recognised but center (twice), honoring and unrivaled. Either the Queen's English or Amerenglish is fine, of course, but it should be all one or the other, I think. (And I think Shepseskaf has got himself misspelled Shespeskaf in the penultimate para of the lead, though I didn't dare change it.) More anon. I'm looking forward to this. Tim riley talk 21:17, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tim riley So I chose to put everything into British English, I hope I did not miss anything now. And you are right there were two "Shespeskaf" misspelled in the article, thank your for spotting this! I am looking forward to your comments. Iry-Hor (talk) 06:10, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

These are my suggestions for tweaking the prose. I have no comments on the actual content – which seems to me comprehensively authoritative, and hugely interesting – and I can only salute the author, with admiration and envy, for such mastery of a language not his/her own.

  • Lead
  • This is merely a suggestion, but as a layman I'd have found it helpful to have "mastaba" given a very brief gloss at first mention: " – a burial mound – " or whatever the correct description is. And failing that (or even as well as that) there should be a blue link to mastaba.
Done I have done both, now "mastaba" is wikilinked and I say immediately after "that is a flat-roofed rectangular structure,". I hope this clarifies the subject enough for the lead.Iry-Hor (talk) 15:50, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Parents
  • "Shepseskaf was Menkaure's son based on a decree" – doesn't quite say what you want it to say. It was the hypothesis, not the parentage, that was based on a decree. You could smooth this over by rejigging on the lines of "hypothesised from a decree showing that Shepseskaf completed Menkaure's mortuary temple that Shepseskaf was Menkaure's son".
Done I wrote : "George Andrew Reisner who proposed that Shepseskaf was Menkaure's son. Reisner based his hypothesis on a decree showing that Shepseskaf completed Menkaure's mortuary temple.".Iry-Hor (talk) 15:50, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In stark contrast with these hypotheses" – I might lose the slightly editoral "stark".
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 15:50, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Queens and children
  • "Egyptologist Lana Troy" – a false title has crept in here, which we could do without.
Done I wrote "Lana Troy, an Egyptologist," let me know if this is suitable.
  • Reign
  • "Indeed, an absolute chronology" – this is the third "indeed" in successive sections. Admittedly there are only two more, later, but one does just begin to notice them, and I might lose this one: the prose works just as well without it.
Done thank you for your suggestion the prose feels lighter this way now.Iry-Hor (talk) 15:50, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relative chronology
  • "Archaeological evidences seem to indicate" – one can see why you go for a plural noun here, but I don't think it quite works in everyday English. I think "evidence seems" is probably safer.
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 15:50, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Three historical sources go directly or indirectly against this order of succession however" – I'm not a foaming-at-the-mouth opponent of "however", which has its place, but I don't think it adds anything here, and I'd delete it.
Done ! Iry-Hor (talk) 15:50, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Unfortunately, the five cartouches between those of Khafre and Userkaf are now illegible" – no doubt it is unfortunate, but that isn't for Wikipedia to say.
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 15:50, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Duration
  • "The duration of Shepseskaf's rule is uncertain but it is generally taken to have lasted likely four but perhaps up to seven years" – BrE has the peculiarity (among countless others) that "likely" in this construction isn't idiomatic, and "probably" is normal. (Quite why we prefer the woollier Latinism to the crisp Middle English word I have no idea, but there it is. Americans have more sense than we English do on this point.)
Done thank you I will try to keep this in mind. This is also somewhat closer to how we say this in French with "probablement" taken to mean that there is more chance for than against something.Iry-Hor (talk) 15:50, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"L'anglais, ce n'est jamais que du français mal prononcé" (Clemenceau). Tim riley talk 16:12, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Two historical sources report Shepseskaf's reign duration" – "reign duration" sounds alien to a speaker of the Queen's English (to this one, at any rate). I think we'd normally say "the duration of Shepseskaf's reign.
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 15:50, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Although such a reign length" – I think this variant just about passes muster as idiomatic BrE, and I shan't quarrel if you want to leave it as is.
I changed it to "Although this figure is..." is this better ?Iry-Hor (talk) 15:50, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Activities
  • "The Palermo stone reports that the year of his accession" – could do with "in" after "that".
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 15:50, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Finally Shepseskaf likely decreed" – another case for "probably" instead of "likely"
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 15:50, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This material allows for rapid constructions" – "construction" singular, I suggest, here.
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 15:50, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • End of Dynasty
  • "they likely belonged to the same family" – as before for "likely"
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 15:50, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Location
  • "This remains unverified as no palace of Old Kingdom king has been located" – would benefit from "an" or "any" before "Old", I think.
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 15:50, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decision to build a mastaba
  • "Hassan has put forth the idea" – "forth" is rather an antique term and "forward" would perhaps look more natural.
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 15:50, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "if Shepseskaf really did intend for his tomb to be a mastaba" – we don't want the "for" here: "did intend his tomb" would be normal BrE.
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 15:50, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Architecture
  • "Remnants of a causeway have been found, it is supposed to have led to a valley temple which has yet to be located" – comma splice. Replacing the comma with a semicolon will do the trick.
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 15:50, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Middle Kingdom
  • "The stele uncovered by Jéquier likely originated" – et encore
Indeed! Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 15:50, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "as pavement for the temple floor" – I think "as paving" (without the definite article) or else "as the pavement for the temple floor" would be usual.
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 15:52, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the deads of the surrounding necropolis" – again, I see why you have the plural, but I think a singular "the dead" is wanted here (twice).
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 15:52, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Those are my few suggestions. I'll look in again shortly and – I confidently expect – add my support. – Tim riley talk 15:24, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tim riley thank you for your comments, all addressed so far!Iry-Hor (talk) 15:52, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Good grief! That didn't take long. All my minor quibbles about the prose have been thoroughly dealt with, and I am happy to add my support for this article, which seems to me comprehensive, balanced, well and widely sourced, admirably illustrated and a really good read. Meets all the FA criteria in my judgement, and I look forward to seeing it on our front page in due course. Tim riley talk 16:03, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Funk[edit]

Looking forward to it !Iry-Hor (talk) 07:07, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Palermo stone and Dahshur are duplinked. You can highlight duplink with this script:[7]
Fixed thanks for the tip !Iry-Hor (talk) 07:07, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link cartouche?
Done now it is linked in the caption of the main picture of the infobox and once in the main text.Iry-Hor (talk) 09:00, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "duration uncertain, probably 4 years but possibly up to 7 years" Should this begin with a capital letter? Same for other infobox sentences, seem to be capitalised in all other articles I checked. You also do it in the sentence after "Monuments", so in any case its inconsistent.
Fixed you are right I think consistency is the guiding principle here. I have capitalized throughout.Iry-Hor (talk) 09:00, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Radiocarbon studies have yielded" What was used for the dating?
Done that is one hell of a good question ! The article explicitly states that multiple sources were used to evaluate the absolute chronology from the second to the early 6th dynasty: archaeological samples to measure fluctuations in radiocarbon activity, specific information on radiocarbon activity in the region of the Nile Valley (anchored by dendrochronology to absolute dates), direct linkages between the dated samples and historical chronology and relative dating information. Samples dated to specific reigns were collected from museum, collections and excavation material while certain types of material (notably charcoal and mummified remains) were avoided owing to their susceptibility to contamination. I have some text to the footnote on the matter.Iry-Hor (talk) 09:00, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bunefer is linked twice in close succession in the infobox.
Fixed.Iry-Hor (talk)
  • Link more names and terms in image captions.
Done this might have added duplinks with the main text though.Iry-Hor (talk) 09:00, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That should be fine, like the intro, the captions are separate from the article body. FunkMonk (talk) 16:55, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link radiocarbon dating.
Done once in the footnote and once in the main text.Iry-Hor (talk) 09:00, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ptahshepses is linked at second instead of first mention, if these are meant to be the same person.
Fixed yes it is the same person.Iry-Hor (talk) 09:00, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the fifth dynasty royal annal known as the Palermo stone" It has already been presented by this point, so the introduction could be cut here.
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 09:00, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Verner points notably to the unfinished state of his mastaba to conclude Shepseskaf's rule did not exceed the four years attributed to him by the Turin canon." What is the correlation?
Fixed. A mastaba is takes time to build and the unfinished state of the tomb gives some indication on the reign duration. Indeed one of the first act of a pharaoh was to decide the location of his tomb and start works there (the Palermo stone notably states that Shepseskaf did so shortly after ascending the throne). These works stopped or were at least interrupted at the death of the king, with the successor sometimes deciding to complete the tomb, usually with cheaper techniques which can be distinguished from the original construction. Depending on the final state of the originally planned tomb, one can thus conclude on the maximum duration of the reign. Had Shepseskaf reigned longer than 4 years, his mastaba would have been more advanced at his death than it is, according to Verner. I have added a footnote with this explanation (footnote 9).Iry-Hor (talk) 09:00, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The note for "senuti shrine" doesn't explain what "senuti" means.
Unfortunately I can't help, I wondered the same question but couldn't find a source on the subject matter. It is likely that some scholarly article exists somewhere on the notion of Senuti shrine but I couldn't find one. The fact that the source referenced here (as well as other I found) does not translate the notion means it is probably unclear what such shrine were or at least that this necessitates scholarly discussion that is beyond the source's goal (which is translation).Iry-Hor (talk) 09:00, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It is during his second year of rule that Shepseskaf recorded" It was?
Fixed.Iry-Hor (talk) 09:00, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Alabaster statuette of Babaef from his Giza tomb G5230" Could establish context in the caption to what his connection was to the subject of the article.
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 09:00, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "End of Dynasty" Why capital D?
Fixed it was a typo.Iry-Hor (talk) 09:00, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shouldn't the meaning of his name be stated explicitly earlier in the article body, like in the intro?
Done added to the main text, where the similarity of Userkaf an Shepseskaf's names is discussed. Note that all of this is also given in the infobox (if you click on [Show] button next to royal titulary).Iry-Hor (talk) 09:00, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mastaba is linked at second mention instead of first.
Fixed.Iry-Hor (talk) 09:00, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Nowadays it is known as Mastabat al-Fir'aun, meaning "bench of the pharaoh"." You could state this is in Arabic.
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 09:00, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Except for the question on the senuti shrine, all is fixed FunkMonk. I hope this addresses your concerns so far.Iry-Hor (talk) 09:00, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I was able to find a brief comment about the Senuti shrine from Strudwick (2005) on p. 508: 'A building perhaps marked by snake stelae, possibly at Heliopolis.' Further referenced to Wilkinson 2001 [should be 2000], pp. 136–137 and MMA 1999, p. 171. Checking the first source – Royal Annals of Ancient Egypt (2000), pp. 136–137 – I find a translation of an inscription from the reign of Djoser: 'appearance of the dual king; introduction of the king into the senut(i) shrine 4 cubits, one and two thirds palms'. There is further details towards the bottom of p.137 continuing onto p.138. Checking the second source – Egyptian Art in the Age of the Pyramids (1999), p.171 – is an entry on a doorjamb from Saqqara with snakes carved into it. I then thought to check Budge's dictionary for hieroglyphs, and he has an entry on it in vol. II p. 675, though it is spelled as senti: 'the two shrines of Egypt ... a double shrine of Ra which was symbolic of all Egypt'. I don't know if knowing the hieroglyphs helps you at all, though. As to what it means, I too have not a clue. That all being said, I don't think it's 'a senuti shrine', but rather 'the senuti shrine'. Mr rnddude (talk) 07:02, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Mr rnddude Amazing, I will put Studwick's sentence into a footnote ! For the "a" vs "the" senuti shrine you are right, I have amended the text with "the". I would still like to see an article on the matter but JSTOR did not turn up anything clear, in particular entering snwt returns too many results owing to it being also the word "sisters" if I am not mistaken (feminin plural of sn).Iry-Hor (talk) 07:36, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nice find! FunkMonk (talk) 17:45, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "theophoric" What does this mean? Link? Explanation?
Done I wikilinked to Theophoric name. A theophoric name is a name that refers to a god by embedding the god's name in the name of the person.Iry-Hor (talk) 20:26, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link sarcophagus.
Done at first instance of the word in the main text.Iry-Hor (talk) 20:26, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link necropolis when it is a standalone word?
Done at first instance of the word in the main text.Iry-Hor (talk) 20:26, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gustave Jéquier is the only historian fully named and linked in the footnote, make it just his last name for consistency?
Done you are right, plus he was already fully named and linked in the main text.Iry-Hor (talk) 20:26, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we have any idea how he died?
FunkMonk You mean Shepseskaf ? If so then no not at all: we don't have his body and as far as I know no archaeological nor historical source talks about his death.Iry-Hor (talk) 20:26, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review by Mr rnddude[edit]

Spotchecks - Not done as nominator has an extensive FAC history
References
FN14 should be pp.
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:43, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
FN44 should be pp.
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:43, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
FN102 says pp. 2170 & 273 - I think '2170' was meant to be '270'.
Corrected thanks for spotting this!Iry-Hor (talk) 07:43, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
FN140 - missing page numbers (199–201 corresponds to Mastabat el-Faraun)
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:43, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
FN162 should be pp.
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:43, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Bibliography
Verner, Miroslav (2010). "Some considerations concerning the Old Kingdom royal palace (aH)". Anthropologie. XLVIII (2): 91–96. - Missing an ISSN
Added.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:43, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Verner, Miroslav (2001a). "Archaeological Remarks on the 4th and 5th Dynasty Chronology" (PDF). Archiv Orientální. 69 (3): 363–418. - Missing an ISSN
Added.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:43, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Etheredge, Laura (ed.). "Saqqarah". Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved 5 June 2022. - is cited once for a minor, non-controversial detail which is in my opinion fine.
But otherwise what is the status of Encyclopædia Britannica regarding refs ? Is it considered a reliable source ?Iry-Hor (talk) 07:43, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
EB gets discussed occasionally at RSN and there's a divide in the community on reliability, see this most recent discussion and the corresponding entry in RSP. Some editors hold the opinion that it is a tertiary RS, others that it depends if there is a specific, subject-matter expert author, and others that it's a marginal source best avoided. I'm neutral on the matter. The article cites EB for a date for Shepseskaf's reign, which fits within the range of other RS, so that I don't think it's an issue. Mr rnddude (talk) 08:06, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ricke, Herbert (1950). Bemerkungen zur Ägyptischen Baukunst des Alten Reichs II. Beiträge zur Ägyptischen Bauforschung und Altertumskunde. Vol. 5. Cairo: Institut für Ägytpsiche Bauforschung und Altertumskunde. - Missing an OCLC
Added.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:43, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
El Awady, Tarek (2006). "The royal family of Sahure. New evidence" (PDF). In Bárta, Miroslav; Krejčí, Jaromír (eds.). Abusir and Saqqara in the Year 2005. Prague: Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic, Oriental Institute. pp. 31–45. ISBN 978-80-7308-116-4. Archived from the original (PDF) on 1 February 2011.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: ref duplicates default (link) - Has a CS1 error, but I have no idea what it means.
Fixed Yes it is quite obscur, but explained here. I have fixed the issue, the problem was that I was enforcing an harvid that was actually the same as the one generated by default by the cite book template hence it was complaining about the duplicate.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:43, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Bárta, Miroslav (2015). "Tomb of the chief physician Shepseskafankh". Prague Egyptological Studies. Czech Institute of Egyptology. XV: 15–27. - Missing an ISSN
Added.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:43, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Mr rnddude All fixed !Iry-Hor (talk) 07:43, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I've left a note regarding your question on EB above. Mr rnddude (talk) 08:06, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I see, well I will be careful from now on with EB. I usually cite it only for dates regarding pharaohs but I always found it a bit unsettling that the author is often not given on EB's website.Iry-Hor (talk) 09:33, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

BTS[edit]

Nominator(s): ErnestKrause (talk), Wehwalt (talk), and Btspurplegalaxy (talk) 16:07, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]


This article is about the contemporary music group BTS from South Korea. It is a co-nomination with Wehwalt and a renewed FAC with updated text and sources. The previous successful GAN nomination was done as a co-nomination with Btspurplegalaxy who is also on the top 10 editor list for the article. ErnestKrause (talk) 23:41, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose similar reasons as last time, I don't feel my concerns were fully addressed. The sourcing can still be improved with the books that are now minimally cited; journal articles I brought up were not included at all. Some of the citations now lack page numbers, eg. " John Lie, "BTS, the Highest Stage of K-pop". In Youna Kim, Ed. The Soft Power of the Korean Wave. "Chapter 7". Routledge Press. 2022." I don't know exactly how many pages there are in a chapter, but this is not ideal for verifiability. Another book is listed in bibliography and cited using sfn referencing, so I would cite all book sources the same way for consistency. The nominator is the author of 4.7% of the article, so concern about how he can guarantee the accuracy of the remaining 95% remains. (t · c) buidhe 18:53, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You seemed to say it was "an improvement" on your talk page here: [8]. Also, all three of the editors listed as nominators are listed by Wikitools on the top 10 list of editors for "authorship" out of over 1500 editors for the article: Wehwalt is #7, Ernest is #6, and Btspurple is #4. ErnestKrause (talk) 00:38, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The page numbers in the Soft Power book have now been added, and I'll go through the refs and see what can be done. More learned sources have been added. Again, I'll do more on this.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:56, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the sources cited in the opposes in the two FACs are now included, as well as other scholarly sources. Much of the article is basically about facts, the group's activities in the years since its founding.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:54, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Buidhe we have, I believe, addressed your concerns. A number of scholarly sources are now used, sfn has been adopted for the book and article sources where it was not present, and I'm assured by ErnestKrause that the sources (which were gone through when the article was pared down from the sprawling mess it was) do reflect the sources.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:59, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've repeatedly been asked to change my oppose, but sourcing issues remain in the article such as citing self-published medium and forbes contributors. Some citations are broken with the message "Harv error: this link doesn't point to any citation". The question of how people who wrote a minority of the article have verified the sourcing and accuracy of the remaining 90 percent or so remains. (t · c) buidhe 16:17, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your comment about authorship appears not to know about the long edit history of the BTS article. Previous editors from the last 10 years had bloated the article to over 400Kb in size. Those 'authors' of the article made a sprawling mess of the old version of the BTS article, and GAN was successfull only because the article went through an extensive bulking down process to get it through a successful GAN. You appear to keep wanting to give credit to the old previous editors who caused it to become bloated at over 400Kb in size last year which detracted from the article being able to get to GAN. The GAN succeeded due to bulking down the article and not super-adding text to a article that was already over 400Kb.
Your comment about Forbes must refer to the one citation to Forbes in the entire article to document the release of their song "Dynamite". That citation is written by a Forbes staff member which is acceptable to Wikipedia policy; only non-staff Forbes article are excluded by Wikipedia policy. If you see any SPS problems in the article, then state them by name since the article has had an extensive review of citations at its successfull GAN.
The Harv-cite error you mention appears only for the one book by Kim Young which was added by a previous editor, and which Wehwalt is in the process of converting to sfn; it is already in the sfn section of the Bibliography. The print-out of the article on my screen shows no other Harv-cite issues at this time. If you see any other Harv-cite issues, then you can them list them here, since none of them are coming up on my screen print-out at this time. ErnestKrause (talk) 17:40, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There were several sfn errors, but I've gone through everything now and they're fixed. As for the assurances of accuracy, there's ErnestKrause's assurances on this front and I think both ErnestKrause's comments just above and FrB.TG's just below respond to that. At this point, this seems to be an oppose where everything either has been addressed or (in the case of the concern about accuracy, there's nothing that can, or so far as I can tell, should, be done.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:13, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by FrB.TG[edit]

Resolved comments from FrB.TG

The additions of academic sources have definitely improved the article. I partially disagree with the oppose above, i.e. with the part that the nominators not being major authors of the article could mean there are unsupported/misinterpreted claims there. Unless a spot-checker specifically identifies issues on this front, it's just an assumption that these exist. (Note I'm not saying that these don't exist, but only saying the possible issues would first need to be confirmed to warrant an oppose on that ground.) Some of my comments regarding sourcing can be found here on my talk page. My comments here will mostly focus on the prose and MoS issues.

  • "By 2017, BTS crossed into the global music market, leading the Korean Wave into the United States" - the Wikipedia article does not capitalize "wave" in Korean Wave.
Should be lower case and changed to lower case. ErnestKrause (talk) 00:19, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "They are the first Asian and non-English speaking act to be named the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry's (IFPI) Global Recording Artist of the Year (2020–2021), to chart on Billboard's Top Touring Artists of the 2010s (placing at number 45), and to headline and sell out Wembley Stadium and the Rose Bowl (Love Yourself World Tour in 2019)." Too many and's here.
Rewrite long sentence as two sentences. ErnestKrause (talk) 00:24, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Bangtan Boys at the Incheon Music Center in September 2013 02.jpg appears in between two sections; either place it at the beginning of Name or Career section.
Mirror flip image with quote box in Career section. ErnestKrause (talk) 00:34, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This extended their name to mean "growing youth BTS who is going beyond the realities they are facing, and going forward."[10]" Per MOS:LQ, the full stop should be placed outside the quotation mark.
Correct period location. ErnestKrause (talk) 00:37, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "BTS was originally supposed to be a hip hop group similar to YG Entertainment's 1TYM,[13] but soon after the group was created, Bang Si-hyuk decided to create an idol group similar to Seo Taiji and Boys, a group which was popular in the 90's." Usage of group four times in one sentence and I would change '90's to 1990s.
Divide long sentence into two sentences, and rewrite. ErnestKrause (talk) 00:46, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Here was a musical act that wasn’t pulling any punches." Avoid using curly apostrophes (’) and use a straight (') one instead (per MOS:'). There are other ones throughout the article and you would need to go through them.
I just strained my eyes and I hope got them all.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:48, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Their subsequent single, "We Are Bulletproof Pt. 2", failed to chart at all." Prose redundancy.
Got it.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:48, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The release topped the Gaon Album Chart,[37] and it also appeared on Billboard's World Albums Chart for the first time, peaking at number three." Prose redundancy.
Got it.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:48, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Following Skool Luv Affair's release" - the possessive ('s) should not be in italics.
Got it.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:48, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In July 2014, BTS hosted a free concert in West Hollywood, their first show in the United States" - the article randomly switches between using United States and US. Stick to one.
Changed all to "US" for consistency throughout article. Btspurplegalaxy 🗩 🖉 01:51, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The band released their first Japanese studio album, Wake Up (2014), that December; the release" - release used in twice in close proximity.
Copy edit wording. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:18, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "BTS wanted to express the beauty and anxiousness of youth and settled on the title" - whose title are we talking about here? Addendum: it's only clarified in the next sentence.
Rewrite first two sentence of that paragraph. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:26, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The album's second single, "Dope (Korean: 쩔어; RR: Jjeoreo)," peaked at number three" - place the quotation sign before the comma.
moved to the proper place Btspurplegalaxy 🗩 🖉 02:02, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Bangtan Boys at KCON France 2016.jpg and File:BTS win first Daesang (Grand Prize) at Melon Music Awards, 19 November 2016.jpg are placed too closely to each other in opposite directions, creating a WP:SANDWICH issue.
Pull KCon image up one paragraph to avoid image sandwich. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:37, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • ""Spring Day" later won Best Song of the Year at the 2017 Melon Music Awards." It's obvious that one wins awards for their work later on so it's uneeded.
Drop extra word. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:33, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Commercially, BTS continued to hit new career heights" - "hit new career heights" sounds too informal.
Expand their artistic successes, sounds more on point. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:37, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In December, they also became the first K-pop group" - unnecessary use of "also".
Removed. Btspurplegalaxy 🗩 🖉 02:02, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:NBSP needed in a lot of places e.g. "300 million" and "September 2017". Check thoroughly.

Down to the end of 2014–2017: Mainstream and international breakthrough. This should keep you busy for a while. I'll return with more comments later. FrB.TG (talk) 18:59, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've added another dozen to two dozen nbsp additions to improve readability on this. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:53, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A couple were missed, which I've added myself. FrB.TG (talk) 09:43, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the comments. I've addressed a few of them and will return tomorrow to get more of them.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:13, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It should be up to date as to the above comments. Ready for next set of edit comments when available. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:53, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
FrB.TG, do you have more? I'd like to be able to show some progress towards promotion to the coordinators.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:53, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, sorry. I’ve been sick the last two days so I got little done around here. I’ll definitely follow up in the next few days. FrB.TG (talk) 20:53, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Commercially, Love Yourself: Tear became one of BTS' best selling albums." The source does not say this. From its achievement of becoming the first K-pop album to top the US charts, it's somewhat implied, but we would need a source explicitly stating this.
Cut those words.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:28, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and the highest-charting album by an Asian act" - not mentioned anywhere in the source.
I suppose it is by implication as you can't go higher than #1 but I've substituted that it was the first album predominately sung in another language besides English to reach #1 in 12 years.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:28, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Source 129 and 134 should be marked with a |url-access=subscription parameter.
I've added it to 134. 129 already has it.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:28, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "with a landmark concert in the Seoul Olympic Stadium, the largest stadium in South Korea." - I believe "landmark" is unneeded. Mentioning the feat, which made it a "landmark", should suffice.
Sliced.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:28, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "John Lie, in his scholarly article on BTS, opined that the Nazi incident showed that they is not tightly controlled" - plural.
Tweaked--Wehwalt (talk) 12:28, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "They also made the Bloomberg 50" - it would help if the reader could understand why the Bloomberg 50 is significant. Perhaps something like "They were listed as one of the 50 most influential people by Bloomberg..." while linking the "one of the 50 most influential people" to the listing.
Done, phrased slightly differently.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:06, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "getting four from each awards show and which was never previously done at the Mnet Asian Music Awards" - this could be better phrased. The switch from an -ing form to the use of a relative pronoun reads awkwardly.
Rephrased.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:06, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Source 209 should be marked as being in Korean.
That's done--Wehwalt (talk) 12:28, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • ""Dynamite" debuted at number one on the US Billboard Hot 100 chart, becoming the fastest-selling single since Swift's "Look What You Made Me Do" (2017)—earning BTS their first chart topper and making them the first all-South Korean act (second Asian act overall) to earn a number one single in the US." Can we rephrase this sentence a bit so we don't repeat "number one" thrice?
It is only stated twice in the sentence you reproduce. I've removed it from the following sentence, though.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:06, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The members' experiences with South Korean youth culture also inspired the songs "Dope" and "Silver Spoon" (Korean: 뱁새; RR: Baepsae) from their youth trilogy, which reference generational disparity and millennials having to give up romantic relationships, marriage, children, proper employment, homes, and social life in the face of economic difficulties and societal ills while facing condemnation from the media and older generations." This is a very long sentence. I suggest splitting it for readability.
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:06, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "On April 29, 2019, Time magazine named BTS one of the 100 most influential people of the year" - this is also mentioned in the career section.
Given the length of the article, it being related to what is being discussed in both sections, and the fact that our readers rarely read articles in full, it's worth stating in both places.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:06, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have made several edits here for MoS fixes, ref. formatting and minor copy-edits. FrB.TG (talk) 09:43, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FrB.TG, I've made those changes or otherwise replied and your changes look good. Thanks for the review and help with this article and I hope you're feeling better.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:06, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support My comments were dealt with in a speedy manner by the three nominators. My review was mostly based on prose and MoS concerns, but I also had some involvement with the sourcing before the renomination. With K. Peake's thorough source review, I am confident that it meets the sourcing criteria as well. I understand Buidhe's concern for sources-to-text accuracy but very few spot-checks of my own didn't show anything to be worried about; please note this is not a pass on spot-checking and would have to be conducted more thoroughly (should it be requested). FrB.TG (talk) 05:14, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by K. Peake[edit]

Resolved comments from K. Peake

Note: All "platinum", "gold, and "silver" adjectives in prose and narrative have been changed to lower case only throughtout the article now. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:01, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't think citations are needed for Columbia and Universal in the infobox when these labels are sourced in the body.
  • Same as above for Big Hit Entertainment in the lead, with this debut being directly mentioned in the body.
  • Where is the alternative universe storyline sourced in the body? Also, the "and" here should have a comma before it.
  • Where; I don't see the term used at all? --K. Peake 13:21, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I called it an alternate reality to avoid double use of universe.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:25, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The body says they were the quickest act to achieve four number-ones since Justin Timberlake, not Michael Jackson.
Justin T. now. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:40, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The second and third paragraphs are quite large, especially the last one; I would suggest converting the lead into four paras.
Four paragraph lead section now. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:44, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The 32 millions figure is not directly mentioned in the body, even though it can be sourced.
Having sold million of albums...and growing sales. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:48, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have not sourced the Top Touring Artists of the 2010s anywhere, also I don't think number 45 should be in brackets.
Trimming old accolades from 2010. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:52, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "Next Generation Leaders" quote is not sourced.
Now sourced in Accolades and Awards section. ErnestKrause (talk) 17:05, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The most influential people in the world ranking is not sourced.
Now sourced in Accolades and Awards section. ErnestKrause (talk) 17:05, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stylize as Billboard Music Awards.
Stylized. ErnestKrause (talk) 17:11, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The UNICEF partnership is not sourced.
It is now.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:21, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Add a comma after "BTS was formed in 2010".
  • "unlike Seo Taiji's music," → use "the group" instead because this is not his solo work.
Rephrased.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:21, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Make sure you do not use "the group" or "they" on too many consecutive occasions in this article.
I only saw one place where consecutive sentences begin with either and I changed it.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:21, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't necessarily mean starting a sentence, more so the mentions of the group directly after each other being monotonous. --K. Peake 09:25, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've done about a half dozen of these; are there more that need attention? ErnestKrause (talk) 15:44, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the top five in South Korea on the Gaon Music Chart." → "the top five on the Gaon Music Chart in South Korea."
I rejigged it as "the top five on South Korea's Gaon Music Chart".--Wehwalt (talk) 19:23, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This record was released" → "The album was released" and a full-stop is needed for the previous sentence.
Done Btspurplegalaxy 🗩 🖉 17:23, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The nightclub is not mentioned anywhere as being where the group had their first performance.
Not mentioned in a paragraph but there is a picture of the club with the caption "Exterior of the nightclub Troubadour (photo taken 2006) where BTS held their first concert in the US for free" Btspurplegalaxy 🗩 🖉 17:09, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The last entry in their" → "The last entry in BTS'".
Done Btspurplegalaxy (talk) 16:40, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove commas before albums and tours in the body for instances like Dark & Wild and 2014 BTS Live Trilogy Episode II: The Red Bullet, as these are not needed.
Drop commas. ErnestKrause (talk) 20:52, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Add the release year of The Most Beautiful Moment in Life, Part 1.
Done Btspurplegalaxy 🗩 🖉 17:15, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "beautiful moment in life."" any of these quotes when it is not a full sentence should have the punctuation outside of speech marks per MOS:QUOTE.
Should be outside now. ErnestKrause (talk) 21:00, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This third EP explored the" → "The EP explored the".
Done Btspurplegalaxy 🗩 🖉 17:15, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done Btspurplegalaxy (talk) 16:14, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Try to avoid too many consecutive uses of "the album" or any similar terms.
Trimmed this phrase when used in consecutive sentences. ErnestKrause (talk) 21:06, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The img of them performing in France does not have any relevancy to the article.
They're performers and it's the only image we have of them performing on stage in that era.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:28, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is passable, then. --K. Peake 09:25, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and eight of its tracks" → "and eight of the tracks".
Done Btspurplegalaxy (talk) 16:14, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Add a comma before "which combined the themes".
Done Btspurplegalaxy 🗩 🖉 17:15, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Its lead single was" → "The lead single was".
Done Btspurplegalaxy (talk) 16:13, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "aesthetics and lyricism and" → "aesthetics and lyricism, and".
Done Btspurplegalaxy 🗩 🖉 17:26, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stylize as Billboard Music Awards on the img text too.
Done Btspurplegalaxy (talk) 16:43, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a remake of Seo Taiji's" → "a remake of his".
{Done Btspurplegalaxy (talk) 15:38, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • When it has been a couple sentences or so since a year was mentioned, add what one the month was in and same if a new para.
Add/delete date comments seem to pull in different directions. See your note directly below this. I've done both, but if you see more needed then let me know. ErnestKrause (talk) 21:14, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This para is one where it is really unclear, starting to talk about July then September with no mention of a year for BTS. --K. Peake 09:25, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to July 2017 for clarity. ErnestKrause (talk) 19:22, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The release years of Wings and You Never Walk Alone should not be mentioned, as you have already done this.
This one and the last one seem to pull in different direction about add/delete dates for readability. I've done both and if there are still problems with this just list them here, and I'll look at them. ErnestKrause (talk) 21:14, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The US television debut is not mentioned anywhere, although their American Music Awards appearance is.
It is mentioned in a image caption "BTS at the 45th American Music Awards shortly before making their debut performance on US television on November 19, 2017." So let me know if you still want it to be mentioned in the paragraph. Btspurplegalaxy 🗩 🖉 16:19, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To call something their debut, you need an actual source stating this, --K. Peake 09:25, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Shorten caption to say it is in America. ErnestKrause (talk) 19:59, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Psy is the first," → "Psy was the first," with the wikilink.
OK.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:57, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "attained Gold certification" → "attained gold certifications".
On the certifications, there is a discussion on article talk that certifications should be capitalized.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:25, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
They're now all lower cased per comment above.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:21, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "achieved Platinum status" → "achieved platinum status".
See above.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:57, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "on December 6." → "on December 6, 2017."
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:04, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done on RIAJ. For the caps, see previous comment.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:57, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "released on April 4," → "released on April 4, 2018,".
Got it.
  • "It is the seventeenth" → "It is the 17th" per MOS:NUM.
Numbers expressible by one and two words can be expressed as words per MOS:NUMERAL.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:25, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "certified Gold by the RIAA in November." → "certified gold by the RIAA in November 2018."
Done on the year, for the rest see above.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:57, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "received Platinum certifications" → "received platinum certifications".
See above.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:57, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done, though using a redirect is quite proper.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:57, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done Btspurplegalaxy 🗩 🖉 17:34, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the UK and Australia[164][165] and the group's" → "the UK and Australia[164][165], and the group's".
Done with the comma before the cites.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:32, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "debuted at number 8" → "debuted at number eight".
Got it.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:04, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:04, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • No Rose Bowl performance is sourced.
BTS were also the first Asian act to sell out the Rose Bowl. Now sourced in Impact section. ErnestKrause (talk) 20:48, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "certified Double Platinum by Gaon," → "certified double platinum by Gaon," and specify what country.
All 'gold, platinum, silver' should now be done. ErnestKrause (talk) 21:16, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The world million should not be capitalised
Since it's a certification, see above.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:04, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Got it.--Wehwalt (talk)
  • "later attained Silver certification in the UK," → "was later certified silver by the BPI in the UK,".
Done with slightly different phrasing.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:32, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:32, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "in the US[199]" missing a full-stop.
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:32, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "on Billboard's Top Billboard 200 Artists–Duo/Group ranking," → "on Billboard's Top Billboard 200 Artists–Duo/Group ranking,".
Done Btspurplegalaxy 🗩 🖉 14:18, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Add (IFPI) in brackets.
Done Btspurplegalaxy 🗩 🖉 14:18, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done Btspurplegalaxy 🗩 🖉 14:18, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done Btspurplegalaxy (talk) 18:07, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "be certified Quadruple Million." → "be certified quadruple million."
Done by Ernest Btspurplegalaxy 🗩 🖉 14:18, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "US Billboard 200 making" → "US Billboard 200, making".
Done Btspurplegalaxy 🗩 🖉 14:18, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • top-ten → top-10
Done Btspurplegalaxy 🗩 🖉 14:18, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "of their debut The concert" → "of their debut. The concert".
Done by Wehwalt Btspurplegalaxy 🗩 🖉 16:39, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "chart becoming the fastest-selling single since Taylor Swift's" → "chart, becoming the fastest-selling single since Swift's".
Done Btspurplegalaxy 🗩 🖉 14:34, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "on US's overall radio chart." → "on the overall US radio chart."
Changed Btspurplegalaxy 🗩 🖉 14:34, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:40, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not use Kyung Hyun Kim's full name after the first mention of him.
I thought it safer since other Kims authored others of the sources.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:11, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You could simply write Kyung Hyun if so? --K. Peake 09:25, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is not sourced that "Butter" was performed at the AMAs.
Cite added. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:35, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Instead of a source for the AMA performance Ernest, you added one for the 2022 Butter Grammy performance. Btspurplegalaxy 🗩 🖉 15:51, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "at number two and" → "at number two, and".
Added comma Btspurplegalaxy 🗩 🖉 14:34, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "with "Dynamite" placing tenth." → "with "Dynamite" placing 10th."
See MOS:NUMBERAL, MOS:ORDINAL.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:11, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stylize as 2022 Billboard Music Awards.
Italicized Billboard Btspurplegalaxy 🗩 🖉 14:34, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Usage of "the band" is not appropriate, as they are never once called this in the lead.
They are called a boy band in the lead.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:11, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "of 1.7 Billion dollars" → "of 1.7 billion dollars".
Fixed.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:11, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mention the date of the Freddie Mercury tribute performance.
This looks like the Live Aid concert which is sources. ErnestKrause (talk) 21:21, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Add the date of it per the source(s), then. --K. Peake 09:25, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Add date. ErnestKrause (talk) 19:59, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Linking now. ErnestKrause (talk) 21:21, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove the years for their albums and songs that have previously been mentioned.
This has to do with the sentence about their use of music genres and I think it's useful to have the years in that sentence to allow the reader to trace this.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:26, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe so, but there should not be usage of brackets though. --K. Peake 09:25, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There should be no square brackets at this point; let me know if any are still there. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:44, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • However, add the release year to any of the works that are new to the article at this point.
  • The Crystal S. Anderson quote should be written with noted and a comma before the quote if it is a full sentence; elsewise, move punctuation outside of the quote.
It's a full sentence. Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:40, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done Btspurplegalaxy 🗩 🖉 16:03, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done Btspurplegalaxy (talk) 15:42, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • [311][312][313][314][315] is too many sentences grouped together; move around to appropriate areas for avoiding this problem.
  • "from the very start"." → "from the very start."" per this being a full sentence.
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:40, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove links on "No More Dream" and "N.O".
Done Btspurplegalaxy (talk) 18:03, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove link on "Dope".
Done Btspurplegalaxy (talk) 15:51, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove comma after The Most Beautiful Moment in Life: Young Forever.
Done Btspurplegalaxy (talk) 15:54, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "BTS' 2016 studio album Wings focused on" → "Wings focused on".
Done Btspurplegalaxy (talk) 15:46, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove the release year of Be, also add a speech mark to end the quote.
I've closed the quote marks. But I think it's helpful to the reader to have years in the sections which are not chronological, not all readers will be expert on the timing of BTS's discography.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:42, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove links on "Am I Wrong" and "Forever Rain".
Done Btspurplegalaxy (talk) 15:32, 23 Juns 2022 (UTC)
  • "Journalist Jeff Benjamin praise" → "Journalist Jeff Benjamin praised".
Got it.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:11, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove link on Time.
Done Btspurplegalaxy 🗩 🖉 17:34, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and 60s age demographic"." → "and 60s age demographic."" per this being a full sentence quoted.
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:40, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "as effectively as South Korean singer Psy did" → "as effectively as Psy did".
Done by Wehwalt Btspurplegalaxy 🗩 🖉 16:39, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove commas around the Bank of Korea.
Remove commas. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:23, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Add a comma after Soft Power: The Means to Success in World Politics.
Add comma. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:05, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Linked. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:09, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Youna Kim, Villabert and" → "Kim, Villabert, and" unless Youna is the surname, then write that here per it being the second mention.
Let it remain as it is. As Wehwalt previously mentioned there are others who share the surname. Btspurplegalaxy 🗩 🖉 14:53, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You still need to add the comma for the correct form of English. --K. Peake 09:25, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Villabert has been dropped as per your indication of being an unreliable source. Edit rewritten without her cite. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:36, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Changed Btspurplegalaxy 🗩 🖉 14:53, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove the introduction to Moon Jae-in since you did this previously; refer to him as simply Moon on all times after the introduction.
Completed Btspurplegalaxy 🗩 🖉 14:53, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
changed wikilink Btspurplegalaxy 🗩 🖉 14:53, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and an expansion of" → "as well as an expansion of".
Done! Btspurplegalaxy 🗩 🖉 14:53, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:11, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove wikilink on COVID-19 pandemic.
Duplicate link removed.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:42, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "in 2018[375][376] and promoting" → "in 2018,[375][376] and promoting".
Done Btspurplegalaxy 🗩 🖉 16:03, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikilink Fila to itself.
OK.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:57, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stylize asBillboard Music Awards.
{Done Btspurplegalaxy 🗩 🖉 16:08, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove capitalisation for million, platinum, gold, diamond and silver.
Ernest has done this. Btspurplegalaxy 🗩 🖉 16:28, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Use {{spaced ndash}} so there is the right space for members.
Done Btspurplegalaxy 🗩 🖉 16:39, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should Wings be italicised in the tour title when it is not in the article?
Should be ready for source review when available. ErnestKrause (talk) 21:23, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Kyle Peake, I think we've gotten just about everything. Do you have a position on whether to support the article for promotion? And are you good on the source review? Many thanks for most thorough and searching reviews.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:51, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I still take issue with overusage of the group or similar terms, which I elaborated on above from my initial comment. Also, the img calling the concert their first still needs a citation to actually verify this, writing Kyung Hyun after the first mention would be most appropriate per previous and are you sure repeated release years should be in brackets again? Source review responses below. --K. Peake 06:41, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For the image, I just removed the first all together, as I couldn't find any source to back up the claim. Btspurplegalaxy 🗩 🖉 09:34, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Source review[edit]

