Cannabis Ruderalis

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Table of Contents – This page: Purge cache

Shortcut

Featured content:

Featured article candidates (FAC)

Featured article review (FAR)

Today's featured article (TFA):

Featured article tools:

Nominating[edit]

How to nominate an article

Nomination procedure

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

Commenting, etc[edit]

Commenting, supporting and opposing

Supporting and opposing

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


Shortcut


Nominations[edit]

Big Raven Formation[edit]

Nominator(s): Volcanoguy 01:22, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a geologically young rock unit in northern British Columbia, Canada. I've researched the Big Raven Formation thoroughly and I haven't neglected any major facts or details in this article, having been familiar with the subject for many years. It's the youngest but least voluminous geological formation of the Mount Edziza volcanic complex, one of the most active volcanic complexes in Canada throughout the Holocene. Volcanoguy 01:22, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Worlds (Porter Robinson album)[edit]

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

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

Pan Am Flight 214[edit]

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

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

PCN02WPS[edit]

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

Image review[edit]

  • /File:Boeing_707_"Stratoliner",_3rd_707-121_production_airplane,_N709PA,_later_delivered_to_Pan_Am.jpg: when and where was this first published?
  • File:Pan_Am_Flight_214_recorder_examination.jpg: source link is dead, when and where was this first published?
  • File:PanAm214.jpg is tagged as lacking author info. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:38, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am unable to verify the first image's claim as a public domain image. Searching online, I find this image all over the place, but I can't find anything that reliably backs up the public domain claim. So, I've replaced the image with a photo of a different Pan Am 707-121. It's not the same aircraft, but it serves the same purpose to identify the appearance of the aircraft involved. The FAA website at [1] has a free image of the actual aircraft in a hangar, but it's fairly low quality and resolution, and does not show the entire aircraft.
I wasn't able to verify the second image, either. It was likely published by the Civil Aeronautics Bureau as a press release, but I can't find evidence of that in any reasonable amount of time. Since it was a photo in the "nice to have" category, but not essential, I have removed it altogether.
I have updated the author information on the third photo. It appears in the CAB accident report, and also appears on the FAA website at [2] without a copyright notice.
Thanks for the catches. I checked the licenses on Commons but didn't try to take the extra step of trying to prove the information claimed there. RecycledPixels (talk) 07:04, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

750h[edit]

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

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

2023 World Snooker Championship[edit]

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

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

Comments from BennyOnTheLoose[edit]

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

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

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

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

Image review

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

Castle in the Sky[edit]

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

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

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

Image review[edit]

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

Draken Bowser[edit]

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

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

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

Thanks for the review, Draken Bowser! I have a couple of questions which I've left above. It might take me a couple of days to browse through the source I mentioned for § Production, but I'll keep you updated if I make any additions. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 19:54, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by TompaDompa[edit]

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

Jacques Offenbach[edit]

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

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

Comments by Wehwalt[edit]

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

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

Image review[edit]

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

Support from Gog the Mild[edit]

Recusing to review.

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

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

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

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

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

Draken Bowser[edit]

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

In the meantime:

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

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

The Hunger (Alexander McQueen collection)[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Generalissima's review[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The link is formatted in a way that it opens into page 81 with a search result for Widows of Culloden - might wanna fix that. 55 is disappointingly not actually included in the preview, so AGF.

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

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

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

Like Loschek, this is formatted in a way where it takes you to a search results for the word "birds". I can't see the whole page, but it certainly checks out that he claims a lot of his friends are lesbians. I hope you use the "I'm not going to say my clothes are for lesbians" quote in one of these articles. For 58A, I was able to get the "We need strong, balsy girls" quote to show up. Good.

59A & B, Watt 2012, pp. 85–86

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

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

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

76, Watt 2012, p. 74.

Do we really need four cites here? I guess it's a kinda controversial claim. I also don't really see what this is supporting here. It talks about The Birds, but doesn't really mention sexualised styling or claims of misogyny at all. Bit confused by this one.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DeLancey W. Gill[edit]

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

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

Ajpolino[edit]

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

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

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

  • @Ajpolino: Ah, I realized I forgot to let people know when I had implemented the fixes. This stuff has been corrected! Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 00:17, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

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

Airship[edit]

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

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

More to come. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:13, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from TechnoSquirrel69[edit]

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

review from sawyer-mcdonell[edit]

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

Reformed baptismal theology[edit]

Nominator(s): Jfhutson (talk) 14:31, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about mystically uniting babies and converts with Jesus by sprinkling water on them. I wrote it a few eons ago, and I think it meets the FA criteria. I've written FAs on historical theological topics in the past, but this would be the first on a theological concept. I hope you enjoy it enough to seek baptism in your local Reformed church, if you've not been baptized already (that's a joke, sort of). Jfhutson (talk) 14:31, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Lean oppose I have not evaluated most of the article content, but the lead itself needs significant work: the history and "Mode and administration" sections are not summarized at all. Is it correct to imply in the lead that all Reformed Christians do infant baptism? My understanding is that a lot of Baptists at least in the United States follow Reformed theology. (t · c) buidhe 17:22, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Suggest adding alt text
  • File:Temple_de_Lyon,_Nommé_paradis.png needs a US tag. Ditto File:Baptism_in_Scotland.jpg, File:Christ_Receiving_the_Children.jpg
Done--JFHutson (talk) 19:48, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Jordaens_-_Circumcision.jpg: source link is dead. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:48, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done--JFHutson (talk) 19:48, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Jfhutson, as per the FAC instructions, please do not use markup templates like {{done}} as they are known to slow down the load time of the FAC page. FrB.TG (talk) 09:38, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Draken Bowser[edit]

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

Lead

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

Music

  • Is Evans claiming that Carey was influenced by the poem or is she the one making the connection?
    Evans is making the argument
  • "..within a pattern of heartbreak songs where a relationship is defined by how a lover thinks they lack a future without the other who has moved on." Shorten a bit if possible.
    Shortened
  • "conjured a 'a sensation.." lose one a
    Thanks for catching that

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

Thank you so much for the review, I really appreciate it. I have addressed your comments above. Heartfox (talk) 21:10, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ed Bradley[edit]

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

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

Image review

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

Comments[edit]

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

Support by 750h[edit]

Excellent article, but here are my minor complaints:

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

Alan Wace[edit]

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

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

Gog the Mild[edit]

Recusing to review.

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

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

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


Image review

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

Choliamb[edit]

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

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

  • Much appreciated as always, Choliamb. I think I've managed to handle these, unusually, without much to fuss about. UndercoverClassicist T·C 21:11, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
SC
  • A marker for now, but will be here shortly. - SchroCat (talk) 08:01, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "best known for": this is a phrase that has been questioned on the grounds of POV before (unpleasantly and vehemently in one case). It may be worth tweaking to avoid having to deal with that problem
  • Link (even if it's to Wiktionary) for "schema", given it's not a common word?
  • "He went up to Cambridge": 'went up to' is idiomatic and one that confuses the colonials, so normal, rather than Oxbridgian, language may be better here.

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

Finishing off:

  • 'which was later referred to as the "difficult times"': I think it may be best to identify who referred to it as this.
  • "when the School's managing committee ... preferring the School to focus": these are the only two uses of school with a capital S outside the full formal name. The MOS is largely incoherent on the use of capital letters, but I think consistency means either these or the others are wrong.
  • "Wace spent ten years between 1924 and 1934": Do we need to be told than 1924 to 1934 is ten years?
  • You mention Elizabeth (Lisa) Bayard French is his daughter in the Personal life section, but you don't refer to her accompanying him on excavations, or her doing separate excavations at Mycenae, which is the claim of the last sentence of the lead.

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

1873 FA Cup final[edit]

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

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

Pseud 14[edit]

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

Comments from Eem dik doun in toene[edit]

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

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

Galileo project[edit]

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

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

UC[edit]

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

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

More to follow.

  • Casani solicited suggestions for a more inspirational name for the project, and the most votes went to "Galileo" after Galileo Galilei: in both cases, I find myself asking: [suggestions/votes] from whom?
    Added a bit about this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:18, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The name "Galileo" was adopted in February 1978: similarly: any idea whose decision that was?
    Added a bit about this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:18, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • a launch on Space Shuttle Columbia on STS-23 : the Space Shuttle (like the battleship New Jersey) -- unless this is the HQRS norm? I'd also clarify something like "the STS-23 mission".
    Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:17, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • in such a way as to: could be briefer simply as as to or even to.
    Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:18, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • pressurized atmospheric entry probe to a vented one: it would be useful to know what these things are: perhaps clearer if we explain it by what the probe would or wouldn't do?
  • But the three-stage IUS was itself overweight: It's not a rule, as such, but most style guides would avoid starting a sentence with but. More importantly, if we do use but here, we're setting up some followup in which this additional weight prevented something from taking place, and that never comes, so the paragraph would read better with something like "Furthermore", "Additionally", or indeed nothing at all.
    Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:18, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lifting Galileo and the IUS would require: in this and similar sentences, if they actually did the thing suggested, it's better in the indicative: Lifting G. and the IUS required....
    As explained further on, they did not do it. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:12, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 109 percent of their rated power level: can we explain or link what a rated power level is?
  • By late 1980, the price tag for the IUS had risen to $506 million (equivalent to $1.714 billion in 2023). The USAF could absorb this cost overrun: I'm not totally clear on the relationship between NASA and the USAF in this project. Had NASA contracted the Air Force?
    As explained earlier, the USAF was in change of the two-stage IUS, NASA of the three-stage one.
  • What saved it from cancellation was the intervention of the USAF: less verbose as the USAF intervened to save it from cancellation.
    I fail to see the value, but changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:12, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AG[edit]

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

First comments:

  • Galileo Project managers table looks broken on mobile, I'd also suggest to move it from the lead.
    Pravda? Works okay on my iphone. Where do you suggest moving it to? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:36, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Nevermind, I think it's either android or chrome quirk. Artem.G (talk) 06:35, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Following the approval of the Voyager missions - link Voyager program
    linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:36, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • would cost $634 million (equivalent to $2147 million in 2023) - $2147 looks strange, IMO 2.147 billion reads better.
    Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:36, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • develop and cost up to $100 million (equivalent to $339 million in 2023.[32][31] - missing parenthesis
    Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:36, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • while the legal challenge was not frivolous - why frivolous is a red link?
    Not sure how it became red. Possible page move. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:36, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was noted that the name was also that of a spacecraft in the Star Trek television show. - maybe something like "The name also belongs to a spaceship in the Star Trek series."?
    The point is that this fact was acknowledged at the time. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:36, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, makes sense. Artem.G (talk) 06:35, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • a previously unknown radiation belt 31,000 miles (50,000 km) and at an elevation of 112 miles (180 km) below - you usually use km before miles
    Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:36, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Scientist Carl Sagan, a strong supporter of the Galileo mission, - maybe "The astronomer Carl Sagan ..."?
    His article calls him a "Planetary scientist", so went with that. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:36, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lunar observations sections lacks any text, did Galileo made any important observations, or maybe the Moon was a test target for its cameras?
    I believe so. I will have to dig up a source though. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:36, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If nothing better found, these can work [4], [5], [6], and [7]. Artem.G (talk) 06:35, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have added a paragraph. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:01, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know that Galileo (spacecraft) exists, but I think a small section about the spacecraft and its instruments can be helpful.
    Added a pagrapha about the apcecraft. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:01, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • On 26 March 1993, comet-seeking astronomers - you use both 26 March 1993 and March 26, 1993 date formats in the article
    Should use mdy, although that seems unnatural for a NASA article. Changed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:36, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Follow-on missions can be a little bit more verbose, at least for Juno.

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

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

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

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

T[edit]

I'm not going to do a review, I'd just like to repeat a comment from my Good Article review three years ago that went unaddressed: the mission patch in the infobox is hideous, and it's not the real one. It's easy to find photos of the real one online [10] [11] and since it's NASA work it should be public domain. Tercer (talk) 08:50, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

WSC[edit]

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

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

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

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

RoySmith[edit]

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

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

John Bullock Clark[edit]

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

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

Image review

Ceoil[edit]

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

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

Kusma (support)[edit]

Non-expert review.

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

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

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

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

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

Mission: Impossible – Fallout[edit]

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

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

Comment from LegalSmeagolian

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

Comments by TompaDompa[edit]

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

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

Support from Draken Bowser[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

Now for Fallout.

Lead

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

Plot

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

Stunts and effects

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

Post production

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

Box office

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

Release

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

Thematic analysis

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

Legacy

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

References

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

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

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

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

Great cuckoo-dove[edit]

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

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

FM[edit]

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

Jens[edit]

  • Known parasites of the species include the feather louse Columbicola taschenbergi[16] and Coloceras museihalense. – Since "louse" is singular but two species are mentioned, does this mean that the second is not a louse?
    • The second also is, but we don't have an article on its family, so I miss dit. Now tweaked.
  • Add legend to the range map.
    • Done.
  • R. r. griseotincta Hartert, EJO – We do not provide author initials in species names, or do we? Same for one other subspecies.
    • Just following the IOC; there's one other Hartert who authored three ssp and synonyms, so they added initials for clarity on the more famous Hartert.
  • Looks very comprehensive. More soon. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:03, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks, see responses for the comments so far above. AryKun (talk) 07:02, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

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

Grungaloo[edit]

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

Rachelle Ann Go[edit]

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

After previously working on a Filipino music BLP of a band, here's my next work on singer and actress Rachelle Ann Go. She began her career in pop music after winning a talent show in the Philippines, before transitioning to musical theatre. Some of her earlier roles on stage include Ariel from The Little Mermaid and Jane Porter from Tarzan. She had her international breakthrough portraying a hardened bargirl in the 2014 West End revival of Miss Saigon, reprising the part on Broadway in 2017. She followed this with more prominent roles on West End, playing Fantine in Les Misérables and Eliza Schuyler in Hamilton. Constructive criticism, in any form and from anyone, will be appreciated. Happy to address your comments and thanks to all who take the time to review. Pseud 14 (talk) 01:10, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from ZooBlazer[edit]

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

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

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

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

Image/media review - passes[edit]

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

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

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

Comments[edit]

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

Older nominations[edit]

Prostate cancer[edit]

Nominator(s): Ajpolino (talk) 20:00, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In 1 in 8 men, some cells in a small gland beneath the bladder go haywire. They grow and grow, eschewing the checks meant to bind them in place, and evading the ever-watchful immune system. Some split off the growing tumor, settling most often in nearby bones. In their race to grow, they digest the bone beneath them, causing excruciating pain and bone fractures. 350,000 men succumb to the disease each year, making prostate cancer the second deadliest cancer in men (after lung cancer, the subject of a 2023 FAR). Many thanks to SandyGeorgia, Colin, and Femke for shaping the article with their suggestions and feedback. My intention is that the article be clear to the medicine-literate and medicine-uninitiated alike, so please have a look and let me know what you think. Ajpolino (talk) 20:00, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Graham Beards[edit]

Support My (few) comments were addressed on the article's Talk Page along with more extensive ones from other reviewers. In my view, this is a well written and well referenced medical article. I made a few very minor edits today for the nominator's consideration. Graham Beards (talk) 12:55, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: how well-covered in medical literature is the topic of prostate cancer in trans women? I see a couple sources from a quick Google search [12] [13] [14].‍  Elias 🪐  (dreaming of Saturn; talk here) 08:56, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Good point. It's well enough covered that we should have something in the article. I'll add a bit. Ajpolino (talk) 11:50, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've added a short paragraph. Pardon the clunky euphemism "Special populations", it's a MEDMOS suggestion. If folks prefer, we could swap it for a more direct heading like "Transgender women" or "Transgender populations". Or the info could be split up into the article sections each fact corresponds to. Ajpolino (talk) 20:04, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you; I believe the current amount of information you've added is sufficient given the research around transgender people in medical contexts is still pretty recent. I think I prefer the last approach @Ajpolino, as having a dedicated section singles them out and would probably be frowned upon by our trans laypeople readers. Of course, I would like the opinions of other, more experienced medical editors in this regard if ever anyone disagrees with me. ‍  Elias 🪐  (dreaming of Saturn; talk here) 02:42, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

HF[edit]

I'm not familiar at all with medical stuff, but will try to review this over the weekend. Hog Farm Talk 13:11, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • "The sum of the most common two assigned numbers is the "Gleason score".[27] Gleason scores of 2 through 5 are no longer commonly used in practice, making the lowest Gleason score 6, and the highest 10. " - this doesn't entirely make sense to me. Is this saying that, for instance, a score of 2 and 3 is unlikely to come up?
    • I've rephrased this paragraph since Femke and Draken Bowser both found it unclear as well. Take a look and see what you think. I've added a footnote to answer your exact question. In short, it's a historical quirk. The "Gleason grade group" system (with grade groups 1-5) is meant to eventually replace the Gleason score. The old Gleason score system had scores 2–10; the current one has scores 6–10, and is living alongside its successor that runs 1–5. Despite both being five-point scales, the current 6–10 score doesn't map perfectly onto the successor 1–5 scale. I'm having trouble clearly communicating that part, so if you have any suggestions I'm all ears. Ajpolino (talk) 19:46, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • " called castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC)" - does this imply that castration is a potential treatment for this cancer? This appears to be discussed a bit in the history section, but the discussions on treatment leave this question unanswered
    • In medical jargon land, we call removing your testicles "surgical castration" and eliminating your body's testosterone with drugs "chemical castration". I've added (also called "chemical castration") to the first mention of the treatment. Do you think that would suffice to reduce a reader's surprise when they make it to "castration-resistant"? To your direct question, surgical castration is still occasionally used for prostate cancer, but its use is declining (3.5% and falling as of 2016). Most recent sources only mention it in passing if at all, noting only that patients tend not to choose it. As such, I haven't covered it in the article, but certainly could add a couple sentences if you think it would be helpful context.
  • "Depends on stage, five-year survival rate 97%" - if this is important enough for the infobox, should it be in the body of the article as well?
    • Swapped it to summarize the more detailed description in the text. The rates vary so much by stage, that I don't think a total number is a helpful summary for anyone. Ajpolino (talk) 21:31, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent work; I expect to support. It perhaps says something that I have no issues writing content about horrible Civil War combat, but I spend most of the read-through of this article shuddering in horror. Hog Farm Talk 00:33, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks much for your time and feedback. I'm gratified that the article elicited any response besides boredom. FWIW, a glance at American Civil War's infobox suggests your chance of surviving a bout with prostate cancer (as one or both of us might) are better than a man's chance of making it through the war alive. Not sure if that reflects more positively on the prostate cancer experience, or negatively on the Civil War experience. Probably the latter. Ajpolino (talk) 21:31, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Supporting; excellent work. Hog Farm Talk 19:24, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Femke[edit]

As I said at the end of my GA review, I believe the article now meets the FA criteria. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 16:45, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Draken Bowser[edit]

Just like the new and improved lung cancer i find that the article is readable and offers a nice balance between completeness and conciseness. I have but a few suggestions:

  • "Men with high PSA levels are often recommended to repeat the blood test four to six weeks later, as PSA levels can fluctuate unrelated to prostate cancer." I think it's perhaps of more interest to mention how PSA-levels spike in response to UTI:s and urinary retention, or do both sentences.
    • Recent reviews seem not to mention UTIs and urinary retention as PSA raisers, any idea why? I'm not familiar enough with the field to know. Carlsson 2021 mentions only BPH; the Harrison's chapter I use heavily mentions only prostatitis and BPH (Scher 2022); Rebello 2021 mentions only prostatitis and BPH; public-facing CDC site gives "certain" procedures/medications, BPH, and infection; similar ACS site gives a longer list but no UTI. To your more general point I've added two short sentences on what can raise and lower PSA levels. Hope you feel that improves things. Ajpolino (talk) 18:28, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No idea why, in clinical practice I've regularly seen spikes above 20 in patients with a recent UTI, which then recedes to a baseline of ~1,5 within 2–3 months (just to be clear, I'm not the bozo ordering these PSA-tests :P). Maybe it's the good old case of experts refusing to repeat the obvious. Looks good now. Draken Bowser (talk) 21:19, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I'll keep an eye out for a source. Ajpolino (talk) 21:41, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...and lead to unneeded biopsies and treatments." I think this sentence should also follow up with the word "complications", to stress clearly that it is not only an issue of resource allocation and mental health, but something that carries a risk of physical health issues. This is of course already explained elsewhere, but I'd still make the addition here.
  • My brain shuts down trying to read the section on Gleason scores. While I'm not a native speaker I'm also concerned there is an accessibility issue.
    • Femke had a similar concern at GAN, and I see it was unclear to Hog Farm above as well. I've tried some editing to hopefully clarify. Is it any better? I'm not sure how to clearly phrase the part about Gleason scores of 7 being converted into Gleason grade group 2 or 3. The fact that there's so many numbers named Gleason makes it challenging to communicate clearly.
Yeah, it's better and the efn is a nice touch. If I get any ideas on further improvements I'll get back to you. Draken Bowser (talk) 21:19, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the article should briefly discuss pre-biopsy MRI.

That's all and once again, excellent work. Draken Bowser (talk) 17:16, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and one more thing. The section on radiotherapy mentions the diagnosis bladder cancer as a complication, but lists only symptoms related to radiation proctitis, without mentioning the diagnosis by name. I'm not sure if adding it is an improvement, but I thought it was worth putting up for consideration. Draken Bowser (talk) 18:40, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Added. Ajpolino (talk) 20:51, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the feedback Draken Bowser. I've taken a stab at implementing your suggestions. I'm not sure the Gleason grading paragraph is quite right yet, and would appreciate if you could take a look and let me know what you think. Ajpolino (talk) 20:51, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure either, but since I have no more substantial concerns, as far as I'm concerned, we're done here. Support. Draken Bowser (talk) 21:19, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

Gotta skip the source review here because it's a medicine article and these need more specialized knowledge than I am comfortable with assessing. With some of these images I wonder if we can source the information they present e.g File:Diagram showing T1-3 stages of prostate cancer CRUK 278.svg. Was File:Verlauf Prostatakrebs 2011-01 Posttherapie-Szintigramm.jpg published anywhere? File:US PC Inc by age 2016.tif seems to imply that the incidence falls off past 75 years - is that correct, and if so, the article should say it. ALT text seems OK. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:22, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Could you clarify your concern on sourcing the information the images present? If the image represents data (like the histogram) or comes from elsewhere (like the radiation cartoon) I cite those sources. But for images that don't fall into one of the above categories I think we typically don't attempt to source the underlying information (of course related claims in the text are cited). The image you mention as an example comes from Cancer Research UK. They've since made a slightly tweaked version which they display on their website. I could add a link to it to the file's description page?
  • File:Verlauf Prostatakrebs 2011-01 Posttherapie-Szintigramm.jpg has not been published to my knowledge. It was uploaded to Commons by a user who has uploaded numerous radiology images. I have assumed the user is a radiologist and is the copyright holder for those images. We host many such images at Commons and here on our articles, so I assume it's settled that a radiologist is considered the "photographer" of the images (s)he takes. But I can look into those assumptions if you have a concern.
  • File:US PC Inc by age 2016.tif I believe incidence falls because it's rare for men over aged 75 or so to be screened for prostate cancer -- the rationale being that the disease progresses so slowly that they're unlikely to die from prostate cancer before (sadly) something else takes them. I'm not sure I'll be able to find a source that clearly says "incidence falls for this reason" (though I will look presently!) but I can at least add mention of this in the screening section. Most national medical guidelines set an explicit upper age limit on screening recommendations.
    Didn't yet find a source that clearly addresses this, but CRUK gives a general note alongside their UK prostate cancer incidence data: "A drop or plateau in incidence in the oldest age groups often indicates reduced diagnostic activity perhaps due to general ill health." Not exactly definitive, but again suggests the drop in that graph is due to diagnosis. Ajpolino (talk) 19:54, 1 April 2024 (UTC) [reply]
    Done. Ajpolino (talk) 20:24, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The bigger worry is that the article seems to say the opposite (i.e that incidence grows). Someone reading text and image may be confused. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:08, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm, I've added an explanatory footnote to that image caption. Does that address your concern? Ajpolino (talk) 14:47, 2 April 2024 (UTC) [reply]
    I guess. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:07, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the lengthy responses to your simple questions. Thank you for taking the time to review the images. Ajpolino (talk) 19:20, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

David J. Brewer[edit]

Nominator(s): Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:38, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

David J. Brewer spent twenty years on the U.S. Supreme Court. Theodore Roosevelt thought he had "a sweetbread for a brain" and was a "menace to the welfare of the Nation", and he hasn't fared too much better in the annals of history, despite considerable scholarly efforts in recent years to rehabilitate his reputation. But whatever one might think of him, he undeniably served at a formative moment in modern American history, and this article provides a window into how a conservative Supreme Court responded to that moment.

I wrote the bulk of this article back in 2022, when it passed a GA review by MaxnaCarta. After a few recent touch-ups, I think it's now ready for FAC. Most of the sources should be easily available (usually through the Internet Archive or the Wikipedia Library), and I'm happy to provide help accessing any of the others. Looking forward to your comments! Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:38, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I’ll definitely leave some comments. It would simply be rude not to do so 😅. It’s EW after all. As usual this just looks *italian chefs kiss* perfect. Your articles are a model I try to use when writing. Will review and come back, though I don’t have much experience at FA and others may be better at polishing diamonds than I am. — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 08:18, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Some images are missing alt text

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

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

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

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

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

done

  • Suggest adding alt text where it is missing

done

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

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

The first one still has a tag based on publication date, so we still need info on first publication. On the second, how did you arrive at that conclusion? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:40, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  1. The United States section of List of countries' copyright lengths says that anonymous works enter the public domain "95 years from publication or 120 years from creation, whichever is shorter" so it should be in the public domain by now whenever it was published. However, I'm not sure what tag to use to indicate that point.
  1. The 120 from creation piece only kicks in if it was first published after 1978, according to that table, so we'd still need to know when it was published. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:35, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've found the relevant page on the source website. It says the picture's in the public domain. I'll update the page momentarily.--Llewee (talk) 22:44, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Sorry I got mixed up between images, I'm not quite sure how to interpret the second image, the source says (http://www.zeno.org/Zeno/-/Lizenz%3A+Gemeinfrei) it thinks the image is in the public domain but isn't sure. Llewee (talk) 23:06, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Since this is hosted on Commons, even if we take that as correct we'd still need to know US status. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:35, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same author problem exists with File:Bundesarchiv_Bild_136-B0556,_Karl-Eduard_von_Sachsen-Coburg_und_Gotha.jpg. Ditto File:Landwirtschaftliche_Ausstellung_Coburg_Juni_1910.jpg

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comments and support from Gerda[edit]

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

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

Birth and family background

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

Childhood

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

Selection as heir

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

Marriage ...

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

Personal life

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

Political ...

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

Unofficial diplomat

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

Second World War

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

Trial ...

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

Death

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

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

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

Lead, infobox

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

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

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

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

Comments from Therealscorp1an[edit]

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


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

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

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

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

Comment from Buidhe[edit]

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

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

My Beautiful Dark Twisted Fantasy[edit]

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

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

Elias[edit]

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

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

Background

  • MOS:CONFORMTITLE is not consistently applied; see the refs for this version of the article, [3], [10], [39], [42], [47], and [129] (I excluded [220] because the citation is template-generated)
  • Not quite; you missed [10]. - E.
  • Done, sorry I must have not noticed. --K. Peake 08:58, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it would be more beneficial if the explanation for the "public-image controversy" bit came immediately after the sentence. What's the purpose of the sentence "Around a year previously..." in this part of the paragraph?
  • Done, also I moved that to the end and I've kept because it shows the relevancy of this studio. --K. Peake 20:01, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Linking just the word "outburst" and "interruption" is a MOS:EASTEREGG issue; furthermore, the sentence does not clearly convey that the outburst happened at the VMAs.
  • Done, although does the version in the lead look acceptable now? --K. Peake 20:01, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would say yes. - E.
  • Indicate the VMAs acronym immediately after spelling it in full, as the article uses the acronym a few more times down the line.
  • Great, but I think you can remove the "VMAs" from the lead since you don't use the acronym elsewhere in it. - E.
  • What is "rode the waves and rode it and rode it" here supposed to say? I assume it means West thought Swift was "riding the wave" of public sympathy - if so, make it clearer, possibly with a wiktionary link .
  • "he feels like 'a soldier of culture', realizing no one wants this to be his job and he also honestly set out to maintain a large involvement in culture" two things. first, all of the verbs should be in past tense, and number two, i do not understand what any of this intends to convey. unfortunately, i do not have access to the cited book at the moment, so it will be hard to check.
  • "I feel like, in some ways like I’m a soldier of culture, and I realize that no one wants that to be my job...will I feel convicted about things that really meant stuff to culture that constantly get denied for years and years and years and years, I’m sorry, I will. I cannot lie about it in order to sell records." phrased to be most appropriate. --K. Peake 20:01, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I feel like this can still use a bit of work. The easiest approach, I think, would be to let the quotation speak for itself. You may replace this with the quotation, but I warn you will have to be careful with limiting these. - E.
  • close paraphrasing issue with "a minimum of 80 percent was what he wanted to deliver, with the remainder 'fulfilling a perception'". it does not sufficiently reflect the source, "It's always going to be 80 percent, at least, what I want to give, and 20 percent fulfilling a perception". from what i understand it's "80%" of west staying true to himself and "20%" assuming the role the public expects him to play?
  • "dissing Dark Fantasy" can be paraphrased; also I don't think you should enclose "Dark Fantasy" in single quotation marks since West was clearly referring to the album
  • "what he wanted to deliver" can be tightened to "genuine" IMO. - E.

Recording and production

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

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

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

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

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

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

100cellsman[edit]

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

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

magiciandude[edit]

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

NØ[edit]

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

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

Iron Man[edit]

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

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

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

Image review[edit]

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

Comments by ZKang123[edit]

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

No problems with the lead I can find.

Creation and premiere:

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

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

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

Aoba47[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Aoba47 I've replied to all of the above comments. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:42, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for addressing everything. I support this FAC for promotion. I hope this review is helpful. I do have one quick additional comment. I would link Marvel Comics, superhero, and American comic books the first time that they are used in the article to be consistent with how they are linked in the lead. It is not a major point though so it does not hold up my support. Aoba47 (talk) 15:37, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
TBUA ? Gog the Mild (talk) 19:17, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from PMC[edit]

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

Mount Hudson[edit]

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

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

Image review by ZooBlazer[edit]

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

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

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

HF[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Harry[edit]

Mostly just prose. Haven't checked sources.

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

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

Gog the Mild[edit]

Recusing to review.

  • "they are among the most intense volcanic eruptions in South America." Ever?(!)
    Nay, other eruptions in the Altiplano-Puna volcanic complex and the Paraná and Etendeka traps were larger. But often we limit our attention to the last 100,000 years or so. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:25, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Four large eruptions took place 17,300–17,440 (H0), 7,750 BP (H1), 4,200 BP (H2) and in 1991 AD (H3)". Is there a BP missing from after "17,300–17,440"? Add 'in' after "place". Link BP at fist mention. Are "H0" etc the names of the eruptions? If so, say so.
    All done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:25, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The volcano has the form of ..." Name it in full, the last volcano mentioned was "south of Hudson is a smaller volcano".
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:25, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Only one image? Are there no other free use images available?
    Not that many, as the volcano is so remote; commons:Category:Cerro Hudson is pretty empty. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:25, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "accessed either from the sea through the Huemules River". I don't think you mean "through" the river.
  • "or by land through the Blanco River". Likewise.
    Done and done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:25, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "covers an area of about 300 kilometres (190 mi)". Should that be square kilometres?
  • "and covers an area of about 300 kilometres (190 mi) ... and it covers an area of about 300 square kilometres (120 sq mi)." Duplication?
    Merged the previous sentence, as the information was duplicated. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:25, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "including the Cerros Hudson 12 kilometres (7.5 mi) south of the volcano". I thought Cerros Hudson was another name for Mount Hudson.
  • The top of the infobox has "Cerro Hudson". Is this the same as Cerros Hudson, and why is this name not mentioned in the lead?
    No, Cerros is a plural form of Cerro, not the same name. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:25, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:16, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Etika[edit]

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

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

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

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

Comments[edit]

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

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

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

More comments[edit]

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

Comment from NegativeMP1[edit]

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

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

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

Comments from Skyshifter[edit]

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

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

@Skyshifter and NegativeMP1: Apologies for the late response - I've been trying to find more suitable substitutes for some of the primary sources the past few days. I replaced some so far, but even the Wayback Machine isn't helping me here - some of the videos aren't even archived properly (like the 200,000 sub video where source 8 comes from). This might be a case where the reuploads either remain as surrogate archives per WP:IAR or rewritten entirely; I'll let other editors weigh in on this. Considering how sparingly they're used however, I don't think it should be too much of a loss if removed. Also, I implemented the Alt Text. PantheonRadiance (talk) 09:05, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, just checking in. Anyone still have more comments for the article? PantheonRadiance (talk) 00:00, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from DecafPotato[edit]

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

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

Mars Society[edit]

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

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

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

Drive-by comment by TompaDompa[edit]

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

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

Prose support from PCN02WPS[edit]

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

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

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

Support from Draken Bowser[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

Final notes:

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

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

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

Support from Gog the Mild[edit]

Recusing to review.