Source review

  • Shouldn't Universal Music Japan be cited as publisher instead?
Changed Btspurplegalaxy 🗩 🖉 14:24, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ditto for Behance.
Done 14:24, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
  • If possible, Naver should only be linked on the first instance.
Naver is virtually unmentioned in the article, though it appears in about 103 citaions. Each one of the cites links Naver following this Wikipedia convention for citations. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:59, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 7 is missing a publisher.
Publisher is listed in Korean on the last of the nine image pages on Amazon if someone can access the micro-font on the screen here [9]. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:13, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Make sure one is adding in some way or another then, as otherwise the citation is not filled in correctly. --K. Peake 06:55, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gaon Music Chart should be cited as publisher instead, also only wikilink it on the first instance.
Gaon is attributed to its webcite and as a 'work' in the citations throughout the article follwoing the Wikipedia convention for linking with each citation. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:20, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding this stance on linking for citations, have you done this for all repeated works/publishers then? --K. Peake 06:55, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I went through all the publishers and added links where necessary. The work field is no longer used in this article.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:23, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cite Melon as publisher instead.
It is compiled from online data provided by web-based music providers such as Genie, Melon, FLO, Soribada, Naver VIBE, KakaoMusic and Bugs. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:23, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link Mwave to Mnet (TV channel) solely on the first instance instead, also this should be always cited as publisher.
Done but I've piped on every instance per the explanations.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:52, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
DoneBtspurplegalaxy 🗩 🖉 15:58, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Only link Billboard on the first ref.
The Billboard links are to indivual pages mostly for their individual lists such as: Billboard Global 200 and US Billboard Hot 100, etc. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:26, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Only link Oricon on the first ref.
There are over 40 link to Oricon which are virtually all done for the individual citations following the Wikipedia policy for linking each individual citation. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:31, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Always cite Yonhap News Agency as publisher and only link the first time.
Done Btspurplegalaxy 🗩 🖉 15:58, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've linked them per other comment.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:29, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cite Fuse as publisher instead on both refs and pipe to Fuse (TV channel) on the first instance.
Done, though I have piped on both because of the convention for citations mentioned by Ernest.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:38, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, but good thing you changed it to this rather than the incorrect magazine article. --K. Peake 06:55, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are there MOS:CAPS issues with ref 73, or is that just how Youth is stylized? Same with MAMA for ref 153 and Map of the Soul for refs 212 and 259?
Restylize fonts back to lower case. The 'Youth' upper case was actually stylized in the Korean title using only upper case English. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:47, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • MOS:QWQ issues with refs 75 and 204.
Both QWQ fixed. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:53, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cite CNN as publisher instead.
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:29, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Korea Herald should only be linked on the first occasion.
Done Btspurplegalaxy (talk) 16:20, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've linked them per the above,--Wehwalt (talk) 21:29, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ditto for Billboard Japan.
They're linked per above.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:29, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What happened to doing this, also cite it as work/website instead? --K. Peake 06:55, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed that and listed (and linked) Billboard as the publisher.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:51, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cite Official Charts Company as publisher instead and only wikilink on the first occasion.
Done Btspurplegalaxy (talk) 20:54, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • MOS:CAPS issues with refs 133, 250 and 261.
Done Btspurplegalaxy 🗩 🖉 22:18, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pipe Huffington Post to HuffPost on the first ref only.
This should be cited as work/website, also pipe to the Wiki I said rather than the current redirect. --K. Peake 06:55, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've done it, though cited as publisher.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:36, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 135 is missing a publisher and via.
Done Btspurplegalaxy 🗩 🖉 22:06, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • TeenVogue → Teen Vogue with the link, only citing once and fix MOS:QWQ issues.
Done, usual caveat re linking them all.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:29, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pipe Variety to Variety (magazine) on the first instance only, always citing as work/website/magazine.
Done, see above.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:29, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cite MSN as publisher instead.
Done Btspurplegalaxy (talk) 16:57, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Only wikilink USA Today on the first instance.
Similar comment.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:29, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same as above for Simon Wiesenthal Center.
Similar comment.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:29, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is Naver not cited as via on ref 151?
Cited it. Btspurplegalaxy 🗩 🖉 17:53, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Similar comment.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:29, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cite Grammy as publisher instead and fix MOS:CAPS issues with both refs.
The citation was correct, but what about the capitals issues? --K. Peake 06:55, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The proper publisher is The Recording Academy and I've changed it. I've title-cased the "GRAMMYS", which I guess is what you were talking about.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:57, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 160 has MOS:QWQ issues and remove the link on Teen Vogue.
The link can be kept, but what about the quotation marks issue? --K. Peake 06:55, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed the interior quotes to italics since SNL should be italicized.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:57, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The BBC citations should be publishers instead.
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:29, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cite British Phonographic Industry as publisher instead and only wikilink the first time.
Done, similar comment.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:29, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cite Korean Culture and Information Service as publisher instead.
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:29, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cite IFPI as publisher instead and only wikilink on the first occasion.
  • myx.abs-cbn.com → ABS-CBN with the wikilink and citing as publisher instead.
Done Btspurplegalaxy 🗩 🖉 16:31, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Only link Rolling Stone on the first instance.
Similar comment.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:29, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cite Metacritic as publisher instead.
Done Btspurplegalaxy 🗩 🖉 00:28, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Only link Vox on the first instance.
Similar comment.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:29, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change pitchfork.com to Pitchfork.
Done Btspurplegalaxy 🗩 🖉 16:19, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to Korea Economic Daily instead as it has an article. Btspurplegalaxy 🗩 🖉 16:19, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cite ARIA Charts as publisher instead.
Done Btspurplegalaxy (talk) 16:55, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Add via Naver to any sources that are citing the website without you having added the parameter.
Did you catch this one? --K. Peake 06:55, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link NME on the first ref only.
Done Btspurplegalaxy (talk) 16:24, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cite Music Business Worldwide as publisher instead and fix MOS:CAPS issues.
The caps issues still prevail and you need to wikilink this. --K. Peake 06:55, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done Btspurplegalaxy (talk) 16:27, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Billboard magazine → Billboard.
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:29, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Independent → The Independent.
Done Btspurplegalaxy (talk) 16:23, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done Btspurplegalaxy (talk) 16:26, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done Btspurplegalaxy (talk) 16:26, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done Btspurplegalaxy (talk) 16:26, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Independent should only be linked on the first instance.
Done Btspurplegalaxy (talk) 16:23, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Similar comment.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:29, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ditto for Los Angeles Times.
Similar comment.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:29, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pipe Bloomberg to Bloomberg News on ref 290 and cite as publisher instead.
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:29, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dazed should only be linked on the first instance.
Done Btspurplegalaxy (talk) 16:21, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You missed this, also cite as work/website instead. --K. Peake 06:55, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Linked and cited as magazine.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:57, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shouldn't ref 307 be cited to lead to the bibliographical citation? Either way, link Triumph Books.
Totally missed this too. --K. Peake 06:55, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've fixed that now. Sorry these fell through the cracks.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:57, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Entertainment Weekly should only be linked on the first instance.
Done Btspurplegalaxy (talk) 05:44, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why for this one only? --K. Peake 06:55, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Added for other two instances.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:07, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ditto for Time.
  • Cite Radio.com as publisher instead and pipe to Audacy.
Done Btspurplegalaxy (talk) 05:43, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove All Things Considered from ref 341 and cite NPR as publisher instead with the link; the other citation should cite it as publisher with no link however.
Done with similar comments.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:29, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done Btspurplegalaxy 🗩 🖉 18:31, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cite The Korea Society as publisher instead.
Done Btspurplegalaxy (talk) 18:03, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cite UPI as publisher instead.
Done Btspurplegalaxy (talk) 16:22, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Missed all of these. --K. Peake 06:55, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cite Herald Corportation as publisher instead.
Done Btspurplegalaxy (talk) 16:53, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Two of ref 392 citations are not filled in properly.
Done Btspurplegalaxy 🗩 🖉 17:47, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cite Recording Industry Association of Japan as publisher instead.
  • The Bibliography stuff is fine, but link any of the citations on first usage.
Part two[edit]
  • What makes these high-quality sources:
  • Star News
Listed at WP:KO/RS Btspurplegalaxy 🗩 🖉 6:21, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
  • My Daily
Listed at WP:KO/RS Btspurplegalaxy 🗩 🖉 14:52, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • BNTNews
They seem to be defunct now, but by the description here, they probably qualified.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:41, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Listed at WP:KO/RS Btspurplegalaxy 🗩 🖉 06:23, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • OSEN
Listed at WP:KO/RS Btspurplegalaxy 🗩 🖉 14:52, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • KStyle
It is used as a reference in this high-quality reliable source and therefore I presume it is high-quality itself.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:20, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • isplus.live.joins.com (not sure about the formatting either)
It's reliable, and it's actually the website for Ilgan Sports which is mentioned below. Btspurplegalaxy 🗩 🖉 14:52, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fix the formatting for this website, then. --K. Peake 06:55, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Added publisher and website. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:32, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • TV Report
A scholarly source here has found it worth citing, so I'd say it's OK]].--Wehwalt (talk) 13:41, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Listed at WP:KO/RS Btspurplegalaxy 🗩 🖉 19:23, 25 June 2022
  • News1 (this ref also has MOS:CAPS issues)
Listed at WP:KO/RS Btspurplegalaxy 🗩 🖉 14:52, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ten Asia
Listed at WP:KO/RS Btspurplegalaxy 🗩 🖉 14:52, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sports Today
  • An examination of their website shows that they have an individual, Kim Han-kyung, who is listed as editor/publisher, and who is not the person responsible for writing the content. Accordingly, there seems to be editorial oversight and the professional appearance of that website supports that.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:30, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Why is it a high-quality RS? (t · c) buidhe 21:11, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Buidhe, could you set out your view of a high quality RS, since it is not defined at WP:WIAFA and some of the nominators are relatively new to the process?
    At a bare minimum to be RS you must be able to show that the source has a reputation for fact checking or accuracy. Just existing and calling oneself a news website is not enough to count as a RS; many such sources are rated non-reliable by the Wikipedia community. High quality means to me that the source has a strong reputation for fact checking and accuracy rather than a marginal reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, which would be a marginally reliable source. An example of a high-quality RS would be a peer-reviewed article published by researchers in their area of expertise. (t · c) buidhe 23:13, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd concur with much of that. But even if we grant that the burden of showing "high quality" is on the nominators, it's answered for the ones that the Korean wiki project has found to be reliable, since they're probably in a better position to assess than we are. I'd go so far as to say that where there is such an assessment, the burden would be to show unreliability or bias. As a practical matter, these are the sort of things that can't be definitively settled (since finding sources saying a site has a strong reputation vs a bare reputation would be challenging even for the most common English-language sources), so we do the best we can with what information we can garner.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:03, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Wehwalt's comment appears to be related to the standard approach taken by Wikipedia for reliable sources which is either to green light them as reliable, or to red light them as unreliable; there is a middle area also used by Wikipedia policy to identify 'use only with caution', or to make partial exclusions for some sources. For example, some magazines allow use only if editors are the authors, and to exclude contributors who are not editors at the magazine in question. The regular reading of 'high quality' seems to mean a confirmation that they are not red-flagged as to being unreliable sources by Wikipedia. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:38, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Getting back to "Sports Today", it is cited in several high-quality reliable sources listed here and therefore it is presumably high quality itself (the search is for the website's URL).--Wehwalt (talk) 14:20, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • TV Daily (this needs to be stylized consistently for refs if kept and add the language parameter always too)
Also listed at WP:KO/RS Btspurplegalaxy 🗩 🖉 16:29, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • SEDaily
Cited in several high-quality references listed here and therefore presumably high quality reliable.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:20, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • NewsWorks
Up to date Korean website for current affairs and news events. ErnestKrause (talk) 19:56, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why is it a high-quality RS? (t · c) buidhe 21:11, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's cited in this high-quality reliable source and I presume it the same.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:20, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Arama! Japan
Website providing broad coverage of music and pop culture events in Japan. ErnestKrause (talk) 19:44, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't explain why it's a high-quality RS. (t · c) buidhe 21:08, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Cited, twice, in this high quality reliable source.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:41, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • FirstPost
Breaking News from India. Firstpost is linked to its Wikipedia article which looks acceptable. ErnestKrause (talk) 19:40, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why is it a high-quality RS? (t · c) buidhe 21:08, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Firstpost is cited in a number of high-quality reliable sources as per this search here (disregard the first one) and therefore I presume that it is high quality reliable.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:41, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Elite Daily
Elite Daily is an American online news platform founded by David Arabov, Jonathon Francis, and Gerard Adams. The site describes its target audience as millennials. Seems fine according to the linked Wikipedia article. ErnestKrause (talk) 19:38, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why is it a high-quality RS? (t · c) buidhe 21:08, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's cited in a number of high quality reliable sources per this search here and therefore I presume it is the same.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:41, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stereogum
This is an award-winning blog, about which we have an article, Stereogum. Scott Lapatine's would seem to qualify as that of an established subject-matter expert, given the blog is 20 years old.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:34, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In the vast majority of instances blog isn't a "high-quality reliable source" even if you could argue SPS. Since the band is made up of a few living people BLPSPS likely applies. (t · c) buidhe 18:25, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've cut that source and also removed the one style of music that seems exclusively sourced to that reference.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:50, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • IZE (this ref also has MOS:QWQ issues)
Cannot locate this in current version of article. Where is this quote-within-quote? ErnestKrause (talk) 14:54, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hwang, Hyo-jin (April 1, 2019). "BTS pledges to "tell the story of our generation with our lyrics""
Ref. 317 Btspurplegalaxy 🗩 🖉 14:57, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed quote marks. IZE is a Korean pop culture magazine which follows K-Pop. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:27, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • 일간스포츠
Read about it here, Ilgan Sports, so it checks out. Btspurplegalaxy 🗩 🖉 14:52, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why is it a high-quality RS? (t · c) buidhe 21:08, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's also listed at WP:KO/RS Btspurplegalaxy 🗩 🖉 16:27, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • 머니투데이
MTN Korean news source. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:41, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why is it a high-quality RS? (t · c) buidhe 21:09, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is used as a citation in multiple Korean periodicals and books. For example here: [10]. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:55, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Acclaim Magazine
Australian produced magazine on style adn culture. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:37, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why is it a high-quality RS? (t · c) buidhe 21:10, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Cited in a number of high-quality reliable sources, here and therefore presume it's the same.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:41, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Muse
Industry high quality format fashion magazine in tabloid size format. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:34, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you think it's "high quality" (t · c) buidhe 21:11, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Appears as an extension of a TV channel in existence for over 10 years, extending to entertainment and sports coverage. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:58, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Business of Fashion
Industry fashion magazine which is also sold on Amazon with their business description displayed there. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:34, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why would being sold on Amazon indicate it's a high-quality RS? (t · c) buidhe 21:07, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Cited in high-quality reliable sources here, presume it is the same.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:41, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • JoyNews24
In Korean, used throughout Wikipedia, for example Lomon. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:29, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't explain why it's a high-quality RS. (t · c) buidhe 21:07, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Cited as a source of this, which is used as a source in this article with its quality unchallenged.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:41, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
JoyNew24 is unreliable, so I removed it and replaced it with the Yohnap News source instead. Btspurplegalaxy 🗩 🖉 19:04, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refinery29; this is one that is required to be removed per WP:RSP on it
Switch cite to International Business Times. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:24, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
IBT is not a RS (t · c) buidhe 21:07, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Switch IBT to The Korean Herald. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:22, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Revolutionaries; this is owned by Medium so needs to be removed per WP:RSP
Drop Villebert, go with Quessard as reliable source. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:13, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

--K. Peake 09:27, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • ErnestKrause and Wehwalt, I have left comments above where issues prevail but top job on showing reliability for most of these! Also, I am opening a FAC for Late Registration again if you wish to leave any comments. --K. Peake 06:55, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm fairly sure all 52 via Naver edits are now in place. Wehwalt also says all the rest seems ready as well. Should be ready for your next set of edit comments when you have a chance to add them. ErnestKrause (talk) 17:56, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • ErnestKrause and Wehwalt I still do take issue with Kyung Hyun Kim's full name being used every instance when I pointed out how you could fix this especially since it is monotonous, brackets () are still used for albums after the first mentions despite it being stated otherwise, refs 134 and 342 are formatted incorrectly and finally, why is HuffPost cited as publisher? --K. Peake 16:49, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Kyle Peake, given that Kim is the surname, wouldn't it be improper to refer to them by their other names? I've removed the brackets outside the lead, fixed the references and cited HuffPost as websites.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:09, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
When he is the most recent Kim mentioned, use the surname only; elsewise, use the full one again. K. Peake 17:41, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's done.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:45, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
With all of these sorted now, I proudly support this article's candidacy! --K. Peake 20:58, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks indeed for all the work you put in.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:02, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Coordinator comment - at about three weeks in with no strong movement towards a consensus to promote, this nomination is liable to be archived within three or so days unless substantial progress is made. Hog Farm Talk 01:15, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd hope you'd hold off long enough to see if the two substantial reviews we've had result in two supports and also there's a good chance at having the source review passed.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:55, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I wholeheartedly disagree, as there have been heavy efforts to improve this article. --K. Peake 20:58, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And I'd ask coordinators to notice FrB.TG's comment above that they've been ill and are just getting back to finish their review. Wehwalt (talk) 22:50, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass[edit]

Done Btspurplegalaxy (talk) 2:26, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
Done Btspurplegalaxy (talk) 2:34, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
Done Btspurplegalaxy (talk) 2:42, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
I added the archive link Btspurplegalaxy (talk) 2:56, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
Done Btspurplegalaxy (talk) 2:29, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
Done Btspurplegalaxy (talk) 2:29, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:05, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've added personality rights templates to all images so requiring.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:00, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest adding alt text to all the images for accessibility per MOS:ACCIM. See MOS:ALT for examples. -- EN-Jungwon 14:54, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Hawkeye7[edit]

I don't know a thing about K-Pop and don't even know the difference between a vocalist and a rapper. But while I'm here:

  • References required for the Concert toours section

Otherwise looks good. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:16, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for the reviews and support. I'll fine-tune anything necessary on the images tomorrow.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:07, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ippantekina[edit]

I have not thoroughly examine the article. Here are some comments from my first impression:

  • Kudos to the scholarly sources!
  • Remove Metro per WP:RSP.
Removed and placed with Billboard source. Btspurplegalaxy (talk) 4:16, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
  • I wonder if this is necessary: In the United Kingdom, BTS is the first Korean group to receive BPI certification, and holds seven silver singles,[398] one gold single,[399] one platinum single,[400] seven silver album certifications,[401] and three gold album certifications.[402]" the claim "the first Korean group to receive BPI certification is unsourced, and the listing of all certifications appears as WP:INDISCRIMINATE. The same goes to the specific listing of RIAA certs; I suggest adding only the overalls (i.e. xx million digital singles certified)
I've cut this. Having a running total is probably not going to be worth it.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:27, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Use {{lang}} to correctly render foreign-language names
  • Use |script-title=ko: (or |script-title=ja:) in {{cite web}} to correctly render foreign-language website titles
I've added them all. Btspurplegalaxy (talk) 20:22, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I must say the prose needs thorough fine-tuning
I've gone through it. Can you take a second look?--Wehwalt (talk) 19:32, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The language is not up to standards at some places, i.e. how do you define "Moderate success" or "Worldwide recognition"? with UNICEF celebrating its success how successful was the campaign? Was it measurable/quantifiable? and attracted many new fans WP:PEACOCK. This demonstrated the growing power of the band's fanbase POV; the number speaks for itself. "a dual exploration of the group's electro-pop and hip-hop leanings" this can be safely paraphrased without quotation marks. Such language may be appropriate for a GA, but not for an FA.
I've gone through it and taken out anything that might be construed as peacocky, in particular changing the mentions you've pointed out.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:32, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Three subsections for a two-to-three-year chunk are a lot! I know they have been a smash and broken numerous records, but still, remove whatever can be removed and use summary style.
I've cut out what I thought was relatively trivial.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:32, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article is a little sprawling and some bits of information can be safely excluded—i.e. In April, BTS became the first South Korean artist to sell more than 20 million albums cumulatively ... making them the best-selling artist in South Korean history. (the 32.7 million figure in the Awards section is enough) or "Dynamite" remained at number two, making BTS the fourth group (after the Beatles, Bee Gees, and OutKast) to simultaneously occupy the top two spots on the Hot 100 (if they are the fourth group to achieve this feat it can be left in the song article). Information on the evolution of themes/styles can be grouped altogether in the "Artistry" section.
I've deleted a fair amount along these lines.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:32, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

— Ippantekina (talk) 03:45, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Comment by CactiStaccingCrane[edit]

  • Oppose Comment: Sorry for being harsh, but I have some big concerns about BTS#Fandom's dueness and without it being addressed, I don't feel comfortable this article getting a FA status. To be very blunt, I feel that the section is too promotional, with phrases such as the fandom regularly embraces activism on charitable causes and socio-political issues, charitable contributions, non-hierarchical collective intelligence that transcend cultural and national borders or extending the band's message of positivity into the world. I do think that this section should be kept, but completely rewritten in order to comply with neutrality and somewhat shorten to comply our due proportions policy. Otherwise, great work on BTS, and I'm happy to struck my oppose once my concern is addressed. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 03:58, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I"ve cut some. But the fandom is not puffing, this part of the article is very heavily supported by scholarly sources. I've been involved in music fandom in my time, and the fans' aspirations were heavily focused on the music and on the band members. This is different. To cite from the scholarly sources, Chang and Park, p. 268, "On the whole, we find that the fandoms, constituted through the digital intimacies of cyberspace, gradually proceed from the realm of personal relations and individual experience to an expanding sympathy with social, and even political, issues that organically connect to the experiences of BTS and ARMY members. A moving target, as this living phenomenon has extended in real time to the global stage, it has started to reveal its cultural and social complexity and potential to both reflect and drive social change." Or Lee and Kao, p. 81: " BTS ARMY is extremely well-organized and was able to help motivate BTS to issue a statement and donate funds. In fact, the effectiveness of the fandom has been repeatedly demonstrated in their ardent support of BTS, but in this situation, they prompted BTS to act on a political issue. Most recently, the rise of anti-Asian hate crimes and negative bias incidents due to COVID-19 in the U.S. and elsewhere has led to the hashtag #stopasianhate and #stopAAPIhate. In March 2021, BTS released a statement utilizing the above hashtags to condemn racism against Asian Americans,and stated that they had also experienced racism as Asians when traveling outside of Korea. Their statements resonated with fans across the world and with Asian Americans, as well as Asians in other Western countries.The political power of the BTS ARMY is important for K-pop itself because it showsthe possible trajectory of K-pop as a global cultural phenomenon." It isn't puffing, it's a thing.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:07, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • CactiStaccingCrane, I'd be grateful if you'd have another look at this and perhaps review the sources we used, most of which are online.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:34, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Struck my oppose. The section is much better than before without the PR-sounding "non-hierarchical collective intelligence that transcend cultural and national borders" phrase. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 04:39, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Lil-Unique1[edit]

  • The overall article size per WP:SIZE is on the upper limits of what we'd expect for a single article. At 233b its approaching the territory where we might we want to split the article
  • The diplomacy section is WP:OR - although I don't disagree that that was BTS have done is a form of soft power, it is original research to say this and synthesis unless specific sources have called it out themselves.
So what you want is sources saying BTS has exercised soft power.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:59, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The second paragraph of the Music Style section is completely synthesised and overly detailed. I'd remove this.
  • In the influences section, picking out specific songs is overly detailed for an overview.
  • Keeping 1-2 songs as examples might be useful?... ErnestKrause (talk) 23:18, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also removing some of the excessive detail. Going to one paragraph version of that section now. ErnestKrause (talk) 23:26, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some of the references are missing the "language" field and contain capitals which is a violation of MOS:CAPS
  • Recently this was checked for Korean and Japanese; if any are still there possibly you can list them here. Regarding CAPS, I seem to recall that some of the Korean titles were actually stylized to include the English language album titles in full caps and this stylizing was preserved. Remove it might overstep being able to attribute it to the source in its current format. ErnestKrause (talk) 23:18, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've found the following that might be worth changing:
Typo resolved.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:33, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 220, BLACKPINK is all in caps - not required per MOS:ALLCAPS
  • Ref 81 BTS ARMY - change army to sentence case
  • Don't agree, ARMY is an acronym (see Fandom section) and takes all caps.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:33, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 372 has caps in the title
I'd want these addressing ideally >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 21:20, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

These are the initial comments from me. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 22:42, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The copyright tool in this case seems to be keying on keywords which the two articles have in common, though I could find no copyvio issues other than false positives which seem to be related to a large number of common words and terms; for example your article uses "BTS' RM and Suga talk mental health, depression, and connecting with fans" are all common words and phrases related to talk about 'mental health', and 'depression', etc. Still, if you believe that you have an instance of comparing one full sentence in your articles to one full sentence in the Wikipedia article, then you can list the A-to-B comparison here. I've not been able to see anything other than the high number of common words and phrases used in describing mental health issues etc. ErnestKrause (talk) 23:48, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It needs paraphrasing. Its not just certain words randomly its an entire phrase/sentence(s)/clauses. Paraphrase or reword in your own words. Other than that I can't find much else to fault here tbh. >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 21:13, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Time magazine one is due entirely to quotes, all I think said by RM, that are common to both articles, and we've put them in quotation marks and attributed them properly. For the EW, again, a lot of it is quotes both articles use and what words ARMY stands for, but I've paraphrased the remainder.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:35, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from TheSandDoctor[edit]

I have given this a readthrough and I am satisfied that the prose meets the standards becoming of a featured article. Well done, ErnestKrause, Wehwalt, and Btspurplegalaxy! --TheSandDoctor Talk 02:29, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Heartfox[edit]

  • In August 2014, BTS released their first Korean studio album Dark & Wild" — nothing in the ref supports the release date or that it was their first Korean studio album.
  • "t was supported by two singles: "Danger" — not supported by ref
  • "to a crowd of 6,500 fans" — not supported by ref

Three unsourced facts in one paragraph is concerning. Heartfox (talk) 21:49, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've added in extra citations for each of the items you have listed above. The section you've been reading was recently trimmed for size at the request of other editors and I have restored those citations and done some rewrites. The tour you ask about was a large success for BTS in 2014-2015. Ready for next set of edit requests when you have time to add them here. ErnestKrause (talk) 23:39, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2016 World Snooker Championship[edit]

Nominator(s): Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:37, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the 2016 edition of the World Snooker Championship. Mark Selby won the event defeating Ding Junhui in the final. Let me know your thoughts.Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:37, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Image review—pass (t · c) buidhe 17:21, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild[edit]

Recusing to review. I will do a little copy editing as I go. Let me know if you object to anything.

  • What is a "ranking event"?
"The event was the tenth and last ranking event of the 2015–2016 season." → 'The event was the tenth and last event of the 2015–2016 season that carried snooker world ranking points' doesn't seem difficult to me.
Apologies GTM, I've been a bit busy with something else. Sure, I've made this change. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:46, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "All the other players". Which group is made up of who?
  • "to within one at 10–9." Missing word?
  • "210 million viewers from China on CCTV-5 in China." I don't think we need both "from China" and "in China."
  • Why is the text on qualifying not in chronological order? Ie, before the text on the first round.
    • This is pretty standard - I have asked in the past, but currently there is no consensus to have qualification before the main draw. Probably as it's much less important and can be quite long on these pages. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:51, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am not referring to the rather smart graphics. You write about qualifying in some detail in "Tournament summary#Seeding and qualifying rounds" and then repeat some of it and add information in "Qualifying". This level of detail would be better consolidated in one place, and just a brief summary left to introduce "Qualifying", as you do with "Main draw".
I get your concern. However, I do feel like it would bloat up the format section to include the names of invited players, for instance. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:48, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ho hum. I might be inclined to argue further over this, but checking other, similar, promoted articles this approach has clearly been acceptable to other reviewers. Which I find a little odd, but so be it. Otherwise well up to your usual standard. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:48, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I have. Nice work. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:49, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from NØ[edit]

  • Try to avoid starting two consecutive sentences with "it" in the lead's first paragraph. Maybe the second one can be "The event was the tenth and last of the 2015–16 snooker season that carries ranking points."
  • "The defending champion was Stuart Bingham" - Active voice if possible
  • I'd do demonyms for both or neither in "China's Ding Junhui and Scot Alan McManus"
  • "Ding also setting a new record for [...]" - Shouldn't "setting" be "set"? Also there's two consecutive sentences starting with "Ding" so maybe just "he" in the second one.
    • We need to avoid "he", because we just spoke about two people, I've reworded. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:07, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "he announced his retirement later during the first round of the event" - "later" could be removed here as it is not completely necessary in my opinion, or "he announced his retirement later in the first round of the event"
  • "raised to £1,500,100 from the previous year's £1,364,000" - maybe "raised to £1,500,100 from £1,364,000 the previous year"
  • "The semi-finals were played 28–30 April over four sessions" - "on" 28-30 April?
    • I've actually been told off for doing that previously. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:07, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's a problem with WP:OVERLINK in the article. I can count at least six instances of Ding Junhui in the article and a bunch of others (Bingham, maximum break, Allen, Maguire, McManus, Trump, Hawkins, 2011, Davis, Hendry, etc.)
  • "A total of 128 players competed in the qualifying" - maybe it's just me but this sounds incomplete. should there be a word after "qualifying"? like maybe "round".
  • No alt texts?
I was probably being a little nit-picky but that's all. Great work here as usual.--NØ 18:50, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from BennyOnTheLoose[edit]

Overview

  • "is the official world championship of the game of snooker" - add "professional" in there somewhere as there are IBSF and WWS versions too.
  • Could wikilink "world snooker rankings" at first instance.
  • "The first world championship was held in 1927 taking place in Camkin's Hall, Birmingham..." - how about "The first world championship was held in 1927 at Camkin's Hall, Birmingham..."?
  • "modern era" - could do with an inline explanation or footnote.
  • "This was Bingham's first championship.." - add a word like "win" or "title" after championship.
  • "rolling 147 prize" - suggesting adding an inline explanation or footnote.
    • Removed rolling, just state what the prize was. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:47, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tournament

  • I don't think that players are consistently referred to, by surname or full name - what is the intention?
  • "missed the final black" - we usually add "ball" after the colour. Also, can be cuegloss linked.
  • "first woman ever to reach the Crucible" - I know this phrasing has been added for variety, but suggest being a bit more literal (e.g. reach the main event) as women's events have been played there too, e.g. 1998 Women's World Championship (snooker).
  • "Steve Davis announced his retirement" - I think it be worth mentioning that this was announced after he lost to O'Brien.
  • Could wikilink "century break"
  • Could, optionally, cuegloss-link "deciding frame"
  • "succumb to the Crucible curse," - not a phrasing I like. He lost, did not "succumb" to an abstract concept. But we've probably had this wording accepted in other FAs.
  • "received a formal warning" - from who?
  • "fellow Scot" - is this relevant?
  • "In response, tournament organisers changed the cloth and cushions used on the tables" - doesn't look from the source like it was directly "in response" as other players had also complained.
  • "Kyren won the next two" - "Wilson won the next two"
  • "he first time in 14 years that Hawkins had beaten" - could use "he" instead of "Hawkins"
  • Looks like per MOS:CURRENCY/MOS:DIGITS that 1409 and 1135 should be 1,409 and 1,135 for consistency with four-digit currency amounts in the article.
  • "Marco Fu led Hawkins by 9–1 before Hawkins won five straight frames to within one frame at 10–9" needs tweaking
  • "In the first, Ding was leading McManus 5–0 and 9–3 scoring five centuries in nine frames" - I think needs a comma after "9–3"
  • "McManus scored centuries of his own winning six frames to trail 8–9" - how many? Needs a comma after "own"
  • "six centuries set by Davis in 1946," - should have a footnote or mention that the 1946 final was over 145 frames, not 35.
  • "The match ended just minutes after Selby's home city of Leicester celebrated Leicester City F.C.'s first ever Premier League title win" - seems a bit off-topic, if you don't mention Selby displaying their flag etc.
  • "The event as a whole saw a total of 210 million viewers in China on CCTV-5.[78] of a total viewership of 300 million.[77]" - stray full stop. Maybe "The event as a whole attracted 300 million viewers in China, including 210 million on CCTV-5."?
  • Can the YouTube source be replaced for "Defending champion Bingham was seeded first, while other seeded places were allocated based on the latest world rankings"? A 15 minute video isn't an ideal source.
  • Some World Snooker sources mention WPBSA; these are linked but distinct entities.

Main draw

  • I don't like versions of the final table that duplicate the scores under each player. I think the version at 1985 World Snooker Championship looks better, and, with the annotations, is more accessible. This probably can't be a fatal objection though.
    • It's not an excuse, but my time is a little limited at the moment, whilst I agree with you, it can take quite some time to change these. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:47, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Qualifying

  • The EBSA Order of Merit - spell out what the EBSA is at first mention. The links are probably adequate for WLBSA/IBSF and EBSA in the list of qualifying players.
  • Players invited by the Order of Merit were limited to one player per country" - how about "Order of Merit invitations were limited to one player per country."?

Hi Lee Vilenski. Comments above. I might have some more later. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 09:52, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Why is BBC Sport italicized and Yahoo! Sports not?
  • Be consistent in whether you include publication locations
  • What makes SnookerHQ a high-quality reliable source? Chris Turner? Bleacher Report? Snooker.org?
Personally, I've always found SnookerHQ to be a very well written item that should be considered reliable, but there was just one entry, so I've removed it..
Chris Turner was the statistician and historian who worked for Eurosport and the BBC.
Bleacher Report has been removed
Snooker.org is an award winning statistics site. Only uses direct information from match scores and dates in the article.
  • FNs 12 and 13 are to the same source but are formatted differently - check throughout
  • Fn14 is incomplete. Ditto FN15, FN27, check throughout
  • FN29 claims to be in Norwegian but is not. Ditto FN85.

Some cleanup needed here. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:46, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi guys, not ignoring these - just running a bit low on time the last couple days. Get to them soon. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:24, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have made the source changes. There's a couple comments on the sources brought up. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:46, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Armadillo shoe[edit]

Nominator(s): ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:43, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

British designer Alexander McQueen was a wild child of fashion, a theatrical mastermind known for runway shows that doubled as performance art. Never was that more true than at his final show, Plato's Atlantis (2009), which featured a number of models walking in foot-tall armadillo shoes that made them look like alien ballerinas. The shoes were both lauded and loathed by the press and the public: many reviews called them grotesque and beautiful in the same sentence. Lady Gaga became famously associated with them after wearing them in a music video and on the red carpet. They remain a subject of fascination for academics and fashion journalists – and me – to this day. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:43, 1 June 2022 (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
  • (Spring/Summer 2010) - could this not be in prose? Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:25, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I feel like this format is approximately the same as having the year after an album, which is pretty standard (see the lead of Lady Gaga, for example).
  • I suppose not
Prose
  • Plato's Atlantis was McQueen's final fully-realized collection; he died by suicide in 2010. - seems like a jump! Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:25, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see how it's a jump. A bit shocking, yes, but factual and contextually relevant.
  • Thanks, me too! The sketch especially was a godsend because I could not get my head around them before I saw it.
  • 21 pairs were crafted for the original collection, - it's usually bad form to start a sentence with a number. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:25, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed
  • Fixed
Additional comments

Additionally, if you liked this review, or are looking for items to review, I have some at my nominations list. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 17:36, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from ChrisTheDude[edit]

  • Spring/Summer 2010 - seasons aren't normally written with capital letters
  • Normally no, but in the fashion world "Spring/Summer" and "Fall/Winter" are used as proper nouns denoting seasons of fashion as opposed to natural seasons, the other two being Resort and Pre-Fall (see [11], [12], [13], [14] for a couple of examples).
  • "suggesting that the models have evolved" => "had evolved"
  • Fixed
  • "final fully-realized collection" - McQueen was British, so shouldn't British spellings be used per WP:TIES.....?
  • Lol yep. I'm a bad Canadian.
  • "21 pairs were crafted" - any way to avoid starting a sentence with a digit? It looks wrong to me......
  • Fixed
  • "Lady Gaga, then his fiancé" - Gaga is female, so it should be spelt fiancée
  • Whoops

Aoba47[edit]

  • I have a clarification question about this sentence: McQueen admitted in an interview with trade journal Women's Wear Daily that he had never tested the armadillos personally. Would it be normal for McQueen to test out his designs personally (i.e. is this abnormal for him to not do this) or is this pretty standard for him?
  • This is something specific to these shoes, rather than something that would normally be expected for a designer to do. I put that quote in because it plays into the feminist critique that comes later in the article, that a man would expect women to wear these heavy, impossibly high shoes that have zero basis in reality, but not even test them out himself.
  • Thank you for the explanation. That makes sense to me. I have seen some interesting discussions about McQueen, where some call him anti-woman/misogynist and others that call him pro-woman/feminist (including Lady Gaga). Aoba47 (talk) 01:00, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is not necessary for the FAC, but I would archive all the web citations to avoid any future headaches. Citation 29 (i.e. the Glamour citation on Kelis) was what lead me to post this comment. I believe a majority of the web citations are already archived so this may just be the odd one out.
  • Whoops yeah forgot. Done now.
  • It happens to the best of us. Thankfully, it was a live citation so it was not difficult to archive. I probably just noticed it because I forgot (or was just not aware) that Kelis owned a pair of these shoes. Aoba47 (talk) 01:00, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have a clarification question about this sentence: In 2012, British Vogue called them one of the 20 most iconic shoes of all time. Is it British Vogue or British Vogue? The prose and citation have it both ways.
  • The magazine is just called Vogue, but informally calls itself British Vogue to distinguish itself from the original American Vogue. Our article is named on that basis, and doesn't italicize "British" in its title. Unfortunately, {{cite web}} doesn't let you do partial italics in the "website" parameter, so I'm forced to italicize the whole thing.
  • That is what I had figured, but I wanted to make sure anyway. That makes sense to me. You are consistent through the article with the British Vogue representation so that makes it clear to me (and to readers in general). Aoba47 (talk) 01:00, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wonderful work with the article. My comments are rather nitpick-y so apologies for that. Once everything has been addressed, I will be more than happy to support this FAC for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 15:56, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Aoba, thanks as always for your commentary, which is always thoughtful! I've responded to your comments, let me know if you feel anything remains unaddressed. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:52, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your responses! I support the article based on the prose. I greatly appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia and I had a lot of fun reading about this article. It was a huge blast of nostalgia for that period of Gaga's career lol. Best of luck with this FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 01:00, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Aoba47 this is a bit late but I'm glad to hear you enjoyed the article. It was a lot of fun to write about and I was so pleased when I found enough sourcing to hit GA/FA. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:09, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

Spotchecks not done

  • FN1: this appears to have been specifically in the magazine rather than BBC News generally
  • Weird. Okay, I've changed the link
  • Be consistent in whether publication locations are included for books and if so how these are formatted
  • I've added these. The only instance where I didn't was where Oxford University was the publisher, because Cite book says not to put a location where the publisher includes the location
  • The documentation says not to put a location where the work includes the location, not publisher. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:44, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, I totally misread that. Seems weird to me, but I've changed it.
  • Access dates aren't helpful for GBooks
  • Removed
  • What makes Daily Beast a high-quality reliable source? GeminiDragon?
  • At RSP, Daily Beast is shown in yellow for being biased/opinionated rather than for journalistic integrity issues. Per WP:BIASED, biased sources can be acceptable if there is editorial control, fact-checking, and independence. There is also more leeway given when it is the site's opinion being cited. In this case I believe the DB articles cited pass muster.
  1. The "Best Shoes Ever" DB article has been cited by other sources including this book, Christie's, i-D by Vice, indicating that it is considered reliable by those publications
  2. The author of that article has also written for WSJ, NYT, and several other publications, so I have no concerns about her journalistic qualifications.
  3. For the most part, in this article the content cited to the Best Shoes DB article is supported by other sources, indicating that the facts are in line with what other sources are reporting (I would prefer to keep it even where other sources are used as it sometimes backs up similar but not identical facts)
  4. In other cases it is citing opinions, such as in the last paragraph - I am happy to change to in-text attribution for those, if that would help.
  • The book from GeminiDragon was a republication of a Prentice Hall/Person Education book, but I wound up ditching it anyway as I had other sources that said the same.
  • Check that date formatting is consistent throughout - eg FN12
  • Should now be fixed
  • Metropolitan Museum or The Metropolitan Museum?
  • Made consistent
  • Check formatting of quote marks within quote marks
  • Can you specify where I have a quote within a quote? I don't see one.
  • Ah, I see. I've adjusted those to be singles now.
  • Are FNs 4 and 22 the same source?
  • Fixed
  • Be consistent in whether you include publishers for periodicals
  • I have done so consistent with the citation template guidance, which says the publisher should be omitted when it's substantially the same as the work.
  • For example FNs 36 and 41 are to the same publication, but one includes a publisher and the other does not - why? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:44, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • That was an oversight, I've fixed it. The rest should be MOS-compliant. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:05, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent in whether museums are treated as publishers or works.
  • I assume this is in reference to the "Museum of Savage Beauty" from the V&A. "The Museum of Savage Beauty" is just the name of the website for the McQueen exhibition, and the website is published by the V&A. There is no actual separate museum entity by that name. In terms of the Met, I put Met as the website where I'm citing the Met's website (FN17 & 18), and Met as the publisher where it's the publisher of a book (FN20).
  • Why is V&A a publisher in those references, but a work in for example FN44? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:44, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well...for whatever reason, that particular article isn't on the Museum of Savage Beauty site, even though it's McQueen-related. It's just on the main Victoria & Albert website. So I put V&A as the website. I'm not sure how else to handle the distinction.

Nikkimaria (talk) 03:31, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments, Nikkimaria, I am sorry that it took me several days to respond. Let me know what you think. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:52, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass[edit]

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:17, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ed, Edd n Eddy's Big Picture Show[edit]

Nominator(s): SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 22:55, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For your consideration, I give you the series finale to Ed, Edd n Eddy. I've taken the page from this to what it is now since the start of 2022. Unless one counts a review from Steve Pulaski, the reception section has been expanded to include all the reviews I found from trustworthy publications. Hopefully it's comprehensive enough to meet FA standards. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 22:55, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image assessment from Buidhe[edit]

  • Image review—pass, no licensing issues found (t · c) buidhe 23:37, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aoba47[edit]

  • What is the current structure for the "Reception" section? I think it would be more helpful to give this section more structure so readers could get a better sense of how critics viewed this film. I believe this essay, WP:RECEPTION, is very helpful for working on these types of sections as they can be difficult to write. I just do not think have this information presented in a long, single paragraph is ideal or as engaging as it could be. To be clear all the information in this section is good. My concern is about it is structured.

This is my only comment. I believe all of my concerns were already addressed in the peer review so I do not have too much to add. Once my above comment is addressed, I will support this FAC for promotion based on the prose. I hope this is helpful and have a great week! Aoba47 (talk) 02:35, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • To be honest, Aoba47, I didn't have a particular order/structure in mind when compiling the reviews and am not sure how to rework them. If it wasn't limited to five sources who all felt it did a good job of ending the series, then I might have a better sense of what to do. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 02:51, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is fair, and I completely understand your point. I will read through that section more thoroughly either today or tomorrow to see if I could get a better handle it to give more direct feedback or suggestions. It could be a case where this is the best way to present this information. I hope that it is okay with you and apologies for the wait. Aoba47 (talk) 03:14, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • This could help, and for the record, that Pulaski piece linked above had a sense of "it was a good way to wrap up Ed, Edd n Eddy" as well. No qualms with waiting. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 03:16, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your patience. Upon further review, this section looks good to me. The paragraph begins with a clear overview of what critics discussed (i.e. how it was a strong conclusion for the series). I appreciate how the reviews are presented in a chronological order and I do think that helps keep the prosing engaging because of the transitions in place around that. I support this FAC for promotion based on the prose. Aoba47 (talk) 15:24, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, and I appreciate the support :) SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 16:53, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am just glad that I could help and I was more than happy to read the article. If possible, I would greatly appreciate any feedback for my current peer review, but I completely understand if you are busy. Bust of luck with this FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 03:15, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You should have something from me within 24 hours. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 03:57, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you. That is very kind of you. Aoba47 (talk) 23:17, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from FrB.TG[edit]

  • Support on prose and MoS per my peer review. FrB.TG (talk) 16:43, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review from NØ (Pass)[edit]

I really like this article's size so I hope it's okay if I grab it for my first-ever source review!

  • What makes this a high-quality source? I wasn't able to locate an About Us page and it appears to host a forums section.
  • All of the other sources appear to be reliable for the purposes they are used.
  • The MovieAddictz ref is not working for me but the archive appears to be ok so it should be marked as dead.
  • Ref formatting appears to be consistent with how individual articles on the agencies italicize.
  • Spotchecks show nothing of concern.--NØ 02:03, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • For whatever it might be worth, MaranoFan, here you can find an "About Us" page for ToonZone before it got renamed to Anime Superhero. That's much more detailed than what you'll find on the current incarnation. What I can safely say is that (under both names) this is a place dedicated to animation with news pieces and isn't just limited to forums. It's not being used for any particularly contentious claims (season 5 being completed along with announcement for future movie) and only seems to be recapping what participants discussed at Comic-Con in 2006. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 03:47, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • From that page: "Toonzone is an animation news and information web site run by a group of devoted animation fans. [...] What originally began as a small discussion area on old Prodigy service", unfortunately this doesn't give me a lot of confidence. RSN seems to have been divided (1, 2, 3, 4, 5), with some allegations of WP:SPS. A bit unsure this is passable for FA.--NØ 04:26, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see what you mean. If anything better comes up in my searches (or somebody else finds a good substitute), then I'll be sure to add it. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 04:29, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • UPDATE: No luck with replacements so far, but I did find published interviews they've conducted with people who worked on animated movies, with samples including these pieces. Is this enough to help build credibility? SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 04:55, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • ToonZone seems unacceptable so removing all usages of that will pass my source review. No opinion on other comments below.--NØ 16:52, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How do TheThings and Tom Holland's Terror Time look in comparison? Regarding credentials, you can look here for the former while the latter is from a site by the famous director Tom Holland, often focusing on horror-related works. It also stitches together tweets from Erin Fitzgerald (a member of this show's voice cast), though if you'd prefer linking to one or more of the tweets themselves, then I could probably dig them up. Another option is a video from Akeem Lawanson aka GeekHeavy, a content host for IGN. Before making replacements, I'd like your thoughts please on what would be ideal to use. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 00:15, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I can see TheThings has an editorial team so that one should work. Don't think I would use the other one.--NØ 06:39, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
TheThings has now been implemented, and I was able to use a 2008 interview with Danny Antonucci to establish how this would mark the debut of Eddy's brother :). SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 16:17, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Quick question, MaranoFan: do you know how to manually archive links without a tool? My three tries earlier today to run IABot for adding them to newly inserted URLs somehow did nothing at all (which surpised me when this previously worked for other links), and adding these to Wayback Machine also failed :/. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 16:38, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done; the article now passes my source review.--NØ 18:00, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your input and archiving are appreciated :D! SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 18:01, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Guerillero[edit]

Oppose

  • Sourcing issues
    • PatricCaird.com
    • ToonZone
    • Use of databases such as the LoC and the Big Cartoon DataBase
    • UWIRE
    • Animated Times
  • Prose issues
    • "It can be purchased on the iTunes Store and runs for 89 minutes"
    • Plot is overly detailed

--Guerillero Parlez Moi 08:44, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Except for maybe Toon Zone per above comments, Guerillero, I cannot see any issue with the sources used. In particular, Caird's site feels fine when he composed this film's score. Not sure how much plot to cut when that already has been trimmed down from what it was this past December/January. Each detail included IS relevant. As for the iTunes bit, I hope cutting that to focus more on duration helps in some capacity. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 12:00, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sources need to be "high-quality reliable sources" not just reliable. I stand behind my review. Guerillero Parlez Moi 13:41, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You're suggesting the Library of Congress isn't high quality!? That's quite frankly absurd. The least you could do is suggest how to revise the plot or give some useable links. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 14:39, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Copyright Office is an example of the use of databases for basic facts instead of secondary sources. (It's use doesn't support the statement it is used for)

The role of reviewers at FAC is to provide opinions as to how the article stacks again the criteria, not to find sources. --In actu (Guerillero) Parlez Moi 18:16, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Release/creation dates sound pretty basic to me and they CAN be found in the Copyright Office. You just have to click the link under "Full title" to see more details. I now have revised that link accordingly. In all honesty, your assessment of the refs outside of Toon Zone comes off as unfair, especially when mainstream media coverage of animated TV often is limited compared to what one would find for live action series/movies or even theatrically released animations. This means we sometimes have to look elsewhere for the best possible sources to use on things regarding cartoon shows (which is what I did prior to nominating for FA). You'd be hard-pressed to find much better things than what's already been added. Regarding the plot section, it isn't helpful at all too simply call that "too detailed" without elaborating on which parts could be cut without losing essential information. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 23:58, 3 June 2022 (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
  • animated adventure comedy television film - WP:SEAOFBLUE. You can easily just say "Television film" and put info on genres later. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:54, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reworked to include the "adventure" part later, but where else could "comedy" go? SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 16:17, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed, lede sentence says "animated" twice. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:54, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Infobox has "A.k.a cartoon" with a cap, but our article suggests it shouldn't have. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:54, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's been changed to lowercase. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 16:17, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • his unnamed (and previously unseen) - could probably just be culled. Just older brother is enough info for lede.Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:54, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you certain? The whole point it tries to make is that this is the brother's debut appearance (after prior episodes only alluded to him) and that his name is never specified. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 16:17, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Participants" - is this the right word for people living in a cul-de-sac? Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:54, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was trying to avoid repeating "neighbors" when not all the cul-de-sac residents take part in the scheme that went haywire. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 16:17, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • team at a.k.a. Cartoon - just say producerLee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:54, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since a.k.a. Cartoon is a group of staff and not just one person, I've scrapped "team at" and kept in the company's name. Hopefully this works. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 16:17, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Prose
  • Credits adapted from The Big Cartoon DataBase.[1] - can we not say anything more helpful here? Like, give the readers an understanding as to what they are reading. I know the topic is "cast", but could easily say "below is a list of voice actors" or similar. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:01, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • In The Complete Second Season DVD's "Behind the Eds" interview, he hinted that the film would reveal what is under Double D's hat, though this never occurred. A few episodes, such as "Run Ed, Run", implied that he is bald. - I don't really see what this has to do with this special. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:01, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comments
  • Just a note - I don't really look at sourcing during my FAC reviews (unless something specific pops up), I see there are some comments on this above, so I wouldn't vouch for the quality of the sourcing used. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:54, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The only reasonable objection Guerillero had to sources was Toon Zone, which is no longer used, Lee Vilenski. I wish he provided specific suggestions for changing the article like you did here. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 16:17, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, if you liked this review, or are looking for items to review, I have some at my nominations list. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 17:36, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looking forward to it, Lee Vilenski! SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 00:23, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Lee Vilenski ? Gog the Mild (talk) 11:30, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from NØ[edit]

I support this nomination, pending however much importance coords decide to accord to the concerns others raised (I suppose it still being open is a good sign).--NØ 12:44, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have my gratitude for doing so. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 13:12, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1920–21 Burnley F.C. season[edit]

Nominator(s): BigDom (talk) 07:42, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I originally submitted this article for FAC just over 12 years ago. Sadly, it didn't pass that time and I kind of forgot about it for a decade or so. But the recent FA promotion of Burnley's other title-winning season in 1959–60 prompted me to have another go at this one. Since last time, I've managed to access the archives of an alternative local newspaper, which allowed me to add a bit more detail about the team's playing style and some more context around some of the matches. These kind of articles might not be to everyone's taste, but hopefully I have addressed the main concerns from the first nomination, so here we go! BigDom (talk) 07:42, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from ChrisTheDude[edit]

  • "Burnley's chairman, Harry Windle, had been elected to the position in 1909, and manager John Haworth was marking his 11th consecutive year in charge." - source?
    • Added
  • "The team's last competitive match had ended in a 0–2 defeat" - I would say that by far the most common way to report a football score is with the larger score first, irrespective of the outcome e.g. this source says "Liverpool lost 1-0 to Real Madrid", not "Liverpool lost 0-1 to Real Madrid". I would reconfigure any score shown like this one to show the larger score first.
    • I thought I'd caught all these to be honest, thanks for spotting this one!
  • Shouldn't the bit about Moorwood joining in October and the bit about Bamford leaving in September be in the paragraph starting "Transfer activity continued after the season began"?
    • Rejigged
  • "Bradford City, who had finished 15th in the league in 1919–20" - source?
    • Added
  • "Burnley moved to the top of the table on goal average" - link GA?
    • Done
  • One solitary league attendance is unknown?
    • Yep, not given in Simpson. I had a look at the match report in the Burnley Express archive (where I presume Simpson also looked) and the Lancashire Daily Post (Preston's local paper) but no luck. As you probably know, attendances weren't officially recorded in those days so they weren't always reported in the newspapers.
  • "drawn against Queens Park Rangers at Turf Moor in the Second Round." - no reason for caps on second round
  • Or third round
    • Have changed these in the prose, left them capitalised in the table (but can also change here if you prefer, I tried it and didn't like the way it looked)
  • "the Charity Shield, then known as the Dewar Shield" - are you sure this is true? Our article on the Community Shield makes no mention of it ever having that name, and RSSSF says "The FA Charity Shield was introduced in 1908 to succeed the Sheriff of London (Dewar) Shield"
    • Must have been the Burnley Express correspondent using the old name, deleted that subclause.
  • The tables need row scopes
    • Forgive my ignorance, but what does this do other than just turn the cell grey? (done, by the way)
      • It's to do with visually impaired site users who use a screen reader, it makes the screen reader read the contents of the table out correctly....or something..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:36, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "Players having played at least one first-team match" table doesn't include the Lancs/East Lancs Cup games, which earlier you categorised as first team games - are the line-ups not recorded for these?
    • I will have to go back to the library to check the newspaper reports, might be after the bank holiday before I get chance though.
      • Managed to get to the library for an hour last night. I've added the ELCC and LSC apps/goals to the table and updated players' goals totals in the prose where appropriate. Even managed to get the attendances for the two ELCC games from the local papers (double checked the Preston league game though and definitely wasn't reported). BigDom (talk) 06:30, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the aftermath section you use the {{inflation}} template in conjunction with {{currentyear}}, but the documentation for the former explicitly says not to do this
  • That's what I got - great read overall! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:17, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • @ChrisTheDude: Thanks for having a read through! I've addressed most of these, I think, just need to do a quick library trip to check again for those missing lineups. Cheers, BigDom (talk) 06:28, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - great work! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:31, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Eem dik doun in toene[edit]

I had already posted my thoughts/comments on BigDom's talk page, and the article has only improved since then. It's a well written article which deserves FA status. Well done! Eem dik doun in toene (talk) 11:08, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:08, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mandrill[edit]

Nominator(s): LittleJerry (talk) 01:22, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the mandrill, arguably the most iconic looking primate and the most colorful mammal. After an extensive GA review by Mover of molehills, I think its showtime. LittleJerry (talk) 01:22, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

  • Suggest adding alt text
Added. LittleJerry (talk) 12:10, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The sandwiching article states that "Mul­ti­ple im­ages can be stag­gered right and left. How­ever, a­void sand­wich­ing text be­tween two im­ages that face each oth­er;" There's no problem with that there. LittleJerry (talk) 12:17, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately on my screen there is. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:40, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 21:12, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly is the problem? LittleJerry (talk) 12:10, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Colour alone is being used to convey important information. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:40, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thats how range maps work. buidhe? LittleJerry (talk) 13:12, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Mandrill_and_flower.jpg: where is that licensing coming from? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:37, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 12:10, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Same question on the amended version. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:40, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand. buidhe? LittleJerry (talk) 13:11, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria what exactly is wrong with the image licensing and the map? What do you mean "where is that licensing coming from?" and what's wrong with the color of the map? LittleJerry (talk) 14:53, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For the map, because there are other shaded areas in other colours, the use of only colour to convey information presents a problem for users with vision problems. For the image licensing, the image description page includes a source link, but I do not see the licensing claimed at that link. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:15, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Replaced flower image. BhagyaMani, could you remove the green stuff on Africa and make it uniformly white to contrast with the purple? LittleJerry (talk) 12:02, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I used the wikimedia map as base layer, which is coloured in white + green shades. It is not possible to change this coloration, I'm afraid. The darker green areas represent protected areas, I think. BhagyaMani (talk) 19:26, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
BhagyaMani can't you use File:BlankMap-World.png or File:World map blank black lines 4500px.gif? Zoom in on middle Africa like File:Distibución gorilla.png? LittleJerry (talk) 19:43, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What is wrong with wikimedia map?? I used this as the reviewers for the red panda page agreed with this as base layer. BhagyaMani (talk) 04:26, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
BhagyaMani, because it has green on it. Our readers may be color blind or have vision problems so they may not be able tell between the green and the range map color. Its better to have one color for the (land) background and one for the animal range. LittleJerry (talk) 23:19, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for my late reply. Today only I had time to have a look at this : I cannot use a png as baselayer. But see this without any greens, just borders : https://drive.google.com/file/d/1J1lAcu7Hma0deJx8L5DvQPTyhviIm5EA/view?usp=sharing -- BhagyaMani (talk) 13:19, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thats okay. I already got a new map, but thanks anyway. LittleJerry (talk) 13:24, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Changed range map. LittleJerry (talk) 22:42, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jens[edit]

  • Etymology seems a bit incomplete. For example, according to [15] the name was first used by William Smith for the Chimpanzee but later transferred to this animal.
Added. LittleJerry (talk) 12:39, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • the latter meaning "baboon" – Is the meaning really restricted to baboon? This source [16] states "baboon or ape". Please check with other sources.
Added. LittleJerry (talk) 12:39, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • central Africa – capitalise?
Not nessacarily. LittleJerry (talk) 12:39, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But see Central Africa and Central Europe. Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:27, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's okay to use lower case for non-geopolitical articles. LittleJerry (talk) 16:39, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But "central Africa" and "Central Africa" have different meanings, see [17]. Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:11, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 17:56, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • and placed in the genus Papio. – is there an "it" missing?
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 12:39, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • This divergence correlates with the split of two known mandrill SIVs – This is too technical and needs more explanation I think. You could spell out the abbreviation, and it is not the virus itself that split but virus species?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 12:39, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • 2.90 gb – Again, I would spell out the abbreviation.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 12:39, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • draft genome – What does "draft" mean here exactly?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 12:39, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Males have a 700–950 mm – suggest to change to cm which appears to be more standard?
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 12:46, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • red and blues hues – "blue"?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 12:46, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rear view of the animal is an important feature, but I miss a picture of it.
Added. LittleJerry (talk) 13:02, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The darker and more subdued coloring of female faces is caused by melanin – I think this could be misleading. It reads as if the female coloring is entirely due to melanin, which is not the case; melanin only makes it darker.
Thats what its saying. It already mentions where the red and blue colors come from and states that females are darker due to melanin. LittleJerry (talk) 13:02, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The rump skin of male mandrills also have melanin – But melanin is everywhere regardless (also in human skin, for example)?
Nope. Not on the face. LittleJerry (talk) 13:02, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That would surprise me. Do you have a source for the claim that it does not occur in the face? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:28, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes cite 33 states that males don't have melanin on the blue facial skin. LittleJerry (talk) 15:55, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Both mandrills and drills are more arboreal than baboons. – This could do with more detail; how much time do they spent in trees? Are there percentages, case studies, or similar?
There's no information on that. The article already states that they sleep in trees. LittleJerry (talk) 13:11, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mandrills may associate or compete with other primates such as – Here, detail is lacking in my opinion. What does it mean "to associate", do they form groups?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 13:11, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • More later. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 09:58, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • to mark mark enclosure boundaries – word too much
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 16:01, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • ulterior benefit – I don't understand what "ulterior" adds here. Why is it needed?
Removed. LittleJerry (talk) 16:01, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The blue facial skin is more consistant in brightness. – "consistent"?
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 16:01, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The blue facial skin is more consistant in brightness.[32][61] Blue skin is another sign of dominance; – why "another" when it was just mentioned in the previous sentence?
Removed. LittleJerry (talk) 16:01, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • When a males loses dominance, these physiological changes are at least partially reversed.[32] The blue facial skin is more consistant in brightness.[32][61] Blue skin is another sign of dominance; and higher ranking males tend to have more contrast between red and blue facial coloring. – Information order is confusing and seemingly contradicting: 1) males may loose color, 2) but not in the face, 3) they loose it also in the face. Could be better formulated to show how this fits together.
I don't see the contradiction. It states the red coloration varies with dominance while blue is more consistent. LittleJerry (talk) 16:01, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Individuals may cooperative during hunting and share kills – cooperate?
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 16:01, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • nematode loa loa – upper case
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 16:01, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another 15-month long study of a 120 member group found that the mandrills had a home range of 8.6 km2 – how does that fit with the previous information that gives much larger home ranges? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:28, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Smaller group, smaller home range. LittleJerry (talk) 15:57, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • secondary sexual characteristics – link? (there is an article)
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 21:16, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • What about the mandrill in culture? Lion King comes to mind, but there must be influences on western African cultures too. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:54, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    No information on that. Cherry-picking examples in popular culture will lead to listcruft. LittleJerry (talk) 21:18, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on prose, all comments addressed. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:04, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Tim riley[edit]

Place-marker. Comments to follow after close scrutiny of text, but one thing jumps out from a first canter through: "sexual dimorphic" should be "sexually dimorphic", as in our WP article on that subject. The adjective needs an adverb modifier. More anon. Tim riley talk 14:37, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I found this a most interesting and informative article. A few small points on the prose:

  • Lead
  • Dominant males have more vibrant colors and fatter flanks and rumps – more and fatter than whom? Non-dominant males, presumably, but it isn't clear. The first part of the sentence is ambiguous: do you mean they have more colours that are vibrant or colours that are more vibrant?
It states "and have more success siring young" so its comparing them to less dominant males. The colors are more vibrant. LittleJerry (talk) 21:00, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Etymology
  • French naturalist Georges-Louis Buffon … Welsh naturalist Thomas Pennant – are their nationalities relevant? Likewise for Gessner, later.
They help distinguish between the different naturalists. LittleJerry (talk) 21:00, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Appearance
  • The mandrill has a heavyset body – heavyset is a new word to me. Is it an AmE term? Its meaning isn't obvious.
Changed. LittleJerry (talk) 17:58, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Behavior and life history
  • semi-captive females may survive into their early 20s – it would be helpful to have the unexpected term “semi-captive” explained briefly.
Its pretty self explanatory. Semi = "partly". They are semi-free ranging. LittleJerry (talk) 21:13, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I also think that this may be difficult for readers; what about linking to wiktionary? Jens Lallensack (talk) 13:53, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Removed. LittleJerry (talk) 23:25, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Social structure
  • unaided wild primates – "unaided" is another unfamiliar term, in this context, and could do with explanation for the benefit of non-expert readers.
Unaided is also obvious. The source uses "unprovisioned". This is the best I can break it down. LittleJerry (talk) 21:13, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • a 120 member group – would benefit from a hyphen
Added. LittleJerry (talk) 21:13, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • an average travelling distance – as the article is so very obviously in AmE, the BrE "travelling" rather than "traveling" looks odd to me, but perhaps the former is an accepted American alternative.
  • leads to less social connections – grammatically you can't have less connections: you mean fewer.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 21:13, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reproduction and development
  • dominant males are also known as "fattened" males while subordinate males are known as "non-fatted" males – this seems strange. One might expect consistent fattened/non-fattened or fatted/non-fatted, but if the versions we here are the standard terms, that’s fine, of course.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 21:13, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Those are my few minor observations. Tim riley talk 09:53, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tim riley, anymore? LittleJerry (talk) 23:27, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's my lot. I have no more comments. Tim riley talk 03:20, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Tim riley. is that a support? LittleJerry (talk) 23:04, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Neither supporting nor opposing. Tim riley talk 07:16, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Funk[edit]