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

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

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

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

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

Support from Graham Beards[edit]

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

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

Munsey's Magazine[edit]

Nominator(s): Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:44, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a magazine that revolutionized the magazine publishing industry. Munsey's Magazine cut its price from twenty-five cents to ten cents in 1893, and became the first magazine to derive its revenue primarily from advertising, by driving circulation up with a low price, and reaping the rewards in high advertising rates. The magazine was a stable-mate of Argosy, which I brought to FAC a couple of months ago: Argosy was much more influential in the world of genre fiction, but Munsey's had a much greater impact on the industry as a whole. The publisher, Frank Munsey, had a rags-to-riches life: half the story of how he became a millionaire was told in the article on Argosy, and this is the other half. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:44, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by TompaDompa[edit]

I'll try to find the time to review this. TompaDompa (talk) 16:29, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

General comments
  • I have added italics in a few spots where they seemed to be missing for magazine titles and done some other minor copyediting as well; please check to see that I did not introduce any errors.
Lead
  • Any particular reason to give his name as "Frank A. Munsey"? Our article is at the title Frank Munsey.
    I think when I started working on the article I used this form because the business was the "Frank A. Munsey Company", but I agree there's no need. Changed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:07, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Originally launched as Munsey's Weekly, a humorous magazine, in 1889, it was not successful, and by late 1891 had lost $100,000 ($3.39 million in 2023), and Munsey converted it to a general illustrated monthly in October of that year, retitled Munsey's Magazine and priced at twenty-five cents." – this is a rather lengthy sentence with a high number of commas, which impedes readability.
    Split. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:07, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the American News Company, which had a monopoly on magazine distribution" – a near-monopoly, going by the body.
    Some sources describe it as a monopoly; I believe it was effectively a monopoly for national distribution but there may have been some local distribution options in some areas. No need to go into those details, though, so I've made it "near-monopoly". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:07, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Other magazines, notably McClure's and Cosmopolitan, quickly followed Munsey's example" and "another magazine, Everybody's, managed to outstrip Munsey's" – are those "Munsey's" as in "Frank Munsey's" or the magazine? If the latter, "Munsey's" should be in italics.
    I meant the magazine and have italicized it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:07, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    For both? Only the latter is italicized now. TompaDompa (talk) 09:42, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I meant the person (or company) rather than for the magazine, but I've now italicized it as I think it reads OK either way and this avoids any doubt in the reader's mind. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:31, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Many well-known writers appeared in its pages, including O. Henry, H. Rider Haggard, Arthur Conan Doyle, Bret Harte, Frank R. Stockton, Max Brand, Edgar Rice Burroughs, and Ella Wheeler Wilcox." – I don't know if these examples were picked for any specific reason or if it's just a more-or-less arbitrary sample, but here are at least my thoughts: Henry should definitely be mentioned due to his deal with Davis. From a pure name-recognition perspective I would certainly keep Haggard, Doyle, and Burroughs, and I would consider adding, or replacing one of the others with, Joseph Conrad for the same reason. It's probably a good idea to strive for some amount of variety/diversity.
    I took out Stockton and added Wodehouse and Conrad. I'd like to keep Brand -- he was enormously prolific and a famous pulp writer. Harte I put in because I think he shows up in American curricula, but I'm OK with cutting him if you think he's not well enough known. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:07, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no strong opinions on the individual authors beyond the above-mentioned inclusion of Henry, Haggard, Doyle, Burroughs, and Conrad. That being said, this is now a list of eight men and zero women, which seems unlikely to me to be the proper balance. TompaDompa (talk) 09:42, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I put Wilcox back in. There were definitely women writers who were popular at the time, but as far as I can see it's mostly the male writers whose reputation has survived. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:31, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "it was not until 1904 that another magazine, Everybody's, managed to outstrip Munsey's, reaching a circulation of almost a million" – does "outstrip" here mean outsell (higher number of sales) or outgross (more money)?
    Circulation. I made it "managed to outstrip Munsey's circulation, reaching a figure of almost a million". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:07, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Publication history
  • If there are appropriate links for "quarto" and "saddle-stapled", they should be added.
    Both linked: Bookbinding#Stitched_or_sewn_binding and Quarto#Quarto_as_size. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:21, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the same market as Life. and Munsey hired" – stray period; or was some other punctuation intended?
    I don't remember, but I did a little rework of that and the following sentence. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:21, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "at 18% interest" – annually?
    The source doesn't say, but I would assume so. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:21, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Alright. This seems like a high interest rate to me (not being familiar with typical interest rates at the time). If the sources comment on whether they consider this steep (or whether it was viewed as such at the time), that should be added for context. TompaDompa (talk) 10:01, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's implied that it's high, but not stated directly. Britt quotes Fogler: "He told me afterward that he had to pay 18 per cent for money to take up the loan"; I think "had to" implies it was an unpleasantly high rate. As you say, a reader will consider this high without being told, so perhaps we don't need to make the inference explicit? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:31, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. Stronger sourcing would be needed to comment further upon it. TompaDompa (talk) 10:44, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "They agreed to pay five and three-quarter cents, but Munsey stuck to his seven cents price." – should probably be rephrased to say that they offered to pay the lower price; I initially parsed "they" as "Munsey and ANC" rather than just ANC.
    Good point; done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:21, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "pulp paper for the signatures that did not include any illustrations" – maybe I'm just revealing my ignorance here, but what does "signatures" mean in this context?
    Linked to section (bookbinding). Modern paperbacks are usually perfect bound, but if you've ever looked at an old hardback that's falling apart you may have noticed the pages are in groups; those are signatures. It's relevant in this context because a signature had to come from a single paper source (it would be folded and cut), but two different signatures could be from different paper. So you could save money by using cheap paper for signatures with no images, and only using the more expensive paper for signatures with images. An editor might deliberately move material around to minimize the expensive signatures. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:21, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "circulation was down 64,000 by 1924" – down to 64,000 or down by 64,000, and if the latter from what?
    The former; fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:21, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Contents and reception
  • "a gossip column about Washington society and politics" – probably shouldn't have to check the link to find out if that's D.C. or Washington state.
    I can add the "D. C." but the source doesn't say -- I think Mott probably thought it was obvious, given the state only joined the union that same year, and probably didn't have society gossip or politics of interest in New York. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:52, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the inference that it refers to D.C. is probably fine. If not, we would need to remove the link. That being said, we should think about how best to serve the readers here—if we leave it unlinked they may be unsure as to which is intended (they may not be as familiar with the overall context). The best option is probably to make it explicit in the text. TompaDompa (talk) 10:01, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Added "D. C." Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:31, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Few of the contributors were well-known, except for Horatio Alger [...] at first the other fiction came mostly from little-known writers" – is there something I'm missing or is this a bit repetitive?
    Yes; cut. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:52, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the policy probably gave the circulation another boost" – is this an uncontroversial supposition or should it be attributed?
    What Churchill says is "Munsey astutely sold his new magazine for ten cents. Even so, another innovation assisted him more in his climb to forty millions. He was the first publisher to make a steady policy of putting a picture of a pretty girl on the front cover of his magazine." I put "probably" in because Churchill gives no hard evidence that this happened. I didn't want to weaken it further to "may have given" because Churchill is unequivocal about it. It's not mentioned by other sources and I don't think is controversial in the sense that other sources would disagree, but I also don't know if Churchill was aware of evidence that it was definitely so -- perhaps some essay of Munsey's that I haven't read. I don't think it's necessary to attribute this inline, given all that -- I think the "probably" avoids giving the reader too strong a sense that this must have been so. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:52, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sounds reasonable. TompaDompa (talk) 10:01, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it is possible to provide a short gloss to explain to the reader what muckraking is, this should be done.
    Done with a note. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:52, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Munsey's obtaining a head start in circulation because it had taken the first move to the lower price" – I might link to first-mover advantage.
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:52, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Bibliographic details
  • I have to say that a fair amount of the second paragraph seems rather WP:Original research-y.
    I wondered about that. I decided to include it because Reed explicitly makes that comment, so I felt it was OK to indicate what other information supported or contradicted him. Worldcat shows that Harvard has one issue and part of another, and that's about it. The Library of Congress card indicates which issues were copyrighted, and I think that's a legitimate way to say those issues did appear -- it's the same as consulting an index. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:52, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hm. Having thought about it:
    1. Reed's comment should obviously be included.
    2. The internet sale thing I think falls on the wrong side of WP:Original research.
    3. I am not familiar enough with WorldCat to say whether this is an okay way to use that source. I'll have to defer to someone else, though unfortunately I don't know who might be knowledgeable about it.
    4. Using the copyright records in this way is definitely okay.
    TompaDompa (talk) 10:12, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi TompaDompa. Removing my coordinator hat and speaking just as an editor, I am happy to consider WorldCat a HQ RS for this limited purpose. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:21, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, that seems fair. I've cut the internet sale comment. I also changed the sentence cited to Worldcat to say that almost no institutations "have any copies", rather than "have copies", to avoid the implication that any institution has a full set. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:31, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A British edition of Munsey's Magazine was begun in 1899, printed in New York and distributed in the UK by Horace Marshall & Son." – is this all that is known about it? Were the contents identical?
    Almost nothing is known of it, unfortunately. I can't find any references to it except for Galactic Central, and as you can see there they only know of three issues. It seems likely that more appeared but that's just speculation. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:52, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a shame. Oh well, sometimes we just have to accept that the information/sourcing we want is not available. TompaDompa (talk) 10:12, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ping Mike Christie. TompaDompa (talk) 20:41, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review -- replies above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:52, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cautious and conditional/preliminary support. As stated above, I would like somebody more familiar with WorldCat to weigh in on whether its use as a source is appropriate in the context it appears in the article. The article looks good otherwise—though as usual with these magazines, I'm not sure I would be able to tell if there are disqualifying issues. TompaDompa (talk) 10:54, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

  • File:Munseys_Magazine_May_1911.jpg: source link is dead. Ditto File:Horatio_Alger_Jr.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:10, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Updated the source for the first. For the second I can't find a source, so I changed to another image of Alger for which I was able to find a source. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:55, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    New image needs a US tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:28, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Updated to PD-US-expired. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:09, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UC[edit]

Saving a space. UndercoverClassicist T·C 21:20, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved
  • Suggest reworking the first sentence per MOS:FIRST: something like "Munsey's Magazine was an American publication founded by Frank A. Munsey. Originally launched as Munsey's Weekly in 1889..."
    Yes, better; done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:29, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • both fiction and non-fiction departments: don't magazines generally have sections: when I see department, I think of a shop -- or was this the term used at the time?
    It's a fairly standard term in modern histories -- see here, for example, or search Google Books for 'magazine "nonfiction departments"'. I don't think it was current at the time, though I can't easily find evidence either way. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:29, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. UndercoverClassicist T·C 07:47, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Munsey became one of the first publishers to put on the cover a picture of a pretty girl: this is not quite supported by the article, which says that Munsey was one of the first to do that regularly. More generally, I was tickled by the implication that other publishers had only ever used ugly girls: is there a way to rephrase?
    Added "regularly" and rephrased slightly; does that avoid the "ugly" implication? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:29, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • and although this became less common later in the decade the reputation took some time to die out: could do with a look for prose and elegance: the reputation, in particular, could/should be expanded to something like "its reputation for low-brow smut".
    I don't think I can be as definite as that. As far as I can tell the evidence for this is primarily the Wilkes-Barre Public Library story (which is known because Munsey printed a response ridiculing them in the magazine). I say "as far as I can tell" because going through the sources has been a bit of a game of "telephone". I am pretty sure that at least half the sources have relied on Mott and Britt for nearly all their information. I don't know for sure there is more evidence than is in Mott. What Mott says is "[after 1895] ... anatomical display was toned down greatly; but the reputation for naughty pictures that it had gained was hard to shake off. Libraries sometimes reacted unfavorably to such reader-lure; and as late as 1898 the Wilkes-Barre Public Library cut Munsey's off its list "because of the many illustrations ... which are on the nude order". Mott then describes Munsey's responding editorial. I don't think this is enough to say "low-brow smut"; in fact these were very often (I haven't looked at all of them!) classical nudes, so "low-brow" would be misleading anyway. The body gives the story in sufficient detail, so how about if I cut the lead to just "... women, though this became less common later in the decade", and leave the reputation issue to the body? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:29, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Good plan. Perhaps something about how some libraries refused to stock it -- the reputation change seems significant? UndercoverClassicist T·C 07:48, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've cut the reputation phrase from the lead. All Mott says is that libraries "sometimes reacted unfavorably to such reader lure" and I don't think we can definitely assert any library other than Wilkes-Barre refused to stock it -- Mott might have been referring to libraries' attitudes to any magazine that carried nudes, rather than to Munsey's in particular. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:28, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The change from a price of twenty-five cents to ten cents was the start of a revolution in magazine publishing: I'd rephrase the start of a revolution (at least in WikiVoice) per MOS:IDIOM and perhaps WP:PROMO. If someone has called it this, I'd name them and keep the phrasing.
    I think it's a commonplace in the field that it was a revolution. Mott (1957) has (p. 7) "What was the appeal of these ten-cent magazines, which caused a revolution in the field of periodical publishing?" Schneider (p.76, here says "The development of the popular general interest magazine, driven by advertising revenue ... has been described as a "magazine revolution". This view, common among magazine historians, ..." Searching Google Books for '"ten cents" munsey revolution' finds half a dozen more. I would be hesitant to attribute this to any single author, but I could use Schneider to say that it is common among magazine historians to say this. Do I need to, though? I don't think we'd need to attribute a statement that the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand was "catastrophic" for the Ottoman Empire, would we? We'd just have to source it, and I was hoping that that would apply here. Or perhaps just add a couple more citations to support the language? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library)
    I'd definitely be in favour of "has been described as...": "catastrophic" literally means "really bad", which is true, whereas revolution literally means "folks in short trousers building guillotines", which isn't, so the MOS:IDIOM argument is there. More importantly, I think it's the sort of phrase that's appropriate in a magazine article or popular history, but not in an encyclopaedia: this is one of those cases where we have different editorial goals than our sources, and so shouldn't sound exactly like them. UndercoverClassicist T·C 07:47, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've changed the lead wording to be "is considered by magazine historians to be the start of a revolution". The body has ""revolutionized the popular magazine market". I'd argue that neither is really an idiomatic usage; for the latter, Merriam Webster gives "to change fundamentally and completely", with "revolutionize an industry" given as the example usage. The body text is supported by three citations, not including Schneider's "common among magazine historians". I'd like to leave that as is -- it would feel finicky to, effectively, say inline that the sources all agree with what they source. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:28, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Happy with that. UndercoverClassicist T·C 16:37, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Before 1893, magazines made money by selling subscriptions: needs nuance: they still did this after 1893 (and indeed by selling to non-subscribers). Suggest something like "the bulk of most magazines' income came from the sale of subscriptions".
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:29, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • it was not until 1904 that another magazine, Everybody's, managed to outstrip Munsey's circulation: Munsey's peak circulation? We earlier mentioned that things began going south, though that might not have started by 1904.
    I think you're asking if Everybody's exceeded Munsey's circulation as it was in 1904, or exceeded the peak? As it happens it was both: Munsey's never got close to a million circulation, but Everybody's did in 1904, and passed Munsey's on the way. Perhaps if I add the "almost a million" that would settle it? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:29, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I think that would work well. UndercoverClassicist T·C 07:47, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:28, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The magazine was not initially profitable, and for years Munsey was under immense financial pressure. An advertising campaign in 1886 brought a surge in circulation: I'd like to see some detail here, if it's known: how much money was Munsey losing? How many readers came in 1886, and how did that compare to its previous circulation?
    The story is told in detail in Argosy (magazine); it's a long story and as far as Munsey's is concerned it's the preface, so I didn't want to give too much detail. There's no simple number to quote, unfortunately -- Munsey was losing money, then he got credit with his suppliers because of his support for Blaine's presidential campaign, then he lost more money, then he had a brief success via an advertising campaign, then that circulation shrank again. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:29, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Are the circulation figures not at least known? UndercoverClassicist T·C 16:37, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Added; unfortunately this is a case where the secondary source disagrees with the primary source so I had to add a note. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:13, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bangs found Munsey to be so energetic as to be a difficult man to work for: better and simpler as difficult to work for?
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:29, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

More to follow. UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:00, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi UC, gentle nudge. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:22, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • By this time Munsey had written several novels for his own magazines, and he submitted one, titled A Tragedy of Errors, to Bangs: does "his own magazines" mean "magazines he edited himself"? He also owned the magazine that Bangs edited.
    I checked and all his serialized novels had appeared in The Golden Argosy, so I changed the sentence to say that. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:32, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • of pay rates of different magazines: part of a long sentence: I think this clause could be cut without sacrificing much (it's all obvious from what immediately follows).
    Cut. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:32, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • $163.00: recommend losing the decimal places as false precision.
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:32, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Munsey was forced to borrow the money elsewhere, at 18% interest: I get the sense that that was a lot, but there's nothing here to contextualise it.
    There's nothing more in the source; the context says it was high, as you say, but I think most readers would feel that 18% would be a high interest rate almost anywhere and any time, so I was hoping this could stand by itself. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:32, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • This was not a completely new idea: the Ladies' Home Journal had been launched at a price of five cents in the 1880s, and was by this time priced at ten cents,: a story of a magazine raising its prices is an odd choice as the first data point to show that lowering prices was a tried-and-tested idea.
    The most notable thing about Munsey's is that it started the ten cent magazine revolution. The LHJ was not a general magazine, so it doesn't really count as a precursor; Mott mentions it in this context because it had an enormous circulation and had started at five cents -- when it went up to ten cents it was still far cheaper than the general monthlies. Mott mentions it so he can dismiss it: despite the price and success it wasn't competing in the same arena as Munsey's. I think it does have to be mentioned. The point the paragraph is trying to convey is that it was the particular combination that was new -- a cheap general magazine, funded by advertisements rather than subscriptions. I think to cover that the predecessors have to be covered. Perhaps if I reverse the order? E.g. "This was not a completely new idea: the Ladies' Home Journal was priced at ten cents (and had been launched earlier in the decade at only five cents)"? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:32, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • though it was targeted at women rather than a general audience: just looking at the Munsey's cover in the infobox, I wonder how "general" the audience was -- particularly given our previous conversation about cover girls. It sounds like it was really targeted at men. More generally, don't most magazines have a target audience in some sense?
    The sources don't cover this explicitly, but I think the point of a "general magazine" is that it tried to appeal to all possible buyers. Certainly to men, but there are a couple of mentions elsewhere in the magazine histories that the buying power associated with the readers of advertisements in general magazines was thought to be mostly held by women. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:32, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • He notified about ten thousand dealers that ANC would not be carrying Munsey's Magazine, but that it could be had directly from the publisher for seven cents in New York plus the cost of shippingto the dealer: cuts for brevity suggested.
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:32, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • seven cents price: compound modifier, so hyphenate.
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:32, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • A trickle of orders: consider a rephrase per MOS:IDIOM
    Done. This is one part of the MoS I dislike; I understand the reasoning but it can make the language unnecessarily bloodless. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:32, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • began to be used in magazines: for magazines? We wouldn't say "soldering irons began to be used in computers", though we might say "in computer manufacture".
    Agreed; done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:32, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Blood'n'Thunder Guide: spaces around 'n', as if it were and? I'm not sure here.
    Done -- I checked a couple of mentions elsewhere on the web and it seems that's how it's usually rendered. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:32, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • from ten cents to fifteen cents: consider cutting the first cents.
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:32, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Argosy had merged with another of Munsey's magazine: magazines
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:32, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • the combined magazine was now far outperforming Munsey's, with a circulation of 500,000: which one had a circulation of 500,000?
    Rephrased. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:32, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

More (hopefully) to follow. UndercoverClassicist T·C 07:37, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for these; all replied to above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:32, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi UC, just checking to see if there will be more to come. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:15, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not until next week, though I don’t have any issue with Mike’s replies above and would not wish to be an obstacle to promotion if it is felt that consensus has been established for that. UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:42, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Eem dik doun in toene[edit]

  • "and priced at twenty-five cents" ==> you can also inflate this figure
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:12, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The magazine was not initially profitable" ==> was there any specific reason why this was the case?
    Not really -- it's just hard to start a successful magazine. See Argosy for the full story, but it was not for want of trying. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:12, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the "Publication history" section, two images ("Cover of Munsey's Magazine for November 1893" and "Advertisement in the New York Sun on October 7, 1893 for Munsey's Magazine at the ten cent price") cause sandwiching text
    Fixed, I hope. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:12, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "over $30,000 in December 1895" ==> this figure can also be inflated
    I'd like to avoid inflating too many figures, since it interrupts the reader. In this case we've just said given the inflated figure for $3,000, so I was thinking the reader could just add a zero without me needing to say so. But if you're not convinced I can add it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:12, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "flatbed printing process" ==> rotary press is wikilinked, but the flatbed printing process is not. Maybe wikilink it when possible, or give a small description what it is?
    Linked to History of printing#Flat-bed printing press. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:12, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "is one recent academic comment" ==> the source is from 2000, which isn't IMO very recent. Eem dik doun in toene (talk) 12:38, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, fair point. Cut. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:12, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

Spot-check upon request. What is this Galactic Central? I can't find any About Us or other explanatory page about who writes it. I admit that with a number of books cited I'd like to know if they have a reputation - can't find much information on them. Is there a reason why some sources have ISBNs and others OCLCs? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:42, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Galactic Central is run by Phil Stephensen-Payne, who is a professional bibliographer: see his SFE entry, which praises Galactic Central. As that article says, the other main collaborator was William Contento, also a highly respected bibliographer -- SFE article here which lists his publications. I use the site almost entirely for bibliographic data -- which issue of a magazine was a given story published, for example. He has some bibliographic summary information on the magazine information which I sometimes also cite.
For the books, I can tell you what I know about the reputation of most of the books, though some I only found during the research for this article. The two most important sources are Mott, whose five-volume history of US magazines is a standard work, and Britt's biography of Munsey. Britt is, as far I can tell, the only source on Munsey's life that depends on independent research -- Britt talked to many people who knew Munsey personally. Britt comes from the world of newspapers, and could be said to be biased against Munsey; he doesn't paint a very flattering picture of him. None of that material is needed here, though; newspapermen of the era loathed Munsey because he brutally killed many of the newspapers he bought, but that doesn't come up in this article.
There should be ISBNs for books new enough to have them, and OCLCs otherwise. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:40, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Some light spotchecking, what information is #44 supposed to source? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:01, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I had to dig through the history to figure this out. #44 is a short editorial piece by Munsey about the improvements in the magazine; he mentions the improvements in the illustratios, referring to the change from woodcuts to halftones (though he doesn't use those words). Initially this was the only source for this, but it didn't support the whole sentence, so I added the citation to p. 614 of Mott. Looking at it now, neither source makes it explicit that it was woodcuts that were the expensive predecessor to halftones, so I've added another ref to Mott which makes that statement directly. That makes the Munsey ref unnecessary so I've dropped it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:22, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I need to be more persistent in reviews. "Levey, Nathan M. (June 1890). "Comic Papers and Their Editors". The Newsdealer. 1 (4): 79–83. " is a source that I can't find much information about. The others seem fine. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:56, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know much about the source; it's a contemporary periodical. It's only used to name a couple of artists who contributed to the magazine, and I think a contemporary source about the industry, like this, should be reliable for that. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:06, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kusma (support)[edit]

Reviewing. —Kusma (talk) 18:04, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Lead: as a general observation, there is a lot of content about the price and circulation, but nothing about the editors.
    Good point; added the two named editors. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:40, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, but "he reduced the price" now refers to Titherington; is that intended? I would link Bangs instead of Titherington if you link to only one of them, as Bangs is blue. —Kusma (talk) 20:21, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I meant to link both and have now done so; and it would have been Munsey that raised the price so I've clarified that -- thanks for catching that. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:31, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Munsey's Weekly: I know what quarto means in books; is this something else or why do you not link to the standard book format? The note should have conversion to metric (or a comparison to ISO 216 paper sizes)
    The quarto size for books is about 10" x 8"; for magazines, the source gives a slightly different size and also specifies that it's saddle-stapled. I think this is different enough that a link to quarto would not help. Added the conversion. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:40, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Bangs found Munsey difficult to work for." is this just the story about Bangs and Munsey's novel?
    No; the source says "Munsey was a man of extraordinary energy. Bangs describe him as a human dynamo. The man who discovered Munsey, said Bangs, discovered perpetual motion. Munsey was all the time in and out of the office, wanting to know what his editor was doing. This practice so diverged from that of John Ames Mitchell, to which Bangs had become used, that the electrical atmosphere became too surcharged with Munsey for endurance. The immediate cause of the severance of relations between Munsey and Bangs, however, resulted from the fact that Munsey had literary ambitions." Then the story about the novel follows. [Mitchell was one of the owners of Life, where Bangs had worked for some years.) I could expand this to "Bangs found Munsey to be difficult to work for; Bangs was used to a relaxed relationship with his previous publisher, but Munsey was constantly asking him about his work"? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:40, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps; that would make it clearer it was not just "publish my novel even if you don't like it". —Kusma (talk) 20:21, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:31, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the same team that was running The Argosy" is it worth elaborating on them?
    I don't think so -- the point here is just that nobody was given sole responsibility for the magazine. Titherington says somewhere that in the early days of Munsey's magazines the editorial tasks were shared generally, but doesn't give any specifics. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:40, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • the "standard" size also has a footnote missing a metric equivalent.
    Fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:40, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Cosmopolitan cut its price to twelve and a half cents the next month" How did people pay half cents at that time?
    Good question. Wehwalt, can I pick your brains? I know the half cent coin was no longer legal tender at this time (1893). Do you know if there was a way to pay a half cent price at that time? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:40, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Technically, the half cent was never legal tender, no one had to take it, least of all the government. But yes, it had been withdrawn before 1893, and there was no other way of making change for a fractional cent. Twelve and a half cents, or one bit (one Spanish colonial real) was a traditional price, including for magazines, see here, but there were not coins to effect the making of change at that point. Wehwalt (talk) 20:02, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course people deal with prices that can't be paid exactly all the time, by adding prices for several items and then rounding up or down; I just found it confusing for a magazine that is often the only item somebody would buy. —Kusma (talk) 20:21, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I looked at Newspapers.com to see if retail prices in 1893 were expressed in tenths of a cent. I didn't see anything. Perhaps people bought two different magazines for a quarter. People read a lot of periodicals in that day. Wehwalt (talk) 13:36, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Few of the contributors were well-known, except for Horatio Alger" I'm not sure the "except" in this construction really works well.
    Reworded. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:40, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • What type of content did "The Stage" have other than nudes?
    The theater. Added. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:40, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Robert Lansing, William Redfield, and Franklin Knight Lane." gloss them for those of us who don't know where they are? The link William Redfield likely does not go where you want it to go; the politician is William C. Redfield.
    Fixed the link; thanks for catching that. I hesitate to give their roles because they'd take up far more space in the sentence than the names would, and where one of them had multiple roles in the government I'd need to dig up the details on when they contributed to the magazine and then determine what their job title was at that time. I was hoping "members of the government" would be enough, given that they're linked. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:40, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    They were more senior members of government than I expected. —Kusma (talk) 20:21, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    OK -- this will take a little longer; will post again here when it's done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:31, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:57, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Almost none of the academic institutions and libraries that have holdings of Munsey's Magazine have any copies of the weekly issues." this is sourced to a WorldCat page, not ideal.
    It's not ideal; see the discussion about this in TompaDompa's review above. Gog expressed an opinion there that it's good enough for what the article uses it for, though I agree I'd like a better source if I could find one. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:40, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we know anything at all about differences between the American and British versions?
    Nothing, sadly; the three copies listed at Galactic Central are the only reference to the British edition I can find at all. I assume there were other issues, but that's only a guess. I can't tell if they were the same contents as the American edition or not. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:40, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nice article overall, well written and well researched. —Kusma (talk) 21:41, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review; all responded to above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:41, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A few answers where I think further follow up is needed (or just could not keep quiet). —Kusma (talk) 20:21, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Outstanding items now responded to. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:57, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent. The footnote for the government officials is a good compromise. Support. —Kusma (talk) 07:20, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Image review[edit]

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

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

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

Coordinator note[edit]

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

FromSupport from Tim riley[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

Review and support from Gerda[edit]

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

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

Reading with pleasure, there are only tidbits:

Frescoes

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

Mosaics

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

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

Source review[edit]

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

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

Comments from Aza24[edit]

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

  • I've been delayed, but should be able to look at this either tomorrow or Wednesday. Best – Aza24 (talk) 04:14, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1914 FA Cup final[edit]

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

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

Comments[edit]

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

Comments from Mike Christie[edit]

Support.

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

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

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

Image and source review[edit]

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

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

Pseudastacus[edit]

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

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

Jens[edit]

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

grungaloo[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

Morrison Man[edit]

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

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

Coordinator note[edit]

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

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

Source and image review[edit]

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

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

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

I'm turning this into a list using "*" because it is easier to read as a list this way. Olmagon (talk) 20:12, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:14, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Wolverine XI[edit]

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

Two of those have now been added. Olmagon (talk) 01:33, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Turabay dynasty[edit]

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

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

FM[edit]

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

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

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

Borsoka[edit]

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

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

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

Cplakidas[edit]

Looks very interesting, will have a look. Constantine ✍ 17:51, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image and source review[edit]

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

Nasutoceratops[edit]

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

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

HF - support[edit]

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

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

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

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

AryKun[edit]

  • "Petri, Alexandra (2 December 2021). "Three-horned poems for the new dinosaur, Nasutoceratops, relative of the triceratops". Washington Post." If you're italicizing and capitalizing Nasutoceratops here, you should also do that for triceratops.
Fixed, but that brings up something I'm uncertain about, the actual source[15] neither capitalises or italicises these names, so should I do that or not? It is of course formally incorrect not to do it, but it doesn't reflect the source to do it. FunkMonk (talk) 22:01, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While not wishing to opine on this particular case, what the sources do and what, eg, the MoS requires us to do frequently differ. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:51, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I'll just keep the "corrected" titles for now, then. FunkMonk (talk) 05:40, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Irmis, Randall B. (21 June 2022). "NHMU Dinosaur Stars in Jurassic World Dominion". nhmu.utah.edu" Publisher name should be National History Museum of Utah.
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 22:01, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Whalen, Andrew (16 September 2019). "All 7 Dinosaurs in 'Battle at Big Rock,' Including Nasutoceratops". Newsweek." Italicize genus.
Done, but note it has the same problem as above. FunkMonk (talk) 22:01, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Rivera-Sylva, Héctor E.; Hedrick, Brandon P.; Dodson, Peter (2016). "A Centrosaurine (Dinosauria: Ceratopsia) from the Aguja Formation (Late Campanian) of Northern Coahuila, Mexico". PLOS ONE." Sentence case.
Fixed, I think. FunkMonk (talk) 22:01, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Dalman, Sebastian G.; Hodnett, John-Paul M.; Lichtig, Asher J.; Lucas, Spencer G. (2018). "A New Ceratopsid Dinosaur (Centrosaurinae: Nasutoceratopsini) From The Fort Crittenden Formation, Upper Cretaceous (Campanian) Of Arizona". New Mexico Museum of Natural History and Science Bulletin." Sentence case.
Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 22:01, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done, though these are usually not linked in other articles. FunkMonk (talk) 22:01, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "honors Alan L. Titus" Since we don't have a link here, maybe mention his profession ("honors the paleontologist Alan L. Titus")
Added. FunkMonk (talk) 22:01, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Will add some more comments later. AryKun (talk) 13:22, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, addressed the above. FunkMonk (talk) 22:01, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi AryKun, I was wondering if you felt in a position to either support or oppose this nomination? Obviously, neither is obligatory. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:06, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It looks nice, but I don't think I've read through it deeply enough to have an opinion either way. AryKun (talk) 17:37, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie[edit]

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

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

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

Support from Wolverine XI[edit]

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

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

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

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

Source review[edit]

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

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

Image review - fail[edit]

  • File:Nasutoceratops UDL.png: While not wishing to question UnexpectedDinoLesson's credentials, what leads you to believe that they are a HQ RS?
The image has had a very detailed review here[17], where it has been cross-checked with all available sources (cited on Commons). FunkMonk (talk) 22:44, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Kaiparowits Formation swamp.jpg and File:Kaiparowits fauna.jpg: Similarly.
These match the inferred environment and published figures of the fossils (as listed in the Commons description). You can see if such images have been listed for WP:dinoart review under their links. FunkMonk (talk) 22:44, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am unsure what you mean by "links". If either has been listed, could you give me the links to the discussions. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:30, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, if you scroll down on an image page, you can see everywhere it has been used across all Wikipedias. Here's the section where one of the images was reviewed[18], and here's the section with the other.[19] Note I had heavily modified the first image to make it more accurate according to the sources, and the second one was pretty accurate, so they did not get many comments at the reviews. Reviewers mainly comment when something is wrong, so if they don't, nothing has been identified. FunkMonk (talk) 21:23, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Two follow up queries.
  • If you have "heavily modified the first image to make it more accurate according to the sources" should your name and that of the sources not be in the image Summary?
  • Are all details of Nasutoceratops in the images clearly supported by a consensus of the HQ RSs? I am particularly thinking of the colouration and the false eyes in the upper neck frill, but their may be others. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:04, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The sources are listed in the description field, as for crediting myself, I think that would be too much, it's made clear in the upload summary that I've modified them either way, I don't really feel like it warrants listing me as author. As for colouration and markings, we don't know for the species depicted here (we do know from a handful others, though), but it has been generally suggested that the ornamentation of dinosaurs could have been colourful and bold in life, as it is in modern animals. But it's such a general idea and repeated in most sources about that subject that I wonder if it makes sense listing any particular citation for that? Here are two sources mentioning colour in relation to dinosaur display off the top of my head:[20][21] FunkMonk (talk) 22:26, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have no objection to colouration and patterning being informed but conjectural. However, there is the risk of a reader taking it at face value. Perhaps the two group images could have 'colouration is conjectural' or similar added to their captions? Gog the Mild (talk) 23:16, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, that is a given, and not really how the sources (or even popular works) would treat such an image, so I'm a bit wary of it (would make a lot of captions unnecessarily long). It is usually the other way around in relevant sources and other articles; if colouration is known, it is noted in the captions (as in for example Microraptor and Tylosaurus). As for those eye spots specifically, ceratopsian dinosaurs are not uncommonly depicted with them, here by Gregory S. Paul[22] and Mark Witton.[23] FunkMonk (talk) 02:56, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Yeah, but it goes both ways; an article about a subject should cover it in a way similar to how it is covered by the relevant sources or by other encyclopaedias, not in an original way. And you usually just don't see either with captions like that (saying depicted colouration is conjectural or even addressing colouration if it isn't because it is actually known), so there are no published sources to use as precedent. To take some example, Britannica's article about the related Pachyrhinosaurus:[24] The original Nasutoceratops press release intended for general audiences with a bare-bones image caption:[25] National Geographic'scoverage of the dinosaur:[26] FunkMonk (talk) 13:31, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is Wikipedia, we do lots of things differently here. Is there any reason in policy or the MoS why we should follow the sources in this? Or policy support for "an article about a subject should cover it in a way similar to how it is covered by the relevant sources"?
I am unconvinced by the "would make a lot of captions unnecessarily long" argument. Currently the article includes captions 178 and 317 characters long (including spaces). Adding the 28 characters of my suggestion would make the two captions affected 126 and 113 characters long. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:59, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I'm aware this is not the case on any of the other Dinosauria-related FA's with life reconstructions. If necessary, perhaps just adding 'colouration subjective' at the end of the caption could work. If it is a requirement, we should at the very least employ this unilaterally across all dinosaur FA's, maybe even all FA's on extinct animals. The Morrison Man (talk) 15:15, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't say the overly long captions is the main argument (though I personally find it unappealing), but rather the lack of published precedent in relevant sources. I do think such information could maybe make sense as part of the alt-text, which is concerned about the visual side of an image. Could that be a compromise? But yeah, if this really is an issue, it should be brought up at a more general venue rather than in a specific article, since we literally have thousands of articles with the same issue. FunkMonk (talk) 15:24, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's an issue. I am entirely open to being persuaded that we are not telling readers something not supported by HQ RSs - in the two specific cases in this FAC. I don't think that "but it's that way in other articles" is going to convince me. And has this has, to my surprise, become an "issue" I am formally recusing. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:48, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not about following other Wikipedia articles, but about following the published literature we base our articles on. The reason why I mention other Wikipedia articles is just that if we create a new precedent here, it should be followed everywhere else on Wikipedia, hence it would need a wider discussion to see if there is really support for this. I'm totally open for that if we believe the issue is serious enough for it. FunkMonk (talk) 14:20, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If there is a consensus of the HQ RSs on the colouration portrayed in the images and the false eyes then cite it and I'm happy. If not, state so in the article and I'm happy. Or come up with a policy based reason why things are fine as they are. Barring any of those I don't see how I can support the use of either of those images in an FAC. Everything else is fine and the closing @WP:FAC coordinators: may disagree with my approach regarding this, narrow issue. I am not over-fussed one way or the other what other editors support. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:46, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I think we have differing interpretations of the rules then (me emphasising that we should follow how the relevant sources cover a subject). I'll bring it up at a more general venue at some point, faster if more people find it an issue. FunkMonk (talk) 16:05, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure that we do have "differing interpretations". The first thing I wrote in my summary of my position was "If there is a consensus of the HQ RSs on the colouration portrayed in the images and the false eyes then cite it and I'm happy." What do you consider to be the difference between that and "we should follow how the relevant sources cover a subject"? Gog the Mild (talk) 16:11, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because no sources exist that give such a rationale for depictions of particular species because there is no fossil evidence to base it on, they only give very general pointers, and generally no comment is made on the colouration shown in image captions. Going beyond that isn't possible with existing sources, except for the very rare cases where colouration has been preserved in the fossils, but that is not the case for the animals depicted here. As I mentioned above, some notable palaeontological artists have shown such spots, but entirely without comment, so while there is published visual precedence for it, there is nothing in the captions for these images that can be cited in support. Gregory S. Paul had this general statement, for example: "Archosaurs of all sizes may have used specific color displays for intraspecific communication or for startling predators. Crests, frills, skin folds, and taller neural spines would be natural bases for vivid, even iridescent, display colors, especially in the breeding season." A citation to something like that could be added to the Commons description, no? FunkMonk (talk) 15:43, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, as I mentioned earlier, I'll start a discussion about this at a more general venue, as it's a general issue not restricted to this FAC. FunkMonk (talk) 13:27, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Caption "The Kaiparowits Formation environment has been compared with the swamplands of Louisiana." Perhaps 'The swamplands of Louisiana, with which the Kaiparowits Formation environment has been compared'?
Why not, changed. FunkMonk (talk) 15:15, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Make File:Ceratopsia skin integument.png larger.
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 15:15, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alt text is missing from most but not all images.
Added to rest. FunkMonk (talk) 22:34, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

RoySmith (comments)[edit]

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

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

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

The Morrison Man - support[edit]

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

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

Lead[edit]
  • “including a subadult skull with a partial postcranial skeleton and rare skin impressions and two partial skulls” - maybe clarify that these skulls do not belong to the partial skeleton, something like “two other partial skulls”.
Added "other". FunkMonk (talk) 15:43, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • “and may have formed a distinct clade within this group” - Isn’t Nasutoceratopsini well-established at this point? If so, may have can be removed here.
It has recently been put into question, see latter part of classification section. FunkMonk (talk) 15:43, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, I seem to have missed this one when I was looking over my list at the end! The Morrison Man (talk) 20:51, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • “the deep front of skull” - the deep front of the skull.
Added. FunkMonk (talk) 15:43, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Discovery and naming[edit]
  • “the paleotologist Alan L. Titus” - Fix typo.
Yikes, done. How did no one before spot that? FunkMonk (talk) 15:43, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • “which formed much of the upper jaw” - Would this not fit better in present tense? ‘which form much of the upper jaw’.
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 15:43, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Description[edit]
  • “that lined the margins of the neck frill [...] and on the cheeks” - I’d swap lined out for something like were present on, to make sure that first part matches up with the mention of the cheek ossifications.
Went with "on the". FunkMonk (talk) 18:57, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • “as is typical of ceratopids” - Fix typo.
Fixed, but note "ceratopid" is a valid alternate form! FunkMonk (talk) 15:43, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Did not know this, interesting! Though I do believe that using ceratopsid is the right way to go to avoid reader confusion.The Morrison Man (talk) 20:51, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, an article should of course be internally consistent (and ceratopsid is way more common). FunkMonk (talk) 18:57, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • “A maxillary flange at the front” - Considering the extensive explaining of anatomical terms, would an explanation for maxillary flange also be useful here?
Can't really find anything about this other than it's an, uh, flange, but tried to make it clearer that it's on the front of the maxilla: "The maxillary flange at the front of the maxilla". FunkMonk (talk) 12:59, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • “a somewhat raised teardrop-shaped expansion” - Comma in between raised and teardrop-shaped?
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 18:57, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • “hour-glass shape” - No hyphen needed.
Removed. FunkMonk (talk) 18:19, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • “without torsion. The postorbital bone” - It would make more sense to me structure-wise if this new section starts a line down from the ending of the skull section.
You mean as a new paragraph? FunkMonk (talk) 18:57, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes The Morrison Man (talk) 19:46, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Split. FunkMonk (talk) 12:59, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • “trihedral” - Would a link be possible here?
No article to link, but added "(with three plane faces meeting at the same point)". FunkMonk (talk) 18:57, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • “in for example Avaceratops” - Going a bit off of personal preference, I’d change this to in taxa like Avaceratops.
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 18:57, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • “The epiparietals are low, roughly crescent-shaped, asymmetrical and wedge-shaped” - What is the purpose of naming two types of shape here? 2d/3d?
Removed "wedge-shaped" as crescent-shaped is mainly emphasised by the sources. FunkMonk (talk) 18:57, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • “the back if the skull” - Fix typo.
Fixed, dammit... FunkMonk (talk) 18:19, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • “pavement tubercles” - Perhaps this could be explained?
Added explanation taken from a paper on hadrosaurs "(smooth, polygonal scales forming clusters)", but it seems to conflict or overlap with the description that's already there. Pinging Jens Lallensack who wrote about the hadrosaur mummies for advice, he may be more familiar with it. We should really have an article where dinosaur scale terminology is explained... FunkMonk (talk) 12:59, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See Edmontosaurus mummy AMNH 5060#Skin; combined with the picture, I hope it makes the meaning of the term clear. The term was, I think, coined by Osborn in 1912; he called them "pavement tubercles" because they are raised above the smaller "ground tubercles" in-between the clusters. Jens Lallensack (talk) 13:51, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, would "(clusters formed by raised scales)" work? FunkMonk (talk) 14:19, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, "pavement tubercles" are the individual scales, not the clusters. However, it looks like there is no evidence for such clusters in Nasutoceratops in the first place? As far as I see, Lund and colleagues seem to be the only ones who used "pavement tubercle" outside of the context of hadrosaurs. So I wonder if they had a different meaning in mind, or simply were sloppy with the terminology. Given that we are not sure what they mean here, maybe it would be best to just remove the term (and its explanation)? Maybe simply Patches A and B have variably sized scales that are round to elliptical and are arranged in irregular rows, similar to what is known from other ceratopsians (including Psittacosaurus, Chasmosaurus, and Centrosaurus)? Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:06, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Could be a solution, but what to do about the following sentence? "There is also no evidence in Nasutoceratops of round, ossicle-like scales surrounded by pavement tubercles, as seen in Chasmosaurus and Centrosaurus FunkMonk (talk) 15:08, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See this image: [27]. You see the normal, polygonal scales that Lund et al. call "pavement tubercles", as well as large, circular scales in-between. Maybe just write "There is also no evidence in Nasutoceratops of single circular scales much larger than the scales surrounding them, as seen in Chasmosaurus and Centrosaurus"? Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:08, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Jens Lallensack, implemented your wording now. FunkMonk (talk) 12:28, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd consider this fixed then. The Morrison Man (talk) 14:44, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Classification[edit]
  • “(including one that was previously considered an adult Avaceratops)” - Is this the same specimen as MOR 692, which you mentioned above? If so this second mention could probably be removed.
Yes, seems this happened when I copied an earlier deleted sentence in again. Removed that part. FunkMonk (talk) 18:19, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • “Dalman colleagues accompanying” - Should be Dalman and colleagues.
You're noticing a lot of bizarre mistakes everyone else missed... FunkMonk (talk) 15:43, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Surprisingly, yeah. Happens to the best of us! The Morrison Man (talk) 20:51, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • “Judith River Formation close to Nasutoceratops” - I’d change this towards ‘to be close to’ or ‘to be closely related to’, just for extra clarity.
Went with the former. FunkMonk (talk) 18:19, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • “of north and south of Laramidia” - Change this to either ‘of the north and south of Laramidia’ or ‘of northern and southern Laramidia’.
Took the latter. FunkMonk (talk) 18:19, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • “the northern centroaurines” - Fix typo.
Oof, fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 18:19, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • “north and south Laramidia” (x2) - I’d once again change these to northern and southern. It’s up to preference but I think it reads nicer.
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 18:19, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • “latitutudinally distributed” - Fix typo.
Ugh, done. FunkMonk (talk) 18:19, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • “found that this genus and other basal centrosaurines [...] to have lived” - Remove ‘that’ to fix sentence structure.
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 18:19, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • “fossil evidence indicated” - Should this not be present? ‘fossil evidence indicates’.
Changed, though since it is a past occurrence, I think past tense could work. FunkMonk (talk) 18:19, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Paleobiology[edit]
  • “suggested that the may” - Fix typo.
I'm not seeing this, perhaps sopmething that has been fixed since? FunkMonk (talk) 18:19, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to have been fixed in another edit, yeah. The Morrison Man (talk) 20:51, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • “(rarest of the three groups)” - Should there be an extra ‘the’ in front of rarest?
Added for good measure. FunkMonk (talk) 18:19, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Paleoenvironment[edit]
  • “were dominated by up to 30 m (98 ft) cypress trees” - Maybe change to ‘were dominated by cypress trees of up to 30 m (98 ft) tall’.
Went with "dominated by cypress trees up to 30 m (98 ft) tall" for this and the below. FunkMonk (talk) 18:19, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Works fine! The Morrison Man (talk) 20:51, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • “up to 10–20 m (33–66 ft) dicot trees” - Same as for the above comment. Maybe swap height around to the back and add ‘tall’.
As above. FunkMonk (talk) 18:19, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • “by conifers up to 30 m (98 ft)” - Again, same as previous two comments.
Added "tall", but the rest of the sentence is what you suggested to change the others to already, no? FunkMonk (talk) 18:19, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • “comprising cycads” - Change to ‘comprising of cycads’?
Changed, but note it will probably be changed back by a notorious editor:[28] FunkMonk (talk) 18:19, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh this one's new for me. Of all the crusades to go on... The Morrison Man (talk) 20:51, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

270 Park Avenue (1960–2021)[edit]

Nominator(s): Epicgenius (talk) 14:44, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a former skyscraper in New York City, known for its main tenants: the chemical company Union Carbide, and the financial firm Manufacturers Hanover (now JPMorgan Chase). It was never the tallest or most famous, but it became the tallest building to be demolished by its owners in 2019. Aside from that, it was once the world's tallest building that was mainly designed by a woman. The tower may not have looked unusual, but it was built above the tracks leading into Grand Central Terminal, requiring some interesting modifications to its structure.

This page became a Good Article two years ago after a Good Article review by Mike Christie, for which I am very grateful. I now think the page is now up to FA quality. I look forward to all comments and feedback. Epicgenius (talk) 14:44, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from PMC[edit]

Putting myself down here to comment. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:14, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All these done
  • No gripes through the lead and Site sections
Architecture to Form & facade
  • 2nd paragraph: I wish I knew the formal term for this, but it's written in a way that feels a bit like it starts at the end. First we learn that observers attributed the design to de Blois, then we learn that this is relevant because actually Bunshaft (side note, great name, I keep picturing bunnies in a mine shaft) took the credit. I might revise to start with Bunshaft presenting himself as the main designer, then give us the reveal about de Blois being the real brains
    • That mental picture is hilarious. But yeah, I've moved the second paragraph up to the first paragraph. I also moved the sentence about "Bunshaft claiming credit" to just after the first sentence. Epicgenius (talk) 14:28, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a side note, I'm not sure we need to attribute this to "several publications", as it appears to be fairly accepted
  • It might be nice to have another photo of the building in the Form and facade section, if there are any unused in the commons cat (or maybe move the one up from Structural features? It feels weirdly placed there)
    • I moved that image up. Unfortunately there are no free images of the interior or even the structural arrangement on Commons. Epicgenius (talk) 14:28, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It was also one of the last skyscrapers" not sure "also" is needed here
  • "There were 6,824 spandrels and glass panels on the facade" it's possible that I'm just writing this at 330 am but this reads ambiguously as to whether it's 6,824 spandrels and a corresponding 6,824 glass panels, or 6,824 items total, in some unknown combination.
    • Actually, that is the number of glass panels alone. Good catch - I've fixed it. Epicgenius (talk) 14:28, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Arbitrary break at Plazas
  • Para 1 under plazas goes from the sidewalk to the plaza size and flagpole then back to the sidewalk. I might rearrange somewhat - Plaza 44% of lot, containing a flagpole. It was paved with pink terrazo, similar to other bldg. Then go into the rest of what you have about the sidewalk stuff.
    • I've rearranged that paragraph to put the area first. Epicgenius (talk) 14:28, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link terrazzo?
  • Who's Jack G. Dunbar? Was he also with SOM?
  • "The entrance to the building was from two entrance halls" "entrance" twice here. Maybe just "the building had two entrance halls at ground level"?
  • File:Hirschl and Adler, business at 270 Park Ave., New York City. LOC gsc.5a21885.jpg might be of interest for the offices section
  • Do we know why Union wanted the offices to be rearrangeable that fast? Seems like a weird requirement
    • I have no idea (the sources don't say). I assume that in case an employee left Union Carbide (or was fired), the company wanted a new hire to be able to use the office as soon as possible. Epicgenius (talk) 14:28, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
History to Sale
  • Threatening is such a fun word here! Why did they threaten this, and why did they change their minds?
    • The company wanted to provide additional space for its staff, and they felt a suburban headquarters was the best way to do this; at the time, many companies were moving their HQs outside NYC. I'm not exactly sure why this plan was abandoned, though, as the sources don't say. Epicgenius (talk) 13:59, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Since you later mentioned in the article that this was part of a trend, maybe you could include that in this sentence to contextualize? Support not contingent on this, just a thought. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:39, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I might flip the order of "Train service was..." and the following sentence.
  • "Union Carbide had initially planned" and then later in the sentence you have "planned" again
  • "moved from the building" maybe "moved out of" or "left the building"?
  • "into the former magazine offices" I might go with "the magazine's former offices", right now "magazine" sounds like it's an adjective modifying offices, which made me briefly wonder "what is a magazine office" before I realized
    • Oops, I didn't even realize that this phrase could be confusing. I've fixed it. Epicgenius (talk) 13:59, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any idea why the Puerto Rican nationalists bombed this building specifically?
    • They wanted the US government to free political prisoners and recognize PR as an independent country. FALN was responsible for dozens of bombings in NYC around that time; they sought to attract attention to their cause by bombing banks and large corporations' headquarters. This was one of five buildings they targeted on that date. Epicgenius (talk) 13:59, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ah okay so not really specific. Maybe mention it was one of five targeted? Right now it kind of implies they picked on 270 Park specifically for some reason
  • "quality-of-life concerns" relating to the building specifically or NYC in general?
    • In NYC in general. Epicgenius (talk) 13:59, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • May want to clarify that but I won't fight if you like it as is
Manufacturers Hanover & Demolition
  • Not mandatory, but as 383 Madison was first linked way up under "Site", I think you could squeeze in a duplicate link here
  • "SL Green Realty proposed that JPMorgan Chase swap" why?
    • The source doesn't say, but I suspect it might have something to do with SL Green wanting the air rights, as that company has previously proposed the same thing with other buildings. Epicgenius (talk) 13:59, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "had denied a request" should just be "denied a request" I think
  • "declined to consider protecting" this reads like there's two stages to this process. 1) accepting buildings for consideration and 2) actually considering and either protecting or not. Is that correct?
    • Yes, that's correct. The LPC has to first agree to host a public hearing on whether a building should be designated; the process of scheduling a hearing is called "calendaring". After the public hearing, the LPC can vote on whether to designate the building as a landmark. Epicgenius (talk) 13:59, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Gotcha
  • "An LPC spokesperson said that several buildings by SOM were already landmarks" is it fairly typical for them to decline for this reason?
    • No. Generally, the LPC doesn't refuse to designate landmarks just because the same architect designed another city landmark. However, this building is part of the Midtown East rezoning district. If I recall correctly, the LPC had previously indicated that it would not designate any more buildings in this district after 2016, as the city wanted to encourage new development in the area. I think the architect explanation was merely an excuse for the LPC's refusal to designate any more buildings in Midtown East. Epicgenius (talk) 13:59, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Curbed described..." when
Impact
  • Might link Seagram Building and Lever House here for similar reasons to 383 Madison
  • Link Architectural Forum
  • While most people through the article seem to have false titles, you've got a couple instances in this section where people have the "the", such as "The author Eric Nash" and "The architect Annabelle Selldorf". It should be consistent one way or another, I think.
    • I've added "the" before the false titles for consistency. Epicgenius (talk) 13:59, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No concerns with sources skimmed for the above points. That's the end of me here. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:29, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Premeditated Chaos: Thanks for the review. I've addressed all of your above points now. Epicgenius (talk) 13:59, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Happy to support another fantastic article. Good work! ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:42, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
SC.
  • A marker for now. Will be here shortly. - SchroCat (talk) 22:19, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Site
  • a six-building complex": per WP:NUMBERS this should be "6-building", given the use of digits in other references nearby
    • I've changed it, though I'm not quite satisfied with the wording. The guideline says that "integers from zero to nine are spelled out in words", and that might apply here. Epicgenius (talk) 15:44, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It also says that you shouldn't mix numerals and written out numbers - that's the bit I'm trying to get right. - SchroCat (talk) 17:47, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Form and facade
  • "Measuring 707 ft (215 m) tall,[22][23][24]": Do we need three references for this one figure?
    • No, we do not. I've removed one of them. Emporis and Skyscraper Center sometimes disagree on figures, but since they agree on the height here, I've retained these two. Epicgenius (talk) 15:44, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Construction
  • "it was the highest heavy object to be hoisted": I think the grammar has gone a little awry here – and if we could find away to avoid the alliteration, that would also be better
    • It took me ten minutes to come up with a suitable wording for this one. This particular heavy object was lifted 707 feet, and no other similarly heavy object had been lifted to a higher altitude above ground. I went with "no other heavy object had been hoisted to a higher altitude". Epicgenius (talk) 15:44, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Completion
  • "which were home to over 4,000 employees". No it wasn't: they went home after spending the day here, in the office (plus WP:IDIOM)
    • I have fixed this. I forgot that this was idiomatic (I was writing an article about an apartment building at around the same time, so it slipped my mind). Epicgenius (talk) 15:44, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support All good from me. - SchroCat (talk) 17:47, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ippantekina[edit]

To review soon. Ippantekina (talk) 10:39, 11 March 2024 (UTC) Sorry but I cannot commit unfortunately; real life schedules hit hard... I think it's best to strike this to avoid mismanagement of expectations. I wish you all the best with this FAC nonetheless! Cheers, Ippantekina (talk) 06:49, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, thanks for the heads up. – Epicgenius (talk) 17:29, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Suggest adding alt text
  • File:Hirschl_and_Adler,_business_at_270_Park_Ave.,_New_York_City._LOC_gsc.5a21885.jpg: when and where was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:35, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the image review. I'll take a look at the alt text shortly. For the second image, I removed it - apparently, this image dates from 1953, which means it wasn't even an image of this building, but one of the Hotel Marguery. – Epicgenius (talk) 20:17, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've now added alt text. – Epicgenius (talk) 15:07, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

Spot-check upon request. Is Intelligencer the same as The Intelligencer (Doylestown, Pennsylvania)? Don't think that newspapers usually get an ISSN? Is "Broadcasting, Telecasting" a reliable source? archpaper isn't a website, but a magazine, so it should mention the magazine's name. Who is the publisher of Skidmore, Owings & Merrill? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:24, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a look. I'll get to these on Thursday, but the Intelligencer is Intelligencer (website), published by New York magazine. Broadcasting, Telecasting is actually the former name of Broadcasting & Cable magazine, a trade magazine. – Epicgenius (talk) 23:50, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've fixed the other issues now:
  • I added the publisher of the SOM book.
  • I removed the ISSNs, as all three of these newspapers are well known.
  • I changed the The Architect's Newspaper cite.
– Epicgenius (talk) 20:17, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1921 Centre vs. Harvard football game[edit]

Nominator(s): PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 23:31, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

After surprising many by simply being competitive the year prior, the football team from tiny Centre College returned to Boston for a rematch with football giants Harvard in October 1921. Led by star quarterback Bo McMillin, the "Praying Colonels" shocked the sports world by winning 6–0, a victory considered by many to be one of the greatest in college football history. After the game, a Centre professor remarked that Harvard had been poisoned by the organic compound "C6H0", giving the game a name that has stuck to this day. This article was super fun to rewrite and I look forward to any and all comments it receives. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 23:31, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

  • Wikilink "rushed" and "touchdown" in the lead
  • Wikilink American football on the first use in the body
  • Wikilink Harvard on the first use in the body
  • Wikilink shutout on first use
  • Wikilink rushing and passing on first uses in body
  • "Centre was [singular] praised for its [singular] resiliency and for their [plural] unwillingness" - some grammatical disagreement here
    • Resolved by removing "for their" PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 05:37, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "also an umpire for the National League" => "also an umpire for baseball's National League" for clarity
    • Added as recommended. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 05:37, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link all the positions in the sentence starting "The starting offensive line" and the ones thereafter. I personally don't have a clue what any of them mean so links would be beneficial
    • Got a little sloppy here with linking, thank you for pointing this out. Added. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 05:37, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • What are a "varsity squad" and a "freshmen team"? Are there suitable links?
    • A varsity team is the school's first-choice team, and a freshman team is just a team composed of first-year college students (since Harvard, at the time, did not allow college freshmen on its top-level football team. Varsity team link has been added and Freshman team redirects to Varsity team#Junior varsity so I've added that, and tweaked a few words here and there. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 05:37, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Daily Messenger image caption does not need a full stop as it isn't a complete sentence
  • "and all around Danville students painted the so-called "impossible formula"," - I think "and Danville students painted the so-called "impossible formula", all around" would read more elegantly
    • the intended meaning was "students painted the formula all around Danville", not "Danville students" - never occurred to me that this was a confusing way to word that. Fixed so it's clear what I'm trying to say here. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 05:37, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A third game had been proposed" - a third game between Harvard and Centre? The sentence isn't completely clear
  • That's what I got Great work! I know basically nothing about American football and I was able to follow the article well -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:16, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @ChrisTheDude Thank you for the time and comments as always Chris! Everything above has been taken care of. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 05:38, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:14, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Web/newspaper source check support by CactiStaccingCrane[edit]

Not so fast! Will review this article tomorrow. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 16:49, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewing this version, spot check one citation for every three. Skipping sources that I don't have access, would love to have someone else checking book sources:

  • 1: OK
  • 4: OK. Even though the source didn't say "Tournament East-West Football Game" explicitly, it is reasonable to assume that it mentions that game because the description in the newspaper largely matches with our Wikipedia article.
  • 6: Primary source, in order: a: OK, b: OK, c: cannot verify
    • 6c only covers the portion of the sentence that says Harvard had not been scored on in their first four games, using the scores in the schedule. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 02:58, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 7: OK
  • 12: cannot verify, please give me the quote for the citation
    • I will have access to this source again on Saturday - as soon as I'm back with the book I will give you the quote. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 02:58, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • @CactiStaccingCrane: sorry, for some reason I saw it wrong and thought this was the book cite above it. I removed brought the team success since that was a little interpretative on my part; the newspaper source for the remaining bit uses a portion under the header "All-America football teams chosen by Camp", which has "Weaver, Centre" and "McMillin, Centre" listed under "First eleven" and "Roberts, Centre" listed under "Third eleven". I can reproduce the whole table for you if you like but those are the only bits that I used. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 20:23, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 14: OK

By this point I have to acknowledge that I don't have access to books listed, but a source check on them should be performed to ensure verifiability. PCN02WPS, it would be great if you could ask somebody with access to perform a book source check.

@CactiStaccingCrane: I don't know of anyone specifically that has access - I am more than happy to provide quotes from book sources to any reviewer, however. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 22:13, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 17: OK, OK
  • 20: OK
  • 24: OK, but I prefer that the clipping is smaller.
  • 28: Primary source. OK. The source said "At Harvard the cage-men evened up the defeat suffered on the gridiron last fall by gaining a 41-36 victory over the Crimson". The sentence should be a bit less ambiguous though.
    • Where does the ambiguity come in? Perhaps I'm blind to it but I'm having a hard time seeing it. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 16:07, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 32: Seemingly OK, but limited access to the excerpt only
    • Yeah, I don't have NYT access so there's not much I can do about that (unless an editor that does have a subscription wants to lend a hand)
  • 36: Is "heaped 40 points" here in the first or second half?
    • I'm fairly confident it's the first half - I think all it's saying is Centre scored 40 before they took out their starters, and they got to 60 (a mistake on my part that I have fixed) before halftime. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 16:07, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 37: OK, OK, OK
  • 40: OK
  • 45: OK, OK, OK, OK. I prefer that you use {{rp}} to give more specific page number citations. It's not really vital in this case but it is a healthy habit to use it.
  • 58: Uh... with this huge clipping I have no idea where to verify the information. This seems to be a recurring problem with this article. You should either make the clipping smaller or use |at= template parameter to denote the sub-section names.
    • Sorry, for some reason I had it in my head that I had to clip the entire story instead of just the relevant parts. Fixed that; the relevant information here is near the bottom. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 16:07, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 61: OK
  • 66 (huge source): OK, OK, OK, suggest removal in favor of the other source, OK, OK, OK, OK, OK, cannot verify, OK, OK, OK in footnote.
    • Removed fourth use as recommended; the bit about Covington uses this quote: Centre lost five yards and Covington replaced Captain Armstrong at left half back for Centre. It's in the last paragraph of the "Third Quarter" section. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 16:07, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 75: Again, the clipping is way too large. I literally cannot find the info on the page. See above
  • 78: OK
  • 84: OK
  • 91: OK

(skipping similar contemporary sources, moving to modern sources)

  • 99: Primary source. I prefer to see the original source of the news.
    • I think the ESPN list itself is offline but I replaced the Centre source with a clipping of the newspaper story that's quoted in the Centre source. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 16:07, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 101: OK, OK
  • 104: OK, OK
  • 106: OK, OK
  • 110: OK
  • 113: OK

I would say that the references need work on being more specific. Other than that, I see that there is only minor issues with source-text integrity. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 12:57, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@CactiStaccingCrane Thank you for taking the time to look through these - everything above has been fixed or responded to! PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 16:08, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alright. This FAC receives a support in web/newspaper source check. Another book source check would be ideal but unfortunately I am very busy so I won't be the one that do it. If you want, you can help perform a source check at my Mars Society nomination. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 16:10, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Btw, I first knew about Centre College from this match 2 years ago :) CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 16:11, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment[edit]

Three weeks in and just the single general support. Unless this nomination makes significant further progress towards a consensus to promote over the next three or four days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:07, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt[edit]

I vaguely remember reading about this game as a kid, what stands out in my memory is declining the game ball after the first loss, pledging to be back the following year.
  • Wouldn't you refer to the location of the stadium as "Boston" rather than "Allston"?
  • I'd like to see your view on notability of this as an individual game per WP:SPORTSEVENT. \
    • I believe this game falls qualifies as extraordinary with a lasting impact on the sport; even into the twenty-first century, it still receives coverage as one of the greatest upsets in football/sporting history. The news coverage it received spanned from days/weeks before the game to days/weeks afterwards in papers around the country, and it was detailed in publications and books for the following 150 years. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 22:06, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could we get a little more info on how it was that a small place like Centre College was a major football powerhouse at the time.
    • I tried to add a bit of emphasis that it was mainly the players that Myers was able to bring over, but if you think this isn't apparent enough I can try something else. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 22:06, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we have any article that lists these pre-NCAA national champions?
  • "during which span" I would cut "span"
  • "was a matchup with Penn State, which they played to a 21–21 tie" I would add "in" before "which".
  • Was there press coverage in anticipation of the game? Both in Kentucky and Boston? Game predictions?
    • I have in the first paragraph of "Game summary" that Harvard was favored to win with 3-to-1 odds; I have added some more about this and some about the press coverage in the buildup to the game. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 21:45, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "followed the blocking of Roberts" I imagine from context that Roberts blocked ahead of the ball carrier on this play but it could be made clearer.
    • Reworded to clarify this. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 21:45, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did the MIT students root for Centre, as I'd expect them too?
    • Indeed they did. Clarified this. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 21:45, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Game analysis: I see some indication in the papers that the Harvard starters who did not play were injured, is that so?
  • Fair Park Stadium. Consider a link to Cotton Bowl (stadium)#History which at least mentions the previous stadium.
That's it.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:00, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Wehwalt: Thank you for the review! Everything has been addressed/responded to. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 22:07, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good then. Support Wehwalt (talk) 01:40, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review from Dylan620[edit]

  • All images used in the article are categorically PD because they were published in the United States over 95 years ago.
  • All images add encyclopedic value to the article. I like the final image of "C6H0" spray-painted on the side of a building - having been taken earlier this year, it demonstrates the lasting legacy of this game.
  • Suitably descriptive alt text is present throughout, solely excepting the lack of alt text for the poster in the infobox; however, this is a case where any alt text would probably be redundant to the caption.
  • Support on images. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 19:08, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I note with some embarrassment that I had missed the lack of page numbers on some of these images, but I've taken it upon myself to fix this issue over at Commons (see my recent edits there), so this should still be good to go on the image front. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 19:37, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Dylan620 Thanks for the review! Thank you for adding the page numbers, I appreciate it. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 19:46, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RecycledPixels[edit]

I will review this article. RecycledPixels (talk) 22:09, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewing this version of the article. I'm familiar with American Football, but don't have much knowledge of College Football, so I'm approaching this as a typical reader unfamiliar with the sport would view it.

Lead

  • I'm a heavy user of the mouseover-the-bluelink method on Wikipedia to get a quick glance of what a wikilinked article is about when I encounter an unfamiliar term. The hover only shows the first few sentences of the linked article, which makes it super important to pack in the most important parts of the summary in the first few sentences. In this article, I'm happy with the first two sentences of the lead paragraph, but then it veers off into a discussion about the previous year's contest without answering the question of why this game matters. I'd like to see statements from the second paragraph like "Centre's defeat of Harvard is widely considered one of the greatest upsets in college football history" and "The game is often referred to by the shorthand C6H0; this originated shortly after the game when a Centre professor remarked that Harvard had been poisoned by this "impossible" chemical formula." appear much earlier in the lead as part of an overall summary before getting into specifics of the previous year's game and the details of this year's game, hopefully close enough to the beginning to get those two facts, or shortened versions of them, into the hover-text.
    • Reworked the lead into three paragraphs, keeping the first paragraph to more relevant information for the whole of the article as recommended. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 16:27, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • The revised lead is a big improvement. It introduced a couple of issues. RecycledPixels (talk) 23:21, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • The teams had played for the first time the year prior; Centre, led by Charley Moran, shocked many by taking a tie into halftime but ultimately Bob Fisher's Harvard squad took control in the second half and won the game. Change the semicolon to a period.
      • The conversion failed but the Centre defense held for the remainder of the game; Harvard threatened and even reached the Centre 3-yard line at one point but were unable to score. Change the semicolon to a period.
      • Their lone defeat came on January 2, 1922, to Texas A&M in the Dixie Classic, leaving them with a 10–1 record to finish the season. It's fairly clear that "Their" is referring to Centre, but since Centre and Arizona were both mentioned in the previous sentence, change "Their" to "Centre's".