  • Marking my spot. FunkMonk (talk) 01:05, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Chimpanzees is duplinked.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 12:15, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is the last photo really worth all the white space it creates by the references? Its pretty poor and doesn't add much.
Removed. LittleJerry (talk) 12:15, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • This[18] photo shows the shape and gait of the animal better than many of the current pictures, some of which are blurry and samey.
There's no room for it. It can't be in the description section, since I'll have three images of adult males in a row (including lead). LittleJerry (talk) 12:15, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The photo under ecology is pretty blurry and samey, do we even know if it shows a wild individual, which I assume is why it's there? Could be replaced by something better. FunkMonk (talk) 22:13, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Replaced. LittleJerry (talk) 23:16, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "to be "forest baboons" and placed them in the genus Papio." Add "like the baboons" or "the baboon genus Papio" to clarify this is the genus of all baboons.
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 22:46, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The majority consensus is that mandrills belong to one subspecies (M. s. sphinx)" How does the source phrase this? If there are no subspecies, it's just monotypic, and no trinomial is needed?
"....while all mandrills are placed in a single subspecies (M. sphinx sphinx). I guess its like modern humans being Homo sapiens sapiens LittleJerry (talk) 22:46, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and are distinct haplogroups" They belong to distinct haplogroups, they are not.
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 22:46, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "to have also lead to the splitting" Led.
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 22:46, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The blue ridges on males contrasts both" Contrast plural?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:46, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • These[19][20][21] are superior photos of babies, the one in the article barely shows the juvenile, and is very similar to the grooming photo.
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 23:06, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would seem more relevant and interesting to show a male characteristically baring its fangs, instead of the poor photo under ecology, examples:[22][23][24]
Those images appear to show mandrills yawning. They don't communicate by showing their teeth like that. The skull image shows the teeth. LittleJerry (talk) 23:06, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 23:16, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Outside the breeding season, males are believed to lead a solitary life and all-male bachelor groups are not known to exist." This makes me wonder about all the photos we have of males with femals in zoos, seems they are kept together all yer around, but do we know how this affects their behaviour? At least male elephants are usually kept away from the females in zoos.
Doesn't say. LittleJerry (talk) 23:06, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "captive individuals at the Colchester Zoo, England learned to facepalm" Does it have any meaning for them?
Added. LittleJerry (talk) 22:43, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Mandrills may also may grunt" Double may.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:43, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Ovulating females are more likely to allow the brightest colored males near them and inspect their perineum" Who inspects who?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 23:06, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "hunting in Cameroon and Equatorial Guinea appears to have led to smaller group sizes" Hunting for meat, skins, or what? Could go further into human use.
For meat. It already states so earlier in the paragraph. LittleJerry (talk) 22:43, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and hunting for bushmeat" I see the intro specifies, then the article body should too.
It does. "Its total population is unknown but is suspected to have decreased by more than 30 percent over the last 24 years. Its main threats are habitat destruction and hunting for bushmeat." LittleJerry (talk) 22:43, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why does the common name need a citation in the infobox?
Removed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:43, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • If fossils have not been found, as indicated by the article, how do we know this species appeared in the Early Pleistocene, as indicated by the taxobox?
Removed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:43, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • " with which it shares the genus name Mandrillus" Or rather just the genus, seems odd to say they share it as a "name".
Removed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:43, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The intro could give a better physical description, none of their distinct facial and posterior features are mentioned.
It already states "It is one of the most colorful mammals in the world, with red and blue skin on its face and posterior." LittleJerry (talk) 22:43, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley[edit]

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 18:28, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Various morphological and genetic studies". I would leave out "Various" as unnecessary and vague.
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 18:28, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The current consensus". "Current" will become dated. Better "As of 2022, the consensus"
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 18:28, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some photos are too small to be useful and would be better enlarged. E.g. you could increase "Male and female mandrills" to upright=1.3
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 18:28, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is a chest gland. Can it be linked?
A gland on the chest? There is no link. LittleJerry (talk) 18:28, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "feed as high as the canopy." is tautologous. Does you mean they also feed in the canopy? If so, you should say so.
Its not a tautology, there are different levels to the rainforest and the canopy is the highest. LittleJerry (talk) 18:28, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Mandrills may aggregate or compete with other primates" This is vague. Do you mean that they mix socially or fight with other primates? Presumably they could expel smaller species from feeding areas?
It doesn't say. Only that they can be found together and compete for foods. LittleJerry (talk) 18:28, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "unaided wild primates" What does unaided mean here? If it means primates which are not fed by humans I would leave it out as superfluous.
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 18:39, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The supergroup would occasionally diverge" "split" would be a better word than "diverge"
That's the word used in the source. I'd rather be as different as possible. LittleJerry (talk) 18:39, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "try to monopolize access to respective females by mate guarding" What does "respective" mean here? receptive?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 18:39, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Interbirth periods last an average of 405 days" I do not get this. Do you mean that there is a year and 40 days between births, so each birth is on average 40 days later in the year than the previous one? If it is an average with some births after one year and some after two years it should be clarified.
I have no idea. The source states "Interbirth intervals (IBI) average 405 days (range 184–1159 days, N = 103)" LittleJerry (talk) 18:51, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is nothing in the article about fighting? Is dominance always established peacefully? Dudley Miles (talk) 16:21, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Added. LittleJerry (talk) 18:51, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:18, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FunkMonk? Dudley Miles? LittleJerry (talk) 19:50, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass[edit]

I'll try to take care of this over the next couple days. Hog Farm Talk 03:30, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sources look reliable enough for what they're citing
  • One minor formatting question - I see both PLOS ONE and PLoS ONE are used - recommend standardizing with whichever is more proper
  • I saw spot checks were done at the thorough-looking GA review; so I only did a few, issues not noted. Hog Farm Talk 20:19, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. Fixed PLoS ONE. LittleJerry (talk) 20:54, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@WP:FAC coordinators: : Anything more needed? LittleJerry (talk) 13:19, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild[edit]

Recusing to review.

  • Lead: "most colorful"; article: "brightest coloration". I suggest you pick one - or use both in both places if the sourcing supports this.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 20:48, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Females form the core of these groups, while adult males are solitary and only reunite with the larger groups during the breeding season. Dominant males have more vibrant colors and fatter flanks and rumps ...". Just checking that the "more vibrant colors and fatter flanks" is in comparison to females? The follow on from the female - male comparison seems to make that clear, but the terminating "and have more success siring young" makes me want to check.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 20:48, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why are some naturalists labelled by nationality - Swiss, French - some by region - Welsh - some by ethnic/language group - German (there was no German nation in 1824) - and some not assigned such a label - Darwin, Linnaeus?
Darwin and Linneaeus are well known and need no introduction. LittleJerry (talk) 20:48, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This only addresses one of my queries. What about the others. Re Darwin and Linneaeus, I see no reason why any of them need labelling other than by name, but if you are going to assign nationalities, regional identities, language groups or whatever - which I can live with, it's your article - you need to be consistent.
Removed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:36, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "majority consensus". Delete "majority". (One can't have a minority consensus.)
Removed. LittleJerry (talk) 20:48, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "split 800,000 years ago based on cytochrome-b sequences". Er, you mean cytochrome-b sequences were used to date the split, not what you wrote. And is there an associated error bar?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 20:48, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The rump skin of male mandrills also have melanin" is not grammatical.
Removed. LittleJerry (talk) 20:48, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "They may live in gallery forests". "may"? Is this not known for certain then.
Removed. LittleJerry (talk) 20:48, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is "continuous forest"? Is there non-continuous forest?
The opposite of gallery forest. LittleJerry (talk) 20:48, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Umm. The opposite of gallery forest is bare earth. Could we have a brief in line explanation.
Gallery forest are patches of forests surrounded by savannas and other habitats. That what continuous forests contrasts with. LittleJerry (talk) 22:36, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Leopards may prey on mandrills, as traces of mandrill have been found in their feces." Why "may"?
There is a possibly of scavenging. LittleJerry (talk) 20:48, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Other potential predators include African rock pythons, crowned eagles and chimpanzees." Why "potential"?
The author suggests them but predation hasn't been recorded. LittleJerry (talk) 20:48, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly 'it has been suggested that' or similar may convey this nuance better?
I don't see the improvement. LittleJerry (talk) 22:40, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "in captivity, they used sticks to clean themselves". "used" → either 'use' or 'have been observed using'.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 20:48, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "71 less dominant and subadult males". Just checking that is correct and you don't mean '71 less dominant or subadult males'.
Correct. LittleJerry (talk) 20:48, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "that would reunite after certain periods". How long is a "certain period"?
It just says they temporarly split. LittleJerry (talk) 21:02, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "may lead to support during conflicts ...". And, there again, it may not. Is this not known, or is it just an author playing guessing games?
The author uses that type of language. You can't know for sure. LittleJerry (talk) 20:48, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well you can, but if we don't in this case then fair enough.
  • "captive alpha males to mark enclosure boundaries more frequently." More frequently than what? Or who, as the case may be.
Than other places. LittleJerry (talk) 20:48, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Could this be clarified in the article?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:36, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Mandrills groom one another, even when there is no benefit to be gained from doing so." I assume that the groomed mandrill always benefits?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 20:55, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "give them more time to flee." Flee from what?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 20:48, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The recipients of grooming will try to maneuver the groomer to pick at more "risky" areas." Er, what does this mean? Risk of what?
See above LittleJerry (talk) 20:48, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "fattened" and "non-fatted" seems odd. You sure the source says that? I would expect either fattened and non-fattened os fatted and non-fatted.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 20:48, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and males are less able to sire offspring when their canines are under 30 mm". I suspect that "able" should be 'likely'.
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 20:50, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Receptive females have sexual swellings". Where?
Added. LittleJerry (talk)
  • "Infants are born around 640 g (23 oz)" → 'Infants when born weigh around 640 g (23 oz)'.
That's closer to how the source words it so I can't do that. LittleJerry (talk) 20:48, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
'Infants are born weighing around 640 g'; 'When born infants typically weigh 640 g'; At birth, infant weight is around 640 g' ...
Changed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:36, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and mostly bare with some white hair". Do you mean 'and are mostly bare-skinned ...'?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 20:48, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Females may reach their adult size around seven years" → something like 'Females may reach their adult size when aged around seven years'. And, again, "may". Is this not known, or been observed, or calculated, or anything.
Removed. LittleJerry (talk) 20:48, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cites 26 and 77: pp errors.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 20:48, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • References: some books have publisher locations, some don't. Either is acceptable, but be consistent.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 20:48, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild (talk) 20:08, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Very prompt. Looking good. Several come backs above. If I haven't commented I am happy.

@WP:FAC coordinators: : I think we're ready. LittleJerry (talk) 21:21, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@WP:FAC coordinators: : 4 supports, a source review and a image review. LittleJerry (talk) 23:18, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cliff Thorburn[edit]

Nominator(s): BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 13:26, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the 1980 World Snooker Champion, known as "The Grinder", who is generally recognised as the first champion from outside the the United Kingdom. (Sorry, Horace Lindrum!) I've tried to keep the playing career part of the article quite focused on the main points as discussed in sources, rather than provide lots of tournament-by-tournament detail. I can provide relevant extracts from offline sources on request. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 13:26, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from ChrisTheDude[edit]

  • Does ref 3 source everything from "he left school" onwards?
  • No. I've added a page reference for the sentence here that it does support. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 18:22, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The 1977 World Snooker Championship was the first to be held at the Crucible Theatre." - probably worth specifying where in the world this is
  • "Ian Morrison called "unfounded."" - full stop should be outside the quote marks I think
Not if it was there in the original. See MOS:INOROUT. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:17, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@ChrisTheDude: Amended back, as the full sentence in the source is "The complaint was unfounded." Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 13:07, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the explosive break-building of Higgins."" - same here
  • That's all I got as far as the end of the "1983 world championship maximum break" section. I'll look at the rest later -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:27, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the "team finals" table, you have notes saying who was in the Rest of the World and Ireland A teams, but not the others (eg Canada) - any reason?
  • Note b to k are complete sentences so need full stops
  • Any reason why notes m and q are the only ones not to start with a capital letter?

Support from Lee Vilenski[edit]

  • televised 147 break - we linked maximum break, but then say "147" as if we know the reader realises these are the same thing. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:15, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • making him the first player to win the Masters three times and the first to retain the title. - I feel like this could be written differently. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:15, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • not sure if the source says, but it's likely eight-ball at that time in Canada that he played Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:15, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • That particular source doesn't confirm which variety of pool, but I'll check a couple of other sources. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:23, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sources just say pool, as far as I can see.
  • Yeah, I didn't expect a game, but it would be nice if the media actually expanded on things like this. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:43, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Spencer recommended Thorburn to the World Professional Billiards and Snooker Association,[3] and he was accepted as a member in 1972 - this should probably be reworded to say that he'd be a professional player, not just a member of the organisation Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:15, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • beat Jim Wych 13–6, having led 5–3, 9–3 and 10–6 - seems like excessive detail. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:15, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Amended by removing one of the scores, but it might need another snip as it's not a particularly notable match. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:23, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Second para of 1980 world snooker champion is very long. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:15, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Following his world championship victory, Thorburn bought a house in England with the intention of spending more time in Britain - maybe a personal life thing? Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:15, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll have a look at sources and either expand (obviously he did it because the pro events were in the UK), or move this. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:23, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • He played for Canada in the 1996 World Cup, where his team reached the quarter-finals.[55] He won over one million pounds in prize money during the course of his career - seems like a long/weird jump! Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:15, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, Lee Vilenski. There are a couple of points I need to refer to a few sources on - I should be able to do this in the next day or so. Let me know if there's anything else. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:23, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Lee Vilenski: I've now responeded to all the points above. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:01, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

Image use and licence seem OK to me. ALT text passable. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:02, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

Spotchecks not done.

Pass. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:35, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He was the second player, after Davis, to make a televised maximum break in professional competition" - source?
  • Added "in professional competition" to the body text, and added a source (as the WST site isn't explicit that the breaks listed there are "in competition".) BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 23:05, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which source supports the "televised" piece? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:23, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Removed televised as those sources don't support it, and the achievement was in making the break, regardless of whether or not it was televised. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 16:43, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "One of his most celebrated moments" - source?
  • Be consistent in whether you include publication locations, and if so how these are formatted
  • Why for example "Melbourne, Victoria, Australia" but just "Saskatoon"? Why no location on for example Sheffield Star? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:23, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I hadn't added that as I think it's an online-only source, but now added. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 08:37, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The two Morrison works have the same publisher but different formatting and different locations - why?
  • I took out the "Publishing Group" but the specified locations are indeed different. (This can be seen online on archive.org and/or in the British Library Catalogue.) BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:46, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • What makes Rose Villa a high-quality reliable source?
  • They seem to be still publishing some local news outlets (website) but really, in my opinion, the credibility of the source derives from the authors. Hayton was the managing editor of CueSport magazine (at least for part of its history), which was nationally distributed in the UK from 2000 to 2009. John Dee, who was also associated with CueSport and contributed to the book, was the snooker editor of The Daily Telegraph. Terry Smith, another Telegraph correspondent, and author/editor of a few snooker books, was also a contributor to the magazine. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 23:25, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is there a 1985b but no 1985a? Ditto 1981b
*(I need to sort out how to do this with a mix of years. eg. 1985, and days, e.g. 14 January 1985 BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:46, 26 June 2022 (UTC))[reply]
  • As the same author has newspaper articles in both of those years, this was the way I attempted to address multiple targets errors, per. I've changed the b's to a's but happy to make further changes as necessary. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 23:40, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since the newspaper articles aren't referenced by short cites, why not use |ref=none? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:23, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fn4: page?
  • FN15 is missing pages, but why is this not in Books?
  • Be consistent in whether you include publishers for periodicals
  • Technically the children's names shouldn't be cited to the subject - not sure they need to be included anyways
  • What makes Chris Turner a high-quality reliable source? If this is included, check that these citations are consistently formatted
  • Turner provided statistics for EuroSport. His obituary in Snooker Scene (December 2011), says that Turner "collated billiards and snooker statistics for many years and ran a very useful website … in which key facts and figures were recorded." BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 23:25, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • In that case formatting needs to be made consistent - compare for examples FNs 105 and 108. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:23, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN112 is missing pages. Ditto FN113, check throughout
  • (Sunday Times page refs not included in NewsBank; will check elsewhere)
  • I'll need to visit the British Library to get the Sunday Times page ref, which should be in the next couple of days. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 23:40, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • What makes snookerline a high-quality reliable source? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:04, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, Nikkimaria. Could you please let me know if anything needs to be done on the Rose Villa, 1985b/1981b, and Turner questions (or anything else)? the Sunday Times page number issue is pending but I'd like to know if there's more to do apart from that. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 23:40, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for not making all the amendments properly first time round, Nikkimaria. Let me know about anything else required. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 16:43, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

C. J. Cregg[edit]

Nominator(s): theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 01:49, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is Claudia Jean Cregg, a fictional character on NBC's The West Wing and my indirect namesake. She was a core cast member throughout the entirety of the show's run, and earned her portrayer, Allison Janney, more Emmys than anyone else on the show (justice for Martin Sheen, who played President Jed Bartlet and somehow didn't get any). Her portrayal was—while hampered by the show's misogynistic atmosphere—smart, funny, and assertive. I've been working on lots of West Wing characters articles (not to mention lots of people named Claudia), but I'm proud and excited that this is the first in both categories that I'm submitting for FA. Thanks in advance to everyone who weighs in! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 01:49, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Things that need consensus from new commenters:

  • Is three dates in the citations (date published, date archived, date accessed) too many? should the latter be cut?
    I don't see why. Archives can fail or be inaccessible, so it's important contextual information to put the access date, which can differ from the archive date. Urve (talk) 14:26, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from indopug[edit]

  • the infobox should be restricted to real-world information. In-universe information cannot really ever be objective and doesn't belong in an infobox. Especially since this one is so long and contains possibly trivial and uncited (I did searches for the family members and could find no mentions in the article body) information.
    • Hmm, I'm not so sure I agree with the idea that all in-universe information is subjective and has no place in the infobox. Looking around other fictional character FAs, lots of them do have in-universe sections (see Bart Simpson). That said, I've limited the in-universe section of the infobox to information relevant and cited in the prose. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 00:54, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, can "C. J." be spelt "CJ", which would look less clumsy in the text (especially when used frequently)?
    • I'm not wild about it – she is rather rare as a fictional character (the only biography-style articles that refer to their subjects by common name) with an acronym'd first name, but C. J. is a fairly common spelling in the media and my own preferred spelling. "C.J." seems incorrect, and "CJ" feels unprofessional. I have, however, removed the {{nbsp}} tags from in between C. and J., as I think those were a little overkill. It's like asking for US instead of U.S.; up to personal preference. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 00:54, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Three dates in every citation is overkill. The reader doesn't need a retrieval date when he has access to a permanent link.—indopug (talk) 06:56, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieval dates are mandatory under the MOS. -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 19:28, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Per WP:CITEWEB, "Citations for World Wide Web pages typically include . . . the date you retrieved (or accessed) the web page (required if the publication date is unknown)". Since pub dates are known here, retrieval dates are not mandatory at all.—indopug (talk) 02:23, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      let's put a pin in this for now; if there's consensus to remove the retrieval dates, we'll go for it. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 03:55, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with Guerillero; in general, the most important date is at the beginning of the citation anyway. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 00:54, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • You and I know that, but a lay reader is confronted with three dates, two of which have nothing to do with the article being cited itself.—indopug (talk) 02:23, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the comments, indopung! I've made some replies :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 00:54, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • oops, bad ping to indopug theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 00:59, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Guerillero[edit]

I will do the source review --Guerillero Parlez Moi 15:02, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

One of my favorite characters from one of my favorite shows
  • Per WP:SCHOLARSHIP "Masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence." What is the significant influence of Gregg 2009?
  • Heisler 2009a and Heisler 2009b need the publication info
  • Why is Comic Book Resources a High Quality Reliable Source?
  • Why is The Cut a High Quality Reliable Source?
  • Is the tweet from AP covered anywhere else?
  • Missing author for The Journal News article
  • Post-Teen Vouge's 2016 slip into being a glorified mouthpiece of the DSA, I have a decent amount of skepticism of using them for political opinions
-- Guerillero Parlez Moi 15:27, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pass -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 10:37, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Indy beetle[edit]

  • Why is the character's first name used in preference to her surname? There is a mix on naming choices in this article generally that should have some logic to it. Simon Donovan is referred to by his last name, for example.
  • "Indeed" is used to start sentences four times. It's not really a great word to use, and adds unnecessary editorial emphasis to some statements over others in Wiki voice.
  • Indeed, C. J. is widely thought to be an adept, empathetic, confident, witty, and independent character with considerable depth, This is cited to four sources. Unless one of those sources plainly states that these are "widely thought" views of the character, this is technically a WP:SYNTH violation. None of the quotes provided with those citations suggest that this is a majority view, it just happens to be an amalgamation of sources which profess a positive view.
  • Since The West Wing frequently mixes the personal and professional, This is somewhat vague. Perhaps be more specific that the show covers both the "personal lives" and "professional careers" of its characters.
  • This is realized in the series finale, "Tomorrow"; in the episode, C. J. leaves the White House, choosing Danny instead. No need for the dramatic implication; just say outright, "choosing to pursue a relationship with Danny instead" or something applicable.
  • Critical reception of C. J. Cregg has been highly positive, both during and after the show's run. Is this claim directly supported by a reliable source?

-Indy beetle (talk) 09:49, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Tentative replies: theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 18:29, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • The characters are referred to by their WP:COMMONNAME – some characters, like the show's core senior staff, are on a first-name basis with the audience (RSes) and each other. Other characters, like the president and side characters with honorifics, aren't generally referred to by first name by reliable sources or the show.
    • Cut the "indeed"s
    • I mean, I suppose you're right that the "widely thought" isn't in the sourcing, but I'm not sure I agree that that's a SYNTH problem. If every reliable source stated that the Earth was a globe, but none opined that every other source thought the exact same way, would we really not be allowed to say "the Earth is widely thought to be a globe" (that would be relevant in the Flat Earth article)? When we're looking for the common name of an article, do we need sources that say "this is most commonly referred to as A, but it's also B or C"? It seems a strange interpretation of SYNTH to say that editors are responsible for assessing the attitude of reliable sources as it relates to due weight, but aren't allowed to express that in prose. That said, I'd be happy to look for broader sources, or change to "has been described as" to narrow the scope to those for, but I don't know if I take much issue with it.
      • Well, since it is the viewpoint of RSes, I just put it in wikivoice.
    • Fixed the sentence in the reception section
    • Fixed "personal/professional" and C. J./Danny
  • Sorry for the delay, Indy beetle! Stuff's been crazy- I think I've got it now. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 01:50, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reviewers have praised C. J.'s performance The character isn't performing, they're the one being performed. Maybe "C.J.'s portrayal" or "Janney's performance"? -Indy beetle (talk) 02:59, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Indy beetle: made a couple moves there :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 01:48, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments 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
  • C. J. is widely thought to be a smart, strong, witty, and thoughtful character, - by whom? Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:49, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Presumably it's over-emotional? Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:49, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I feel like the awards part is probably more important, and should come before the rest of the lede. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:49, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Changed "widely thought" to "portrayed as"
    • "Overemotional" is a defined word – I presume it was de-hyphenated?
    • These awards tend to be pretty self-involved – other than the occasional reference to support Janney's acting prowess, it wasn't heavily discussed by reliable sources. The bulk of the reporting tends to cover the other stuff – plus, the awards are pretty lengthy and a little boring. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 08:27, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Prose
Additional comments

Additionally, if you liked this review, or are looking for items to review, I have some at my nominations list. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 22:18, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Vilenski ? Gog the Mild (talk) 21:11, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Lee Vilenski: I've made some replies :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 20:23, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Gerda[edit]

I feel invited to another subject I don't know, will comment as I read, looking at the lead last. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:46, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

name

  • I am puzzled by C. J. Cregg vs. the full name. If the character is known by the abbreviated form, that should also show on top of the infobox, and be explained with a bold name in the lead. Otherwise the infobox is fine, just "children at least one" tells me nothing at this point.
    • In the day-to-day of the show, she goes by "C. J." – if she walked up to you and introduced herself, she'd tell you that she's "C. J. Cregg". If she had to sign a mortgage, that'd probably be "Claudia Jean Cregg". theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 21:19, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think, even if this a character, I'd would like to see the two names handled the same way as for a real person, - if she is commonly C. J. Gregg, that should be bold in the first paragraph, and be the header of the infobox. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:21, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

TOC

Creation

  • Forgive me, but knowing nothing, not the series, not the actress, I'd like first a bit of what kind of character in what kind of series. Yes, there are links, but three sentences of a general introduction of the context wouldn't hurt. Actress probably last, unless it is completely determined by her - which I don't know yet.
    • Hmm... let me brainstorm on this a bit. I'm generally quite averse to putting in-universe information in the real-world section, but there might be some context I can give anyway.
    • I've given this a lot of thought, and I don't think giving in-universe details about the characters is good for the real-world section. I really prefer maintaining that separation between the two, and any information I'd be comfortable putting up there would already appear in the lead. This isn't a story, it's an encyclopedia article – I think it's okay to keep that information in its section. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 20:30, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Casting

  • Once Sorkin has been introduced, surname is enough.
    • I'll say this once up here, because unlike my policy on given names, I do mind repetition on this. I often find that this minimalistic policy of given names/surnames is too restrictive, and harmful in writing an article. Some names are only thrown around two or three times; it's easier to build an impression in the mind of the reader if they can instantly connect these names together, instead of mentioning a full name once in the first body paragraph and then throwing in a last name near the end. That's something I often find annoying in reading others' articles, especially when I'm Ctrl+F hopping for a single section. Having to track down where the author's article felt a single first name mention was enough and putting together who this person is and why they're important is frustrating. Instead, for names that only come up a few times, I prefer to repeat both the given and surname, to keep a clear, consistent identifier the reader can internalize. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 21:19, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I find all the details about the actresses relationship to the character a bit premature, not yet knowing what character that is.
  • The image caption repeats much of the prose, while I'd prefer to know when it was taken, and if it is the actress in private, the character, or the character in the other show mentioned.
    • Hmm. I had an image caption like you describe over at Mrs. Landingham, but I got dinged because simply picturing the actor wasn't enough to demonstrate relevancy. I developed that caption style because of that. Do you think it'd be okay to switch back? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 20:30, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Please take this up with the other editor. I want to see in a caption what a pic shows, more than context. This caption doesn't tell me if this is a private pic, or from one show or from another, which would be minimum I expect from a caption. The reasons for her being chosen are not pictured. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:21, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • While I like the present caption better, I think "portrayer" and "pictured" make it needlessly complicated. How about: "J, who played C, in 2014"? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:33, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Appearance

  • Once Lyn Paolo is introduced, Paolo is enough.

Character ..

  • I think I'd prefer to know that part before the details of casting and appearance.
  • more given names that are not needed

Personality

  • ref order
  • "that a relationship would "hurt my reputation" - I think this doesn't need to be a quote, to avoid third person here, first person there: "that a relationship would hurt her reputation"
    • Both fixed :)

Romance

  • Why is it C. J. and Danny here, but Donovan there?
    • C. J. and Danny (in particular, C. J.) are regular characters on the show without formal titles – so, on the show (and in RSes), they're referred to by their common names. Donovan, however, is a special recurring character for only a season, and since he works for the Secret Service, he's usually referred to as Donovan or Agent Donovan – not Simon. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 21:19, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sexism

  • "Leo, who relayed the staffers' guesses to the president, left out C. J.'s predictions, which she suspected was because she was a woman. In the end, C. J. was shown to have made the correct guess." - I understand not wanting to repeat "predictions" but "guess" sounds wrong if it should be stressed that she had the best evaluation.
    • Well, "prediction" is generally more certain than "guess" (a prediction is kind of an educated guess), so I don't see what's wrong with setting up C. J. as the more competent forecaster here. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 21:19, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • guess (without "educated") for me is still only by chance, but that may be just me --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:21, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... she is introduced as the "very lovely, the very talented – Claudia Jean Cregg". He then tells the entire room ..." - who is "he"?
    • Whoops! fixed.

Lead

  • just general at this point: I think it is too short, but too long repeating all these awards. Will look again tomorrow. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:41, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Let me know – thanks, Gerda! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 21:19, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Gerda Arendt: I think I've responded to everything now :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 20:30, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Gerda Arendt? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 04:35, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • I am with you for the explanations, but would like to read once more, in the light of them. I had hoped to do that on Monday, but both here and RL more urgent things came in between (here Stefan Geosits and Kurt Equiluz), sorry. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:22, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • I now gave you a bit of feedback above, and all without a response is taken as you explained.
      • Lead once more:
        • Can we have a year for the sixth season, or do we just assume 2005 by thinking season is year?
        • I think the lead has too much detail about the awards.
        • Things I could imagine to be in the lead: number of episodes, about her character "empathetic", "emotionally vulnarable", "politically inept" (first) but "develops into a politically astute character, sometimes more so than her male counterparts", and the BBC as quite a to-the point summary.
      • See also: I don't need it. Two of the items are in the navbox, and the third could just be linked, no? It seems nothing particular for this article. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:21, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        @Gerda Arendt: Thanks for getting back to me! I've added the year for the sixth season (1999 + five seasons later = 2004), fleshed out the lead and trimmed the awards, changed the image's caption, and cut out the "see also" section. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 10:20, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        Thank you, I like it better. I feel that first to say how the character is portrayed, and then who designed, puts it the chronologically wrong way. You might use that first sentence further up to give a general idea. I feel that the romance episode is not really lead-worthy, but again, that may be just me. I might rather include other reception items. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:34, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        I looked again now, and while I'm happy with the first and the last para, the center is not yet "there" for me. "C. J. is portrayed as a smart, strong, witty, and thoughtful character, but she is frequently patronized and objectified by the men on the show. Aaron Sorkin, the show's creator, designed her to be assertive and independent from men. Initially, she is portrayed as politically inept, but she quickly becomes one of the most respected and savvy characters on the show. She is also sometimes portrayed as over-emotional, a trait criticized by reviewers as a misogynistic stereotype. Her onscreen romance with Danny Concannon, a senior White House reporter, was also criticized by commentators as unfairly subject to the "woman-as-traitor" trope." As said before, first "is portrayed" and then "designed" is the wrong order for my understanding. I think the para uses "also" too much, and "also sometimes" is top saying nothing for me. "woman-as-traitor" trope: I'd need to look up what that means. All this could be just me who would so like to end with the "most respected character" bit ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:33, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

  • Suggest adding alt text
  • File:CJ_Cregg.jpg: is there a reason to have two separate FURs for the same article? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:46, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: Hmm, not sure what to do about the alt text, because the captions seem to do fine? If there's more information to be included, I'm happy to do so. As for the infobox image FUR, these image files are quite old and predate my involvement, so I never caught that one. Just fixed it up. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 10:26, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you really feel the captions are sufficient information for those who cannot see the files, you can use an alt of 'refer to caption' - I would suggest though that that would be sufficient only for the actress image. I'd also suggest merging some of the information from the second FUR into the remaining one, which is now quite sparse. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:29, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sayfo[edit]

Nominator(s): (t · c) buidhe 15:50, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the lesser known sibling of the Armenian genocide. Thanks so much to Ichthyovenator and Hog Farm who reviewed at ACR, Jens Lallensack for the GAN, and Miniapolis for a thorough copyedit. (t · c) buidhe 15:50, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • The shading in the Assyrian percentage map is quite difficult to distinguish - see MOS:COLOUR
  • Suggest scaling up the Paris Peace Conference map
  • File:Syrian_Women_of_the_Kurdistan_Mountains_in_Flight.png: why is Iranian copyright believed relevant? The given source was published in the US and UK. If it is kept, the tag indicates that the description should specify which rationale applies.
  • That comment on Iranian copyright applies to multiple other images
  • File:Assyrian_warriors_from_Tergawar,_Iran.jpg: when and where was this first published?
  • File:Map_of_southeastern_Anatolia_printed_in_The_cradle_of_mankind;_life_in_eastern_Kurdistan_(1922)_(14576929017).jpg: one of the authors listed died less than 70 years ago
  • File:Oramar._Looking_northwards_across_the_gorge_towards_the_crags_of_Supa_Durig_between_Jilu_and_Baz.jpg: can a more specific copyright tag be applied?
  • File:Syriac_Orthodox_family_in_Mardin,_1904.jpg: what is the author's date of death? Ditto File:Map_of_Assyria_Paris_Peace_Conference_1919.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:05, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria I put Iranian tags because the photographs were taken in Iran, so I figured that would be the source country.
Okay - tag requires that the description page identify which rationale listed is believed to apply. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:11, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Assyrian_warriors_from_Tergawar,_Iran.jpg —published in US in 1924, details added to image description.
  • File:Map_of_southeastern_Anatolia_printed_in_The_cradle_of_mankind;_life_in_eastern_Kurdistan_(1922)_(14576929017).jpg As stated in the deletion request, the man who died in 1935 is credited with the illustrations in the book, while the other guy wrote the text
  • File:Oramar._Looking_northwards_across_the_gorge_towards_the_crags_of_Supa_Durig_between_Jilu_and_Baz.jpg Same situation as the previous one, this is PD-old-70-1923, licensing corrected
  • File:Syriac_Orthodox_family_in_Mardin,_1904.jpg I'm not sure about the author's death date, but the French source linked in the image description says the author's works are public domain and I have no reason to doubt it.
  • As for the map, I don't know about the author's death so removed that claim. But it was definitely published in 1919 or 1920. (t · c) buidhe 05:35, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still concerned about the map shading; image description on Iranian images needs to identify which rationale is believed to apply. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:40, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by GGT

I had worked quite a bit on this article a number of years ago, so am quite familiar with the topic in general. Buidhe's important work on this rather under-researched but important part of history has been exciting to follow and I'll be pleased to read through the article and share some of my thoughts - this is my first FAC review on en.wiki so please do bear with me.