Background:Recent years

  • Harvard finished their 1919 season with an undefeated record; they did not allow a point to be scored against them for the first six games of the season, until a 10–10 tie with Princeton. "Undefeated record" links (via redirect) to perfect season, with a hover-text that says "A perfect season is a sports season, including any requisite playoff portion, in which a team remains and finishes undefeated and untied." but then the rest of the sentence mentions the 10-10 tie with Princeton, so that's probably not a good wikilink to use.
  • and were retroactively named outright national champions by two selectors. I don't know what selectors are. Can you briefly explain the term in the article, or at least provide a wikilink? The term is used again in the next sentence about how only one selector chose them and the majority chose California instead. I don't understand what that means.
    • Added a bit explaining the selector system as best I can (it's tough, as well, because the NCAA didn't exist back then, nor did a real concept of a "national champion") PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 16:27, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • They went on to win the Tournament East-West Football Game against Oregon, 7–6, and were retroactively named outright national champions by two selectors; since there has never been an entity which has awarded a single definitive national championship in college football, the NCAA recognizes the retroactive picks of numerous national championship "selectors", who use different methods to determine their choice for a national champion. That ended up becoming quite a long sentence. But I still don't know what a "selector" is. Is it an individual, a publication, an elected body of representatives of various schools, sanctioning bodies, a poll of the general public, or what? How many of these selectors were there? RecycledPixels (talk) 23:21, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The team rebounded with a 7–1 campaign in 1917, earning shutouts in every win, Can you simply the wording of that, perhaps replacing shutout with a more understandable description of not allowing any of their opponents to score any points against them?
    • Maybe this is just from my perspective as a sports fan, but I think "shutout" is easy enough to understand as is, especially since it's a fairly simple concept and the explanation is given in the first sentence of its article, which is easily visible in its hover-text. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 16:27, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's not a sticking point for me, it's just that I think that the tone of writing of an encyclopedia entry would be different from the tone you'd find in a sports publication or news report, which is probably what a lot of the sources for this article end up being. After you spend so much time focusing on those sources, they become second nature to you and people who regularly read those reports. Some of what I do in real life involves translating highly technical jargon into something that somebody's 85-year-old grandmother could understand, so I realize that the process is challenging. RecycledPixels (talk) 23:21, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • All three players were named All-Americans by Walter Camp. I'm unfamiliar with who Walter Camp was, and the article hover-text didn't mention anything about his publishing a list of All-American teams until I eventually clicked through to that article and found it in the second paragraph of the lead. Can you rephrase the sentence, either to explain that Walter Camp was a widely respected sports writer who was recognized as the official selector in the early years of the 20th century (from the College Football All-America Team article) or something like that?
  • Centre finished the 1919 season undefeated and untied and were retroactively recognized by one selector, Jeff Sagarin, as the season's national champions. In the previous paragraph, Harvard was named national champions of the 1919 season by two selectors. Again, I'm confused about what these selectors are, and why there are multiple teams who are national champions.
    • Hoping this is cleared up by the earlier bit about selectors; if not, I'll see what I can do to make it easier to understand. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 16:27, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • They attracted attention with their win over West Virginia in November 1919; the Mountaineers had defeated Princeton in a shutout the week before and went on to finish the season 8–2 I had to hover over the West Virginia wikilink to find out who the Mountaineers were, but I don't know why defeating Princeton the week before was important. I'm assuming Princeton was a good team at the time, but this can use some clarification. Another use of shutout which could possibly be rephrased to make the article easier to understand by non-sports fans.
    • Added a note about Princeton being a Big Three school and one of the better CFB programs of the day. See above regarding the use of "shutout". PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 16:27, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Centre won a further eight games in 1920, capping the season with a 56-point win over TCU in the Fort Worth Classic MOS:CLICHE for "capping the season".
    • Changed to "and ended the season". PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 16:27, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • he went with former Harvard halfback Eddie Mahan to scout the Colonels. Earlier, the team was identified as the "Centre Praying Colonels". The article on the team seems to shorten the team name to the "Praying Colonels" as well as "Colonels" but when I was reading this article I had to go back and figure out what team was being scouted because the article had generally been referring to the football team as "Centre" up to this point.
    • The use of a team's nickname alone to refer to the team is very commonplace in college athletics, including football; I used "the Crimson" to refer to Harvard in the (now) second paragraph of the lead. I tend to use both the name and nickname when talking about a team to avoid letting the article get too repetitive in that aspect. I am very open to suggestions, of course, in the way of making the article more easily understood but I am hesitant to change uses of "Colonels" to "Centre", if that is what you suggest. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 16:27, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Being unfamiliar enough with College Football, I tend to prefer that a team's name remain constant throughout the article because it's easier to keep track. Whether it's Centre, the Colonels, or the Praying Colonels. I glanced at 1998 NFC Championship Game, another featured article about American Football, and I note that each time a team was mentioned the first time, the city and the team name were used together ("Minnesota Vikings", "Atlanta Falcons", etc.) and each subsequent mention consistently only used the team name ("Vikings", "Falcons") and never mentioned any team by the name of the city alone. However, 2005 Sugar Bowl, another football article, switches back and forth between referring to the teams by their team name and their college name. So there does not appear to have an MOS standard, just editor preference. I think the 1998 NFC Championship Game is easier to follow. I also tried to look for general style guidelines on the Internet and did not find anything to help, but the SABR Style guide appeared to have the most complete guidance. RecycledPixels (talk) 23:21, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Out of time for today, I'll continue tomorrow. RecycledPixels (talk) 22:53, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@RecycledPixels: Everything above has been taken care of or responded to! PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 16:27, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Still using the same revision as above, although by the time I finished this, additional edits had been made to the article which I have not yet seen.

Background: 1920 meeting

  • "the scoring machine of the football universe" by The Dayton Herald after totaling 241 points in their first three games combined less clunky to phrase it as something like "scored a total of 241 points" rather than using "total" as a verb.
    • I used "totaling" to avoid repetition of the word "scoring" - if you think use of "totaling" detracts from the reader's ability to understand, I can figure out another wording to use. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 20:26, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • I still like my suggestion, but it's not going to hold anything up if you disagree with me. RecycledPixels (talk) 23:21, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Attendance was estimated to have been at least 37,000 people (and was reported to have been closer to 40,000 or even 45,000); ticket sales were stopped the night before when the contest sold out and as many as 10,000 potential attendees were turned away at the gates. I'm confused by this sentence for a few reasons. The first, is a minor nitpick about the use of the passive voice "was estimated to have been" which doesn't say who was making the estimation. If it was the ticket office that made the estimate, I would assume they knew how many tickets were sold, but if it was a reporter in the stands trying to eyeball the crowd, I'd want to know who was making that estimation, especially since there were so many wildly varying estimates. Next, the Harvard Stadium article's infobox stated that between 1904 and 1928, the stadium had a capacity of 42,000, so I don't understand how there could have been estimates of 45,000 spectators, or how 10,000 people would have been turned away if there were 37,000 spectators. Finally, it doesn't really make clear if the people who were turned away were people who were just trying to buy tickets, or if they were people who had been sold tickets but refused entry, and if it was the latter, why was the stadium so oversold?
    • The 37,000 figure comes from The Dayton Herald, which uses a similar wording: "it was conservatively estimated that no less than 37,000 persons would witness the game." Added them into the sentence, removed the 40k figure, split the sentence in two, and added "as a result" to clarify that the people were turned away because they couldn't get tix after the game sold out. As for the capacity of the stadium, I don't know whether they sold general admission tickets or standing room or what their solution was, but then again I have no idea what it was like to buy a football ticket and attend a game in 1921 (as cool as that would be). It is not unheard of, though, for the attendance of a game to exceed the stadium's seating capacity, so I assume that's what happened. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 20:26, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ticket sales were stopped the night before when the contest sold out[21] and as many as 10,000 potential attendees were turned away at the gates as a result. Move reference from the middle of the sentence to the end. RecycledPixels (talk) 23:21, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Minor, and totally optional nitpick, not limited to this section but I just noticed it. I like how nearly every sentence is cited. It makes keeping the attribution easier when editors come along later and add uncited material in the middle of cited material. To keep the visual appearance of the article cleaner without repeating footnotes appearing all over the place, consider the advice given at WP:OVERCITE: "If consecutive sentences are supported by the same reference, and that reference's inline citation is placed at the end of the paragraph as described at WP:CITETYPE, an editor may want to consider using Wikipedia's hidden text syntax <!-- --> to place hidden ref name tags at the end of each sentence. Doing so may benefit others adding material to that paragraph in the future. If that happens, they can uncomment the hidden citations and switch to citing references after every sentence. Having hidden citations could cause confusion, especially among inexperienced editors, so the approach is strictly optional and should be used cautiously."
  • The Praying Colonels surprised many simply by taking a 14–14 tie into halftime. Why "simply"?
    • I have removed this; I think my intention was to stress that the very fact that they were tied was the surprising part, rather than the score or something else, but I think that meaning still comes through without the extra word. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 20:26, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Harvard scored one touchdown in each quarter, adding a field goal in the third quarter, and held Centre scoreless in the second half to finish 31–14 winners.. Awkwardly worded, how about "... to win the game 31-14" instead?
    • Changed as recommended, though without "the game". PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 20:26, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • McMillin finished the game having tallied 151 rushing yards and 131 passing. Needs "yards" after passing. McMillin needs to be identified further, since he was only introduced in the previous section, and only by name, and what position he plays was never identified. In this sentence, it is not clear which team he was playing for.
    • Added a bit indicating he was the QB for Centre. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 20:26, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • During the game, Harvard used nine of its substitutes while Centre used three. That needs explaining, since when I watch football, I see substitutions happening all the time. Were there rule differences back then that limited the number of substitutes in a game, like soccer, or was it just not done, or what. Were those substitutions due to injury, fatigue, or a change in strategy?
    • Football is fundamentally different today than it was 100 years ago, so any modern-day game will be a poor standard of comparison (both with regard to rules and athletic ability) for any game in this era. Your question is a good one that I cannot answer unfortunately - the source only lists the names of the substitutes but doesn't give any reasons as to why they were brought on. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 20:26, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Boston Globe described the game as the most interesting to watch as had ever been played in Harvard Stadium The wording isn't identified as a quote from the source, but the way it's worded sounds like that early-20th century style of twisted writing that seemed to be so popular. Since it's not a direct quote, can you make its meaning easier to understand by changing it to something simpler like "described the game as one of the most interesting games ever played in Harvard Stadium" or something like that?
    • Good catch, I guess that's what happens when you read too much 1920s sports journalism. Simplified the wording a bit. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 20:26, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Centre was praised for its resiliency and unwillingness to give up; after the game, the Harvard team hosted Centre's team, coaches, and president for dinner. Another minor nitpick about the passive voice and not identifying who was praising Centre. The sentence seems to be made up of two fairly unrelated items, is a semicolon really appropriate here, or should it just be broken into two sentences?
    • Broke sentence, attributed the first bit. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 20:26, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Despite this loss, Centre was still seen as a strong team; the southern football historian Fuzzy Woodruff said that they entered their next game against Georgia Tech as an "unbeatable team",[26] though Centre ultimately lost this game 24–0. More passive voice. The use of "the southern football historian Fuzzy Woodruff" tripped me up, perhaps because of "the". Wikilink Fuzzy Woodruff, maybe simplify his title as "football historian Fuzzy Woodruff" since I'm not sure southern is really relevant. Who was calling Centre an unbeatable team? Was it Woodruff as a sportswriter, or was it someone else? If it was Woodruff, he should be identified as a sportswriter instead of a historian, but if it was someone else, then Woodruff isn't really relevant here and who wrote it should be mentioned instead.
    • Somehow never thought to see if he had his own article; modified southern football historian to sportswriter, though I am choosing to leave in "the" to avoid a false title. I tried to express that Woodruff's opinion was being presented without making it sound like WP's voice. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 20:26, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • McMillin and captain Norris Armstrong played basketball for Centre in the offseason, during which the Colonels defeated Harvard by five points. How relevant is this?
    • I included it because it was another Centre–Harvard game including some of the same players as the football games, which in my mind shows that the Centre vs. Harvard "rivalry" of the early '20s was not limited to football exclusively. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 20:26, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • McMillin was made a Kentucky Colonel by governor Edwin P. Morrow around the same time. The timeframe is vague here, can it be more specific? I assume it refers to the basketball game, but it doesn't mention if the honor was bestowed upon him as a result of the football game, or as an athlete in general. If it's not specific to the football game, I'd question its relevance in this article.
    • The source says that the honor was given to him in "Spring 1921", which I would use in the article if I could. Instead, I tried to express that it was early-ish in the year, closer to basketball season than football season for sure. The source doesn't give a specific reason why he was given the award. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 20:26, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Background: Starting the 1921 season

  • Centre defeated VPI at home by the same score the following week[34] before traveling to Cincinnati to take on St. Xavier College, a 28–6 Centre win.[35] The placement of reference 34 in the middle of the sentence is awkward and disrupts the flow, move to the end of the sentence.
  • The Harvard game was their third consecutive road game and Centre entered with a 4–0 record "their" as a pronoun is not immediately clear since the previous sentence mentions both Centre and The Transylvania Crimsons and this sentence also mentions Harvard. It's probably technically ok, but I had to reread it a few times to understand the meaning.
    • Clarified. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 20:26, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • The Harvard game was Centre's third consecutive road game and Centre entered with a 4–0 record. How about replacing the second use of "Centre" in the sentence with "the team" or something like that? RecycledPixels (talk) 23:21, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The last of Harvard's four consecutive shutout victories came against Indiana by a nineteen-point margin, though they continued their winning ways against Georgia the following week by a score of 10–7. I'm not sure why "though" is used here, which generally means "but". Maybe drop the "though" and break it into two sentences.
    • Changed "though" to "and". PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 20:26, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Centre–Harvard matchup captivated media attention in the weeks leading up to the game; on October 21, Boston Post reporter Howard Reynolds arrived in Danville. Probably better to split this into two sentences rather than use a semicolon.
  • During the buildup numerous publications assigned reporters to Boston, including the... needs a comma after buildup.

Players and personnel

  • Harvard started two halfbacks: Francis Rouillard was on the left, and Vinton Chapin on the right. Grammatically correct, but would flow better as "Harvard started two halfbacks; Francis Rouillard on the left, and Vinton Chapin on the right"
    • I removed the comma and "was" to try to make it flow better. I feel like the colon works because I'm listing the halfbacks, rather than talking about some kinda-related other thing. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 20:27, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Game Summary

  • He was assisted by a crew of three other officials: umpire W. R. Crowley, linesman J. J. Tigert, and field judge W. G. Crowell; Maxwell and Crowell, both from Swarthmore College, had also been part of the officiating crew for the Centre–Harvard game the year prior. Replace the semicolon with a period to break this long sentence into two sentences.
  • Entering the contest, sportswriters and pundits gave Harvard 3-to-1 odds to win, though some felt that Centre had a better chance to win than they had the year prior, especially given their improved line play. Explain what "improved line play" is to the reader.
  • Tickets sold for $2 apiece (equivalent to $34 in 2023); the game was sold out and attendance was expected to be around 45,000 people. Replace the semicolon with a period and break this into two sentences.
    • Changed as recommended. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 20:26, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • The game was sold out and attendance was expected to be around 45,000 people. The game began at 2:30 p.m. ET. The second use of "the game" could be changed to something else, like "the match", or similar synonym. RecycledPixels (talk) 23:21, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Centre won the coin toss and chose to defend the north goal. Coin toss is wikilinked to coin flipping which would not adequately explain the context of why football teams are flipping coins to someone unfamiliar with the sport, including the fact that they elected to receive the opening kickoff as a result.
    • I don't know that there is an appropriate link to replace it, unfortunately. I'm not really willing to explain that a football game starts with a coin toss and what consequences of said toss are on this article since that seems a little off-topic and very specific about something not specifically related to this game. If you have suggestions for how to remedy this I'm open to them. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 20:26, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • The 2005 Sugar Bowl article phrases it as "Following the ceremonial pre-game coin toss, Auburn elected to kick off to Virginia Tech to begin the game, ensuring the Tigers would have possession to begin the second half." 1998 NFC Championship Game uses "The Falcons won the coin toss before the game and elected to receive the opening kickoff." 2000 Sugar Bowl uses "Actor John Goodman performed the ceremonial pre-game coin toss to determine first possession of the ball. Florida State won the coin toss and elected to kick off to Virginia Tech to begin the game." 2006 Gator Bowl uses "Virginia Tech won the ceremonial pre-game coin toss to select first possession and deferred its option to the second half; Louisville elected to receive the opening kick." RecycledPixels (talk) 23:21, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Harvard was unable to capitalize on the miscue and punted; Centre reached the Harvard 11-yard line by the end of the third quarter. Eliminate the semicolon and split into two sentences.
  • Centre's ensuing drive ended with a turnover after McMillin's pass fell incomplete in the end zone; under the rules in place at the time, this resulted in a touchback rather than a simple incomplete pass, and Harvard took the ball on its own 20-yard line. Eliminate the semicolon and split into two sentences.
  • General comment about the game; There seemed to be a lot of missed kicks in this game but that might have just been how games were played, or it could have been a result of bad weather or bad field conditions, for example. Was that normal at the time?
    • From reading recaps of the game, the weather and field seemed to be good, so it likely was not a result of either. I'm guessing it was just a byproduct of the fact that kickers then weren't as good as they are now, so comparing 1921 kickers to 2023 kickers gives the impression that the former must have had something preventing him from performing better when in reality the comparison isn't really fair. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 20:26, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Around ten thousand fans descended from the stands and gathered on the field after the game, including students from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, in support of Centre, who tore down the goal posts. A long sentence that could probably be broken up to improve readability. A reader unfamiliar with the sport would probably be confused about why the Centre team tore down the stadium's goal posts.
    • Broke this sentence up and clarified that the MIT students (who were attending the game to support Centre) were the ones that tore the goalposts down. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 20:26, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aftermath:Game analysis

  • Centre surprised sportswriters with its own offensive plan, involving far more rushing and fewer passes than were expected, in spite of their fewer numbers and smaller size, though this was intentional as Centre had intended to conceal some of the more elaborate parts of their gameplan until the second half so as to avoid giving Harvard the opportunity to make adjustments at halftime. This is a very long sentence that should be split up.
    • Holy crap that's about six commas too many PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 20:53, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • McMillin, in his own analysis of the game, complemented the performance of his offense; he praised the offensive lineman as "heroes" and said that "no better blockers ever played football". Eliminate the semicolon and split into two sentences.

Aftermath:Immediate impact and reactions

  • Once the game ended, McMillin was carried off of the field on the shoulders of fans. I understand the context here, and this is another nitpick, but this should probably be clarified that this was a celebration, and that he wasn't carried off because he was injured or unable to walk due to exhausion or other issues.
  • the Centre team was met by large crowds, as they had during much of both of their visits to Harvard Reword to eliminate clunkiness.
    • Changed "much of both of their visits" to "their previous visit". PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 20:53, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • After the game, Harvard coach Bob Fisher said "In Bo McMillin Centre has a man who is probably the hardest in the country to stop." Needs a comma before the quote. Needs a comma after "McMillin" within the quote as well.
    • Added first comma. I am more hesitant about adding punctuation to a direct quote however. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 20:53, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's an Associated Press wire article, and the ommission of the comma from the quote was a mistake on the part of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, which was used as the source in this case. Look at other newspapers that use that article, such as the Hartford Courant (page 6Z, or page 42 on Newspapers.com for Sun Oct. 30, 1921). They include the comma. It was likely a quote of a spoken statement by Fisher, so it should have the comma. RecycledPixels (talk) 23:21, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Centre team returned to Danville on October 31 and were greeted by a homecoming party which included Governor Morrow, the Danville chamber of commerce,[81] the superintendent of education,[29] and 10,000 citizens. Citizens is an unusual word to use in this context, perhaps "local residents", "fans", or something like that? Chamber of Commerce should be capitalized. per MOS:PEOPLETITLES, Superintendent of Education should be capitalized.
    • Caps done, changed citizens to local residents. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 20:53, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upon exiting their train, the team was paraded down Main Street. Passive voice not necessary here. Identify who paraded the team down main street, or say that the team paraded down Main Street, or that they participated in a victory parade.
  • Classes were cancelled at Centre and the local school district on the day of the team's return[83] and "Victory Day" was observed in nearby Harrodsburg on November 6, where another parade was held for the team. Move the citation to the end of the sentence so it does not disrupt the flow. I'm not that bothered by the two instances of passive voice here since it's pretty obvious who the actors were.
  • The phrase by which the game is most commonly known, "C6H0", originated from a comment made by a Centre professor shortly following the game: that Harvard had been "poisoned" by the organic compound with that formula. The colon seems inappropriate here, and since the sentence is already pretty long it's probably best to split into separate sentences.
    • I'm hesitant to split this because the bit before the colon introduces the bit after the colon. Starting a sentence with "Harvard had been 'poisoned' by..." risks misinterpretation since you don't have the reference back to the professor and his comment within that sentence. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 20:53, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • It stuck, and students painted the so-called "impossible formula" all around Danville,[30] including on various buildings around campus[29] and on the flank of a cow. The citation after the word "campus" should be moved to the end of the sentence.

Aftermath:Concluding the season...

  • The Centre victory was a shock, but perhaps not a fluke; the team finished the 1921 regular season 9–0, with shutout defeats of Kentucky, Auburn, Washington and Lee, and Tulane; this last game was scheduled as a replacement for their original opponent, Georgetown College, who backed out prior to the season after determining they would be too outmatched. Run-on sentence that should be broken up, ideally eliminating the multiple unnecessary semicolons.
  • McMillin was married on the morning of the game; the wedding was attended by members of the Centre team who afterwards went to the stadium to play. Be a bit clearer which game that refers to. I don't love the semicolon.
    • Changed "the game" to "that game" to point the reader to the most-recently mentioned game. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 20:53, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Legacy

  • No concerns

Overall

  • The article has several sections where there is a heavy use of the semicolon to join smaller sentences into longer, more complicated sentences. This decreases the readability of the prose and in many of the instances I've called them out above. There are others that I chose not to nitpick about, but in general, I'm not a fan of the use. There are other segments of the article that don't use any semicolons, probably a reflection of some of the different editors and writing styles that have come through the article. There aren't any "deal-breaker" objections that I have, most of the comments relate to needed clarifications and improvements to the prose and I've tried to highlight each issue without being overly bossy about "you much change it to this wording".
  • There's a decent amount of sports jargon present in the article that will be familiar to readers who are used to reading sports recaps, but in many cases the jargon can be simply be reworded to be more easily understood by someone unfamiliar with the jargon, keeping in mind that the target readership of Wikipedia is a general audience. Examples like "suited up", "shutout", "took the field", etc. Technically accurate and definitely not deal breakers, but areas that I think could be polished. RecycledPixels (talk) 18:32, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • @RecycledPixels: I believe everything has been taken care of or responded to. Thank you again for such a detailed review! PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 20:54, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • @PCN02WPS: I responded with a few other issues that cropped up. If I didn't make any comment to your earlier responses, it means that I am satisfied with either the changes you made or with your response. RecycledPixels (talk) 23:21, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Illinois Public Access Opinion 16-006[edit]

Nominator(s): Edge3 (talk) 17:13, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Illinois Public Access Opinion 16-006 is a legal opinion of the Illinois Attorney General concerning the state's public records law. In the aftermath of the murder of Laquan McDonald by a Chicago police officer, several officers discussed the incident through their private email accounts, and CNN asked for copies of those emails. The police department denied that request, prompting the Attorney General to issue a binding ruling that required their disclosure. The opinion came several years after City of Champaign v. Madigan (recently promoted to FA), an Illinois appellate court case that addressed a similar issue involving elected officials sending private communications during a city council meeting. Edge3 (talk) 17:13, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MyCatIsAChonk, Gog the Mild, Elli, Jo-Jo Eumerus, and ZKang123: Thank you for your participation at the previous FAC for City of Champaign v. Madigan. Since this article covers similar subject matter and uses many of the same sources, I invite you to participate in this FAC as well. Thank you! Edge3 (talk) 17:22, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see the relevance of the photo of the cop checking his phone. Note WP:IMAGERELEVANCE: 'Images must be significant and relevant in the topic's context, not primarily decorative. They are often an important illustrative aid to understanding'. I don't see how a cop on a phone is particularly relevant to a FOIR regarding emails, so how does it aid our understanding of the topic, which is primarily a legal judgment? I think this falls into the 'decorative' department. Is there a shortage of images? I see the article on the original murder is also pretty sparse, unfortunately. ——Serial 18:09, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Serial Number 54129 Thanks for your comment. I don't think this photo is purely decorative because it illustrates a widespread phenomenon of public employees using their personal devices while carrying out their official duties. See also City of Champaign v. Madigan and Illinois Freedom of Information Act#Records on private electronic devices, where we show a photo of Mayor Rahm Emanuel using his cell phone, even though that specific phone call was unlikely to be the subject of any relevant FOIA requests.
    Indeed, there is a shortage of images relating to the murder of Laquan McDonald. But this article is notable not just for its relevance to the murder, but also for its significance as a legal opinion and its effects on the boundaries between personal and work lives. So the images don't have to be directly relevant to Laquan McDonald. Edge3 (talk) 00:56, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MyCatIsAChonk - Source review[edit]

Happy to review! Also, are you aware that you're eligible for another Four Awards for City of Champaign? Anyway, the review:

Thanks for the reminder! I've just nominated Champaign for the Four Award. Edge3 (talk) 04:12, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have no concerns about the prose, so I'll do a source review

  • Ref 5 is missing a website/publisher
    Added. Edge3 (talk) 04:12, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 7 is missing volume/issue parameters
    Added. Edge3 (talk) 04:12, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Put dead in ref 14's active parameter
    Done. Edge3 (talk) 04:12, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also ref 14: looking at the archive url, Associated Press isn't the author, it's the wire agency. There's a separate parameter for that, the author parameter should be empty
    Fixed. Edge3 (talk) 04:12, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is the Illinois Policy Institute reliable? Not sure what the standards are regarding think tank sources
    The Illinois Policy Institute leans conservative, but such a source is permitted under WP:PARTISAN so long as it's reliable for the context in which it is used. In this case, the Illinois Policy Institute is merely recounting arguments made by CPD and the decision of the Attorney General, and this reporting is easily verifiable by reading the opinion itself. If you'd like, I can add a citation to the opinion (as the primary source) to go alongside the secondary source citation. Edge3 (talk) 04:12, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it's all good here, thanks for clarifying MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 15:32, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Spotcheck:

  • Ref 1: I don't see anything here about "Preliminary reports by the Chicago Police Department (CPD) suggested that McDonald was behaving erratically, and that the shooting was justifiable, leading to Van Dyke not being charged at the time." though this is a long article and I may have missed something
    Ah, good catch. Long ago, I copied and paraphrased text from Murder of Laquan McDonald without checking source-to-text integrity. I've revised that sentence now. Edge3 (talk) 04:36, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 2: all three uses good
  • Ref 5: good
  • Ref 10: good
  • Ref 14: all three uses good
  • Ref 17: good

Edge3, all done- great work on this and on getting the last article promoted! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 18:26, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support and pass source review- wonderful job! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 15:31, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Elli[edit]

Claiming a spot here to do a review later (sometime this week hopefully). Elli (talk | contribs) 05:25, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Elli Just pinging you for a quick reminder. :-) Edge3 (talk) 22:31, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks -- will try to get to it soon. Sorry for the wait. Elli (talk | contribs) 22:52, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No worries! Edge3 (talk) 23:09, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Background
  • First paragraph is fine and supported by source.
  • "Off-duty police officers reportedly discussed the incident on personal devices and accounts." not sure what part of the source is supporting this but I'm probably missing something. I don't like "reportedly" as it's a bit of a weasel word so I'd rather be clear about who was stating this and why they thought it was the case.
    The source says: "police officers who were off duty reportedly were sending and receiving messages via personal accounts on personal devices". The information is attributed to Ben Schuster, an attorney who had been interviewed for that article, but I'm not sure if he should be cited directly. Happy to hear your thoughts. Edge3 (talk) 17:00, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I see you've removed this now so considering it resolved. Elli (talk | contribs) 17:33, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "CPD provided a large number of emails from the police officers' CPD-issued email accounts, but CPD failed to search for the officers' private emails, despite CNN's request." Page 2 of the report doesn't explicitly say this.
    I've updated the citation to include pages 2–4. Edge3 (talk) 17:32, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would be ideal to use a secondary source for the parts currently only backed by the opinion itself, though I'd understand if no such sources exist.
    I'm mainly using the opinion as a primary source for the procedural history of the case, and also key dates. (e.g. the dates of the FOIA request, the request for review, the AG's decision, etc.) Since I'm using the opinion only to support basic facts rather than interpretation, it's appropriate under WP:PRIMARY. Edge3 (talk) 17:35, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, that's fair. Elli (talk | contribs) 17:33, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Those are my only concerns in this section. Elli (talk | contribs) 20:12, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Elli Thanks for your comments! I responded above, so please do let me know if you have other feedback. Edge3 (talk) 05:01, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Elli, nudge. :-) Gog the Mild (talk) 21:11, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am really sorry to both of you for my lack of haste here. I got pretty run-down with IRL stuff the past few weeks and didn't have much time or energy to spend here. I should be able to finish reviewing the rest of this article in detail today though. Elli (talk | contribs) 17:33, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No need to apologize! I totally understand that things happen IRL, and we all have our own priorities to attend to.
@Gog the Mild: I'm actually traveling internationally for two weeks starting today, so I'm happy to put this FAC on hold for two weeks, or at least move along a bit more slowly. Let me know if you have concerns about the speed of progress. Edge3 (talk) 18:06, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am afraid FACs can't be paused. Moving slowly but making progress is a different but not well defined issue. In order to try and avoid it timing out I have poked HF, and added it to Urgents to try and get more reviewers. I think you have had my standard advice on how to get additional reviewers. Elli, relax. If you get a full or partial review done, great. If not, RL is priority: Wikipedia is what we do for fun; we shall all no doubt somehow survive without it. ;) Take care of yourself. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:39, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What you've said makes sense. I still have my laptop with me so can respond to queries and do light editing, albeit at a slower pace than I usually do. And as you say, RL takes priority anyhow. :-) Edge3 (talk) 19:18, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for both of your kind words -- I took them to heart and took a week off. Finished review is below:
All good! I'm glad you took some time off, and I hope you feel better rested now. I'm currently on vacation anyhow, so it'll take me some time to respond to everything. Edge3 (talk) 03:26, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Case law
  • Maybe link public records?
    Done. Edge3 (talk) 03:26, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thinking the wording could be clearer about the quote; something like "records open to disclosure, including all emails..."
    I'm reluctant to combine those sentences because it would be very long. ("Public bodies in Illinois, including CPD, are required under FOIA to make all public records open to disclosure, including all emails 'pertaining to the transaction of public business, regardless of physical form or characteristics, having been prepared by or for, or having been or being used by, received by, in the possession of, or under the control of any public body'.") Happy to consider a different version that's cleaner. Edge3 (talk) 03:26, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the second paragraph, moving the first sentence to the end might be clearer (with a slight rephrase: "This ruling, by the Illinois Appellate Court, was the first decision in Illinois to find that..."
    Rearranged in this edit. Edge3 (talk) 03:29, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Opinion
  • Is there some reason in particular this one was binding? Was it something Madigan chose, or something CPD requested, etc?
    Madigan would have made that decision herself. The AG's office issues binding opinions only in very rare circumstances. You can see more info about the process at Illinois Public Access Counselor. Edge3 (talk) 07:13, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Appeal
  • Per the source, the final result, with CNN not getting the emails, involved them going back to court again, maybe mention that?
    Added. Edge3 (talk) 07:17, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reactions
  • Source also mentions the laws were in response to PAC Opinion 11-006 -- is that at all noteworthy?
    PAC Opinion 11-006 was the underlying opinion that was appealed in court and decided as City of Champaign v. Madigan. I don't think Opinion 11-006 needs to be mentioned separately. Edge3 (talk) 07:17, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Overall

Feel comfortable supporting this as I only have a few minor questions/nitpicks that aren't very important. Would like to see your thoughts though. Elli (talk | contribs) 18:24, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

HF[edit]

I'll take a look at this. Not familiar with Illinois municipal law, but I do have some familiarity with one state over (Missouri). Hog Farm Talk 03:39, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For starters - is Huffington Post really going to be a high-quality source as required by the FA criteria for the material that it is citing, in light of the cautions found at WP:HUFFPOLITICS? Hog Farm Talk 03:39, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've switched to sources that are hopefully more reliable. Let me know what you think! Edge3 (talk) 18:31, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks better now. Hog Farm Talk 21:11, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Off-duty police officers reportedly discussed the incident on personal devices and accounts" - this is a bit weaselly worded. There needs to be some sort of attribution as to who is making this claim, if possible
    Elli actually brought up the same concern above. The attribution is to Ben Schuster, but as I stated above, I'm not sure if I should directly attribute this to someone who wasn't even involved in the incident. Edge3 (talk) 06:39, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess the problem is that the article is written in a way that assumes the emails existed, although it doesn't seem like that can be proven beyond a doubt. All we get is a shadowy hand wave about unspecified people believing they existed for unspecified reasons. CNN evidently had reason to believe the emails existed. Is there really no other source that addresses this more directly than the one currently being used? Hog Farm Talk 21:11, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I might have found something written by AP. Take a look at this edit and let me know if you think it's better. I removed the sentence that sounded weaselly, per your and Elli's suggestion. Edge3 (talk) 06:31, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "On January 28, 2016, Courtney Yager, a producer for CNN, submitted a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to CPD" - if this is through the state act, I'd indicate that within the article text, as I (and presumably other readers as well) assumed that this was referring to the better-known federal Freedom of Information Act (United States) before I saw where the link was going
    I've clarified that it's the "Illinois" FOIA. Edge3 (talk) 06:39, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • " but CPD failed to search for the officers' private emails, despite CNN's request" - my instinct is that something about the Champaign case needs mentioned before this, as without that previous ruling would there really have been any expectation for CNN to be able to receive this information?
    To me it feels like synthesis to link the Champaign case to CNN's FOIA request. CNN is a national publication, and Yager (the producer) and Shenkman (the legal counsel) are not from Illinois. I doubt that they specifically had Champaign in mind when filing the FOIA request. In the Attorney General's opinion, Champaign isn't even mentioned until page 6, and it appears that CPD didn't consider Champaign as authoritative until it filed its supplemental (i.e. second) response to the Public Access Counselor. Edge3 (talk) 18:37, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That makes sense. Hog Farm Talk 21:11, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hog Farm Talk 00:59, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi Hog Farm, I was wondering if you felt in a position to either support or oppose this nomination? Obviously, neither is obligatory. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:13, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass[edit]

All images are appropriately licenced, positioned, captioned and alt texted. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:09, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Empire of the Sultans[edit]

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

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

Comments by Ghosts of Europa[edit]

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

For the Background section:

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

For Content:

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

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

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

SC[edit]

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

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

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

Comment by a455bcd9[edit]

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

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

Coordinator comment[edit]

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

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

Airship[edit]

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

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

Image and source review[edit]

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

Hi @Jo-Jo Eumerus: and thanks for taking an interest in this review. I'll answer in reverse order, if I may. Factiva is not itself claimed here to be a reliable source. Factiva is a subscription database through which one can retrieve old published news stories, similar to Lexis Plus, Westlaw, or Gale OneFile. I've used it to get stories originally published in newspapers and magazines that are too old to be on those publications' websites. The reliable source in each case is the publication in which the news story originally appeared: The Times, The Columbian, The Salt Lake Tribune, and so on.
Ref #14 is a page on the Khalili Collections official site; there isn't a byline or date, so I've used the full title from the web page (same for Refs #66 and #67). Should I be abbreviating the title, or using the exact title given by the web page? I'm not seeing why you mention piped links, so maybe I've misunderstood. Gale Onefile and Factiva give different metadata about the news stories they retrieve, and it's less than what I would get from retrieving an article from the publication's website; that might account for the variation in citations. I've used the same citation templates but not all the citations have the same information.
Apologies about ALT text: I thought I'd sorted that out before nominating the article. I'll fix that now. All the exhibited objects are from before the 20th century, so I'm happy to put the relevant copyright tags on the Commons files (probably tomorrow rather than today). I could put the images in galleries next to the relevant part of the description, but that would leave large stretches of the article without illustrations, so I thought it better to vary the images and dot them throughout the article. I think that's an interesting visual journey for the reader. MartinPoulter (talk) 16:34, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ALT text now added for those images that were missing it, and copyright tags for objects added to all exhibit photographs in Commons. Cheers, MartinPoulter (talk) 17:08, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What I am saying about piped links is that the text with the link underneath is a bit too long. "This is a piped link" is more text compared to "This is a piped link". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:20, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cross Temple, Fangshan[edit]

Nominator(s): Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 23:30, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the only surviving site of the Church of the East in China. I think I have exhausted the research material I can find to ensure it is comprehensive and well-researched, and I am pretty sure the images involved are in the public domain, either because they are user contributions from the Commons, or because they were published before 1928. Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 23:30, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I might be able to borrow Qianzhi Zhu's 中国景教 [Nestorianism in China] next week. Might add tiny bits and pieces to the text. Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 23:53, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Borrowed, checked and reviewed. Nothing much to add–can confirm that it is very much comprehensive on the subject matter (yippee!) Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 14:34, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A heads-up for all reviewers @Kusma @AirshipJungleman29 @Remsense: I have something from Mar 21 to Mar 25; can at most devote 30 mins per day for Wiki stuff. Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 20:37, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Generalissima's comments[edit]

Reserving my spot for a prose review! Love more Chinese history FACs. :3 Generalissima (talk) 17:40, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Generalissima, this is into time out warning territory, so if you are still intending to review the next day or two would be a good time to start. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:06, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild, Generalissima is currently blocked (on her own request). It seems unlikely that she will return before 19 March. —Kusma (talk) 10:11, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Generalissima pinging again to see if you're free. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:08, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Kusma[edit]

Planning to review. —Kusma (talk) 11:52, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • An interesting article about an exciting topic, thank you for this. Unfortunately I am not totally convinced by the present organisation of the article. As I understand it, it is about a historical site in Beijing (the modern municipality, not the historical city proper) that has been Buddhist and Christian at unclear points in its history. The article body currently starts with a description of two steles instead of setting out the historical background and explaining where we are and what is going on there. I understand that this is difficult to sort out because there are differing theories, but I don't think the current "try to be as chronological as possible" is working well. I think I'd prefer to read some background on the history of the Church of the East in China separately from the history of the site instead of interweaving it. As I understand it, there was a Tang dynasty Nestorian Church, but we do not know for sure that the Cross Temple site was connected to it. Then the description of the Buddhist history of the site could be done without interspersing it with notes about the more general history of Nestorianism.
  • It is not fully clear to me when and how the article uses Chinese characters. Most of the time it is when there is no link to an article so it helps future researchers for disambiguation, but it is not always done (Tang Li, Niu Ruiji). But 寶相花紋 seems unnecessary?
  • Most of the characters are traditional Chinese (no problem with that), with some reasonable exceptions like the modern day location 车厂村. It may be good to mark the simplified ones that need to be used. Why is 古刹十字禅林 in simplified, when it is a pre-simplification inscription? The quote from Xu 1992, p. 185 (a book with a title in simplified) is written at least partially in traditional Chinese.

I may look in more detail later, but I think it is worth discussing the organisational issues first (maybe you can convince me that I'm wrong). —Kusma (talk) 21:56, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see your comments. I am having a hectic week. Will reply in more detail later next week, probably after Wednesday.
  • My defense for the current structure of the article is that I am going to inform the reader about the history of the site anyways, and if I supply them with the history of the Church of the East in China, they are more prepared, and it is more cohesive.
  • The Chinese characters–will fix when I have time. My rule of thumb is to provide Chinese characters when the word is a proper noun and the reader would benefit much more if they look up the Chinese word on Google.
Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 23:18, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see. But let's have a look at one paragraph, perhaps I can explain better what I mean.
"Nestorian Christianity was first recorded in Tang China during the 7th century, and some scholars suggested that the temple may have belonged to the Church of the East in China around this time."
What is "Nestorian Christianity"? Is it the same as "Church of the East in China"?
"The Japanese scholar P. Y. Saeki speculated that believers fleeing from Chang'an to Youzhou and Liaodong during the 9th-century Huichang persecution of Buddhism, which also affected the Church of the East, began using the temple."
I am not sure we need the nationalities of the scholars here. Where are Chang'an, Youzhou and Liaodong in relation to Beijing? How does the persecution of Buddhism affect non-Buddhists?
"Tang Xiaofeng additionally points to inscriptions on the Liao stele as an indication that Christian crosses were present at the temple prior to the Liao dynasty. In addition, Tang claims that another text written by Li Zhongxuan [zh] in 987 indicated a Nestorian presence in Youzhou."
You are changing tense. I prefer present tense for what the experts say, but you should be consistent. Where is Youzhou, and what does the presence of Nestorians in Youzhou have to do with the Cross Temple?
"However, British sinologist Arthur Christopher Moule believed that there was insufficient evidence to show that the Church of the East existed in Beijing before the 13th century."
So they might not have reached Beijing, but are we sure there was a presence of the Church of the East somewhere in China? Where?
I think it would be easier to explain separately what Nestorians are and what "Church of the East in China" means, when they came to China, what is known for sure about their spread, and then explain how the Cross Temple fits into the picture as part of the theory that there were Tang Dynasty Nestorians in Beijing. After reading your paragraph, I am no longer sure whether there were any Nestorians in China at all during the Tang dynasty. —Kusma (talk) 14:57, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Right. Here we go.
  • What is "Nestorian Christianity"? Is it the same as "Church of the East in China"? Sorry I didn't make this clear enough. To me "Nestorian Church" is basically another way to say the "Church of the East"–I use the two terms interchangeably, though there are scholars advocating only using the term "Church of the East" due to the negative connotations of the word "Nestorian" (as in, the Nestorian "heresy"). What is your opinion–should I stick to one usage ("Church of the East in China") throughout the entire article? It might be a bit too wordy and might affect the prose, but I can sure try.
    I don't mind having both terms, but it needs to be much more clear that they mean the same thing. But if the term "Nestorians" is out of fashion with recent sources (I have no idea and did not check) you may wish to avoid it. —Kusma (talk) 16:17, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Chang'an, Youzhou and Liaodong: I will update these this weekend. Basically Chang'an is modern day Xi'an, which is 900 km to the south-west of Beijing. Youzhou is the province / state that Beijing is located in, and Liaodong refers to the Liaodong Peninsula, which is 500 km to the east of Beijing. I will indicate their relations to Beijing.
Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 22:22, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it would be easier to explain separately what Nestorians are and what "Church of the East in China" means, when they came to China, what is known for sure about their spread, and then explain how the Cross Temple fits into the picture as part of the theory that there were Tang Dynasty Nestorians in Beijing. My only concern to this is that the temple was used by Christians and Buddhists. If I provide too much background information to its Christian history, will the article still be balanced? But from another perspective, almost all scholarship on the temple focuses on its Christian history, so I guess I could put up some more context.
Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 22:24, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi TheLonelyPather, have you finished addressing Kusma's comments? If so, could you ping them? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:06, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Gog the Mild and thanks for the reminder. I have not addressed Kusma's comments in detail yet. Kusma is welcome to respond to these thoughts of mine, but I am not demanding an immediate response from them in any sense. I am still busy and I Will reply in more detail later next week, probably after Wednesday. Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 23:24, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild Actually since this is in time-out warning territory, I am going to address Kusma's comments in detail right now. Thanks for sending out the warning. Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 23:25, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kusma Chinese characters fixed. The usage of Chinese characters is now limited to
  • Lesser-known Chinese place names (e.g. 车厂村);
  • Names of individuals and institutions who do not have an en-wiki article (e.g. 德景, 崇福司). "吴梦麟" is in simplified characters because he was active during the PRC;
  • Proper names of the temple (e.g. 崇聖院).
Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 23:43, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kusma I also wrote a separate paragraph to provide general context on Christianity during the Tang Dynasty. I put it before the academic speculations. Hope this is clearer now. Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 00:16, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK, that makes it a bit easier to follow. It would still be good to have the identification of Nestorian Church = Church of the East also in the body (you added a paragraph about Nestorianism in China, which is then followed by a mention of the Church of the East that makes it look like that is a different thing), and to prominently link to Church of the East (and perhaps not link to Nestorianism). —Kusma (talk) 10:46, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will think about it in more detail. I will think about it really hard. The situation might demand one small paragraph after the lede and before everything to clarify that "Nestorianism" = "Church of the East" (in the scope of this article) and acknowledge some people would prefer CotE over Nestorianism. Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 00:23, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing prose/content review.

  • Early history: Who is Tang Li? Do you know his name in characters?
  • 10th century: do any of the historians offer theories which of 丙子 and "tenth year of the reign of Emperor Yuan" is correct or what kind of mistakes were made while recording the stele?
  • Translate 崇聖院?
  • 13th–14th centuries: "Nestorian Christianity began spreading throughout the area" it may have spread before, so it is not clear this is the beginning. A few hundred years have passed; is this the same Nestorian Christianity as a few hundred years before?
  • "During the Yuan" please make this comprehensible to readers who do not know that Mongols=Yuan dynasty.
  • Translate 崇福司? ("Department of Supreme Blessing"?? I don't have a Classical Chinese dictionary with me right now).
  • Is Rabban Sauma the same as Bar Sauma?
  • Tense is mixed between past and present for what the various scholars say or said.
  • 15th–16th centuries: it would be more important to know when Matteo Ricci was in China than when he lived. Do we know this from Ricci's own writings?
  • I think the fact that the inscriptions were altered during this time should be mentioned in the opening paragraph about the stone steles: while the steles are from the Liao and the Yuan dynasty, the inscriptions were altered during the Ming dynasty.
  • 20th–21st centuries: I find it hard to believe that there are zero records of the site during the Qing dynasty. If that is true, I would expect someone to have remarked on it so you could state it explicitly.
  • "Around 1911, the Buddhist monks sold the temple and the surrounding lands." do we know who they sold it to?
  • "Reginald Johnston first rediscovered the site during the summer of 1919" drop "first" I think. Did he "rediscover" the Buddhist site or the Nestorian connection?
  • Current state: "The Cross Temple is the only surviving Nestorian site in China" wow, I wouldn't expect that this counts as "surviving". So of all other sites there is not even a trace?
  • Chechang Village (车厂村), Fangshan: maybe mention again where this is in relation to modern Beijing?
  • Stone steles: "The Yuan stele features a cross at its top, but it is not likely made by the Nestorians" is this clear enough from the sources to be stated in wikivoice instead of attributed as research opinion?
  • Generally it is a bit duplicative to discuss the steles here again, and I think the details about Ming dynasty changes might be more useful to the reader earlier on.
  • Give a quick intro to the Xi'an Stele so we understand why somebody would copy it and put the copy in this particular location.
  • Carved stone blocks: I wonder whether it is worth mentioning that Peiping is Beijing.
  • Description: not sure this is a great subheader, or that it is needed
  • "F. C. Burkitt found the same text, with the addition of the phrase "the living cross", in one of the Syriac manuscripts in the British Museum" so what? If it is a quote from the Bible, wouldn't we expect to find this in a lot of places?
  • Are Erkehün Mongols? Previous Nestorians were all Han?
  • See also section: Mentioning the Daqin Pagoda here as a possible Nestorian site contradicts the article's unqualified statement of "only surviving Nestorian site in China".
  • Not convinced that the "Other West Asian religious sites in China" are worth the space here; generally, consider how much it is worth duplicating parts of Template:Christianity in China.
  • Footnotes: a) How widely used are the alternate English names? If they are reasonably common, they should be in the body.
  • e) Romanization of Syriac: what romanization is this, and what is the code for the pronunciation? (It isn't IPA so it isn't clear).
  • g) better explain Erkehün in body, or just not use that word.
  • Citations: I would suggest to translate the Chinese quotes; they are of little use to most readers otherwise.
  • Qian 2021, Qiu 2002, Halbertsma 2007 are not used.
  • Neither is the Chinese translation of Moule, and there is no obvious reason to do so?
  • Further reading: why do you not cite this book if you recommend it? Publisher 文物出版社 should be transliterated.

Done reading. It looks like pretty good research and well written overall, but some explanations here and there would help a lot, and some other clarifications may be necessary. —Kusma (talk) 16:14, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Message received. Will reply soon. Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 23:03, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tang Li: done. (Please note Tang Li is a "she".)
  • theory on the mistake of the Liao stele: done.
  • 崇聖院: translated. I didn't find an official English translation.
  • 13th–14th centuries: "Nestorian Christianity began spreading throughout the area" it may have spread before, so it is not clear this is the beginning. A few hundred years have passed; is this the same Nestorian Christianity as a few hundred years before? Yes.
  • Mongols is Yuan dynasty: clarified.
  • 崇福司: translated.
  • Is Rabban Sauma the same as Bar Sauma? Yes. This article will use Rabban Sauma.
That's it for the day. Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 00:19, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dear @Kusma: before I proceed to work on the smaller details of the article, can we please decide on its structure? I took your advice and made a draft (please see User:TheLonelyPather/sandbox).
Basically, this draft adds a substantial "Historical terminology and context" that talks about the terminology of "Nestorian" vs "Church of the East" and supplies general historical facts about Nestorian Christianity in China (when did they come / thrive / go). I reserve the specific history of Nestorian Christianity near Beijing to the body of the article.
I also removed the paragraph about the two steles. I agree that it overlaps with stuff later. If we can agree on this new structure it would be great. Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 20:35, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@TheLonelyPather, I think the new structure is a lot better. Your terminology and context section is perhaps a bit too long while the lead section is a bit too short, but generally I think the right way forward is to get the terminology and context clear from the start. —Kusma (talk) 10:58, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Just moved the new structure to the main article. I also shortened the terminology & context section for a bit. I wish to leave the lede to be the last thing to fix–after we figure everything out in the body. Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 01:09, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 15th–16th centuries: it would be more important to know when Matteo Ricci was in China than when he lived. Do we know this from Ricci's own writings? Gotcha, now it says "Matteo Ricci (1552–1610, active in China 1582–1610)". The information in the article comes from Ricci's own writings, but I don't have access to the original text. I cited a journal which quoted Ricci.
  • I think the fact that the inscriptions were altered during this time should be mentioned in the opening paragraph about the stone steles This opinion differs from what AJ says down there: If all we know of the history of the site derives from the steles, perhaps it would be best to discuss them before discussing the history? Let's give more thoughts to it.
  • 20th–21st centuries: I find it hard to believe that there are zero records of the site during the Qing dynasty. If that is true, I would expect someone to have remarked on it so you could state it explicitly. Information added.
  • "Around 1911, the Buddhist monks sold the temple and the surrounding lands." do we know who they sold it to? No.
  • "Reginald Johnston first rediscovered the site during the summer of 1919" drop "first" I think. Did he "rediscover" the Buddhist site or the Nestorian connection? "first" dropped. He rediscovered the site after it was sold and likely fell into oblivion.
I also restructured the history part even further and renamed the sections. Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 12:16, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Current state: "The Cross Temple is the only surviving Nestorian site in China" wow, I wouldn't expect that this counts as "surviving". So of all other sites there is not even a trace? Fixed wording. Also added a footnote concerning the Daqin Pagoda (there is controversy on whether it is a Church of the East site and it is inconclusive).
Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 13:42, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Chechang Village (车厂村), Fangshan: maybe mention again where this is in relation to modern Beijing? Done.
  • Stone steles: "The Yuan stele features a cross at its top, but it is not likely made by the Nestorians" is this clear enough from the sources to be stated in wikivoice instead of attributed as research opinion? Checked sources, this view comes from Wang Xiaojing -- other sources didn't venture to think about the origin of the cross on the Yuan stele.
  • Generally it is a bit duplicative to discuss the steles here again, and I think the details about Ming dynasty changes might be more useful to the reader earlier on. The initial stele paragraph was removed.
  • Give a quick intro to the Xi'an Stele so we understand why somebody would copy it and put the copy in this particular location. Done.
  • Carved stone blocks: I wonder whether it is worth mentioning that Peiping is Beijing. It's trivial in my opinion.
  • Description: not sure this is a great subheader, or that it is needed Done.
  • "F. C. Burkitt found the same text, with the addition of the phrase "the living cross", in one of the Syriac manuscripts in the British Museum" so what? If it is a quote from the Bible, wouldn't we expect to find this in a lot of places? The point I'm trying to convey here is that, by showing this connection, we find that the Nestorian Christians in China were doing similar things and reading similar stuff with the Nestorian Christians in the Middle East. The paragraph that that sentence comes from talks about the general connections of the stone blocks with other Christian artifacts in the world.
Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 17:06, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
About the Syriac manuscripts: I don't think your point really comes across. Can you cite someone who makes a similar observation? —Kusma (talk) 10:55, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are Erkehün Mongols? Previous Nestorians were all Han? Erkehün / Yelikewen (in Pinyin romanisation) is what the Mongols called the Christians. I agree that it is unnecessary to put it there and I reworded it.
  • See also section: reworked.
  • Not convinced that the "Other West Asian religious sites in China" are worth the space here; generally, consider how much it is worth duplicating parts of Template:Christianity in China. I would say it's needed–Template:Christianity in China doesn't cover Islam, Manichaeism, and Zoroastrianism.
  • Footnotes: a) How widely used are the alternate English names? If they are reasonably common, they should be in the body. These alternate English names are not reasonably common. "Cross Temple" is prevalent in English literature and is a direct translation of the Chinese name "十字寺".
  • e) Romanization of Syriac: what romanization is this, and what is the code for the pronunciation? (It isn't IPA so it isn't clear). I honestly have no idea. It is supplied by the author of the journal article. The only thing that is certain is that it's syriac, so I use the code "syc".
  • g) better explain Erkehün in body, or just not use that word. Erkehün is no longer used in the body.
  • Citations: I would suggest to translate the Chinese quotes Done.
  • Removed some unused books and sources.
  • Further reading: why do you not cite this book if you recommend it? Publisher 文物出版社 should be transliterated. I don't have access to this book, but this book is on the Christian sites in Beijing, and so it greatly relates to our subject.
@Kusma Those are some great suggestions! Looking forward to your input. Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 00:35, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A few further comments:
  • Do not use "&" in subsection headings, replace by "and".
  • I am on the fence about the parenthetical (Christian use) and (Buddhist use) in headings; can this be made nicer?
  • I don't think "Han-Chinese" or "Ming-era" should be hyphenated.
  • Qian 2021 and Halbertsma 2007 are still not cited.
—Kusma (talk) 11:03, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"&" corrected to and. "Qian 2021" and "Halbertsma 2007" are removed from citations. "Han-Chinese" and "Ming-era" corrected.
If you feel not so sure about "(Christian use)" or "(Buddhist use)", may I suggest something like "Buddhist use during the Liao dynasty"? My concern is that it would be too long. Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 11:37, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kusma alternate suggestion: maybe I can drop the parentheses and just use "Liao dynasty", "Yuan dynasty", etc.? Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 16:14, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think "Buddhist use during the Liao dynasty" is better than "Liao dynasty (Buddhist use)". "Liao dynasty: Buddhist use" would also be an improvement. Further comments:
  • There are still a few places where the tense feels off, but I am not a native speaker so I will suggest you find someone else to read it :)
  • The Shanmen building should be described in "Modern rediscovery and development", not in "Current state".
  • The description of the carved stone blocks could perhaps be moved earlier. It is only in the third paragraph that we learn how large they are.
  • Peiping Commission for the Preservation of Antiquities has characters inline, while Peiping Museum of History has them in a footnote. The identity Peiping=Beijing is not made explicitly, although this is no more obvious than Chang'an=Xi'an.
Lots of things look nice now, but I am still unconvinced about the Syriac manuscripts (see above). —Kusma (talk) 17:11, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Shanmen moved, description of the carved stone blocks moved, Peiping and Chang'an clarified. As for the Syriac manuscripts, I clarified it a bit more: Burkitt did not just find the same text, but found the same text surrounding the cross, i.e. the same pattern. I added some more information on "Ps 34:6 + cross" combination appearing in different places. Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 19:05, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, my points about organisation and necessary background knowledge have been addressed. I will leave issues like tense to the native speakers among the reviewers. —Kusma (talk) 12:52, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Airship[edit]

Will leave comments by next week. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:45, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Airship, this is into time out warning territory, so if you are still intending to review the next day or two would be a good time to start. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:08, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
will do. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 05:11, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As always, these are suggestions, not demands; feel free to refuse with justification. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:37, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • The Church of the East was not Nestorian; that was an accusation levelled by its enemies. Whether the name "Nestorian" should be described to use the Church of the East at all is up for debate, but to say explicitly in the lead "the Church of the East, a Nestorian branch of Christianity" is factually wrong.
  • The lead needs some work. I recommend two paragraphs of roughly equal length: the first clearly establishing what, where, and when, and then discussing major aspects of the history, current state, and relics. At the moment it is rather vague ("During different periods" what/when? "Originally built" when? Yuan dynasty touched on before the Tang is odd. etc.) and the relics are not discussed in proportion to the attention given to them in the article (WP:LEADWEIGHT).
  • I may be an idiot, but I can't see the cross carved into the top of the infobox stele.
  • If all we know of the history of the site derives from the steles, perhaps it would be best to discuss them before discussing the history?
  • I would make the "Current state" section a subsection of "History".

I would prefer to get structural changes out of the way before making detailed comments on prose; I see Kusma has made some comments as well on the organisation. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:37, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, @AirshipJungleman29!
  • The Church of the East was not Nestorian; that was an accusation levelled by its enemies. You are right, and that is a nuance that I missed. I hope that the new "Context and terminology" section explains the nuance better.
  • The lead needs some work... As mentioned above (replying to Kusma), I wish to leave the lede to the last. I hope to solidify the body paragraphs, so I will have a better idea how to write the lede.
  • I can't see the cross carved into the top of the infobox stele. It's hard to see without zooming into the image. I have removed the related words in the caption. If you look at the picture in the "Stone steles" section it is more visible.
  • If all we know of the history of the site derives from the steles, perhaps it would be best to discuss them before discussing the history? This is something that I will deliberate more upon. On one hand I need to let the reader know that the history is mostly derived from the (slightly erroneous) steles, on the other hand if I put it in the front it will overlap with the description of the steles later.
  • I would make the "Current state" section a subsection of "History". Not so sure about it. This section goes over the arrangement / content of the site, i.e. what's there and where are the things placed. I think it's quite independent from the history of the site.
I am also mindful of Netley Abbey#Present day–another FA article of church ruins has a similar section, although that section is not ideal.
That's it for the day. Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 01:23, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@AirshipJungleman29, I wrote a draft lede:
The Cross Temple (Chinese: 十字寺; pinyin: Shízì sì) is a former place of worship in Fangshan, Beijing. It is the only discovered site of the Church of the East (sometimes known as Nestorian Christians) in China. There is no current academic consensus on whether Christians used the temple during the Tang dynasty: it was used by Buddhists during the Liao dynasty, by Christians during the Yuan dynasty, and it returned to Buddhist use since the Ming dynasty, before being sold in 1911. It was rediscovered in 1919, destructed in the 1950s, and re-established as a national-level protected site in 2006.
Today, the site features two ancient steles, as well as groundwork and the bases of several pillars. The steles are from the Liao and Yuan dynasties, but their inscriptions are tampered during the Ming dynasty. During the early 20th century, two stone blocks featuring carved crosses were also discovered at the site, with one of them containing a syriac inscription. They are now on display at the Nanjing Museum.
Kindly let me know what you think. Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 00:58, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi AirshipJungleman29, 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) 16:25, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, thanks for reminding me Gog. More comments to follow shortly. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:38, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lead/infobox
  • looks better. Couple of things:
  • "Scholars debate the periodisation of when the Cross Temple was used by Nestorians." is a bit of a nothingburger, considering you immediately explain the debate. You could easily remove the sentence and add a "scholars" after the "some" in the next line.
  • This sentence has been scrapped. Now it reads Some scholars suggested that the Cross Temple may have belonged to the Church of the East in China during the Tang dynasty (618–907).
  • "Possibly 317" is a bit odd considering 317 isn't mentioned in the lead at all. Would suggest adding it after "as a Buddhist temple".
  • Done.
  • "The site's buildings were demolished during the late 1950s" you could mention the Cultural Revolution.
  • Double-checked sources. Changed to Cultural Revolution.
History
  • Again, "There are some controversies on the usage of "Nestorian" to refer to the Church of the East." is a nothingburger sentence, and could be removed.
  • Right. I moved that entire section into a footnote. Now it begins with The use of the term "Nestorian" to refer to the Church of the East is controversial. I need an "opening sentence" to convey the purpose of the paragraph.
  • No need to specify e pluribus unum in "Certain scholars, such as Peter Hofrichter [de], refuse"; just say "Some scholars refuse..."
  • Done.
  • Not entirely convinced that a modern priest of a CotE denomination is the best citation for using "Nestorian"; one of the many independent academic sources who continue to use the term is preferable.
  • I think there is a differentiation between "academic sources using the term" vs "sources advocating for the use of the term". Some academic sources use the term without batting an eye. The CotE article is published on a reliable journal and gives an argument on why the term may be used.
  • You may want to expand a little on the Xi'an Stele.
  • Expanded, in the "Context of early Chinese Christianity" section.
  • "The missionaries" Are these are the ones that came with Alopen?
  • Yes, but no longer important. Newest version doesn't mention them.
  • "The Church of the East in China survived until 845... Nestorian Christianity in Tang China fell into decline afterwards. 1) unnecessary WP:ELEGVAR 2) there sems to be a contradiction here.
  • I have reworded the entire history section.
  • You use both Yelikewen and "Yelikewen". Both are incorrect: the {{transl}} template should be used, per MOS:LANG ({{lang}} can also be used, but {{transl}} is easier. Same for "Jingjiao" and other words.
  • Right. Just updated the article. I feel like "Jingjiao" and "Yelikewen" does not fall into the scope of the article–ended up not using either of them.
  • "no longer proclaimed themselves to be" "proclaimed" is too grandiose, methinks
  • Corrected.
  • "during Jin and Tang periods" is a definite article needed here?
  • Yes, added.
  • "around the Tang dynasty" do you mean during?
  • Yes, corrected.
  • "Huichang persecution, began using the temple" unnecessary comma
  • Fixed.
  • The "Early history of the Cross Temple" subsection could be combined with the "Liao dynasty: Buddhist use" as they both largely derive from the Liao stele, with its lack of clarity. In any case, the "of the Cross Temple" is unnecessary.
  • Changed to "Early history: Buddhist use". I would disagree to combine it with the Liao section (will break the timeline-ness).
  • I think "capture" is more suitable for a city than "conquer"; you can link to Battle of Zhongdu.
  • Changed.
  • "the retreat of Sauma" retreat? not sure that's the correct word.
  • Merriam-Webster gives one of the definitions of "retreat" as a period of group withdrawal for prayer, meditation, study, or instruction under a director. I think it's a good use describing a place where Rabban Sauma likely hid and practiced his faith. Changed to "hermitage".
  • "In her 2011 book East Syriac Christianity in Mongol-Yuan China" why is the book name relevant here?
  • Not relevant, fixed.
  • "During the reign of Emperor Yingzong of Ming (1436–1449), some Nestorians were still present in Fangshan: a record shows that some Nestorian monks visited the Yunju Temple, which is also in Fangshan, around the year 1437." Is "some Nestorians were still present in Fangshan" supported by anything else than the second half of the sentence? if not, it can be removed, as it adds nothing.
  • Right, removed.
  • There's no need to link "Jewish person".
  • Removed link.
  • "there was a Shanmen entry. The Shanmen entry was followed by" the duplication is unnecessary
  • Reworded.
  • "To the right of the courtyard, there was a kitchen and a dormitory for the monks. To the left of the courtyard, there was another dormitory building." sentences can easily be combined for simplicity.
  • Combined.
  • "three statues of Buddha" it's conventional to use a "the" before "Buddha".
  • Fixed.
  • "the walls around the Cross Temple site" could just be "the site's walls".
  • Reworded.
Current state
  • "The Cross Temple is the only discovered site of the Church of the East in China" considering note e, would it be best to say "the only undisputed site"?
  • I reworded it to Some scholars consider the Cross Temple to be the only discovered site of the Church of the East in China. Most other sources don't mention if it is the only discovered site, or the only site in existence. I have modified the related information from the lede.
  • "there are some hardly noticeable marks of the Shanmen building" I don't think this is grammatically correct, but I can't put my finger on what's wrong.
  • Any new ideas on how to make it ... less wrong? I can reword it to the marks of the Shanmen building are hardly noticeable.
Relics
  • "During the early 21st century, both were repaired and re-raised." do we have precise years?
  • No. Wang 2018 gave that the steles were repaired and re-raised "several years ago".
  • I see that you have expanded on the Xi'an Stele in this section; this seems like the wrong place, as this subsection should only be for the relics of the Cross Temple, and related context can go in the "Context and terminology" section.
  • Right. Moved to the "context" section.
  • " Tang and Zhang claimed it is on display at the Beijing Stone Carving Art Museum." "claimed" why past tense? Similarly for "The scholar Niu Ruiji claimed that".
  • As discussed with Kusma above, I decided to stick with past tense for this article when it comes to scholarly opinions. @AirshipJungleman29: Is that correct or acceptable? This is a genuine question–I did not major in history or English. Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 22:59, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "H. I. Harding, second secretary of the English mission in Beijing" when?
  • I'll get the book and double check. The time when Harding was the 2nd secretary in Beijing is irrelevant to this article–I believe you're more interested in when Harding published the fact that Johnston rediscovered the site? I am not positive that the original The New China Review article (in 1919) would say anything about it.
  • I got the book and double-checked. It is 1919.
  • "often showed an adoration of the cross and images" "showed an adoration" is ungrammatical.
  • Fixed.

Nice work. Please respond to the above comments using WP:THREADed discussion, TheLonelyPather; it makes it much easier to cross-reference previous suggestions. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:45, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Received, thank you. Tomorrow will be a busy day. Will get through the bulk of this in the next few days, but not ruling out the possibility of early April. Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 23:06, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All comments responded to. Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 22:59, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do think there is a slight bit of MOS:OVERSECTION in the history section, but that does not prevent me from giving my Support. Excellent work. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:35, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much! It's good to have a Mongol expert on a borderline Mongolian topic. Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 19:33, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Remsense[edit]

I've just re-reconfirmed it's not a priori improper to participate in FAC for an article I did the GA review for, so I am reserving my spot here, will write up my thoughts ASAP. Remsense诉 19:51, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! Thanks for joining! Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 20:35, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remsense you still intending to review? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:08, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Within 24 hours, apologies. Remsense诉 01:35, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Changes since my GA review:
  • Generally, there is a significant improvement in the friendliness of prose for a general audience, specifically regarding technical and historiographic aspects.
  • The elaboration on the historical context for the Church of the East in China is also well done.
Further nits for me to pick:
  • Some copy-editing and language tagging I hope no one minds that I've taken the initiative in doing myself among the new material.
More in a little bit, but I wanted to post something following my initial sesh. Remsense诉 16:53, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image and source review[edit]

File:十字寺遗址内石碑.jpg, File:十字寺遗址内石碑 (cropped).jpg and File:十字寺遗址文保碑 (cropped).jpg need a copyright tag to indicate the status of the statue/plate. File:Yuan dynasty stone with cross and Syriac inscription from Church of the East site in Fangshan District near Beijing (then called Khanbaliq or Dadu).jpg maybe too but I figure it's kinda obvious that the stone isn't in copyright. File:Rubbing of a Nestorian Cross at the Shih-tzu-ssu 2.jpg and the other rubbing seem to have broken source links.