  • I'm not too comfortable with the image in the lead. We don't really know where this was taken, we don't know who took it. The only verification we have about the image is the single sentence caption in a 1916 book that seems to have been sponsored by the Assyrian Church. All it shows is a bunch of women wearing the garments of the day and carrying a bunch of bags in a countryside setting. I've just seen too many instances of falsified or out-of-context claimed images of atrocities for this period. Granted, these are mostly from the denialist camp but as the article explains quite well, the Assyrian church had its own reasons for being less than factual. So I'm not comfortable with having this image in the article without a secondary source using it, or at least some attribution.
  • Similarly with the image captioned "Cavalry and slain Assyrians at the mission in Urmia". This image is so low-resolution that it's not even very meaningful. The caption in the primary source from which it's taken raises more questions than it answers.
    • Removed both images
  • "The Syriac Orthodox Church has officially rejected the use of "Assyrian" since 1952, however, but not all Syriac Orthodox reject Assyrian identity." "However, but" sounds a bit clunky.
    • Reworded
  • "David Gaunt has estimated the Assyrian population at between 500,000 and 600,000 just before the outbreak of World War I, significantly higher than Ottoman census figures." This sentence conveys Gaunt's estimate to be much more confident than it actually is. In fact, Gaunt is very tentative in his calculations in the cited work as well as his more detailed account in Massacres, Resistance, Protectors. His bottom line is that there aren't really any reliable figures for the population, and I don't think that this comes across as such in the article. The sentence also begs the question of what the official Ottoman figure was and why it's discounted, which should be easy enough to add to the article.
    • Reworded. There was no official Ottoman figure for Assyrians since they were counted in a fragmentary way by religious denomination; I removed the reference to the census. In his 2006 book, Gaunt says that the 1914 Ottoman census's figures for "non-Muslims were thoroughly misleading and inaccurate. As a token of the confused nature of the official census-taking and the lack of coordination between the local correspondents, the Syriac Orthodox population is shown in three separate categories: Süryaniler, Eski Süryaniler, and Jakobiler"
  • I'm hoping to keep posting comments as I read through the article. --GGT (talk) 17:46, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for your feedback! (t · c) buidhe 15:26, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the improvements! I consider the issues above to be fully resolved. Moving on...
  • "Under the Qudshanis-based Patriarch of the Church of the East, Assyrian tribes ruled farmers in the Hakkari mountains east of Tur Abdin (adjacent to the Ottoman–Persian border) with aşiret status—in theory, with full autonomy." I note that this section, along with a substantial part of the article, relies extensively on Gaunt's work: I won't critique this too much as I'm aware that this is an understudied topic but some of his more general comments should be taken with a pinch of salt, and this is one of those. The sentence doesn't make sense to me as a native Turkish speaker as aşiret isn't really a status. It simply means "tribe" (so the sentence is repetitive) and was integrated into Ottoman administrative hierarchy as such, but it wasn't a status that was bestowed, so to speak, and it also didn't theoretically provide full autonomy. (For a non-Turkish speaker I imagine this sentence also doesn't really clarify what an aşiret is.) This article provides a good overview of what an "aşiret" is its place in Ottoman law. If Assyrian tribes enjoyed full autonomy, that would have been thanks to the remoteness of the region rather than any status.
    • Rephrased
  • "Assyrian efforts to maintain their independence" - this should probably read "autonomy" rather than independence.
    • Done
  • "Historians date mass violence against the Assyrians to the 1830s or earlier" - I'd say that the wording here is a bit too similar to the source. Also Gaunt doesn't really cite any historical works to substantiate this statement.
    • Reworded
  • There is a bit of a chronological confusion here - the Russo-Turkish war precedes the creation of the Hamidiye cavalry; the cavalry should probably be discussed within the context of the Hamidian massacres. --GGT (talk) 12:11, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Added dates and restored chronological order. The cavalry were not involved in the 1895 massacres in Diyarbekir. (t · c) buidhe 14:58, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In particular, the Ottoman Empire wanted to annex Persia's Azerbaijan province to connect with Russia's Muslim subjects in Transcaucasia." I'd say that this is a slight oversimplification of the Ottoman motives, this article provides a better summary than Gaunt for this IMO. At any rate, the aim wasn't necessarily to "annex" to territory but rather to "occupy" it.
    • Removed the sentence. I'm not sure exactly what the academic consensus on this issue is, but I would hesitate to cite that source since as far as I can tell it doesn't say anything about Assyrians.
  • "Historian Donald Bloxham emphasizes the negative influence of interfering foreign powers in the Ottoman Empire (including plots to annex territory) under the pretext of protecting Ottoman Christians." A very important point - I think one or two sentences about the British involvement with the Assyrians prior to the Sayfo is actually essential background.
    • Do you know any good sources on this? I can't find any and Bloxham's book says virtually nothing about Assyrians that's not already covered. I know there were American, French, and British missionaries; is there a reason the British were most important?
  • "According to Gaunt, the Sayfo should be considered among other settler genocides that sought the elimination of the original inhabitants to redistribute land to a different population." I'm unable to verify this I think. It's not in Gaunt's chapter (p. 245 onwards) and it's not on p. 331, which is cited. In general, I find the focus on Turkification and settler colonialism as a motive for Sayfo in this paragraph a bit bizarre and undue. The areas populated by the Assyrians weren't really very "desirable" areas and unlike the properties of the Armenians, they mostly weren't repopulated by Turks. Yalçın (2009) quotes Dündar in a comment that is general about the repopulation of Christian villages with muhacirs, that shouldn't be understood as specifically applying to the Assyrians. And again I don't think Gaunt really substantiates his resettlement argument in the 2015 paper either, the whole paragraph is vague ("The order to resettle the Nestorians of Hakkari was one step within this greater scheme"), and as I said I think the article relies a bit too much on Gaunt's analysis of events already - this might be a good place to cut down on it unless other researchers explicitly agree with him on this.
  • --GGT (talk) 17:03, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • It does show up on page 331 of the version I consulted. The argument is more that they were mostly killed by other locals (not primarily Turks) with less involvement from the government. Although their land wasn't the most desirable, my understanding is it was indeed taken over by other people (although mostly not muhacir) after the Sayfo. Locally driven violence and land appropriation is typical of settler genocides (eg. see Civilian-Driven Violence and the Genocide of Indigenous Peoples in Settler Societies.) However, I don't feel strongly about including this particular language, so removed

Comments by Ovinus

Will get reviewing in a moment. Thanks for your important work as always. Ovinus (talk) 23:44, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • First sentence – I'm pretty sure MOS says to avoid slashes. (Sorry to be the obsessive/pedant.) Is it because of the controversial terminology? I think that's a perfectly valid exception, but just want to make sure
    • Yes, it's because the people may be called either Assyrians or Syriacs
  • "irregulars" (twice) – too technical for a lead. perhaps "guerillas" or "paramilitaries", but I'd even prefer "independent fighters" or something
    • Changed to "Ottoman forces" referring to both soldiers and irregulars
  • "were not part of the genocide" – Clarify whether they were not part of his order specifically or the ensuing genocide in practice
    • The latter, clarified
  • "Local actors played a larger role for local actors than the Ottoman government" – I do not understand this sentence
    • "Local actors played a larger role than the Ottoman government", fixed
  • "this is rejected by Turkey" – Also say that Turkey denies the Armenian genocide, which is quite relevant I think
    • Not sure about this, Armenian genocide denial is only briefly mentioned in the body so seems like it may be UNDUE in the lead. Thanks for reviewing! (t · c) buidhe 02:25, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Understood
  • "collective identity such as the Armenian national movement" – maybe "analogous to" ?
    • "similar to"
  • "There were no accurate estimates of the prewar Assyrian population" – were or are?
    • The source is discussing past estimates
  • "The first mass violence targeting Assyrians was in the 1940s ... killing several thousands during the 1840s" – I assume you mean 1940s, and probably remove the second date
    • 1840s, fixed
  • "During intertribal feuds, most violence was directed at Christian villages under the "protection" of the opposing tribe." – I assumed "most" was considered over Christian villages, so I rephrased, but rv if that's not right
    • Not sure what you mean
      • Never mind, I confused myself
  • "realize Pan-Turanism" – define or remove
    • Removed
  • "Turkify" – I remember this word was used in Armenian genocide, but just to confirm, RS use this word?
    • Cited source says "Talât developed a scheme of demographic engineering that would also enable the Turkification of those refugees who were not already Turkish speaking."

Really sorry to do this, but I'm too tired to get through the rest of the article atm. It's pretty dense stuff for someone who has trouble following key events and people. Back with Armenian genocide there were just a lot less people and places to remember, plus a very helpful map. But I'm not sure if this is something that can be fixed without degrading the encyclopedic quality of the article. Ovinus (talk) 05:15, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ovinus yeah I understand and thanks for reviewing what you did review. Unfortunately the Sayfo is less centralized than the Armenian genocide and therefore more people and places to keep track of. (t · c) buidhe 05:22, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Funk[edit]

  • Marking my spot. FunkMonk (talk) 16:09, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • At first glance, there are a lot of WP:duplinks throughout, which can be highlighted with this script:[25]
    • Thanks for your review! I've removed many of the duplinks, except where there is a considerable distance between links and I think it helps the reader to keep them in. (t · c) buidhe 18:04, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Terms for Syriac Christians such as Assyrian, Syriac, Aramean, and Chaldean" These names should all be linked here at their first mention, no? Now they are first linked under second mention in the background section.
    • I don't think that would be helpful. The terminology article explains the use of these terms, which are not synonymous with the names or the membership of the churches.
You link all these names not much later, though, so why link them there and not at first mention? FunkMonk (talk) 01:26, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't link any of the terms on their own and as I was trying to say, Syriac ≠ Syriac Orthodox, etc. Some Syriac Orthodox identify as Assyrian, other Syriac Orthodox are not Assyrian. (t · c) buidhe 07:25, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link Ottoman Empire at first mention in article body.
    • Done
  • "speaking of an 'Assyrian Genocide' is anachronistic" I think we need to know what the alternative is here then, a general Christian genocide?
    • Gaunt doesn't propose an immediate alternative and does not buy into the idea of a general Christian genocide. Since the localized killings in different areas occurred for different reasons, one potential argument is that there's more than one Assyrian genocide (although I haven't seen this in RS)
  • "In Neo-Aramaic" Could be explained in parenthesis that is is the language spoken by these ethnicities, now there is no context.
    • done
  • "The people now called Assyrian, Chaldean, or Aramean, who historically spoke Aramaic languages, converted to Christianity in the first centuries CE" Would it be more accurate to say they are descendants of people who converted to Christianity, as their modern supposed self-identities would otherwise be retroactively applied to their ancestors, who we do not know identified as what?
    • Rephrased
  • Perhaps also specify these were people native of West Asia/Near East/Asia Minor/whatever works.
    • Done
  • Link Middle Eastern Christian?
    • Done
  • Link Nestorians
    • Done
  • "Unlike the Syriac population of Tur Abdin, many of these Syriacs spoke other languages." Unclear what is meant by this. What language did those of Tur Abdin speak, and what did the others speak?
    • non-Aramaic languages (eg. Kurdish, Armenian, Arabic)
  • Link World War I at first mention.
    • Done
  • "Although the Kurds and Assyrians were well-integrated" With each other or with the Ottoman Empire?
    • the former, clarified
  • Link Russian Empire.
    • Done
  • "tried to enlist Caucasian" Link to Caucasus or similar to avoid confusion.
    • done
  • Link Persian at first mention.
    • done
  • "confiscated from populations deemed unreliable" Perhaps specify they were unreliable to the empire, I was unsure who the CUP worked under at first read.
    • done
  • Link Turkify.
    • Done
  • "The goals of the population replacement were to Turkify the newcomers" Who are the newcomers, Muslims from other areas? Perhaps state specifically that these were of non-Turkish ethnicities, if that's the case?
    • Some but not all the Balkan Muslims were non-Turkish (ie. Slavic-speaking, Albanian etc.) The source doesn't go into detail here though
  • "expelled from the Lizan valley" To where? And where were Christians generally expelled to?
    • It's not clear where they went, probably other Assyrian areas. There weren't a significant number of other Christians living in the Lizan valley at this time.

Thanks for your comments! (t · c) buidhe 08:13, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Link Sunni Muslim.
    • Done
  • "clearly related to the extermination orders from Constantinople" You don't mention extermination orders earlier, would seem the question of whether there were such orders could be dealt with in more detail, now it seems like a strong claim with little backing in-text.
    • Removed since the source doesn't elaborate and other sources don't specify whether the killings were ordered from Constantinople or decided by local CUP leaders (or lean towards the latter interpretation)
  • "a collection of eyewitness reports" Reports about what?
    • fixed
  • "The CUP government reversed its position on the Hamidiye regiments" Reversed from what? Until now, you have only stated they cooperated with the Ottoman authorities.
    • Done
  • "many Christian men were drowned in the river." The article body doesn't seem to state this anywhere? Image captions should preferably not have unsourced information not covered in the article body.
    • Removed
  • Halfway trough the article, you seem to switch from calling them Assyrians to Syriacs. If there is no particular reason for this, it might be better to be consistent.
    • This because self-identified Assyrian identity is less common for the (descendants of the) mainly Syriac Orthodox population of Diyarbekir.
  • "The killers began separating Armenians and Syriacs in early July, only killing the former" Regardless of their obvious role, it seems a bit blunt and informal to just refer to them as "the killers".
    • Changed to perpetrators
  • "militiamen were caught attempting to plant arms in a Syriac Catholic church in Mardin to justify the planned massacres" I don't understand the logic of this. How does an explosion in a church justify killing Christians?
    • Not bombs, arms as in firearms. although source isn't explicit about the type of weapon. They weren't trying to blow up the church but rather "find" weapons there to "prove" that Christians were plotting a rebellion. Clarified
  • "Those who refused to convert to Islam was murdered" Were murdered.
    • Fixed
  • "The city's Syriac Orthodox made a deal with authorities and were spared" What did the deal entail?
    • It's not known exactly what kind of deal, but it apparently involved payment of a bribe, release of Syriac Orthodox notables and their subsequent declaration of support for the government (Gaunt 2006, pp. 171–172)
  • "Islamicized Syriacs (primarily women) were left behind; their Kurdified (or Arabized)" Link "ized/ified" terms.
    • Done
  • "becoming landless agricultural laborers or (later) and urban underclass" Do you mean "an urban underclass"? Otherwise, it's a kind of odd sentence.
    • Fixed
  • "In 2000, Syriac Orthodox priest Yusuf Akbulut was secretly recorded by journalists saying: "At that time it was not only the Armenians but also the Assyrians [Süryani] who were massacred on the grounds that they were Christians". The journalists gave their recording to Turkish prosecutors" You should specify if he lived in Turkey.
    • Done
  • The intro could mention that the Assyrians fought back in some cases, now it looks like they were just passively exterminated?
    • Done
  • Support - nice work, and while a difficult subject, I hope it will attract more reviewers soon. FunkMonk (talk) 13:13, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Coordinator comment - at over a month in with only a single general support, this nomination is liable to be archived after a couple days without significant further movement towards a consensus to promote. Hog Farm Talk 02:02, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley[edit]

  • "experienced war between Kurdish tribes and their Assyrian allies". This is confusing. It appears to say that allies were fighting each other.
  • "The first major schism in Syriac Christianity dates to 410, when Christians in the Sassanid Empire (Persia) formed the Church of the East to distinguish themselves from the official religion of the Roman Empire." This is a bit confusing as you say that the beakaway from the religion of the Roman Empire was a split in Syriac religion. If you mean that the West Syriac church sided with the Romans but later broke away from the Catholics and Orthodox you should say so.
  • "Assyrian tribes ruled farmers in the Hakkari mountain". I do not think it makes sense to speak of a tribe ruling.
  • "interfering foreign powers in the Ottoman Empire" Which foreign powers?
  • "the loss of the Balkan Wars" This is ungrammatical and unclear. Who were the parties to the war and who won?
  • "deemed unreliable to the empire". This is ungrammatical. Maybe disloyal to the empire?
  • "deportation of the Christian population" deportation to where?
  • "Mar Shimun sent Malik Khoshaba and bishop Mar Yalda Yahwallah from Barwari to Tabriz in Persia to request urgent assistance from the Russians" Why to Persia? What was the relationship between Russian and Persia? (If I have not missed your explanation)
  • "There were no missionaries in the Salmas valley to protect Christians" Why should missionaries have been able to protect the Christians?
  • More to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:49, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Carlton Town F.C.[edit]

Nominator(s): Curlymanjaro (talk) 21:45, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Carlton Town Football Club, a small Nottinghamshire team competing at the eighth tier of the English football pyramid. I've long wanted to write-up a local team (in-part inspired by the Stocksbridge Park Steels F.C. entry), and I hope I've done this one justice. The article passed GA requirements last month and has since featured on DYK. After re-reading (again), I think the article's ready for FAC comments. Thanks! Curlymanjaro (talk) 21:45, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Don't use fixed px size
    • Fixed.
      • Not quite - lead image still uses that. Suggest also scaling up some of the uprights. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:52, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • Fixed.
  • Suggest adding alt text
    • Done.
  • File:Carlton_Town_FC_logo.png: second source link is dead
    • Fixed.
  • File:ArthurClamp.jpg: if the photographer is unknown how do we know they died over 70 years ago?
    • Removed this image to cut down on clutter. I can't prove anything, but presuming the photographer was an adult of 18, and the latest this photo could've been taken is 1915, he'd have been 95 in 1992.
  • File:SneintonFC1926.jpg: the given US tag relies in part on the image being PD in country of origin on the URAA date, but there's also a tag indicating that it may not be PD in country of origin - that is contradictory
    • Fixed.
      • Nothing seems to have changed here? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:52, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • My apologies, fixed now I believe.
          • Since this is to be moved to Commons, it would be helpful to specify why the image is believed to be PD in country of origin. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:48, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
            • Done. Curlymanjaro (talk) 22:51, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
              • This tag seems to indicate it would not have been PD on the URAA date? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:41, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
                • @Nikkimaria: I'm struggling a bit with this. Is the issue that the image was created in and not prior to 1926? If so, is it just a case of keeping it locally uploaded to Wikipedia under the UK rules (prior to 1952) and revoking its candidacy for Commons? Curlymanjaro (talk) 02:01, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Unfortunately uploading locally would require US public domain, not UK. The image was created in 1926 but per the image description wasn't published until nine years later - is there another reason why it would be PD in the US? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:04, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
                    • I fear not. I've removed the image from the article on the probability of it being non-free, which is a bit of a shame. Would just like to get this over the line now. Curlymanjaro (talk) 02:22, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
                      @Nikkimaria:: how's that? Curlymanjaro (talk) 14:14, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
                      Sure, that works. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:20, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:SneintonCricketClubandGround1920.png: is this CC or PD? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:19, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • PD, I believe. Fixed.

Comments Support by Eem dik doun in toene[edit]

Interesting article and it's great to see "lesser-known" football clubs being nominated at FAC.

  • "Sneinton Football Club, the club's" ==> Club ... club's is a bit repetitive
    • Replaced with "its".
  • Is the ref in the lead really needed, since it's supposed to be a summary of what's said in the article?
    • Removed.
  • "It was most recently promoted in 2006–07 from" ==> maybe: "It most recently won promotion in 2006–07 from"?
    • Done.
  • "The team enjoyed success in its first season. Finishing" ==> it's quite a short sentence, so it might better to merge it with the following one.
    • Done.
  • The team is plural, so "they" should be used instead of "it". (e.g. "The team enjoyed success in its" ==> "The team enjoyed success in their")
    • Done.
  • Did anything noteworthy happen between 1950 and 1965?
  • a valid promotion, it duly topped, comfortable League, unimpressive League ==> all sound a bit too journalistic to me.
    • Fair comment. "Valid promotion" is included since Carlton finished in a promotion spot at the end of the previous season but had it denied to them because of a technicality. "Duly" because they rebounded from this, after a big investment, so that they could achieve what they had actually earned in the previous season. I realise I might be digging myself into a bigger journalistic hole here, but I've deleted "comfortable" and replaced "unimpressive" with "poor". Hope that suits.
  • "Improved year on year" ==> who stated this?
    • The club, I think. Deleted!
  • "establishing a record" ==> establishing a club record?
    • Done.
  • Perhaps mention Vardy's stature when talking about the 2008–09 playoff semi-final? E.g. "future England international Jamie Vardy"
    • Done.
  • I believe there's a bit of recentism in the history section as the last 20 years cover about as much text as the previous 75 yrs.
    • This is a very valid criticism, one which I've wrestled with quite a bit. The truth is that the club spent the years between 1947, after the second reformation, and the football-pyramid-entering 1995–96 season in massive obscurity, even locally speaking. Looking through contemporaneous articles on the British Newspaper Archive, Sneinton very rarely gets a bespoke mention week-to-week. We're talking the most parochial of the parochial divisions for the most part. There are entries I've found which chart its league position on a given week, along with all the other teams, but that indicates very little about general performance and might lead to mischaracterisations. My other defence is that more recent events tend to have better coverage online, although with a small club such as Carlton, even this can sometimes be tricky.
  • "Central Midlands Football League", "Northern Counties East Football League", et cetera ==> which tiers do these leagues belong to?
    • Clarified (I hope).
  • Why are the honours and tournament tables collapsed?
    • Just my preference, I'm open to reversing that if you prefer.
  • I'm missing info/sections about Carlton's crest/colours, supporters/rivalries, records. Eem dik doun in toene (talk) 17:44, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Alas, me too. I can describe the crest and colours but sadly have no historical background with which to buttress it, so the section would just be a restatement of the infobox (which is fine - let me know). According to my sources, I've virtually nothing on fans and rivalries, which is a shame (I'm questioning whether sources even exist on these). Tournament records are in a (collapsed) box at the bottom, and the record attendance is described in the section covering the ground at which it happened.

Really appreciate you looking at this @Eem dik doun in toene: I'm glad you enjoyed the read. Curlymanjaro (talk) 22:51, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Curlymanjaro, no problem and thanks for the clear explanations. I understand it can be quite a task to find enough/the necessary info. I still think the history section from 2002 can be trimmed down a bit to make it all more balanced. About the collapsed tables, I would uncollapse them as most people will check out the club's honours, and it will save a click. I would also make a crest/colours section then, even if it'll be short. Eem dik doun in toene (talk) 08:11, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks, @Eem dik doun in toene: what do you reckon to the improvements? I had to get slightly creative with sources for Carlton's rivalries, but since these are informal affairs at a low level of competition, I hope that's acceptable. Curlymanjaro (talk) 17:11, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I think the article looks better now! I'm not sure if the FM Save ref is "acceptable" but that'll come up at the source review I reckon. Good luck with this nom. Eem dik doun in toene (talk) 21:12, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from ChrisTheDude[edit]

  • "its early years were [...] described by the Manchester Courier in 1909 as "the leading amateur football club"" - that doesn't work grammatically, Suggest "its early years were marked by considerable local success, leading to the club being described by the Manchester Courier in 1909 as "the leading amateur football club""
    • Done.
  • "Its reputation declined for several decades afterwards, participating" - again, it wasn't the reputation that participated. Suggest "Its reputation declined for several decades afterwards, with the team participating"
    • Done.
  • "Carlton has played its home games" - it's the team rather than the club as a singular entity that plays games, so here it should be treated as plural
    • Done.
  • "Sneinton moved to sign more “promising amateurs of the city”" - why is that last part in quote marks? Who is it a quote from?
    • A nameless newspaperman. Since I've cited the source I might as well shorten the sentence and remove quote marks.
  • "Sneinton, "by no manner of means", insisted" - literally no idea what this means, can you clarify?
    • It means they weren't wealthy. Reworded.
  • "paid for the team's travel to Stockton, where it was defeated 7–2" - the team is plural, not singular
    • Done.
  • Refs after "annual profit" are not in numerical order
    • Fair enough, happy to change that. Previously, I've been instructed to order according to where the cited info is placed within the sentence.
  • Remove the redlink on Trent Rangers as this club is not notable and never going to have an article
    • Done.
  • "returning to the Sneinton district after a season away" - why? Where did they play the previous season?
    • Its unclear in my source. I suppose its connected to general disruption after Carlton dissolved because of the war, but I can't say for sure.
  • "being noted as "much-improved"" - by whom?
    • Clarified.
  • "Eager "to progress beyond the confines of local parks football"" - again, who is this is a quote from?
    • The NPL. Easier just to change into straight prose.
  • "joined the Central Midlands Football League at the twelfth tier of the league system" - the CML Premier Division was level 11 back in 1995, not 12
    • Help me understand this, please. At which point did Carlton's tier change without promotion or relegation?
      • With the creation of the Conference North in 2004. Prior to that, the divisions below the Football League went Conference > NPL Premier > NPL 1 > NCEL Premier > NCEL 1 > CML Supreme > CML Premier, so in 1995 the CML Premier (the level at which Carlton entered) was level 11. Similarly in 2001 when they were in the CML Supreme, that was at level 10 as per the above. So, when the Conference North was formed in 2004, the NCEL Div One shifted down from level 9 to 10, so by staying in the same division Carlton went down a tier. Hope that makes sense..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:51, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Notwithstanding a "reasonable" first season" - reasonable according to whom
    • Removed quote marks.
  • ""In a desperate quandary"," - again, who is this quote from?
    • NPL again. Bit journalistic so replaced.
  • "Sneinton's third-place finish in the eleventh tier in 2000–01" - tenth tier at that point
    • See other CML comment.
  • "if not for "ground grading issues" negating this opportunity." - ground grading issues is a perfectly standard term, so no reason to present it as a quote
    • Wasn't aware of this before. Removed.
  • "guarantee a valid promotion should it be achieved" - really weird wording. Maybe "make the team eligible for promotion if they finished in an appropriate league position"
    • Done.
  • "establishing a club record in the FA Vase by entering its third round" => "establishing a club record in the FA Vase by reaching its third round" as otherwise it sounds like they just went straight in at the third round
    • Done.
  • "playoff semi-final, losing 5–2 to Stocksbridge Park Steels" => "playoff semi-final, Carlton losing 5–2 to Stocksbridge Park Steels"
    • Done.
  • "Finishing ninth in 2009–10, Brookbanks" - it wasn't Brookbanks who finished ninth
    • Done.
  • Refs after "red and white mix for 2021–22" in wrong order
    • Done.
  • Same after "before its collapse in 2011, Gedling Town"
    • Done.
  • "Located on the Colwick Lawn Estate [...] he led" - it wasn't the ground that led this
    • Done.
  • "becoming the home of Parliament Street Methodists" - again, this non-notable team is never going to have an article so remove redlink
    • Done.
  • Refs after "requiring a relocation of the pitch within the premises" again in wrong order
    • Done.
  • "30 carparking spaces" - I don't think "carparking" is a single word
    • Done.
  • I can't see any reason to have a References heading and then a Footnotes subheading right after it when there are no other sub-sections in that section
  • That's what I got -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:47, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks very much for your thoroughness, @ChrisTheDude: once the CML tier-position thing is cleared up I should have addressed everything. Curlymanjaro (talk) 16:24, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi ChrisTheDude, I was wondering if you felt in a position to either support or oppose this nomination? Obviously, neither is obligatory. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:21, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Any improvements I can make to persuade you to support, ChrisTheDude? Curlymanjaro (talk) 18:06, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, I forgot all about this. I don't have time to do a proper re-review tonight but will try to do so tomorrow....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:44, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose (on 1a) Comments from BigDom[edit]

Sorry, but I felt I had to be honest. It's good to see a substantial article about a smaller club, but I think there are quite a few prose issues and it isn't at the required "professional standard" yet. Some of the word choices strike me as a bit strange (that's not necessarily a problem, everyone has their own style), but some bits I found a little confusing and had to read two or three times before I could work out what was meant. Here are a few things I've picked out (not exhaustive):

  • "The Football Association (FA)" - the acronym "FA" is already used a sentence earlier. It only appears in competition names throughout the article anyway, so not convinced it is needed.
    • Deleted.
  • "the club became frustrated" - the players, the board, the supporters?
    • Prose changed.
  • "In 1948, the team vacated to a pitch at Colwick Wood Park, returning to the Sneinton district after a season away." - I see this sentence has been mentioned above but reading the article as a newcomer it's not clear at all what is meant. Is it trying to say that the team had played elsewhere for a season (presumably 1947–48 and if so, where was it?), or that Colwick Wood Park is somewhere outside Sneinton (if so, where is it?)?
    • The former. The problem is, my source doesn't say. We're talking about a local parks team in the late 1940s; quoting directly: "The Sneinton F.C. have secured new playing headquarters for the coming season. A return, after one season's absence, being made to the district of the club's origin ...". I wish I had more for you. I've changed the existing prose, anyhow.
  • "finishing seventh in 1949–50 but with steady finances." - why "but"? Would a team finishing 7th not expect to have "steady" finances?
    • Changed.
  • "Avoiding relegation,[30] the club again transferred leagues ahead of 1969–70 to rejoin the Notts Alliance in its Division Two, being noted as "much-improved" by the Nottingham Football Post in 1976–77." - did avoiding relegation have anything to do with transferring leagues? Also, what happened in the years leading up to the improvement?
    • I'm not sure on the first point, largely since the sources aren't very helpful. However, on the second, I've uncovered that Sneinton's first season in the division was a stinker. This could explain the "improvement" comment.
  • "Sneinton eventually won the 1984–85 campaign" - "eventually" sounds like it took them a long time to win that particular season
    • Removed.
  • "satisfied both activities" => "met the needs of both"
    • Changed.
  • "leading to the appointment of a deputation in protest." - presumably it was the club protesting, not the Improvement Committee? Also, it reads as if "deputation in protest" is a single noun phrase.
    • Correct. Changed.
  • "contesting a season remotely" sounds rather odd - I would change this whole sentence to be honest. How about: After reforming in 1947, the club relocated to one of two public pitches at Colwick Wood Park in 1948, having played its matches in the intervening year at an alternative venue."?
    • Changed.
  • "In the early 1990s, the team moved to their current location on Stoke Lane in Gedling, dovetailing with Sneinton's competitive ambition to progress through the English league system." - dovetailing?
    • Was probably better to remove the entire third clause of that sentence, to be honest.
  • "That said" - not really encyclopedic tone.
    • Changed.
  • Source issue: what makes CBJStar a reliable source? It seems to be a student newspaper.
    • It is. My only defence would be that, apparently, it was a story too insignificant for the bigger local papers; I see no reason or opportunity for the writer, even if they're a student, to get the presence of a youth academy suite wrong.

I really wanted to support this so would be happy to come back and reconsider once some work has been done on the prose. Good luck! BigDom (talk) 21:29, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for checking this over, @BigDom: doing an article like this is a poison chalice in some respects. The need is clearly there for better articles on smaller clubs, but finding information is often a flipping nightmare! Curlymanjaro (talk) 21:50, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I understand it can be tough to get the information when it's an obscure topic like this. Thanks for addressing the points above, I still think the article needs a thorough copy-edit to meet 1a though as well as some specific concerns:
      • "Mixed fortunes followed as key players Arthur Clamp and Andrew Mosley joined Notts County, despite new tram infrastructure in the area promising improved attendance." is a bit of a non-sequitur to me. What's the connection between the players leaving and the trams arriving? Did the players leaving affect performances on the pitch? Did the improved tram infrastructure have any effect on attendances?
        • I see what you mean. My sources are from when these events were unfolding, so it's hard to discern their actual impact beyond the immediate outlook for the club during the 1907–08 season. Any suggestions on rewording? I'm a bit stuck.
      • "playing form suffered [...], losing several players" - the playing form didn't lose several players
        • Fixed.
      • "the club reformed on 29 April 1919" - there is no mention of the club disbanding so it's confusing to read that it reformed.
        • Fixed.
      • "finishing seventh in 1949–50 and with steady finances.[27] By 1965–66" - any information about the intervening 15 years? That paragraph in general is very sparse, covering around 45 years in under 200 words.
        • Added a fair bit after some serious trawling. You'll no doubt want to look at the prose.
      • "Notwithstanding a reasonable first season" - Chris mentioned this above too. Removing the quotes doesn't make it not an opinion, so again, reasonable according to whom?
        • The NPL; I was trying to avoid mentioning it since Carlton hadn't been promoted to that tier yet. I could just delete that bit? Doesn't tell us terribly much anyway.
      • "Runners-up and playoff semi-finalists in the division's 2011–12 contest,[36] League form dipped in the following seasons, finishing twelfth, tenth and eighteenth respectively." - I don't think this sentence is grammatical at all, there's no subject.
        • Fixed.
      • "Combined with poor tournament results in 2014–15 [...] McJannet resigned." - McJannet wasn't combined with poor results
        • Fixed.
      • "narrowly missing out on playoffs" - "[...] on the playoffs"
        • Fixed.
      • Club identity - this section is incomplete, there's no details about the club colours until "recent"ly (when?). When was the club crest introduced and has the club used any others before this one?
        • I'll need a day or two to search the Wayback Machine on this point and the next. A very tricky section!
      • Green's mill - nice, but where is the link between it and the club? (the "About Green's windmill" page linked doesn't mention the club as far as I can see)
      • Maybe worth giving inflation figures (e.g. how much is £300 in 1905 worth today)
        • Fixed.
      • "Conversely, 1935 saw the addition of another pitch" - why "conversely"? It doesn't disagree with the previous sentence.
        • Fixed.
          • Better, but note that MOS:NUMNOTES says to avoid starting a sentence with figures.
      • Most of the article is written about the club in the third-person singular but a couple of times it drifts to third-person plural, e.g. in the lead "Carlton have played their home games" and in the Grounds section "moved to their current location". There may be others I missed.
        • Good spot. The team/club distinction was brought up by "Eem dik doun in toene" above. I've tried to go "it/its" for club and "they/their" for team. What do you reckon?
      • Refs: #35 - what makes Non-League Football Matters a reliable source (it might be, I haven't come across it before but I haven't written much about non-league). #47 is a fan blog, which I don't think would count as reliable.
        • The league tables on it follow pretty seamlessly from those found on the British Newspaper Archive. Also, I'd say its self-identification as an "independent football history information site" is about equivalent to the status of the Football Club History Database. Fan blog deleted and rival team replaced.
    • Hope these are useful. BigDom (talk) 06:23, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks again, @BigDom: quite a lot to be getting on with here but I hope we're getting closer. I'll do some more digging on the "club identity" section before reporting back. Curlymanjaro (talk) 22:33, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • Right, @BigDom: I've done my best with the "club identity" section after some further research. Alas, I still can't prove the Green's Mill connection in writing (despite, annoyingly, knowing it to be true in real life). Curlymanjaro (talk) 18:00, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • @Curlymanjaro: You've put some great effort into improving the article, really impressive. I've struck my explicit opposition although I can't quite bring myself to support. I'm still not convinced the prose is quite of a "professional standard" per WP:FA?#1a and it still feels a little incomplete (for example, no information about club colours/kits before 2003) for #1b. I understand though that this may just be the nature of writing about such an obscure topic and am not sure whether it could ever be overcome. Good work overall, though! BigDom (talk) 06:11, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment - as this nomination has been open for well over a month and is not close to a consensus to promote, it will have to be archived in a couple days unless significant movement towards a consensus to promote occurs. Hog Farm Talk 04:08, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Hog Farm: of the three reviewers, we've got two supporting and one having reversed their opposition. How many more until you can pass? Curlymanjaro (talk) 16:04, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A minimum of three supports is expected, although the coordinators have the ability to consider more than three needed. Formal source and image reviews are also required. Hog Farm Talk 01:59, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, @Hog Farm: I'm hopefully close to getting the image review passed. I believe I've satisfied every reviewer's specific qualms; I suppose it's just a case waiting for another user if three really is the bare minimum. Curlymanjaro (talk) 14:16, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Some more comments from ChrisTheDude[edit]

  • I've made a few tweaks myself but the following could still do with looking oat.....
  • "a near-undefeated run lasting close to three months" - how can you have a "near-undefeated run"? Surely a run is either undefeated or it isn't..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:50, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Royal necropolis of Byblos[edit]

Nominator(s): el.ziade (talkallam) 11:04, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a group of shaft and chamber tombs that housed the remains of Bronze Age Gebalite Kings. A chance landslide in the early 1920s uncovered the first of the underground tombs. Some of the burial chambers that escaped looting contained a great number of funerary goods; among these were ornate royal Egyptian gifts bearing the names of Twelfth Dynasty pharaohs. Inscriptions found in the tombs allowed the identification of some of the buried Kings. The most important of these finds was the famed Ahiram sarcophagus. The story of the re-emergence of the ancient city of Byblos/Gebal, and the subsequent discovery of the royal tombs, is reminiscent of Indiana Jones movies.

I have spent long hours searching archives and drafting this piece, and I have covered good ground so that it not only informative, but also compelling. The article underwent a thorough GA review, which made it significantly better, and I am very grateful for AirshipJungleman29's time and effort. I am hopeful, with your guidance, to drive the article to 'featured' status.el.ziade (talkallam) 11:04, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note -- Hi Elias, I don't think you've been to FAC before, in which case welcome! Some house-keeping... It looks like you have a peer review open for this article, and you need to close that now that the FAC has been opened. Also, as a fresh nominator, we'll want a spotcheck of sources for accurate use and avoidance of close paraphrasing, a hoop we as all newbies to jump through, as well as the regular source review for reliability and formatting; that can take place in the course of the overall review here. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:27, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Ian Rose , it is true that I edit sporadically, but I have 4 FAs under my belt already. Some guidelines may escape me since I am not here often. I welcome any feedback that will help improve the article. I will try to close the peer review, I haven't had many comments there. el.ziade (talkallam) 14:32, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, changed the name too... Okay the spotcheck is not a necessity. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:41, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the name change is confusing, it seemed liked a good idea then 😅. I had the pleasure of working under your guidance before, and I am looking forward to this review too. el.ziade (talkallam) 15:04, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Image review
  • File:Byblos View.jpg, File:Ahiram Sarcophagus.jpg probably not freely licensed, nominated for deletion on Commons
  • File:Cimetiere royal.png what's the source for the info on the map?
  • The Montet maps and photograph; according to Internet Archive's scan these publications were in 1928 and 1929, after 1927 as indicated by the tag. Since it was published in France it would also need to be public domain in France to be kosher on Commons, which it does not seem to be if Montet created these sketches since he died in 1966

Other images look ok (t · c) buidhe 08:24, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not a source review
  • Article is well structured and length is reasonable. However, I noticed a majority of the citations are from the 1920s. Are there more recent sources that could be cited instead? I realize stuff like "The longer inscription is carved on the font (typo for front?), long edge of the lid" are not likely to change over time, making the datedness less of an issue, but, for example, it would be best to cite a more recent source for the number of grave goods recovered.
  • akg-images is not a high-quality reliable source in my view

(t · c) buidhe 08:33, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your usual meticulous work Buidhe below are my comments.
  • Concerning File:Byblos View.jpg, it's a real shame to see it go. There are no replacements. As for File:Ahiram Sarcophagus.jpg I am not oppose it's deletion, I have already replaced it in the article.
  • File:Cimetiere royal.png: it's derived from the map in the early 1920s letters from Montet to Cagnat a copy of the Image on JSTOR. Shall I add this bit of info on commons?
  • Montet's maps and photographs are sourced from the Internet Archive open source library, IA states that it respects the intellectual property rights and other proprietary rights of others. The Internet Archive may remove certain content or disable access to content that appears to infringe the copyright or other intellectual property rights of others. I believe we are safe in this regard, is there something else we can do? These images are fundamental to the understanding of the article. I can upload them here under a fair use label if this prevents them from being lost. Please advise. The copyright term in France was +50 years after the death of the author at the time of the publication of the above-mentioned works.
  • I will try to find more recent sources to add to the early 20th century ones. But mind you these are seminal works and are still authoritative. el.ziade (talkallam) 13:27, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Currently the copyright term in france is life + 70 years, including works that were published before the change came into effect. I agree that Internet Archive usually only shows full text for out of copyright works, but I don't think that's something we can rely on to determine copyright status. I've expanded the image description for File:Cimetiere royal.png. (t · c) buidhe 19:40, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I’m quoting a legal website pertaining to intellectual rights protection of sketches: «  Si le “dessinateur” a effectué quelque chose de visuellement très simple : par exemple un fond de carte faisant apparaître les frontières et le réseau hydrographique d’un pays. Ce “contenu” ne peut pas prétendre à la protection par le droit d’auteur. Il n’est qu’une information (plus exactement, une somme d’informations), donnant une représentation rudimentaire de la réalité. Le fond de carte nu n’est pas une œuvre originale, il n’a pas d’auteur. Ce fond de carte n’entre pas dans le champ du droit d’auteur ; il peut donc être repris sans problème. »
[ If the “dessinateur” has done something very simple visually: for example, a base map showing the borders and the hydrographic network of a country.  This “content” does not qualify for copyright protection.  It is only information (more exactly, a sum of information), giving a rudimentary representation of reality.  The bare basemap is not an original work, it has no author.  This base map does not fall within the scope of copyright;  it can therefore be resumed without any problem. ]
In archeology
«  En élaborant ces dessins, ces relevés de fouilles, ce rapport de fouilles, l’auteur du dessin élabore des archives de recherche qui sont des archives publiques…  À l’instar des règles applicables à un fond de carte très simple et à une carte originale protégée (le fond de carte peut être utilisé sans demander d’autorisation mais il convient d’en indiquer la source par honnêteté intellectuelle ; la carte originale ne peut être reproduite ou réutilisée qu’avec l’accord de l’auteur), on peut appliquer le même raisonnement à un histogramme ou à un graphique. Si le graphique est très simple et fait apparaître quelques données en abscisse et en ordonnées, il constitue une représentation brute, non protégée par le droit d’auteur. Si l’histogramme ou le graphique sont très élaborés (ombre, couleurs, bref, de l’infographie qui donne à la représentation un caractère créatif original), ils sont originaux, donc protégés par le droit d’auteur. »
[ By developing these drawings, these excavation records, this excavation report, the author of the drawing develops research archives which are public archives… Like the rules applicable to a very simple background map and a protected original map (the background map can be used without asking permission, but the source should be indicated for intellectual honesty; the original map  can be reproduced or reused only with the agreement of the author), the same reasoning can be applied to a histogram or a graph.  If the graph is very simple and shows some data in abscissa and ordinate, it constitutes a raw representation, not protected by copyright.  If the histogram or the graph are very elaborate (shadow, colors, in short, computer graphics that give the representation an original creative character), they are original, therefore protected by copyright. ]
source el.ziade (talkallam) 00:47, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I had to google translate because I didn't have the time, but you guys get the picture. el.ziade (talkallam) 16:09, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Funk[edit]

  • Nice to see some more Lebanese history here, especially during these hard times. Will have a look soon. FunkMonk (talk) 16:58, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the above note, I think the intro could mention explicitly that this is located in modern day Lebanon.
    done, thanks FunkMonk el.ziade (talkallam) 06:39, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Location of Royal necropolis" The royal? Add the and remove capital r?
It's the template Wallah it's not me lol. Fixed it.
  • You mention an acropolis only once, in an image caption, could be mentioned and linked in the article body if it's important?
Linked it in the infobox, I think it's enough there.
Well, the main point is, why is it important enough to mention in the caption, but not in the article body? If it's not important for the article body, it's just confusing to introduce a new term just in a caption. Otherwise, it could be elaborated on in the text, or removed. FunkMonk (talk) 00:17, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Last unaddressed issue. FunkMonk (talk) 17:57, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Main article: Byblos" followed by "Byblos (modern Jubayl)", is the "main article" really necessary when you can just link the first word of the paragraph?
No problem
  • "derived from the Canaanite Gubal" Link Canaanite.
Done
  • Link more unlinked terms in the infobox and first mentions in image captions?
Sure, done
  • "that has been inhabited, and continuously used" Why not just say "that has been continuously inhabited", means the same?
yes *smh*
  • Link Bronze Age?
done
done
  • Link Ramses II.
done
  • Link Phoenicia.
done
  • Images are a bit clogged up in the lower right of the article, perhaps use some horizontal multiple image templates instead, like in for example quagga?
All done except for the images, will get to these later. el.ziade (talkallam) 14:22, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
On second thought, do you mind if I don't change the layout? I am not fond of large blocks either, they are disruptive in an article where all the images are of the same size. Please don't ask me to alternate right and left too :( el.ziade (talkallam) 14:50, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It appears the "problem" would still be there with the images below, so not easy to solve. But I think much of the cramming is caused by the huge image "Gold oenochoe from Tomb IV in Mycenae.", which I don't really think is even necessary to show here, as it is not from this necropolis, and the caption doesn't explain the connection. FunkMonk (talk) 00:17, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done, you're right, the Mycenae image doesn't really belong. I linked it for comparison. el.ziade (talkallam) 07:01, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Renan had relied on Strabo's writing" Strabo and other people could be presented like you do with other people, by nationality and occupation, for consistence.
done el.ziade (talkallam) 15:21, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Now Byblus, the royal residence of Cinyras,​ is sacred to Adonis; but Pompey freed it from tyranny by beheading its tyrant with an axe; and it is situated on a height only a slight distance from the sea." Is this a quote? If so, it would remove ambiguity if you added quotation marks.
done el.ziade (talkallam) 15:21, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Byblos is a much later Greek exonym, possibly a corruption of Gebal." I think it's important to add this at the beginning of the main text (Historical background) too instead of just in a footnote, because now it's a but confusing that you jump between using the terms Gebal and Byblos seemingly at random, for example: "Ancient texts and manuscripts hinted to the location of Gebal... Strabo identified Byblos as a city situated on a hill some distance away from the sea."
  • "Renan correctly posited that the Ancient Byblos must have been located atop the circular hill dominated by the Crusader citadel of Jbeil." What was his reasoning?
done el.ziade (talkallam) 15:21, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Byblos (modern Jubayl)" Elsewhere you spell it Jbeil.
done el.ziade (talkallam) 15:21, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • You seem be using British spelling (archaeology) some places, but others US (metres). Should be consistent.
On the other hand, you also say " work on the archeological tell" and "kilometres", So decide on one English variation and check throughout for consistency. FunkMonk (talk) 00:17, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
archaeology works both ways, but I changed it. Sticking to US english. el.ziade (talkallam) 15:21, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I actually don't think you need to change archaeology then, but up to you, as long as the rest sticks to US English. FunkMonk (talk) 20:28, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "During the period of French Mandate" Usually it would be "the French Mandate", definite.
done el.ziade (talkallam) 15:21, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "landslide in the seaside cliff of Jbeil" Wouldn't this be "on"?
done el.ziade (talkallam) 15:21, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The next day the administrative advisor of Mount-Lebanon" Mount Lebanon hasn't been introduced at this point, I don't think all readers would know what this refers to.
done el.ziade (talkallam) 15:21, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link hypogeum and sarcophagus in the article body.
done el.ziade (talkallam) 15:21, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the excavation of Ancient Byblos" Why capital A?
done el.ziade (talkallam) 15:21, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Maurice Dunand succeeded Montet" Again no introduction of this person, check for consistency throughout.
done el.ziade (talkallam) 15:21, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "had been emptied from their contents" Emptied of?
oops el.ziade (talkallam) 15:21, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "instead of rock at a later period of time" Do we know how much later?
This is detailed in the dating section. I'd rather not repeat it here if you don't mind it el.ziade (talkallam) 15:21, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "was closer to that the northern group" That of?
yep el.ziade (talkallam) 15:21, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • You use the name "Abi Chemu" in captions, but "Abishemu" in the article body.
Yeah, depending on the sources. Older French sources use Abi Chemu. el.ziade (talkallam) 15:21, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, as long as you're consistent within the article about which version you use, I see you changed one caption, but there is still "Sarcophagus of Abi Chemu featuring lengthwise fluting on its lid". FunkMonk (talk) 20:28, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "on Tomb I chamber's north wall" A bit oddly worded, perhaps "on the north wall of tomb I's chamber?
done el.ziade (talkallam) 15:21, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A coarsely built wall separated the chamber of Tomb I from its well." Why is this past tense when the previous description is present? There are other cases of this too where it seems pretty random.
The walls and other structures were dismantled during excavation, this is why. el.ziade (talkallam) 15:21, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The two conduits did not communicate." Connect?
Right el.ziade (talkallam) 15:21, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It was also the only tomb to have an inscription within its shaft." State in which language.
I did in the following sentence, or else it could have been understood as "the only Phoenician inscription as opposed to "only inscription" . el.ziade (talkallam) 15:21, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The semicircular shape of Tomb V, known as "Ahiram's tomb"" I think it would be less confusing if you state already here it was a king.
done el.ziade (talkallam) 15:21, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Especially since you have this section without having mentioned a king before: "According to Montet, the builders of the tomb did not consider that the king's corpse was". FunkMonk (talk) 01:33, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "at the center" If you use British English, should be "centre".
I haven't even given it a thought. I will consider this from now on. el.ziade (talkallam) 15:21, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "on their down to the royal grave" way down?
Right thanks, el.ziade (talkallam) 15:21, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "All of the three chamber sarcophagi were looted and only contained human bones" Do we know of who?
No we don't have any surviving clues el.ziade (talkallam) 15:21, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did other sarcophagi contain bodies or bones?
no bodies we recovered. The environment is too wet to preserve soft tissue. el.ziade (talkallam) 15:21, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is enough known about any of these interred people to warrant articles, or just short descriptions of who they were here in this article?
I will look into this, Good idea el.ziade (talkallam) 15:21, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link sedimentary.
done el.ziade (talkallam) 15:21, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think ashlar could be linked.
done el.ziade (talkallam) 15:21, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • ", without any masonry retaining walls" The walls?
Done el.ziade (talkallam) 15:21, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you @FunkMonk for the review. I could have read and re-read the article a hundred times and not have picked up the areas of improvement you suggested. el.ziade (talkallam) 15:23, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Review of the rest of the article below. FunkMonk (talk) 20:28, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and an entire corner section of the lid have broken off" Has broken (singular).
"the lug at the northwestern corner and an entire corner section..."
  • "body of the sarcophagus IV is" I don't think definite "the" is needed here.
Fixed the sentence
  • "Montet ascertains that" Why present tense?
Fixed
  • "while the rest of the lions' bodies appears in bas-relief on the long sides" I think it should be "appear", because bodies is plural.
Right
  • "Two scene of a funerary procession of four mourning women occupies the" Scenes, as it's plural? And "occupy" because it's plural.
Fixed
  • Do we have any images of these scenes?
Added
  • "Tomb I contained a 12 centimeters (4.7 in) obsidian vase" I think it could be specified if this is the height?
Indeed it is
  • "Tomb II had two royal Egyptian gifts, 45 centimeters (18 in) long obsidian box" Missing "a" in front of the measurement?
Done
  • Link the two Amenemhat names in the article body too.
Done
  • "which French art history expert Edmond Pottier likened its spiral decorative patterns to that of the gold oenochoe from Tomb IV" I think the grammar is a bit odd here, could be "the spiral decorative patterns of which the French art history expert Edmond Pottier likened to that of the gold oenochoe from Tomb IV".
Thank you, done
  • Link Mycenae and Aegean in article body.
Done
  • "which divide the body of the receptacles in into several parts" First "in" seems superfluous.
Done
  • "A funerary inscription written in Phoenician identify the names" Identifies, singular.
Done
  • "triggered a landslide in the seaside cliff of Jbeil" By this point in the intro, you have not connected the name Byblos to Jbeil, so unfamiliar readers will not know its the same.
Clarification in the lead.

Thanks @FunkMonk el.ziade (talkallam) 15:31, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good, I've marked one unaddressed issue left above. FunkMonk (talk) 17:57, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@FunkMonk Solved, thanks for pointing that out. I left an explanation in the edit summary. el.ziade (talkallam) 10:22, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - nice work, and certainly something I think would be worth giving a look for our ancient Egypt interested reviewers. FunkMonk (talk) 13:34, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you buddy, I know I could have made your review much smoother had I given the article a few more reads. Truth is I find it very hard to catch my own typos and grammar mistakes. This review gave me a much needed boost to step up my game. el.ziade (talkallam) 18:23, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That kind of stuff is ok for me as long as the content itself is good. But it may scare other reviewers off, so hopefully we've addressed most of it. FunkMonk (talk) 19:18, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note[edit]

After nearly five weeks this nomination has only attracted one general support. Unless further attention is forthcoming over the next two or three days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:45, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps tagging editors who have reviewed your earlier FACs could be an idea. FunkMonk (talk) 15:57, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea Monk, I’m not good at making connections here. I already left a message on WP:PHO for more input. 🤞🏼el.ziade (talkallam) 19:18, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jens[edit]

Marking my spot, will review as soon as possible. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:28, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • but was rediscovered in the late 19th century by the French biblical scholar and orientalist Ernest Renan. – Not sure if the scholar is relevant here (because he discovered the city, not the necropolis). But in any case I would add where Byblos was rediscovered; a reader without any knowledge might be confused otherwise because the previous sentence talked about a "continuously populated city". Maybe add where in modern Byblos it was discovered?
Right! Thanks. ^^^
  • Byblos (modern Jbeil) – that seemingly indicates that "Byblos" only refers to the ancient city, but according to Byblos it is the most common name of the modern city?
Well... Yes and no, the official name and the common name locally is Jbeil (Jubeil, Gebeil) which derives from the ancient Semitic roots "GBL". Byblos is a Greek corruption of the city's name, and it used in the scientific literature, and in the touristic context. Road sings use both names btw. I cleared the confusion now I think. Good call ^^^
  • The whole first paragraph of the lead is just background information, and I'm not sure if all details are relevant there, for example the meaning of the word Byblos. I am not sure if the article should try to focus more on the topic, which is the Royal necropolis.
I take a holistic approach to keep the reader interested. I believe information like this provide more insight and spice up the article without going off-topic. ^^^ el.ziade (talkallam) 14:40, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • making precise dating problematic, however – I think this needs a ; instead of ,
It can go both ways ^^
I am not sure it can: As it is now, it is not clear if the "however" goes with the previous or the following part of the sentence. The ; would make this clear. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:30, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • the temple of Baalat Gebal complex – is this correct? Or should it be "the temple of Baalat Gebal" or the "temple complex of Baalat Gebal"?
Done ^^
  • The grave goods were not affected by the landslide; inside the burial chamber the excavators discovered several pottery jars floating in damp clay, and a large white limestone sarcophagus with three protruding lugs on its lid by which it could be manipulated. – Source?
Fixed ^^
  • Sarcophagus of Abishemu (Tomb I) in situ – Is that tomb still in situ (which would be an information to add to the article), or is that picture taken after discovery (then, please add "after discovery in 19xx")
This is a recent image. Most of the sarcophagi were moved above ground. This one is kept in place. I modified the caption, I think it is clear now. ^^
  • Section "The search for the ancient city" goes a bit off-topic, as it is not about the necropolis. Under "excavation history", I would expect the excavation history of the necropolis. Maybe better placed in another article, or move to a background section (which could have two headings, "History of ancient Byblos" and "The search for the ancient city")?
I am trying to keep the article interesting, and encyclopedic at the same time. The subject, if approached from a narrow scope, would be too dry. The story of Renan (much like Schliemann's) provides some nice insight, and an interesting backdrop for the following sections. I would rather not move the part related to Renan to the historical background; I want to keep all the excavation stuff together. ^^
  • In the "Historical background" section, maybe mention those tombs that could be dated when talking about that particular time, to make the connection with the necropolis? That would help the reader I think.
I would, except the chronology is patchy, and I don't believe it helps with the flow of the article. But I will keep this in mind when I fall on some peer-reviewed source that could help clear this up without affecting the flow of the narrative. ^^
^^ Thanks Jens, waiting for more from you el.ziade (talkallam) 14:19, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • kept in siture – in situ? Link to in situ?
Done el.ziade (talkallam) 13:28, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sandstone sarcophagus of Ahiram was found in Tomb V and is so called for its bas-relief carvings – Why is the "Ahiram sarcophagus" referring to the bas-relief carvings? I can't follow here.
The sarcophagus features a funerary inscription naming the occupant, Ahiram, who is shown seated on a throne in the bas-relief. el.ziade (talkallam) 13:28, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • it represents the terminus post quem of the transmission of the alphabet to the west. – Without context this is very hard to understand.
I modified the punctuation as the previous sentence provides context el.ziade (talkallam) 13:28, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • link lotus flowers
Done
  • of the main sarcophagus bas-relief scenery – I am irritated by the "sarcophagus" here. Are their sarcophagi other than the main one? Or should this mean "the main bas-relief scenery"? (I think it is very clear from the context that these are on the sarcophagus)
Good point. el.ziade (talkallam) 13:28, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The longer inscription is carved on the front, long edge of the lid. – Maybe add a sentence stating the content of these inscriptions?
Okay, done. el.ziade (talkallam) 13:28, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • link obsidian
done. el.ziade (talkallam) 13:28, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • lid set with gold; the rectangular box rests on four legs; it has at the center – I think this needs reformulation or better interpunctation.
done el.ziade (talkallam) 18:30, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • One difference however, – I think this needs a comma behind "difference"
done el.ziade (talkallam) 18:30, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Two grand silver hand mirrors, were recovered in tombs I and II – comma too much
done el.ziade (talkallam) 18:30, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some signs point to a range spanning from the end of the Middle Bronze Age to the Late Bronze Age for others – I don't understand the "for others" here.
must be a remnant of a deleted passage el.ziade (talkallam) 21:46, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • French priest and archeologist Father Louis-Hugues Vincent, Pierre Montet, and other early scholars believed – But the section "dating" does only contain the interpretations of the early scholars. The sentence, however, reads as if this would be no longer accepted. Is it a widely accepted fact, or are there simply no newer studies available?
The dating of the tombs by early scholars still holds. The dating of the Ahiram sarcophagus however, is now widely accepted to fall between the 11th and the mid-ninth century BC. Scholars advanced this date based on rubble material suggesting that Tomb V was reused in the Iron Age to bury Ahiram. In short, the sarcophagus of Ahiram was introduced to the preexisting shaft tomb. This is detailed in the Ahiram sarcophagus article. Should I include this here or it would be going off topic ? el.ziade (talkallam) 19:18, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is almost everything now. I will be away until Sunday, and take a last look as soon as I am back. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:30, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rest looks good, as do the changes. Support --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:13, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Cas Liber[edit]

Been super busy IRL...will look soon Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:46, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'd link exonym
Done ^
  • Foreign words are generally italicised not in quotation marks.
mudir, mastaba, serdab, khopesh, italicized ^
  • link Middle Bronze Age
Done ^
  • The Historical background is a bit choppy. I would combine some small into larger paragraphs
Neater I guess ^
  • Relation with Egypt dwindled again.... "Relations"?
Right ^
  • He based his assumption on an ancient coin depicting a representation of the city... - "ancient" is a bit general. Can the coin be described in a bit more exacting way?
I wanted to add the description, but I was hesitant to go off topic. I am glad you find including these details helpful. ^

Rest of it looks pretty good. Will have another look later Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:44, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

^ Thank you, will be waiting for more.el.ziade (talkallam) 12:24, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Casliber:, do you have more feedback? el.ziade (talkallam) 15:40, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No. It's a thumbs up from me, though as a neophyte on hte topic area I will defer to others more familiar with the field Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:41, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mirokado[edit]

General impression so far: the article is well written, thorough and will be a valuable addition to our featured articles if accepted.

  • lead
    • "Byblos (also called Jbeil) ... "Gabal" ...": just reading the lead, why does the article use the "also called" name Jbeil rather than Byblos which appears in the title? I'm not suggesting a change, but would like to see the motivation expressed a little more clearly in the lead. Subsequent content does clarify.
      yes, and Jens had the same question. It is quite like the case of Troy/Ilium/Hisarlik. Byblos is a Greek exonym that was apparently favored by 19th century scholars because of hellenocentrism. Most of what was know about the city was sourced from classical writers. The local name has always names Jbeil which directly derives from the Canaanite root ‘GBL’ (Gebal). Even in crusader times the city was known as. Gibelet. Ancient Gebal and modern Jbeil are one and the same. The ancient city was forgotten on a hill directly under the medieval castle and skirting the medieval city walls from the outside. The medieval city was moved closer to a shallow natural harbor used for fishing. The medieval city, was enclosed by a defensive wall, and the Harbour is still guarded by a medieval tower. The names Byblos and Jbeil are both corruptions of Gebal, and are now used interchangeably on road signs in Lebanon mostly for touristic reasons, especially that the exonym took root because of European scholars. If I could rewrite the literature, I’d revert back to the old, pre classical exonym, but unfortunately this is the common name of the necropolis in literature. el.ziade (talkallam) 15:54, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
      [reply]
    • "the sarcophagi of several kings of the city." I would link thus: "the sarcophagi of several kings of the city." so that the link text more accurately matches the contents of the link.
      done el.ziade (talkallam) 15:54, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The city established major trade links with Egypt during the Bronze Age, leading to the latter heavily influencing local culture and funerary practices." This is not clear on first reading, although subsequent content is clearer. I suggest rephrase to avoid using "the latter".
      Done el.ziade (talkallam) 19:40, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The search for the ancient city
  • Discovery of the royal necropolis
    • "he uncovered eight other tombs, bringing the total number to nine." Nine does not include the original sarcophagus, whereas the previous "A second tomb" did. Unless the eight includes the second in which case "other" is confusing. Subsequent content in §Description shows that Montet numbered the tombs I–IX, implying that he was not including the original sarcophagus as one of the tombs. In that case "A second tomb" needs to change somehow.
      OMG good eye! and math :/ el.ziade (talkallam) 19:40, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • wl tell: I had never seen this term before.
      Done el.ziade (talkallam) 19:40, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bibliography: Dever (1976) does not appear in the references list.
    Was gonna use it, hid it for now. el.ziade (talkallam) 19:40, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I will continue in detail with the individual tombs later. ---- Mirokado (talk) 00:31, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • In the article as a whole, the vertical shafts are referred to as wells. I am more familiar with a "well" being something that is used to draw water, so I wonder if "shaft" would be a better word. I am not requesting a change just to keep me quiet, but please consider which term is best.
    You're right, they're called shaft and chamber tombs for that reason. el.ziade (talkallam) 19:40, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I think "well" needs to be "shaft" in current note d. Otherwise fine, thanks. ---- Mirokado (talk) 22:00, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Done thanks el.ziade (talkallam) 14:44, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tombs I and II
    • In this context (followed by "wide" or "deep") I think meter should be singular, we are specifying the unit used, not counting them.
      fixed, thanks el.ziade (talkallam) 19:40, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      your change to use Convert throughout is much better, well done. ---- Mirokado (talk) 22:00, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • "disused archaic tomb": does this mean "created but never used" or "used but emptied by the contemporaneous authorities" (or something else)?
      I checked the french source, it says that the archaic tomb was "accidentally gutted" by the builders of Tomb I and Tomb II. So I will drop "disused" el.ziade (talkallam) 19:40, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tombs III and IV
    • "Another, similarly sized and shaped conduit": lose the comma here (if you want "similarly sized and shaped" to be more parenthetical, you can place a second comma after "shaped", but I don't think this is necessary.
      Done. el.ziade (talkallam) 19:40, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

More later. ---- Mirokado (talk) 21:34, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Tombs VI, VII, VIII, and IX
    • "The burial chamber of wells VI, VII, VIII, and IX are completely dug in muddy soil." I think "chambers" should be plural here.
    • wl lozenge, I was imagining something different until I checked.
      It is borrowed from French and you're right, it might be confusing. Replaced it with 'rhombus'.el.ziade (talkallam) 20:13, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sarcophagi
    • "One difference however, is that the lids of said Gebalite sarcophagi retain the lid lugs which allowed workmen to maneuver them." I find "said" here rather stilted, "these Gebalite sarcophagi" would read better.
      done el.ziade (talkallam) 19:40, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • "decreasingly smaller": I suggest "successively smaller".
      Thanks! el.ziade (talkallam) 19:40, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Ahiram sarcophagus
    • "The Phoenician inscription is composed of two parts": wl (section link) The Phoenician inscription.
      Done el.ziade (talkallam) 19:40, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Perhaps expand this paragraph a bit to summarise the contents of both parts of the inscription (see the section link). Also please consider whether we should be describing this as two parts or two inscriptions: the positions described here and different contents described in the section link imply two inscriptions.
      I have added an abridged summary of the contents of the inscription. I specified that the inscription is broken in two parts, not two distinct inscriptions. Please let me know if you think i should add more detail about the contents of the inscription. el.ziade (talkallam) 20:13, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      <I'm afraid I don't agree with this. Montet (1928, pp. 236–237) clearly refers to two inscriptions: "Les Inscriptions ... La plus courte des deux inscriptions ... La seconde inscription, beaucoup plus longue, ...". I don't have access to Lehmann (2005), but the title has "Die Inschrift(en) des Ahirom-Sarkophags ...", where "Die" can be either singular or plural and the "(en)" also implies either. Looking elsewhere, "Les cités Phéniciennes: Byblos" shows one reason why both usages may occur: "... la première inscription en alphabet Phénicien a été constatée ..." (concentration on "here you can find the earliest Phoenician inscription") and (next sentence) "Les inscriptions sur son tombeau sont les plus anciens textes Phéniciens connus." (describing the inscriptions themselves). Please change the content accordingly or, of course, provide a good reason why not.
      I am citing another one of Lehmann's works where he indeed mentions two inscriptions: The sarcophagus inscription, and the second, the tomb shaft inscription "Around eighty years ago, in the course of the French excavations in Jbeil, the site of ancient Gubla, or Byblos, Pierre Montet unearthed the famous Aìîrôm sarcophagus.1 The discovery was due to a landslide in autumn 1923 and revealed a series of royal tombs dating back to the late second millennium b.c.e. situated under the cliffs of ancient Byblos, the ifth of which was ten meters deep, the now famous Aìîrôm burial.2 Two older cofins lanked the richly decorated sarcophagus3 of an alleged Old Byblian king named Aìîrôm.4 The latter is inscribed with a Phoenician text that is generally estimated to be the oldest Phoenician inscription of considerable length known at present. Following preliminary reports by the excavator himself in several French magazines, newspapers and journals early in 1924,5 the scholarly editio princeps of this important new inscription was made as early as 1924 by the French scholar René Dussaud.6 In subsequent years, numerous discussions took place about the script, the reading, and the translation of the inscription, especially of the last few words. In summer 2003, I carried out a thorough re-investigation of the famous Aìîrôm inscriptions, both of the short inscription, which was found on the wall of tomb V at Byblos, and of the longer sarcophagusinscription in the National Museum of Beirut. The results of this research are published in my 2005 book Die Inschrift(en) des Aìîrôm-Sarkophags und die Schachtinschrift des Grabes V in Jbeil (Byblos).7" _ Lehmann, Reinhard G. (2008). "Calligraphy and Craftsmanship in the Ahirom inscription. Considerations on skilled linear flat writing in early first millennium Byblos".
      He then goes on to address the exact issue we are addressing: "The Aìîrôm sarcophagus inscription, which in the following is simply referred to as the Aìîrôm inscription, can be divided into two parts that are carved in two different places. It starts at the small southern” upper rim of the cofin, and continues on its “western” lid.8 In spite of suggestions in the past that these might be two separate inscriptions, there is actually one inscription only, and for convenience’s sake those two parts can be labelled as partition A and partition B.9" _ ^Idem.\
      I hope this settles the above. el.ziade (talkallam) 14:44, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      PENDING With Lehmann (2008) I think this is OK, you are going with the most recent scholarly analysis. Please add a callout to Lehmann (2008) to this final paragraph (I suggest after "distributed in two parts,") to make that clear. ---- Mirokado (talk) 23:06, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Since the subject matter for the two lines is different, I think you need to summarise both.
      Explained above. el.ziade (talkallam) 16:47, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I now see that the first line is summarised in §Attribution. ---- Mirokado (talk) 23:06, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Please provide page numbers for Lehmann (2005). ---- Mirokado (talk) 21:14, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

More later. ---- Mirokado (talk) 22:38, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Working on these, Thanks a lot​! el.ziade (talkallam) 19:40, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Egyptian royal gifts
    • "This type of vase is known from representations ...": Does this mean that the vase found here is the only actual example of what has been illustrated elsewhere? If so I would mention that more explicitly.
      Hi again, sorry for the late reply I am still recovering from a bad flu. No, the vase in question is not the only example. There are many specimens uneartched in Egypt and elsewhere. Please let me know if you would like me to rephrase. el.ziade (talkallam) 12:00, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes, please rephrase. By "representations of Egyptian sarcophagi" I had understood reliefs or other illustrations of the vases, not actual finds of that type of vase. ---- Mirokado (talk) 21:03, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      The mentioned vessel is an obsidian ointment vase and lid that was commonly used in ancient Egyptian funerary practices. There's no added value to keeping the sentence as it is mentioned earlier that it is of Egyptian origin.el.ziade (talkallam) 16:47, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      OK, thanks. ---- Mirokado (talk) 21:47, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Attribution
    • "Scholars have noted the similarity of the spiral decorative patterns of which the French art history expert Edmond Pottier likened to that of the gold Oenochoe found in Tomb IV in Mycenae." Needs to be rephrased, perhaps: "Scholars, following the French art history expert Edmond Pottier, have noted the similarity of the spiral decorative patterns found in Tomb I to those of the gold oenochoe found in Tomb IV in Mycenae." (a bit of context for "the ... patterns", correct "of which ... likened to ...", no capital O for oenochoe). At the same time, please remove the space before [compare].
      Fine now, thanks. ---- Mirokado (talk) 21:12, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the fixes so far, I will check and start striking over the next day or so. I've finished a first read through, I will read it again, probably during next week. ---- Mirokado (talk) 21:40, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mirokado: Thanks! I'll be here :) el.ziade (talkallam) 12:00, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Mirokado do you have any additional input? el.ziade (talkallam) 15:41, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, a few interspersed comments while you were fighting the dreaded lurgi. I've now marked them with PENDING so they are easier to see. ---- Mirokado (talk) 00:26, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hey @Mirokado: can you please recheck? el.ziade (talkallam) 16:47, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
One new PENDING response above, I look forward to supporting once that is dealt with. ---- Mirokado (talk) 23:06, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from A. Parrot[edit]

  • I agree with Jens Lallensack that the first paragraph of the lead contains too much background for the lead. I think you should at least cut the second and third sentences, starting the fourth sentence with "The city of Byblos, also called Jbeil, established major trade links with Egypt during the Bronze Age…"
I kept the first sentence which informs of the location of the site. I removed the following sentence.el.ziade (talkallam) 12:38, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • As WP's unofficial ancient Egyptian religion specialist, I dislike the wording "the deceased was believed to take the form of a bird" (found in both the lead and the body). The bird form of the ba is a metaphor. You could say "the soul of the deceased was believed to fly from the burial chamber…", and possibly have a wikilink to Ancient Egyptian conception of the soul#Ba (personality).
That's great! thanks el.ziade (talkallam) 12:38, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]


  • My Egyptological sources (Egypt, Canaan, and Israel in Ancient Times (1992) by Donald B. Redford, The Oxford History of Ancient Egypt (2000) by Ian Shaw, and Ancient Perspectives on Egypt (2003) edited by Roger Mathews and Cornelia Roemer) treat relations between Egypt and Byblos in the Old Kingdom as an exceptionally close trading relationship, not as direct control, which doesn't seem to have existed until the Middle Kingdom at the earliest. The link to the archived Awada Jalu source doesn't work for me, but the DeVries source, written by a religious scholar, doesn't seem strong enough to support the claim when other sources don't.
Good point. I reviewed the sources and will update the text accordingly as soon as I can. el.ziade (talkallam) 12:38, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Even Byblos, the oldest state in the Levant to have been subverted by Egypt, demanded payment for its goods; and the present ruler averred strenuously that his ancestors had been paid for their services:63 in response to the statement that his fathers had willingly sent timber, Zakar-Ba'al replied:
Of course they did, and if you pay me something I will do it! But my (fathers) performed this service only after Pharaoh l.p.h. had despatched six cargo boats laden with Egyptian products and they were unloaded into their storehouses (i.e., in payment). And you? What have you brought for me? . . . Now if the ruler of Egypt were my lord, and if I were his vassal, he would not have to cause gold and silver to be brought with the request “Perform the business of Amun!”