Source-wise, reviewing this version: Why do some sources have quotes? Is "China Culture Daily" a reliable source for cultural/historical information? Is "The Nestorian Documents and Relics in China" and "Research on Chinese Christianity, Book I: Chinese Christianity during the Tang and Song dynasties" a reliable source? Are "Saeki, P. Y. " and "Saeki, Yoshiro" the same person? In light of this I am not sure that " A study of the history of Nestorian Christianity in China and its literature in Chinese: together with a new English translation of the Dunhuang Nestorian documents" is very reliable.

  1. 2 First mention needs a bit of rephrasing as it's quite similar to the source. Second mention it seems like the source says that it doesn't mean "temple of the cross" I have rephrased this part. Also I believe the source intends to mean "temple of the cross", as Marsone puts it:the present author defends that the correct meaning of the name of the temple should be the "Temple of the Cross". Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 16:41, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. 4 Can I have a copy of this page?
    Got it, where does it translate "luminous religion"? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:40, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It does not. I must have been mistaken from some other sources, but I have removed references to the "luminous religion" in the latest version. Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 15:48, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. 6 OK
  4. 12 Can I have a copy of this page?
    Don't think I got this one. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:40, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Are we talking about Tang 2004, p. 98? I am not using Tang 2004 anymore–please see the comment below. Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 15:49, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  5. 13 Can I have a copy of this page? 12, 13 are from Tang Li's A study of the history of Nestorian Christianity in China and its literature in Chinese, which I swapped for Standaert's Handbook of Christianity in China. I take that I won't need to send you anything from Tang, but please let me know if you need anything from Standaert. Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 15:44, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  6. 14 Can I have a copy of this page? Similar to Tang 2004 above, I have updated the article and removed Zhu 1993 from the the sources. Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 09:41, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  7. 18 OK
  8. 21 Can I have a copy of this page?
    Going by the DeepL translation, fine. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:40, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  9. 22 Can I have a copy of this page?
    At least some of this is supported by the DeepL translation, but I am not really sure. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:40, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    pp. 317, 318 are the transcriptions of the stele inscriptions. p. 319 is Wang's analysis. The part regarding the sexagenary cycle is 其二，落款“辽应历十年丙子岁四月”，应历十年（960）应为庚申年，非丙子年，距应历十年最近的丙子年为保宁八年（976）。碑文中提及辽应历二年（952 年，应为壬子）戊辰岁（应为968 年）、应历八年（958 年，应为戊午）甲戌岁（应为974 年），应历十年丙子岁（应为保宁八年）三个年份的干支虽误，但年号和干支纪年的相隔年数相一致。 Anyone who knows Chinese is free to confirm this bit. Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 16:05, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, I guess. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:27, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  10. 33 Can I have a copy of this page?
    Going by the DeepL translation, fine. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:40, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  11. 40 Can I have a copy of this page?
    Going by the DeepL translation, fine for at least part of the text. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:40, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  12. 48 Can I have a copy of this page?
    Afraid I can't find "gingko" here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:40, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Please see the 10th line of Tang 2011a: 平台前左右通道两侧各植一颗直径超过18 尺的银杏树，枝繁叶茂，右雌左雄. "银杏" is the Chinese word for gingko. Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 15:52, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    OK. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:27, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  13. 49 Can I have a copy of this page?
    Assuming that "recently" means "21st century", OK. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:40, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  14. 50 Can I have a copy of this page? I have swapped out Cao 2000. Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 16:59, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  15. 59 Can I have a copy of this page?
    I am not sure if I can find the part about "stele-making". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:40, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    See Wang 2018 p. 441, at the bottom: 由于景教在汉人中缺乏群众基础，这些景教徒不懂汉文，也不在汉人中传教，对汉人的立碑传统应当是隔膜的，因此不太可能采用汉人的碑刻形式。 Here "汉人的立碑传统" means "the stele-making tradition of Han Chinese". Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 15:54, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    OK. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:27, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  16. 64 Can I have a copy of this page? Tang has been swapped out.Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 17:00, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  17. 66 OK, but is it Tang Li or Li Tang? It is always "Tang Li" in the "family name + first name" order. Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 15:41, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  18. 71 Can I have a copy of this page?
    Can't find the measures. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:40, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Please see Xu 1992 p. 481, at the center-right of the page: 先介紹這兩塊石刻 [...] 兩石高寬尺寸相同，高68.5厘米，兩端面刻十字架，寬58.5厘米，厚14厘米，兩石相接全長116厘米。 These are the measurements. The OCD of the pdf isn't great, and your translation software might have not caught the characters. Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 15:58, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    OK. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:27, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  19. 72 Can I have a copy of this page?
    I corrected Niu 2007 to Niu 2006. I hope you are all right with it? Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 15:59, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  20. 78 It says "hope" not "trust". Changed. The "hope" translation is quoted from Moule, who quoted from Burkitt. I am happy to change it to Borbone's translation ("trust") which is much newer. Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 15:41, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:23, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Received, thank you. I will get to you around the end of the month. Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 13:11, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus How can I best send you a copy of a page? Through private email? I'm pretty sure I cannot upload screenshots / photos of pages to en-wiki or Commons. Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 20:54, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, by email. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:14, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to attach files to the Wiki email interface but it won't let me. I just sent you an email. @Jo-Jo Eumerus it will be greatly appreciated if you can reply to that email, so I could reply to your address and send things as attachments. Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 15:42, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus Sources sent. Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 17:07, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus All comments responded to. Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 16:06, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:十字寺遗址内石碑.jpg, File:十字寺遗址内石碑 (cropped).jpg and File:十字寺遗址文保碑 (cropped).jpg need a copyright tag to indicate the status of the statue/plate.
I tagged File:十字寺遗址内石碑.jpg and its derived image with PD-old-assumed. File:十字寺遗址文保碑 (cropped).jpg depicts a plate made by the Chinese government (it marks a decree to make the Cross Temple a site protected at the national level), so tagged with PD-PRC-exempt. Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 21:10, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Rubbing of a Nestorian Cross at the Shih-tzu-ssu 2.jpg and the other rubbing seem to have broken source links. Rubbing links updated to original Smithsonian links. Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 08:51, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Jo-Jo Eumerus A little more on Tang Li's A study of the history of Nestorian Christianity in China and its literature in Chinese, which you questioned whether it is a RS. You said In light of this I am not sure that [the book] is very reliable. I looked into the book review you cited a bit further today. To quote:
On pp. 33–101, a useful survey of the history of the Church of the East from its origin in West Asia to its existence in China during the Yuan dynasty is given. The history of the Church in Persia up to the seventh century is described in some detail. The final section on the Nestorian expansion in Central Asia, however, is too brief, taking up a mere page and a half (pp. 75–76). The importance of the area to the mission to China and of the discoveries made near Turfan (especially at Bulayïq) of fragments of Nestorian texts in Old Turkish (Uighur) and Sogdian, including a version of the Gloria in Excelsis Deo, should in my opinion have been emphasized.
I agree with you that Tang's translations are not perfect. What I quoted in the Cross Temple article is mostly from the range pp. 33–101, to supplement a review of the history of the Church of the East in the article. The rest (pp. 18, 19, 29) are on the history of the Nestorian Stele.
The bottom line is, I think Tang is reliable when it comes to the general history of the Church of the East in China. I think I will be fine as long as I don't quote Tang's translations (and I have no need to do so in this article). Would love to hear what you think. Also, I will send you the relevant pages either in the next few days, or in the first week of April. Hope this timing is all right. Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 23:20, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mm, not entirely sure myself if that addresses the reliability question. Anyone else? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:23, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you are still not satisfied by Tang, may I suggest N. Staedart's Handbook of Christianity in China (Vol. 1)? I have some favourable book reviews:
I can get this book in the next few days and update the citations. Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 15:45, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus If you're not opposed to it, I am going to swap Tang with Standaert :) Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 17:34, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Swapped for the main "context" part. Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 23:38, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now to the "China Culture Daily". To quote from the official description, it is run by China's Ministry of Culture and Tourism. I think that it is a RS when it comes to facts about historical sites in China (without any ideological bits). Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 22:06, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Nestorian Documents and Relics in China" and "Research on Chinese Christianity, Book I: Chinese Christianity during the Tang and Song dynasties" a reliable source? Are "Saeki, P. Y. " and "Saeki, Yoshiro" the same person? I do apologise-- I did not directly access "The Nestorian Documents and Relics in China" or "Research on Chinese Christianity, Book I: Chinese Christianity during the Tang and Song dynasties" in my research. They are cited by the papers that I read. Now I have reformatted the citations and removed these two from the references list. Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 22:09, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why do some sources have quotes? I put quotes so readers and reviewers can have an easier time checking. I am happy to remove them if you want to. Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 16:06, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus Is there anything else you would like me to provide? Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 10:12, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
File:十字寺遗址文保碑 (cropped).jpg still needs a copyright tag for the plaque. Otherwise, it should be it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:16, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Gotcha! Just added "PD-PRC-exempt". Thank you very much. Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 20:40, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's probably all of it, unless you can provide the new sources you installed too. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:49, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Gotcha, just sent you pages from Standaert 2001. Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 09:51, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think there is a typo on "Moule 2001, p. 96." as it's throwing a harv error. Checking Standaert 2001: #9 N/A #10 OKish although I wonder what "foreign support" means #11 I wonder if this can be rewritten so that it resembles the source text less #12 OK #13 OK #14 OK #15 OK but I wonder if this can be rewritten so that it resembles the source text less Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:33, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Moule 2001 corrected to Moule 2011.
#9 is from the quote This leads to the conclusion that Nestorian settlements were relatively numerous during the Tang, [...] Nevertheless, Christian settlements were probably not extremely important.
#11, #15 reworded. Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 11:19, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus added pp. 12–15 to #11 and sent you the pages. I think that's all of it. Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 08:10, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like this is all. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:40, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley[edit]

  • "During different periods, it was used by either Buddhists or the Church of the East (sometimes known as Nestorian Christianity)." This is confusing. "either/or" implies doubt who was using the temple, which does not appear to be what you mean. Maybe "It was a Buddhist temple and a Church of the East (sometimes called a Nestorian Church) at different periods."
Lede fixed. Now it says Buddhists and early Chinese Christians used the temple independently during different periods in history.
  • This is verbose. How about "Buddhists and early Chinese Christians used the temple during different periods." Dudley Miles (talk) 12:28, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it is better to avoid the use of foreign scripts in English Wikipedia (except in quotations). It is not helpful to readers.
I use foreign (Chinese, mostly) scripts for proper nouns of names of people, places and organisations. My defense is that due to the particular nature of the Chinese language (using character as basic units; multiple characters have the same pronunciation), it is not sufficient to provide the romanisation (pinyin) alone. For example, Yang Wei leads to almost a dozen Chinese names, each with different characters.
  • "Scholars debate the periodisation of when the Cross Temple was used by Nestorians." This is out of chronological order and superfluous as you mention queries on periodisation later in the paragraph. I suggest starting the paragraph "Originally built as a Buddhist temple in 317".
This sentence is gone in the current version.
  • Starting the history section with a sub-section headed 'Context and terminology' which is solely on Christian use relegates the early Buddhist use as unimportant. You should start the history at the beginning with the early Buddhist phase and could then have a heading for the next sub-section of "Context and terminology of Christian use".
  • "During its history, the Cross Temple was used by either Chinese Buddhists or Nestorian Christians in China". "During its history" is meaningless word salad. As above, "either/or" implies doubt rather than sequence. A less wordy alternative is "After the Buddhist period, the Cross Temple was a Nestorian church."
I will address the two points above as a whole. I tried placing the "Context and terminology" section after a few paragraphs early history. I find it difficult, in particular because there is not a clear-cut time that we can say "here the temple turned Christian for the first time". Another source of difficulty is that I need to state my reason of using the words "Nestorian" and "Church of the East" interchangeably in the article, and I think it is best to do it early.
Perhaps you could have a look at my attempt (in moving the "Context and terminology" subsection) in my sandbox? Happy to correct the wording "During its history, the Cross Temple was used by either Chinese Buddhists or Nestorian Christians in China" after we sort out the placement.
  • "refuse to refer to the historical Church of the East in China as "Nestorian", as the word implies a heretical connection to Nestorius". The word "heretical" implies the hostile view of an 'orthodox' Christian. Maybe "a connection to Nestorius, who they regard as a heretical thinker".
Wording changed.
  • "[...]" Why the square brackets?
To quote from MOS:Original Wording, Where there is good reason to change the wording, bracket the changed text; for example, "Ocyrhoe told him his fate" might be quoted as "Ocyrhoe told [her father] his fate". I feel like omission by ellipses would apply too, at least that's what I was taught.
  • Square brackets are only used with extra text. I do not remember seeing them used with ellipses and I think it is incorrect. Tim riley what do you say? Dudley Miles (talk) 12:28, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Different publishers have different house styles, and I have certainly seen [...] on many occasions. I don't know if our MoS addresses the point, but in general terms the practice doesn't strike me as erroneous. Tim riley talk 15:00, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "thriving China-Persia relations". Why did this help Christianity? This should be explained.
  • Thanks for the reminder. I will explain this part once I swap out Tang (2004) for a more reliable source. Will be done in the next few days. Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 20:32, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just swapped out Tang for a more reliable source. This issue does not exist in the current version. Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 22:12, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • " built Nestorian monasteries in every province" You should specify every Tang province as their empire only covered part of modern China.
Done.
  • "enacted the Huichang persecution of Buddhism, which also affected the Christians". "enacted" is an odd word here. How about "[[Huichang persecution of Buddhism|persecuted foreign religions]]?
I agree that "enacted" could be changed–changed to "initiated". I am not sure about linking "Huichang persecution of Buddhism" under the guise of "persecuted foreign religions": the disappearance of the Church of the East in China was a by-product of a greater movement clearly targeted at Buddhism.
  • "leading to the annihilation of Nestorian Christianity in China". "annihilation" implies violent destruction. Maybe "disappearance".
Done.
  • "According to a Liao-era stele". Liao refers to several different periods. You should clarify the date.
Done.
  • "The scholar Wang Xiaojing proposed that the author of the Liao stele conflated the Jin with the Later Jin dynasty (936–947)." I do not know what you mean here.
Reworded.
  • "Names for the monastery during Jin and Tang periods is not known." This is ungrammatical and assumes that there were several names. Is this known?
We do not actually know the name (or names). Wording changed to singular.
  • "Tang Xiaofeng additionally pointed". Why "additionally"? You have not mentioned anything pointed to before.
Removed "additionally".
  • "However, the exact date of rebuilding was unclear". Presumably "is unclear. The date is still unknown?
Yes, still unknown. Changed to present tense.
  • "However, British sinologist Arthur Christopher Moule believed that there was insufficient evidence to show that the Church of the East existed in Beijing before the 13th century." You say above that it reached China in 635. Do you mean that it is questioned whether it reached Beijing before 13C? If so, you should clarify.
Clarified.
(There was a point-by-point response here. This bit is reorganised by TLP into Dudley's comments above.)
Regarding the information of early Christianity in China, I need to sort out whether a book I cited (namely, Tang 2004) is RS. If not, I shall find an RS soon, and that means I will need to change bits that give general context. Therefore I intend to keep those bits untouched at the moment until I get out of this little pseudo Wikibreak and return to my good ole' library. Thanks for the helpful suggestions! Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 18:53, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dudley Miles All comments responded to. Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 21:56, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "During the Liao dynasty (916–1125), The Cross Temple was called "Chongsheng Yuan" (崇聖院; 'Hall of the Honoured Saint'), when Buddhists rebuilt it during the reign of Emperor Muzong of Liao." This is a confusing wording and I am not sure how to clarify it. Also, the second "The" should not be capitalised.
  • Clarified and reworded. Thanks for pointing this out.
  • "Many scholars have considered that the Nestorian monk Rabban Sauma, a Uyghur born in Beijing during the Yuan,[27][28] may have some connection to the Cross Temple. Moule conjectured that the site was probably near Sauma's hermitage.[29] Shi Mingpei argues that the description of Rabban Sauma's hermitage is "extremely similar" to the Cross Temple and its surrounding terrain.[30] Tang Li asserted that Rabban Sauma came from the site in a 2011 book." This paragraph is confusing. You seem to be saying that the site of the hermitage is not known and that it may have been Cross Temple, but if so this should be spelled out.
  • Good point. Now spelled out and I think it flows better.
  • "inscriptions by Yifengtang')" Closing bracket but not opening bracket.
  • Resolved.
  • "According to P. Y. Saeki, the Scottish diplomat Reginald Johnston rediscovered the site during the summer of 1919." What does rediscovered mean here? Presumably the local people never lost it.
  • The Buddhist monks sold the temple in 1911, so no one used temple for a short period of time, and it was presumably in desolation. Thus Johnston "rediscovered" the site. How can I better phrase this point?
  • "there was a Shanmen entry" A few words of explanation of "Shanmen" as well as the link would be helpful.
  • Done.
  • "The Cross Temple is the only discovered site of the Church of the East in China." "discovered" is an odd word here. Do you mean only known site?
  • I have reworded it to Some scholars consider the Cross Temple to be the only place of worship of the Church of the East discovered in China.
  • "It is located near Chechang Village (车厂村), Fangshan District, to the southwest of Beijing City." The 'Current state' section is not the right place for stating the temple's location. Perhaps you could add a short section at the beginning of the main text covering location, surrounding area and which kingdom it was in at different periods.
  • This might be among the very few objections I have. I think that the "Current state" section could be a place to state the temple's location (see St. Michael's Cathedral, Qingdao#Description). Maybe the "Current state" section can be renamed to "Description" or some sort–I am open to that.
I don't think the location is something to be worried about–it is near a small village, which is near a major city, and that should be enough. I added the surrounding area / township. The history section talks about "which kingdom it was in at different periods."
  • "A replica of the Xi'an Stele was added to the site during the early 21st century". The wording implies that you have mentioned this stele before. Maybe "A replica of a stele discovered near Xi'an was added to the site during the early 21st century"
  • I supplied the context of the Xi'an Stele in the "context" section. I think I will keep this wording (although I moved it to a different area)
  • "in one of the Syriac manuscripts in the British Museum". Manuscripts have been transferred to the British Library.
  • Thanks for catching this bit. I think either "British Museum" or "British Library" is irrelevant here, so now it reads with the addition of the phrase "the living cross", in one of the Add. 14459 Syriac gospel manuscripts. Moule in his original text explicitly spells out Add. 14459.
  • See also section. I would delete as not really relevant, but that is up to you.
  • I intend to make the see also section go "horizontal" across similar topics, not "vertical" as in staying the relevant subject (Church of the East in China). I think I'll keep it.
  • "It is notable that, according to records". "It is notable that" is verbiage. I would delete. "according to records" is vague verbiage. What records?
  • This is a verbatim translation of what is stated in the paper. I don't have the liberty to change wording.
  • I think that it would be better to have separate main headings for citations and sources.
  • Sure!
  • There is an error message on the Nicolini-Zani, Matteo source saying that it is not used.
  • Fixed.
  • Putting the sources in columns looks clumsy. I think they would look better and be easier to read if they were in text without columns, but that is a personal preference.
  • Fixed.
  • In general, this is a good article, but there is far too much Chinese text for English Wikipedia. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:46, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding this point: will you find it more acceptable if I put most Chinese text into footnotes, rather than parentheses? Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 15:36, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments received. I am busy this weekend (bank holiday, Easter, you name it). Will get to work next week. Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 15:31, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Dudley Miles All comments addressed. I think we just need to sort out the Chinese text issue (maybe footnotes?). Many thanks for your careful comments. Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 22:47, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    While each of your individual points is very much worthwhile, I do not really agree on your summary—there's simply not a lot of English-language "turf" for a lot of these terms, and inclusion of Chinese-language text is necessary for disambiguation when there's not an article for a given topic. Remsense诉 15:32, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Dudley, anything to add here? Gog the Mild (talk) 17:01, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am on holiday until 11 April. I hope it will be OK if I comment further when I get back. Dudley Miles (talk) 00:22, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Raynald of Châtillon[edit]

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

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

Funk[edit]

  • I'll have a look soonish. At first glance, the usual script[29] reveals a good deal of duplinks, not sure if they're all needed. FunkMonk (talk) 12:50, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for starting the review. A quick cheque shows that all duplinks are connected to individuals who are mentioned in section "Family" in addition to one reference to them in other sections of the article and in the lead. I think this approach is quite user friendly. Borsoka (talk) 14:17, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "but in 1989 Jean Richard demonstrated Raynald's kinship with the lords of Donzy." How? Could warrant at least a footnote, as it pertains directly to the subject of the article?
  • I do not have access to Richard's work.
Seems like it could be worth tracking it down, what is the citation? WP:RX usually works. FunkMonk (talk) 18:57, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your suggestion. I reqested assistance at WP:RX.
  • "Raynald was born around 1123 or 1125." Do we know where?
  • None of the two cited sources name the place of his birth. Britannica indicates that Raynald was born in Châtillon-sur-Loing but I am not sure that this claim could be verified by a reference to a secondary source. Borsoka (talk) 06:28, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done.
  • William of Tyre probably only needs to be linked in the first caption he's mentioned in, but now he's linked all three times.
  • Yes, he is linked in each caption of the pictures. I think this is the usual approach.
But in three different captions, one should be enough in the first. FunkMonk (talk) 18:57, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link Venetian?
  • Linked.
  • "The crusader states around 1165" State the colour of the area he ruled in caption.
  • Added.
  • Link excommunicated.
  • Linked.
  • Link Genoa.
  • Linked.
  • "Raynald made an alliance with Thoros II of Cilicia." Probably worth mentioning he was Armenian ("the Armenian lord"?) to show shifting alliances, since the previous paragraph tells of him fighting Armenians.
  • Added.
  • "orgy of violence" This sounds a little, err, loaded.
  • Reworded. I am curious how I could create this expression.
  • "Shaizar was held by Assassins, but it had been ruled by the Muslim Munqidhites who paid an annual tribute to Raynald." This seemingly implies that the Assassins weren't Muslims. Perhaps be more specific about what kind of Muslims the two groups were?
  • Reworded.
  • "On Manuel's demand, he and his retainers walked barefoot" I think you could name him instead of the confusing "he".
  • Modified.
  • Link Latakia.
  • Linked.
  • "horses and camels from the local peasants" State if they were Muslims for context.
  • None of the cited sources refers to their religion. I assume they were more likely local Christians.
  • A shame many of the old illustrations are so low res, I wonder if some of them can be updated with higher res scans?
  • Sorry, I do not understand your reference to "res".
Image resolution/size. FunkMonk (talk) 18:57, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I changed the size of most images. Borsoka (talk) 02:59, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, sorry, I meant their sizes on Commons, as in the original resolution of the files themselves. But probably not much you can do about it without access to larger versions. FunkMonk (talk) 08:53, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • This[30] image has a copyright warning tag that is probably invalid.
  • I think the tag is obviously baseless but I cannot delete it.
Hmmm, that's an extremely annoying template, I'll ask around how to fix it. FunkMonk (talk) 18:57, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I brought it up here[31], and seems to have been fixed for at least this image. FunkMonk (talk) 21:30, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Borsoka (talk) 02:59, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link leprosy?
  • Linked.
  • "but he protested when Baldwin confirmed Raynald's position as "regent of the kingdom and of the armies"." Why?
  • Explained.
  • Link Beirut.
  • Linked.
  • Link Arabian desert.
  • Linked.
  • Link Medina.
  • I am not sure it is necessary.
  • Link Holy Roman Emperor.
  • Linked.
  • It seems Saladin needs a proper introduction in the article body, now he's just mentioned without any context, unlike for example "a talented Turkic military leader Imad al-Din Zengi".
  • Introduced.
  • The long quote under Kingmaker seems kind of isolated, but could benefit from some commentary, if available, or introduction for context.
  • "Saladin sent blaming him" Not sure what this means, something missing?
  • This is a quote. I checked, and the quoted text contains the same wording. Borsoka (talk) 06:28, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "against ships delivering pilgrims" Specify Muslim.
  • Added.
  • Perhaps link Saracen, though it is only used in quotes.
  • You spell out Bernard Hamilton many times, when his full name would only be needed at first mention in the article body. This may possibly also be an issue with other names.
  • Modified.
  • "of French origin... a French noble family" Should be stated in the article body as well.
  • Added.
  • "he was the only Christian leader to pursue an offensive policy against Saladin" This does not seem to be explicitly stated in the article body.
  • The first sentence in section "Fights against Saladin" verifies the statement.
  • Link Red Sea in intro.
  • Linked.
  • Have to say it's fun to read these real accounts of characters I mainly know from the film Kingdom of Heaven hehe... Hope to see more!
Thank you very much for your comprehensive review and for your suggestion. I think I addressed most of the problems you mentioned above but I need some days to deal with the pending issues. Borsoka (talk) 04:32, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good, left some further replies about last issues. FunkMonk (talk) 18:57, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • FunkMonk thank you for your support. I added an explanatory footnote about Raynald's ancestry ([32]). Please let me know if further explanation is needed. Borsoka (talk) 03:35, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jens[edit]

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

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

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

Matarisvan[edit]

Hi, some minor comments on source formatting:

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

Secondary sources subsection:

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Thank you for your comprehensive review and also for your edits. Borsoka (talk) 02:55, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Srnec[edit]

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

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

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

  • I am grateful for answering my invitation. Thank you for your suggestions and edits. Borsoka (talk) 04:19, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing...

  • Unlinked Majd al-Din was the governor of Aleppo and two paragraphs later it's Gümüshtekin, who is described as "independent". This leaves me with questions. I think some explanation of who Majd al-Din was and what was going on with Aleppo may be needed.
  • Context added.
  • Do we have a date, even approximate, for Baldwin IV's embassy?
  • Added.
  • Raynald married Stephanie of Milly, the lady of Oultrejordain, and Baldwin IV also granted him Hebron. I'd break this up into two sentences. And do we have date(s)?
  • Date added, but I would leave the sentence united.
  • Raynald's name was the first among the witnesses who signed most royal charters between 1177 and 1180 Hard to parse. Should probably say something like "Raynald signed a majority of royal charters between 1177 and 1180, with his name always first among signatories".

Looks like I'll be doing this in short bursts. Srnec (talk) 20:33, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing...

  • Perhaps a link to Caravan (travellers) should be added somewhere, although that's not the most informative article.
  • Linked.
  • I notice inconsistent treatment of sun and moon letters. Should be consistent within the article, probably in favour of al-. Also, the Arabic definite article should only be capitalized where English 'the' would be.
  • I think inconsistency in article reflects inconsistency in the cited books. I would prefer scholarly usage to consistency.
  • But I think scholars will be internally consistent (unless they are Lawrence of Arabia). I would be surprised to see a scholar switch back and forth between "al-Din" and "ad-Din".
  • No, scholars are not consistent either (see Buck) :), but I changed the text. Borsoka (talk) 01:52, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • When Saladin tried to seize Aleppo after As-Salih died on 18 November 1181 Constructions like this are always ambiguous between whether al-Salih died on that date or Saladin tried to seize Aleppo on that date. Consider rewording.
  • Changed.
  • His defiance annoyed the king, enabling Raymond III of Tripoli's partisans to reconcile him with the monarch. Raymond's return to the royal court put an end to Raynald's paramount position. Raymond III comes out of nowhere here. These two sentences need to be reworked to make more sense to the uninitiated.
  • Context added.
  • Saladin revived the Egyptian naval force No article for the Ayyubid navy, but we do have Fatimid navy. I leave it up to you if you think a link could be worked in here.
  • Linked.
  • We need a link to Hajj to explain Muslim pilgrims. Could go in the lead, where they are first mentioned or elsewhere.
  • Linked.
  • Baldwin IV, who had become seriously ill, made Guy of Lusignan bailli (or regent) in October 1183. Is this different from the office of regent previously mentioned? The whole concept of "regent" during the reign of Baldwin IV may need some explaining.
  • I deleted bailli because not the title but the position is relevant in the article's context.
  • Baldwin V, crowned king Should be "co-king", I think, or perhaps add "in association with himself".
  • Modified.
  • The bailli, Raymond III When did he become bailli?
  • Deleted the reference to his office because it is not highly relevant.
  • Ali ibn al-Athir and other Muslim historians record that Raynald made a truce with Saladin in 1186. This "seems unlikely to be true", according to Hamilton, because the truce between the Kingdom of Jerusalem and Saladin covered Raynald's domains. . . possibly because he regarded the presence of soldiers as a breach of the truce ... stating in the words of the Estoire d'Eracles that "... he had no truces with the Saracens". Saladin [took] an oath that he would personally kill Raynald for breaking the truce. Seems like a lot of confusion then and now over whether Raynald was covered by a truce! Not sure there is much that can be done to fix this, but I can certainly imagine a reader scratching his head.
  • Rephrased. I think now it is much clearer. Borsoka (talk) 02:47, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, moving that Barber quotation was a good idea.

More later. Srnec (talk) 20:42, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Finally,

  • The reliability of the reports of Saladin's offer to Raynald is subject to scholarly debate, because the Muslim authors who recorded them may have only wanted to improve Saladin's image. I find this sentence odd. Is there a reason for scholarly debate on what seems to me a minor point?
  • The story about Saladin's offer to conversion to Raynald has been frequently deleted by editors. To avoid further edit wars, I added this sentence.
  • She followed her husband to Hungary, where she gave birth to seven children before she died around 1184. Raynald and Constance's second daughter, Alice, became the third wife of Azzo VI of Este in 1204. Do these sentences imply that Raynald is the ancestor of much European royalty? If so, it might be worth stating so explicitly.
  • Yes, he is obviously the ancestor of much of European royalty, but this statement is not verified in the sources cited in the article.
  • Spelling is inconsistent between Oultrejourdain and Oultrejordain.
  • Fixed.
  • Saladin compared Raynald with the king of Ethiopia who had tried to destroy Mecca in 570 The Year of the Elephant article ascribes the attack to Abraha, an Ethiopian king but not a king of Ethiopia.
  • Hamilton writes of the "Christian king of Ethiopia".
  • I'm going to assume that the primary source says the same.
  • Peter of Blois dedicated a book (entitled Passion of Prince Raynald of Antioch) to him shortly after his death. I found this intriguing and wanted to know more.

I have now done a first pass of the whole article and will read it over once more before making some final remarks and assessing the lead. Srnec (talk) 17:10, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Srnec, just checking to see if there will be more to come. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:24, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: I do still intend to. I was waiting to see what changes result from Dudley's review. Srnec (talk) 18:17, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi, Srnec, do you think the article has a chance for promotion? Borsoka (talk) 05:10, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A second pass...

  • Antioch was a crusader state in the Near East, Oultrejordain a large fiefdom in the crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem, and he ruled both territories by right of one of his two wives. I do not agree with the addition of this sentence. It is highly unusual to place this kind of background information in the second sentence of the lead.
  • In fact, I find the entire background section excessive. It would be absurd to repeat it at ever crusader lord's article, so why Raynald's? For me, wikilinks is how to provide background beyond basic definitions. I'm not sure why the peer reviewers thought this necessary in a biographical article. It seems unusual to me.
  • He received the lordship of Châtillon-sur-Loire, but a part of his patrimony was "violently and unjustly confiscated", according to one of his letters. I think you should lead with his claim and then identify his lordship. As it is, this sentence still reads awkwardly to me. It might require more research to flesh out.
  • The paragraph beginning Raymond of Poitiers, the Prince of Antioch does not mention Raynald. The information should perhaps be moved elsewhere or its relevance made clearer.
  • The historian Steven Runciman says that Raynald had already settled in Antioch, and was engaged to Constance before the siege began. In contrast, the historian Malcolm Barber says that their betrothal took place during a visit by Raynald to the principality before the end of the siege. This makes too much of a minor distinction between being betrothed before or during a siege. I'd combine it into a single sentence and leave out inline attribution. The sources seem to agree that he was betrothed before the end of the siege.
  • duke of Antioch. Unless and until an article on the office is created, I think we need an explanation of this title. Could go in a note. I did find this.
  • Raynald captured and tortured him. I think "arrested" or "imprisoned" is the better word here.
  • Emperor Manuel sent his envoys to Antioch. This would be a good place for background.
  • According to Pharaoh's Island, "Ile de Graye" is a misnomer. We should probably avoid it.
  • The title Kaisar needs some explanation (or wikilink).
  • I notice inconsistent use of {{lang}} tags, although this is hardly a dealbreaker.
  • I see no need to mention the opinion of a blogger associated with Breitbart. If this is the proper description of Delingpole—and his Wiki page suggests it is not—then he needn't be here.

In terms of comprehensiveness, sourcing and neutrality, the article is fine, although I would have sought out some academic papers. Compared to Henry IV, it is not as readable. I suspect it is hard to follow for the average reader. Srnec (talk) 03:30, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

All images are OK except possibly File:IIIBelaFotoThalerTamas.JPG. According to Wikipedia, the reburial of the Hungarian king was in 1898 which means if the artworks in the picture date to then, we are probably OK for copyright status per the commons PD-old-assumed. However, I cannot confirm that the artwork in the photo also dates to 1898—if the artist died after 1953 it is still likely copyrighted. I would be inclined to remove the image as it is not crucial to the reader's understanding of the article topic. (t · c) buidhe 19:05, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Picture removed. Thank you for the image review. Borsoka (talk) 00:53, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Buidhe: I added a new image ([33]). I would be grateful for your review. Borsoka (talk) 04:54, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is not PD-scan because three-dimensional elements of the book are captured. The photograph could be copyrightable in some jurisdictions, so I cropped it. As long as it isn't reverted you should be good. (t · c) buidhe 05:05, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley[edit]

  • The first paragraph could give more context with a few words. I suggest adding that Antioch was one of the Crusader states, and that Raynald's marriage made him rule of Antioch.
  • Expanded.
  • "he married Constance, Princess of Antioch, in spite of her subjects' opposition". This is not supported in the main text, which gives the impression that they only found out about it and complained afterwards.
  • Modified.
  • "Always in need of funds, Raynald tortured Aimery of Limoges, Latin Patriarch of Antioch who had refused to pay a subsidy to him." Attributing the torture to shortage of funds is also not supported below. You give the immpression that it was retaliation for Aimery's insult in refusing the subsidy in protest at the marriage.
  • I think the main text verifies the statement.
  • You say "Aimery of Limoges, the wealthy Latin patriarch of Antioch, did not hide his dismay at Constance's second marriage. He even refused to pay a subsidy to Raynald. In retaliation, Raynald captured and tortured Aimery in the summer of 1154,[33] forcing him to sit naked and covered with honey in the sun, before imprisoning him. Aimery was only released on Baldwin III's demand, but he soon left his see for Jerusalem." I do not see how this verifies the statement. You say below in a different context that Raynald was always short of funds, but not in relation to his treatment of Aimery. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:24, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I expanded the main text to make it clearer, and less ambiguous. Borsoka (talk) 01:50, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "claiming that the truce between Saladin and the Kingdom of Jerusalem was not binding upon him". You have not said that there was a truce.
  • Modified.
  • "born around 1123 or 1125". This sounds odd to me. I would say around 1124 or between 1123 and 1125.
  • Modified.
  • "The 12th-century historian William of Tyre, who was Raynald's opponent". This reads to me as if he was an opponent in single combat. Maybe "was an enemy of Raynald".
  • Modified.
  • "and engaged to Constance before the siege began". "and was engaged" or "and became engaged".
  • Modified.
  • You several times use "propose that" to mean "argue that". Dictionaries do not give that meaning of "propose" and I think it would be better to use another word.
  • Modified.
  • "Buck proposes that Aimery's previous debates with the papacy over the Archbishopric of Tyre explain why Raynald was not excommunicated for his abuse of Aimery. Instead, Aimery excommunicated Raynald as a consequence of a conflict between Antioch and Genoa on the demand of the papacy." This is unclear. Are you saying that the pope forbade Aimery to excommunicate Raynald for his abuse but permitted it as a result of a conflict? What was the conflict and what was Raynald's part in it? Was the excommunication later lifted or did it become void when Aimery left Antioch? In view of the great seriousness of excommunication this needs much fuller explanation.
  • Rephrased, but there is little information about the excommunication and its circumstances.
  • "Before the capitulation of the garrison, Baldwin decided to grant the fortress to Thierry of Flanders, but Raynald demanded that the count should pay homage to him for the town. After Thierry sharply refused to swear fealty to an upstart, the crusaders abandoned the siege. "You imply at the beginning that the garrison surrendered and at the end that it did not.
  • Rephrased.
  • "Raynald hurried to Mamistra to voluntarily make his submission to the emperor." Presumably Raynald did not have the soldiers to fight Manuel, but it would be helpful to clarify this - or what other reason Raynald had to surrender.
  • Expanded.
  • Thank you for your comprehensive review and suggestions. Borsoka (talk) 01:40, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Ali ibn al-Athir and other Muslim historians record that Raynald made a separate truce with Saladin in 1186.[108] This "seems unlikely to be true"". "record" implies a true statement. As it is disputed, I suggest "stated".
  • Done.
  • "Saladin's mamluks". You show "mamluk" as an Arabic word, perhaps because it has a different meaning in English. It is not helpful to readers of English Wikipedia to have an untranslated word in a foreign language.
  • Changed to "soldiers".
  • "She was given in marriage to Raymond of Poitiers in 1136.[144] The widowed Constance's marriage to Raynald". It would be helpful to mention Raymond's death date for clarity.
  • Done.
  • "Their daughter, Agnes". You need to clarify that she was the daughter of Raynald and Constance.
  • Done.
  • 'Assessment'. From what I remember, historians also blame Raynald (and the Knights Templar) for the suicidal attack which led to Hattin. Should this be covered?
  • Mentioned in section "Capture and execution".
  • The last paragraph covers historians who argue on historical grounds and anti-Islam culture warriors such as Delingpole who glorify Raynald as an enemy of Islam. I think the use of Raynald in culture wars should be in a spearate section.
  • Title changed to "In historiography and popular culture". I think section should not be splitted because historians' views influence popular perceptions, and historians express their views about popular perceptions. Borsoka (talk) 02:31, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not think it is correct to refer to popular culture and popular perceptions. Out of the two people you refer to, Jeffrey Lee has a first class degree in Islamic history and he is the author of a guide to the Prayer Book published by the Society of St John the Evangelist. Delingpole is, as I said above, an anti-Islamic culture warrior. I do not have access to Cotts' essay which you cite as the source, but if it covers Raynald's role in the culture wars (which you hint at) I think it should be covered as a separate topic. "Historiography" and "popular culture" are both misleading headings for this aspect. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:08, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dudley Miles (talk) 09:40, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • What do you think if I delete the reference to Delingpole? I would not split the section. Borsoka (talk) 12:07, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have just seen that Lee's book was a biography, not a novel as you say. I think that makes the historiography heading (without popular culture) valid, but I think Raynald's role as a bogy to Moslems and a hero to anti-Moslems is important and worth spelling out in a separate paragraph. I would not delete Delingpole as his view is relevant to this aspect of the article. In the end it is your call. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:23, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seeing its cover and title, I was convinced that it is a novel. After reading some sentences from the first chapters, I came to the conclusion that I was not fully wrong. Of course, I will change the the sentence. I would prefer the present structure: modern Muslim terrorists' view is based on medieval Muslim historians' narration, and independent of modern anti-Islamic culture warriors' opinion, whereas anti-Islamic culture warriors repeat or exaggerate views expressed by western historians who regarded Raynald as a heroe of Christianity or anti-Muslim warfare. Borsoka (talk) 04:21, 22 March 2024 (UT
  • The last paragraph looks OK to me now, except for the description of Delingpole as a blogger, which does not tell us anything about him. Maybe quote his own self-description as a "libertarian conservative".
  • I would not use his self-assessment, so I added an alternative introduction.
  • "Historians such as Matthew Gabriele sharply criticised his approach". Gabriele is not listed in the sources. If you only have access to a quotation of his view, you could state the original source in a footnote.
  • I have no access to Gabriele's work.
  • It is very dangerous to state what an author says without checking the original source. There are many examples of academics copying misinterpretations of authors without checking the source. You could say "The scholar John Cotts states that historians such as Matthew Gabriele..." and add a footnote "Cotts cites Gabriele, his book, p. 00". Dudley Miles (talk) 10:50, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not remember that our policy requires us to evaluate scholars' interpretation about primary sources. Why do you think a scholar's statement about an other scholar's work is more dangerous? Borsoka (talk) 16:07, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because sometimes they make obvious errors. I've seen articles by reputable sources using source X to argue that volcano Y was active when X was actually talking about volcano Z. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:13, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exactly. Wikipedia should be a summary of reliable secondary sources, not primary sources, so there is a reasonable expectation that we have checked what reliable sources actually say. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:39, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, more like "reliable sources" - this kind of error happens more commonly to secondary sources and is the reason why for some kinds of information, primary ones are preferred. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:54, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • That would apply to articles about volcanoes. I was thinking of medieval history, where is does apply. I have never seen a primary medieval source which does not have errors, which is why they need interpretation by historians. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:11, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The section heading "In historiography and popular culture" is misleading as popular culture is not a significant part of it. Maybe "In historiography and culture wars".
  • I would rather return to "Historiography and perceptions".
  • Added.
  • It seems odd to list the only biography of Raynald in further reading and just quote a second-hand opinion of it. Lee is not a professional historian but as he has a First Class degree in Arabic and Islamic History from Oxford he is not simply a popular writer. (I wrote above that he is author of a guide to the Prayer Book but that seems to be a different Jeffrey Lee.) Dudley Miles (talk) 10:24, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is not a peer-reviewed book. Borsoka (talk) 04:04, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then it should not be in further reading. If you mention a book, you have to provide publication details in the sources. See how I have dealt with this issue in note 2 and references of Edmund Ætheling. If you disagree with my approach, I would be interested to hear what you think I should have done. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:50, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I deleted Lee's work from section "Further reading". Publication details of each book and article that are cited in the article are provided in section "Sources". Would you clarify what is your concern? Borsoka (talk) 16:07, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • On reflection I agree that the sources section should only include ones that are reliable, but publication details should be provided of any work discussed in the article. What do you think of my revised note 2 in Edmund Ætheling? Dudley Miles (talk) 09:39, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your suggestion. Added both Gabriele (in a note), and Delingpole. Borsoka (talk) 02:32, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have got a copy of Gabriele which I can send to you if you email me. The journal is The Historian, not The History. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:08, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would be grateful. You can send me an email from now because I changed my profile to allow correspondence. Sorry, I do not know how I could send an email.
  • If you go to my user page you will see an option 'Email this user' on the left. If I email you, Wikipedia will not allow me to attach a document, but if you email me I can attach to my reply. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:06, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I sent you an email. Thank you for your offer. I changed the journal's title.
  • Thank you for the copy. I slightly expanded the article basedon on Gabriele's review. Borsoka (talk) 05:35, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not see why you list Delingpole and not Lee in sources. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:08, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, but I am now totally confused. You suggested that Gabriele's work should be mentioned in the article, because his PoV is verified only by a reference to an other scholar's work. What is the difference between the two cases (namely, Gabriele and Delingpole)? A quote from Delingpole was earlier verified only by a reference to an other scholar's work, so I added a direct reference to his work. Lee's PoV is not mentioned anywhere in the article. Why should I cite him? Borsoka (talk) 17:20, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The cases are different. Gabriele is an RS and the issue was that you cite his view but did not provide a reference. Delingpole is not an RS but you cite him. You said that you have not cited Lee because he is not an RS, so I was asking why you cite one non-RS but not the other. Personally, I think that they are both RSs for the use of Raynald in culture wars even though they are not for his life, but other editors disagree and you have to be consistent. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:06, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the three authors can be divided into two group: (1) Gabriele's and Delingpole's PoV are mentioned in the article, so - in accordance with your logic - their works containing their PoV should also be mentioned; (2) Lee's PoV is not mentioned anywhere in the article, so his book is not relevant. Borsoka (talk) 03:26, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Dudley Miles, did I miss something, do you suggest any more edit? Borsoka (talk) 05:08, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am just back from holiday and will look again in the next few days. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:21, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

Spot-check upon request. Is Paul Cobb unused? Looks like source format is consistentish and we are using university books and reputable historians as sources. I wonder if there are academic papers, too. Does this character have any presence in popular culture? I kinda wonder if basing Raynald's assessment mostly on a 1978 author is correct. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:30, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for your source review and comments. I expanded the article, so Cobb is now cited several times. I have not searched for academic papers because I think the article summarizes relevant scholarly literature. I added two sentences about Raynald's presentation in the film Kingdom of Heaven, and also about a historic novel dedicated to him. In the article, Raynald's assessment was based on three historians' PoV, now a further historian is added. Hamilton's positive assessment from 1987 is still regularly mentioned in scholarly works. Borsoka (talk) 03:22, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Marshlink line[edit]

Nominator(s): Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:54, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I love travelling on the Marshlink line; it's an interesting idiosyncrasy on the rail network in South East England. Instead of high speed, high volume, electric commuter services, it's a picturesque run through rural Kent and East Sussex that still fills an important gap in the local rail network. We're lucky the line exists at all; in the late 60s it was almost certainly going to be closed, but it never quite happened. And there's always the hope of running high speed rail along it at some point.

I've been working on this article for years now, and combed through a large collection of sources that talk about the line in depth. I think it's finally ready to ask the community if it's good enough to meet the FA criteria. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:54, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

  • I'll definitely do a full review of this one, but in the meantime as a placeholder I will drop in that there is some grammar disagreement in "this once allowed [....] but were removed for safety reasons"..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:34, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, I was wondering how to write that better, I've given it another go. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:51, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Couple of iterations of 'political importance' / 'significance' in the lead. Definitely investing in popcorn futures though  ;) ——Serial 14:46, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The mid-19th century fights between railway companies is something incredible to behold. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:51, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

HF[edit]

I intend to review this over the coming week. Hog Farm Talk 21:38, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Since it's mentioned the origin of the name "Marshlink", is it known how the railway came up with this name?
It took me some time to find a source explaining the name, and I've not seen any source that mentions why the specific name was chosen. I can only assume it was some random marketing department somewhere that has been lost to the midsts of time
  • I'm struggling to see how we get to "The nearest equivalent is the A259 from Hastings to Folkestone via Rye" in the article from "In his speech, the Honourable Member for Rye referred to: the inadequacy of the roads (including the Folkestone to Honiton A259 trunk road) in the South East" in the source
This is one of those awkward things that I think needs to be fixed, but simply removing the text probably isn't the answer. We could mention the vehicle road from Ashford to Hastings, and cite any local Ordnance Survey map, but saying it's "closest" just from a map is going to invite criticism and accusations of original research. I'll have to think about this one some more.
  • From what I can tell, the Marshlink line is contiguous with the East Coastway line - shouldn't the connection between the two be mentioned in the route section unless I'm wrong?
I think it wasn't mentioned because it wasn't in the source given. I've dropped a source in now
  • Any information on how the difficulties in the Romney Marsh soil were mitigated
I've gone back to look at Gray's "The South Eastern Railway" and rewritten this. The principal problem was bad weather, and the specific term used in the source is "heel over", which is not the same as "tip over".
  • "and funded with a £2,800 capital." - this would not be grammatically correct in American English - is it okay in British English?
Copy edited
  • I don't think "The line is strategically important, as electrification and junction improvements would allow High Speed 1 trains direct from St Pancras International to Hastings." and "Despite its relative unimportance in the national rail network, electrification could allow High Speed 1 services to be extended to Hastings and Eastbourne." are entirely saying the same thing. It seems that the lead is saying that the line is unimportant but would still allow for the expansion of High Speed 1 services, while the body seems to be saying that the line is important because it would allow for expansion of High Speed 1
I've rewritten all this (both by addressing the comments here and other later on).

I think that's it from me for the first read-through. Hog Farm Talk 00:29, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick holding reply, most of these issues would benefit from a review of the original source material, most of which is held in reference-only books in my local library. Unfortunately, while I've got time to visit it today, Wednesday is early closing. I'll get back to you! Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:51, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As implied above, I did pop into the library today and checked a book source, that allowed me to address the comments you've made so far. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:26, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ping me when this has passed the source review and I'll take another look. Hog Farm Talk 18:06, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

I did that, and it completely screwed up the infobox formatting, rendering the article completely unreadable. (See history) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:57, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with that is that type was not set. This works fine, although you could use another type if you prefer. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:57, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That seems to work well. I remember wrestling with the images on the table for listed structures some time ago. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:00, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

  • "the line is then double-track" vs "After the tunnel, the line is double track" - inconsistent hyphen use
  • Doleham image caption needs a full stop
  • Ore station is linked in multiple places. Check for overlinking generally.
  • "On 5 August 1873, the SER were authorized" => "On 5 August 1873, the SER were authorised" (UK spelling)
  • "Work began on 8 April 1881 and opened to Dungeness on 7 December that year" => "Work began on 8 April 1881 and the line opened to Dungeness on 7 December that year" (it wasn't the work that opened)
  • "following in the Railways Act 1921" => "following the Railways Act 1921"
  • Winchelsea image caption needs a full stop
  • "The local member of parliament for Rye, Bryant Godman Irvine made" => "The local member of parliament for Rye, Bryant Godman Irvine, made"
  • "In 1969, Railway Magazine announced the remainder " => "In 1969, Railway Magazine announced that the remainder "
  • "and the figures did not consider" => "and that the figures did not consider"

That's what I got as far as "announced plans for British Rail to start electrification by 1995" - will pop back and do the rest later -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:06, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've addressed these issues as reported so far, though in some cases I've gone back and copyedited the original sentence. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:49, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 2015, Amber Rudd, Member of Parliament for Hastings [....] The aim is [...] This requires" - verbs are in the present tense, but 2015 was nine years ago.
  • "In May 2018, the Department of Transport allocated £200,000 for further electrification design, with the possibility of completion in 2022 when the existing track life-expires." - 2022 was two years ago, has anything actually happened?
  • "In October, a proposal was chaired" - October of which year (2019, I think.....?). Again, has anything actually happened? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:13, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "Again, has anything actually happened?" No, but more frustratingly, nothing's been reported in high-quality sources. Electrification and improvements have been talked about for decades, and I'm pretty sure we'll see parliamentary candidates campaigning about it at the next election, but like many things, the COVID pandemic slammed the brakes on everything and it got so far down the priority list, everyone (apart from a few local campaign groups) has forgotten about it. The only recent bit of news I can find is regular hourly services to Winchelsea and Three Oaks, which is covered in the article. We can only report what reliable sources talk about. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:39, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ritchie333, have all of Chris's comments been addressed? If not, could you. If so, could you ping them. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:38, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I'm aware, they've been addressed (either by fixing the article or expanding on the issue - in this case, that sources have dried up for the future of the line since Covid). ChrisTheDude Can you check your comments to see if there's anything else that needs doing? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:59, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Chris ? Gog the Mild (talk) 16:19, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Harry[edit]

Hey Ritchie! My FA reviews are mostly prose/grammar and style pedantry. I do review most criteria but 1a tends to account for the majority of comments. These are usually nice and easy to fix though so a long list is not necessarily a reflection on your writing!

  • East Coastway line towards Eastbourne Surely Brighton is the primary destination in that direction?
Good question. The line is described in sources such as Mitchell / Smith to Brighton, but official network timetables and other documentation only extend to Eastbourne. As sources aren't consistent, I've gone with "Eastbourne and Brighton".
  • Services are provided by Southern. I wonder about the wisdom of including something as ephemeral as a TOC so prominently in the lead. But I suppose it should be mentioned and I can't think of a better way of doing it.
I had a look at some related articles, such as Hastings line, South Eastern Main Line, Chatham Main Line and Ashford–Ramsgate line, and while none of them are GA, let alone FA standard, they don't mention the service operator in the opening paragraph of the lead, so I've taken it out. (The inconsistency with caps in the titles might want sorting out at some point....)
  • and was considered strategically important how? To say it and not elaborate arguably makes it a peacock term.
Changed to "as a priority for military traffic" (as mentioned in the body, cited to Gray 1990)
  • painting the name on selected rolling stock It's not clear who the subject of this clause is (Tony1 calls it "noun-plusing") and it doesn't strictly make sense
Changed to "Some trains had the name painted on the side."
  • The change was one of several in the region, including the "1066 line" 1066 line was one of several changes in the region?
Changed to "The line from Tunbridge Wells to Hastings was branded the "1066 line" at the same time."
  • Services run from Platforms 1 and 2 southwards Would "southwards from Platforms 1 and 2" make more sense or is it just me? And are we confident in "Platform" as a proper noun?
Changed. Regarding caps, looking at a random source, it would appear correct.
  • freight-only branch line operated by Direct Rail Services pedantic, but doesn't DRS operate the trains, not the infrastructure?
According to "Who Wrote That", this text was added by Peter Shearan (talk · contribs) on 10 March 2005 (diff). While I don't have the source in front of me (see above comment to Hog Farm), I'm reasonably confident that fails verification, and so I've removed it.
I've now found a source for DRS and added in the "Services" section. Regarding the original point, you're correct, Southern run the trains, not the line and infrastructure which is run by Network Rail.
  • On 27 July 1846, the LBR and BLHR amalgamated with several other lines I think the exact date is possibly excess detail considering it's not directly related to the line
  • complained about a lack of sufficient progress redundancy? Sufficient progress wouldn't be a lack, a lack is clearly not sufficient.
Removed "sufficient" (sounds like Tony1 exercise)
  • was granted on 24 July 1882, with the line opening on 19 June That's not strictly a grammatical use of "with"; you're using it and the comma to connect two clauses (which also forces the tense change). Better to use a semicolon or split it into two sentences.
  • numerous Army camps were established since we haven't specified an army, I wouldn't treat it as a proper noun
Removed "Army" as I think it's obvious from context that "World War I" and "camps" is within a military context
  • On 23 February 1966, the Ministry of Transport confirmed the branch to New Romney would close to passengers, which it did on 6 March 1967 I think both exact dates is excess detail; suggest culling the announcement date to just the year.
I have to disagree. Closure dates, especially related to the Beeching Axe seem to be well-known in rail enthusiast circles; for example Waverley Route mentions not just the date, but the specific times. So I think these dates need to be there to meet 1b.
  • In 1969, Railway Magazine wrote the definite article is part of the RM's name—The Railway Magazine; also suggest linking
Done
  • taking a longer journey, buying their tickets same problem as "painting" above
Reworded
  • The line was single tracked between You've used the term multiple terms above but this is the first time it's linked; it's also hyphenated on every other use so far that I've spotted
Should be "single-track" with a dash
  • However, the Marshlink line continued to attract criticism "However" is a word to watch; I haven't criticised your use use of it so far but I feel this one is editorialising—you're disputing the preceding statement in Wikipedia's voice rather than letting the facts speak for themselves.
In this case, the only sourced information is an opinion from Norman Baker. So this can be easily fixed by removing the entire sentence and just leaving Baker's opinion to sit in a neutral manner.
  • Ashford International to Brighton, with Marshlink services only extending same ", with" problem as above
Changed to "Southern announced services to Brighton would terminate instead at Eastbourne".
  • The company defended the decision "defended" is editorialising (it implies that the decision was wrong/controversial in Wikipedia's voice without explicitly saying so). You could put the criticism before the defence or just use a more boring verb like "stated".
Changed to "the company said", the aim here is to present the POV of both the rail company and the local council.
  • would improve capacity between Eastbourne and Hastings, and removing a 2 carriage diesel service Sorry, several problems here: the numeral should be a word (MOS:NUMERAL), "two carriage" is a compound adjective and needs a hyphen, and you've changed tense for no apparent reason (I'd lose the comma and go with "remove" and you should be fine).
Done

Will be back with more later. Ran out of time before work! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:29, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

HJ Mitchell I've addressed everything so far. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:42, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I like the listed buildings section. Is there anything to say about the buildings on the line (listed or otherwise) as a group? Do we know if the railway employed an in-house architect? Do the buildings follow a consistent architectural style? I have a few books on railway architecture (actually, probably all the books) so if there's nothing in your sources I'll see if mine have anything.
A number of the stations were designed by William Tress as part of a group, so that can be mentioned, though I'd want to go and consult the book sources in the library to double-check if I can. The other buildings date from different time periods and were assessed at different times.
  • Spell out diesel multiple unit on first mention.
Done
  • Isn't DMU train (in the caption) a bit of a tautology?
Done
  • In November 2017, it was suggested [by whom?]
Clarified
  • Is Damian Green's statement noteworthy? Don't local politicians endorse any suggestion that plays well in their constituency, regardless of how plausible it is?
No, now that the "Future" section is more developed. (Amusingly, if I google for "Damian Green Marshlink", I get this FA review in one of the top ten hits).
  • Suggest moving the link on St Pancras to the first mention (if you keep Green's statement)
Having tidied this up, the first mention of St Pancras in "Future", where it is mentioned
  • This required remodelling Ashford would have required? I'm guessing nothing came of it?
What extra context does "would have" add? As I mentioned above, the problem is this is one of several proposed over the last 20 years or so that keeps cropping up with the same detail again and again.
  • That October, a proposal was chaired [by whom?] and what does "chair" a proposal mean?
The Marshlink Action Group; however, the information here (new platform at Ashford) can be taken from the Network Rail source, which is a bit more authoritative.
  • Both proposals required closing the Ore Tunnel I'm guessing the proposals would require major engineering work on the tunnel but it would be nice to elaborate on what that was if it's supported by the source material.
Unfortunately, the source says "Ore Tunnel closed for 6 months" without any further comment. I'll hunt around to see if any other sources are available, but this is one of the few reliable ones in this decade to say anything on the subject.
  • If we're being pedantic, you don't seem to be treating books consistently—some are cited in full in the footnotes but most use sfns linked to the bibliography.
No problems with being pedantic if it makes the article better. Done.

I think that's it it from me. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:36, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review so far! Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:15, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I had a thumb through the most comprehensive books. The best is Biddle's Britain's Historic Railway Buildings. The Queen's Road bridge gets a mention (I do like me a railway bridge! I sense my to-do list getting longer!) and there's a good write-up on Rye station. There's a fair few column inches on the Hastings line stations but nothing on the Marshlink ones as a group. If any of it's useful I'm happy to send it over but the picking are slimmer than I'd hoped. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:58, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's a lot on Rye railway station (East Sussex), which is a GA like this one currently, though most of that comes from the same sources as this article uses. Still, might be worth adding a sentence or two from Biddle's source if it's not already mentioned here, plus it would be useful for expanding Hastings railway station, which could be improved to GA at some point, having an interesting history as a centre point between the SER and LBSCR's rivalry. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:40, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd love to see a bit more on the architecture if there are any sources that discuss it but I'm happy to take you at your word that you'll incorporate anything you find. I'll send over what I've got on Hastings and Rye stations in case it's useful for this or other projects. I made one copy edit from above that I assume you missed. I think that resolves everything for me so I'll support. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:21, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment[edit]

Well over three weeks in and this has received a fair bit of attention, but no indications of support for promotion. Unless this nomination makes significant further progress towards a consensus to promote over the next two or three days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:56, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comment. That would be a shame, as far as I know I have addressed every comment on the review in one way or another. (I was going to comment on the lack of activity somewhere at some point, but wasn't sure how long I should have left it). Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:22, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try and get back to this in the next few days with a view to supporting. There are no glaring issues as far as I can see. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:54, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the principal issue is there hasn't been an in-depth spot check of the sources. There's been a de-facto one where I spot-checked the sources and made a few corrections, but not from someone independent. I believe that's blocking at least one other support at the moment. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:42, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Tim riley[edit]

Don't know how I have managed to miss this FAC till now. I know this line, as I have a good friend in Rye and use the route a fair bit. I am pleased to support the elevation of the article to FA. I have given the text two slow and careful readings and have found nothing to carp at. I note the comment about the lack of a source review, and will volunteer do one if nobody else steps up, though I am not the world's greatest source reviewer (see under useless and bloody awful). – Tim riley talk 21:36, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source reviewish[edit]

Reviewing this version, is a spot-check needed? Southern is inconsistently capitalized. I see a fair bit of British local newspapers used, I presume we didn't unintentionally pick up any unreliable outfit? I kind of wonder about the usage of Hansard - using it to cite announcements by ministers seems fine, but I am not sure uses for statements of fact like #94 and #101 are OK. There are a lot of company-affiliated websites, press releases cited, but for technical information so I think it's fine. I confess that I can't tell much about the books cited, not being familiar with British railway literature - nothing jumped out as inappropriate but I wouldn't know any of them from a hole in the ground. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:47, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Southern is inconsistently capitalized." - apologies, I can't see where, can you specify?

    1. 17 and #18 are about the same source but have different capitalization. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:24, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm being dense - I've double checked all the web citations, and I can't see any obvious difference between the two. Sorry :-/ Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:38, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hansard is, in my view (and backed up at WP:RSP) okay in moderation, but the risk of straying into original research is significant, so should be taken with care. Taking the Hansard references in turn, using citations numbers from that diff:

  • [76] is an opinion of Bryant Godman Irvine, indicated as such (and backed with a secondary source, albeit a local newspaper)
  • [78] appears to be redundant and can be removed
  • [82] is an opinion of John Morris, Baron Morris of Aberavon
  • [83] and [84] are used to cite the general claim "The decision to close was delayed several times and continued for the rest of the decade." I'm going to remove this claim as it doesn't really tell us anything that the text around this section doesn't (and indeed, a large important section of the entire article concentrates on this fact - it was supposed to be closed by Beeching but never was).
  • [85] is an opinion of Michael Heseltine
  • [94] is an opinion of Charles Kerr, 2nd Baron Teviot, using the text "British Rail has tried to upgrade the railway between Ashford and Hastings, because Ashford is the town where everything is going to happen" to cite "By the 1980s, British Rail had started to modernise the route".
  • [95] is a discussion in parliament, citing the text "though electrification was rejected in preference to improving the South Eastern Main Line from Tonbridge to Ashford." This is factually incorrect - electrification of the SEML to Ashford took place in the 1960s, not the 1980s, and reviewing the source gives me the impression the debate was about both lines, and specifying that the Tonbridge - Ashford line was earmarked for improvements, but saying nothing about Ashford - Hastings.
  • [97] is an opinion of Roger Freeman, Baron Freeman
  • [101] is an opinion of Norman Baker, but I'd like to find another source for "However, the incoming franchisee is taking service improvement seriously, and South Central Ltd is investing £5 million in measures to improve the quality and perception of customer services." which is used to cite "In 2000, Southern took over management, and pledged to invest £5 million in improving customer service across its network."
  • [117] is a speech by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport on an accident on the Dungeness goods branch on 26 April 1984.

Of that list:

  • Those that are obviously an opinion of a specific MP, and attributed as such are probably okay.
  • Those that attempt to synthesise specific opinions into something more general are straying into original research, and going against FA criteria 1c.
  • That leaves the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport. As this is a primary source close to a specific event, the chances of novel synthesis are low. It's probably okay, but it would be helpful if a contemporary news source could back this up.

A general note, is the Hansard reports are probably used as citations because the book sources focus on the 19th and early 20th century, and dry up around the 1980s. However, that also implies that the article should talk less about the line from this period, reflecting the general coverage of sources.

I'll go and fix the obvious problems now. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:32, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind the use of Hansard - I actually think that primary sources often are more reliable than news reports, as the latter often present the same information as the former but secondhand - but for certain claims we need more than "an MP claimed this". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:24, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I've gone through and removed or re-sourced the Hansard citations that appear to be used beyond a basic personal view of something. Is there anything else specific that needs addressing? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:38, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Jo-Jo, as Ritchie333 is a first-time nominator, both a sources spot check and a plagiarism check will be needed. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:57, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK; spot-check (with plagiarism check included) on this version:

  • 18 Broken URL, and since it's almost eight years old I don't think we can put it in present tense.
I've replaced it with a current timetable. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:21, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 20 Can I have a copy of this source?
  • 21 This source doesn't seem to add anything, but #22 seems to say "half-hourly" not "hourly". The source also implies that the service may have been reintroduced.
The source appears to have changed. I don't believe half-hour services are possible given the layout of the track, and Southern's official timetable makes no mention of them existing at all. Consequently, I've moved this out of the current services section and into history. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:21, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 33 Can I have a copy of this source?
  • 34 Can I have a copy of this source?
  • 39 Can I have a copy of this source?
  • 40 Can I have a copy of this source?
  • 42 Can I have a copy of this source?
  • 43 Can I have a copy of this source?
  • 45 Can I have a copy of this source?
  • 49 Can I have a copy of this source?
  • 51 Can I have a copy of this source?
  • 55 Can I have a copy of this source?
  • 67 Can I have a copy of this source?
  • 72 Don't think the "less than 10,000 passengers" thing is on the pages given.
The source says "Maps 1 - 9", which is this one. Map 1 marks the line as "between 5,000 and 10,000 passengers, while map 9 shows it as proposed for closure. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:16, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 86 Peyton does not explicitly say that the policy change was the reason for the review?
This source appears to be dead / unavailable at the moment. Bit worrying for Hansard. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:21, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The source is back up. This looks like a difference in interpretation over "in the light of his recent announcement about future railway policy. and whether or not that implies said announcement was directly linked to the line's future. I've rewritten this sentence to stick closer to what the source says, and explicitly attribute it as an opinion (good for Hansard, as previously discussed). Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:21, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 111 OK
  • 120 Can I have a copy of this source?
  • 123 Does "Class 171" (article) mean "diesel train" (source)?
Yes, the paragraph above says "Class 171 "Turbostar" Diesel Multiple Units", so I felt an additional description here was redundant. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:21, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 126 Needs an archive

A bit uneasy that almost every accessible source has a discrepancy. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:59, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jo-Jo, that does not sound good. Anything further since you last looked at it, or is this looking like a SR fail? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:22, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It depends on the sources I marked as "Can I have a copy of this source?" - for spotchecks, I insist on having a screenshot or photo of the pertinent page. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:22, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Damn, I could have done all this last Saturday. I'll have to get back to you, the library has reduced its opening hours. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:26, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)A general comment about the book sources - they all came out of my local public library. Some can be loaned out, a number are in the "reference only" section. However, unless someone can get access to the same library (or a similar one) to independently get the books, then I can't see any easy way that any of the information can be verified, beyond me having a look myself. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:24, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: I don't know where you live, but if you're in the UK the public libraries offer a service called "inter-library loans". For example, my local public library belongs to Oxfordshire County Council (OCC). and using my OCC library card I can borrow a book from any library in Oxfordshire (and also Reading, Berkshire), but if the book that I want isn't in stock in the libary that I visit, I can request it. OCC will then check their catalogue to see if there is a copy in any OCC library. If so, they'll transfer it to my local public library; if not, they'll check with other county councils until a copy can be located, which will then be sent to OCC and then on to my local public library. All this is done for a fee, and can take a few weeks. But it does mean that if the only copy in the UK happens to be in Ritchie333's local library, I can still request to borrow it. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:04, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
'Afraid that I live on the continent. Going by Worldcat most of these books don't exist in my country, either. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:19, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The easiest way is probably for Ritchie to take photos of the requested pages and email them. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 09:27, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Also noting that that's exactly the same thing that reviewers and responders traditionally do... and are expected to do. It would be odd if a reviewer were able to abrogate responsibility for their use of sources simply by telling the source reviewer they must work it out for themselves! ——Serial Number 54129 12:49, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

John Pulman[edit]

Nominator(s): BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 17:21, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

John Pulman was an eight-time world snooker champion in a period when the sport was at a low ebb. He turned professional in 1946 and retired from competition in 1981 after breaking his leg when hit by a London bus. As ever, I am able to provide relevant extracts from sources to reviewers on request, and welcome all comments that help improve the article. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 17:21, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As this nomination is not attracting attention, I'm pinging Amakuru and Rodney Baggins, who offered challenges and suggestions at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Steve Davis/archive2, and HurricaneHiggins and Lee Vilenski who have a current nomination for 2023 World Snooker Championship, to see if any of them would like to contribute here. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 16:54, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

  • File:John_Pulman.jpg needs a more expansive FUR. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:30, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it possible to identify the copyright holder and year? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:00, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nikkimaria: I had a look around some sources to see if I could confirm whether it was published, but didn't find an example. The source has "This photograph originates from the International Magazine Services photo archive. IMS was a editorial photo archive in Scandinavia founded in 1948 but evolved from older archives that have images in the collection also .... The images in this archive where distributed in only 10-15 copies around the world at the time". The scan of the back of the photo does not give a date. Let me know if I should search for a diffrent image. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 09:22, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's fine, would just suggest adding that context to the image description. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:48, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ReviewSupport from Hurricane Higgins[edit]

I think this article meets all the criteria for a Featured Article. It's comprehensive, meticulously researched, detailed, and yet accessible to a non-specialist audience. The writing is fluid and readable. I learned a lot from reading it, and also enjoyed reading it. It beautifully illuminates an era in snooker that many will know little about.