— Redford, Egypt, Canaan, and Israel in Ancient Times, https://books.google.nl/books?id=G9PgDwAAQBAJ
  • "the advent of the 19th century" gives the impression that the city was rediscovered when the 19th century arrived, which, as the next sentence shows, was not the case.
🙈 thanks! el.ziade (talkallam) 12:38, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your notes @A. Parrot:. el.ziade (talkallam) 12:38, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments and support from Gerda[edit]

Thank you for the detailed article. I'll comment while reading, leaving the lead for afterwards. Please reply only when I'm done for today, to avoid edit conflicts. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:36, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox and TOC are basically fine, but I don't need four headers for references. I read the prose without problems, fixing minor things, - please check. I suggest to use "cm" (abbreviated) instead of "centimeter", for consistency with "m". I like the image arrangement all right, but wonder if the connection to the prose might be clearer by positioning, for example getting the gold pectoral closer to where it's mentioned. The last two images of grave findings remain a mystery to me, but it's a topic I am not familiar with. Will look at the lead tomorrow. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:51, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Gerda Arendt: I'm on it. el.ziade (talkallam) 12:12, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The format of the units of measures is now uniform, thanks for pointing this out - I moved the gold pectoral upwards - I understand your frustration about the references section but this is how to categorize sources and notes best. 13:10, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
I think it would look almost the same if the lower-level headers were just bold, not sections to be edited, - there's probably not much to edit now. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:40, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Now to the lead.

I think it is where readers unfamiliar with the topic meet new information, and believe that you could do a few things to make that easier. Some of those will just result from me not being a native speaker, so I may not now terms that everybody else knows. Please ignore such things ;)

Done Thanks!
  • be a little more wordy about Byblos being the modern name for the ancient city, or is it the other way round? (The linked article is also not clear. The prose later on has the many names, but in the lead, it's not clear enough for me.)
    I have addressed this with Jens and other reviewers. We have rephrased the passages to clarify any ambiguity. Byblos is a classical exonym (given by the Greeks), it was repopularized in the 19th century by Hellenocentric western scholars, and we are stuck with this appellation. The oldest attested name is a form of "Gebal", the root of the current name (Jbeil / Gebeil). el.ziade (talkallam) 13:10, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I would understand - if you don't want to say this in prose in the article, or the Byblos article - if there was a colon after "modern". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:40, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • translate hypogeum? yes, there's a link, but someone who wants a quick overview will not want to go back and forth.
replaced the word completely. el.ziade (talkallam) 13:10, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • split the sentence beginning "Montet categorized the graves"?
Done el.ziade (talkallam) 13:10, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "dated back" - they still do, no?
Yes of course, fixed. el.ziade (talkallam) 13:10, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's all. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:51, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Elias Ziade:? Hog Farm Talk 02:08, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Hog Farm: Can't see your review, did I miss something? el.ziade (talkallam) 12:09, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(I think Hog Farm is just the coordinator alerting you, which seems to have worked.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:14, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Silly me! It must be the fever SMH. I'll be back with you Gerda, i am running through the page history so I don't miss anything. el.ziade (talkallam) 12:25, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Now problem. I support the article as it is, but you can still think about the remaining details. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:40, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Johnbod[edit]

  • Clearly pretty much there (I haven't read all the comments above) but a few points.
  • There needs to be some indication of the dates in the first sentence or two.
Absolutely! Thank you el.ziade (talkallam) 14:21, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • in the lead, a bit more specificity on the grave goods - materials etc. "Egyptian-style local crafts" isn't very helpful.
I added some details.el.ziade (talkallam) 14:21, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are rather too fond of hyphenated adjectival phrases - "reliefs inscribed with Egyptian hieroglyphs" is better than "Egyptian hieroglyph-inscribed reliefs".
Thank you, done.el.ziade (talkallam) 14:21, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Another interpretation of the Gebal is "mountain town" - "name" missing?
Added el.ziade (talkallam) 14:21, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Ancient texts and manuscripts hinted at the location of Gebal.." this para pretty long - split?
Split el.ziade (talkallam) 14:21, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "floating in damp clay" - don't think one can do that.
No indeed, fixed. el.ziade (talkallam) 14:21, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The opening leads to a 1.8 m (5.9 ft) high and 1.2 m (3.9 ft) to 1.5 m (4.9 ft) wide corridor that adjoins the south side of the shaft of Tomb II" - should "adjoins" be "joins" or "enters"? Unclear what it means as it is. From the Montet plan illustrated it should be "enters".
I see, it's the corridor that joins the shaft. I will replace "adjoin" with "join". el.ziade (talkallam) 14:21, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "damaged by falling rock shards" not sure rock has "shards". The word doesn't seem needed, or "fragments" maybe.
You're right. I often make this kind of mistakes when I am thinking and rephrasing from French. el.ziade (talkallam) 14:21, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Beware, here is your loss (is) below" - whose translation is this? The English doesn't make much sense.
Neither does the French LOL. This is Dussaud's interpretation of the tiny inscription. Another interpretation is Charles Torrey is "Take notice! Strength will fail you beyond this point" Torrey 1925. Lehmann 2005 interpreted the lines as such: :Concerning knowledge: here and now be humble (you yourself!) ‹in› this basement!". el.ziade (talkallam) 23:44, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are generally a number of missing links.
  • More later, Johnbod (talk) 16:41, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello @Johnbod:, do you have more input? el.ziade (talkallam) 15:44, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Right, sorry I haven't completed my read-through. Don't hold up promotion on my account, but I hope to continue this week. Have more links been added? Johnbod (talk) 16:22, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

Spotchecks not done. Version reviewed

  • Source for Governing body?
added el.ziade (talkallam) 23:44, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is Tomb V part of the second group, or not? The article seems inconsistent about this
It belongs to the second group. It is given a separate section however because of its importance.el.ziade (talkallam) 23:44, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Okay - was it robbed in antiquity?Nikkimaria (talk) 00:56, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
yes, it’s mentioned in the article el.ziade (talkallam) 18:16, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Make sure that multipage citations use pp rather than p
Done
  • FN77: page(s)?
I lost access to the resource, so did another fellow editor I contacted for help. If someone can provide me with a library access I would be grateful. NB: Could not find it in the Wikipedia Library
Requested
I haven't had access yet, I removed the citations temporarily until I get access, or use another of Lehmann's works as reference. el.ziade (talkallam) 15:39, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent in whether publication locations are included for books. If they are, don't use postal abbreviations
done
  • Barry is missing edition
I couldn't find it, i also checked worldcat
  • Don't duplicate identifiers in |url=
I ran through the references, I can't find any duplicates. Are there still any? el.ziade (talkallam) 15:39, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ranges should use endashes, including in titles
Done
  • Be consistent in when/if you include |via=
I removed these, thanks for pointing this out
  • Formatting of Jidejian doesn't match other sources, and is there any information available about this publisher?
Right
Can you elaborate on why this publisher qualifies as a high-quality reliable source Nikkimaria (talk) 00:56, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Jidejian is an archaeologist and historian. Her works are widely cited and distributed as evidenced by a worldcat / scholar search. The publisher is one of the oldest publishing houses in the Levant. Do we need more details? el.ziade (talkallam) 18:16, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent in whether you include location and/or publisher for periodicals
Added also for articles
  • What makes Livius a high-quality reliable source?
Jona Lendering is a highly regarded and awarded Dutch historian. Livius is not another blog site.
Can you elaborate? What awards? Highly regarded according to what source? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:56, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Lendering is a Dutch classicist and writer , in addition to being a member of faculty at the Dutch Vrije Universiteit, he is known to be a revisionist employing a holistic approach to historiography by including subaltern narratives to complement traditional western sources. He was awarded by the Dutch classical society among others.
  • What is the role of University of Michigan in Mionnet?
It uploaded the book to archive.org I guess. I removed it because it was an automatically generated citation.
I guess we can do without it, but it corroborates the other source and provides a more vivid description of the site.
Sure, but secondary/peer-reviewed sourcing is preferred. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:56, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I will need your help to format this one, I don't have much experience. @Nikkimaria: Please let me know if there's anything left.el.ziade (talkallam) 12:31, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This appears to be an online republication of a previous print source - the citation should reflect both the original and where it's being read. (The latter is a case where |via= would indeed be appropriate). Nikkimaria (talk) 00:56, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Hog Farm: please advise if I should ping the reviewers. el.ziade (talkallam) 12:31, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can't hurt (within reason). Hog Farm Talk 16:05, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1982 World Snooker Championship[edit]

Nominator(s): Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:44, 30 April 2022 (UTC), User: BennyOnTheLoose[reply]

This article is about the 1982 edition of the World Snooker Championship. Davis's first defence. Second nomination - let me know what you think! Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:44, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Image review—pass (t · c) buidhe 22:55, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Prose review (Elias)[edit]

  • Doing a prose review of the article. Side note, I have my own FAC up here, and I would appreciate any comments. Of course, while appreciated, you are not obligated to leave a response. ‍ ‍ elias. 🧣 ‍ ‍ 💬reach out to me
    📝see my work     11:43, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • "30 April and 16 May 1982 at the Crucible Theatre, Sheffield, England" --> somewhat awkward placing of commas, but that might just be me. I'd put a "located" between "Crucible Theatre" and "Sheffield" to alleviate that
    • "The tournament was sponsored by cigarette company Embassy and was organised by the World Professional Billiards and Snooker Association (WPBSA)." --> There are a lot of "was"s in the first paragraph of the lead, which raises concerns about repetition. Plus this sentence could be reworded in such a way that the active voice is employed. "Embassy, a British cigarette company, sponsored the tournament, and the World Professional Billiards and Snooker Association (WPBSA) handled the organisation for the event", perhaps?
    • "It had a prize fund of £110,000 and the winner received £25,000." --> a comma before the "and" is missing
    • The lead's second paragraph has a lot of participle phrases. "having defeated Doug Montjoy..." "becoming the latest champion who was unable to defend his first world title..." "defeating Welshman Ray Reardon 18–15 in the final..." all within three consecutive sentences. I believe you can rewrite one or two of these sentences to avoid repetition.
    • "The World Snooker Championship is ... the official snooker world championship" --> this is just restating the title. We can rewrite this to "the official global (or worldwide?) tournament for snooker"
    • I'd rewrite the next sentence to "Developed in the late 19th century by British Army soldiers stationed in India, the sport was popular in the United Kingdom before being introduced to Europe and the Commonwealth" just to avoid having snooker appear in two sentences in a row
      • In view of that wording change, I'd also rewrite "the sport is now played worldwide" to "nowadays, snooker is played worldwide"
    • "governed by the World Professional Billiards and Snooker Association (WPBSA).[6]Thirty-two" --> space after the citation
    • "Thirty-two professional players competing in one-on-one single-elimination matches that were played over several frames." -> I feel like there is a verb missing here, because at the moment this reads like an incomplete sentence
    • " This was the first world championships" -> the verb is singular but the noun is plural
      • Many thanks for the detailed feedback. I've addressed the points above in the article, and hopefully fixed most of them. I've used a slightly different wording about it being the "official" championship, as there are at least two other world snooker championships: the IBSF World Snooker Championship and the World Women's Snooker Championship. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 23:38, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • No problem! By the way, with regards to this sentence - "The World Snooker Championship is the official world championship of professional snooker. Developed in the late 19th century by British Army soldiers stationed in India, the cue sport was popular in the United Kingdom..." - this essay argues that elegant variation, such as the one used here "world championship of professional snooker... stationed in India, the cue sport...", diminishes clarity. This is because at first glance, readers will not be able to tell what "the cue sport" refers to, and would have to spend more time than necessary figuring out the answer to that question. Here you seem to be doing elegant variation to introduce new information about professional snooker, which the essay says is not always an ideal way to go about it, for the reasons already outlined above. A way to improve clarity would be to put "the cue sport" beside "professional snooker", replacing the term with the "it" pronoun, i.e. "world championship of professional snooker, a cue sport... it was popular in the United Kingdom..."
    • All of the sentences in the third paragraph for the Overview section are in passive voice. I believe the MOS prefers the active voice whenever possible, no?

More comments to come once I get around to reading the tournament summary. :) Please ping me whenever you get around to addressing these points, by the way! FAC pages really need a "subscribe" button in the same way talk page sections do...

Will have a look at these in a mo. You can watchlist FAC pages, btw. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:52, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Troubled.elias. I am considering archiving this as it is six weeks since it was nominated and a consensus to promote does not seem to be forming. But I was wondering if you were planning on continuing your review within the next day or two. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:55, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: sorry that this review (finished in talk) was so, so delayed. A few weeks ago I had my annual medical exams done, and the results were problematic, to say the least. I knew I had to take a wikibreak, but fuck I forgot to put up a template on my user page or notify the nominators. Again, sorry for that.
Anyways, the article seems to be in very good shape! Prose is easy to read, and easy to follow. Jargon is adequately explained or easy to understand from context. My main concerns with the prose when I first came into this --- the repetition and overuse of passive voice --- have been resolved. Edit history seems stable, and all the major details I expect from the article seem to be covered. As far as my knowledge goes, the prose and the tables/diagrams are MOS-compliant. Well done, @Lee Vilenski and @BennyOnTheLoose!

NØ[edit]

I will have a look at this article. The review above looks extensive already so apologies if I repeat something.

  • Is there a reason why newspapers that have articles are unlinked in the references?
  • "a score of 18–12 in the final the previous year" could be "a score of 18–12 in the the previous year's final".
  • "The first World Championship, in 1927, was won by Joe Davis in a final at Camkin's Hall in Birmingham, England." could be active voice.
  • "The tournament was sponsored by cigarette company Embassy." would sound better in active voice too in my opinion, actually this could be done wherever applicable.
  • "after which Knowles scored 67" - points?
  • "Knowles said he had been to a nightclub until 2:00 am that day" - maybe "been at/in a nightclub"? They sound more appropriate than "to" here.
  • "Higgins failed to pot the last red and conceded the frame" - last red what?
  • "Reardon, a six-times champion" - shouldn't this be "six-time champion"?
  • "he had not sufficiently recovered from a broken leg sustained in October 1981" - "he had not sufficiently recovered after sustaining a broken leg in October 1981"
Great work just like all of the other articles in this series. If possible, I would be really glad if you were able to contribute something at my currently active FAC.--NØ 11:05, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Lee Vilenski are you going to address these and will you consider leaving comments at my FAC linked above? Hope you're able to see this.--NØ 01:11, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi MaranoFan. Thanks for the review. I've amended the article in response to most of your comments, except the one about linking newspapers. My understanding is that there should be consistency in whether types of source are linked, and not a presumption that all newspapers will be. But I'm happy to make this amendment if necessary. Regards. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 20:30, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Great work, Benny. I am going to support the article for promotion.--NØ 17:11, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Epicgenius[edit]

I will leave some feedback a little bit. If I forget to leave any feedback within two days, feel free to ping me. – Epicgenius (talk) 14:28, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Epicgenius. I am considering archiving this as it is six weeks since it was nominated and a consensus to promote does not seem to be forming. So I was wondering if you might be able to start your review within the next day or two. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:57, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. Here are my initial comments:
Lead:
  • "at the Crucible Theatre, located in Sheffield, England" - I think this can just be "at the Crucible Theatre in Sheffield, England"
  • "the only one that carried world ranking points" - As in the only tournament of the season that decided a player's status in the world rankings?
  • "World Professional Billiards and Snooker Association (WPBSA) handled the organisation for the event" - I'm not sure if it's an ENGVAR thing but isn't it "the organisation of the event"?
  • Amended, and also changed "handled" to "governed" as in those days there was a separate promoter, Mike Watterson, who was very hands-on in terms of the organisation. He's mentioned in the body. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 08:42, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "with a score of 18–12 in a score of 18–12" - I'm guessing this is repeated by mistake.
  • "becoming the latest champion who failed to defend his first world title at the venue" - Currently, this phrasing seems to imply that there would be previous champions who failed to defend their first world title at the Crucible Theatre. Since I don't see any mention of any such champions, perhaps this can be condensed.
More later. – Epicgenius (talk) 19:22, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Epicgenius ? Gog the Mild (talk) 17:19, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from JennyOz[edit]

Hello Lee - and Benny? I have a few questions and suggestions for clarity or to avoid ambiguity...

  • Steve Davis had defeated Doug Mountjoy with a score of 18–12 in a score of 18–12 in the previous year's final - score is repeated
  • In 1982, he lost 1–10 to Tony Knowles - change "he" to Davis
  • champion who failed to defend his first world title - champion to fail to defend his
  • popular in the United Kingdom before being introduced to Europe - mainland Europe (or rest of Europe or wider Europe)
  • Nowadays, snooker is played worldwide, especially in East and Southeast Asian nations - "especially" is wrong word? ie sounds like is played more there than anywhere else? Maybe, 'especially becoming popular in...'
  • nations such as China, Hong Kong and Thailand - HK not a nation
  • Joe Davis won the first World Championship, in 1927, at Camkin's Hall in Birmingham, England. - maybe 'Championship held in 1927 at Camkin's '
  • amended, but retained the comma after "Championship"
  • There were 67 entrants for the 1982 tournament, a new record.[10] - add 'including the qualifying event' (because you called it a "pre-tournament" event)
  • This was the first world championship to have 32 players - 'all' 32
  • Not amended (yet). 1980 and 1981 had 24 players in the main event, and the few years preceding that had 16, so the point is that the total number was increased. I'll find a source to add something about the number of players in the main event changing, and reword. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:38, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The breakdown of prize money for 1982 is shown below - money on offer? ie if no max break achieved the £110,000 would not be awarded, add 'possible'? ie breakdown of possible prize money
  • was a new record high for the world - high is redundant?
  • Amended. ("high" distinguished it from being a record low I suppose, but that would be an unusual way to say it was a new low.) BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:38, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • after Davis failed to pot the final black ball twice - twice failed to pot
  • Without making a significant break, Davis won - wlink break
  • Davis made a foul shot - wlink
  • by lightly feathering the cue ball while - accidentally?
  • and played without vision aids. - without any eyewear?
  • John Virgo defeated Mike Hallett 10–4 after leading 7–2. - add 'in the first session'
  • Terry Griffiths, the next bookmakers' favourite after Steve Davis's - the bookmakers' next favourite
  • Terry Griffiths, the next bookmakers' favourite after Steve Davis's elimination elimination - repeated word
  • Alex Higgins, who had said he was having - wlink AH
  • Fagan made the highest break of match - break of 'thrir' match
  • five of the top-eight seeds were - is hyphen necessary?
  • Steve Davis (1), Thorburn (2), Griffiths (3) - I'd put 'seeded' in the first parentheses to help reader ie Steve Davis (seeded 1),
  • who were also the top-three - hyphen needed?
  • Knowles defeated Miles by 13–7 - remove by
  • Francisco won the first four frames of his match against Reynolds, and after leading 5–3 and 9–5,[28] won it 13–8.[29] - this is repeated from previous paragraph
  • Higgins then won the next three consecutively for 12–10 - consecutively is redundant
  • Stevens defeated Fagan by 13–7 - remove by
  • File Jimmy White alt=Jimmy White wearing a waistcoar and bow tie - typo waistcoat
  • when Knowles missed an routine green ball. - 'a' routine
  • After this, Charlton made a break of 78 - Charlton then made a break
  • White, by defeating Stevens, had become the - add 'in the quarter-finals' after Stevens
  • White made breaks of 60 and 38, and won the second frame to even the score - ?
  • White again drew level at 4–4 - remove "again" or add a comma after "level"
  • compiling a breaks of 69 in the first and 52 in the second - remove "a"
  • White won the first frame of the fourth session and Higgins fluked a brown in the following frame, which he went on to win. The scores were level at 13–13 - should be 12-12? ie they were 11-11 at end last session?
  • In the 32nd frame, White was 59 points - should that be 30th frame?
  • Reardon won five successive frames to with the match 16–11 - "with" --> win
  • Amended per the six point above. 10:52, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Sheffield Snooker Centre - is that a different venue to the Crucible?
  • There was a £5,000 bonus for compiling a break higher than the championship record of 145. - 'On offer' was a £5,000 bonus ...
  • Missing? - any reaction in media worth reporting? How were players rankings affected after final?
  • I've added some notes on ranking changes, and about the post-tournament disciplinary that Higgins faced. I couldn't really find anything in the way of reflective commentary about the tournament either in books or in newspapers; most discuss the semi-final between White and Higgins in at least as much detail as the final, and cover the same ground as in the seond paragraph of the section about the final. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 17:09, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, JennyOz (talk) 15:48, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, JennyOz. There are a couple of points still outstanding from above that I'll look at sources for. Hopefully I haven't created any new problems whilst addressing your comments. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:52, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the delay in responding, JennyOz. Thanks again for your careful and constructive review. Let me know about anything that still needs addressing. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 17:09, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Looking good, Benny. Just a few new minor tweaks...
  • re Epic's suggestion ""at the Crucible Theatre, located in Sheffield, England" - I think this can just be "at the Crucible Theatre in Sheffield, England"" - I think he meant to remove "located in" not remove "England"?
  • Davis made a foul shot by - wlink?
  • Griggiths, who had been third - typo Griffiths
  • who had been third, droped to - typo dropped
  • by accidentaly lightly feathering - typo accidentally
  • Amended per the five points above. (Looks like I failed to read what I wrote, sorry!) BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 09:18, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • latest edit (by IP) - if letting that stand, at "when his championship first rank position" change "his" to "Higgins's"
  • It looks like a good faith edit, but I reverted it as it was not factually correct (changes discussed were in 1982, not Feb 1981), and it used unusual phrasing for snooker. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 09:18, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 49 new Everton book Black Farce and Cue ball Wizards - cap B on ball and format the ISBN per others
That's it from me. Looking forward to s'porting! JennyOz (talk) 06:17, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, JennyOz! Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 09:18, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for tweaks Benny, I am happy to sign my support for promotion. (cc Gog), JennyOz (talk) 10:23, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

Spotchecks not done. Version reviewed

  • "It was the 19th event of the 1981–82 snooker season and the only one that carried world ranking points." - source?
  • Removed "19th" as this doesn't appear in sources. Amended body text, with a source, to say it was the only event of the season that carried ranking points. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 15:10, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent in when/if you include publication location
  • What makes Rose Villa Publications a high-quality reliable source?
  • They publish local news outlets (website) but really, in my opinion, the credibility of the source derives from the authors. Hayton was the managing editor of CueSport magazine (at least for part of its history), which was nationally distributed in the UK from 2000 to 2009. John Dee, who was also associated with CueSport and contributed to the book, was the snooker editor of The Daily Telegraph. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 15:10, 1 July 2022 (UTC)Terry Smith, another Telegraph correspondent, and author/editor of a few snooker books, was also a contributor to the magazine.[reply]
  • FN4: edition should be in its own parameter
  • Be consistent in when/if you include publisher for periodicals
  • I've included publisher for magazines, but not for newspapers, as the magazines cited are likely to be less familiar and researchable to readers. Otherwise, I hope this is now fixed. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 15:31, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN49: can you verify the publisher is correct as listed? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:18, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the review, Nikkimaria. I really appreciate it. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 15:31, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Nikkimaria, how is this looking now? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:06, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Should be good to go. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:42, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Streets (song)[edit]

Nominator(s): ‍ ‍ elias. 🧣 ‍ ‍ 💬reach out to me
📝see my work 13:13, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a song that achieved commercial success in frankly the most 2020s way possible: blowing up on TikTok. After an Internet challenge which featured "Streets" went viral on the platform, the resulting boost in streams propelled this song to number 16 on the Billboard Hot 100 and number 8 on the Global 200---a pretty impressive feat. The trend was so influential to the song's notability, in fact, that the music video for the song features the artist Doja Cat performing her version of the online challenge.

When I found the article lying on the GA nominations backlog for 6 months, while still having several issues with regards to sourcing and prose, I decided to take on the duty of nursing it to good health. Now, after a GA review from Realmaxxver, and a very helpful PR from the wonderful @Aoba47 and @GWL, I believe that this article satisfies the criteria for a featured article. This is my first-ever foray into FAC, so please remind me when I fall short of understanding how the process works! Cheers, ‍ ‍ elias. 🧣 ‍ ‍ 💬reach out to me
📝see my work 13:13, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aoba47[edit]

  • I understand the purpose of this part, Incorporating both Doja Cat's singing voice and rapping voice, but it seems like an unnecessarily wordy way to say that she sings and raps on this song. I think this information could be conveyed in a better way.
  • You Right, right! That part of the lead should be less verbose now
  • I'd move the citation for this sentence, "Streets" was a sleeper hit that gradually acquired Internet-driven success., to the end. as the current placement is not the best for readability.
  • ref 32 is used to cite only the "sleeper hit" claim, and that article does not support the other part of the sentence that says "gradually acquired Internet-driven success." I think it will be fine to keep it where it is, but we'll see if anyone else objects.
  • I still find the separation to be unnecessary, but I will leave this up to other reviewers. Aoba47 (talk) 14:52, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the Paul Anka, Yeti Beats, and Theron Feemster images, I would include the year these photos were taken in the caption to provide full context to readers.
  • Rewritten. I also split the caption for the Yeti Beats/Theron Feemster images into two sentences, since I found them to be overwhelmingly long.

Great work with the article. A majority of my concerns were already addressed in the peer review phase. I believe this should be everything from me. Once the above comments are addressed, I will be more than happy to support this FAC for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 01:12, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the quick comments above, @Aoba !! I have addressed everything that needs to have been addressed. Also, if you don't mind --- I need to know if you're able to do a full source review of the article? Of course, that's not necessary on your end, and these comments are already of enough help for me. ‍ ‍ elias. 🧣 ‍ ‍ 💬reach out to me
📝see my work 05:26, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for addressing everything. I support this FAC for promotion based on the prose. As for your question about a source review, I will have to decline on that one. Best of luck with this FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 14:52, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, apologies. Anyways, once again, thanks! I am glad that you supported. And I completely understand that you declined ‍ ‍ elias. 🧣 ‍ ‍ 💬reach out to me
📝see my work 15:24, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass[edit]

So, let's see what we got here left after the PR. Pinging nominator Troubled.elias per offwiki request. I might do a prose review when I am in the mood for it; may also do source formatting check. GeraldWL 15:51, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review! I will drop by comments really shortly. Please ping me again if for whatever reason I neglect to respond within a reasonable timeframe :") ‍ ‍ elias. 🧣 ‍ ‍ 💬reach out to me
📝see my work 13:58, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The infobox image is good: it is reduced, and the parameters are validly copied from other articles. Good job with the footnotes too btw :D
  • Thanks :")
  • Theron's image looks good
  • Hooray!
  • I was kind of conflicted seeing Yeti's image's parameter, considering the EXIF data has no data on the camera used, but then again EXIFs can be wrong, and a Google Lens search has no avail, so I'll give a pass on that.
  • Actually, there is EXIF data, at least on the original image file. I didn't use the crop tool to trim that photo, so it is very likely that that is the reason why there is a discrepancy in the EXIF
  • Paul Anka's and Doja Cat's images are well-licened: one PD and another OTRS-verified
  • Neat
  • The music video:
  • "partly because it has been viewed over 100 million times on YouTube already." This is redundant; most fair use rationales only state "because it is in low resolution"
  • I'm not sure I follow. That "...partly..." line is for the "Respect for commercial opportunities" parameter and not the "minimal use" one, which is where the "low-resolution" bit is indicated. Being low-res and not harming the commercial viability of a product are not exact synonyms (though of course one is the result of the other), so is it really redundant?
  • Troubled.elias, typically I would write "This is a low-resolution image used only in one article with a valid purpose, and thus will not hurt any commercial opportunities." No rationale as far as I'm aware of ever states other reasons, and it's not needed, since the commercial protection is pretty apparent in the "minimal use" and "purpose" sections. Using the number of views as a justification also isn't really a legally effective defense either. GeraldWL 01:31, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Got that. Rewrote as you asked
  • Okay got it. I can put a "song copyright belongs to" clause before the labels. Then I'll write a separate sentence that states the owner of copyright for the video. I can see the "Streets" music video in the website for Lucky Bastards Inc., but not in the London Alley Entertainment website. Do you know how you managed to find out that London Alley did production for the video?
  • Nevermind, found it. Turns out the director works for London Alley
  • Aight, the captions. You can remove note K and L, then alter note M to start with "The latter" to avoid confusion.
  • Is there really any reason to remove the two footnotes? Subjective descriptions like "this was described as erotic" should all be attributed properly to whomever said it. It makes no sense to provide attribution only for the "epic version" claim just because you think only one of the descriptions should have quotes. By the way, I have explained my concern with trying to unquote "film noir-like" in the bullet point below this one.
  • Captions, as we know it, are not part of the prose but the images. That's why you don't see gameplay screenshots with cited captions very often, because they're covered in prose and images are merely enhancers of the prose. I think you can honestly phrase the whole thing with "erotically suspenseful". Also, in a way, "Doja Cat dances while lit from behind with red lights" can be combined with "and an "epic version" of the Silhouette Challenge". "the online trend that contributed to the song's success" is not needed, assuming at this point people already know what the challenge is. GeraldWL 09:47, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair enough. I've removed some of the footnotes (while still keeping the one that attributes the "epic version" line to Billboard). And you're right to point out that by this section of the article folks would already be familiar with the Silhouette Challenge's significance towards the song's success. The caption should be trimmed accordingly now.
  • Hmm, I still think it's a bit lengthy; I very rarely see screenshot captions with all these attributes, as in, the publication and author. Even if you want to keep this attribute, you will have to cite it, which makes the caption way more lengthy than it should. As I stated, the suspense and eroticism can be merged. "Several critics have categorized the music video as erotic, suspenseful, and fantastical." More specific quotes can be seen by readers in the prose. GeraldWL 13:00, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • What do you advise we change the whole caption for the screenshot to, then? Remember that the NFC use rationale currently states that the image is there to (1) depict the Silhouette Challenge, (2) convey the sultry and scary tone (keep in mind that the prose mentions only one writer who described this video as such, so your "several critics" suggestion confuses me), and (3) illustrate the film noir comparison made by The Times writers. Thus, the caption should adhere to, at the very least, two of these points. "Several critics praised or otherwise noted the video's aesthetics and its combination of sultry and scary tones; two writers compared the visuals to that of film noir media." --- would that be good enough for you?
Plus... I'm not really sure about the whole "you will have to cite it, which makes the caption way more lengthy than it should" comment... a lot of captions for music video screenshots have citations within them. See Shake It Off#Music video and All About That Bass#Music video for instance.
  • Well, I found a way to get rid of the citations and trim the caption! Glad that we could make that happen. Hopefully I have now solved this comment of yours ^^ And I'm sorry that I came across slightly miffed here
  • "The clip was described as "film noir-like", an erotic "horror-fantasy", and an "epic version" of the Silhouette Challenge," --> "The clip was labeled as film noir, erotic horror fantasy, and an "epic version" of the Silhouette Challenge," ... These genres are not coined by the critics so they don't have to be quoted.
  • Cairns and Helm did not call the music video "film noir"---they only made that comparison, i.e. by saying "film noir-like". Hence that term being in quotes. I could try and rewrite that part to "compared the video to film noir" to properly paraphrase, but that would make an already-long image caption even longer (and unnecessarily wordy; I think that sentence does the job of combining the descriptions just fine). Plus, your suggestion for "erotic horror fantasy" has some MOS:SOB problems, and I would just link the entire thing to erotic horror.
  • The Yeti and Theron caption has a citation, but it's already cited in prose? GeraldWL 13:00, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "co-wrote 11 out of 12 songs on Hot Pink" claim is not mentioned in the prose itself, so I had to put a citation in the caption as well to get that fact covered
  • Alt texts:
  • The infobox: "Doja Cat facing frontwards as she kneels on top of a smashed car hood." facing frontwards as she kneels on top of can be trimmed to atop; we don't need to be too specific in alt texts
  • Trimmed
  • "The title "Streets" is handwritten in red on the center of the cover art. Below it is smaller, white text spelling out "Doja Cat". A red sticker that says "SILHOUETTE REMIX" is plastered on the bottom left corner." --> "The song's title is written in red on the center, and "Doja Cat" below it, alongside a "SILHOUETTE REMIX" sticker."
  • Trimmed, although very slightly. "The song's title is written in red on the center, and 'Doja Cat' below it" is clunky in a syntactic way---there is no verb on the latter clause that applies to "Doja Cat". If you were to remove the "and", the clause on its own will not make sense. Plus, the sentence does not specify the colour of the text that says "Doja Cat", which would lead readers to assume that it is also red. Which is not. That part of the alt text now currently reads "The song's title—in red—is written on the center, and below it is smaller, white text spelling out "Doja Cat". A red sticker that says "SILHOUETTE REMIX" is plastered on the bottom left corner."
  • Portraits typically don't have to be alt-texted unless it's an infobox image of a bio article. So for photos of Yeti, Theron, Anka, and Doja Cat, you can change them all to "Refer to caption".
  • Got that. Although when I look at the article using my phone, Yeti Beats and Feemster's photos are displayed from top to bottom instead of from left to right. Which makes the caption somewhat confusing. Thus I'll have to indicate which photo depicts which person. "A photo of Yeti Beats." vs. "A photo of Theron Feemster"
  • "A male driver in his cab, looking to his left. Behind him is a shop display window lit by red lights. The silhouette of a woman, who poses provocatively, is shown in the window." -- This can be changed to "Refer to caption" too, as the caption's sentence 1 describes it well.
  • Done
  • Question: @GWL, have I addressed all your concerns for the image review?
    Looks good! Moving on to source reviewing below. GeraldWL 07:58, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Gerald Waldo Luis, is that a pass for the image review? Gog the Mild (talk) 18:34, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Gog, yes it is a pass! :) I did confirm it off-wiki but forgot to do so on-wiki. GeraldWL 16:26, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from BennyOnTheLoose[edit]

Happy to be challenged on any of my comments. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 08:55, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Footnote 1 does not have a reference.
  • Added the Apple Music references, which are used in the track listing and release history sections
  • The images of Yeti Beats and Theron Feemster have different widths to each other. Can they be equalised?
  • Yep - I've added a new cropped version
  • How do we know the dropbox content is from ARIA?
  • If you go to their official website's accreditations page and click "Latest accreditaions [sic]" it would take you to the dropbox link. It's certainly a choice on their end; I understand why this tipped you off at first
  • Refs 108 and 109 have Billboard mis-formatted
  • Looks like another editor kindly took the time to fix that issue
  • Footbnote b: "This date pertains to when the song..." - how about something like "This date is when the song..."
  • Rewritten
  • Footnote c: "in which the three served as songwriters" to something like "for which the three served as songwriters"
  • Done
  • Footnote f & K: "...are attributed to ..." - maybe "...are from..."/2"...is from..."
  • I honestly like "attributed" better since it feels more elegant. But to prevent unnecessary repetition I have applied the suggestion to one of the footnotes
  • Footnote g: I think '"Audience impressions" refer to' should be '"Audience impressions" refers to'
  • Good catch
  • "Length 3:47" from infobox doesn't match any of those on the track listing. I guess it may be 3:47 on the album, in which case a citation should be added I think.
  • Lead: "Some critics who reviewed Hot Pink praised the track for demonstrating Doja Cat's versatility as a musical artist" feels a bit vague, pehaps because of the "some", or because it doesn't go on to say anything about what other critics wrote.
  • My thought process behind this was that if I removed "some" from that sentence, it would give the impression that quite a lot of critics commented on the song during their Hot Pink reviews, when the prose only gives two. We could quantify "some" and change it to "two" if you prefer
  • Lead: "...Kemosabe and RCA Records.." perhaps mention that the single was on these labels in the lead.
  • Sorry - can't quite parse that. Do you mean that I should specify that Kemosabe and RCA Records are record labels?
  • No, I just meant it could be mentioned in the lead, but it's already there, so ignore! BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:53, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Backgrond: 'During 2019, Doja Cat released three additional singles in promotion of Hot Pink, two of which appearing in over 200,000 videos on the platform combined—"Rules" and "Cyber Sex".' - I don't understand this.
  • Oh yeah sorry. Should be more straightforward now
  • Background "aforementioned" seems unnecessary.
  • Right - reworded to "successes of the tracks"
  • Production and songwriting: "proceeds to, in the words of Billboard editor Jason Lipshutz," To me, this wording seems like he is expressing a truth rather than an opinion.
  • Changed "in the words of" to "in the views of"
  • Commercial performance and release: "with negligible amount of airplay" something like "with a negligible amount of airplay"
  • Commercial performance and release: "with negligible amount of airplay for the song because of its unprecedented boost in fame online" - reads like the fame online was the cause of the negligible airplay.
  • I was under the impression that that was correct per the cited Billboard source ... Relevant quote: "Airplay for the single is virtually nonexistent, with minimal chart activity deriving from the radio sector as 'Streets' was an unplanned single that gained traction through users on TikTok and social media apps" But I may have misread. Currently I have reworded to the following so that the whole train of thought makes more sense---open to any alternative suggestions.
At first, the track received a negligible amount of airplay; instead, its initial chart activity was driven predominantly by streams and digital sales because of its unprecedented boost in fame online.
  • Update: I revised that final bit to "driven predominantly by streams and digital sales because of its online success" because the Billboard source says that the single release was unplanned, not the boost in fame
I think it's a suitable improvement, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:53, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Commercial performance and release: "Kemosabe and RCA Records.." - same point as for the lead above.
  • Commercial performance and release: Should "third biggest" be hyphenated?
  • Not quite sure about this one honestly... in my head I can see good arguments for both the hyphenated and unhyphenated version. I would gladly appreciate a third opinion from another editor ^^
  • Commercial performance and release: "in its second charting week[74]" - add comma before ref, or move ref to the end of the sentence.
  • Moved to the end
  • Critical reception and analysis: "in her most serious form" is a direct quote from the source.
  • Enclosed in quotes
  • Critical reception and analysis: Perhaps remove "..during the album's runtime" as I'm not sure that the source is specific about whether it's "her most serious form" on the album or in general.
  • That is a good call
  • Critical reception and analysis: I expected more than four sources here. Are there further reviews from reputable sources that can be added?
  • Unfortunately, no... One of the FA reviewers actually raised the same concern during the peer review. Here's an abridged recap of what I said at the time
When I scoured for reviews of Hot Pink posted at the time of its release, there were only two of them that described something about "Streets" in non-trivial detail. Actually, the Pitchfork review for Hot Pink, quite annoyingly, has said very little about the song itself ... That and the Consequence review were all the critical commentary I can find for the song during 2019, unfortunately
Though I believe the amount of critical commentary about the song is at a bare minimum - it addresses both the composition itself, as well as its commercial reception. So it doesn't seem to neglect any major details per WP:WIAFA.
  • Music video: "Aaron Williams, an editor for Uproxx" has already been mentioned, so perhaps just "Williams" or "Williams of Uproxx"?
  • Amended
  • Music video: "Mason of Slant Magazine" - magazine was mentioned in the preceding para, so just "Mason" would do
  • Rewritten
  • I ran scripts to fix a couple of date formats and dashes.