If I were to revise anything about the writing, I'd rework the final two paragraphs of the "Later career and retirement section", with a focus on chronological order. They skip around confusingly between 1978 and 1998, mentioning his divorce twice, talking about his retirement and then the publication of a book 16 years prior to that.

In terms of content, was there anything notable about Pulman's life between his retirement from professional play in 1981 and his death in 1998? It might be useful, for instance, to know how long he worked as a snooker commentator. This article by Dave Hendon notes that Pulman commentated on the first officially recognized 147 by Steve Davis, which might be something to include. https://www.eurosport.com/snooker/he-can-see-the-pocket-closing-up-re-live-davis-history-making-first-ever-147-break-on-its-anniversar_sto8696729/story.shtml

Not much else of note here. I think this is an excellent article that easily equals or exceeds other snooker articles that have been awarded FA status. So more than happy to support its promotion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HurricaneHiggins (talk • contribs) 22:45, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Rodney Baggins[edit]

I've had a quick look. First comment would be: this is quite a short article, compared with some of the other featured articles we've worked on. Could it be expanded in any way? HurricaneHiggins has already noted some areas for improvement above, and I might suggest some more after I've had chance to read in more detail today.

I'll look forward to any suggestions for improvement. There is scope to expand on career history, but for personal life, playing style etc I think I 've pretty much wrung out the available sources. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 20:37, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lead

I've copyedited this section for you – hope you don't mind. Suggest adding in the following links:

  • I'm grateful for the copyedits; I see you've also kindly copyedited some of the related tournament articles leads. Links suggested above have been added. 20:37, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
Early life
  • Can we source his full name Herbert John Pulman?
  • The Times obituary is the source for this; I could add it directly after his full name. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 20:37, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change Devonshire to Devon, as in infobox, or vice versa, as long as they're the same. I think Devonshire's just an archaic version of Devon.
  • Second sentence could do with swapping round... "His father was Ernest Charles Pulman, a master baker and confectioner, and his mother was Ernest's wife Gertrude Mary Pulman, née Kent."... or something similar.
  • "He was allowed to pick a cue from a selection at the venue," > "He was invited to choose a cue from a selection at the venue,"
  • "and used that cue for the rest of his career." > "and he used that particular cue for the rest of his career."
  • "In his first match with the cue" > "In his first match at the event" ? Might be trying to imply that it was because of the cue that he did so well in the match!
  • I think we should be calling Barrie Smith by his professional name John Barrie.
  • I've added "later known as John Barrie" as he was still known by his original name at the time. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 20:37, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a 200-up match" doesn't mean anything to me – could you perhaps explain it in a footnote?
  • It means "first to 200 points"; I've added a footnote but there may be a more elegant solution. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 20:59, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The cue that Pulman chose" > "The cue that Pulman had chosen" (tense)
  • "included a metal plate mentioning Sidney Smith" – what do you mean by 'mentioning'? Was Smith's name just engraved into the plate cos it had belonged to him? Could just put: "included a metal plate with the name Sidney Smith engraved on it;"
  • The source has "The metal plate on the butt bore the name of Sidney Smith, a renowned professional of the day...". I imagine it was something like the examples here. Amended. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 20:59, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "using a cue with another professional's name on it." > "using a cue inscribed with another professional's name."
  • "making Spitfire wings" > "making wings for Spitfires" ... brings to mind "four candles / handles for forks"!
  • Spitfire doesn't need to be piped because it's a redirect – just put [[Spitfire]]s
  • Can you say a bit more about the medical grounds on which he was discharged? Was it something that affected his later snooker career?
  • "In the Smith piece, Pulman says, referring to his Army service, that he had varicose veins, but not that this was the reason for the discharge; I've added this in. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 21:50, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transition from billiards to snooker: I have noticed that the Early life section makes no mention of him playing snooker. He only appears to have played billiards before the war. Then the next section kicks off with him winning the 1946 English Amateur (Snooker) Championship, and billiards is not mentioned again, so how/when did he make the transition to playing snooker?
Early professional career (1946–1955)
  • "At 20, he was the youngest winner since the event was..." > "Aged 20, Pulman was the youngest player to win the event since it was...""
  • "he became a professional player" > "he took the decision to become a professional player"
  • "within ten days of each other." sounds a bit awkward. Maybe change to "just ten days apart" or "the second just ten days after the first"?
  • "Pulman lived at the house of his patron" > "Pulman was living at the home of his patron" (tense) – was he in fact lodging there? If so, would it be better to put "Pulman was lodging at the home of his patron"? (prefer the word 'home' to 'house')
  • What exactly does "patron" mean here? Was Lampard sponsoring him in some way?
  • According to Williams & Gadsby, "[Pulman] was lucky enough to receive the backing of a Bristol confectioner and baker named Bill Lampard... [who] let Pulman stay at his house"; Everton 2012 has "[Pulman] lived at the home, with billiard room attached, of his wealthy patron, Bill Lampard, who launched him into the professional game." Lowe says that Lampard "agreed to sponsor" Pulman. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 13:54, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a baker from Bristol and..." > "who was a baker from Bristol and..." (without the "who was", it sounds as if we're listing three people: (1) Bill Lampard, (2) a baker from Bristol, and (3) a member of the BACC.
  • "Lampard built a billiard room" > "Lampard built a billiard room in his house" – or did he just "set up" a billiard room in his house?
  • added "at his house" - Lowe has "set up a billiards room"; Williams & Gadsby have "built a special billiards room"; Everton says the room was "attached" but doesn't mention it being made for Pulman BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 13:54, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Clive Everton claims" > "alleges" might be a more fitting word here?
  • "seeking a level of consistency" > "in pursuit of a level of consistency" or just "pursuing"?
  • "due to influenza" – did he just have bad cold symptoms or was it a full-blown case of the flu?
  • The Scotsman has "due to influenza". Birmingham Daily Post for 27 January 1951 has "suffering from influenza"
  • The round-robin-with-points-handicaps format for the News of the World tournament had already been used for the Sunday Empire News Tournament the previous year, so the format description should perhaps be moved up to that previous event. Having said that, I can't see an easy way of doing it, so maybe leave it alone for now...

I've either commented above, or addressed the points about Early professional career. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 13:54, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

World snooker championship contests (1955–1968)
  • Shouldn't Jack Rea be Jackie Rea? Or was he referred to as Jack back in the day?
  • Newspapers.com has 114 matches for "'Jack Rea' snooker" in 1957, and none for "'Jackie Rea' snooker". BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 18:31, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest changing "along with Williams, Fred Davis, and Jack Rea," to "along with Fred Davis, Rea and Williams," (surnames in alphabetical order)
  • Should Blackheath be linked to distinguish it from the ones in London or Surrey? (there's even one in Australia!)
  • Is it necessary to mention that he took Harold Phillips out to lunch? Could just say "after talks with..." or "after an approach to..." the BA&CC chairman Harold Phillips.
  • "on a challenge basis" – might it be useful to link to [[Challenge (competition)|challenge]]
  • Is it accurate to say they "spun a coin"? – coins are usually "tossed" or "flipped". Pls check source.
  • Everton (2012) has "At one rural venue, no spectators showed up. Instead of playing, the players spun a coin." BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 18:31, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I notice that in the whole of this section, there's no link through to 1964–68 World Snooker Championships – that could do with working in somehow. One option might be to link it through "The championship was reinstated", i.e. [[1964–68 World Snooker Championships|The championship was reinstated]]...?
  • "between Pulman, the winner of the 1957 Championship, and Fred Davis" – it almost looks here as if we are listing three people: (1) Pulman, (2) the winner of the 1957 Championship, and (3) Fred Davis! Suggest changing to "between Pulman, who had won the most recent championship in 1957, and the challenger Fred Davis."
  • "Pulman defeated Davis 19–16 at Burroughes Hall in April 1964." – suggest appending: "to retain the title that he had claimed seven years earlier."
  • "in the deciding frame" – might be more impactful to change this to "in a final-frame decider"?
  • "where Pulman won by 25 matches to 22" – would it be ok to say "where Pulman won 25 of their 47 matches"?
  • "by seeing off the challenge of Eddie Charlton." – not sure about the phrase 'seeing off' – could this be changed to something like "by fending off a challenge from Eddie Charlton"? Or maybe that's not an improvement.

Amended the World snooker championship contests (1955–1968) section as suggested, apart from where comments above indicate otherwise. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 18:31, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Later career and retirement (1968–1998)
  • Suggest changing: "In 1967, Pulman had toured snooker clubs as promotional work for..." to "In 1967, Pulman had spent time touring snooker clubs doing promotional work for..." and where were the clubs? All over the UK, or just England, or the London area?
  • Amended. I've added "across the Midlands" as it's consistent with Everton's article and I didn't find any mentions of venues outside that area. (Meanwhile, Jack Karnehm undertook a 27-venue Engish billiards tour in Guyana, and Fred Davis and Rex Williams were using tubular metal cues "for all their tournaments and exhibitions"). BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 19:07, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The good attendances for the championship match" > "The good attendances for the Pulman/Charlton match" (possible alternative way of referring to it?)
  • "This championship is generally regarded as..." > "The 1969 event, with its updated format, is generally regarded as..."
  • "recovered in time" – might this be characterised as fully or sufficiently recovered in time?
  • The Park Drive 2000 was a series of tournaments, so it might be more accurate to put "the Park Drive 2000 series, which began less than two weeks later."
  • "an invitational event for four world champions." > "an invitational event with four world champions in competition." ?
  • First two sentences of 2nd paragraph appear to be unsourced. Are they both covered by Everton 1985, pp. 53–55? If so, maybe need to put ref tags at end of each sentence? I was actually thinking the 1st sentence ("Unable to defend his title, ...") might be best placed at end of 1st paragraph anyway.
  • I added the extra instances for the ref, and moved that sentence. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 19:07, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "After 1977, he was unable to win another World Championship match." – Would it be possible to work in that he entered the championship up to and including 1981, but didn't win any matches? e.g. "After 1977, he was unable to win another World Championship match, although he continued to enter until 1982 when he had to withdraw..." + reason? + source?
  • I think it's more usual to say "declared bankrupt" rather than "adjudged bankrupt".
  • "with debts of £5,916" > "with personal debts of £5,916" (assuming he didn't have any failed business ventures?)
  • Do you want to put any equivalences in this article (using the inflation template)? Debts of £5,916 are equivalent to almost 32 grand in today's money, and his £400 prize money for the 1948 Sunday Empire News Tournament is equivalent to over 15 grand these days.
  • "Pulman and his wife Frances divorced around 1978..." – should really be placed before the bit about his bankruptcy in 1979. Then you could change the sentence "By this time he was recently divorced, suffering from severe motivational problems and living in a hotel in Bromley" to just "By this time, he was living in a hotel in Bromley and suffering from severe motivational problems."
  • "He retired from professional play in 1981..." – could you add something to this sentence about him having to pull out of the 1981 world championship (which turned out to be his last one) and why?
  • Why was he hospitalised for six months? Surely not just for breaking his leg. The London bus incident must have been quite serious, so it might be worth explaining a bit more here if you can.
  • Amended here and in the next para - not sure where the "six months" came from, so I removed it. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 20:14, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "to work as a television commentator" – do you mean snooker commentator?
  • Suggest moving sentence about his book to start of 4th paragraph, so it fits in chronologically: "His book... was revised and published as Tackle Snooker in 1974." followed by "Pulman and his wife Frances divorced around 1978; they had three children." followed by "On 7 February 1979, he was declared bankrupt with personal debts of £5,916. By this time, he was living in a hotel in Bromley and suffering from severe motivational problems." Then the chronology's right.
  • I agree with HurricaneHiggins, I'd like to know more about the length of his commentating career, and what he got up to in the later years before his death, but I see that you've noted above that there's not much more you can squeeze out of the sources. It would be nice to see the last couple of paragraphs expanded slightly if possible.

Amended the Later career and retirement (1968–1998) section as suggested, apart from where comments above indicate otherwise. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 20:14, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Playing style and influence
  • I sometimes think it's best to write out simple conversions without using the convert template, because you can put non-breaking spaces in then (not provided by the template). {{convert|6|ft|2|in|cm}} > 6{nbsp here}feet 2{nbsp here}inches (188{nbsp here}cm) ... the template has already done the conversion, so you know the cm figure is accurate.
  • The clause starting "and adapted a stance..." needs to be broken up a bit, e.g. "and adapted a stance ... close together, meaning that more weight..."
  • "This enabled him to use his height and reach to his advantage while playing." > "This enabled him to take full advantage of his height and his reach while playing shots."
  • "In their 2005 book about world snooker champions," > "In their 2005 book, Masters of the Baize," (sounds more formal?)
  • ...wrote of Pulman that "If I ever > ...wrote of Pulman: "If I ever
  • "and a long-time snooker commentator" > "and was a long-time snooker commentator"
  • I tend to think it's best to give players' names in full when first mentioned in any new section: "Alex Higgins, the world champion in 1972 and 1982"; "praised by Ray Reardon"; "John Spencer admired"
  • Is it necessary to give the details of the Davis/Pulman match? You could just say something like "Steve Davis, who met Pulman in a *first-round* match at the 1977 Pontins Open, observed how..." (or whatever round it was!)
  • It was the last-32, which Davis refers to as the "first round proper", but even Snooker Scene doesn't say which round that was, so I've used "who met Pulman in a match at" BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 20:14, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why were the conditions imperfect? Is there anything you could add that might clarify what Pulman and Reardon adapted to there?
  • Amended, as David ony talks about the quality of the tables. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 20:14, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't need semi-colon before end clause, just put "...rather than bemoaning them, and he found this to be a valuable lesson."

Amended the Playing style and influence section as suggested, apart from where comments above indicate otherwise. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 20:14, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Career finals
  • Note [m] should surely read: "Pulman won the match at 37–28."
  • The 1955 match-play championship was won when the score reached 37–34, but this is not noted.
  • You forgot to note that the winning score for the October 1964 match was 37–23.
  • You also forgot to note that the winning score for the 1968 challenge match was 37–28.
  • I'd prefer to expand the notes to read: "?? won the match when the score reached ??–??." but I don't really mind either way!
  • At first sight, it's weird that there are two entries for 1964 and three for 1965. Might benefit from adding a note for the two 1964 WSC matches: "These were two separate challenge matches played in London in April 1964 and October 1964." and for the three 1965 WSC matches: "These were three separate challenge matches played in South Africa in 1965."
  • Amended. I've gone for a simpler note about challenges, with longer notes for those that were a series of matches. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 16:00, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Were there any dead frames played in the 1970 final that should be noted?
References
  • Refs 1 & 53 are dup cites (Independent obituary); refs 46 & 90 are dup cites (Snooker Scene: Higgins in top gear at Ford tournament); refs 49 & 84 are dup cites (Snooker Scene: Official rankings August 1976)
  • Refs. 15, 86, 87,88 lead to a British Newspaper Archive sign-in page so not particularly useful for most readers. Can the articles be found via Newspapers.com instead (like the two Guardian articles, refs. 47 & 52)? Are any of the other articles available to view, e.g. all the Times citations, The Scotsman (ref.18), The Age (ref.78), The Canberra Times (ref.79), etc.
  • Refs 15 and 86 (Western Daily Press) are available via British Newspaper Archive, so what about the other Western Daily Press refs (11 and 67a)?
  • Ref 88 (Birmingham Daily Post) is available via British Newspaper Archive, so what about the other Birmingham Daily Post refs (30, 41, 68, 75)?
  • Suggest unlinking The Glasgow Herald work param in refs 21–34 and 32–35 for consistency (none of the other newspaper work params are linked).
  • Is it possible to highlight SNOOKER rather than Swimming in the newspaper snippet for ref.35?
  • Is it possible to highlight SNOOKER rather than Weaver's Success in the newspaper snippet for ref.37?
  • Of the numerous Snooker Scene citations, only one (ref.51) cites Clive Everton as editor (inconsistent).
  • Ref.66: Is this book the same as this? It's compiled (authored) by Reg Perrin and published by BBC, isbn 0-563-20293-9. I can't find an Ian Morrison version.
  • No, it's the magazine Pot Black, not associated with the BBC. I've added the ISSN number. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:36, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've added links wherever I could, including swapping a couple of references. I couldn't find another online source for the winning margin against Williams (17 October 1964 source; other papers report the post-dead-frames score of 38-22); I didn't manage to repoint that link from the Swimming heading, which I think is due to the quality of the scan. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 13:09, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Making progress. Well, you know I find it impossible to not be thorough, right!?... Rodney Baggins (talk) 20:16, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Benny, one more section to check and we're done. I've been doing a bit of copyediting along the way too, which seemed easier while noting down my specific comments/queries for your attention, so you can use your own judgement for those. Rodney Baggins (talk) 22:41, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All done now – sorry it took me so long. I do hope this helps rather than hinders. Rodney Baggins (talk) 23:08, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for the thorough review, Rodney Baggins, I really appreciate it. Please let me have any further feedback once you've had a chance to digest my changes and replies. (Skip to 1:03 here for a glimpse of Pulman that you might not have seen before.) Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 16:09, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Rodney Baggins, I was wondering if you felt in a position to either support or oppose this nomination? Obviously, neither is obligatory. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:46, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild and BennyOnTheLoose: Hi, I'm just going over it now. Looking good apart from one or two minor tweaks that I will note here later. Yes, it will be a Support from me. Regards, Rodney Baggins (talk) 14:32, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Final comments
  • You said The Times obituary is the source for his full name; I would quite like to see that tagged directly after his full name at start of Early life section.
  • There are quite a lot of multi-tags that could do with swapping round, unless the first is specifically more useful as a source for the tagged material, e.g. [4][3] > [3][4] in Early life section. Also [7][4]; [10][3]; [47][42]; [53][17][54]; [1][54]; [60][57]; [72][17]; [23][19]; [42][17].
  • I commented above that, while he seemed keen on billiards as a youngster, there's no further mention of it after the Early life section. Maybe amend next section heading from 'Career' to 'Snooker career', to make it clear that there's no billiards included in his main career? Just a thought – purely up to you!
  • You didn't respond to these comments for Later career and retirement (1968–1998):
    • I think it's more usual to say "declared bankrupt" rather than "adjudged bankrupt".
    • "with debts of £5,916" > "with personal debts of £5,916" (assuming he didn't have any failed business ventures?)
    • Do you want to put any equivalences in this article (using the inflation template)? Debts of £5,916 are equivalent to almost 32 grand in today's money, and his £400 prize money for the 1948 Sunday Empire News Tournament is equivalent to over 15 grand these days.
  • I was going to suggest that note [h] needs a citation, but looking back at what it's referring to, I realise that wouldn't be straightforward. It's just there to point out that the QF was his first match because there were only 8 players in those tournaments. I'm not sure if the note needs to be reworded to make that clear, or just removed altogether?
  • I've amended the note and added citations. I think that "QF" suggests some progression in the tournament,and so a note is worthwhile. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:56, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note [k] might be wrong. It says the winning score was 37–31, but according to wiki article, the winning score was 37–34 (to Fred Davis) and there were two dead frames played, bringing the final score to 38–35. Or maybe the main article has it wrong?
  • The source used in the 1955 article does have 37–34, but the source I used here has Davis leading 36-30, losing the first frame of the next session, but then "taking the second... to become champion in the 68th frame of the week." I'll check other sources. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:41, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note [t] is incorrect. His opponent in the final was Reardon not Davis.
  • The page numbers appear to be wrong for refs. 49 and 92.
  • The printed page number for ref 49 is 6. I've added an edition parameter but I'm not sure as it seems to be a sports ("Pink Final" Special") sold separately. For 92, the preceding page in the scan in 9, and the fron cover states "Ten Pages". The Newspapers.com scan includes different editions. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:41, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adding in all the newspaper clippings – I think they're fascinating! Rodney Baggins (talk) 23:13, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose from Amakuru[edit]

First of all, I feel bad coming in to oppose here (and particularly since you pinged me into the discussion), as I appreciate a lot of good work has gone into this article, and I certainly applaud the work done by BennyOnTheLoose in bringing it to the state it's in now, which is very solid GA-level. The project is better for this and whether this passes or fails, I appreciate the effort that's gone in. This isn't a judgement on the editor(s) who've written this at all.

But unfortunately I'm going to have to oppose for the exact same reasons as I opposed at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Steve Davis/archive1. This is an eight-time world champion, presumably one of the greats of the game, similar to Davis or indeed more modern players such as Mark Selby. Yet when I run the page size tool, I find this article weighs in at only 15 kB (2664 words) of readable prose size. That's in comparison to Selby's GA-level article, which has 39 kB (6804 words) of prose and another FA-level snooker bio John Spencer (snooker player), which has 30 kB (5147 words). Ultimately, the main difference seems to be that articles such as Selby's have detailed blow-by-blow coverage of each and every season, with the highs and lows, and certainly a whole paragraph dedicated to each of his world title wins, whereas those for Pulman and Davis seem to only highlight the broad brush and big achievements, many lacking significant detail (for example his first defence of the world title is given one sentence "Pulman defeated Davis 19–16 at Burroughes Hall in April 1964 to retain the title that he had claimed seven years earlier".

Now I fully get the underlying reasons for this - Selby's career has played out int the Wikipedia age, and for better or worse, that means fans constantly updating with events as they happen... whereas for a player from the pre-internet age, we're reliant on bringing it all in from scratch. Hence why one of the all-time great tennis players Pete Sampras has an article that's 25% shorter than the less decorated but more recent player John Isner. I get that it's a lot harder to source the same level of information from sources for a bygone player and would likely require searches of resources that aren't just available online.

But this is FAC, nobody ever pretends it's easy... and I don't think we'd be doing our job properly if we nodded through articles of vastly different length and structure, simply because of how easy it is to find the relevant sourcing. Criteria 1b and 1c tells us that the article must be "comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context" and that it is "well-researched: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature". If we are to achieve those, we must delve into the sources of the days when Pulman played, and we must dig out the level of information which we see for Selby. Unless of course you can show conclusively that such sourcing simply doesn't exist, but I'm a bit sceptical on that point. So apologies once again, and I hold out the hope that this one or Davis will one day achieve the comprehensive I know they can!  — Amakuru (talk) 14:51, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Amakuru, I invited you to contribute precisely becasue you had opposed at Davis' article - challenge is good! (Pulman might agree). Of course more can be added, but there just wasn't the anywhere near the level of coverage during Pulman's heyday. The result of a world final would typically get one short paragraph in most papers. Due to the dispute between the B&SCC and the PBPA, professional competitions got very little coverage in the 50s and early 60s in The Billiard Player. There were also fewer (albeit often longer) matches in Pulman's day. According to Cuetracker, whch we have to take with a pinch or more of salt, Pulman played 265 matches (5,920 frames) over 36 years, while Selby has played 1,547 matches (11,039 frames) over 26 years. Spencer played 433 matches (4,268 frames) over 29 years; many of which were after the mid-70s when coverage really picked up. Are there any books or other sources that you think are missing from consideration? I'm not sure how I can show that sourcing does't exist; but if you look at results on the British Newspaper Archive or Newspapers.com I think you will find that many of them offer little beyond scores. I'll see if I can add some more about the more important tournaments in Pulman's career. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 18:06, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, looks like Spencer's article is a bit of an outlier in terms of number of words for snooker bio FACs. According to the Page Size tool we have Griffiths (2590 words), Donaldson (2608 words), Thorburn (2854 words), Reardon (3262 words), and Spencer (5147 words). BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 18:16, 4 March 2024 (UTC) (By the way, I would expect articles on Steve Davis and Alex Higgins to be longer, as there is so much more commentary available on both of them. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 18:21, 4 March 2024 (UTC))[reply]
Amakuru I added a little on the April 1964 match. Are there any others that you think are noticably lacking coverage, given my comments above? Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:27, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Amakuru, any more to come? Gog the Mild (talk) 18:35, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild and BennyOnTheLoose: ooh I'm very sorry, I did get the pings above but was out and about and then it kind of slipped my mind. I'll try to circle back to this in the next couple of days and see if I can marry up the content with how I think an FA ought to look, in the context of what's available about Pulman. My general point is that I'm uncomfortable with the idea that we should have two FAs on similar sorts of subjects with vastly different levels of detail. I guess nothing's perfect and it does happen, particularly if someone's poured what might be considered excessive detail into something (is Spencer's article an example of that?) The sourcing may mitigate that point, but the analysis needs to be thorough... Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 18:58, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Amakuru, have you had a chance to take another look? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 17:29, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs: - what do you recommend me to do? It's true that I don't have a whole plethora of sources to show that the article is definitively not a representative summary of the literature, and it's not easy to access those at present even if I had the time to do so, as the British Library has been effectively out of action for the past six months. But I'm also not particularly minded to withdraw my oppose, as I genuinely don't think this is long or detailed enough to be considered an FA-level summary of this individual and his long career. For me, the career section should have detailed analysis of what he did every year. And if he genuinely didn't play tournaments for large parts of said years, then that should be indicated, with sourcing. It's a nice article and definitely a GA, the nominator has put in good work, but we don't hand out FA badges just because nominators are good editors, it needs to meet all of the criteria I'd have thought? Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 18:20, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Amakuru I stand by my earlier comments about precedent with other snooker bio featured articles, and number of matches played, but now that the British Library Catalogue is back online (for most types of source, including books), is there any particular source you feel that has been neglected? I have access to a number of books immediately and can summarise their coverage of Pulman (see my Library). Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:34, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From Clive Everton's The Embassy Book of World Snooker (1993): "[In 1954/55] Nobody cared very much what the results were in professional snooker" (p.24); "Little notice was taken of any of Pulman's first five title defences, and not very much more of his sixth ... There was no snooker coverage in the national press and in the snooker world itself the talk tended to be of a new generation of amateur stars" (p.28); "[in 1968] Press coverage remained virtually non-existent" (p.29). Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:16, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sammi Brie (Support)[edit]

Going to give the copy a bath and provide a non-snooker-literate POV on the article.

  • "Pulman became a television commentator towards the end of his playing career, and retired from competitive play in 1981" Classic WP:CINS issue. There is one subject: Pulman. Remove the comma.
  • "In 1929, Ernest Pulman sold his bakery and confectionery business and the family moved to Plymouth, where he bought a billiard hall with two tables." Add comma after "business"
  • "John Pulman started playing billiards at the age of nine, and made his first billiards century break aged twelve. In his teenage years he also played snooker, and participated in local league competitions." More commas to excise
  • "In 1938, Pulman entered the British Boys Billiards Championship, but left his cue on the train on his way to the event at Burroughes Hall." Another CinS
  • "He lost his opening match in 1950, and withdrew from the following year's championship due to influenza when trailing 14–22 against Fred Davis in their semi-final match." Another CinS. Are mid-match withdrawls for illness normal?
  • Withdrawals for illness are uncommon, perhaps because they tend to lead to a loss of income from prize money (and, in 1950, loss of income from gate receipts). I think it's worth including as occasionally players withdrew for other reasons ("business reasons" is one rather vague one I remember seeing reported.) BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 11:55, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He was runner-up in the 1950/1951 edition, and won in 1953/1954." CinS
  • "He defeated Rex Williams 22–15 in the quarter-finals and Alec Brown 37–24 in the semi-finals, before losing 35–38 to Fred Davis in the final, which was played at Blackpool Tower Circus." Remove comma after "semi-finals"
  • "In the semi-finals, Pulman was level at 12–12 with Williams before winning the match 19–16. In the final, he trailed Jack Rea at 2–4, 5–8 and 8–11, before equalising at 11–11." Another comma to excise after 8–11
  • Is "noticable" a correct British English spelling?
  • "The match was played over 73 frames, and took place from 12 to 17 October at Burroughes Hall." CinS
  • "He extended his lead to 31–17 after the fourth day of play, and won the match on the fifth day by taking a 37–23 winning lead." maybe "He extended his lead to 31–17 after the fourth day of play, winning the match on the fifth day by taking a 37–23 lead."
  • "Pulman eventually reached a winning lead of 37–28, and finished 39–34 ahead after dead frames"
  • "He reached the final of the 1970 World Championship, but lost 33–37 to Ray Reardon" CinS
  • "In October 1972, he was retrieved, unconscious, from a road traffic collision, but he had fully recovered in time to play in the Park Drive 2000 tournament that was held less than two weeks later." maybe remove "had"
  • "His opponent, Spencer, took a 5–2 lead, before Pulman won five of the next seven frames to level the match at 7–7 and force a deciding frame." Drop last comma
  • "After 1977, he was unable to win another World Championship match, although he continued to enter until 1982 when he had to withdraw because he had not sufficiently recovered after his leg was broken in five places when he was hit by a London bus in October 1981." Very long sentence. Consider rewording. Also consider layout with the bus item...which really should be the end of the career.
  • "Fred Davis reflected that Pulman's impatience and lapses in concentration had probably cost him frames in their world championship finals in the mid-1950s, and that as Pulman became more patient in his play, he became a stronger opponent" Move the comma from after "mid-1950s" back to after "that". You have a CinS error and an incomplete appositive.
  • "11 year" hyphenate
  • " humour "did a tremendous salvage job for the game when it needed it most." " logical quote for a sentence fragment demands period out of quotes
  • "Alex Higgins, the world champion in 1972 and 1982, whose popularity helped make snooker a growing sport in the 1970s and 1980s, wrote" consider dropping the comma after 1982 to have a longer, unified appositive.

The links to terms of art are good, and I wasn't left wanting. Just a bunch of CinS and a few places that baffle me (bus). Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 04:26, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Many thanks, Sammi Brie. Hopefully I've addressed all of your points, but please do check the "Fred Davis reflected.." one in particular. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 11:55, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. All my copy issues are addressed satisfactorily. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 17:49, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

Reviewing this version, spotcheck upon request. Kinda think that with a name this generic we need better citations than "John Pulman". The Times. 31 December 1998. p. 25." Why is #74 formatted differently from the others? Are Alex Higgins, Spencer, John and Fred Davis Alex Higgins, John Spencer (snooker player) and Fred Davis (snooker player)? What make "Davis, Steve (2016). Interesting: My Autobiography. London: Ebury. ISBN 978-0-09-195865-7." and "Hayton, Eric; Dee, John (2004). The CueSport Book of Professional Snooker: The Complete Record & History. Rose Villa Publications. ISBN 978-0-9548549-0-4." a reliable source? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:27, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Many thanks for taking on the source review, Jo-Jo Eumerus. I've made some initial replies below which could need some actions after your advice. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 20:29, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • What should be added in the example of The Times John Pulman article? (It is not available via Wikipedia Library or free online sources. I have access to it through a library subsription to The Times Digital Archive.) No author is stated. I suppose one option would be to add in the location as London, to avoid any confusion with other publications listed at The Times (disambiguation).
    Some additional information so that it can be more easily told apart from other newspapers with that name. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:53, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Jo-Jo Eumerus I've added locations for The Times, The Independent and The Guardian references. Are there any others that need amending? Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 13:58, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't think so. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:03, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • ref 74 - as multiple sources were used (for the different editions of the tournament), I used WP:CITEBUNDLE rather than having something like [74][75][76][77][78][79][80] appear to the reader.
  • Yes, Alex Higgins, Spencer, John and Fred Davis are Alex Higgins, John Spencer (snooker player) and Fred Davis (snooker player).
  • Steve Davis's Interesting: My Autobiography is only used to support "Steve Davis, who met Pulman in a match at the 1977 Pontins Open, observed how Pulman and Reardon both adapted to the poor quality of the snooker tables rather than complaining, and he found this to be a valuable lesson." The book is published by Ebury, an imprint of Penguin Books.
  • The CueSport Book of Professional Snooker (Hayton and Dee) is one of the standard reference works for professional snooker, in my opinion. CueSport was a UK magazine that was published from around 2000 to 2009. John Dee, who wrote the history sections, was the snooker editor of CueSport and a correspondent for The Daily Telegraph and other newspapers. The bulk of the book's 1000+ pages consists of statistics, compiled by Hayton, including player-by-player results histories. The book has been used as a source for featured articles including John Spencer (snooker player) and Ray Reardon.

source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:FAC

Leave a Reply