Hi Troubled.elias. I can't see any big issues, only things to tweak. I might have some further comments or questions later. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 11:11, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Troubled.elias, have you completed your responses to BennyOnTheLoose? Gog the Mild (talk) 13:57, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Troubled.elias and Gog the Mild. I'm happy with responses above, but will have another look later, probably after some of the other reviewers' comments have been replied to. Feel free to ping me if I'm delaying the process! Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:58, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Benny, can you have another look now? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:38, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ian Rose Happy to support. (I'm assuming that the outstanding points on the source review will be addressed.) Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 09:49, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

Doing the easy to look sources first, then the more complex ones. Will do spot-check. GeraldWL 08:22, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Citation formatting[edit]
  • The Apple Music sources need publisher parameter to the record labels/company.
  • Done
  • Ref 7: remove the Illustrators parameter. Those people merely drew the featured GIF which holds little significance. The parameter is more reserved for multimedia articles, like this one.
  • Got it
  • Ref 8: Remove "Billboard Staff". We don't put staff attributes.
  • Alright. A few other refs had that listed as the author so I went ahead and removed those parameters for those refs as well :))
  • I can't look at ref 9 and the archive is pretty laggy, but it looks multimedia so I'll let this pass.
  • Oop- you're right. Nothing is showing up when I click the archive link. Perhaps I can use something other than Internet Archive for it?
  • Ref 20: is "19439-71705-1" catalogue number? If so, are there prefix letters at the number (e.g. ISC 0000)?
  • Yep, it is the catalogue number. And no, there ain't any prefixes before the ID (see also this Discogs entry).
  • Ref 51-52, 63-66, 105: can you fill in the transl-title parameter? Google Translate should work as the titles are very short.
  • To keep consistent, I have not added a trans-title parameter for any foreign-language references, because refs 63, 64, and 66 are generated by Template:Single chart instead of Template:Cite web. With the current parameters in {{Single chart}}, I am not able to add a translated title, unforts. See also my response to the point below this one.
  • Ref 53-55, 57, 59-75, 93-99, 101-102: is there a way these links can be archived? If Wayback doesn't work, there's always ghostarchive.org
  • The templates behind those references are generated by Template:Single chart and unfortunately with the way that things are, there is no way for me to sneak in an archive link... which is really annoying from a verifiability and formatting point of view. As mentioned above, the same goes for the translated titles
  • Ref 56: decapitalize "Select". "SK – SINGLES DIGITAL – TOP 100", "202105" should be italicized per ref 75's format.
  • I'm trying to keep the Slovak Charts citation's formatting consistent with the Czech Charts citation's if that makes sense... hence the capitalized "Select". I can't just change how the note looks for the Czech citation because, well, it's not generated by any of the cite templates. It's not like I can change how the Mexico Certs ref (ref 75) looks either, because funnily enough, that is also generated by a non-cite template. Specifically, Template:Certification Table Entry. My god, these templates need some serious cleanup to keep references consistent, now that I think about it. Lmao

Other than that, looks good. I might revisit later just to make sure.

Spotcheck[edit]
  • Aight so this sounds more of a prose than spotcheck but it is kind of relevant. You often interchange "the track/song" with "the record", and though in a way synonymous, "record" only applies to a song that is exclusively released physically. And the sources don't seem to state such.

Ok that is like, really it. Do apologise for the long wait! Got an IRL project going on so it is super hard to catch up. I do have some prose comments though.

Troubled.elias, poke. GeraldWL 17:17, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Troubled.elias, doule poke. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:00, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Gerald Waldo Luis, anything else outstanding from your PoV? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:00, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Pfff, @Gog the Mild, appreciate the humor. I think this part is resolved, judging by the statement of support and the "Glad everything was resolved" from GWL below. All the hits you get when you Ctrl+F "record" give you record labels, recording industry associations, the recording process, etc. None of them use "record" to refer to the song itself. Although I'd need clearer commentary from GWL on how the rest of the spotchecking went. ‍ ‍ elias. 🧣 ‍ ‍ 💬reach out to me
📝see my work 01:34, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, think you missed this: "The record received little media coverage", clearly referring to the single. I did not find any problems in regards to sourcing and citing; every source seem to be reliable, mixing secondary with a couple of primary sources. They are also cited at the right sentences. I don't think I'm able to sort of recheck right now, but if anyone wants to, please do; I may have missed things since this is my first time spotchecking. But yeah, apart from the record thing, everything else (to me) looks good. GeraldWL 13:48, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In that sentence, "record" pertains to Amala the studio album... Oh well, changed that for the much clearer "album" ‍ ‍ elias. 🧣 ‍ ‍ 💬reach out to me
📝see my work 13:54, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Prose- SUPPORT[edit]
  • The former. From my understanding, "So High" blew 'out of nowhere' as some might say, without any extravagant promotion on her end, so "marketing" doesn't feel right here
  • Then I would suggest linking it.
  • ...linking... to which term? "Viral marketing" does not feel right to describe "So High" 's success, as I said, so I don't like it as a target. And "viral success" is already linked to viral phenomena. It seems like there is nothing to do here.
  • Sorry-- I didn't notice the piped link there!
  • "By September 2021, "Rules" and "Cyber Sex"" --> "By September 2021, the latter two"
  • Feels somewhat clunky to me, imo. Plus it's repeated here only once, so I think we could let this slide
  • Fair enough.
  • Including both "Tiktok superstar" and "household name" in the same sentence is kind of repetition. I would suggest trimming the first half of the sentence to "Likewise, Aliya Chaudhry of Slate argued that..."
  • That is better!
  • "brothers who comprise a two-person band"-- wasn't "two person" already established by mentioning two names and "comprise"?
  • Removed "two-person"
  • Add a "(YEAR)" to the film ("You Got Served (2004)")
  • Done
  • Footnote e: "The adjectives "sultry", "melanchol[ic]", and "soulful" are" can be removed as it is excessive.
  • Okay
  • "It has a duration of 3 minutes and 46 seconds." This would be read in a monotone way. "has been described as "sultry", "melanchol[ic]", and "soulful", with a duration of 3 minutes and 46 seconds" sounds more natural.
  • Yeah but it also would make the first sentence longer. I would prefer that sentences are short
  • "Jade Gomez of Paste called the vocal performance in the song a blend between a "wispy" singing voice and a "raspy" rap delivery that does not "[ruin] the immersion" for listeners." I kind of got lost out of focus reading this. I suggest something like "Jade Gomez of Paste remarked the vocals as immersive despite its blend of euphonic singing and hoarse rapping." Shorter, less quotes but synonymous.
  • Will "Jade Gomez of Paste called the vocal performance an immersive blend between a 'wispy' singing voice..." be good enough? I did my best to make the Gomez+Thomas descriptions work together
  • Sounds great!
  • "However, in the beginning of 2021, around 15 months after its initial release, the track experienced a surge in popularity on TikTok." I think this would suit best as the first sentence of paragraph two. "On the application" would have to be changed to "There" to avoid repetition.
  • Done as you asked :")
  • After some internal debating with myself, I decided to delink it
  • "sparked fans'"-- of? Doja Cat, or the song, or the album?
  • Fans of Doja Cat, but I went ahead and removed "fans'" entirely to avoid further confusion
  • Skipping the rest of the section since it's too much lol. But given the extensive copyedits we've done, I think it's all great, and a quick scroll reveals no flaws to me!
  • That's good! I think I spent most of my time and effort on the article perfecting that section in particular, so I'm glad you like it :")
  • "as the reason why" is extraneous, "cited" already does the job.
  • Fair.
  • Italicize Uproxx
  • Of course
  • I still do think the first paragraph felt repetitive, but I guess it's fine given the limited sources and statements, and paragraph two is very strong!
  • Yeah, me too don't worry. It could have been a whooole lot worse
  • "the first few seconds of Paul Anka's "Put Your Head on My Shoulder""-- "Paul Anka's" is repetitive, it's already established.
  • Right - removed
  • Okay, I think you mayyy just be overdescribing the MV a bit. Let me elaborate bit by bit.
  • "In the next scene, Doja Cat dances" --> "Doja Cat then dances"
  • I like my wording better - without the "in the next scene" it gives the impression that we're still on the same location which... a car parked in a shop window will raise eyebrows for sure. I'm trying to abide by the principle of least astonishment here
  • Yeahh, I just noticed that.
  • "wearing white contact lenses and appearing to be undead, subsequently emerge from the road on which the car is parked" --> "rise from the dead". It's not a breakdown, it's a summary, and it's perfectly assumable that they're rising from the dead.
  • Fair enough, rewritten
  • "As "Streets" comes to an end, the video transitions to a shot of Doja Cat as she reclines on a living room couch. Residing in a house located on a nuclear testing site," --> "Doja Cat is then seen reclining on a living room couch, in a house nearby a nuclear test site."
  • Done
  • "She rests her head on the lap of a mannequin that looks like the cab driver"-- you can't assume that it's a mannequin. "She rests her head on the lap of a the cab driver, immobile" is safer since it doesn't assume the true nature of the driver, only what is visible onscreen.
  • ...but the Rolling Stone source cited for that sentence says that she's lying beside a mannequin. "In another fantasy sequence, she snuggles up on a couch with a male mannequin before the entire room is set on fire." Then the New York (Vulture) citation beside that has this line: "settle down with the object of her affection [Siriboe, the cab driver] at a nuclear-testing site." With these in mind I think it's perfectly fine to make the assumption. Somewhat reticent, but we can settle for a compromise and instead say that she is lying on the lap of a male mannequin without specifying that it's the cab driver.
  • One thing I learned as a film article editor is that critics can be wrong. I've seen countless reviews of something get the most remote things like the name of a director wrongly. A review shouldn't determine an ambiguous fact objectively. Perhaps we can say "what seems to be the cab driver" to emphasize this ambiguity.
  • Okay then. Amended
  • "and the resulting explosion"-- repetition. --> "which".
  • Done
  • Italicize Uproxx
  • Of course
  • I don't think so, at least not to me? I'm not a film kind of person, and I think it's soooomewhat of a technical term, so imo I feel justified in linking it. If you want we can get a third opinion about this :)
  • Maybe, although... cinematography is never linked in film articles. I mean, almost anything primary in film is never credited. Producer? What counts as a producer? Someone who made the whole thing? Then you learnt a producer is just an oversee-er, then there are such things as executive, associate, creative, co-producer, the producer. A producer could also be nothing more than one who funds a project-- but "why are they called a produceer?" These things should be technically linked, but they're kind of common knowledge. I also found "cinematography" to be derivative of "photography". GeraldWL 17:09, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @GWL: Well, for one, this isn't a film article... it's a song article. I suppose you could make the argument that music videos are a form of film (and I would agree!). However, I would argue that the average reader who's likely to search and visit the article would be someone who's familiar with songs (probably Doja Cat fans), but not necessarily film. As such, we shouldn't expect readers to be already familiar with filmmaking terminology such as this one, so link them in line with MOS:UL. Someone can prove me wrong and correct me on how often cinematography is used in most contexts though, FWIW - that would convince me enough to delink cinematography
  • I would suggest bringing a third person here. Perhaps it's just me too acclimated with the film environment, but the term cinematography felt too... common in a way. I would say this is also the case with radiology: one might assume it's the study of radio signals, but it is actually the study of radioactivity, although that misunderstanding doesn't really merit linking since it's merely alien words to some. But yeah, I would want another person to comment, since I can see your point too. GeraldWL 09:38, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
While I am sympathetic to the suggestion that this is overlink, and personally consider that FAC articles in general tend towards overlink, I am aware that the consensus on this is towards the "if in doubt link it" PoV. The arguments advanced for this specific link also seem sensible, so I am content to go with the nominator's view on this. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:39, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the assessment, Gog ^^ ‍ ‍ elias. 🧣 ‍ ‍ 💬reach out to me
📝see my work 12:59, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Lift program, a campaign"-- so is it a program or campaign?
  • The HNHH source uses "initiative" to describe it, so I just went with that.
  • "The production team for the video decided to incorporate milk into the set design to evoke cat imagery"-- they... put milk, to evoke cat imagery?
  • Everyone knows what milks and cats are; no need to wikilink them :P
  • Lmaoo no, I was just wondering... how does milk make... cat imagery? Or perhaps I'm too autistic to fathom ;-;
  • Huh? Okay then
  • The thought of milk making cat imagery will officially bug me for life.
  • "marked her "latest step toward world domination""-- "latest" may be outdated sooner or later. Suggest something like "believed that the live performance is an effort in achieving global fame."
  • Clarified that the article was published just after the live performance came out
  • Good catch
  • "UFO" --> "unidentified flying object"
  • Done
Troubled.elias: nudge. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:37, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild - OOPS sorry! Will try to get this off the "older noms" section as soon as I can. My pending FAC review for 1982 World Snooker Championship should be done now as well; once again apologies for the delays :") ‍ ‍ elias. 🧣 ‍ ‍ 💬reach out to me
📝see my work 06:13, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@GWL, I am finally done addressing, hopefully, everything. Don't hesitate to ping me here with your thoughts on my responses :") And by the way, I never really got to find out your exact thoughts on how the spot check went. May you please clarify that? Thanks, ‍ ‍ elias. 🧣 ‍ ‍ 💬reach out to me
📝see my work 07:47, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@GWL ? ‍ ‍ elias. 🧣 ‍ ‍ 💬reach out to me
📝see my work 07:58, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry! I addressed the remaining stuff, just one more problem and it should be good-- that is, for me. GeraldWL 09:38, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Aaand everything looks good! Glad everything was resolved, and it looks good now. It's nice to see this article develop. I'm supporting this nomination. Good luck! GeraldWL 13:44, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Lee Vilenski[edit]

Support - happy with this one. Saw one or two minor bits, but nothing to avoid a support in this case. great work. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:04, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you, Lee Vilenski! Off-topic, but congrats with getting the bureaucrat role.

Comments and support from Gerda[edit]

I finally get to look and it's almost over, - I'll see. Writing while reading until I fall asleep which may be soon ;) - Lead last. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:57, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox

  • Do we need all these unlinked names of songwriters?
    • ...yes? The infobox's songwriter parameter asks us the names of those credited for writing the song's music and lyrics. Thus we give it all the songwriters; I don't think it matters whether they have their own articles (and thus can be wikilinked).
      • Thank you. Before I forget: please indent following the essay on top of User talk:Drmies, it helps the blind. - Where I come from: I feel like a victim of the infobox wars, and still have a hard time explaining the wish for key facts (see Cosima Wagner) to make our info more accessible (and am not heard), so I don't see the relevance of names without links which I think can't be key. --GA
        • I was not aware of this information until now! Incredibly grateful to you for directing me to the essay - I try my best to make reading material accessible, so this is much appreciated.
        • And re. that last sentence, I understand where you're coming from. Infoboxen should communicate essential information in an easy-to-understand manner. Thing is, a lot of songs in popular music take a whole team of 5+ writers to concoct: cf. WAP (song), Partition (song), and Thank U, Next (song). "Streets" is no different. So when crediting songwriters --- including those credited in samples or interpolations --- we have to take each and every one into account, because they're all integral into creating the music described in the article.
        • To make an argument more based in WP guidelines... MOS:INFOBOXUSE states that "Each infobox type should have documentation giving instruction on how each part/field may be used." The relevant infobox and infobox parameter is Template:Infobox song#writer, and the instructions don't say anything about not listing songwriters if they cannot be wikilinked. Hopefully, this makes things somewhat clearer :)
          • Thank you! The basic difference seems to be that fair credit is of higher importance than "key information", - accepted. --GA

Background

  • Isn't "American" kind of default for the topic? ... then just "rapper" instead of "American rapper" (twice).
    • No, not really... rap/hip-hop music isn't limited to just the US, nor is it known widely as a US thing. Lots of countries, regardless of location, have somewhat of a rap culture. Ukraine, Iceland, Germany, the Philippines, Nigeria, you name it. It's not redundant at all to indicate someone's an American rapper, in the same way it's not redundant to say "German rapper" or "Peruvian rapper".
      • See, I have a very mixed feeling about the meaning of nationality when it comes to music. No question that there are Ukrainian rappers, and great there are. And accepted to introduce her as an "American rapper and singer", setting the stage for the whole article. But once that is done, I believe that it's kind of default that colleagues are also American, so repetition not needed for all others, unless they come from a different country. --GA
        • I suppose that makes sense... it is disconcerting to see the exact phrase "American rapper" two sentences in a row. I've removed "American" in both instances :)
          • Wow, I feel understand, and - coming from that CW discussion - it is such an unusual welcome experience! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:33, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Production ...

  • I wonder why first music then text? (Confessing that I find the lyrics trivial) Sleepy as expected ... --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:12, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Really, including the lyrics before the composition would have been as valid as doing it the other way around! I decided to include info about the composition first since the article covers it in more detail. Re. the "trivial" comment - the lyrics themselves are "major facts or details" in most pop song articles and as such should not be neglected. However, since this song's lyrics/subject material have virtually little coverage in reliable sources, the article would have to say very little about it, which is a shame. Although if you were to ask me, the quoted lyrics aptly sum up what the song is all about, so not entirely useless :shrug:
      • Again where I come from: I wrote articles about songs a lot, mostly short ones (one up for deletion in case of interest), my best probably Traum durch die Dämmerung, and without exception, they have text first, because most often the text has inspired the music. - The lyrics: of course mention, but I am just surprised how rather conventional they read, not much different from something written in the 19th century. - I took this little break for my own refreshment, overwhelmed with RD articles, Richard Taruskin followed by Peter Brook - they don't wait. Will see when I can return to here. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:04, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • Good luck with your other work, and take as much time as you need! Please let me know when you'll leave another batch of comments by pinging me here. In the era of music in which you take interest, it may be true that "the [lyrics] inspired the music", but ehhh that's more up in the air with 21st-century popular music. In the case of this song, we're not sure if the music inspired the lyrics or the other way around, so I don't think we can agree on which aspect of the song should be discussed first based on such information.
        • Wrt the "lyrics" issue - it is definitely conventional subject material, yeah. I mean, popular music, as with any other genre, is gonna have its own corpus of recurring themes. Though whether or not the subject matter's conventional does not necessarily mean it's trivial, I would say. And when you say trivial, do you mean too trivial for inclusion within the article? If that's the case, please do let me know if this concern has been addressed with my comments above ‍ ‍ elias. 🧣 ‍ ‍ 💬reach out to me
          📝see my work           00:37, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • Sorry about the word "trivial" - I was sleepy, and English is not my first language. It just worded my surprise about how conventional these 21st-century lyrics are. Of course they should appear. My other surprise was the order, but you explained well, thank you. - I have now (after going over my long watchlist) another obituary to add to Brook, - a monster of an article, with some long lists without cohesion, but at least everything has some source now (which is necessary for bringing him to the Main page), and after nominating, I'll return here, promised. - Today is the birthday of Brian who wrote Cosima Wagner, DYK? Fond memories. He wrote an article about a fresh look at infoboxes in 2013 (link on my user page), but his friends argue as if he didn't mean it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:33, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
            I've read about Brian before. It seems like he was a very prolific editor :( May he rest in peace. On a more enthusiastic note, I'm glad we've resolved your comments so far... looking forward to more of them coming soon ^^ ‍ ‍ elias. 🧣 ‍ ‍ 💬reach out to me
            📝see my work             06:51, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Silhouette Challenge

  • I wonder if that is a good header, or could perhaps a few words explain what happened? Will most readers know that Challenge is short for Internet challenge?
    • I believe it is most appropriate for a header. It is what all the cited sources call "the thing that made 'Streets' extremely popular online" - think WP:COMMONNAME but for section titles. If unfamiliar folks want to know what the "challenge" in "Silhouette Challenge" means, they can just click the section, where they will see an explanation of what the Silhouette Challenge was all about. This would, I believe, suffice - I would pipe "Challenge" to Internet challenge to further help readers, but we already have an Internet challenge link in the Background section. Per WP:DUPLINK, we should generally avoid this.
  • I also wonder if the information about the head staff not proposing Streets for a single belongs under the header. (But I understand we need some text to go along the pretty pic of Anka.)
    • It does. The following "commercial performance" section establishes "Streets" as a sleeper hit - that is, a song that received very little promotion during initial release (in this case, the release of the album Hot Pink) but became quite successful long after it. The information you highlighted is important in the article as a context clue: in case folks are unfamiliar with what sleeper hits mean.
      • Thanks for both explanations, and, wow, fast! - I like to read in a TOC things that give me a clue as to what expect. "Reception" tells me something, "Silhouette Challenge" is a mystery. You think that's fine to raise curiosity? Fine then. It doesn't matter that the head stuff's decisions don't relate to the challenge? Fine then. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:45, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • I wasn't saying that the head staff's decisions didn't relate to the challenge- they very much did. They weren't expecting it to become popular, yet it did. Thus, relevant. ‍ ‍ elias. 🧣 ‍ ‍ 💬reach out to me
          📝see my work           13:55, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Commercial performance and release

  • Did I read right that the first intro sentence there more or less summarizes the previous section, while the three YT videos mentioned in the next sentence happened before? If yes, I'm not sure that's a good record in chronology terms.
    • Yes. And I was not going for chronology with the two sentences. I was going for a thesis statement followed by some supporting points. I opened with "'Streets' was a sleeper hit that gradually gained Internet-driven success" because it aptly summarizes what the section is all about - its commercial performance. The next part of that paragraph, "gained traction in social media after three live performances ... sparked interest in the track" is there to explain, or support, why the song became a sleeper hit in the first place! It didn't feel right putting it over at the "Silhouette Challenge" section because that section dealt with how the song was received on TikTok, not social media platforms in general.
  • So I believe the image caption of her performing in 2012 could end there. The "going viral" is not pictured.
    • The opening paragraph states that certain live performances of "Streets" contributed to the song blowing up. The picture shows her in a live performance; the second sentence in the caption states why its placement in the section is relevant and connects it to the opening paragraph in question.
      • Taken, but for me, it wouldn't be necessary to explain why the pic sits where it does by saying the same thing a third time. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:49, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

International

  • I wonder if "Global" might work better, derived from the Board? The streaming release comes as a bit of a surprise after all these charts, - could it perhaps also show in the header?
    • Both are fine, although I have a slight preference towards "international". "Global" kind of implies that the song became available for release in virtually every single country/territory/landmass (which is absurd), whereas "international" denotes that the song was released for digital streaming in one or more territories, but not all of it. Pedantry, I know, but I suppose that's just what I think.
    • Re. "streaming release" - the big header establishes that the sections under it deal with chart performance and release formats. This shouldn't be intended to be surprising :P
      • taken - it was rather my personal surprise, forgive me ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:52, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Critical reception and analysis

  • I confess that the header promises more than I get: that she is "in her most serious form", "ultra-soft and chill", "one of her best", showing versatility, switched up, - that's it. Really. You can't help if that's all what the sources say, but how does it deserve the title "analysis"? "slow and raspy voice" is about the only thing concrete. No explanation whatsoever for the hype? OK, analysis is done for her way to get attention ;) - instead of the song.
    • No explanation whatsoever for the hype - actually, the second paragraph mentions that Doja Cat has an "innate ability to produce hit singles" and discusses how she leverages the popularity of her songs to "properly... capitalize on the trends that her fans create". Williams of Uproxx expands more on that second point in the article. While not a lot of commentary, it still seems like insightful stuff, and thus the section title deserves the "analysis" part. Though of course "critical reception" on its own will do the job just fine.
    • To add, the Background section talks a bit about how Doja Cat's past songs have been popular on TikTok, and established that TikTok users have "a propensity of making songs go viral" - meaning, they just kind of pick what songs they want to receive hype I guess. It's more of an art than it is science.
      • How about "Critical reception" then? - With no promise of (in-depth) analysis made, no disappointment. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:56, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • Dropped

Video

  • How about first saying what it is? It has nothing to do in the caption of the almost abstract image (at least in that size), and reception makes little sense before knowing of what.
    • I'm sorry, what do you mean by this? The opening sentence of both the music video section and the image caption says "music video for 'Streets'", so it is very clear what is being talked about.
      • The first para is reception of the video, the second begins its description. For me, first description (what it is), the reception would work better. --GA
        • Ah, now I understand where you're getting at. Langford's, Halle's, and Shaffer's comments about the music video's aesthetic and tone, I would think, also double as descriptions for the video, so def appropriate. Explains what the vibes are like before we get to the plot itself. Plus it's definitely relevant to the image caption - "Several critics labeled the video as erotic, horror-fantasy" refers to the aforementioned comments.
          • We will have to disagree. I'd factually describe the plot, instead of ringing the "erotic" and "horror" bells to start it, but as you like it. We'll also disagree on what an image caption should do. For me, it should say that the actor's face can be seen far right, in his cab, with the illuminated shop window in the background, to connect to the plot. I couldn't see the face, believe me or not, and all the red looks completely abstract to me. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:21, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "While inside a cab on a heavily congested street, he notices Doja Cat posing as a mannequin by a shop window across the sidewalk." - He doesn't notice her, but strangely a puppet in a window move, no? That's not a mannequin, to my understanding, - my translator gives my display mannequin and window mannequin. (A mannequin is a a person showing garments at a fashion show, expected to live, no?) The object in the show is the window is not expected to live, no?
    • I have watched the music video - he does notice her posing, and the cited sources also say so. It's just that the screenshot happened to capture the driver in a frame where he was looking away.
    • The cited sources say that she was posing as a mannequin, and we go by what the sources say. And yes, she does move, and mannequins are statues or large dolls that aren't supposed to move :) We aren't calling Doja Cat a mannequin; we are simply describing that she is pretending as one for the video.
      • I think we have a simple language problem, with the German "Mannequin" meaning something completely different. --GA
  • I believe some of the next imaginations could be trimmed, without describing individual poses and desasters.
  • "When the song finishes playing, the music video cuts back to the driver inside his cab. It is revealed that he imagined everything that happened beforehand; he encounters Doja Cat once again, this time shown as his passenger." - I'd just say: "In the end, the driver is back inside his cab, revealing that he imagined all this, driving her as his passenger." for example.
    • Replying to these two comments in one go. I tried to trim here as best as I could without omitting some pretty major imagery that is adequately covered in the sources. Weirdly enough, its music video received lots of WP:SIGCOV from major music publications, even more than it did the actual song's composition, so that's why our section for the music video has lots of details... It strikes me as odd. But well, we give due weight on certain aspects of the subject based on preponderance of sources. Let me know if the trimming is sufficient in terms of WP:DUE - otherwise, let me know which details you think can go.

Reception

  • more or less as in the previous reception section: many words (of the critics") saying little. "one of the best", "appealing to current social media trends", - really, that's all? No opera reviewer would be taken serious when saying so little ;) - Summary: she knows what her costumers want and feeds them with that.
    • Yes, unfortunately, that is it :P For what it's worth, I did find the first paragraph to be a bunch of nothing burgers, but I did my best with what I got. The second paragraph was slightly better imo.
    • And, well, we're not talking about opera reviewers, we're talking about reviewers of contemporary music. Completely different topic areas, completely different standards for what constitutes as good commentary. But we're getting off-topic here.
      • just saying again where I come from, what I normally see, explaining what I miss. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:14, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Live performances

  • how about adding that there were more videos? - That's it from someone completely alien to the topic. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:23, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • What do you mean?
      • I mean that the header doesn't indicate anything besides performances, and here come 3 videos.
        • They are videos of live performances

The tables: cudos for diligent work. T'd have the numbers of views right-aligned. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:14, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for this! That table with the views or certified sales is generated by this template, and unfort there doesn't seem to be an option to right-align the rightmost column. I'd love to take this suggestion but there's just nothing I can do within my power atm :(
  • @Gerda, I have done my best to respond to every point in here :) I have asked you for clarification with some of these replies, so I would appreciate a response to them as soon as you can! As with everything we do in Wikipedia, though, take your time and pace yourself. Since there were quite a lot of responses, would you please indicate which concerns have not been resolved by replying to this specific bullet point with the specific comments? Thanks, ‍ ‍ elias. 🧣 ‍ ‍ 💬reach out to me
    📝see my work     13:33, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • You did well, and I thank you, and I replied individually (before getting to here). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:08, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Finally: the lead. I like most of it, but would like to mention (before the going viral) that the song was originally not supposed to be a single - for more contrast. I'd prefer the last sentence in chronological order, and I'd try to close the whole thing on some line of reception. But up to you. - Possibly a completely unrelated question: why is it called "Streets"? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:48, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Rearranged the last paragraph. I too like the lead as it is. @Gerda, I think the "unplanned single" detail might be too much for the lead: we're already summarising a lot of things that make the song notable, and I don't really think its being an unplanned single is one of them.
    • And I believe it's called "Streets" because it's named after the song it samples, "Streets Is Callin'", but unfortunately I can't find a high-quality source to back this up, so it will have to remain unmentioned. ‍ ‍ elias. 🧣 ‍ ‍ 💬reach out to me
      📝see my work       00:10, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thank you, and support. I learned a lot: that - while "Traum durch die Dämmerung" clearly says it's all a dream in the title - this ballad can be named streets without ever referring to even one street (at least not noteworthy to the article), and harmless lyrics be blown up to a monster spider and nuclear desaster, and gets liked ;) - I didn't know the singer and met a woman of strong personality and cat-like movements, more reference to her name than the milk ;) - Now this woman who "is apt to go on and on and on until she gets her way" (allegedly) - will look for DYK Diana Tishchenko, and why Brook is still not on the Main page. Last reminder of "my way": I don't think the images of her live performance and the video need any caption beyond saying what is pictured, a 2021 live performance, a cabdriver in whose head something is going on. The critics' views -about the whole video, and mentioned often enough prominently - have nothing to do with the very "scene" pictured which is neither erotic nor "noir", only unclear ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:53, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Gerda Arendt, thank you for the support; I appreciate the constructive comments and suggestions. I'm glad you and I were both patient on the contested points, but oh well, we will have to agree to disagree on your thoughts about the video screenshot. The picture is there to communicate the tone of the entire video, and it's fine if you don't detect those tones I guess :shrug: Also, I refuse to comment further on the "go on and on" line, though I politely request you strike it, because it feels off-topic and inappropriate to me. ‍ ‍ elias. 🧣 ‍ ‍ 💬reach out to me
          📝see my work           07:59, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Query for the coordinators[edit]

@Gog (and apologies for the ping), what's the status of this nomination? Would Gerald's wrapping up his comments be the only thing left to do before the discussion is closed with a decision ? Thanks, ‍ ‍ elias. 🧣 ‍ ‍ 💬reach out to me
📝see my work 03:59, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If GWL were to sign off on everything I would certainly be happy to look through the reviews and the article with a view to closing. I imagine my fellow coordinators would share that view. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:41, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Gog the Mild and Troubled.elias, SORRY. I'm kind of on a semi-wikibreak right now since I'm working on a film, and I realized I have not disclosed in advance. I'm looking through the comments now. GeraldWL 16:49, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And I'm done with that. After my remaining comments are addressed I'll support. GeraldWL 17:10, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The last prose commenter has wrapped up with their responses, and the outstanding spotcheck results from GWL are out. Would any available @WP:FAC coordinators: kindly check the entire discussion as well as the article to see if it can be promoted? It's been languishing at the bottom of the FAC list for a while, thus getting it out ASAP would be nice. Would preface however that this discussion has been pretty in-depth, reaching an unusually high FAC nom page size of 80,545 bytes, so to whoever checks, please do take your time with it. ‍ ‍ elias. 🧣 ‍ ‍ 💬reach out to me
    📝see my work     14:03, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

source: https://web.archive.org/web/20220704204030/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates